Centrally planned bedtimes.
Sure, why not.
But I though jeans were banned in the DPRK? :thonk:
not drinking coffee means you are a socdem im sorry
How dare you. Tea is far superior.
As the most widely consumed drink in the world, it is clearly the beverage of the global proletariat.
Time to dust off an old post I made about this guy. He was still majorly wrong in important ways, but like most things involving the USSR, the story we're told isn't very accurate. He wasn't just a dumb pseudoscientist who killed eveyone who disagreed with him:
Lysenko is actually pretty misrepresented in the West. He wasn't, like, totally opposed to Mendelian genetics or Darwinian evolution. He believed that some acquired traits were heritable, and while he was wrong about what traits, exactly, could be inherited, he was broadly correct. Hence, you know, epigenetics. This is especially true of plants, which can pass on acquired traits to multiple successive generations (not so much in animals). He did good work as a plant physiologist before he got into genetics, being the first to describe vernalization. Then things got out of control, mostly because of a lack of formal scientific education among the government and general public, and also Lysenko lacking a rigorous scientific background himself (coming from a poor peasant background):
To sum up briefly: Lysenko's vernalization was received by the agricultural specialists as a very interesting and promising method that deserved intensive investigations. He had made a fruitful impact on research in plant physiology though his experiments were sloppy, his theoretical explanations were disputed, and the real usefulness of his practical proposals was still unproved. But the general public, including political leaders, did not see the crucial difference between an idea being accepted as a fruitful working hypothesis and its being taken to be an established scientific fact. The methodological revolution that was believed to have taken place paralysed traditional means of scientific criticism.
If Lysenko's tests for vernalization were so poor, why was the method not criticized and rejected by agricultural experts? There can be no doubt that they saw the inadequacy of Lysenko's evidence. As Joravsky has pointed out this was a time when many wild methods were tried in Soviet agriculture. 33 Furthermore, there had been the cultural revolution. Bourgeois specialists had learned to be careful about what they said, and they were aware that traditional scientific arguments were not necessarily listened to by officials and the public. They were biding their time, trusting that new experiments would sort the wheat from the chaff in Lysenko's ideas. It was widely felt that vernalization was a promising method, and possibly Lysenko was on the right track with his hasty applications. Under the circumstances it was best not to risk one's neck with precipitous criticism.
But criticism did eventually come--and it was effective. In 1936, the plant breeders P. N. Konstantinov and I. P. Lisitsyn led the attack. In numerous articles and lectures they argued that the method of vernalizing seed grain had not yet been worked out in sufficent detail or properly tested. The results in a particular region depended very much on choosing the right procedures and the right varieties. With the crude guidelines so far given the outcome would sometimes be positive and sometimes negative. The defects of Lysenko's method of evaluating the results of vernalization were clearly pointed out. 34' 35 Lysenko tried to disarm Konstantinov by labelling him a bourgeois specialist, but in the end he reluctantly admitted that the method was not properly developed and tested for all circumstances. 36 After this the vernalization of spring grain was apparently quietly dropped. 37 But Lysenko's public reputation had already been made through the propaganda for his method in the mass media. The criticism does not seem to have had much impact outside the narrow circle of agricultural specialists. Even Soviet biologists continued to take Lysenko's practical achievements in vernalization for granted, at least in public discussions.
It should also go without saying that the idea that he was personally responsible for starving tens of millions of people in the USSR and China is also complete bullshit.
Here's a whole thing that puts him in the proper context:
spoiler
We read with great interest the recent article ‘Some pioneers of European human genetics’ by Peter Harper.1 This comprehensive review is very informative and highly appreciated. But a somewhat misleading statement needs to be reconsidered. Harper regarded Lysenko as a fraudulent agronomist. We disagree with him on this fundamental point. We are thinking that he was greatly misled by Medvedev’s book, The Rise and Fall of TD Lysenko,2 which he cited in his article. It should be noted that there are many misleading statements in this book. For example, in chapter 8, Medvedev argued against the validity of Lysenko’s work on plant graft hybridization, and pointed out that ‘serious and precise experiments by many scientists have failed to prove the possibility of transfer of hereditary stable properties from stock to scion’,2 thus regarding graft hybridization as Lysenko’s fraud. To our knowledge, it is Darwin who put forward the concept of graft hybridization. He described many cases of graft hybrids, and considered it to be special importance for understanding the mechanism of inheritance and variation. Later, Michurin invented the so-called ‘mentor-grafting’ method, which greatly enhanced the induction of graft hybrids. Lysenko not only recognized the existence of graft hybrids, but also applied the method of graft hybridization to the practice of plant breeding. Over the past several decades, extensive experiments on graft hybridization have been carried out and numbers of new crops and varieties were developed by grafting, indicating that graft-induced variant characteristics were stable and inheritable.3 Now it has been proposed that graft hybridization may serve as a mechanism of horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer. Thus, it is not proper to continue to regard Lysenko as a fraudulent agronomist.
Harper considered the inheritance of acquired characteristics as the defining feature of Lysenkoism, and referred to it as false science.1 Actually, the inheritance of acquired characters has been the subject of passionate debate and heated controversy since the days of Lamarck. Even Darwin accepted the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics as an established fact, and had assumed that it was of importance in evolution.4 He considered natural selection, the inheritance of acquired characteristics and mutation as three factors influencing evolution. It is true that Lysenko was a keen supporter of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He claimed that the environmentally induced changes were transmitted to the progeny by demonstration of the conversion of spring wheat into winter wheat and vice versa. In recent years, there has been a substantial body of reliable experimental evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics.4, 5 Lysenko’s work on the conversion of spring wheat into winter wheat can be explained by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.6 Now it seems that Lysenko was not wrong in believing the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Harper also mentioned Lysenko’s errors and crimes, as well as the death of numerous researchers in genetics.1 The impression which one gets from reading this paragraph is that Lysenko was responsible for the death of these geneticists. We fear that this view is too one-sided and not supported by historical evidence. It is true that Lysenko disputed with Vavilov and many other geneticists on some genetic viewpoints. But we must know that Lysenko was a leading Soviet scientist in agriculture and genetics. He was not the NKVD chief, thus he had no power to arrest geneticists. Lysenko himself repeatedly maintained that he was not personally responsible for Vavilov’s arrest and death. He recalled that the investigator of Vavilov had come to see him and asked: ‘What can you say in general about the wrecking (spying, counterrevolutionary) activities of Vavilov?’ Lysenko replied: ‘There were and are some differences of opinion on scientific matters between myself and Vavilov, but I have no knowledge of any wrecking activities of Vavilov’.7 In addition, Haldane, one of the towering figures of twentieth century biology, also denied that Lysenko had been responsible for Vavilov’s arrest and death.8
It is not our intention to minimize Lysenko’s mistakes and to exalt his contributions, but we must try to see things in their right proportion. Actually, some of Lysenko’s work had a certain scientific merit, which was recognized internationally. For example, it was Lysenko who coined the term vernalization, which is now still an extant scientific term and frequently appears in Nature, Science, Cell and many prestigious journals. In addition, some of Lysenko’s work was highly praised by world-famous scientists. For example, in early 1930s, Vavilov repeatedly place a high value on Lysenko’s contributions to science and agricultural production. As he said, ‘Lysenko is a careful and highly talented researcher. His experiments are irreproachable’.9 In 1964, Haldane made an objective comment: ‘In my opinion, Lysenko is a very fine biologist and some of his ideas are right’.10 Of course, we also recognize that some of Lysenko’s ideas were wrong and badly wrong. His biggest mistake was mixing science and politics. He regarded Mendelian genetics as ‘bourgeois science’ and forced Soviet geneticists to accept Michurinism, for which he got a bad reputation.
I remember reading about how they were involved in Cold War, or maybe hearing about it on Citations Needed or something, but I don't remember the details.
r/communism101 is fucking weird. It's absurdly ban-happy and full of some of the most dogmatic MLs I've ever encountered. I got banned for asking how drug use is unique to capitalism and why it would be wrong to let people grow weed on their own time. I think it might have been in one of those threads lol. The drug policy of present-day socialist states leaves a lot to be desired but I hope people don't get the impression that all MLs are like this. u/whatsunoftruth is a real piece of work based on his posting history.
These posts annoy me so I feel like going at them line-by-line:
This thread is swarmed with liberals who think communism is a utopia of “individual liberty and fulfillment” where you get to sit around and smoke weed all day
What does this shit even mean? How does being able to smoke weed imply that you would literally only smoke weed? How does this not extend to alcohol or tobacco?
Why do you people keep speculating? Does the thought of studying what socialist states that actually existed did, and is doing presently even enter your mind? Or do those solutions not satisfy you because deep down you find them “oppressive”?
Ridiculous dogmatism. No socialist state is perfect, and drug policy is one area where former and current ones are lacking (though this is absolutely not unique to socialist countries). Honestly, I think the histories of these countries' experience with drugs used as tools of imperialism, along with generally culturally conservative attitudes toward drug use (as inherently bad, as a moral failing rather than a health issue, as something best combated with criminalization, etc.), can explain why they have such harsh drug policies - see the Batista dictatorship in Cuba being a narco-dictatorship, CIA heroin trafficking in Vietnam and Laos, and the Opium Wars in China. I can understand why they are the way they are, but I think it's fair (and perfectly in line with materialism) to critique them as inefficient, counterproductive, and needlessly harmful.
As for the actual dogmatism, the reasoning he's using is: other socialist states did it this way, therefore it must always be this way under socialism. Which is pretty obviously bullshit; you could just as easily make the same argument against gay marriage. But beyond that, total prohibition is at odds with the medical and scientific consensus.
And when the oppressed peoples of the world think about communism this is definitely not the first thing that enter their mind.
Obviously irrelevant; no shit the priority is feeding people and liberating them from the oppression of capitalism and imperialism, but that doesn't preclude consideration of progressive drug policy.
Questions like this just screams First World petit-bourgeois consciousness.
There are both many, many drug users in the global periphery and many, many oppressed people within the imperial core who are disproportionately hurt by the war on drugs. Try saying this to the millions of slaves, mostly Black and Latino, in the US prison system because of drug laws, or to Bolivian coca growers.
I despise you people.
Yup, this was the thread I got banned in.
Under socialism “hard drugs” are obviously banned, and if you try to trade it you will get shot.
Jesus.
Addicts will be sent to rehabilitation centers, where they will receive free job training, get educated about the harmful effects of drugs
Sounds ok, although it depends on the drugs we're talking about, and there's no mention of mental health treatment.
and perform rehabilitative labor.
What the fuck? The solution to drug addiction is forced labor?
Perhaps the latter isn’t much more “dangerous” compared to the former. But while the former is a part of daily life for the peasantry in rural areas, the latter is considered by the masses to be a sign of comprador decadence, as marijuana is mostly brought from the united $tates.
So the actual effects of the drugs don't matter, just what they're "considered a sign of"?
On the other hand, under a future socialist state of the Black nation, I’d imagine drugs like marijuana wouldn’t be banned, since marijuana for many years was used as an excuse to justify mass incarceration of Black people.
So, because marijuana was used as an excuse to justify mass incarceration of Black people, under socialism it will be used to justify the incarceration of Black people???
Communism will not soft peddle to your white middle class privilege, you will have to give up every activity that is premised on the oppression of a vast, invisible pool of labor and the imperialist division of the world.
How the hell is all drug production premised on imperialism? Are we just gonna ignore that people can grow or produce their own drugs, or how people in the global periphery frequently do make their own drugs? Are we going to ignore the literal millennia of drug use that occurred outside of imperialism?
That includes drugs, pornography and prostitution, video games and whatever other idle activities you think grow on trees.
I can't even begin to understand what point this person is trying to make. Almost goddamn everything that's used or consumed in the world is produced under conditions of imperialist capitalism. Under socialism, we wouldn't rely on superexploitation of workers in the global periphery to produce things for us, but we would still have things because we would produce things ourselves or exchange what we produce under equal terms with the rest of the world. There's more than enough labor and resources already to produce more than just the bare minimum in every country; there would be video games just like there would be books and alcohol and toys for children. Less, sure, but not none. Tetris was invented in the USSR for fuck's sake!
If you can imagine a totally different economic system but can’t even imagine not sitting around smoking weed and playing video games, or accurately this is when it stops being “fun” and starts to sound scary, you are the problem.
Not only is he assuming that when we talk about being able to smoke weed or play videogames we mean literally 24/7 without doing anything else, he's also feeding into the anticommunist narrative that communism is dystopian drudgery where all you do is work. In every socialist country now and throughout history there has been leisure - there are pools and water parks and ski resorts in the DPRK. Every socialist country has alcohol and music and books and movies and TV shows, and every socialist country lets workers take days off of work.
