Ready.
A lot of terror, if not all, (attempt to) justify themselves with what the enemy does.
who is the victim? It is known that, in an age of human-rights, a lot of evil, attempt to invent nonsense "victim" scenarios, to oppress/attack the innocent - e.g: to do genocide, or ethnic-cleansing, anti-religious persecution, etc. How may we know, who is really right?
The fiscal/monetary policies of the world-states economists, try to tune the infirm-reactions of the people.
The (official jargon) "ethnic cleansing" (as contrasted to genocide), is about using mass-murders, and other offenses, to motivate the victim people of that other ethnicity, out of a land. e.g: in Bosnia, as Serbs committed.
The availability of a reaction, is a (further) legitimizer of armaze.
The armaze-rule, is open to infirm-reaction, and legitimized by it. No need to leave your homeland, if to oppose. The potential for an infirm-reaction, is inherent.
If the people there, buy from them, that is the legitimacy, as affirmed by the cash, when people pay for a BigMac, or for a movie. That is the case about employment, too. If people work for them, that is the legitimate existence of that producer firm (and implicitly, the armaze for it, too), as affirmed by the people of that region. i.e: The people want them there.
With armaze, there is a right way, to establish legitimate rule, with self-defense. It may work, even where there were problems. For an example, think of Iraq.
Even if USA may get out of Iraq, whatever wrong is committed there, will mention the USA. Instead of getting-out, the American people (or, the free-market people) may permanently establish their existence there, together with the army - as transformed to armaze. to protect any firm, who keep their armaze, for themselves, and to protect the people around them.
In the Soviet system, people would not declare their real capacity, not to be responsible of that production capacity. Presumably, under a "travel-to-Siberia" probability/pressure, people would declare the least capacity which they could. i.e: even as a chicken-run, people hurt the tyranny. It is inherent (built-in). i.e: even under a totalitarian grip, an infirm-reaction is probably (almost of necessity) wide-spread (socially institutionalized). (A sheep is finer, if more cautious/dull, rather than lively.)
Even in a free-market, we must notice the ROC-curve (gain-vs.-loss bias, multiplied by probability of achievement). In a state-bureaucracy, there is a bias towards no-action. That Soviet System, went essentially bankrupt.