Trofim Lesenko

[Uppercut]

So was this guy a total ass or did he have some reasoning behind his theories? He claimed that heredity played only a minor role in human development, something that may or may not be true, and that your development stems from your state of mind and social being, which could be altered by social reconstructing.

He never officially targeting human biology, but there were a lot of soviet biologists and geneticists imprisioned on his his behalf, apparently. I just want to see what you guys think. If guy really was the enemy of science, then I'll probably discontinue my beliefs in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. I don't want to be a pawn in a chess game for some douchebag that didn't have any scientific reasoning or logic behind his theories and just pulled things out of thin air.

Did his agronomist theories have any basis and did they really lead to such a massive downturn in knowledge and study?

[Kléber]

Lysenko and his acolytes "politicized" science, which meant launching ridiculous political attacks on scientists. His theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) were totally unscientific but were a propaganda weapon that made it easier to purge the scientific and academic ranks.

Most Stalinists today distance themselves from Lysenko because Khrushchev was also one of his fans, although he was also "upheld" in China, where his planting "techniques" added to agricultural ruin in 1958-61.

The state didn't just imprison geneticists in that period, they killed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgii_Nadson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgii_Karpechenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

[Uppercut]

Most Stalinists today distance themselves from Lysenko

Well, that's pretty hypocritical, considering Stalin was the one who endorsed him in the first place. You can't be a Stalinist without agreeing with all of Stalin's decision, otherwise it defeats the term.


although he was also "upheld" in China, where his planting "techniques" added to agricultural ruin in 1958-61.

Are you suggesting that Mao was a Lysenkoist, as well? As I understand it, the agricultural failures at that time were do to impossibly high quotas and bad weather. Of course, I'm guessing that is just going by technicalities and by making excuses, as well.

Well damn, I don't know what to think now. If Lysenko was a fraud and Stalin supported him, who was in turn supported by Mao, this destroys my enitire ideological basis. I guess Marxism-Leninism is a gigantic fraud as well, that opportunists and elitists love to embrace. But I don't agree with Anarchy, as I understand it. I just don't think it's substantial and it won't last too long.


The state didn't just imprison geneticists in that period, they killed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgii_Nadson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgii_Karpechenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

I know they were killed. I can understand putting pressure on certain intellectuals if they were leaning towards capitalism or fascism, but this is rediculous. I don't see what kind of humanist socialist/communist can kill those that just want to perform research and expand scientific knowledge.

[Astinilats]

1. Lysenko's opponents were the ones who first brought political bodies involved into the dispute.

2. Stalin among others in party touted a message of openness for science. Yuri Zhdanov, who I think is still alive, criticized Lysenko in front of Stalin in 1948, and reports in 1952 Stalin ordered opponents of Lysenko be given teaching positions, Zhdanov specifically reporting the words "End the monopoly of the Lysenko supporters" from Stalin. Stalin basically held a position that there should be healthy debate on such issues, which is clear enough from his writing on Soviet linguistics.

3. DNA had not been discovered at this time. The so-called 'modern synthesis' was pretty new at the time, and no one was certain how inheritance worked. Most situations of inheritance don't resemble Mendel's peas in any obvious fashion.

4. The 'modern synthesis' is actually undergoing a change right now to account for phenomena like epigenetics, which goes back to the ideas of Lysenko. I was just discussing this issue a few days ago at a union social with a pair of twins doing some microbiology research, and they were interested in it because it explains why they have identical DNA, but one is short than the other, and a host of other differences that makes them not look exactly alike.

[pranabjyoti]

