The volatile mixture of science and ideology, was the basis for several deadly battles around theories of inheritance, including Lysenkoism. These battles on theories of inheritance were not new to history. But those surrounding Lysenkoism became much more violently contested. Perhaps there are two primary factors why these ideological battles around heredity became so hotly contested and serious in the post war world.
The first and most obvious factor for the heated battle around Lysenkoism is the extreme political sensitivity of notions of heredity. But this factor does not by itself reveal the timing of the debate, because it applies to any post-primitive historical period, not just the 20th century. In other words, why in 1945, and not 1930, did the cauldron boil over? The second factor, and one that in this essay's view, explains the timing of the major controversy surrounding Lysenko, is that the struggle for socialism in the post war world was at a particularly acute point. This political, second factor will be explored shortly.
As for the first factor, the extreme political sensitivity of heredity provides a considerable insight into the debate. Self-evidently, it was only by resolving this debate, that the aristocratic societal stakes could be firmly anchored in alienated, private grounds. Plato, the philosopher representative of the reactionary, aristocratic, Tyrant section of Greek society recognised that any class society has an objective need to justify inequality. Plato expressed this justification in his philosophy that the differences in station between men, rested on the fact that there were differences in the quality of men.
These differences are those between "men of gold and men of iron". Only men of gold were allowed to be in a privileged position in society, and this status was not won but born into. Of course to prevent men of gold falling from their thrones of privilege into an abyss, it was necessary to simultaneously proclaim that the notions of eternal change propounded by Heraclitus and Democritius were wrong. Thus even one of the earliest philosophies of heredity, the reactionary Platonist philosophy was linked at its origin, to an unchanging eternity. This linkage is a key theme throughout the history of genetics.
Later justifications of the class basis of society needed updating in order to apply to the new world of modern science. Of course the bourgeoisie in the late 1700's to the 1800's fought feudalism, changing thereby the face of society. Thus it was no longer possible or expedient to be absolutely anti -change. However, any potential for change had to be carefully de-limited so that change did not challenge the Rights of the Bourgeoisie to be the Bourgeoisie! This philosophical task of adequate modernisation was performed by re-expressing Plato in terms of survival of the fittest. An even later metamorphosis then applied this fitness test to the genes. Throughout this drama, biological science plodded on within the cart tracks of the society, sometimes straining against the track grooves.
Perhaps the career of Charles Darwin exemplifies the tensions between science and life philosophy. Darwin led a gentry life after his famed voyage of the Beagle. The Darwin industry long ago revealed the significant delay in Darwin's publishing, driven by Darwin's fear of excommunication from his comfortable fold. By his return from South America Darwin understood that evolution of species was a motive force in biology. But he was fearful of upsetting the social order. Finally prodded by the fear of being scooped by Wallace, he published some twenty years later.
But it must have come as a surprise to him, that by his later years, the carefully delimited slow gradual change he advocated was more than acceptable to the bourgeoisie. By now, he could be buried in Westminster Abbey - a great mark of respectability! Indeed he left a new legacy to stability for the bourgeoisie. This was the notion of social engineering as implied by the phrase Social Darwinism. Indeed as Carl N.Degler insistently reminds us the first Social Darwinist was Darwin himself :
Progressive biologists who do not support Lysenko, point out that the climate at the times of the developing gene theory was explicitly Eugenicist. Thus Levins and Lewontin point out :
Certainly there were great ideological opportunities here. Indeed it is true that the corresponding political tones to these gene mechanisms were painted into the picture by some USSR scientists. This is well known and frequently commented upon. But less well known is the fact that these pictures were also painted explicitly by some scientists in the West. Thus :
Nonetheless, the Paradigmatic Shift in this context, only allowed for the slow almost imperceptible changes called for by Charles Darwin in Natural Selection. But the new Paradigm; grandly called the New Synthesis, balked at working into its theory more dramatic short term changes. The careers of Barbara McClintlock, Richard Goldschmidt, Paul Kammerer, Victor Jollos and more recently Steele testify to the way in which non-fitters to the New Synthesis were scientifically sidelined and often publicly humiliated. Paul Kammerer was driven to suicide.
Not all of these biologists were fully vindicated by the turn of science, but some of their views were indeed correct. In particular the views of McClintlock and Goldschmidt have re-blossomed in the current period. To illustrate the resultant changes in thought, J.H.Campbell contrasts the conventional views of genes and the more current views :
These two latter authors illuminate the story of Western genetics. But in spite of their insights into the interplay of society and science, they have little to say on Lysenko. Of course the best books cannot cover everything. However there does seem a reluctance to enter into dangerous territory. Thus Sapp explicitly covers Lysenko's reception by Western unorthodox geneticists, but his work is not really discussed. Possibly this omission reflects the need for a political Paradigmatic Shift before a full evaluation of Lysenkoism is possible.
It has to be clear that the author is not asking for
a blank cheque endorsement of Lysenko.
Briefly, the author will argue that Lysenko fell into
biological reductionism, in order to counter another form of biological
reductionism - Morganism.
Neither form of reductionism is adequate. But much of Lysenkoism was motivated to ensure the possibility of change, and much of Morganism was motivated to ensure continuity. Furthermore, Lysenkoism does contain some elements that have been vindicated by later biological research. Finally, the parallel to some Western research, shows that Lysenko's discomfort with Morganism was not unique to Soviet geneticists.
But biological theory alone can only do so much to explain Lysenkoism. Only a full discussion of the political impetus behind Lysenkoist forces can explicate Lysenkoism.
As discussed above, the class issues that surround the theories of heredity explain much of the heat in the Lysenko debate, but not its timing. This is explained by the acuity of struggle for socialism that existed in the post war world. In brief the facts, though this is only appreciated by few, are that there was a restoration of private property relations in the Soviet Union that took place in 1953, after Stalin's death. This restoration, as we detail in part Four, had been previously attempted, but fought to a standstill by Stalin. Upon his death the revisionists seized their long awaited opportunity. They had been patiently preparing their ground, both by subversion, but also by an ingenious ideological battle.
It should be obvious that this offered analysis challenges the current Paradigm.
As early as 1928, agriculture in the Soviet Union had already become a testing ground for attempts to discredit socialism. These took the form of early Ultra-Left subversions of the move to collectivisation. After these were defeated by J.V.Stalin's article "Dizzy with Success", the attempts at subversion had to become more sophisticated. Post Second World War, these revolved around Ultra-Left calls for raising production 1000 fold, and other impossible demands. These were easily camouflaged as "revolutionary fantasy", and served to deflect any realist criticism as "bourgeois" These pre-doomed "revolutionary demands" became a potent symbol of ridicule against the socialist state.
Simultaneously, revisionists like Khrushchev, developed a strategy to resurrect private property relations in the countryside. But these attempts were resisted by the few Marxist-Leninists in the high echelons of the Communist Party Soviet Union (Bolshevik), led by Stalin. Ultimately the revisionists obtained the victory they were striving were for, with the economic dismantling of socialist relations after 1952, and Stalin's death. There is good evidence for the positive attitudes of Khrushchev to disruptive private profiteering in the countryside.
With Stalin safely interred in the grave, the socialist relations in the countryside were subverted into private relationships with the possibility of private ownership and therefore profit. The best example in the rural areas are the Machine and Tractor Stations (MTS). These were removed from State ownership and reverted to private property. This destruction of socialist relations in the countryside could not be accomplished overnight. The Khruschevite revisionists had the problem that they were unable to fight for restoration of capitalism openly. Given their difficulty in openly proclaiming that they wanted the restoration of capitalist relations, they were forced to fight under cover.
The hidden agenda of the revisionists was to destroy the economic class basis of socialism. But to do this the revisionists had to launch an ideological battle. This battle had to succeed in order to alienate the workers and peasants from Bolshevism. As Trotsky had discovered when the open and democratic votes within the whole party (ie not just the Politburo) rejected on several occasions his Program, this was a difficult task to perform openly. So an ingenious program was embarked upon, the aim of which was to paint socialism as inhumane, doctrinaire, anti-scientific and narrow minded.
