Hobsbawn, Science and Stalinism
Ivonaldo Neres Leite
ivonaldo.leite at SPAMnetc.pt
Mon Aug 7 09:47:50 MDT 2000
> I am very puzzled at this. Why do you think that when someone points
> out that a good historian such as Hobsbawm begins to distribute
> imperialist conceptions (unknowingly, perhaps) she/he can be equated
> with the crass brutality of the Lyssenkoists?
> I would have felt less amazed (though equally puzzled) if you had
> mentioned the "Proletkult" group. But you said "Lyssenko". And you
> mentioned the ever irksome name of J. V. Stalin.
> Please explain, Ivonaldo...
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
It's ok, I explain...
I am looking for the conception of science behind some message and I see so
expressions as "Hobsbawm is pro-Imperialism", "He is pro-colonialism".
Hobsbawm is considered an enemy. Why? Because some theses his discontent,
though there are who recognize that his background is marxist. What do you
remember, Nestor? I for example remember Zhdanov's doctrine and was the
Zhdanovismo that supported Lyssenko. By Zhdanov there were two sciences:
the bourgeois science and the proletarian science. Lyssenko loved this
division and so he denounced the modern genetics as a bourgeois genetics. In
1948 Lyssenko triumphed saying his inspiration was Stalin.
When I see sectarian approaches about scientific questions I remember the
stalinism. It's a sad remembrance.
Hug, pero es em Portunhol
More information about the Marxism