Moreover, how far is the idea of "meme" which in my opinion lies very close to Lysenko's theories. "Meme" is now well accepted fact in biology. Moreover, on a programme of a knowledge based television channel, it has been clearly shown that birds and dinosaurs have almost identical DNA setup, but what differs in them is the switching off of DNA's. This switching off and on mechanism of DNA now clearly showed that DNA isn't totally responsible for shaping a species or individual.
Actually, scientists are human beings and THEY CAN OFTEN ACT DOGMATICALLY. Anti-Lysenkoism like Lysenkoism can also be termed as a DOGMA. History of science is full of such conflicts and beliefs and specially, when some kind of socioeconomic ideology is attached to it.
The theories of Ivan Michurin is very close to the theory of Lysenko, but still today, results of research by Michurin is in use in present day Russia, EVEN BY PRIVATELY OWNED FARMS. Kindly google with Ivan Michurin and you can see there are a lot of websites on Michurin.
This kind of dogma often stands in the way of real advancement of science and in science, it is not very uncommon that larger section of scientists have taken wrong decision, while a relatively small, often a single person is in the right track. The problem with Lysenko is the fact that HE HAS SO FAR BEING JUDGED MOSTLY WITH ANTI-COMMUNIST/ANTI-STALINIST HYSTERIA AND SOME SO CALLED SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ABOVE THE FACT.

[bailey_187]

Lysenko was wrong and nearly all who uphold Stalin denounce Lysenko.

I dont know why recognising that Lysenko, and by extension Stalin, was wrong would lead you to denounce MLM.

The root of the Lysenko affair is the result of the mistaken idea of their being different "class truths" in science. Not so. Lysenko, as a supporter of Marxism-Leninism and IIRC from worker origins was thought to be correct, while the other biologists from the old exploiting classes were denouced as wrong because they were from that class background.

Stalin wasnt a scientists, nor an all knowing superman. He was fooled by a scientific "theory" which if it had been true would have been greatly helpful. This was a failure of Stalin. So what? Everything else good that happened in the Stalin years still remains.

[pranabjyoti]

It is fact that from which class you class you have originated is reflected on your understanding of science. All great scientists, including Einstein, Newton had wrong ideas. This kind of denouncing by just saying "he/she is wrong" isn't scientific at all.

[black magick hustla]

It is fact that from which class you class you have originated is reflected on your understanding of science. All great scientists, including Einstein, Newton had wrong ideas. This kind of denouncing by just saying "he/she is wrong" isn't scientific at all.

Yes. But the "proletarian" character of something does not makes it true. So its not as simple as denouncing quantum mechanics as bourgeois"pseudo-science".

[black magick hustla]

The stars will always be there regardless if the proletariat denies their existence or whatever.

[JimFar]

The fact was there were, in the 1930s, in the Soviet Union, campaigns against both relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which were denounced as "idealist" and "bourgeois." However, in contrast with the situation in biology, the proponents of modern physics were able to prevail because the physicists were able to convince Stalin that the atomic bomb could not be developed without the use of quantum mechanics, and Stalin wanted the bomb badly.

[pranabjyoti]

Yes. But the "proletarian" character of something does not makes it true. So its not as simple as denouncing quantum mechanics as bourgeois"pseudo-science".
It seems like "anti-Stalinist" character of something does make it true.

[pranabjyoti]

The fact was there were, in the 1930s, in the Soviet Union, campaigns against both relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which were denounced as "idealist" and "bourgeois." However, in contrast with the situation in biology, the proponents of modern physics were able to prevail because the physicists were able to convince Stalin that the atomic bomb could not be developed without the use of quantum mechanics, and Stalin wanted the bomb badly.
It's not the "quantum mechanics" or "relativity", but the way they have been explained is criticized. This kind of view still exists today. Even today, there are scientists(!), who by showing the cosmological constants want to proof that some kind of "divine power" has set the constants in such a manner for this universe, so that intelligent beings can come into being. It criticizing this kind of view is "anti-science", I am surely anti science. Erwin Schrodinger, one of the forefathers of quantum mechanics, his thought is like that; "by war, the weaker part of humanity is destroyed and only the stronger part by the way of 'natural selection' will remain and thus war makes our species strong and fit". He expressed such kind of view in his book "mind and matter". If criticizing this kind of view is criticizing "quantum mechanics", then I myself at least want to stay of from modern science.
Moreover, as per western (read it imperialist) media, the former USSR i.e. Stalin stolen the formula of making atom bomb with the help from some pro-soviet scientists, so why it is necessary to continue the study of "reactionary" quantum mechanics to make atom bomb?
Marx himself criticized Darwin by saying that "he actually saw the reflection of his own English society in the plants and animals that he had studied". So, at least I can say that Stalin and the soviet scientists of that time followed the way of Marx. Moreover, there are scientists like Mani Bhowmick (Indian born but now citizen of USA) want to prove that basic view of old HINDU PHILOSOPHY is very closely related with the modern view of quantum mechanics. People often forgot the fact that the scientist, who is a man with a class background, explains the science and often his class ideology is reflected in the way he explains science. Criticizing the scientist doesn't mean criticizing science. William Shockley, one of the co-inventors of semiconductor, believes strongly in the "scientific idea" of WHITE SUPREMACY.
Problem with trots and anarchs is that, they are too enthusiastic is criticizing "faults of Stalinist science" (which is basically repeating the old imperialist BS), but rarely they criticize, at least I have never seen them doing so, the reactionary ideas of scientists like Mani Bhowmick and Schrodinger and Shockley.

