You are wrong, in the ideological spectrum, the USSR represents socialism pursued ruthlessly. The intensity of that ruthlessness is exaggerated because the Soviets were not nearly as ruthless as some currently existing capitalist countries. The "oil monarchies" in the middle east make "Stalin look like an anarchist" on a regular basis. However in the ideological struggle the Soviet Union symbolizes the defeat of capitalists trying to use the logic of might makes right. The ultimate incarnation of that was the fascist invasions. Stalin offered peaceful coexistence to fascist-Germany before the war, and Hitler chose might makes right and he was destroyed because of that. Afterwards Stalin offered peaceful coexistence again and this time the offer was accepted.
In WW2 the most brutal faction of capital were defeated so thoroughly that it had a moderating effect on Capital as a hole. If you don't uphold the Soviet Union, you signal ideological capitulation to might makes right in "symbolic-space". And you saw what happened in Russia in the 1990s when they lost their conviction to negate might makes right of capital, they got neo-liberal shock-doctrine and 12 million people got wiped out in the market holocaust implemented by market fascists like Friedman and Thatcher.
Hard left brutality is not a ideological goal to aspire to by any means, but if that is not an option, you will get hard capital brutality instead. Historical progress (in the original meaning of improving living conditions for the "common man") is an ultimatum to rulers of all stripes that can be summed up thusly: "Let live or die."
We are seeing the beginning of hard capital brutality, all it took was a small to medium virus crisis, and the people-sacrificers came crawling out of the tarpits of hell with "Sorry but grandma has to die for profits" And they won't stop trying to sacrifice people in response to crisis until they are the sacrifice.