crisis seemed to vindicate the Soviet model. For, if Marxism-Leninism stood for anything, it was the prediction that capitalism would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Now it seemed to be doing precisely that. Understandably, the more the American dream turned to nightmare, the more people were attracted to the Russian alternative of a planned economy – insulated from the vagaries of the market, yet capable of feats of construction every bit as awesome as the skyscrapers of New York or the mass-produced cars of Henry Ford. All the totalitarian state asked in return was complete control of every aspect of life.
The crisis appeared to validate the Soviet model, as Marxism-Leninism suggested that capitalism would inevitably fail due to its inherent contradictions. At that time, it appeared that capitalism was indeed faltering, leading many to reconsider their stance on the planned economy of the Soviet Union. This situation contributed to a growing interest in the alternative offered by Russia, which seemed more stable and secure amidst economic turmoil.
While the Soviet system promised protection from market fluctuations and could achieve impressive feats of infrastructure comparable to American accomplishments, it demanded total control over individuals' lives. This trade-off became increasingly appealing to people disillusioned by the American dream, which was rapidly becoming a nightmare, prompting a shift in their perception of governance and economic systems.
