The Russian revolution and the industrialization project that followed in half of the world - not perfect but much better than capitalist alternatives, not to mention of the status quo. Not a trivial feat - the pie-in-the-sky populists and capitalists detractors notwithstanding. The Soviet planned economy was a huge success, given what it tried to accomplish - i.e. to modernize backward economies in a half of the world without trampling the masses of laborers into mud while making a few rich. There was a social cost, some of it avoidable some of it not - but I would argue that this cost was much lower than that of capitalist development in England or the US, when we add non-white populations of Africa, America and Asia to the equation.
And that the USSR did not "bury" the US? Why should such a foolish macho boasting be treated as a criterion? A better way to portray the "cold war" was a race between an athlete on a bicycle and a handicapped person on a wheel chair. Obviously, the guy on a bike finished ahead the guy on a wheel chair - but the guy on the wheel chair made it to the finish line, and that is a huge success. He accomplished that success thanks to his wheel chair. Without it, i.e. had he tried to ride a bike or go on foot instead he would not have gotten very far.
Then there is the popularity of Marxism all over the world - do you think that the plight of pampered (by global standards) German or US workers losing their a part of pensions will capture the world's imagination to the same degree?
Wojtek