"Communism Has Failed" is a stupid argument (couldnt fit the title)
(before this let me remind you i dont like the soviet union because the government was too powerful and could have done similar without the purges, this is simply facts i am stating)
well how do we define "success" or "failure"
how does a nation succeed? longevity? quality of life?
military strength? economic performance?
political and diplomatic influence perhaps?
does one fail by ceasing to exist?
measuring up to the pre-existing world powers of different ideologies?
because in each and every one of those, socialism has succeeded! on the flipside, many capitalist countries do not
now if we are using the USSR as an example, the first full-line Marxist-Leninist nation, they lasted 7 decades
DESPITE starting off in a position as undeveloped as India,
having international sanctions, civil war, invasion from Nazi Germany causing up to 30 million casualties.
the perpetual attempts at causing instability in the country done by the CIA, and other agencies.
so i'd say thats a pretty great track record to hold on that long despite the whole world against them (even communist china turned on the soviet union)
now if we are measuring quality of life they also exceed expectations in that field! most people, when they think "life in the USSR" they think of the WWII stalin era, where the country was ravaged, but ignore the other prosperity.
in these socialist societies, barring purges (if you say purging ppl makes you unsuccessful that means the USA has failed, see to Pinochet and the other massacres of socialists)
in every socialist country in the end they far exceeded what they had before socialism, and yes many of these countries may seem poor from a capitalist perspective, but that's because you measure wealth from a very bias perspective.
given the resources they had, the surplus they owned was equal to the luxaries the people enjoyed (you can also find many a video of old Russian boomers missing the USSR) in all socialist nations they were not USA world powers, of course, but much better off than before.
if you are arguing military strength that is just silly.
the USSR had much more manpower than the USA, much better scientific advancement (before the late USSR era of liberalization) and were only bested in the nuclear field,
which the difference between 1000 nukes and 2000 nukes makes no difference theyre both enough to decimate the enemy country. in fact the USSR actually used their military far less in forign intervention than the USA (whom sent volunteers to stop every single socialist revolution)
Economic power is another thing brought up, which as previously mentioned you need to think of economy per capita not just base economy. The USSR started as a backwater peasant country where most of the population couldn't read, and within 3 decades put the first man in space. (i can see comments about the USA beating them with the moon landing but remember what i said, per capita) its pretty unfair to compare the USA to the USSR considering that the USA had 200 years to develop and the USSR got to the same level in only 10 years. On top of this the USA started in far better circumstances, already having an industrialized industry from their previous British masters.
EVEN MORE SO: the Ussr suffered a brutal civil war, only further decimating the country, on top of a dozen capitalist nations aiding the white army (capitalist side of the civil war) on top of that again, after the revolt they still had the sanctions given to it by every capitalist world power.
even more so, they endured the Nazi Reich which destroyed every village, every farm, every factory, and every family they came across, (see to the einsatzgrupen and lebensraum policy)
and throught all this, the USSR still competed with the worlds largest power, the united states. and even surpassing it in some fields.
the same case goes with the people republic of china (which isnt even communist
ah, a fellow comrade (and tankie?). It's a shame that most of the people who would bring up the point you are arguing against wouldn't read past the first few lines, and probably a few undecided people wouldn't either.
also, i'd imagine there are dengists who'd beg to differ with the last point. (their argument being, "given the circumstances, dengism did what it needed to do, bring people out of poverty.")