Here is why communism doens't work
(no this is not a bait post):
The problem is that communism is anti science.
It is true that in Communist Russia, Physics and Chemistry did well, just as well as they did in the the capitalist US. However, the real source of many of the problems with communist science is with Biology.
Genetics was rejected. Medelian genetics and Darwinian evolution ('survival of the fittest') were seen as embracing heirarchy and embracing capitalist dogma.
This led to the death of genetics advocate Nikolai Vavilov, and the adoption of Lysenkoism.
See: en.wikipedia.org
I don't blame the Communists entirely, as they had just fought a war with the Nazi's, who were using genetics to justify eugenics, ethnic cleansing and master race theories. So some skepticism of the science made sense.
However Communists didn't have a healthy skepticism, they had outright rejection of the science.
This rejection of genetics was more than just 'our enemies do it,' the fundamental philosophy behind genetics is indeed contradictory with communist thought. As I mentioned earlier, it embraces 'survival of the fittest' and accepts that heirachy is inherent in nature. Indeed, the principle behind Capitalism is that competition drives innovation, social darwinism if you will. Again, this was taken to the extreme in fascist and nazi ideologies.
So to accept this science seems to be completely at odds with the fundamentals of communist philosophy.
However, rejection of genetics had extreme implications towards the economy of the Communist countries of Russia and China. Indeed the rejection instantly spread to agriculture, where being anti-science leads to reduced crop yields. The consequence? Mass starvation in Russia and China.
Many capitalists argue that it was because Communists killed the good, productive farmers, this is part of the problem, but in principle you can replace the farmers by doing exactly as they did or improve their methods with science. The problem? Communism rejected science, so indeed crop yields plummetted.
So how do modern communists deal with genetics? Do you accept is a fundamentally true theory, even though it fundamentally suggests a scientific hole in communism? Or do you reject it just like the creationists?
Here is why communism doens't work
Other urls found in this thread:
users.wfu.edu
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
imichurin.narod.ru
archive.is
twitter.com
read these:
users.wfu.edu
marxists.org
marxists.org
Marxism is scientific.
Reminder that while Lysenkoism was happening in the USSR, Westerners thought that covering your house in materials that give you mesothelioma or selling radioactive waste as children's toys were good ideas, or that smoking cigarettes cures cancer. In the end, Lysenko was a malicious quack, but the whole world was riding the high of breakneck scientific progress which often resulted in false and dangerous practices. Also the claim that the country that put man in space was anti-science just cannot be read with a straight face.
Also your post is just a roundabout way of saying the old beaten "Communism is about equality but equality doesn't exist, checkmate communists?", which isn't true in the slightest and has been debunked by everyone including by Marx and Lenin literally over a century ago. No communist believes that people are naturally equal in a biological sense.
Social Darwinism is not Darwinism and muh Lysenkoism is not a argument. His practices are idealist and simply stopped being practised before the first 5 year plan.
Oh, just to let you know, I became a communist after I've heard and researched the Lysenkoism meme so this really isn't a big barrier when it comes to any newcomer if they have a open mind.
This. Ideology skewing scientific analysis is not at all a unique feature of Marxists, and the idea that lysenkoism by itself is somehow proof that communism is "anti science" is, ironically, completely unscientific. You might as well claim that the whole of the United States denies climate change or believes in ghosts, there's just as much anecdotal evidence to support those claims.
Also, I invite you to research communists that actually do understand Darwinism, unlike you. Competition is NOT "inherent in nature" as that would suggest it is some sort of cosmological common to all systems. Natural selection is an incedental product of random mutation, it has nothing to do with some spiritually driven proclivity to competition inherent to all things and all systems. On the contrary, species such as humans actually evolved to be more social and cooperative, as healthy groups with minimal conflict made our species (though obviously not all) far more survivable. If you want a real example of a fundamental law in this universe which drives the development of systems, it's in thermodynamics. Please watch Paul Cockshott's video "thermodynamics and life" which explores human development in the context of a tendency to entropy, and ties this nearly with the Marxian development of history.
In addition, capitalism is NOT an example of proper natural selection and fair competition. In nature animals do not steal the genetic code of other animals, thus depriving them and their line of those genes forever. They do not accumulate more and more genes ad infinitum which they simply sit on and use at will. The genes do not rest outside their body. If you watch Cockshott's sequel video "thermodynamics and capital" he gives a neat proof that capitalism as a specific mode of production is incredibly inclined to the concentration of capital as assets or money in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals, whose selfish interest obviously would prevent them from allowing their interests to fail "naturally". Capitalism does not at all mimic natural selection. It is groups of individuals taking charge of capital via profit extracted from a larger group of other individuals, not single individuals taking charge of only their own personal physical/mental ability competing with all others. These are fundamentally different systems which produce fundamentally different results. OP, you are a fag.
Fucking saved kek
But ghosts are real from a scientific standpoing though.
Edit: before the end of the first
