Essentially none of what you said contradicts any point I've made. I am not a USSR utopian. Very much the opposite: it had very serious problems. The issue is the comparative nature, where capitalists pick and choose what counts as explanatory failure, typically ignoring things like constant aggressive wars and funding, e.g., the Stasi. There is also the matter of the means by which capitalist countries maintain themselves, as it is very, very far from a circular or sustainable system, but one that has depended very heavily on expropriation and military dominance. The position I'm presenting is not, "communism was fantastic, ideal, perfect, without core problems". It is, "communism well for a very long time despite incredible external aggression and vastly improved the lot of people who would otherwise have been put through an economic meat grinder". It is an indictment of the primary alternative economic system that bureaucratic central planning could work so decently in comparison.

When looking at explanations for failure, only the most proximal analyses are given credence in pop culture (The Schuerer report was days before the fall of the DDR) and no holistic analysis is considered. To be scientific and historical about this, one must consider the alternative hypotheses, the greater picture and burdens. Let's consider one simple one: the extractive nature of western imperial economics - transferring wealth from the global south to itself. To what extent can you reject the hypothesis that a significant explanatory factor in the economic success of West Germany is the disproportionate value received from these exploitative relationships? Is it considered in the analyses and conclusions drawn? If not, why not? It seems like a very relevant question to me - there are countless examples of capitalist countries with far, far, far worse outcomes than communist ones, and they tend to be in the Global South.