How do we know? A scientific theory of knowledge

[heusdens]

Marxism against Machism as the Philosophy of Lifeless Reaction [part 5]

Hegel was to blame for all this, with his pernicious influence on Marx and Engels, which was then passed on, like an infection, to their disciples — to Kautsky, Plekhanov and Mehring. And Berman sincerely wonders, 'Why is a revolutionary attracted to the "trinkets of Hegelian verbiage", when there is such clear, "genuinely scientific" thinking as the thought of Ernst Mach?' It is with Mach's guidance that a revolutionise must rid himself of the illness of Hegelian dialectics, of the anaemia of dialectical categories. 'No matter what was said by Messrs. Plekhanov, Mehring and others, no matter how passionately they assured us that we would find in the works of Hegel, Marx and Engels all the information necessary for the resolution of our doubts in the field of philosophical thought; that, moreover, everything that has been done after them is eclectic nonsense or, in the best instance, only a more or less successful paraphrase of the philosophical ideas of Hegel, we cannot and should not cut ourselves off with a Chinese wall from all the attempts to illuminate the basic problems of thought in a way other than Marx and Engels had done.' [Berman, Y., Dialectics in the Light of the Modern Theory of Knowledge, pp. 135-136.]

In the field of scientific thinking we must equal the method of thinking which Ernst Mach uses in his field (in physics) and explains in a popular way (this he does as a philosopher). Such was the conclusion and sincere conviction not only of Berman, but Bogdanov and Lunacharsky. 'The philosophy of Mach expresses the most progressive tendencies in one of the two basic areas of scientific cognition in the field of the natural sciences. The philosophy of Mach is the philosophy of contemporary natural Berman, Y., Dialectics in the Light of the Modern Theory of Knowledge, Moscow, 1908, pp. 5-6.

science', writes A. Bogdanov in his introductory article to the book, The Analysis of Sensations, by E. Mach. The Mensheviks come to the same conclusion, despite the opinion of their leader Plekhanov who was also infected by the antiquated 'Hegelianism'. Therefore, in the realm of philosophy it was expedient to immediately form a pact with them. It was both possible and necessary to write a collective work 'on the philosophy of Marxism' with them — with Valentinov, Yushkevich and others. It was possible and necessary, as the fundamental task of this collective work, to discredit dialectics, which was preventing people from assimilating 'the most revolutionary' method of thinking of Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius. They, and not Marx and Engels, should become the classical philosophers of revolutionary Social-Democracy, of revolutionary Marxism.

Such were the basic spirit and fundamental idea of this 'collective work', of the book Essays in the Philosophy of Marxism; such was the basic thought which united this authors' collective of ill repute. For Bogdanov, Berman and Lunacharsky, the objective reality of the 'external world' was a matter of little consequence, little interest, and little importance. In any case, 'in the interests of the Social-Democracy and contemporary science', it was generally possible to pay no attention to it, to brush it aside. Was the discussion really about 'objective Reality'? Could the argument really be about whether or not the sun and stars actually exist? The argument centred on a much more important question: about which method of thinking revolutionary democracy in Russia would henceforth profess — the method of the Marxists, derived from the 'Hegelian', or the 'scientific' method, derived from Mach.

And as to whether the sun and stars actually exist, and even more so, just as we see them — as shining dots on the black dome of the sky — in the final analysis what difference does it make? We can even agree that the stars, as we see them, are simply complexes of our visual sensations, projected by our imagination on a screen of celestial space. It makes no difference whatsoever: we will see theft just as before. But then we would at last be thinking about them 'scientifically'. And not only about them, i.e., in natural science, but also in the field of the social sciences, political economy, law and politics.

Such was the logic which led the Russian empirio-critics Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacharsky and Berman, along with Valentinov and Yushkevich to the positions which they outlined as a joint philosophical platform in the Essays in the Philosophy of Marxism.

And all this was under conditions when the issue of particular importance was a clear and distinct orientation of theoretical thinking, which is given by the materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels. Lenin was able to use it, understanding perfectly well that the one scientific — dialectical — logic of theoretical thought demands first of all an absolutely precise and strict analysis of the contradictions which had matured in Russia. In all their objectivity. And then the working out of the most skilful means of their resolution, means which are absolutely concrete.

