Reagan is (was? When did he say this?) wrong at least one point: It was communism itself that defeated communism, not anything America did. Once you understand that Communism is an untenable economic system, the idea that anyone, American or not, could have “defeated” it is more than a small bit absurd...

The ones who deserve credit are the brave Soviet leaders who-- holding their people’s interests to heart-- ended communism and the Soviet Union. Also, the fact that they decided not to go nuclear in a fit of pique is praiseworthy. It would have been self destructive, but then, so was communism...

"The ones who deserve credit are the brave Soviet leaders who-- holding their people’s interests to heart-- ended communism and the Soviet Union."

And who exactly would those leaders be? If you are referring to Gorbachev, the "end of communism" was never his intent. Furthermore, to suggest that "not anything America did" had any impact on the end of communism in the USSR is rather absurd.

Had communism been workable and capitalism not; the cold war would have ended rather differently! The Soviet Union would still have been around and America would be a failed state. Happily, capitalism works, and people around the world can reap the benefits of an unplanned economy...

So, how can it be absurd to suggest that America had nothing to do with the absurdity of communism? Hell, in propping up so many dictators for the Communists to point to as what Capitalism is, we may well have strengthened the system. (that last sentence is a bit of a stretch, I admit. I won’t defend the argument if someone attacks it.)...

The issue is not whether or not communism is workable. It is not. However, without pressure from the West the USSR could have survived for several more decades with all the negative consequences for both Russia and the world that would entail. It is foolish to think that had the United States been led by Carter and Mondale in the 1980s that the same Cold War result would have been produced by 1991.

Your second point is ridiculous and I assume you are kidding.

I won’t say that it is a serious point, but it does merit serious study:

A) Stipulate that America helped keep nasty dictators in power
B) Stipulate that Said dictators were kept in power because they were Anti-Communist
C) Stipulate that Anti-Communist dictators are no more loved than Pro-Communist ones

Then it is possible that the people choosing between communism and non-communism, when given the choice between well publicized anti-communist bad things and poorly publicized communist bad things may well have chosen to go the communist rout. This would tend to keep the communists around longer, no?

Again, not saying it, just saying it deserves study...

"Then it is possible that the people choosing between communism and non-communism, when given the choice between well publicized anti-communist bad things and poorly publicized communist bad things may well have chosen to go the communist rout."

Could you point out an actual example of somewhere where this theoretical calculus you have constructed actually occurred?

Let me reiterate:
"It deserves study". No. I don't know nearly enough about the subject to even name a place. But it is a non-implausible hypothesis that seeks to explain why so many countries willingly went communist...

Keeping in mind that we spend just as much time, energy, and money promoting a superior economic system, what hypothesis would you offer? Are communists simply better salespeople? Were their generals better than ours? Did they brainwash millions into absurd believes?

Why is it that the only people ever to reject communism are those who lived under it? I don’t know that I am willing to submit entire populations to Stalin just to prove a point...

"But it is a non-implausible hypothesis that seeks to explain why so many countries willingly went communist..."

The flaw in your argument is the notion that countries "willingly" went communist. The communists did not take control in the countries that they did through suffrage and a clever marketing campaign, they did so through civil war or invasion financied by the USSR. Furthermore, the Soviets employed massive propaganda campaigns - particularly in the Third World - that meant that it was hardly necessary for the West to engage in bad behavior for the USSR to cite as an example of capitalist excess; they were happy to fabricate whatever atrocities they needed to further their cause.