That would be true if there was no difference between seeking equality and justice vs. scapegoating Naziesque goose-stepping grievances. I say this as someone who gets annoyed by politically active coworkers. Not all ideologies are created equally.
Then discourage all irrelevant politics from work and give even less leeway to the "bad" ideologies.
If democratic means are not sufficient to achieve political results you're happy with, then your fellow citizens are not ready for your interpretation of equality and justice. It is antithetical to leverage corporate resources to force your goal. If you happen to be politically vocal without abusing corporate power, then you'd make little political progress, so whether your ideology is good or bad matters very little. You'd just be creating more polarization either way.
So, overturn citizens united, ban corporate PACs, and all corporate political donations? Or are you just trying to ban one side from leveraging corporate resources?
Equality of outcome or opportunity? That matters. I'd support one but not the other. I lived under Communism until 1989 and I know what equal outcome looks like after decades of having its run. There is no incentive to excel and all the incentives to conform because equality comes before merit. After some time the whole society slides into poverty.
What I don't like is to put ideology over humans, meaning to prefer abstractions and reifications over concrete realities and ignore those realities. Fighting for justice on a societal level can often be blind to personal details. It's usually us vs them and personal details don't matter, in that regard it's similar to war, dehumanising their opponents in order to make them legitimate targets.
Yeah, a quest for societal justice can absolutely turn into an egg-breaking rampage with promise of a tasty omelette sometimes in the unspecified glorious future. We have seen it and are a bit sceptical.
The USA was spared this particular disaster. Perhaps we could point out the case of the Prohibition or War on Drugs to our American friends?
These, too, were/are moral crusades ostensibly led by the noblest of intentions, in practice steamrolling individuals without mercy and giving incentive to rise of brutal criminal organizations.
So it didn’t help that a developing economy had to redirect a sizeable portion of its productive power towards defence. Nor did the constant less direct attacks from the US and its allies. Despite all of that, average workers had good conditions even when compared to the US itself.
In the end it was the sacrifice USSR which enabled USA and UK (lots of Uniteds here) to claim victory. As a thank you, the west invested considerable resources into rebuilding Germany and Japan while giving the USSR and China the middle finger and immediately treating them like enemies.
We really did kick Russia and China while they were down, repeatedly, then spit on them.
I'm not blaming everything on socialism though. Russia was not very developed before the revolution, and it suffered terrible losses in WWII.
I’m less familiar with the USSR’s policies on this, but I can tell you România tried to export to the west and took on an IMF loan to do so. Then we were blocked from actually selling our exports and the loan was required to be paid early and in full regardless. Since we were only allowed to export food for the most part, rationing had to be used for several years. This economic crisis, in addition to constant propaganda via radio and funding of fascists, is part of how the US and its allies made the 89 coup successful.
Later on China and Vietnam did manage to negotiate an in-between position with some markets and some free trade (and in the case of Vietnam even IMF loans), but with workers as a class maintaining control of the state and significant parts of the economy continuing to be mostly planned by state-owned enterprises.