Lysenkoism and The Stateless Society

Lysenkoism and the Stateless Society
Author(s): Edward N. Megay

Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May, 1953), pp. 211-230
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2126057
Accessed: 07-04-2018 18:59 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Southern Political Science Association, The University of Chicago Press are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.164 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 18:59:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
LYSENKOISM AND THE STATELESS SOCIETY*
EDwARD N. MEGAY
It has been generally recognized that the dynamic, appealing

aspect of Marxism lies in the prophecy of the classless and stateless
society of the higher phase of communism in which there would be
no exploitation of one person by another, no authority of one person
over another, no laws, and no law enforcement. Anything that con-
tributes to the strength of this prophecy and brings its fulfillment
closer in time or feasibility deserves our attention since it is bound
to increase the appeal of Marxism and might influence Marxist pol-
icy on a world-wide scale. Trofim D. Lysenko's genetic doctrine is
such a factor, and the following pages are meant to show why, how,
and to what extent it contributes to the realization of the Marxian
prophecy.
Beyond its merely theoretical significance, Lysenkoism constitutes
a challenge to the Politburo of the Soviet Union to do something
about the realization of the higher phase of communism right here
and now. The men in the Kremlin are ideologically pledged to the
Marxian prophecy of the higher phase, and as Marxists they are
supposed to work for its coming; as we shall see, however, they were
excused from taking any practical steps to this end by Lenin himself,
because these steps were admittedly unknowable. Lysenko's genetic
doctrine changed this picture entirely; it claims no less than that
characteristics impressed upon an organism by changes in its environ-
ment can be fixed hereditarily and, through proper breeding, can be
made a hereditary property of any number of these organisms. While
Lysenko and his followers propound their doctrine for immediate
application to plant and animal breeding, there is no reason why a
genetic law allegedly valid with all other living organisms should not
apply to man as well. Thus Lysenko's genetic doctrine would con-
stitute the solution of the unknowable factor in the Marxian proph-
ecy and allow practical measures to be taken for its realization - if
only it were true and would work.
*The death of Stalin and his succession by Georgi M. Malenkov lend the
following article a very particular timeliness. Malenkov was the champion of
Lysenko's genetic doctrine in the Central Committee of the Communist Party
in 1948 and used its victory as a weapon against Zhdanov. Thus Malenkov is
very personallv and particularly committed to Lysenkoism.
[ 211 1
212 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS [Vol. 15
Because Lysenkoism is a scientific error, it should

a challenge to the Politburo to apply it to the fulfillment of the
Marxian prophecy. But the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the U.S.S.R. officially declared Lysenko's doctrine to be the
only true genetics, and its opponents were forced to subside. Here
lies the challenge to the Kremlin: apply Lysenkoism to the Russian
people, prepare for the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat and
for the coming of the classless and stateless society. If you do not
face this challenge, you deny faith in your Marxist ideology, and
deny faith in Lysenkoism which you yourselves declared as scientific
dogma.
In August, 1948, and for months to follow, Trofim D. Lysenko, a

Russian agronomist and self-styled geneticist, made headlines with
his genetic doctrine. This was -at least'in the western world -
due less to the scientific value of his doctrine than to the sensational
way in which it was set forth, sanctioned by the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. and accepted by its world-
renowned opponents of twenty-four hours before.
Lysenko delivered the presidential address at the session of the
Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the U.S.S.R. in Moscow
on July 31, 1948, in which he restated a genetic doctrine named
Michurinism after its founder, I. V. Michurin (1854 or 1860 to
1935), and amplified it by what is now called Lysenkoism proper.
The focal point of this genetic doctrine is the claim that heredity is
an aspect of metabolism, that the genes are not the only carriers of
hereditary characteristics, and finally - and this is the most impor-
tant part to us - that characteristics acquired under the influence of
the environment of an organism are transmitted hereditarily. This
claim flatly contradicts the findings of biological research which are
summarily called neo-Mendelism. The main tenets of the two schools
of genetics, and their main differences, can be aptly summarized for
the layman in the following way:
Mendelism: heredity depends on a system of material particles, the

genes; hereditary variation depends on the mutation of genes; evolu-
tion depends on the automatic process of natural selection. . .
Michurinism: heredity is an aspect of metabolism, i.e. the chemical
processes underlying vital activity; hereditary variation is due to the
1953] LYSENKOISM AND THE STATELESS SOCIETY 213
effects of changed external conditions; evolution is due to the inherit-

ance of such acquired characters over many generational
When referring to Lysenko's doctrine or Lysenkoism, we shall

understand it to claim-in accordance with its propagator -that
"heredity is the effect of the concentration of the action of external
conditions assimilated by the organism in a series of preceding gen-
erations"2 and to "contend that inheritance of characters acquired
by plants and animals in the process of their development is possible
and necessary."3
A few more quotations from Lysenko's opening address at that
memorable session will make his claims perfectly clear, while at the
same time showing that they are largely designed to fit into Marxist
materialism. He said:
The materialist theory of the evolution of living nature necessarily

presupposes the recognition of hereditary transmission of individual
characteristics acquired by the organism under definite conditions of
its life; it is unthinkable without recognition of the inheritance of
acquired characters.4
A little farther on Lysenko claimed that "the most important

