[Laaw]

Socialism in the USSR was actual socialism (the government owned the companies, dictated exact salaries, completely regulated supply, etc), whereas in the US the government goes through all kinds of steps to determine which private company (non-profits) gets funding to perform the tasks.

The difference, in principle, is a spectrum, with actual socialism on one end, and US social programs (not socialism) on the other.

[awt]

Would you say that control of currency was centralized in both the USSR and the US?

Would you also say that there is a degree of central planning in both the US economy, and that of the former USSR?

Would you also say that forced reallocation of resources occurs in the US economy, and occurred in that of the former USSR?

[Laaw]

Yes, the USSR and the US had/have central banks.

Yes, "degree of control" is not at question, it's the "degree" itself that's at question. The USSR had a much higher degree of central planning for the USSR's economy than the US does. This question is worded explicitly to draw a parallel when there is none, another example of which would be, "Do both Obama and Stalin read books?"

Yes, but again, this question is not about a boolean yes/no, but rather the degree to which it happens. There's also a strong question of what "forced" means in this context. Does the US force resource allocation to the growth of corn? No. Does the US encourage the growth of corn in the form of subsidies? Yes. The USSR simply would have started growing corn, as the agriculture business was directly under the control of the government, whereas the US has no mechanisms to legally force farmers to grow crops of any kind.