There are other things to look at in addition to recycling this crackpot horseshit. For example:
(1) The misuse by vulgar ignoramuses of the well-intentioned but logically muddled notions of Engels, who habitually confused subjective with objective dialectics, conflated empirical laws and logical constructs, and created an ambiguous structure to be abused by lesser intellects who acted as if empirical matters could be decided by a priori metaphysics. (2) The crude instrumentalism of Stalin, but also the naive conceptions of scientific labor promulgated by Bukharin (cf. Polanyi), resulting in the crushing of autonomous scientific work in favor of a vulgar pragmatism in which all intellectual activity--science, philosophy, literature, the promulgation of atheism, etc.-- was subordinated to the master task of "building socialism"--which of course was not socialism at all, but crash industrialization. (3) The very irrationality of a despotic state structure mimicking the worst features of Czarism in which the subjective wish fulfillment of an egomaniacal absolute dictator surrounds himself with boot-licking yes-men incapable of providing accountability or any objective check in an overpoliticized ideological environment. (4) What is really involved in addressing gaps in scientific knowledge at a given point in time, and who is worth taking seriously, on what basis. Reading the posts over the past few days makes me want to vomit, and reminds me why I resigned from so many Marxist lists at the end of the '90s. At 09:56 PM 3/25/2010, CeJ wrote: >JF:>>Shouldn't we also take >a look at the life and >career of the Soviet >geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, >who was the leading Mendelian >geneticist in the Soviet Union >of his time and who suffered >imprisonment, where he died, >because of his opposition to >Lysenkoism?<< > >Good point. I think it was Vavilov who helped Lysenko rise to the top. >The accomplishments of Michurin probably meant more than the work of >Lysenko or Vavilov in terms of crop production and diversification in >the SU. But Vavilov appears to have been on the way towards a 'green >revolution' himself had he not been so vitiated and ruined by the >system. I would also point out, however, that the figure held up as >the father of the green revolution, the American Borlaug, DID NOT make >use of an Mendelian understanding of the genetics of wheat. Rather, he >used intuitive and 'seat of the pants' judgements about what to >hybridize in order to adapt wheat to Mexico (such as bringing in >strains of wheat that were hardy in Kenya). The very sort of thing >Burbank, Michurin and Lysenko would have approved of. There is >something, at least until the research of the 1950s and onwards, about >Lysenko's dismissiveness about the pea and fruit fly counters--they >weren't improving agriculture. > >In retrospect, I think it is fairly easy to see that (even without >reverting to simplified ideas of dialectics), Soviet biology, genetics >and agronomy would have benefited from a much more open debate between >the the two dogmas. Back to my original point, with a bit more detail: >I think it is unfair to blame Lynsenko for the failures of Soviet >agricultural policy. And the US was hardly the model for agricultural >improvement at the time of the Dust Bowl. The Soviet Union suffered >from a lack of its own scientific communities in understanding the >climates they had to deal with (that the farmers had to deal with), >and issues in transport and storage probably hampered agricultural >production more than anything Lysenko did. > >CJ > >_______________________________________________ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
