Hi Anand,
thank you for your interest.
The causes for the collapse of the Soviet Union are obviously multiple and complex but they include the fact that the Soviet Union was the first socialist state (which the capitalists will never forgive Russia for, as can be seen in their ongoing hostility to Russia), that, impoverished, it was surrounded from the outset by a hostile and invading West, that the arms race was a drain it could not maintain and, in my view, it was the price paid for ‘overleaping’ the bourgeois stage of development (the Chinese have learnt from this).
But again, fundamentally it is not a matter of what people like or don’t like, it is the working of objective reality and its necessity, and of understanding this.
That a system we know as ‘capitalism’ grew from another system we know as ‘feudalism’ was necessary, as the productive forces developed. Likewise, and for the same reason, capitalism will be replaced by another known as ‘socialism.’
Invasion, drone technology, black ops, psy ops and internet monitoring etc. can delay this as long as possible (again, that is the working of objective reality), but nothing can stop it. Consciousness is secondary to/the product of objective reality.
On your second point, the dominant mystical theory in the West (Neoplatonism) is a theory of knowledge and that theory, having been turned by Marx from ‘standing on its head’ to its material feet became the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism.
At a time when there has been so much disillusion with Marxism and the ‘possibility’ of socialism (a mainly manufactured disillusion), this whole current needs to be reconsidered because after Marx, it is the epistemology of the future, because of the immense and ongoing contribution of mysticism to all aspects of culture which should be acknowledged and discussed openly, not denied and treated like pornography as academic philosophers do to it, and because by examining both its potential and shortfalls (particularly its teleology – one reason I am not a Marxist) embodied in Marxist theory, the theory now known as dialectical materialism can be further developed.
My blog is to argue for the living significance of mysticism in the West, for its relationship with materialism and for the entirety of that current’s reconsideration because of its importance.
Best regards,
Phil
materialism, mysticism and art 
Phil, thank you for sharing your insight. Have you ever been to the USSR?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Inese,
thank you for your comment and question.
Yes, In 1980 I travelled to Moscow on the trans-Siberian, stopping off at several points, and loved it. Why do you ask?
I just did a search on your blog and found out that you are a brilliant musician with a strong appreciation of Russian music – could this have to do with your question?
Best wishes,
Phil
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phil, thank you for reading my blog! 🙂 I asked because I used to be very interested in “Russian” mysticism – I have read all the works of Helena Blavatsky, and also of Agni yoga adept Nikolai Roerich. I have never come across the information that Lenin was interested in mysticism. In my opinion, Marxism-Leninism philosophy, as they call it, is very different from any mystic, and is a blissfully constructed aggressive and oppressive ideology. It is almost perfect 🙂 The only “mystery” about it is how people so easy get brainwashed. Propaganda machine based on this philosophy is a hundred years old and still has no equal in the world.
I thought you have lived in Russia. I have lived in Moscow in the 1970 🙂 Good, fun memories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Inese,
thank you for your very interesting and honest reply and for reading my blog.
Marxist epistemology was built on Hegel’s mystical philosophy, which Marx acknowledged in Capital: ‘I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker…The mystification which the dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general forms of motion in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be inverted, in order to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.’ Capital, vol. 1, Postface to the Second Edition 1873, Penguin, London, 1982, 103.
That mystical theory of knowledge (the knowledge of God) was not static but underwent development from Plotinus right up to Hegel who, himself drawing on multiple influences (a common practice in mysticism), took it to new heights.
Marx then took it further by ‘inverting’ Hegel’s great structure and standing it on its material feet. What Hegel theorised about the world within, Marx applied to the world without.
For Marx (and for me – I am not a Marxist), ‘matter’ (objective reality), not consciousness is primary.
The main purpose of my blog is to argue, through a mix of posts intended to exemplify the theoretical interconnections between mysticism and dialectical materialism and the development from the former to the latter, for an awareness, appreciation and a thorough review of the entirety of this current – particularly the work of Marx in relation to that of Hegel because I think, as dialectical materialism, it is the only philosophical current that can truly reflect the world in thought, in its poetry and creativity, and be our epistemological tool in relating with it – on the basis of praxis.
What had been mechanical materialism became, post the ‘inversion’ and absorption of mystical epistemology, dialectical materialism. This in turn requires further development, despite the death rites that the well-paid agents of capital keep giving it.
Best wishes,
Phil
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Phil! I had no idea. Have to read Marx 🙂
I too believe that Matter is primary – I believe that Spirit is Matter.
Thank you again for your reply!
Best wishes,
Inese
LikeLiked by 1 person