Page 104 - Communism in Ambush

COMMUNISM IN AMBUSH
102

s species of animal, human life has no value and an individual ceases to
exist when his body dies, such societies have become dominated by pes-
simism, melancholy, cheerlessness and meaninglessness.
Mao's Red China (which we'll examine later) displayed further
striking examples of Communist conservatism and narrow-minded-
ness. Everyone had to wear the same kind of clothing and during the
Cultural Revolution, it was forbidden to keep domestic animals.

The Nonsense of "Communist Science"

Science was another field that received a great blow from
Communism. Stalin's regime, along with inventing the concept of "pro-
letarian art," also proposed the idea of "proletarian science." According
to this theory, there is bourgeois science and there is proletarian science.
The differences between the two will lead to different results. We might
compare this to Nazi Germany's rejection of findings by Jewish scien-
tists—Einstein, among others.
Proletarian science is actually nothing more than science corrupted
according to the exigencies of materialist philosophy. One obvious
demonstration was the "Lysenko affair," which put its stamp on Stalin's
Soviet regime.
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was educated in various agriculture
schools in the Soviet Union. He came to Stalin's attention in the 1940s
and assumed the total domination of Soviet policy in agriculture and bi-
ology. Most importantly, Lysenko rejected the laws of genetics discov-
ered by the Austrian priest-botanist Gregor Mendel at the end of the
19th century and demonstrated by further experiments in the 20th.
Lysenko dismissed Mendel's laws as "bourgeois science" and instead
supported the thesis of the 18th century French evolutionist biologist
Lamarck on the "inheritance of acquired traits."
Lysenko's idea was based on no scientific proof. But because the
Soviet Union was experiencing a major agricultural crisis in the 1930s,
Lysenko began to attract attention. He promised that implementing his
theory would ensure a much larger and efficient grain production than
other biologists believed. He claimed, for example, that when grown