But Mach and the Machists taught people to look upon all contradictions (as well as all the other categories connected with contradiction, especially negation) as simply a state of discomfort and conflict within the organism (or brain), as a purely subjective state which the organism wants to escape from as soon as possible, in order to find physical and spiritual 'equilibrium'.

Could it have been possible to invent something more counterposed to Marxist dialectics and more hostile to it than such an understanding of contradiction? But this was precisely the understanding taught not only by Mach and Avenarius, but by Bogdanov and Berman.

Here is how Berman explained the problem of contradiction. During the process of an organism's adaptation to surroundings, inside the organism there sometimes arise strivings in opposite directions; a conflict arises between the two ideas and, consequently, between the utterances which express them. According to Berman, contradiction is a situation in which speech collides against speech, the spoken word against spoken word, and nothing else. This situation occurs only in speech, and any other understanding of contradiction is, he says, anthropomorphism of the purest water, or the 'ontologisation' of a strictly linguistic phenomenon. 'Undoubtedly', writes Berman, ' "identity", "contradiction", and "negation", designate nothing more than processes taking place solely in the realms of ideas, abstractions and thinking, but by no means in things . . .

The relationship of conflict between two psychophysiological states of the organism, expressed in speech — this is what contradiction is for Berman. And this is the general position of all Machists. They found completely unacceptable the position of materialist dialectics about the objectivity of contradiction, as the identity of opposites, or as the meeting point of extremes in which these opposites pass into each other. All these elements of Marxist logic appeared to them to be the pernicious verbal garbage of 'Hegelianism', — and nothing more. The logic of contemporary scientific thinking had to be thoroughly cleansed of any similar 'verbal garbage', which first of all required that they prove the 'non-scientific nature' of the principle of the identity of opposites. This the Russian Machists zealously set out to do.

For them, this principle of the identity of opposites was the sophists' way of turning scientific concepts inside out. Scientific concepts, insofar as they are scientific, are subordinated in the strictest manner to the principle of identity: A= A. 'To declare contradiction to be a fundamental principle of thinking, just as lawful as the principle which is its opposite, is the equivalent therefore to an act of spiritual suicide, to a renunciation of thinking . . .' [Berman, Y., Dialectics in the Light of the Modern Theory of Knowledge, p. 164.] Berman stated in summarising his reasoning on this subject.

Such is the orientation of the Machists — to forbid the comprehension of objective contradictions. And this ban — in the name of 'modern science' — was imposed on thinking at precisely the moment when such comprehension was particularly necessary. Materialist dialectics orientated scientific thinking toward a concrete analysis of the country's class contradictions in all their objectivity. But the Machist understanding of scientific thinking in actual fact, even if despite the will of some of its adherents, led to a renunciation of the comprehension of these contradictions. This was the inevitable consequence of the sharply negative attitude of the Machists toward dialectics.

But in order to ground their particular understanding of thinking, they needed a corresponding philosophical base. Materialism, and the dialectic indissolubly connected with it, didn't suit them at all. As the basis for their 'scientific method' they had to introduce something else — empirio-criticism.

Science (the scientific understanding of reality), according to this philosophy, is a system of pronouncements combining into one non-contradictory complex of elements of 'our experience' and sensation. The non-contradictory complex of symbols, bound together in accord with the requirements and prohibitions of formal logic. These requirements and prohibitions, in the opinion of the Machists, reflect nothing in objective reality. They quite simply are the requirements and norms of working with symbols, and logic is the accumulation of the methods of this work. Logic, therefore, is a science which reflects nothing in objective reality, but which simply gives a sum of rules regulating the work with symbols of any type.

 

[heusdens]

Marxism against Machism as the Philosophy of Lifeless Reaction [part 6]

Work with symbols. In the name of what? What end does this work pursue? Where do its norms come from? The Machists also have a ready answer to this. 'If the norms of law have as their goal the upholding and preservation of a given socioeconomic structure, then the norms of thought must have as their final goal the adaptation of the organism to its surroundings.' [Berman, Y., Dialectics in the Light of the Modern Theory of Knowledge, p. 137.]

From the requirements of the organism (i.e. from the requirements of man interpreted in an entirely biological way) the Machists derive their understanding of thought. From the need of equilibrium, from the supposedly innate need to eliminate all contradictions of any type. 'Of course, thinking which is absolutely free from contradictions is only an ideal to which we must come as close as possible; but the fact that we have been very far from this, both in past thought as well as in the present, by no means signifies that we should turn away from the struggle with contradiction . . .' [ibid, p.165]

Thinking, as well as all the other psychical functions of man, is directly explained here as an activity directed toward the preservation of equilibrium (or the restoration of destroyed equilibrium) as the immanent goal located in the organism of every individual.