[black magick hustla]

It's not the "quantum mechanics" or "relativity", but the way they have been explained is criticized. This kind of view still exists today. Even today, there are scientists(!), who by showing the cosmological constants want to proof that some kind of "divine power" has set the constants in such a manner for this universe, so that intelligent beings can come into being.
This is not science. This is philosophy. There are very few people in the scientific community that are religious.




Erwin Schrodinger, one of the forefathers of quantum mechanics, his thought is like that; "by war, the weaker part of humanity is destroyed and only the stronger part by the way of 'natural selection' will remain and thus war makes our species strong and fit"0
I don't know if this quote is true or not but if it was its his personal opinion. This has nothing to do with the value of his work in physics, which has nothing to do with whatever reactionary opinion he has on political philosophy.



. He expressed such kind of view in his book "mind and matter". If criticizing this kind of view is criticizing "quantum mechanics", then I myself at least want to stay of from modern science.

Schrodinger was into a lot of eastern metaphysics. This is true.

Nobody remembers him for that though. People remember him for his important work on the formalism of quantum mechanics and his solutions for the schordinger equation of the hydrogen atom, harmonic oscillator, etc. Which are taught in every quantum mechanics physics textbook today.



Moreover, as per western (read it imperialist) media, the former USSR i.e. Stalin stolen the formula of making atom bomb with the help from some pro-soviet scientists, so why it is necessary to continue the study of "reactionary" quantum mechanics to make atom bomb?
There is nothing reactionary about quantum mechanics. Eigenvalues, wavefunctions, and eigenvectors don't know politics.



Marx himself criticized Darwin by saying that "he actually saw the reflection of his own English society in the plants and animals that he had studied". So, at least I can say that Stalin and the soviet scientists of that time followed the way of Marx. Moreover, there are scientists like Mani Bhowmick (Indian born but now citizen of USA) want to prove that basic view of old HINDU PHILOSOPHY is very closely related with the modern view of quantum mechanics.
No its not. You know shit about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is not a philosophy, its a formalism.



People often forgot the fact that the scientist, who is a man with a class background, explains the science and often his class ideology is reflected in the way he explains science. Criticizing the scientist doesn't mean criticizing science. William Shockley, one of the co-inventors of semiconductor, believes strongly in the "scientific idea" of WHITE SUPREMACY.
Yes. Too bad that his work on semiconductors has nothing to do with biology or sociology.



Problem with trots and anarchs is that, they are too enthusiastic is criticizing "faults of Stalinist science" (which is basically repeating the old imperialist BS), but rarely they criticize, at least I have never seen them doing so, the reactionary ideas of scientists like Mani Bhowmick and Schrodinger and Shockley.

My problem with people like you is that you have no idea of what you are talking about. And neither comrade stalin had a shred of idea what quantum mechanics is.

[black magick hustla]

It seems like "anti-Stalinist" character of something does make it true.

Well, stalinism is an ideology. I dont think you can say an ideology can be "true" or not.

[MarxSchmarx]

Stalin wasnt a scientists, nor an all knowing superman. He was fooled by a scientific "theory" which if it had been true would have been greatly helpful. This was a failure of Stalin. So what? Everything else good that happened in the Stalin years still remains.

