Well, why did the US actively try to harm the USSR? If it was such a bad way of doing things, why did the US actively go out of it's way to sabotage it rather than just ignore it and let it die?
It's possible that the USSR would have been a better system, had the cold war not happened, but that's not the world we live in. If you want to make that argument you have to explain why it's reasonable to excuse how the USSR turned out in reality, and why in your hypothetical world it would have turned out differently.
With respect to space advancement, I suspect the main reason for sustained differences in accomplishments come down primarly to the amount of resources each were able to devote to space. The US was able to sustain a high level of investment for a long time, and the USSR was not.
It's not moving to goalposts to acknowledge that the USSR beat us to space and that a large part of their collapse was due directly to the influence of the US.
Upthread there was a claim by evgen that the way the US vs Soviet approach to the space race had been characterised by mempko was incorrect, and that the current safety of the Soyuz was (at least in part) paid for with the lives of cosmonauts.
You go on to state that Russia beat the US into space (which is a non-sequitur), and later expand that "The USSR, had it not had to fight a cold war against the US, could very well have been a much better system not just for space flight, but for a way to structure and run society in general."
When challenged by alentist, who asked "why did the USSR and its satellite states have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?" you countered with "If it was such a bad way of doing things, why did the US actively go out of it's way to sabotage it" which is moving the goalposts, and starts to slide into whattaboutism.
Specifically you claimed that the USSR "could very well have been" a better way to structure a society, and alentist provided strong evidence that it was not - people were murdered when they tried to leave. Instead of trying to prove your point you deflected, and shifted the goalposts from "this could very well have been a good system" to "the US didn't like it therefore it couldn't have been bad".
Part you aren't answering the question directly. Did the US not persecute communists? Has the US not directly been involved in wars in communist countries that have led to millions of deaths, both military and civilians? You say the USSR killed its people, yet you won't admit those people were leaving because they wanted apparently to go to capitalist societies. What happens if capitalist societies don't exist? Where are those people going to? Or was the USSR killing people just to kill people as you claim?
Of course you're right. USA has been continually at war, grinding the lives of brown people into profits for rich bastards, since before independence from Britain. Lots of Americans moved to USSR, especially non-whites. Truman had four years in which Stalin would have been happy to sign away nuclear weapons forever, but instead he was led by the nose by the armaments manufacturers and kept creating ever-more-deadly nukes. USSR continually tried to rein in communists in other nations in order to try to preserve peace, but was painted as a great instigator by the airtight propaganda that we Americans choke in from our births.
Still, it would have been better not to restrict emigration. That was not humane, and betrayed an antiquated view of how the world works.
You completely dodged the question and tried to change the subject, so I'll ask it again: If they had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?
Your question, on the other hand, is silly. Substitute the USSR with Nazi Germany.
Why did the US have to systemically mass murder Native Americans and enslave Africans Americans and fight over seas wars in Vietnam and North Korea? If you can assert their atrocities, I can so also assert the US's. You are dodging, not me.
You again keep trying to dodge the question and change the subject, so I'll ask it yet again: If the USSR had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder ordinary people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?
If you're saying that slavery is also abhorrent and evil—like the slavery and mass murder that takes place under Communism—then we're in agreement. Now, can you please answer the question?
The US fought an actual civil war over the right to OWN people. How is capitalism, THE economic system the US has used since it's inception, not responsible for that, as well as the current demand for slave labor that exists today? I will answer your question when you can answer that one honestly.
To our fellow readers: Notice how Layke1123 has dodged my original question no fewer than 4 times (!), all while continuing to launch barrages of new questions in an effort to derail the conversation and avoid having to answer it. This tactic has a long history in Soviet propaganda.
Let's try again:
If the USSR had such a wonderful society, why did they have to systematically mass murder ordinary people who wanted to leave this wonderful society?
I have repeatedly told you. The direct answer is that the US is directly responsible for meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign state repeatedly causing political turmoil and economic disaster. Do you disagree with this statement? I'd love for you to prove the US had no involvement in fighting against the USSR to varying levels of success.
To our fellow readers on HN: notice how alentist himself cannot answer a question asked back, even though I have given him the answer to his question directly multiple times. It is his attempt to save his narrowly constructed world view that he is right, America has never committed atrocities against its own people and others, and you should accept his point of view matter of factly without questioning! Notice how he acts more like the places he criticizes than I do simply for questioning his assertions?