'Every organism is a dynamic system of physico-chemical processes, i.e. a system in which the separate processes support each other in a state of equilibrium.' [ibid., p.97.] Equilibrium, understood as the absence of any states of conflict whatsoever within the organism, proves here to be the supreme principle of thinking, of logic as a system of rules, the observance of which guarantees the achievement of this goal. The goal is to reach a state where the organism feels no needs whatsoever, but exists in a steady state of rest and immobility.

It is easy to see how unfit for the thinking of a revolutionise the logic is which is derived from such an understanding of thought. This logic made any mind which was subordinated to it absolutely blind with regard to the contradictions of reality standing before it; blind to the contradictions of the most realistic facts in the sphere of material (economic) relations between classes. This logic blinded the mind with regard to the very essence of the revolutionary crisis which had matured in the land, in the system of relations between people.

The materialist dialectic of Marx directed the thinking of the revolutionise toward an analysis of these contradictory relations. The idealist metaphysics of Mach turned his attention away from such an analysis.

Lenin clearly saw that a revolutionise who had adopted such a logic of thought would inevitably be transformed from a revolutionise into some kind of capricious creature ignoring the real contradictions of life and trying to foist his own arbitrary will upon it. He therefore began to explain to Bogdanov, Lunacharsky and all their co-thinkers the nature of the philosophy to which they had fallen prisoner, and the terrible nature of the infection which had entered their brains. He had to explain this not only

to them, but to the whole party and to all those worker-revolutionists who had been imprudent enough to believe the scientific authority of Bogdanov, Bazarov, Berman and Lunacharsky. He had to decisively rescue them from this pestilence, impede the further dissemination of the Machist infection and at the same time cut short the Menshevik slander that Machism had been adopted by the Bolsheviks as their philosophical ideology, that Machism was the logic of Bolshevism, and consequently the root of its departure from the traditions of the Second International and the source of its break with Plekhanov.

Lenin declared firmly and clearly: the philosophical banner of Bolshevism was and remains materialist (yes, materialist, and not Hegelian!) dialectics,. the dialectics of Marx and Engels.

Mach's scheme of thinking is the scheme (logic) of thinking of an empiricist in principle who is trying to turn the peculiarities of an historically limited mode of thinking into a universal definition of thinking in general. This scheme corresponds as much as possible to the frame of mind of the petty-bourgeois philistine who is alarmed by the revolution and concerned with one thing — how to preserve the equilibrium inside his little universe or how to restore this equilibrium if it has been upset, how to restore his lost comfort, both material and spiritual, by eliminating from it all the contradictory elements. By any means and at any price.

It is a catastrophe if the scheme of this thinking penetrates the mind of a revolutionise and begins to be his guide. The philistine who has finally lost his equilibrium then becomes transformed into an enraged petty-bourgeois, into a 'pseudo-left', while the revolutionise who has become like him turns into the leader of such 'lefts'. Or, having lost his balance, he begins to look for a way out not in a 'r-r-revolutionary' frenzy, but in the quiet lunacy of religious seekings, in the search for a kind little god.

Bogdanov, for instance, was (very sincerely) a man of indomitable revolutionary will, which was both unbending and irreconcilable. But this energy was always looking for an outlet which was a bit more direct and straightforward. He never wanted to recognise any detours to his goal, and he wasn't able to seek them out. Once he had seen in Mach's schemes of thinking the 'philosophical confirmation' of the correctness of these positions, he began to think and act in their spirit in an ever more convinced and consistent way. And this rapidly led him away from Lenin, from Bolshevism, and from the conscious acceptance of materialist dialectics.

Another pole within Russian Machism was Lunacharsky. This highly educated intellectual and humanist possessed a character that was much softer than Bogdanov's; he had a much less iron-like will. He was much more inclined to making declamations on a moral-ethical plane, or to constructing ideals, and he found in Machism the philosophical justification of precisely this weakness. He ardently began to seek and build 'an earthly revolutionary equivalent to God'. But the searches for a god on this Earth were no more fruitful than the searches for him in heaven, and Lenin tried to explain this.

