This is not a very well-constructed argument.

First, Sam proposes that the horrors of the Soviet Union are not a sufficient reason to dismiss Communism as a political model. If only Russia, or a handful of countries, had experimented with Communism then this may be arguable. But there have been dozens of regimes, in more than 100 years, across 4 continents, that have called themselves “communist”, and all have been awful. Not all have been as bad as Stalin’s Soviet Union (Cuba). But some have arguably been even worse (North Korea, Angola).

Then, Sam concedes there have been many Communist governments, and none has delivered on its promises, but makes this excuse: “if every historical failure were enough to invalidate the principle in whose name it was undertaken, then no political idea-democracy, rights, even justice-could survive its own history.” That may also be true, but Communism makes some very specific claims about how it will organise society and the effects of that organisation. It deserves to be judged on whether it delivers its promises.

It also deserves to be judged in comparison to alternatives. History gave us several controlled experiments on the merits of communism and democracy – North and South Korea, East and West Germany. Guess which came out best.

The author claims “the communist Idea affirms, first, that no human life carries greater intrinsic worth than another”. That sounds more like classical liberalism than Communism. Except liberalism ascribes a very high value to each person, while Marxism subordinates the interests of all individuals to the perceived collective interest. For Marxists, all individual human lives equally carry not much intrinsic worth at all.

The article concludes with a false dichotomy – we must either resign ourselves to accepting that our current political and economic system is as good as it gets, or embrace Communism. But most countries are neither liberal democracies not Communist. We may find a better model than either one day. Meanwhile, I agree with Churchill’s quip that “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried.”

What a pack of lies. Most countries have toyed with socialism, and apart from calamities like year zero, there is often favourable press, as with Cuba, Sweden, Venezuela or New York.

As for the Soviet Union's great industrial development, it came at great environmental cost and was nowhere near the industrial development of western nations, which is ultimately why socialism failed.

I guess that the piece wouldn't be complete without the defeat of fascism stuff, which ignores the Soviet pact with Hitler, Stalin's invasion of Poland, the Holocaust rivalling Holodomor, and the huge industrial assistance from the US.

I wish that Magoo would learn some history so that he might gain insight as to where he is taking us, but I take comfort that net zero will be less disastrous than year zero.

Good article by Sam Ben-Meir. Pure Communism is too Utopian to be a practical reality at this time in human development. Given another 5,000 years or so, if we haven't totally destroyed ourselves, and the human intellect might have reached a stage where Utopian ideas such as pure Communism have become a practical reality, until then we are stuck with what we've got, warts and all.

I much prefer a Liberal Democracy, which embraces the benefits of entrepreneurial Capitalism, tempered with the justice of democratic Socialism, whilst applying progressive reform where needed. Nothing is perfect, but its the best we've got.