sadly, your remarks are very shallow when studying geopolitics and crypto economy. whether one system being more superior or not is question to be answered once both systems eventually fail
The ends don't justify the means. The problem with such grand schemes such as Marxism is that people are expected to die or live terrible lives for the open-ended promise of some utopian future. Wasn't that Hegelian dialectic pseudo-intellectual fluff around since the early 1800s? What I would like to know is, how have the Russians adapted their politics to take into account 20th century advances in philosophy and sciences? Discussion of "Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis" sounds very Freudian when compared to Chaos theory, or the works of Einstein, Goedel, and Turing.
- its a long-term answer. after the ww2 the west decided to live using the ponzi scheme system on futures' wealth - the wealth that dont exist yet. obviously from the prospective of a person this system is superior because its generating better living conditions in short period of time, but the downfall of that system is that there will be a day when house of cards comes down stripping all the wealth away from other generations down the line.
Sounds like you've been reading Zero Hedge. They're just a mix of satire, dis-info, and thinly disguised American frustration with the EU. Incidentally, they're also evidence that the EU states are not puppets of the US, or at least they're asserting their independence.
the soviet economical system is much harder to build since there is no non-existent wealth around - the wealth is only what physically exist.
Could you explain how this non-existent futures wealth is meant to work? I'm always enthusiastic about getting more wealth from nothing.
so by the end of 70s soviets managed to achieve very high standard living.
Which Soviets?
Coincidentally, the Soviet satellite states were slowly going bankrupt. The People's Republic of Poland was probably in the worst state where underground political opposition, disguised as a "worker's union" gained 10 million members, and by 1981 the authorities instituted marshal law to show the Soviet Union that everything was safe and under control, and there was no need to send any helpful peacekeepers who were performing unrelated military exercises near the eastern borders.
give them 30-40 more years of non-interruptive development and they could have extremely stable non-crashing system with high quality of living that could last for centuries. though with arrival of gorbachev (& his masonic overlords) it all got dismantled from top to bottom.
Undoubtedly there would have plenty of coordination around 1989 to organise the relatively peaceful coups, but do you really think all those millions of people would have agreed and participated if they hadn't been desperate and starving after decades of Soviet rule? And do you really think the communist rulers would have stood by and allowed democratic opposition to take over, if they believed they could win? With all due respect, your claim of a 30-40 year continuation sounds like a fantasy. Maybe Moscow was doing OK, but that's because they were stealing.