Mother-history, who is the true mother of philosophical, political and all other ideas, confirmed the correctness of Lenin and showed the incorrectness of his opponents. And she continues her confirmation.

History, as Hegel often used to say, is a truly terrifying judge. A judge who in the final analysis makes no mistakes, as opposed to many other judges and courts of law. But here she has already passed her sentence, which is final and subject to no appeal. Lenin proved to be correct, and Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacharsky, and Berman were incorrect. After Lenin's book, no one among the Bolshevik ranks dared to openly declare and defend his Machist frame of mind.

There were, it is true, those who sympathised with Mach and Bogdanov, but now they had to do this in silence. And Bogdanov, who wasn't able or willing to investigate theoretically the interconnections of the material (economic) contradictions within the country (interconnections which were moreover very dynamic), finally became muddled in politics as well.

When he had finally become convinced that he was helpless in politics, Bogdanov devoted himself to that which he understood, to biology, medicine, and the life of a physician. He died in 1928 while conducting a risky medical experiment with his own blood. A long obituary was published about him along with his portrait in the journal Under the Banner of Marxism, treating him as a hero of medicine and as a man of crystalline purity.

But his disciples who accepted his views as 'genuine scientific philosophy' turned to experiments far from the medical field. These were the vagaries of the Proletcult in art. These were the risky experiments in the country's economics during the 1920s, which were based on the mechanical 'theory of equilibrium', directly descended from Avenarius and Mach.

Lenin, of course, did not and could not foresee all this in all its concreteness at that time. But he clearly saw that great misfortunes were concealed in Machism for revolutionaries and for the revolution itself.

The objection can be made: isn't this somewhat of an idealist over-estimation of the strength and power of philosophy in general, and not only the philosophy of Mach?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
You mean people with genetic (physical/mental) deficits?

To provide them a living, based on their real needs, and demanding them an effort or contribution to society that reflects their (dis)abilities. Like for anyone else.

No. Say, one guy is active and likes capitalistic freedoms and is ready to accept risk of losses. Another one is much less active and likes social securities more and don't like to lose anything. He agrees not have opportunities of economic freedom and wants just to stay fed and sheltered. What shall then ideal government do to make both happy? What law can cover diversities of human abilities and desires?

Say, there is plenty of debates currently in Russia about which way should the country go - capitalistic, socialistic, anarchistic, stalinistic, nationalistic, left, right, east, west, south, up, down, forward, backward... etc? And there is NO consesnsus - just because different people want DIFFERENT kind of society.

What shall Putin do then? What would you do to make everybody happy?

 

[heusdens]

Marxism against Machism as the Philosophy of Lifeless Reaction [part 7]

Of course, the thinking of people is formed first of all not by teachers and philosophers, but by the real conditions of their lives.

As Fichte said, the kind of philosophy you choose depends upon the type of person you are. Everyone is attracted to a philosophy which corresponds to the already formed image of his own thinking. He finds in it a mirror which fully presents everything that earlier existed in the form of a vague tendency, an indistinctly expressed allusion. A philosophical system arms the thinking (consciousness) of the individual with self-consciousness, i.e. with a critical look at oneself as if it were from the side, or from the point of view of the experience common to all mankind, of the experience of the history of thinking.

Within the bounds of the experience which Bogdanov and his co-thinkers possessed, no room could be found for a subject such as a country which was involved in the process of capitalist development, in a process which had deposited its own, new and specific, contradictions of development on the old, well-known and still unresolved contradictions of before. The mind which had been formed on an analysis of particular scientific and technical problems, and which had been directed toward the resolution of these problems, gave up and was lost before the picture that was so complex, extremely differentiated, and yet unified.

In particular, this was patently revealed when the problem on the agenda was the drawing of the lessons from the defeat of the Revolution of 1905-1907. In order to draw the true lessons of the defeat — and only those could be useful for the future — what was most of all needed was the strictest theoretical analysis of the course of the revolution, beginning with its causes and ending with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the classes which had collided in this revolution. An analysis was required which was absolutely sober, absolutely objective, and which was made, besides, in the interests of the revolution. The materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels was directed precisely at such an analysis-, demanded it unconditionally, and armed one's thinking with the corresponding logic.

The heads of the future Machists were not prepared to carry out such a task. They then began to search for some kind of instrument which was a bit more simple and a 'bit more effective'. Machism was precisely suited for such ends.

