My response fundamentally differs on the basis of why you were targeted in that unnamed 20th century socialist regime. If you were a worker or a small peasant then I'd acknowledge that these regimes could be brutal and excesses occurred. I'd view us, in the 21st century, as being well-equipped to learn from their mistakes in terms of worker and peasant relations.

If your family was upper-class, well, every death is sad, but let's put it in context. Capitalism has extinguished hundreds of nations in the name of stealing land for profit. So if you were a member of a parasitic class that is collectively responsible for, among a litany of other things, the fact that food is structurally over-produced yet 25,000 people die of hunger every day, then it's sad that your family was killed, but on balance that's not even a drop in the ocean of unjustifiable violence capitalism has been and continues to be responsible for day after day, year after year. These regimes were an effort to put a stop to that structural violence, and some excess that goes the other way is certainly to be regretted, but I don't see how it can justify the exponentially greater violence of capitalism.

You don't think capitalism's violence is greater? This 25,000 people a day number, that comes from the UN, representative of global capitalism. I've done out the numbers on this before: 25,000 deaths a day is ~91 million surplus deaths every decade. From hunger, in a world where there's enough food! The highest number ever given for the global "death toll" of communism is 100 million, and even bourgeois scholars find this number to be scandalously too high. And this overestimate is surpassed every 11 or so years by capitalism, from hunger alone (to say nothing of war or treatable disease). So capitalism manufactures tragedies on an industrial scale that puts anything done under communism to shame.