point is that Michurin's teaching . . . shows every biologist the way
to regulating the nature of vegetable and animal organisms, the way
of altering it in a direction required for practical purposes by regu-
lating the conditions of life, i.e., by physiological means."5 In order
to oppose the neo-Mendelian finding that the machinery of heredity
is particulate, i.e. that "there does exist a specific organ of heredity"
and that "it is just as distinct and separate from other organs as are
the stomach or the skeletal muscles,"6 Lysenko announced that "So-
viet readers and audiences [are] firm in the knowledge that the
'Julian Huxley, "Why Lysenko is Important," The New Republic, 121, No.
23 (December 5, 1949), 11. Also see Julian Huxley, Heredity East and West
(New York: Henry Schuman, 1949), pp. 1-34.
2Trofim Lysenko, The Science of Biology Today (New York: International
Publishers, 1948), p. 40. And The Situation in Biological Science, Proceedings
of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Session: July
31-August 7, 1948, Verbatim Report (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1949), p. 41.
3Lysenko, op. cit., p. 18; and The Situation in Biological Science, op. cit.,
p. 20.
4The Situation in Biological Science, op. cit., p. 15. Cf. Lysenko, op. cit.,
p. 13.
5Ibid, p. 20; Lysenko, op. cit., p. 18.
6Huxley, Heredity East and West, op. cit., p. 5.
germs of organisms, or the sex cells, are a resul

of the parent organism."7 Thus new vistas of
are opened since "in our socialist country, the teaching of the great
transformer of nature, I. V. Michurin, has created a fundamentally
new basis for directing the variability of living organisms."8 An-
other important statement of his doctrine are the following words of
Lysenko:
Changes in heredity, acquisition of new characters and their aug-

mentation and accumulation in successive generations are always de-
termined by the organism's conditions of life. Heredity changes and
its complexity increases as the result of the accumulation of new char-
acters and properties acquired by organisms in successive generations.9
Lysenko's optimistic conclusion from his unsubstantiated claim

is the following:
By regulating the conditions of life and development of plants and

animals we can penetrate their nature ever more deeply and thus estab-
lish what are the means of changing it in the required direction. Once
we know the means of regulating development we can change the
heredity of organisms in a definite direction.lO
A few pages later we again find the claim that "changes in hered-
ity are as a rule the result of the organism's development under ex-
ternal conditions which, to one extent or other, do not correspond to
the natural requirements of the given organic form.""1 This leads
to the formulation of Lysenko's theory in a nutshell, namely that
"heredity is the effect of the concentration of the action of environ-
mental conditions assimilated by the organism in a series of preced-
ing generations."12
Beyond his claim that new varieties can be produced by a delib-
erate regulation of the conditions of life and development of organ-
isms at certain stages - bold enough as it is - Lysenko also claims
that the evolutionary process of the formation of species can be di-
rected so as to develop new ones. He says:
We must realize that speciation is a transition -in the course of a

historical process - from quantitative to qualitative variations. Such
'The Situation in Biological Science, op. cit., p. 22. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 20.
lIbid., p. 27. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 26.
lIbid., p. 34. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 33.
"Ibid., p. 35. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 33.
"Ibid., p. 37. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 35. Italics in original.
'Ibid., p. 41. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 40.
1953| LYSENKOISM AND THE STATELESS SOCIETY 215
a leap is prepared by the vital activity of organic forms themselves, as

the result of quantitative accumulations of responses to the action of
definite conditions of life, and that is something that can definitely be
studied and directed.
Such an understanding of speciation, an understanding of natural
laws, places in the hands of biologists a powerful means of regulating
the vital process itself and consequently speciation as well.13
As a matter of fact, Lysenko's doctrine is incorrect. Earlier, his

teacher Michurin had withdrawn some of his doctrines which were
based on the mistaken work of another biologist, Grell. Lysenko,
however, not only re-established these doctrines, but added some
errors of his own. The only people outside the Soviet orbit who sub-
scribe to Lysenkoism are the members and followers of the Commun-
ist parties of all countries, who were all converted to the new genetics
in the course of August, 1948, evidently not for scientific reasons.
Such eminent scientists, however, as the Nobel Prize winner H. J.
Muller, professors Sonneborn, Cook, Dunn, Sax, Huxley, Crane, and
others, staunchly uphold what they have observed in the laboratory,
orchard, and breeding station, namely the peculiar role and nature
of the genes as carriers of heredity.14
Lysenko's genetic doctrine did not go unchallenged in Russia
either. The leading biologists and geneticists in the Soviet Union, such
as Zhukovsky, Schmalhausen, Zavadovsky, Alikhanian, Polyakov,
Zhebrak, and others, have opposed the resurgence of Michurinism
championed by Lysenko for many years. The means by which Lysen-
ko and his camp fought against neo-Mendelism and its representatives
in the Soviet Union were not strictly scientific. Running through
Lysenko's opening address at the 1948 session of the Lenin Academy
of Agricultural Sciences of the U.S.S.R., we find the following argu-
ments against neo-Mendelism: it is "the Weismannist and Morganist
3Ibid., p. 47. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 46.

