Capitalism and communism, the two great enemies during the last half of the 20th century, challenged each other on three separate levels: economically, politically and militarily.

Supremacy, each side believed, demanded that the other capitulate unconditionally. Compromises that might have led to a merging of the two competing systems were out of the question. The differences at all levels between the two had been too great.

Communism, as represented by the Soviet Union, could not allow unfettered elections. Democracy and dictatorship cannot co-exist. Neither could communism allow a free-market mentality in its economic structure. Letting people profit from their own abilities would open the slippery slope to capitalism.

On the other hand, capitalism, as represented by the U.S., could not shackle its free elections without giving way to the slippery slope to dictatorial rule. Neither could capitalism overregulate its free-market economy without undercutting the creation of wealth necessary to support a vital and vibrant middle class.

During this period, the Cold War, the two opposing systems relied on conquest to extend their influence over the world. They could not face off on the battlefield. The prevailing military strategy of the time — mutually assured destruction, with the apt acronym MAD — postulated that each side have enough nuclear weapons in their arsenals to assure that, if war did break out, neither side would win. The collateral damage would have been civilization ceasing to exist.

So, except along the Berlin Wall in Germany and during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Soviet and U.S. forces did not face each other. Instead, they backed client states to extend their reach, such as in Angola. The Soviet Union, using Cuban troops, backed the Marxist government run by the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola. The U.S., along with South Africa, backed the opposition force, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola.

When the U.S. or the Soviets did insert their troops into conflicts that had become ideological battlefields — Vietnam for the U.S., Afghanistan for the Soviets — the results were disastrous.

The 50-year Cold War that occasionally turned hot began after the end of World War II, Bernard Baruch, an American financier and presidential adviser, evoked the phrase in an April 1947 speech to the South Carolina Legislature. The Cold War's companion phrase — "iron curtain" — gained public exposure from Winston Churchill during a March 1946 speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo.

The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union and its communist political and economic system withered away, although not quite in the way Karl Marx had envisioned. For many, that moment came in November 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell.

Never, in the sweep of history, has a nation so large simply ceased to be: One moment there and the next moment, poof. It showed the world that, despite its massive infrastructure ruled with a dictatorial hand and its ironclad rule over half the nation-states in Europe, the Soviet Union had no underpinnings. Everything about it lacked substance. It had bankrupted itself in every measure possible.

The West rejoiced. Capitalism had won. Democracy reigned. The mantra of triumph? The strategy of forcing the Soviets to spend more and more money in the pursuit of parity finally worked.

Yet, nations do not really disappear overnight, not even the Soviet Union. The seeds of decline take root long before troubles surface. Too often, nations caught up in their self-important agendas miss the signals.

For example, does the number of jobs in the U.S. that have been and will be outsourced to other nations reflect the best capitalism has to offer or merely an admission that paying decent wages and benefits to employees doesn't quite fit capitalism's profit motive?

Does funding the nation, including the war in Iraq, by borrowing $2.5 billion a day from abroad (China holds $1.3 trillion in U.S. debt) make good economic sense, or does it precipitate the economic failure of capitalism?

Does allowing tax breaks for the wealthy who purchase yachts, planes and recreational vehicles while cutting out a program that helps mentally ill homeless people break the costly cycle of jails, hospitalization and life on the streets truly fit the moral fiber and compassion of this supposedly "helping hand" nation?

Better to ask and answer these questions now and fix any faults the answers reveal before waking some morning and finding the U.S., like the Soviet Union, gone poof.

— Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor at The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@VenturaCountyStar.com.