When the revolution had been drowned in blood, the demand for Machist philosophy grew much stronger. Of course, not only Machist philosophy was in demand. So were open mysticism, and pornography. Times of reaction are very difficult for one's mental health. The disappointment of revolutionary hopes is a terrible thing.

The hopes for progress and for democratic transformation begin to appear to be impossible illusions of ideals which are alluring but which can never be realized in the real world, The heroes of 1905 who tried to bring them into being 'here and now' seem to be naive utopians or, even worse, self-sufficient adventurists ...

And so, as he thought about the future, Bogdanov wrote a science fiction novel which deals with socialism.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
No. Say, one guy is active and likes capitalistic freedoms and is ready to accept risk of losses. Another one is much less active and likes social securities more and don't like to lose anything. He agrees not have opportunities of economic freedom and wants just to stay fed and sheltered. What shall then ideal government do to make both happy? What law can cover diversities of human abilities and desires?

Say, there is plenty of debates currently in Russia about which way should the country go - capitalistic, socialistic, anarchistic, stalinistic, nationalistic, left, right, east, west, south, up, down, forward, backward... etc? And there is NO consesnsus - just because different people want DIFFERENT kind of society.

What shall Putin do then? What would you do to make everybody happy?

Where do you think these differences come from?

The fact is of course, most societies are class dominated societies, in which the domination of one class over another one, during centuries, have determined also peoples behaviour and thought.

Currently in Russia, after the collapse and downfall of socialism and the Soviet-Union, old bourgois classes are being reinstalled, and dominate russian politics and economy.

What Putin can do and can not do, is not a question to me, I don't regard Putin (which was installed by Yeltsin there in the Kremlin as his follower) as a political leader that can alter the course of history, and moreover he has to deal with the foreign forces that govern part of russia's economy (IMF politics, for instance), and therefore is very limited.

What can be done and should be done, is trying to control parts of the economy again (have them pay taxations would be a major goal), and try to invest money in healthcare, education and restoration of the economy.
And since that isn't done, the opposite will happen: the economy (the bourgois class, dominating most factories and economic power) will ultimately dictate the politics, as in most other capitalist countries.

There is only one way out of this, and that is a revival of the power of the proletarian class, reviving the class-truggle, under leadership of a proletarian, marxist-leninist party.

Not only in Russia, but in most other capitalist countries too.

Back to socialism again, as soon as possible!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heusdens
Back to socialism again, as soon as possible!

Sorry, I haven't read this thread, but I can't pass this one up:

You can't go back to something that hasn't and can't ever exist.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens


...And since that isn't done, the opposite will happen: the economy (the bourgois class, dominating most factories and economic power) will ultimately dictate the politics, as in most other capitalist countries.

There is only one way out of this, and that is a revival of the power of the proletarian class, reviving the class-truggle, under leadership of a proletarian, marxist-leninist party.

Not only in Russia, but in most other capitalist countries too.

Back to socialism again, as soon as possible!

That indeed is correct - new rich 10% russians dictate others what is good and what is moral (money), but the rest 90% who are not rich don't think this way. They see downside of power of money (corruption, brutal elimination of compition and of "soft" politicians, illegal drugs, declining social and individual morality, declining (for these 90%) quality of life, declining respect for education/ culture/ traditions, etc) and they feel that "gee - is THIS what is democracy about? then we don't like it. May be better get back to Stalin or Brejnev then?" Brejnev times (1965-83) are now referred to as best times in Russia history by practically all parameters.

But the problem is that we already BEEN there (with Stalin-type order and Brejnev-type stagnation) and we did not like that (at least THEN) either.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, I haven't read this thread, but I can't pass this one up:

You can't go back to something that hasn't and can't ever exist.

Socialism as a societal system with state ownership of means of production was existing in the Soviet-Union. The way it ws done in the Soviet-Union might not be the only way, but at least it worked under those circumstances.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
That indeed is correct - new rich 10% russians dictate others what is good and what is moral (money), but the rest 90% who are not rich don't think this way. They see downside of power of money (corruption, brutal elimination of compition and of "soft" politicians, illegal drugs, declining social and individual morality, declining (for these 90%) quality of life, declining respect for education/ culture/ traditions, etc) and they feel that "gee - is THIS what is democracy about? then we don't like it. May be better get back to Stalin or Brejnev then?" Brejnev times (1965-83) are now referred to as best times in Russia history by practically all parameters.