"4For critical discussions of Lysenkoism see among others: Huxley, Hered-
ity East and West, op. cit.; Conway Zirkle (ed.), Death of a Science in Russia
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949); T. M. Sonneborn,
"Heredity, Environment, and Politics," Science, 11 (May 19, 1950), 529-39;
R. C. Cook, "Lysenko's Marxist Genetics," The Journal of Heredity, 40 (July,
1949), 169-202; Huxley, "Why Lysenko is Important," op. cit., 11-14; Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, 5 (May, 1949), 130-56, especially the articles by L. C.
Dunn, "Motives for the Purge," and M. B. Crane, "Lysenko's Experiments";
Raymond A. Bauer, "The Genetics Controversy and the Psychological Sciences
in the USSR," The American Psychologist, 4 (October, 1949), 418-21; a good
bibliography has been compiled by M. C. Leikind, "The Genetics Controversy
in the U.S.S.R.: A Bibliographic Survey," The Journal of Heredity, 40 (July,
1949), 203-8.
idealist metaphysics" which has "been exposed by the Michurin-

ists';15 or he claims that "it is obvious to anyone that both the
question and the answer which Professor Zavadovsky, following Weis-
mann, gives are nothing but a revival, and a belated one at that,
of old scholasticism."16 Talking about Schmalhausen's contention
that environmental factors merely cause characteristics or properties
inherent in an organism to consummate their realization, Lysenko
says that "this formalistic, autonomistic theory of a 'liberating cause'
. . . has been exposed by materialism as unscientific in essence, as
idealistic."'L7 Furthermore, "on the basis of the Morganist concept
of mutations, Schmalhausen has formulated the theory of so-called
'stabilizing selection' - a theory profoundly wrong ideologically
and hamstringing practical activity's8 With a sigh of relief he
notes that "under the influence of Michurin criticism of Morganism
young scientists with philosophical training have in recent years come
to realize that the Morganist views are utterly alien to the world
outlook of Soviet people."']9 In the concluding remarks of the
session, on August 7, 1948, Lysenko claims that Weismannism-Mor-
ganism, "since it is a thoroughly idealistic teaching, . . . creates an
utterly false idea about natural laws."20 The death blow to neo-
Mendelism is its failure, at least in Lysenko's eyes, to do something
for the Soviet Union right here and right now. Along the line of
Lenin's views on the value of theory and science Lysenko exclaims:
"a science which fails to give practical workers a clear perspective,
the power of finding their bearings and confidence that they can
achieve practical aims does not deserve to be called science."21
The year 1948 decided the struggle between the Lysenkoists and
the neo-Mendelians in the Soviet Union. At the session of the
Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the U.S.S.R., eight neo-Mendel-
ians opposed Lysenko, most of them under constant heckling.22
"5The Situation in Biological Science, op. cit., p. 23. Lysenko, op. cit.,
p. 21.
"Ibid., p. 27. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 25. Note that neo-Mendelism always
has been "exposed" as wrong or evil; not once does Lysenko claim that it has
been disproved in our, western, meaning of that term.
'bid., p. 28. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 26.
"Ibid., p. 615. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 59. Italics in original.
22Ibid., pp. 154-59, 334-60, 426-40, 441-56, 456-67, 467-76, 489-96, 555-63.
Then, in the tenth sitting of the Academy, on the morning of August

7, 1948, after its members had well stated their respective positions
in the dispute, Lysenko sprang the trap. He said that he had received
a written question as to the position of the Communist Party in this
dispute, and declared: "The Central Committee of the Party exam-
ined my report and approved it. (Stormy applause. Ovation. All
rise.)"23 The following hours of the Congress until its end on the
same day constituted one of the many tragic chapters in the history
of modern civilization. Zhukovsky, Alikhanian, and Polyakov re-
canted, confessed not only error but guilt, promised conversion, and
ended on a hurrah for "our teacher Stalin."24
The letter which the Academy then addressed to Stalin is also
quite revealing. The scientists there express their appreciation of
Stalin's leadership in biology and write: "You held up the Michurin
trend in biology to science as the only correct and progressive trend
in all branches of biology."25 Then they reassert the essence of
Lysenkoism: "The Michurinian agricultural science, urged by you
more boldly and determinedly to develop research in the active trans-
formation of the nature of plants and animals, arms the practical
farmers. ."2 6 And then they apply the scientific lesson they got
from Stalin to the practical and theoretical aims of communism:
We assure you, dear Joseph Vissarionovich, that we shall bend every

effort to assist . . . in securing even higher yields from our socialist
fields and higher productivity of collective farm and state farm animal
husbandry, in order to ensure an abundance of produce in our country
as one of the major conditions for the transition from Socialism to
Communism.27
They restate Lysenko's claim and declare that "progressive bio-

logical science repudiates and exposes the false idea that it is impos-
sible to govern the nature of organisms by creating man-controlled
conditions of life. . ."28 Then they end with "Glory to the great
Stalin, the leader of the people and coryphaeus of progressive sci-
ence! "29
Finally, the Academy adopted a resolution - unanimously, of
23Ibid., p. 605. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 49.

