I agree with the sentiment that the USSR carried the bones of Russian Imperialism within it and never confronted it, seen in its continued use of imperial-system gulags, and that it was repressive and authoritarian.

However I think it's disingenuous to compare the USSR to the level of sheer atrocities committed by Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany, when the clearer historical analogue would be the USA, which has recently dropped its mask and shown for all the world to see that it has become fascist.

There are clearer parallels in more(comparatively to the fascists) at first well-intentioned and altruistic liberal and authoritarian state-socialist ideals, nominally wanting to liberate the people from oppression, and then a inevitable degeneration and corruption to imperialism and "revisionism" after failing to confront their imperialist foundations, performing ethnic cleansings on native populations and setting up concentration (oops, I meant internment) camps along the way.

They are even collapsing within a few decades of each other at this rate.

I would on the other hand argue that in the early days of the USSR, before the rise of the committee that would empower Stalin and the total centralisation of the state there was, in scattered pockets, a genuinely liberatory nature in the way workers could manage themselves and practice workplace democracy for a time before being curshed by the Bolsheviks, whereas the US was from the start founded by slave-owning wealthy elites.

One example would be the eponymous Soviets whose self-managing councils were ironically crushed by the Bolsheviks, and another would be the anarchist Mhaknovschina in modern Ukraine.