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.
A significant reason why Stalin was able to successfully rise to power and why the Bolsheviks were able to secure total power is because of foreign violence and interference.
When all major foreign powers say that they wish for the destruction of your country and would openly prefer you to go back to more suffering, support for monsters like Stalin increases.
Equally, when the threat of invasion is as high as it was for the USSR from Britain and the US, a lot of money and power is invested in the military.
It's very possible that if it wasn't for massive foreign interference neither Stalin nor Trotsky would ever have been able to gain much power (both of them got their power from military conflict mainly, Stalin even moreso), the NKVD never would have gotten nearly as much funding, Lavrentiy Beria would probably have been put against the wall, and so on.
It takes a profoundly ignorant view of historical facts to blame Stalin and Trotsky on foreign interference.
It takes a profoundly ignorant view of historical facts to ignore the immense pervasiveness of foreign interference in the Russian Civil War.
The mere presence of the Bolsheviks as a dominant force was due to foreign interference, as the Germans installed him and his friends in an attempt to destabilize the Russian Empire.
Trotsky's growth in authoritarianism, when he was previously a moderating force, started with the opportunistic German attacks at the fleets of the Red Army, and of course his rise to power from a middling figure to a preeminent Bolshevik was only made possible by German incitement of the Bolshevik movement to begin with.
Even Stalin's justification for power was based on (justified) appeals to centrally planned heavy industries, whose main motivation was military power which was necessary to to threats of invasion.
It is clear to anyone that both Stalin and Trotsky would have had much, much less power if they weren't able to justify centralization on the necessity to resist foreign agression, beyond that the consolidation of the Bolsheviks to begin with was a German plot.
To claim all of this was based on foreign interference is revisionism without foundation, ignoring the agency of the Russian people and its tragically flawed and corrupt leadership/aristocracy. The Germans did not create or even influence the conditions that led to the Russian civil war or the various abortive revolutions prior to the one in 1917; beyond helping Lenin get back to Russia from Switzerland there is a shocking lack of evidence of any direct support (just in case you are trying to suggest the "Kaiser's gold" theory, there is no evidence of significant monetary support in either German or Russian records.) Considering the fact that Russia was a participant in WW1 at the time it is naive to assume they as disinterested or uninvolved, but the Germans did not create Lenin or any of the other committees and factions involved.
You cannot just sweep across decades of internal Russian conflict and paint it with such a broad and quite frankly misinformed brush. Every European nation was involved to some extent, but none had the influence you claim nor did any create any of the central characters in this story.
Is your position that the only possible result of the Russian Revolution was Stalin and the Holodomor?
The phenomena of revolutions turning authoritarian because of an outside enemy attempting to destabilize is in no way unique to the USSR. It's a pattern you see all across the world. It's what gets a movement that was opposed to even the concept of a standing army because of the centralization of power and the risk that brings to the largest standing army.
The Germans didn't create Lenin, but they fundamentally changed the course of the Rebellion against the Tsar by sending him back to Russia at that precise time. They had an intent in doing so that was realized.
So you are saying that foreign powers had no influence whatsoever on the internal political situations in Russia, or that is was a mix of factors? You do admit that they helped Lenin get back to Russia at least. If Lenin never helps get back, does he ever rise to that level of power?
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?