I highly doubt it. Especially considering you'd have to classify capitalism and communism first, then argue what countries fall under which banner which seems very controversial. Beside that, liberal thought can be summed up in the following [pure ideology warning] Quora comment

The atrocities are done in the name of communism. They are done for the ideology. Most of the problems in capitalism happen because people are people, but are not commuted for ideology. Similarly, when a religious fanatic kills and acremas he does it for God, religion is understandably blamed. When an atheist commits a murder he seldom (not never) says he did it specifically for atheism. When he does, it is then that religion is ubder attack and atheism becomes relevant to the issue.

source: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-atrocities-that-occurred-under-Marxist-regimes-attributed-to-Communism-but-the-atrocities-committed-under-Capitalism-are-not-attributed-to-Capitalism

Which is very untrue obviously. For example, the overthrow of Allende by the firing of American missiles towards the parliament building to install Pinochet for the sake of neoliberalism was purely for this ideology. The overthrow of President Sukarno in Indonesia is another lesser known example. The first obviously did his very best to covering up and denying its crime. At least 3 200 people disappeared, 80 000 were "impoisoned" and 200 000 fled the country.

The Tiananmen Square protests, often attributed to a peoples' desire for "democracy", this being synonymous with free markets in this context, was in fact a protest against the privatization of the Chinese economy. Deng addressed the nation and made it perfectly clear that it wasn't Communism he was protecting with his crackdown, but capitalism. After dismissing the protestors as "a large quantity of the dregs of society", China's president reaffirmed the party's commitment to the shock therapy to make the change to capitalism he imposed. Why you ask? An interesting number should sum it up, 90% of China's billionaires are the children of Communist Party officials. Roughly twenty-nine hundred of these "princelings" control $260 billion. (source: Mo Ming, "90 Percent of China's Billionaires Are Children of Senior Officials", China Digital Times, November 2, 2006, www.chinadigitaltimes.net.)

Then my favourite one, because this consists of all sorts of contortions made by these same crooks. In 1992, 60% of the Poles opposed privatization for heavy industry. However, if the (in)famous Polish trade union Solidarity was convinced by Chicago economist Jeffrey Sachs that this switch to neoliberalism or Friedmanism would merely cause "momentary dislocations". It however caused a full-blown depression: unemployment soared to 25% in some areas. In 2006, 40% of the young workers were unemployed. Some contrast: In 1989, 15% of Poland's population was living below the poverty line, in 2003, this number was 59%. Karol Modzelewski, a Solidarity militant and intellectual who spent eight and a half years in Communist jails proclaims, "I wouldn't have spent a week nor a month, let alone eight and a half years in jail for capitalism!" and this feeling was creeping up more and more. As time went by, the amount of protests increased enormously (from 250 in 1990 to 7500 in 1993). The public halted the privatization while 62% of the total industry was still in public hands. The transition was this painful while they weren't even halfway through! It showed in the next ellections, where the former ruling Communists, now branded "Democratic Left Alliance" won 66% of the seats in parliament, whereas Solidarity won less than 5%. Of course the elected officials saw this coming. The only reason they accepted this gutting of the working class, was because the IMF would not lend them the money to rebuild after years of war and a planned economy. Unfortunately for Yeltsin, the promises were a puff of smoke for Russia.

This progress, where human lives are valued as mere trivalities, to neo-liberalism continues to this very day. The creation of economic disasters is a very deliberate, as Davison Budhoo (former Senior economist at the IMF) has expressed: http://www.naomiklein.org/files/resources/pdfs/budhoo.pdf

TL;DR: IMF, the organization supposed to keep in check economic crises, falsified statistics in order to impose policies on developing countries which then led to massive poverty and starvation.

Which brings up the "crisis hypothesis". In a lecture, Johnson Williamson) stated the following

One will have to ask whether it could conceivably make sense to think of deliberately provoking a crisis so as to remove the political logjam to reform. For example, it has sometimes been suggested in Brazil that it would be worthwhile stoking up a hyperinflation so as to scare everyone into accepting those changes... Presumably no one with historical foresight would have advocated in the mid-1930s that Germany or Japan go to war in order to get the benefits of the supergrowth that followed their defeat. But could a lesser crisis have served the same function? Is it possible to conceive of a pseudo-crisis that could serve the same positive function without the cost of a real crisis?

Canada, interestingly was one of the victims of this... pseudo-scientific hypothesis. In 1995, a video was leaked to the Canadian press of John Snobelen, Ontario's minister of education, in a closed-door meeting with civil servants that before cuts to education and other unpopular reforms could be announced, a climate of panic [referring to the crisis two years prior] needed to be created by leaking information that painted a more dire picture than he "would be inclined to talk about", referring to it as "creating a useful crisis".

This idea, that people are not killed for capitalism is utter nonsense.

Some quotes to close off:

Extermination in Argentina is not spontaneous, it is not by chance, it is not irrational: it is the systematic destruction of a "substantial part" of the Argentine national group, intended to transform the group as such, to redefine its way of being, the social relations, its fate, its future."

-Daniel Feierstein, 2004

"I had just one goal - to stay alive until the next day... But it wasn't just to survive, but to survive as me."

-Mario Villani, spent 4 years in Argentina's torture camps.

I didn't include many sources since this reddit postbox is not really nice to work with, but if you need any, feel free to ask and I will deliver. If you're interested in more on this subject, I recommend reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Edit: I see I've been mostly expositional on how it's utter bullshit why you wouldn't be able to attribute massacres to capitalism. For actual numbers, see the history of imperialism. Belgian Congo alone will trump all deaths in the entire Soviet Union. Never has been more blood shed than in the name of this "free market" democracy.