That's true, but also a big difference there being how the USSR had democratic centralism to enforce their constitution, which is mandate from below, and discipline from above. So if you didn't assure people's rights, and followed the rules, then you were fired or possibly prosecuted for criminal corruption.

So that's sort of why the Soviet constitution was such a powerful document, and was able to guarantee amazing things like housing for all and cultural works.

RT made a really cool documentary about it actually:

https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/504924-ussr-black-racism-treatment/

In liberal countries however the benchmark for personal freedoms begins with authority. Freedom for the boss, freedom for the landlord, freedom for the bureaucrat, freedom for the statesman.

Holding them accountable is what is admonished as tyranny by hucksters like Robert Conquest, but of course in the Soviet Union it was the other way around, the benchmark was freedom for the worker, freedom for the peasant, freedom for the disabled, and so on.

As for change, I believe change happens through the process of empiricism. This is how the Christians took Rome, and how Castro took Havana. By implementing real and tangible results for the people. By feeding the hungry, by teaching the illiterate, by healing the sick. Time and again in history, in every continent across the world, this has been the strongest force of change.

The People's Republic of China started in a small sorority house basement with around 50 people. But as they went out into the mountains and helped the peasants, as they distributed books, and culture, and taught the peasants that they had dignity and deserved justice, that they did not have to live in terrible feudalism. When they permitted women to participate as equals, 50 men suddenly became 500.000.