Yeah, it can be hard to get through to people precisely because they're thinking in the individualist/idealist mode and probably have 0 exposure to dialectical and historical materialism. It probably wouldn't go over very well to actually say this, but in the abstract, it amuses me the idea of telling somebody like that, "That's because you're thinking like an idealist/individualist and until/unless changes in your base (material conditions) happen, there's going to be little pressure for you to rethink your superstructure (your beliefs/worldviews)."

Still, I think in general being able to speak positively on behalf of AES states is worth something, more so if you're saying it to someone who otherwise knows you and tends to trust you. Even if people don't immediately agree, the knowledge that somebody they know thinks that way may at least cause them to pause and have to admit they are sharing the world with real people like this; which may lead to "there must be a reason they think this way" which may lead to at least trying to understand where it's coming from.

Now understanding where something comes from doesn't automatically mean agreeing with it. Fascism came from somewhere and there was real fervor and planning involved, not just "unhinged random violence", yet it's also a grotesque and violent system.

So there is also the step of making sure we bring the receipts on why communism is a historical good. This is one reason I like Blackshirts and Reds as an earlier book recommend. Because (from what I can recall) Parenti makes a point of distinguishing between what was actually communists practicing, and what was fascists taking advantage of working class fervor and then throwing the working class under the bus. It is a critical difference to be aware of. There are frauds out there (like the patsocs in the US) who will frame themselves as like communists but are carrying water for something else. But there are also real Actually Existing Socialism projects run by communist vanguards. This is, I think, easier for people who are used to anti-communism to stomach than presenting communism like it's an unquestionable good at all times and you should trust everyone who says they're a commie (which wouldn't be true anyway).

Then with dialectical and historical materialism to put it in context, the why it's imperfect is not "because humans are inherently tribal and will hurt each other any chance they get" but because of contradictions, clashing interests, and the nature of transition; which means creating a society that is more communal and cooperative on a fundamental, willing level (not just at threat of punishment) is possible. But it requires working through the contradictions, not trying to push past them through sheer individual will.