I wonder why it is that people who rail against socialism always pick examples like Moscow (which, ahem, is now a barefaced oligarchy and not even nominally Communist — but let’s agree that one could well pick on Moscow of 50 years ago as Not a Nice Place to Live). They could instead pick examples like Sweden, Norway, Iceland — except that those countries are generally rated as some of the best places to live. Or even Cuba, where communitarian ethics and socialist policies enabled a whole country to survive the collapse of the USSR without actual famine. How well do most client states fare when their dominant imperial partner collapses? not nearly so well in most cases.
OTOH, Sweden, Italy, France, etc might also be not-so-easy targets for criticising capitalism, since there is a strong capitalist element in their economies also. The US makes a very easy target, being a nation that has pursued capitalist ideology into a dead-end almost as bitter and dismal as the one the old USSR ended up in.
Apologies all, for repeating the “fisherman story” yet again, I was in a hurry and didn’t read the comment thread before posting. I see the parable persists in many people’s memories, not just mine!