Yes, the communist argument - everybody else is at fault but not myself. Yet the communist paradise, the 1/6 of all the land with incredible riches stayed poor and finally collapsed.

That argument has nothing to do with communism. At most, it could be seen as anti-capitalist. As I understand it, the argument is that some so-called “underdeveloped” country is actually rich in natural resources, but foreign companies have come in and extracted the vast majority of the wealth, given some resources only to a select elite, as essentially bribes, and the large masses of people get nothing, and so remain poor. Even though the wealth extracted, had it remained in the country, would have made the country on the same level, or even higher, than the so-called “developed” countries. I can see no argument for communism here.

If anything, the argument is a nationalistic one, and nationalism have traditionally been associated with the right, not the left.

You have to know the history to understand why this argument is communist.

I don’t see how this invalidates the argument itself. I mean, who cares if evil communists have made that argument. Does that make the argument wrong?