Although I think Stalin is the worst disaster to ever befall on the left, his uncritical embrace of Lysenko is a myth. If you can get your hand on it, Stalin actually came to deeply disagree with Lysenko - K. O. Rossianov, ‘‘Stalin as Lysenko’s Editor: Reshaping Political Discourse in Soviet Science,’’ Configurations, 1. 3 (1993), 439–456 (455).



3. DNA had not been discovered at this time. The so-called 'modern synthesis' was pretty new at the time, and no one was certain how inheritance worked. Most situations of inheritance don't resemble Mendel's peas in any obvious fashion.

Indeed. We are talking about a time before Watson and Crick, when European and North American genetics was even more pseudo-scientific and eugenics was openly tolerated and often advocated. Whatever the demerits of lysenko's science, his critiques of the practice of contemporary genetics were generally spot-on. The work of Fisher and Pearson conveniently ignored several anomolies that belied their ecunemical zeal and which were only explained generations later. Indeed, a lot of evolutionary genetics was speculative and did not have the strong materialist foundation it would later acquire - indeed, so much of the modern synthesis was accepted as a matter of faith, and several workers in that tradition were openly skeptical of the one-to-one map of Mandelian genetics to the dynamics of complex traits. Waddington's early experiments with Drosophila in the 1970s, for example, showed how novel phenotypes could arise during development and not by mutation.



4. The 'modern synthesis' is actually undergoing a change right now to account for phenomena like epigenetics, which goes back to the ideas of Lysenko. I was just discussing this issue a few days ago at a union social with a pair of twins doing some microbiology research, and they were interested in it because it explains why they have identical DNA, but one is short than the other, and a host of other differences that makes them not look exactly alike.

What is at issue is the inheritance of acquired characteristics. It clearly occurs in behavior (bird communication, for example), and increasingly some suggestion that it operates in physiology and morphology, especially via developmental pathways. Recent work on epigenetics have shed light on this point, but it's interesting to note that this idea is actually consistent with the modern synthesis (and has been seen as such since at least the 1960s), because it could be adaptive for an individual to evolve the capacity to transmit traits acquired after birth. One of the original architects of the modern synthesis, JBS Haldane (not coincidentally a CPGB activist as well), struggled in his later years to reconcile Lysenko's experimental results with the modern synthesis and sketched the broad outline for contemporary epigenetics.

[pranabjyoti]

This is not science. This is philosophy. There are very few people in the scientific community that are religious.
Not as few as you think. In a study a few years ago, all except of the PhD scientists in India had said that "they believe in some superpower". More than hundred scientists, some of them had international recognitions, were interviewed.

I don't know if this quote is true or not but if it was its his personal opinion. This has nothing to do with the value of his work in physics, which has nothing to do with whatever reactionary opinion he has on political philosophy.
Schrodinger was into a lot of eastern metaphysics. This is true.
Nobody remembers him for that though. People remember him for his important work on the formalism of quantum mechanics and his solutions for the Schrodinger equation of the hydrogen atom, harmonic oscillator, etc. Which are taught in every quantum mechanics physics textbook today.
There is nothing reactionary about quantum mechanics. Eigenvalues, wavefunctions, and eigenvectors don't know politics.
Because, the mainstream media had just blackened out this aspects of Schrodinger, while high-lighten and often distort PRO-STALINIST scientists works and writings. Actually, science is science, what makes it reactionary or revolutionary are their explanation by the scientist.

No its not. You know shit about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is not a philosophy, its a formalism.
Science itself is a philosophy, ACTUALLY KNOW A SHIT ABOUT THE VERY BASIC OF SCIENCE LIKE OTHER TROTS and resort to personnel attack when your arguments are countered. It's not me who said that, it's Mr. Mani Bhowmick, inventor of eximer laser said that in his book. You better say "Mr. Bhowmick knows nothing a shit about quantum mechanics" in other forums. There are other scientists who have this kind of view even today, but I don't want to waste my time by shits like this.
The very basic laws of science, like conservation of momentum, conservation of energy (or say mass-energy), 2nd law of thermodynamics and many others like that are BASICALLY PHILOSOPHY. Because it is just IMPOSSIBLE to prove those laws by single experiments in labs. Actually, all of them are zest of knowledge of human kind about natural processes, which had been gathered by centuries, therefore PHILOSOPHY as per your term. String theory, quarks are still philosophy but still billions of dollars has been spent on them. PHILOSOPHY IS THE ROOT, ON WHICH THE VERY TREE OF SCIENCE DEPENDS.

