Communism as a failed diet which blames the dieter.

Communism resembles the symptoms of unsuccessful diet programs. It has been tried by many countries: Russia (and its satellite states), China, Vietnam, Cuba, and others. In each case there were initial successes which addressed the failings of previous systems, but soon an inner corruption grew, which ultimately contradicted the initial ideals. Advocates for communism often claim that it was never properly applied or taken over by opportunists or that people weren't "ready" (see: the new man). In some ways this pattern is like a diet in which the dieter is blamed for not sticking to the program.

Imagine a diet which demands the dieter eat very little and exercise a lot for as long as necessary. This is, in fact, a good diet if you stick to it. But the vast majority of people won't and of those who will, many will relapse quickly. The proponent of the diet could argue that the problem lies with the dieters, however, the test of a good diet isn't whether it would work IF people apply it correctly, but whether people ACTUALLY apply it. Statistics matter here. Does it work en masse?

Communism isn't a system that most people are willing or able to stick to. Blaming human lack of discipline or corrupt individuals misses the point. An alternative to capitalism in present form, well worth working towards, has to address its own long term practical functionality, not just its idealistic intention in opposition to existing problems. It has to be a system that improves and corrects itself organically, because of, not in spite of human nature.

In the meantime we've tried modified versions of socialism, or its more reasonable cousin, social democracy, in the West, including in the Americas. They work amazingly well. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have SOME systems that actually work, imperfectly of course, but close to the level of what was only a dream 150 years ago, when aristocracy, slavery, indenture, child labor were still the norm. Neither the self-defined socialists are happy about the present conditions, nor its vocal opponents ( they have the confusion between communism and social democracy defined as a menace to take advantage of for just about any issue), but in practice, socialism has made the world somewhat better, let's admit that.

(Note: Capitalism, at least in its more cruel adaptations, also blames individuals instead of the system for its failings. Just think of the accusations re: "personal responsibility," "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps," "relying on government handouts," whenever a larger number of people fall between the cracks. When large scale corruption occurs, such as the savings and loan scandal or the recent banking meltdown, we tend to accuse particular individuals, organizations, or industries, instead of the general system that not only allowed it but invited it.)