But the problem is that we already BEEN there (with Stalin-type order and Brejnev-type stagnation) and we did not like that (at least THEN) either.

Mankind learns by trial and error. The people (not all people but at least large portions of it) in Russia thought that when they would break down socialism and install capitalism, that wealth would soon be produced by everybody.

At the time the people could have thought, that socialism was not their own choice, and that something better would be possible.
Now they realize, this brought them big tragedy and poverty for the masses, and that 'capitalism' only works for the small minority.

To go 'back' to socialism (well, there is no way to reinstall socialism as it was then, in all cases this would be a new kind of socialism, supposedly more developped) then, will at least involve a more conscious choice of the people.

We will see where history ends, but I think it is clear, that even if socialism is not perfect, it has major and fundamental advantages for the masses of people over any form of capitalism.

And not just in Russia of course!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heusdens
Socialism as a societal system with state ownership of means of production was existing in the Soviet-Union. The way it ws done in the Soviet-Union might not be the only way, but at least it worked under those circumstances.

Heh. The Soviet Union most certainly did NOT work. It survived on its natural resources alone and had no functioning economy. It was a complete and utter failure which will take Russia DECADES to recover from.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Heh. The Soviet Union most certainly did NOT work. It survived on its natural resources alone and had no functioning economy. It was a complete and utter failure which will take Russia DECADES to recover from.

It did work and it worked at least much better then it works now.
The oil industry and all other major sectors have been running down since. The spaceprogram has had to be partly abandoned.
The current capitalist economy is only still working because of the infrastructure developed under communism. But the econonomy now will further fall apart, until it falls apart completely.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heusdens
It did work and it worked at least much better then it works now.
The oil industry and all other major sectors have been running down since. The spaceprogram has had to be partly abandoned.
The current capitalist economy is only still working because of the infrastructure developed under communism. But the econonomy now will further fall apart, until it falls apart completely.

The Soviet economy DID fall apart completely. Thats why the USSR dissolved - they were bankrupt. The economy is now growing again. Check some GDP numbers.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Heh. The Soviet Union most certainly did NOT work. It survived on its natural resources alone and had no functioning economy. It was a complete and utter failure which will take Russia DECADES to recover from.

Did not work? Are you absolutely sure? Who sent first Sputnik into space? Firts man into space? Rover to Moon and Venera? Who built space first space station (which was designed for 5 years, but lasted three times longer, by the way)? Who took Berlin and liberated Europe from Hitler (and Manchjuria from Japs)? Who consistently took plenty of gold and silver in Olympics? Who are most frequent chess champions? Where is largest plane? How about supersonic passenger jet? Bullet train? Most powerful nuke bombs? Rocket which lifts largest and heaviest cargo in space? Deepest submarines? How about education? Literacy of population? How about free housing, free medicine and free college education? How about science?

While indeed army-style economy of Soviet Union was not as efficient and as flexible as market economy, in many other areas SU conistently beaten US and other countries.

Of course, owners and censors of CNN, MSN, etc who control information flow, hate to credit "reds" anything. Anything, except bad news like accidents or protesting demonstrations. And naive average Joe buys that "salad" and then makes stupid statements similar to the above one. Pity that in US too propaganda does not represent balanced view.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The Soviet economy DID fall apart completely. Thats why the USSR dissolved - they were bankrupt. The economy is now growing again. Check some GDP numbers.

On the contrary. The economy went downwards soon after the Soviet-Union collapsed. Millions of workers got unemployed, millions of people got absolutely poor, cause the prices were growing up, and not their incomes. Also healthcare and education have gone downwards.
Millions of children are homeless, and are living on the streets. Criminality and gangs now have freedom under capitalism, and control parts of the economy. Rich people and enterprises don't even have to pay taxes, etc. etc.
The space program was aborted, without finance by the US, they can not even launch their space vehicles for the international space station (the SU used to have their own space station, and kept it running for decades!).

And apart from this, look at the international crisis. The UN is practicaly degrades as if it did not even exist. They have to carry out the US interests, or else the US is sabotaging the UN (not paying contributions, etc).

Independend and sovereign countries like Cuba and DPRK are now under attack and in the line of fire. Also any other nation that is not willing to accept the IMF or Worldbank policy, is likely to be overthrown by the US.