Yes. Too bad that his work on semiconductors has nothing to do with biology or sociology.
This is just an example to show that even successful scientists can bear the rotten remains of their class ideology. Then why just attack on Lysenko. So far, I want to find but still haven't find a single book by Lysenko, I hope you too don't have that. I just get some fuzzy ideas, mostly from "mainstream" text books and don't want to comment on anybody about whom I know very little. But, the problem with "scientific" people like you is that, you just know that he is STALINIST and you just get the right to make all kind of "comments" about him and PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE TEACHING AND COMMENTING ON OTHERS KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE.

My problem with people like you is that you have no idea of what you are talking about. And neither comrade stalin had a shred of idea what quantum mechanics is.
At least he knows well about how to run a country after revolution in a very serious condition BETTER THAN TROTS LIKE YOU. So far, you haven't been able to make any kind of revolution (and I think in future you can not), but are well in vomiting imperialist BS.
Anybody can google with "Ivan Michurin" and get a lot of websites about him. His methodology, which is very well applauded by STALINIST Lysenko, because the methods of Michurin closely resembles the ideas of Lysenko, is working well and still giving good fruits. But, in modern books of Horticulture, you will rarely get his name. If this isn't a blackout by "mainstream" media, I don't know what is.

[black magick hustla]

Not as few as you think. In a study a few years ago, all except of the PhD scientists in India had said that "they believe in some superpower". More than hundred scientists, some of them had international recognitions, were interviewed.

Actually, i'll give you the benefit of doubt. I was referring to western scientists but it is true there is a ton of indian scientists. I remember reading there is a good amount of indians that are very scientifically inclined but religious. Western scientists are generally atheists.



Because, the mainstream media had just blackened out this aspects of Schrodinger, while high-lighten and often distort PRO-STALINIST scientists works and writings. Actually, science is science, what makes it reactionary or revolutionary are their explanation by the scientist.

I don't think the mainstream media "necessary" blackened it. Its just that those ideas he had are generally irrelevant.




Science itself is a philosophy, ACTUALLY KNOW A SHIT ABOUT THE VERY BASIC OF SCIENCE LIKE OTHER TROTS and resort to personnel attack when your arguments are countered. [/qupte]

Science is not just a philosophy. I grant you there are philosophical assumptions underlying it but I think there is much more to it than old book people pondering in a library.


[quote]
It's not me who said that, it's Mr. Mani Bhowmick, inventor of eximer laser said that in his book. You better say "Mr. Bhowmick knows nothing a shit about quantum mechanics" in other forums.
Yes, and he was a scientist playing philosophy, not doing science. There is a lot of garbage in pop scientific literature that makes quantum mechanics sound mystical. Most scientists have a very agnostic position concerning quantum mechanics, which they see as a sort of mathematical framework to make predictions.




The very basic laws of science, like conservation of momentum, conservation of energy (or say mass-energy), 2nd law of thermodynamics and many others like that are BASICALLY PHILOSOPHY.

Not really. They are mathematical models that try to generalize a given set of observations. Sure, you can make some wild philosophical assumptions about it. However, they are not useful because of their philosophical assumptions but because they are useful to make predictions.




PHILOSOPHY IS THE ROOT, ON WHICH THE VERY TREE OF SCIENCE DEPENDS.

Science would be much better without philosophy.

But, the problem with "scientific" people like you is that, you just know that he is STALINIST and you just get the right to make all kind of "comments" about him and PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE TEACHING AND COMMENTING ON OTHERS KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE.

Lets get this straight. I did not criticize lisenko. I think in that period there where many good reasons to reject genetics.

I was mainly calling you out for calling quantum mechanics reactionary, especially in the name of your marxist leninism maoism theology.



At least he knows well about how to run a country after revolution in a very serious condition BETTER THAN TROTS LIKE YOU. So far, you haven't been able to make any kind of revolution (and I think in future you can not), but are well in vomiting imperialist BS.

