There was no one single cause, and trying to deflect blame onto a single (exceptionally whackdoodle) pseudoscientific theory is intellectually dishonest at best, and regular dishonest at worst.
Man yeah, the fall of Lysenkoism is really the defining moment of mid-late 1940s soviet russia. Couldn’t possibly have been any other factors which played into the shift in cultural attitudes within the soviet union at that time. Nope, must have been down to Lysenkoism itself falling out of favor.
Also it ended in the 60s and the last big soviet famine was in 47s so idk about that timeline
Yes, eventually the industrialization of Soviet farming paid off despite his nonsense.
Doesn’t stop it from being the major cause (beyond deliberate genocidal policies) of the interwar famines. As you can provably see when it spread to Mao’s newly formed Chinese state and, surprise, caused famines again when they didn’t have the sheer output of an industrialized agrarianian sector to make up for it.
The Four Pests Campaign obviously didn’t help in that regard but Lysenkoism was part and parcel of it, with Mao officially adopting it as state policy and Lysenkoism trained advisors setting specific policy goals.
Sure, it was a pervasive piece of reasoning that existed in a system which would kill you if you tried to criticize the pseudoscience du jour. It had a large influence in soviet culture, yep, but it was absolutely not the sole driving force behind things like the Holodomor, or the other many famines.
If you don’t want to understand why a system that forced workers and scientists to lie about production numbers or get shot caused famines during industrial centralization and was the absolute worst thing to have happening concurrently with a direct causal link in two separate countries I can’t make you.
So your argument is that it wasn’t just Lysenkoism, but the political situation at the time which exacerbated the faults of Lysenkoism and lead to conditions allowing for those famines?
Which has incidentally been my entire point this whole time?
Everything is contextual and interconnected, but it was Lysenkoism, only possible under authorianism, that broke the core structural principle of a central command economy.
Lysenkoism isn’t a reference to the actions of Lysenko, it refers to the entire system of failures that created it.
Lysenko’s politically derived pseudoscience that started with ideology instead of evidence combined with Stalinist/Maoist paranoia and conflation of scientific dissent with rebellion and threats to the state created the famines from what would have been shortages during the restructuring.
Lysenko’s politically derived pseudoscience that started with ideology instead of evidence combined with Stalinist/Maoist paranoia and conflation of scientific dissent with rebellion and threats to the state created the famines from what would have been shortages during the restructuring.
Yes, exactly. Although I take quite a bit of issue with your depiction of Lysenkoism (you’re presenting it as much broader in scope than even wikipedia claims and certainly more generally impactful to the system than any of the academic sources I’ve read considers it having been) I don’t think that you’re overall wrong by any stretch! Countries are complex systems, which again has been my entire point, and I’m glad we agree on that.
There was no one single cause, and trying to deflect blame onto a single (exceptionally whackdoodle) pseudoscientific theory is intellectually dishonest at best, and regular dishonest at worst.
Funny, because it and the pre-industrial cyclical famines ended when his policies did.
Man yeah, the fall of Lysenkoism is really the defining moment of mid-late 1940s soviet russia. Couldn’t possibly have been any other factors which played into the shift in cultural attitudes within the soviet union at that time. Nope, must have been down to Lysenkoism itself falling out of favor.
Also it ended in the 60s and the last big soviet famine was in 47s so idk about that timelineYes, eventually the industrialization of Soviet farming paid off despite his nonsense.
Doesn’t stop it from being the major cause (beyond deliberate genocidal policies) of the interwar famines. As you can provably see when it spread to Mao’s newly formed Chinese state and, surprise, caused famines again when they didn’t have the sheer output of an industrialized agrarianian sector to make up for it.
The Four Pests Campaign obviously didn’t help in that regard but Lysenkoism was part and parcel of it, with Mao officially adopting it as state policy and Lysenkoism trained advisors setting specific policy goals.
Sure, it was a pervasive piece of reasoning that existed in a system which would kill you if you tried to criticize the pseudoscience du jour. It had a large influence in soviet culture, yep, but it was absolutely not the sole driving force behind things like the Holodomor, or the other many famines.
If you don’t want to understand why a system that forced workers and scientists to lie about production numbers or get shot caused famines during industrial centralization and was the absolute worst thing to have happening concurrently with a direct causal link in two separate countries I can’t make you.
So your argument is that it wasn’t just Lysenkoism, but the political situation at the time which exacerbated the faults of Lysenkoism and lead to conditions allowing for those famines?
Which has incidentally been my entire point this whole time?
edit: clarity
Everything is contextual and interconnected, but it was Lysenkoism, only possible under authorianism, that broke the core structural principle of a central command economy.
Lysenkoism isn’t a reference to the actions of Lysenko, it refers to the entire system of failures that created it.
Lysenko’s politically derived pseudoscience that started with ideology instead of evidence combined with Stalinist/Maoist paranoia and conflation of scientific dissent with rebellion and threats to the state created the famines from what would have been shortages during the restructuring.
That is all (and more) described by the term.
Yes, exactly. Although I take quite a bit of issue with your depiction of Lysenkoism (you’re presenting it as much broader in scope than even wikipedia claims and certainly more generally impactful to the system than any of the academic sources I’ve read considers it having been) I don’t think that you’re overall wrong by any stretch! Countries are complex systems, which again has been my entire point, and I’m glad we agree on that.