This old canard of "USA (bad thing) vs USSR (good thing)" is so flat and devoid of meaning, it is qualitatively no different from blanket statements that the USSR is all bad or USA is all good.

And I understand the methodology here, trying to use "cognitive dissonance" in order to stimulate reflection within a subject (the subject being a thinking person). Stimulating reflection and critical thought in people is the aim of socialist education, it is a precondition to unlearning views we have been "propagandized" to accept. These same tactics of flattening and abstracting a history in order to lead people to certain conclusions is exactly how we have been propagandized. But to just do it in reverse is wrongheaded. It shows that the propagandist hasn't developed a method of education beyond the bourgeois propaganda they are trying to unlearn. Using the same method of propaganda as an enemy with roles reversed isn't liberating, it is replacing one set of illusions for another set. Engels called it "unity of opposites" and it is shocking to hear people cite "Dialectical Materialism" still miss this.

Practically, this method of propaganda has mixed results. If the individual is moved to take action, and somehow resists falling into sectarianism, then the propaganda could have actually shaken loose the subject from their illusions. Through discussion and personal development they might overcome the propaganda and become critical thinkers rather than simple followers of an ideology. Unfortunately sects are usually pretty good at managing critical thought through social acceptance. Since people abandoning the status quo often find difficulty sharing their ideas in most places, the sect becomes the only place where a person can feel accepted, which if you've ever engaged in recruiting or onboarding into resistance actions, you know this feeling can be extremely powerful. Its always amazing to me how sectarians can be so close to myself in principle and imperative, but practically seethe with disdain if I mention where my own socialist education came from, or if they hear me frame an issue a certain way, or principally acriticize the bureaucracy of a country that receives uncritical support from the sect.

The most effective sectarian propaganda is always half-true. It sorts people into camps, there becomes a camp that stresses the truth in the propaganda, and a camp that stresses the lie. Both camps engage only in opposition to one another, deepening their differences, both moving further away from real conditions in the here and now as they dig in deeper to this or that idealist version of history.

A meme about gun control and education might stimulate discussion about how the USSR educated people from a young age how to handle arms and conceive of gun rights (I'm not an expert on this part of Soviet history, just extrapolating from what little meaning is actually contained in the meme); whereas in the USA, the discourse around 2A is so poisoned, practically no one can come to any agreement except the people who are 100% for and 100% against, even though both groups when surveyed, often show individual support for common sense reforms and especially education. Rather than provide even a glancing analysis of real conditions, or dig into any actual phenomenon, two distorted abstractions are placed next to each other so the viewer is sorted into their camp.

Fortunately for my point, this meme is clunky AF, and the dynamics within the discourse are easier to suss out because of it.

Ideas only exist in practice, and the presentation of these ideas have only led to catastrophe and disaster. Not to say, USSR bad or good or whatever, only that getting people to agree with you isnt revolutionary. Only the self aware, critical subject is capable of revolutionary praxis. Turning people or movements into objects to be "educated" or struggled against is just bourgeois idealism flying a socialist flag, which is no kind of socialism at all.