Of course he can "run" a country better than me. I am a 20something student. Anyway, my point is that its silly to reject scientific thought because its not "compatible" with ideology. Actually, I don't see why most scientific thought wouldn't be compatible.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, i'll give you the benefit of doubt. I was referring to western scientists but it is true there is a ton of Indian scientists. I remember reading there is a good amount of Indians that are very scientifically inclined but religious. Western scientists are generally atheists.
I have doubt on your assumptions. Well, they may be atheist, but still they can bear the rotten burden of their class ideology. ALL GREAT REVOLUTIONARIES ARE ATHEIST, BUT ALL ATHEISTS ARE NOT REVOLUTIONARY.


I don't think the mainstream media "necessary" blackened it. Its just that those ideas he had are generally irrelevant.




Science itself is a philosophy, ACTUALLY KNOW A SHIT ABOUT THE VERY BASIC OF SCIENCE LIKE OTHER TROTS and resort to personnel attack when your arguments are countered. [/qupte]

Science is not just a philosophy. I grant you there are philosophical assumptions underlying it but I think there is much more to it than old book people pondering in a library.
Actually, I can remember well, how Lysenko had been described in text book of high school.



Yes, and he was a scientist playing philosophy, not doing science. There is a lot of garbage in pop scientific literature that makes quantum mechanics sound mystical. Most scientists have a very agnostic position concerning quantum mechanics, which they see as a sort of mathematical framework to make predictions.
Today's newspaper, which I read everyday, had a very big article on Mr. Bhowmick and his latest book. THAT'S HOW IMPERIALISM plays its role through media and even text books.

Not really. They are mathematical models that try to generalize a given set of observations. Sure, you can make some wild philosophical assumptions about it. However, they are not useful because of their philosophical assumptions but because they are useful to make predictions.
That's the very basic difference between materialistic philosophy and other kind of philosophy that put mind over matter.




Science would be much better without philosophy.
For your information, Emanuel Kant is the founder of "law of conservation of energy" and 2nd law of thermodynamics had been formulated by Physicist-philosopher Helmholtz. The theory of surplus value, which is now a very important part of Economics had been formulated by philosopher Marx. Still you want to deleter philosophers from Science. Actually, during the 19th century, it's the effort of philosophers that keep the flag of science proudly flying despite the backwardness of science of that time.


Lets get this straight. I did not criticize lisenko. I think in that period there where many good reasons to reject genetics.
Even today, there are many good reasons to take the gene as something godly. It's still unknown today, how the switching on and switching off of genes can happen. What is very mystical to me is the human being itself. Despite huge differences in color, height, hair type, hair color, eye color and other factors, we just have 0.1% genetic difference. The genetic difference between us and chimps are just 1.5%, which is even lower than the genetic difference of some kind of sub species. It's now a proven fact that height, length of intestine will increase and decrease with change of food habit. Despite eating huge amount of meat and fat, Eskimos don't have blood cholesterol problem. And all this is happening with just 0.1% of genetic difference.

I was mainly calling you out for calling quantum mechanics reactionary, especially in the name of your marxist leninism maoism theology.
Kindly read my posts, it's not science that is reactionary or revolutionary, but the way it has been explained by scientists (human beings with class background). Scientists like Mani Bhowmick isn't very rare at all. Most probably, the scientific community of USSR reacted against the way how quantum mechanics had been explained by western "man stream" scientific community.

Of course he can "run" a country better than me. I am a 20something student. Anyway, my point is that its silly to reject scientific thought because its not "compatible" with ideology. Actually, I don't see why most scientific thought wouldn't be compatible.
I hope I have answered your question above.

[heiss93]

To be fair Darwin himself was a Neo-Lamarckian in his later editions of Origins. Lysenko WAS defending Darwin from Mendel. And there was a strong influence on Darwin from Malthus and Spencer who were not scientists. And there is SOME truth to acquired characteristics. Also the "eternal gene" was used by certain Nazi ideologues as the eternal Aryan race. And unfourtanety there was historically a strong link between genetics and scientific racism. Even today sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are used to justify militarism, racism, capitalism and sexism. The CEO of Enron's favorite book was Selfish Gene which he used to justify his "fitness".

