Ad mid roll:
I trust The Economist magazine for thoughtful analysis and [...]
"Lmao okay I guess not then."
Or they'll be discussing politics and history with an (otherwise) interesting guest when the subject broaches Marxism, and you hear the same old, first-grader, thought-terminating misconceptions about "human nature" or "works in theory". 
Edit: One guy remarked that the Nazis were a result of the October Revolution, which may be technically accurate because some White Russians worked with the Nazis, but he was definitely framing it in a "communism did WWII" way.
I mean I think there's a lot of merit to say the Nazis were a result of the October Revolution. Historians like Enzo Traverso and Domenico Losurdo would argue that WWI and WWII are part of the same thirty years war, and that the fascists were the direct result of the communist challenge to capitalist supremacy. There was no other method aside from fascism to restore the Capital order in a place like Italy.
if you want to you could argue that like 1850-1950 was a hundred years of labor conflict bubbling up to these wars which were a result of capitalist and imperialist forces with the influence of "communism" really just representing the rising education and class awareness of the proletariat as well as an increasing ability to threaten order through better organization and coordination
anyway it's almost like the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
Oh most definitely, I just think it's wrong to blame communism for the atrocities done in reaction to it. That was the subtext I was offended by.
Ah got it, agreed.