To assist in the painting of this picture, it was necessary to subvert Marxist-Leninist teachings. Correct policies could then be turned into nothing more than empty slogans. The revisionists, led by Khrushchev, created the Cult of Personality around Stalin, to then use it to propagate so called "teachings of Stalin".
For instance Marxist-Leninists view all art as having
ideological content, and believe that the Socialist state should support
a new Socialist Realist Art. This view was expressed by Stalin in
the phrase :
"Art is the engineer of the human soul".
Despite the best attempts of those who purchase a random pile of bricks in order to designate them as Art, this remains an incontestably true statement. Of course the defence of this thesis is not popular amongst the pseuds of MOMA. But one should be reminded that artists such as Da Vinci to Rodin to Courbet (to name but a few) have stated the same view using different formulations.
Nonetheless, the theory of socialist realism was subverted by a substitution trick. This proclaimed that a picture of Lenin and Stalin automatically was good Art. Or pictures depicting stereotyped workers and peasants straining in labours, automatically equalled good Art. This re-definition of socialist realism alienated a significant section of the intelligentsia support for the Marxist-Leninists.
We suggest that a similar process in the USSR occurred regarding theories on the gene. The basic strategy was, to take a correct policy and by taking it to extremes and distorting it, the Marxist-Leninists could be blamed for the warped and barely recognisable, but originally correct theory. Lysenko had a single insight that it was critically necessary to acknowledge change in biology at all levels, and not just at the macro-evolutionary level.
Lysenko's belief however, became a vehicle by which to push naive, or Mechanical Reductionism in biology to an absurd extent. This policy as promoted by the revisionists in the USSR, led to further ruptures between the Party and the scientific and agronomic intelligentsia. It aimed at the destruction of party credibility.
It is by this background light that Lysenkoism deserves analysis. To portray the entire process, requires that the weight of some 70 years of bourgeois myths about Stalin be tackled. This would take a most unwieldy and large manuscript, and a stronger author. Thankfully, certain key sections of this Myth have already been destroyed, though alas this feat is but poorly known. Parts of the Myth destruction are only easy to incorporate in this analysis, because they have already been documented by W.B.Bland.
It was his insight and research, which showed that the motive forces around building the Cult Of Personality was a conscious revisionist strategy, whereby an albatross was hung around Stalin's neck. Thereby as Stalin himself said to Lion Feuchtwangler, to be used to later discredit him. An analogy that Mr. Bland uses is that of Richard III. The vilification of Stalin after the victory of his revisionist opponents, parallels that of Richard III after his death by his disputants to the Throne of England. The process is reminiscent of that in biological disputes, as in the quote above from Ernst Mayr. We suggest that the traditional accounts of the struggle surrounding Stalin are based upon Khrushchev's memories, are obviously biased and untenable.
Much of the crucial data is still locked in Kremlin papers. Despite the paucity of primary sources, we knew about some of the battles between Stalin and the revisionists, even before Bland's work. For instance, W.G.Hahn describes the battles around Voznosensky and Zhdanov; but relying as he does on the Khrushchev Memory, he incorrectly interprets the data. Further later work such as that of Arch Getty Jr, explicitly challenges the prevailing notions that Stalin was responsible for all misdemeanours in the USSR. Furthermore, some academic writers on Soviet science such as Joravsky and Graham have shown inconsistencies with the prevalent paradigm about Stalin, in his relations with science.
However, all these academically orientated writings ultimately fail to offer a synthetic understanding of the history in question. Twist as the authors do, to fit pieces into the puzzle, they are left with all sorts of inconsistencies. None for example, even bother to try and explain the significance of the destruction of the Machine and Tractor stations. None offer adequate explanations of the intent behind the writing of "Economic Problems of the USSR", by Stalin. To illustrate the final throwing up of their hands in perplexity, we see Joravsky's frustrated state :
These academically based works cannot resolve the incongruities, because fundamentally they see history as a series of battles between individuals struggling for power. That there was an ideological class battle, with a real economic basis that hinged around the future direction for the USSR; is not grasped by these bourgeois academics. In fact, they are blinkered and further handicapped by their "Paradigm limits", to use the currently fashionable phrase of liberal academics, on Stalin.