241bid., pp. 618-24.
2sI bid., p. 625.
26Ibid., p. 626.
27Ibid., p. 626.
28Ibid., pp. 626-27.
29Ibid., p. 627.
course - on the address delivered by T. D. Lysenko; the following

excerpts leave no doubt concerning the proper understanding of the
new genetic doctrine:
The Michurin trend proceeds from the premise that the new char-
acters which plants and animals acquire under the influence of their
conditions of life can be transmitted by inheritance. The Michurin
theory arms practical workers with scientifically founded methods for
the planned alteration of the nature of plants and animals, for im-
proving existing varieties of agricultural plants and breeds of animals
and creating new ones.30
So as to exclude any doubt, the resolution stresses the main point

again:
... Soviet agrobiological science . .. has become a powerful instru-

ment for the active and planned transformation of living nature...
There can be no doubt that the further development of I. V. Michurin's
theory will progressively increase our success in subjecting nature to
the will of man.31
In. line with the resolution of the Academy of Agricultural Sci-

ences, the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R
issued a decree on August 26, 1948, in which we find the statement
that "the Michurinist teachings set as their main task the direction
of organic nature and the establishment of new forms of plants and
animals, needed by the socialist society."32
Lysenko's genetic doctrine has been presented at such length in
order to provide a clear basis for the conclusions to be drawn in the
rest of this article. Since the laws of heredity are the same for micro-
organisms, plants, and all species of animals, they equally apply to
man. The challenge to the Kremlin is merely the demand to apply
Lysenko's doctrine not only to plants and animals, but also to man.
If Lysenko can transform living nature, he must also be able to trans-
form man, to establish a new form of man "needed by socialist so-
ciety" as the most important condition "for the transition from
Socialism to Communism." Lysenko's genetic doctrine has been
officially accepted in the Soviet Union; it claims to be able to create
new species, thus also to create a new kind of man; why then, we
ask, has no one thought of applying it to the Marxist prophecy of
the higher phase of Socialism?
30Ibid., p. 629.
31Ibid., pp. 629-30.
"Quoted in "History of the Genetics Conflict," Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 5 (May, 1949), 139.
To the political scientist the most important conclusion is, that

by claiming that acquired characters can be transmitted hereditarily
Lysenko's genetic doctrine furnishes the allegedly scientific basis for
the change in human nature which according to Marx, Engels, and
Lenin must precede the higher phase of communism, and which alone
will make the classless and stateless society possible. It will be shown
that Marx, Engels, and Lenin, while expressing their conviction that
such a profound change in human nature is required to make the
higher phase of communism possible, confessed that they were unable
to say why and how this lasting change would come about. Thus,
the ideal community of Marxism is a "necessity" under the laws of
dialectical materialism, yet one whose causes could not be explained
but only believed. Since August, 1948, however, it ought to be clear
to every follower of the party line, thanks to Trofim D. Lysenko's
"Darwinist-Michurinist-Marxist" genetic doctrine, that the characters
which are impressed upon people under the lower phase, the dictator-
ship of the proletariat, can be handed down hereditarily so that the
"new man"r of the higher phase of communism will become reality
and thus the ideal community itself possible.
II
When it was said that Marxism-Leninism merely prophesied the

ideal community and that only Lysenko's genetic doctrine purported-
ly raises it to scientific reality, this should not be understood as
meaning that Marx, Engels, and Lenin do not consider their beliefs
as scientific. Reference to Engels' Anti-Dfikring and Socialism
Utopian and Scientific will convince one of the deep belief in the
scientific nature of Marxian socialism.
Lenin, however, pointed out that the exact process by which
mankind will attain the high aim of the stateless society is not known,
but that it is important to realize that social development and prog-
ress is possible "only with Socialism." 33 In general, Marxian social-
ism is designated as the scientific vehicle of progress toward the ideal
society whose attainment is "inevitable."
When speaking of Socialism or the lower phase, Lenin says that
the Marxists are "convinced that it will develop into Communism
since people will grow accustomed to observing the elementary
33V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution, revised translation (New York: Inter-
national Publishers, 1932), p. 82.
220 THE JOURNAL 0O POLITICS [Vol. 15
conditions of social existence without force land w

tion."34 Under the close supervision and control of
by society, and because of the "swift and severe punis
out to offenders by "the armed workers," "very soon t
observing the simple, fundamental rules of every-day
common will have become a habit."35
This habit of observing the fundamental rules of so
"from each according to his ability, to each according
will be impressed upon people "by means of that fear
victorious proletariat's] arms inspire in the reactionar
Lenin expresses his conviction that the classless and st
is not only possible, but actually will come about,
with the assertion that the right social behavior will b
of all. But beyond his assertion there is no proof that
be formed, that it will be lasting through future gene
explanation as to why and how the lasting habit wil
few references to Marxist sources will make this shor
clearer.
In his (1891) preface to Karl Marx's Civil War in F
writes:
... the state is ... at best an evil ... whose worst sides t
tariat . . . will have at the earliest possible moment to lo
such time as a new generation, reared under new and free
ditions, will be able to throw on the scrap-heap all this state r
Lenin is so impressed by this passage that he italiciz

"new generation" in his comment, m which he explain
sees the "withering away of the state" as a result of t
of social behavior which people will acquire when t
been "reared under new and free social conditions
Lenin makes the bold statement: "Only habit can, a
will, have such an effect,"39 viz. the voluntary, e
"observance of the elementary rules of social life."
does he claim that a fear-inspired habit ("habituation"
the sense better) "undoubtedly" will have this eff
"Ibid., p. 68.
"Ibid., pp. 84-85.
""F. Engels as quoted in Ibid., p. 53.
"Quoted in Ibid., p. 66.
'Ibid., p. 68.
'I.bid, p. 74.
is not based on the result of an investigation with scientific methods,

