Sure, but he’s pointing out how lysenkoism is a manifestation of ideology in science, not a critique of the man himself and his scientific acumen. The actual skill and correctness of Lysenko is not what they’re talking about. He’s talking about how a society that sees the individual and the collective not as a series of decisions made by their forebears, but as a collection of interests with agency, has an easier time accepting that actually heredity is not only problematic when applied to humanity, but could also be problematic as applied to life in general.
The USSR rejected eugenics not merely as a pseudoscienticic belief, but also as a matter of it being a heinous idea. Likewsie Lysenkoism did not just appeal to the soviet leadership because it opened up the possibility of turning Siberia into a verdant garden, but also because Lysenkoism sounds more morally “right”
What is interesting though is that’s a great historical exemplar of something I frankly think we are communists and leftists do often, of confusing progressive aspects of our thought (in this case, rejection of eugenics) and a ‘vulgar’, and ultimately regressive aspect (in this case, rejection of genetics on the classic mistaken idea that empirically supported science must be incorrect if we can vaguely interpret or connote it as regressive).In this case of the USSR, it also reflects a deep institutional malfunction at the level of the relationship between the state-party parallel structure and institutions such as those of scientific research and development.
The whole history of biology is fascinating actually in terms of political biography because so many of its most imporant pioneers were either fuckinf rad commie materialists or rather social darwinist eugenicists.
Sure, but he’s pointing out how lysenkoism is a manifestation of ideology in science, not a critique of the man himself and his scientific acumen. The actual skill and correctness of Lysenko is not what they’re talking about. He’s talking about how a society that sees the individual and the collective not as a series of decisions made by their forebears, but as a collection of interests with agency, has an easier time accepting that actually heredity is not only problematic when applied to humanity, but could also be problematic as applied to life in general.
The USSR rejected eugenics not merely as a pseudoscienticic belief, but also as a matter of it being a heinous idea. Likewsie Lysenkoism did not just appeal to the soviet leadership because it opened up the possibility of turning Siberia into a verdant garden, but also because Lysenkoism sounds more morally “right”
Okay sure. Fair and true enough.
What is interesting though is that’s a great historical exemplar of something I frankly think we are communists and leftists do often, of confusing progressive aspects of our thought (in this case, rejection of eugenics) and a ‘vulgar’, and ultimately regressive aspect (in this case, rejection of genetics on the classic mistaken idea that empirically supported science must be incorrect if we can vaguely interpret or connote it as regressive).In this case of the USSR, it also reflects a deep institutional malfunction at the level of the relationship between the state-party parallel structure and institutions such as those of scientific research and development.
The whole history of biology is fascinating actually in terms of political biography because so many of its most imporant pioneers were either fuckinf rad commie materialists or rather social darwinist eugenicists.