>>17890053
Depends what you mean by "as bad". Throughout the 70s to the early 2000s there was a wave of consumerism which was very representative of the disparities between the west and the reds. When boomers think of the USSR, they're reminded of the stark contrast there was between their lives full of color and material goods and their dull & grim USSR counterpart. So no, it wasn't objectively "as bad" because boomers retroactively see the USSR as the epitome of a totalitarian hell hole.
Objectively speaking however, the USSR was a middle income country with poor material goods and corruption. You were guaranteed a job and housing, but you had no freedom and relatively poor consumer service. Most people who used to live in those countries see it as that : a state which ensured its citizen a certain quality of life and stability at the expense of their freedom.

>Post WW2
Shithole but relatively good compared to their former feudal status

>>17890274
>>17890078
There is an anon in every historical thread about the USSR that thinks that Stalin-era communal housing in the ancient nobility's manor applied to commie blocks. Are you him by any chance ?

>>17890152
>Problem is Brezhnev and Andropov/Chernenko (the latter being the Soviet Biden)
Andropov was the reformer that's largely seen as the last chance for the soviet union (barring Romanov being nominated rather than Gorbachev). But he died within a year of being nominated iirc.

>>17890249
>what exactly made so many people miserable and sad drunks?
State-guaranteed monotonous jobs killed the spirit by the 80s. The problem of drunks is more associated with post-soviet Russia though (when it peaked).

>Was the food quality low?
Yes the Kolkhoz sucked at production

>was crime high?
No on the contrary

>Did their media subvert their men into cucks and their women in whores and demand "equality"?
Feminism was state-imposed and much more "rational"

>Did their media push them towards degeneracy?
Quite the opposite irl.