Whether Republicans and Democrats feel it is untouchable, Capitalism is going to be replaced, and I think the upcoming generations have a sense of that, even in the US. Part of the religious adherence to Capitalism has to do with Cold War sentiments, and these sentiments weren't completely misguided. For the times, what the West was offering was superior for the average citizen. But something else is coming, and labor is going to be much less integral to the equation.
If you look at the numbers across the US, the rate of socialism in our generation has skyrocketed, and it's unsurprising. We're a much more educated generation than the world has ever seen, not just on what socialism truly is, albeit that is important in the discussion, but more importantly on the massive failings of capitalism. The education aspect is hardly needed for that considering how absolutely brutalized we've been by it our whole lives, but disillusioned from the US propaganda at least sufficiently enough to give other options a second thought and ask ourselves if they're viable or how to implement them. Strict socialism won't happen, and probably shouldn't, but there's a great flow of ideas and hybridization throughout that will bring about the real change; piecemeal policies that fit into the American system while changing it. The baby boomers can only hold on so long, and everyone under the age of 40 is diametrically opposed to everything they've created.
How do you mean?For the times, what the West was offering was superior for the average citizen.
Opportunities in the Capitalist West far exceeded those in the USSR and the Eastern block. Wages were high, and pensions were meaningful. Education and healthcare were reasonably priced, and good. "Free trade" wasn't an issue yet, and wages were a regional matter. -That is, there was plenty of proof that Capitalism was the way to go, at least when compared to the other options that were in practice on a large scale.
The USSR was state sponsored capitalism, just like the US.
You need a very broad definition of 'state sponsored capitalism' to make that 'just like' statement true; so broad, that it's not a very meaningful one. There were many differences between the two economies, which had substantive impacts upon millions of people.
Fair enough, "just like" might have been unintentional hyperbole. How would you describe the USSR economy, then? It certainly wasn't socialism.
It was state capitalism, also called state socialism, managed through a series of 5-year plans. As far as how similar it was to the United States' economic system, that depends on how broad a perspective you wish to adopt. In terms of the economies of the 20th century, the systems were two distinct forms of the market system; in terms of all the economic systems people have used, the two systems were really very similar.How would you describe the USSR economy, then?