They will keep asking the same question until they get the “right” answer, I specifically brought up those things because that is where the mask of petty-bourgeois radicalism comes off and the full-on middle class white male redditor emerges. I’m using this thread to weed those people out, I have no illusions anyone will change their minds.
Yes, it's literally just middle class white male Redditors who want more than just bare subsistence. Also:
smokeuptheweed9
🤡
So apparently the Open Society Foundations, which is affiliated with the group that put together this report, is owned by George Soros. Ironic.
Acting as a public benefit corporation, NCRI is a not-for-profit organization that seeks to explore safe ways to audit, reveal challenges, devise solutions, and create transparency in partnerships with social media platforms, public safety organizations, and government agencies.
Since NCRI has no political agenda, profit motive or university reporting obligations, the Institute is well positioned to manage confidentiality in sensitive relationships.
🤣
Quite frankly I'm offended that they classify r/moretankiechapo as "anarcho-socialist".
Inadequate use of crop rotation and particularly bad weather:
Ukraine was affected particularly badly by the expansion of the sown area. It already had a much lower level of uncropped arable than in all other regions of the USSR, with the exception of the highly commercial Leningrad region. According to the planning documents, the Ukrainian level of fallow was equal to 27.7 per cent of the sown area in 1927/28, and was projected to fall to 18.1 per cent in 1932/33.137 The USSR average was 59.1 per cent, projected to fall to 41.7 per cent. An external factor considerably complicated the situation in Ukraine. Bad weather led to exceptionally large winter killings of the autumn sowings for both the 1928 and 1929 harvests, and, to compensate for these, spring sowing was considerably increased. By 1929, rational crop rotation had been seriously undermined; and the increase in the sown area in 1930 and 1931 squeezed the fallow land still further.
Throughout the USSR, the reorganisation of the land, and the expansion of the sown area, disrupted the traditional arrangements for the cultivation of the soil, but for several years they were not replaced by an improved cropping system.
It was not until the autumn of 1932 that the restoration of proper crop rotation received the strong support of the authorities (see pp. 231–4). Meanwhile, much damage had been done. Such a dramatic expansion of sown area and reduction of fallow, without improved crop rotation and the careful introduction of alternative means for rejuvenating the soil with fertilisers or manure, was bound to lead to the reduction of yields and an increased likelihood of crop diseases. By 1932, in many regions, and particularly in Ukraine, soil exhaustion and crop diseases were widespread.
The Kulaks (who, yes, were monsters and did engage in sabotage in the past) didn't actually have much to do with the famine in the 30s, as they had already been pretty much completely eliminated by that point. Conquest is citing the official statements of the USSR, who blamed the agricultural shortfall on the Kulaks, but the Soviet archives show that the cause was much more complex than that.
Davies and Wheatcroft, in The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933, explain them. It's hard for me to summarize all of it and the relevant section is only like twenty pages, so please read "(E) CAUSES OF THE FAMINE".
The gist is that planning had overestimated grain yields based on overly optimistic predictions of improvements on previous years' yields. Grain was exported under the assumption that the leftover surplus would be sufficient, but it wasn't. Drought during the growing season and heavy rainfall during the harvesting seasons resulted in low output and high spoilage, meaning much less grain was produced than expected.
The reduction in livestock from 1928 was a product of diverting grain from feed in the countryside to urban population centers. In order to survive capitalist onslaught and develop out of Medieval poverty, the USSR needed to industrialize rapidly, which meant more food for the industrial workers. However, they took too much grain from the countryside to maintain their draught animals, which, coupled with the bad weather, resulted in much lower yields than planned.
When it became clear that a famine was occurring, the USSR did everything in its power to minimize starvation, and Stalin personally pressed for more grain to be reallocated to the countryside. However, the rapidly industrializing urban centers were prioritized, for good reason.
The people who starved were the farmers, mostly in Ukraine, but this wasn't an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, the party used the Kulaks as a scapegoat, even though they didn't really exist at that point. And, honestly, I think that was the right call; they couldn't have just said, "hey, the weather was bad and also we kind of fucked up and that's why you're starving to death", and expected to still have the support of the people. The authors describe this overall response as "ruthless and brutal", an example of a "genuflection to orthodoxy" as Parenti puts it; even though they're in the process of dismantling the narrative of Stalin being a brutal, malicious dictator, they still aren't willing to fully break from it.
EthicalHumanMeat
joined 4 years ago
Damn, it's almost like literal children don't always pay attention.