goatboy

The real conspiracy is communists have been playing both sides for the last 35 years. They continue to play both sides with their men and women on the inside. Nothing is going to change and they have us by the balls in ways few Americans are even capable of understanding, let alone talk about. The deepest secret of the Soviet Conspiracy is who and how high up the bureaucracy their people on the inside actually are. Retards on the left call it a red scare. Really though, its just good business to get very high level people in the enemy's camp and being scared has got nothing to do with it.

The problem most people don't seem to understand is its got nothing to do with US or Russia. Those are just operational head quarters (but head quarters move all the time). It is and has always been an ideological divide. The problem is figuring out ways to fund and supply one's own ideology, while denying that ability to the opposing ideology.

The opposing ideologies are between the belief that human race's destiny should follow a communal or socialist ideal or a competition through natural selection reality. The communal ideal is based in a world of what should be according to the highest aspirations of human hope. The competition centered reality is an historical and evolutionary experience.

Ultimately, they are both flawed because they both seek to become monopolistic systems and monopolies cannot survive over the long run.

Empire_of_the_mind

This is accurate into the 1960's/1970's but the ensuing decades have altered the discussion and the lines have clearly blurred. Really what you're talking about is the basis underpinning, which is consistent, rather than the desired outcome. "Communists" of the present-day would largely not oppose "competitive" elements in that a lesson was learned that people benefit from the ability to pursue things, work for them, and reap in the achievement. This would be allowed to occur within a framework of a greater good and be limited as such.

The pure "free market competitive" side has also adapted, pursuing a protectionist element to ensure the key institutions and power structures (too big to fail) maintain their position regardless of natural competitive outcomes.

goatboy

The thing that changed in the 60's/70's was Nikita Khrushchev's "Conquest without War" doctrine. So it should probably now be called the Khrushchevian Dialectic. It is still a deadly serious argument we're having- with millions murdered around the world- but it is now a subversive conflict rather than an overtly destructive one. However, I don't believe it will stay a subversive conflict forever. There is too much at stake and too much intransigence at the highest levels for there not to be a cataclysm.

Womb_Raider

What the fuck are you talking about

goatboy

The Hegelian Dialectic, but with world ending weapons.