This paradigm is offered daily in the newspapers, and is well known. Briefly it states that Stalin was a madman who regularly devoured babies and peasants for breakfast. To accommodate known facts about his formidable intellect, and anticipation of events; some versions of the paradigm will concede that he may have been a genius, but only an evil genius!
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ESSAY IS THEN TWOFOLD.
Firstly this essay aims to allow some simple understanding of some key biological questions. To the progressives beleaguered by propaganda, facts and knowledge are the first defences. Secondly, this essay aims to situate Lysenko within the class forces in the Soviet Union that wished to restore capitalist relations.
The biological part falls into 2 main parts:
a potted history of developments in genetics (Part
1);
and an examination of Lysenko's theories (Part 2).
Part 1 does not aim to cover the same ground as many available histories of genetics. However it does rely heavily upon current histories of biology, including Ernst Mayr's engrossing (though self-important) histories. Up till the 20th Century, we use Mayr as a major source. The reader will notice an ambivalence towards Mayr. This is inevitable with his strong espousal of the New Synthesis. This may explain his almost total lack of reference to McClintlock.
Because therefore of his "blindess" to other views, at the 20 th Century, we tend to resort to other authorities. In particular, Evelyn Fox Keller and Jan Sapp, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen Jay Gould. These and other authors have been plundered but fully acknowledged.
In trying to be clear to the biologically naive, some early history and discoveries are described, leading up to the Inheritance by Acquired Characteristics theory of Jean Baptiste Lamarck. The differences with Darwin are explored. Except for two selected aspects of Bioreductionism as applied to society, this work does not retread the ample exposes of Sociobiology available. The two exceptions are Mathusianism, and "The Struggle For Existence". The Morgan gene theory, and those alternatives that emphasised a greater role for the cytoplasm are discussed. The various authors responsible for these alternatives include Victor Jollos, Richard Goldschmidt, Barbara McClintlock, and Sonneborn.
Finally in this section, we try to distil the current and still developing views of evolutionary and hereditary changes. These have yet to be synthesised into a new package, but perhaps it is fair to label them as the Post-New Synthesis Models. They are characterised by an antipathy towards biological reductionism.
There is a heavy dose of quotations, that is easier for the author when plundering. Some readers may find this difficult. But given the author's own dense prose style, minimising his own words is probably a good thing! But also by this means the interested reader, critical or cynical reader, can track the sources.
Inching closer to the second aim of this essay; in Part 2 we examine Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Since we are particulary concerned with this controversial figure, Lysenko's views are examined by a harsh light: current day knowledge of genetics. The method I have used is simply to ask : "How often was Lysenko wrong or right; by the standards of today's knowledge?". And furthermore, have modern day evolutionists and geneticists in their work and views acknowledged any validity of the general biological notions of Lysenko; even though his name and association may be taboo?
To close the biological part of this essay, Part 3
deals with dialectics.
The question is asked : "Are the laws of dialectical
materialism at all pertinent to biology?"
This controversial question ignites all scholarly liberal philosophers. Unfortunately only a sketch of a defence of dialectics in biology, can be here offered. At a future juncture, it is hoped to give the detailed reply that Sir Karl Popper and his many later acolytes deserve.
Of course the key intellectual guide here has been Frederick Engels and his analysis of "Dialectics in nature" and "Anti-Duhring". But more modern analysis, with key insights is also offered. This comes by way of Joseph Needham, a fascinating "Fellow Traveller", embryologist and historian of Chinese science and philosophy; a brilliant polymath indeed. Also by way of Levins and Lewontin, whose approach to modern biology is a progressive antidote to the volumes of reactionary attempts to reduce human relations to test tubes.
George Thompson has been an unfailing source, since I first found him 20 years ago, in understanding how dialectics developed and fits into the real world of politics. The text can only indicate the bones of this. Accordingly an appendix fleshes out a dialectic view of the Greek origins of Western philosophy showing the connection of politics to Idealism.
Hopefully, progressives will find this biological and philosophic parts of the essay helpful. As stated, the biological issues continue to be misused in order to justify a static eternity. Most of these progressives are not biological scientists. Consequently for them there is a lot of technical information. To fight some accompanying intimidation, there are notes on both individuals and with biological terms.
In Part IV, the second aim of the essay is tackled.
Biologists who have hitherto taught me their best,
become here a potential audience. This part explores how and why Lysenkoism
became such an inflammatory issue. What did Lysenkoism mean? In answering
this, we show the relation between Lysenkoism and the struggle for power
in the USSR. A struggle that ended with the destruction of socialism and
the temporary victory of revisionism, in 1953.
Unlike propagandists, we try here to deal with facts.
Lysenkoism offers a loose dangling string by which the path of the revisionists can be traced. Though some of its theory has been shown by Western scientists to be undoubtedly correct, it alienated and destroyed support for the CPSU(B) in the scientific community at home and abroad.
This part of the essay then examines first the relations of the CPSU(B) to the intelligentsia and scientists from the days of Lenin onwards. We then explore the evidence that during the period of collectivisation, that Ultra-leftists tactics were used and did alienate sections of the peasantry from the Soviet State, and that Stalin curbed these excesses. The Robert Conquest "histories" are here countered with data. This data is meticulously provided by Douglas Tottle, who in his book, ("Fraud, Famine, and Fascism," Toronto, 1987) exposes the falsification of photos and other propagandist information. Tottle shows that falsified photos were manipulated by the Hearst yellow press, and his German fascist friends. Robert Conquest merely continues a long but far from illustrious line of slanderous attack.
The post Second World War years are examined in some detail next, with respect to the crisis in agriculture and the ecological plans known as the Stalin Plan to Transform Nature. The Leningrad Affair is drawn almost verbatim from Bland's analysis (In "The Restoration of capitalism in the USSR", London) and shows the intra-party struggle over the essential direction of the state. This pitched Voznosensky against Stalin. It is no accident then that during the struggles over the direction of agriculture, Voznosensky and Khrushchev were pitched against Stalin. The conflict revolved around Khrushchev's desire to allow the freedom to make profits in the countryside. This was resisted by Stalin.
It was in the middle of this cauldron that the debates
about Lysenko took place. This debate itself with its political background
forms the endpiece.
The key questions are of course;
why was Lysenkoism pushed forward?
And as importantly, who pushed Lysenkoism to the status
of a State sponsored science to the exclusion of other trends in genetics?
The Lysenko debate is situated within the intra-party struggle, and the Ultra-Leftist manoeuvres to discredit the party. Understanding that Lysenkoism was another weapon by which to alienate intellectuals from the Socialist state under Stalin; only dawned on the author after Bland's pioneering histories were digested. Accordingly in the Appendix we reprint material of Mr.Bland to display the clever and cynical use of the Cult of Personality by the Khruschevites to discredit Stalin, and Stalin's numerous attempts to puncture the Cult of Personality.
Obviously then the essay is ambitious. It tries to bridge a history of the gene theory with a history of the revisionist attacks upon Stalin and the Soviet socialist state.
The author wishes that someone in the mould of the great
politically aware populists of science such as J.D.Bernal, or R.C.Lewontin
- would take such a task on. Such an individual's science credentials would
allow for a more authoritative approach, overcoming perhaps the lack of
a political training.
The author alternatively hoped that a political innovative
thinker of the calibre of W.B.Bland would take this on; having to
bone up a lot on the biology, but with the advantage of seeing the political
wood from the trees. But Bland was (to mix metaphors) frying other fish!
It is unfashionable to say that one is a Marxist. Even more so to say that history has done Stalin a great injustice. It is therefore a forlorn hope that a world famous biologist would take this on! After all, people do not often put themselves into a position of being accused of defending almost a "universally" acknowledged bloody monster. The enormous task of exposing the true history of the revisionist take over in the Soviet Union, and the defamation of Stalin is only now being systematically pursued. But the process needs to proceed much further, and much faster.
In this spirit, we presume to follow Darwin's riposte to the problem of the "Organ of Extreme Perfection":