That being said, genetics is true. BUT I think Lysenko was on stronger ground when he criticized the extreme role given to struggle and competition within species and the ignoring of intra-species cooperation, altruism, and mutual-ism. In this he was in the spirit of the great Kropotkin.

In some sense Lysenko was right. Genetics has been molded into an ideology used by EO Wilson and Steve Pinker to say Communism is incompatible with human nature because people are selfish. This is not new. They just took Aristotle's old arguments against Plato.

Take a look at his actual works- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/index.htm

Also marxtomao has a great ebook on the topic.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/Index.html#DL

[pranabjyoti]

To be fair Darwin himself was a Neo-Lamarckian in his later editions of Origins. Lysenko WAS defending Darwin from Mendel. And there was a strong influence on Darwin from Malthus and Spencer who were not scientists. And there is SOME truth to acquired characteristics. Also the "eternal gene" was used by certain Nazi ideologues as the eternal Aryan race. And unfourtanety there was historically a strong link between genetics and scientific racism. Even today sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are used to justify militarism, racism, capitalism and sexism. The CEO of Enron's favorite book was Selfish Gene which he used to justify his "fitness".

That being said, genetics is true. BUT I think Lysenko was on stronger ground when he criticized the extreme role given to struggle and competition within species and the ignoring of intra-species cooperation, altruism, and mutual-ism. In this he was in the spirit of the great Kropotkin.

In some sense Lysenko was right. Genetics has been molded into an ideology used by EO Wilson and Steve Pinker to say Communism is incompatible with human nature because people are selfish. This is not new. They just took Aristotle's old arguments against Plato.

Take a look at his actual works- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/index.htm

Also marxtomao has a great ebook on the topic.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/Index.html#DL
The actual fact is that "critics(!)" of Lysenko can be as wrong as he himself. Actually Lysenko's "criticism(!)" is nothing but the imperialist denouncement of scientific and technical achievements of USSR during Stalin. And to prove themselves that they are open minded, trots and anarchos often repeat "imperialist" lies and UNWILLINGLY(?) played as a partner of imperialism.
Today, books written by Lysenko is rarely available, but he has so much "critics" today. I have doubt how many of them read even a single line of any of his books written by him.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lysenko was a charlaton who did incalcuble damage to all areas of Soviet science. He had a run in with Herman Mueller, a German-American Marxist who came to Moscow and set up a genetics research institute. Mueller was on the way to becoming the "father of Soviet genetics".Lysenko, and hence Stalin, had Mueller hounded out of the SU. Years later, in the 60s, Mueller won a Nobel Prize for his work in the US.

That is just one example. Lysenko devastated other areas of science.He was discredited after the death of Stalin but his career had a second life under Kruschchev. His destructive influence was felt well into the 70s and is one of the reasons the USSR collapsed.

[pranabjyoti]

Lysenko was a charlaton who did incalcuble damage to all areas of Soviet science. He had a run in with Herman Mueller, a German-American Marxist who came to Moscow and set up a genetics research institute. Mueller was on the way to becoming the "father of Soviet genetics".Lysenko, and hence Stalin, had Mueller hounded out of the SU. Years later, in the 60s, Mueller won a Nobel Prize for his work in the US.

That is just one example. Lysenko devastated other areas of science.He was discredited after the death of Stalin but his career had a second life under Kruschchev. His destructive influence was felt well into the 70s and is one of the reasons the USSR collapsed.
One big problem with US and other first world "Marxists", specially who are in the applied science field, they often carry with them bourgeoisie-imperialist ideas, which they have been taught in their colleges and universities. One such example is J B S Haldane. Haldane had blind faith in the "genetics" theory and he clearly denies any possibility of formation of new species by interbreeding of two species. But, even on a US based knowledge channel, it has been said that a hybrid species of Grizzly and Polar bear (both are different species) will be the dominant species in the north in near future, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE AS PER HALDANE.
Getting Noble doesn't mean that one is a great scientist. Nobel is much more related to politics than science. Your post seems nothing more like the expression of "personnel grievance" to Lysenko.