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?