When i was in the Air Force, my first base i went to was Hahn AFB Germany. During that time, i never saw anyone facing machine guns and rabid dogs, trying to go over the fence into Communist East Germany, but i saw many, some dying, trying to leave East Germany to be free in West Germany. Capitalism isnt perfect, but it is 1000s of times better than any shit that Lefties have come up with.
That was in the middle of a Cold War, and yes indeed there were people risking their lives to get to McDonald's and order a Bigmac and fries, in West Germany and experience the "American Dream", especially in an age when you didn't have to be asleep to experience it.
The United States came out of WW2 essentially unscathed when compared to Western Europe and Asia. The US has the blessing of being surrounded by two huge oceans, creating an extremely effective natural wall of defense against mass invasion. The USSR was invaded in WW2 by four million Nazis and lost nine million soldiers and 18 million civilians
(14% of its population) and much of their national infrastructure which they had built since the founding of their new nation in October 1917.
The US lost 460 thousand Americans
(0.3% of its population vs the 14% Soviet Russia had lost), in the war, and shortly after that due to not losing most of its national infrastructure or suffering comparable loss of life as the Soviets and Western Europe, was in the unique position to become the world's manufacturing hub of the world. The so-called "Marshal Plan" was enacted by the US Congress, to rebuild Western Europe and Japan, allowing American industry to flourish, including facilitating the practically instant creation of the most affluent working class ("middle-class") in human history.
The United States had the highest-paid workers, with the most benefits, with 1/3rd of them fully unionized, owning their own homes in the suburbs.
The Soviet Union had to lift itself up by its own bootstraps after suffering the catastrophic consequences of being invaded by Nazi Germany and had to rebuild practically all of its infrastructure in Western Russia, which before the war, was at the time the most developed region of the USSR. Do you factor all of the above when judging socialism and its history?
The American worker in the 1950s and 60s, all the way up to 1981, was living and working in a completely different America, than the one we're in now. The American workforce was the "aristocracy of labor", the citizens of the empire, and the main consumers of the world. The customer base of the most powerful, wealthy elites, weren't the Mexicans or even the Western Europeans, but rather the American consumer. A well-paid, happy worker, with benefits, a house, a new car, and plenty of purchasing power to buy all of the products and services offered by the rich American capitalists. The highest tax rate at the time was over 90% and when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981 it was at 70%.
The Soviets, despite all of the challenges and obstacles, rebuilt itself and became a world, nuclear superpower, rivaling the United States, a county that had over 120 years of industrial development ahead of the Soviet Union. Notwithstanding the fact that the Soviets were a new country, established in 1917, who were invaded in 1918 by the United States and 14 other countries. Soviet Russia was in a state of war for most of its history, with only a very brief "halftime" break for a few years in the 1930s, when the US and most of the Western World was in its Great Depression, and Soviet Socialism accomplished the most as far as industrialization, farm collectivization and mechanization, urban development and so forth.
You're comparing a new nation, that started out as an under-industrialized, agrarian society under a monarchal government, adopting socialism, in 1917, with over half of its population being comprised of illiterate peasants living under oppressive feudal lords
(i.e. kulaks), to the United States, a world capitalist superpower and hegemon, with over 120 years of industrialization ahead of socialism. Is that really a fair comparison? If that wasn't enough, the Bolshevic Russian socialist "red army", had to not only fight the feudal, capitalist forces within its borders a.k.a. the "white armies", but it also had to deal with a foreign invasion comprised of over 200 thousand, Americans, British, French, Greeks, Romanians, Japanese..etc. REALLY? Is your critique really fair?
Did the capitalist mercantile class of Western Europe replace the kings and royal aristocracy of Europe overnight? Was it one single swoop of the sword, one battle or war that decisively gave victory to the capitalist Republicans, or did it take several centuries and revolutions for that to happen? Did the merchants become powerful industrialists before the advent of the steam engine and other required technology? Think. A system of production doesn't replace another, without the necessary material conditions being present. I ask you to be thoughtful. Think.
You can dismiss socialism and communism as viable alternatives to capitalism, based on the history of the USSR, but that's not a reasonable assessment of its potential or viability. Also consider the fact that every single country that identifies itself as having a Marxist, socialist economy, gets itself on the radar and target hairs of the US Government. Your country will be threatened with war, coups, and economic sanctions. As an apologist for capitalism, you don't have the ideological luxury of dismissing Marxism on the grounds of its performance in comparison to the US economy, when the US is imposing economic sanctions and threatening these little socialist countries with war. Lift the sanctions, then maybe you'll have more of an argument.
The future by default, is inevitably socialist.
Advanced 21st-century automation and artificial intelligence, ensure that we're looking at socialism as the successor of capitalism. Capitalism depends now upon socialism to exist, with all of its booms and busts forcing the government to bail it out, to avoid the complete catastrophic collapse of the economy and in the future, it will be socialism that will replace the chaos of markets with the high-tech, computerized, rational central planning of mass production, at a national scale. Socialism is going to socialize and democratic production, rendering it non-profit and mostly automated. If we don't live to see the adoption of socialism in the US, our children and grandchildren will. Guaranteed.