Russia was capitalist in the past. You can do the same in reverse, check statistics of countries that were capitalist and achieved socialism, and you'll see the same graph reversed.

Communism on the other hand puts individuals directly into its philosophy by trying to distribute the total wealth to everyone equally. A simple solution to getting more in this philosophy is by reducing individuals. By that every individual gains more wealth by reducing the total amount of individuals. But which individuals do we take? And by that you again build some sort of hierarchy. Which individuals are disposable for higher wealth per individual? This would be some sort of a dynamic of a two class system, too. So the argumant on human rights being philosophically more present in communism is fraud I’d say.

You're getting Marxism wrong. Marxism doesn't try to distribute the total wealth to everyone, in its first stage it only transfers ownership of the productive forces from the bourgeoisie to the people/working class (proletariat).

This section is an extended commentary by Lenin on the following quote from Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme: “In the higher phase of Communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals in the division of labour has disappeared, and with it also the antagonism between mental and physical labour; when labour has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces too have grown, and all the springs of social wealth are flowing more freely— it is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass completely beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights, and for society to inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.”

Lenin says that in light of this quote we can understand why Engels mocked those who conjoined the notions of “freedom” and “state.” Lenin frankly remarks that: “While the state exists there is no freedom.” There can only be relative degrees of repression.

Lenin wants to be clear on the scientific difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism is the first and lower phase of Communism-- but it is not full Communism. Socialism has succeeded in turning the means of production, formerly owned and controlled by capitalists, into socially owned public property. This is technically "Communism" but it is not completely evolved mature Communism, hence this lower phase is best dubbed Socialism and the term "Communism" reserved for the more advanced and higher phase into which Socialism will hopefully evolve.

Marx, basing himself on materialist dialectics, sees Communism evolving out of capitalism via Socialism. The Socialist stage still has many capitalist "taints" associated with it and retains, in Marx's words, "the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights." Bourgeois rights still predominate in the creation and distribution of wealth-- goods and services are dished out, in the main, to each according to his/her work.

As for the rest, I don't really know what is the source to your claim about "reducing individuals" and what not. I'd like to know if you have read any Marxist who argues about that. What happens is the opposite, you achieve a faster, and higher development of the productive forces. These, once have stopped being chained to the whims of Capital, cease to be restrained by the capitalist inefficiency and achieve levels of wealth not seen before. Examples of this are poverty alleviations carried out in multiple socialist countries. There is no "lack of wealth", as your comment implies, where "sharing" amongst everyone would be collective poverty. This wealth is captured by a few.

The Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich! Only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken. There's been billions for 400 years! The capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries. These countries are not underdeveloped, they're overexploited!

You're entirely confusing communism, it's about equal ownership of the means of production and distribution, not equal parceling out of products from a static total. More people means, in many cases, more potential for industrial output, and so trying to shrink society would not be beneficial in any way. Administration would still exist, but production and distribution would be planned in a fashion to meet the needs of as many people as possible.