1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12341/science-for-the-state/

Science for the State

March 31, 2010 by

In Soviet Russia in the 1920s, Lysenko and his theories fit the nonsense that is dialectical materialism, and he became a sweetheart of the state bureaucracy. FULL ARTICLE by Jim Fedako


Shame On Jim Fedako March 31, 2010 at 8:09 am

“Alternate theories were rejected and proponents forced from positions and jailed, and sometimes even sentenced to death”

Jim Fedako, you should know that PSYCHIATRY was the primary weapon used against political dissenters. They were declared paranoid, schizophrenic, mentally ill and jailed in psychiatric wards indefinitely. Only the lucky ones were jailed or sent to the goulag.

Jim Fedako, how can you claim to be a true libertarian and omit the fact that PSYCHIATRY was extensively and heavily used to “diagnose” and oppress opponents ?

Shame on you ! What is your agenda by omitting this fact ? Do you agree with psychiatric coercion ? Then you are not a true libertarian.

Jim Fedako March 31, 2010 at 9:49 am


I didn’t want to steal your thunder ;-)

Anthony April 6, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Well answered…

Abhinandan Mallick March 31, 2010 at 11:01 am

Excellent article Jim. You might be interested to know Lev Landau, the nobel prize winning, legendary Russian theoretical physicist once sat through one of Lysenko’s seminars and asked the following after he’d finished:”You argue that if we will cut off the ear of a cow, and the ear of its offspring, and so on, sooner or later the earless cows will start to be born?” “Yes, that’s right,” Lysenko replied. “Then,” Landau continued, “how do you explain the virgins that are still being born?”;-)

Stan Warford March 31, 2010 at 6:42 pm

Thanks for a great article.

Mrhuh April 1, 2010 at 1:09 am

Great article. I’ve often thought how terrifying the hatred for sound “natural” sciences was amongst Marxists. If I recall, Hayek even once pointed out historicism and Hegelianism originated in areas now well-educated in the natural sciences. I even read somewhere that the teaching of evolution was banned in Maoist China for being “bourgeois” science. Contrast that with libertarians William Graham Sumner and Herbert Spencer, who were major proponents of The Theory of Evolution and coined the term “Social Darwinism”. The Mises Institute and LewRockwell are also critics of the theory of Evolution, but they do so from some genuine scientific and sensible criticism research (such as an aricle I saw on Epigenetics recently on LewRockwell) rather than just casually writing something off as “bourgeois”. It’s similar to the modern Left’s witch hunting against some scientist or another who points out biological differences between the sexes, etc.

newson April 1, 2010 at 3:11 am

lysenkoism lives on in the guise of agw.

newson April 1, 2010 at 3:34 am

to sojf/2nd amendment etc.:

why not pen an article yourself about this very subject? it might be of interest to others. it’s true that the subject of mental illness is poorly understood.

billwald April 1, 2010 at 11:40 am

Social Darwinism is NOT evolution. Evolution ONLY predicts change but NOT the direction of the change. “Complexity” is not a component of evolution, which is only concerned with genetic success in the natural environment. The cockroach is possibly the most successful critter large enough to see with the human eye. Cockroaches have been around for millions of years in there present form. There is no reason for them to change because they have been well adapted to every environment for those millions of years.

The purpose of Social Darwinism is to “prove” that humans are biologically and morally superior to other critters and that some humans are biologically and morally superior to other humans. For example, to demonstrate that white people are superior to black people.

Further, sentient beings are not subject to the process of natural selection but to a new process of social selection. For example, modern medicine permits physically weak and naturally inferior humans to reproduce. It isn’t natural selection which is causing Americans to die of the biological effects of over eating and junk food.

sojf April 1, 2010 at 4:19 pm


“it’s true that the subject of mental illness is poorly understood.”

There is no such thing as mental illness. The concept itself is just a metaphor of medicine used to create a second class of citizens to strip them of their rights in order to justify the use of force against them.

I hope you do realize that the concept of mental illness does fall into the same category as faith and beliefs.

It never ceases to amaze me how even die-hard libertarians shy away from psychiatric abuse because of the stigma attached to it. And it never ceased to amaze me how psychiatrists all around the world keep silent about the travesty of their profession in oppressive countries.

Libertarians should be critical of involuntary psychiatry. If psychiatry was voluntary and contractual, I would not argue against it.

newson April 1, 2010 at 8:46 pm

sorry, but i’ve done quite a bit of work in psychiatric clinics. i cannot believe that conditions like schizophrenia aren’t some form of illness. i’m open to the idea that involuntary confinement and treatment is wrong, but there are people who are mentally disturbed.

Guard April 5, 2010 at 8:15 am

Assume a basic right to life and private property, and the right to protect it. I would resist the murderer who wants to kill me and steal from me in the same way that I would resist the schizo whose voices in his head tell him to kill me and steal from me.
The mental illness category at once absolves the thief of responsibility and at the same time creates a subhuman class. Neither of these propositions do I believe in.
We may call certain types of immoral or criminal behavior “mental illness”, but I’m sorry, those persons do not get their own category free from the rights and responsibilities of any other person.
And private charity is a separate issue. It is entirely up to me whether or not I want to support certain people because I think they are mentally ill, or physically ill, or white, or female, or Republican.

sojf April 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Social-darwinism is about being adapted and fit to your social environment.

It’s about being the most popular and sought-after individual.

Barack Obama, Lady-gaga, Leonardo Dicaprio are good examples of social-darwinism.

Yet again, nerdish, ugly looking individuals with glasses can develop software and make even more money, look at Bill Gates.

So really, there is no simple answer to social darwinism.

But since darwinism is about fitness to your environment, I would tend to think that social darwinism is about being fit to society.

Yet, a lot of the progress and inventions are dued to people who were social misfits.

So the human race really is about contradictions and paradoxes.

Bill Miller April 4, 2010 at 5:37 pm

I don’t actually object to being called a social Darwinist. I wouldn’t say that free markets weed out “genetically unfit” individuals (however one would define that term), but they do tend to weed out behaviors that make people and organizations less productive. Inefficient firms go bankrupt (become extinct) while more efficient firms prosper. However, everyone benefits, because the market tends to increase the total wealth available to society, so even the less successful individuals can survive and even thrive.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: