Yes, but then a lot of intellectuals and establishment figures, in the US as in Europe, were resistant to the ideological hostility to the Stalinist bloc - not meaning that they identified with it, but that they knew that the realities on the ground were not favourable to capitalist restoration in the East.
Churchill was once asked whether it was a wise policy to back the communists in Yugoslavia. 'After the war, do you plan to live in Yugoslavia?' he asked his questioner. 'Neither do I, so we had better leave them to choose their own system'.
The facts were that the British nor the Americans had the resources to build up capitalism in the East, so they had to deal with the military-bureaucratic regimes there. Indeed to the extent that Stalin's Cominform favoured stabilisation it was a useful ally to the US and Britain. After all the Soviet Union sabotaged people's resistance against the right wing militias in Greece, and stonewalled the Algerian FLN when they sought help, and local Communist parties were a conservative constraint on anti-imperialist and radical movements in northern Ireland, Portugal and Italy.
Anyone who remembers the role that the Communist Parties played in the British labour movement will know that they were the most vicious opponents of direct action, as they were proponents of white's first policies in Algeria, and later in France. The persistence of the Soviet bloc was a painful irritant to Cold War ideologists, but local Stalinist regimes had a lot in common with western elites, not least their intuitive fear of political grassroots change.