but is an act of faith pure and simple.
Lenin not only believes that this habit can be formed, but also
that it can be fixed in man as a species. Asserting, in full accord-
ance with Marx's teaching, that the higher phase of communism will
be based on a new human nature, Lenimi writes: ". . the great Social-
ists, in foreseeing its [the higher phase's] arrival, presupposed
a person not like the present man in the street...740
Marx's belief that a change in human nature is the essence of
communism has been presented in an interesting article by Professor
Voegelin41 in which he points out Marx's distinction between "crude
communism" as an institutional reform, and "true communism"
which is a reform of human nature. Marx designates crude com-
munism as the "positive expression" of abolished private property,
as a mere "generalization and perfection of private property." "In
its radical negation of the personality of man" it is an extension of
the old private property. "Crude communism, thus, is only a mani-
festation of the rascality (Niedertrackt) of private property that
wants to establish itself as a positive community." True commun-
ism, on the other hand, means the rediscovery by man of himself as
social man "within the whole wealth of human development up to
this point." True communism is "the true solution of the conflict
between man and nature." Professor Voegelin continues:
"True life" is the positive reality of man, not mediated through

... communism. In the next phase of history, communism will be
positive as "negation of the negation," -"but communism as such is
not the aim of human development, -it is not the form of human
society." . . . Communism is not an institutional reform; it is, indeed,
a change in the nature of man.42
This reference to an early (1844) writing of Marx should show

clearly that for him the reform of society is possible only through a
reform of human nature. The frequently voiced belief that Marxism
wants to create a new man through the institutions of a new society,
which in turn would be brought about by the abolition of private
"Ibid., p. 80.
'1Eric Voegelin, "The Formation of the Marxian Revolutionary Idea," The
Review of Politics, VII, No. 3, (July, 1950), 275-302.
"Ibid., p. 294, quoting Marx, Oekonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte
(1844), Marx-Engels, Gesamtausgabe (Erste Abteilung) (Leipzig, -1927-1932),
III, 125 f. Cf. also Sidney Hook, From Hegel to Marx (New York: Reynal
& Hitchcock, [19361), pp. 209-10, 278, 286, 289, 290, 303-4.
222 THE JOURNAL OP POLITICS [Vol. 15
property and the accompanying exploitation of th

property holders, states even less than half the tr
man, according to the Marxian doctrine, has to be freed from the
compelling influence of material forces which in capitalism shape his
destiny and nature; but beyond this, the struggle for freedom from
these chains produces a change in those who participate in it. By
changing the world man changes himself43 and thus becomes free
for the good life in the stateless society through the education gained
in the course of the social struggle.44 But neither Marx, nor Engels,
nor Lenin can tell how the lasting effect of this reform of human
nature is to be secured. Lenin even says: "By what stages, by means
of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this higher aim
[the higher phase of communism] -this we do not and cannot
know."45
This admission of the inability to say "by means of what prac-
tical measures" the change of human nature is to be fixed in mankind,
while stating that it is the key to the ideal community, is a heavy
blow to Marxism. We have no evidence that Lysenko saw this prob-
lem and set out to solve it by claiming that characteristics acquired
by an organism - thus also man - under the influence of a changed
environment can be fixed within a few generations and transmitted
hereditarily by selected breeding. But knowingly or unknowingly,
he did provide a purportedly scientific proof for what Lenin believed
by an act of faith. Since Lysenko's doctrine is supposed to provide
scientific evidence for a basic tenet of Marxism, is it not surprising
that it has not been advertised as such?
III
In order to demonstrate the full significance of Lysenko's genetic

doctrine for the realization of the Marxian prophecy of the stateless
and classless society, the lower phase of communism must be inter-
preted as an educational preparatory step to the higher phase rather
than as the necessary consequence and destruction of capitalism.
Since the Marxist writers agree that the ideal community can be
brought about only by a change of human nature, it must be pre-
ceded by the reformation of man. This reformation is to be accom-
"Hook, op. cit., p. 289.
"'Loc. cit.
"'Lenin, op. cit., p. 82.
polished, chiefly according to Engels and Lenin, by the transforma-

tion of a forced social behavior and attitude into a "habit." The
ideal society must be preceded by a phase of evolution in which the
new behavior and attitude is forced and impressed upon man. This
stage is aptly called the first or lower phase of communism. At this
stage of evolution, man, who potentially is rational, but because of
the adverse extraneous forces of capitalism actually is not so, is not
yet considered as fully free, fully rational. Therefore at this stage
human behavior, according to the Marxian view, is still determined
by conditioned reflexes (Pavlov) or drives (Freud).46 Thus, in the
lower phase of communism the whole life of every person must be
made to center on and revolve around the social philosophy of Marx-
ism-Leninism in order to "condition" human behavior and to make
it simply a "reflex," or the automatic result of Marx-inspired
"drives."
Soviet psychologists attack "bourgeois" psychology because it re-
gards man "as the product of the interaction of two forces external
to him -heredity and environment. Soviet psychology sees him as
a result of forces internal to the psyche working themselves out in
a social context."47 Under these internal forces of the psyche the
Soviet psychologist understands "internalized manifestations of the
dynamics of society. They are developed by and in society and they
seek their resolution in and from society."48 The Russian psycho-
logist Leontiev also claims that "bourgeois psychology looks on de-
velopment as primarily the expression of innate characteristics, while
the Soviets consider development to be preeminently a social phe-
nomenon."49 Modern Soviet psychology stresses the possibility of
man changing the world and himself, and opposes the admission of
limitations on what can be done in either training or therapy.50
However, even the consideration of the lower phase of commun-
ism primarily as an educational institution leaves the great question
"Nicholas Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian CommunismI (New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937), pp. 115-18.
"Bauer, op. cit., 419-20.
"Ibid., p. 420, referring to A. N. Leontiev, "The Most Important Problems
of Psychology in the Light of the Session of the Lenin All-Union Academy of
Agricultural Sciences," Sovietskaia Pedagogika, 1949, No. 1, pp. 76-85.
"A. N. Leontiev, "The Most Important Problems of Psychology in the Light
of the Session of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences,"
Sovietskaia Pedagogika, 1949, No. 1, pp. 76-85, quoted in Bauer, op. cit., 420.
"Bauer, op. cit., 420.
unanswered: can the dictatorship of the proletariat ever come to an

