With respect to his statement of communism, I believe you misread what he wrote, and so you are down-voted because others interpretation does not match yours.

Read it as "communism is not automatically worse that any other possibility you can think of". E.g. compare Cuba under Castro with Germany under Hitler. The latter was obviously worse, simply because Castro did not initiate any genocides. That does not mean Castro is good, just that his stated ideology does not automatically place his regime in the "worst" category - there have been too many really nasty regimes for that.

This is assuming and accepting a right wing interpretation of "communism" to begin with.

> I can only read that as: "These enslaving juntas would have implemented human rights if it weren't for USA". Stupid.

Then your imagination is rather poor.

There are many reasons to think that overall suffering in these countries would have been less, even if the political restrictions might have remained the same. But even that is too simplistic. Castro went to the US first, including a "PR tour" where he was unable to get a visit with anyone senior in the White House. He was rebuffed over the issue of nationalisation that affected US interests, and first then did he walk into the open arms of the Soviets. It took a further several years before his party added "Socialist" to his name, and officially started adopting Soviet terminology.

Similarly, Ho-Chi-Mihn was a nationalist first, who looked to the US as a model for Vietnamese independence, and who appealed to Woodrow Wilson for support for Vietnamese independence.

It was first when this failed that Ho was radicalised further, but even then he largely held on to a nationalist outlook for a long time, while turning to socialist groups for support. Despite his radicalisation, which eventually lead to becoming one of the founder of the French communist party, and an official of the Comintern, during World War II he was supported by the US OSS in fighting the Vichy French and Japanese occupation forces.

But after the war, US support again disappeared when France attempted to re-occupy the country, and he saw no other alternative but to expand warfare and eventually fight those he originally hoped would be the guarantors of a free, independent Vietnam,.

This is a common thread with many of the revolutionary groups over the last century, who have first turned to the US or other democratic countries for support, found that they as groups are "inconvenient" because the dictatorships they oppose or opposed were often considered safer partners, and who have then instead turned elsewhere.

You even see it with the ANC in South Africa, which had an extremely tight relationship with the SACP (South African Communist Party) that deepened as Cuba provided assistance as well as intervened militarily in the South African puppet states of Angola and Namibia. ANC received support from that camp for decades while the West still provided extensive support and/or trade to the Apartheid regime. It would not have taken much for SA to have ended up taking a similar turn to Cuba or Vietnam.

A vast number of these regimes would either have looked very different, or even been open to extensive concessions to the West if "our" governments had been at all concerned with supporting democracy movements rather than propping up convenient trading partners or regimes they saw as strategic partners against the Soviets or Chinese.