end, will the state ever wither away and give room to the classless
and stateless society of the higher phase? The answer to this ques-
tion evidently depends on the possibility of permanent fixation of
the proper social behavior in man as a habit. If this fixation is pos-
sible, then evidently the use of compulsion will become superfluous,
man will voluntarily, or better habitually, i.e., automatically, behave
unselfishly and rationally. If, however, this fixation is not possible,
then evidently compulsion to behave like a Marxist will always have
to be maintained and the dictatorship of the proletariat will never
give way to the higher phase of communism.51 Either it will have
to be perpetuated, or abandoned, or eventually abolished by an out-
side force.
We have seen that Marxism-Leninism teaches that the Marxist
habit of life will "undoubtedly" be formed by the educational work
of the lower phase, although Lenin admits that "we do not and can-
not know" "by what stages, by means of what practical measures
humanity will proceed" to the higher phase of communism. In this
situation, Lysenko takes on the stature of the Marxist Messiah; his
genetic doctrine purports to deliver scientific proof for the hereditary
transmission of qualities or characters acquired by an organism under
the influence of its external environment. Lysenko specifically states
that a different, new variety can be produced by exposing specimens
of the old variety to certain environmental factors at the proper time,
and by selecting the most favorably influenced progeny for further
breeding. By the repetition of this process for a few generations the
undesirable qualities of the old variety can be eliminated and re-
placed by new, desirable ones. Thus, the new Marxian man, unself-
ish, rational, and free from the compelling influence of the extrane-
ous forces, can be produced. When an overwhelming majority of
the people is of this new species, the state can wither away and the
ideal society comes into existence. Thus the prophecy of Marxism-
Leninism has found its Messiah in Lysenko; and the Central Com-
mittee of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. has declared Lysen-
ko's saving message as genuine.
While the outsider is surprised by this kind of highest political
sanction of an erroneous biological doctrine, he is also entitled to
"1Cf. Stalin's remarks at the Party Congress of 1939, Josef Stalin, Leninism;
Selected Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1942), pp. 470-74.
19531 LYSENKOISM AND THE STATELESS SOCIETY 225
challenge the Politburo to live up to its avowed beliefs. First of all,

as avowed Marxists, the rulers of the Soviet Union are supposed to
work for the withering away of the state and for the advent of the
classless society. So far, we must concede it could be pleaded that
the means and practical measures for the achievement of this goal
were not and could not be known - and this on the authority of
Lenin. But now, the challenge continues, Trofim D. Lysenko has
discovered the means, and the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the U.S.S.R. has acknowledged his discovery as genuine,
true, and soundly Marxist. How long will the Politburo sabotage the
application of this discovery to the attainment of the ultimate goal
of Marxism? How long will they tarry with the practical measures
based on Lysenko's discovery?
IV
Just in case some outside help might be welcome, a short outline

of the "practical measures" by which Lysenkoism - if it were sci-
entifically true - could make reality of the Marxian prophecy shall
be attempted.
The personality of a person consists of hereditary factors, the
products of original nature, and of acquired factors, the products of
environment or nurture. Factors of both kinds combine to form
the various traits of a personality, and it is impossible to label a trait
as only hereditary or only acquired.52 It must be kept in mind,
however, that any given personality, or human nature in general,
cannot be made up entirely of acquired traits at the exclusion of
hereditary features. However strong, intensive, or long-lasting the
influence of environment may be, it will never succeed in excluding
the hereditary factor of original nature in man. Thus, the Marxist
belief that human nature could be changed by changing the environ-
ment is erroneous. It could only be approximated, and after count-
less generations more or less realized only if acquired characteristics
would be transmitted hereditarily. Lysenko's purportedly scientific
claim that this can be done, and the declaration of his doctrine as
dogma by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
U.S.S.R. in 1948, introduce a new and highly important factor into
"Leonard Carmichael, "Heredity and Environment: Are They Antithetical?"

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XX, No. 3 (October, 1925),
257.
226 THlE JOURNAL OF POLITICS [Vol. 15
Marxism-Leninism. Although the prophecy of the "withering away

of the state" is somewhat played down in present-day Russia, the
idea of rational active change in and through socialist society is an
important feature of modern communist thought. "One of the
more constant features of the theoretical framework of the social
sciences in the Soviet Union," writes Barrington Moore, "is the
assumption that in a socialist society man can be the master of his
own fate."53 To corroborate this statement, Moore quotes from a
Russian source: "Socialist society sets as its task the active alteration
of the conditions inherited from the past."54
In such an atmosphere it should not be difficult to put Lysenko's
genetic doctrine to work and to proceed to the "active alteration of
the conditions interited from the past" in man himself in order to
fix the Marxist habit of social behavior indelibly for all future
generations by the improvement of the progeny and the hereditary
transmission of this improvement. Lysenkoism points the way.
Soon, human beings would be born with the Marxist social behavior
as part of their nature; then, according to Lysenko's doctrine, the
treatment of these new human specimens by Marxian training could
be discontinued because the new character would be fixed, main-
tained by the social environment without further compulsion, and
transmitted hereditarily. Along the lines of Plato's Republic, the
lower phase of communism would not only eliminate the corrupt-
ing influence of private property and educate people to the rational
unselfish life, but it would also be a breeding station on a large scale.
The difference between Plato and Lysenkoist Marxism-Leninism
would mainly lie in the extension of these measures from the rul-
ing classes to the whole population. If Lysenkoism were really in-
corporated into AMarxism-Leninism. those people who are really and
thoroughly reformed by Marxism would have to be selected for
breeding purposes. The others could be sterilized. The next
generation, according to Lysenko's doctrine, would show a far great
percentage of people with the true Marxian habit of social behavior,
and it would be deeper rooted in them, it would make up a larger part
of their personality. They would be exposed to the influence of
"Barrington Moore, Jr., "Recent Developments in the Social Sciences in the

Soviet Union," Anmerican, Sociological Review, 12, No. 3 (June, 1947), 349.
""Political Economy in the Soviet Union," translated by Emily A. Kazake-
vich, from Pod Zntatnenemn Marksizmna, No. 7-8, July-August, 1943 (New York:
International Publishers, 1944), p. 24, as quoted by Moore, op. cit., 349-50.
Marxist environment -still artificially maintained by the dictator-

ship of the proletariat under the direction of the party elite - and
again the most desirable specimens would be selected for breeding
purposes. After a few generations of proper breeding in the right
environment, the new Marxian man would finally be produced who
would display the desirable habit of social behavior as a fixed hered-
itary feature. The treatment could then be discontinued, the Marx-
ian environment would not have to be maintained by the armed
proletariat, and proper behavior would not have to be elicited by the
fear inspired by the armed workers because the notion of private
property would have vanished from the mind of man and he would
not know how to behave otherwise but rationally and unselfishly.
Thus with one stroke Lysenkoism not only points out the means by
which the leap from the lower to the higher phase, from the serfdom
of man to his freedom, can be performed, but also how and why the
higher phase, the ideal classless and stateless society without law
and law-enforcement, will be perpetuated indefinitely, forever, put-
ting an end to the effective operation of "the extraneous objective
forces that have hitherto governed history"55 with blind necessity.
It is remarkable that this aspect of Lysenkoism, to the writer's
knowledge, has not been pointed out, either by the Russian Com-
munist Party which championed the doctrine, or by an outsider
who would like to see the Marxists put Mother Nature to the test.
The interpretation of the lower phase of communism primarily
as an educational institution, and now also as a large-scale breeding
station for humans reminds us, with certain reservations, of Plato's
Republic. Marx, like Plato, ascribes the corruption of society to
economic causes; like Plato, he thinks that private property is in-
compatible with the exercise of political authority;56 like Plato,
Marx holds that man has to be educated and raised in a con-
ducive environment in order to achieve the ideal community; like
Plato, Lenin will entrust this educational task to the party elite
trained in Marxist theory; Lysenkoism now adds to Marxism
breeding as a means to hand down the effects of "good nurture and
"sFrederick Engels, Herr Eugen Diihring's Revolution in Science, trans.

E. Burns (New York: International Publishers, [n.d.]), p. 318; and Frederick
Engels, Socialism Utopian and Scientific, trans. E. Aveling (Chicago: Charles H.
Kerr & Company, 1908), pp. 134-35.
56Ernest Barker, Greek Political Theory; Plato aned his Predecessors (2d.
ed.; London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1925), p. 210.
education" already provided by Plato.57 The great difference lies

in the outcome of education and breeding of the population in the
two systems. Plato does not believe that the effects of education
and environment can be fixed in mankind; therefore he retains
some authority in his ideal community to watch over and enforce the
continuation of the proper educational and breeding processes.
Ultimately, however, Plato thinks that his ideal state will become
corrupted because of inferior progeny.58 Marx, and especially
Engels and Lenin, on the other hand, believe that the Marxist be-
havior will become fixed as a habit and render the continuation of
the education and of the artificial maintenance of the Marxist
environment superfluous. Lysenko now supplies the allegedly scien-
tific proof that this fixation is possible through the hereditary trans-
mission of acquired characteristics, whereby the possibility of an
inferior progeny, which corrodes Plato's ideal state, is excluded and
the attainment and perpetuation of the stateless and classless so-
ciety made possible - if his genetic doctrine were true.
In the foregoing pages our main attention was directed to the fact
that Lysenko's purportedly scientific genetic doctrine makes the
attainment of the higher phase of communism possible. It has been
mentioned that the same factor which is supposed to provide for the
attainment of the ideal community also secures its perpetuation.
The latter aspect gains particular significance when applied to the
pattern of social deterioration which Engels finds in the history of
mankind. Engels pictures social history as the process of corrup-
tion which sets in after a period in which men lived in a stateless
society without the notion of private property,59 and which ends in
the fall and destruction of the totally corrupted society in which
the combination of economic with political power has led to the ex-
ploitation of the poor by the propertied. The cyclical repetition of
this process by new nations and new groups of nations one after an-
other is, according to Engels, the history of mankind.60 Such an in-
t7Republic, IV:424.
5Plato, RePublic, VIII:546.
50ne cannot fail to think of Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin and Founda-
tion of Inequality among Men.
"Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
terpretation of history is rather discouraging to us in the West, s

implies our early fall and destruction at the hands of a young and yet
unspoiled civilization, which would, however - if this can be a con-
solation - be infected with the bacillus of private property and poli-
tical institutions, thus causing its eventual fall.
This gloomy picture is brightened for the believer by the Marxian
prophecy of the revolution of the proletariat, the abolition of private
property and classes, and of the state. Engels assures them to this
effect when he claims that just as "there have been societies which
managed without it," "the state will inevitably disappear."61 Even
if the reader were convinced by this confident assurance from the pen
of Engels, he would still be faced with a rather difficult question. If
our present condition is a corruption from the stateless ideal order
caused by material objective forces, and if we believe that we could
reconquer this ideal condition by following the Marxist precepts, why
should the reconquered stateless society then last forever? Would
it not be subject to the same material objective forces which caused
the decay of all previous such societies? In other words, why and
how could the perpetuation of the ideal community be secured? No
answer to this question can be found in the voluminous writings of
the Big Three of Marxism.
As in the problem of the attainment of the ideal society out of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, so in that of its perpetuation, Lysen-
ko's genetic doctrine furnishes the allegedly scientific answer.
Through the proper breeding of properly treated human beings the
causes of the corruption of society can, according to this doctrine,
be removed forever through the creation of a new human nature
immune to the extraneous objective forces which corrupted the old
man. A stateless society consisting of human - or super-human -
beings who because of their nature are not subject to corruption can
be imagined to stay that way forever. Because of the problem of
the perpetuation of the ideal society raised by Engels' interpretation
of history, this aspect of Lysenkoism is just as important as its
contribution to the attainment of the ideal society.
In view of its scientific fallacy, Lysenko's genetic doctrine could
be brushed aside. But the official adoption of this doctrine as
State; Marxist Library Works of Marxism-Leninism, Vol. 22 (New York: Inter-

national Publishers, 1942), pp. 96-97, 149-54.
4'ibid., p. 158.
230 THE JOURNAL 0 POLITICS [Vol. 15
"scientific" truth by fiat of the Central Comm

munist Party of the U.S.S.R. in 1948, and the p
which communists all over the world followed s
importance to Lysenkoism as applied to Marxist
cial character of Lysenkoism as a Communist d
challenge to the Kremlin to apply it to the attainm
phase of communism.

Lysenkoism and The Stateless Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lysenkoism and The Stateless Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lysenkoism and the Stateless Society

Author(s): Edward N. Megay

It has been generally recognized that the dynamic, appealing

Because Lysenkoism is a scientific error, it should

In August, 1948, and for months to follow, Trofim D. Lysenko, a

Mendelism: heredity depends on a system of material particles, the

effects of changed external conditions; evolution is due to the inherit-

When referring to Lysenko's doctrine or Lysenkoism, we shall

The materialist theory of the evolution of living nature necessarily

A little farther on Lysenko claimed that "the most important

germs of organisms, or the sex cells, are a resul

Changes in heredity, acquisition of new characters and their aug-

Lysenko's optimistic conclusion from his unsubstantiated claim

By regulating the conditions of life and development of plants and

We must realize that speciation is a transition -in the course of a

a leap is prepared by the vital activity of organic forms themselves, as

As a matter of fact, Lysenko's doctrine is incorrect. Earlier, his

3Ibid., p. 47. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 46.

idealist metaphysics" which has "been exposed by the Michurin-

Then, in the tenth sitting of the Academy, on the morning of August

We assure you, dear Joseph Vissarionovich, that we shall bend every

They restate Lysenko's claim and declare that "progressive bio-

23Ibid., p. 605. Lysenko, op. cit., p. 49.

course - on the address delivered by T. D. Lysenko; the following

So as to exclude any doubt, the resolution stresses the main point

... Soviet agrobiological science . .. has become a powerful instru-

In. line with the resolution of the Academy of Agricultural Sci-

To the political scientist the most important conclusion is, that

When it was said that Marxism-Leninism merely prophesied the

conditions of social existence without force land w

Lenin is so impressed by this passage that he italiciz

is not based on the result of an investigation with scientific methods,

"True life" is the positive reality of man, not mediated through

This reference to an early (1844) writing of Marx should show

property and the accompanying exploitation of th

In order to demonstrate the full significance of Lysenko's genetic

polished, chiefly according to Engels and Lenin, by the transforma-

"Nicholas Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian CommunismI (New York:

unanswered: can the dictatorship of the proletariat ever come to an

challenge the Politburo to live up to its avowed beliefs. First of all,

Just in case some outside help might be welcome, a short outline

"Leonard Carmichael, "Heredity and Environment: Are They Antithetical?"

Marxism-Leninism. Although the prophecy of the "withering away

"Barrington Moore, Jr., "Recent Developments in the Social Sciences in the

Marxist environment -still artificially maintained by the dictator-

"sFrederick Engels, Herr Eugen Diihring's Revolution in Science, trans.

education" already provided by Plato.57 The great difference lies

terpretation of history is rather discouraging to us in the West, s

State; Marxist Library Works of Marxism-Leninism, Vol. 22 (New York: Inter-

"scientific" truth by fiat of the Central Comm

You might also like