Lately, many people have often asked themselves questions: why do we have such a low level of education and why many graduates cannot answer even the simplest questions from the school curriculum? What did they do after the collapse of the USSR with the previous education system? IN Soviet years personnel training of future specialists was radically different from that which reigns today throughout the entire post-Soviet space. But the Soviet education system has always been competitive. Thanks to her, in the 1960s the USSR came out on top in the ranking of the most educated states in the world. The country took a leading position in the demand for its people, whose knowledge, experience and skills for the benefit of their native country have always been valued. What were they like, Soviet science and Soviet education, if personnel really should decide everything? On the eve of the new school year let's talk about the pros and cons Soviet system education, about how the Soviet school shaped a person’s personality.
“To master science, to forge new cadres of Bolsheviks - specialists in all branches of knowledge, to study, study, study in the most persistent way - this is now the task” (I.V. Stalin, Speech at the VIII Congress of the Komsomol, 1928)
More than once, different people interpreted in their own way the words of Bismarck, who, regarding the victory at the Battle of Sadovaya in 1866 in Prussia’s war against Austria, said that it was won by the Prussian people’s teacher. It meant that the soldiers and officers of the Prussian army at that time were better educated than the soldiers and officers of the enemy army. To paraphrase it, US President J.F. Kennedy, October 4, 1957, the day the USSR launched its first artificial satellite Earth said:
“We lost space to the Russians at the school desk.” The Soviet school prepared a huge number of young people who were able to master the complex military equipment in the shortest possible time, we were able to a short time take accelerated courses at military schools and become well-trained commanders of the Red Army and patriots of their socialist Fatherland.
The West has repeatedly noted the successes and achievements of Soviet education, especially in the late 50s.
NATO Policy Brief on Education in the USSR (1959)
In May 1959, Dr. C.R.S. (C.R.S. Congressional Research Service) Manders prepared a report for the NATO Science Committee on the topic “Science and technology education and personnel reserves in USSR". The following are excerpts from this report, the notes in square brackets are ours.
“When the Soviet Union was formed a little over 40 years ago, the state had to face enormous difficulties. The harvest of the Soviet south was destroyed by a plague of locusts, resulting in food shortages and low morale [note: no mention of the so-called "Holodomor"]. Nothing contributed to the defense except rational use territorial and climatic conditions. The state lagged behind in education and other social spheres, illiteracy was widespread, and almost 10 years later [this is 1929] Soviet magazines and print publications were still reporting the same level of literacy. Forty years ago there was a hopeless lack of trained personnel to lead the Soviet people out of a difficult situation, and today the USSR is challenging the US right to world domination. This is an achievement that has no equal in modern history...”
“Over the years, a significant share of trained personnel has returned back to the education system to train even more specialists. Teaching is a well-paid and prestigious occupation. The net annual increase in trained personnel is 7% in the USSR (for comparison, in the USA - 3.5%, in the UK 2.5 - 3%).”
“With each new stage of scientific and technological progress, a corresponding teacher training program begins. Since 1955 in Moscow state university train programming teachers."
“At the level of postgraduate education, the USSR does not experience a shortage of professionals capable of managing government projects. In higher and school education, everything indicates that the number of professionally trained graduates will not only easily remain at the same level, but can be increased.”
“Western experts tend to envy the quantity and quality of equipment in Soviet educational institutions.”
“There is a significant tendency in the West to hold extreme views regarding the Soviet Union. Its citizens, however, are not supermen or second-rate material. In fact, these are people with the same abilities and emotions as everyone else. If the 210 million people in the West work together with the same priorities and the same passion as their counterparts in the Soviet Union, they will achieve similar results. States that independently compete with the USSR are wasting their strength and resources in attempts that are doomed to failure. If it is impossible to constantly invent methods superior to those of the USSR, it is worth seriously considering borrowing and adapting Soviet methods."
And here's another opinion Western politician and a businessman about Stalin’s policies:
“Communism under Stalin won the applause and admiration of all Western nations. Communism under Stalin gave us an example of patriotism for which it is difficult to find an analogy in history. Persecution of Christians? No. There is no religious persecution. Church doors are open. Political repression? Yes, sure. But now it is clear that those who were shot would have betrayed Russia to the Germans.”
Now we can say with confidence that education in the USSR was at the highest level, which is confirmed by the conclusion of Western analysts. It, of course, did not meet international standards in many ways. But now we understand well that this is a problem of “standards”. Because now we have the same world standards. Only the most capable representatives of our youth, trained in accordance with these standards, by our Soviet standards do not qualify as literate at all. So-so... solid C students. Therefore, there is no doubt that the problem is not with ministers Fursenko or Livanov, that the modern problem lies purely in the system itself.
What was the Soviet education system, which was spoken of so respectfully in the West, and whose methods were borrowed both from Japan and other countries?
There is still debate about whether the education system in the USSR can really be considered the best in the world. Some people agree with confidence, while others talk about the destructive impact of ideological principles. Without a doubt, propaganda existed, but also thanks to propaganda, illiteracy of the population was eliminated in record time, education became accessible to everyone, and as many Nobel laureates and winners of international Olympiads as there were annually in Soviet time, has not happened until now. Soviet schoolchildren won international competitions, including natural sciences. And all these achievements arose despite the fact that general education in the USSR was established later than in Western countries oh, almost for a century. The famous innovative teacher Viktor Shatalov (born in 1927) said:
“In the post-war years, the space industry arose in the USSR and the defense industry rose. All this could not grow out of nothing. Everything was based on education. Therefore, we can say that our education was not bad.”
There really were a lot of advantages. Let’s not talk about the mass character and accessibility of the school level of education: today this principle remains true. Let's talk about the quality of education: they like to compare this heritage of the Soviet past with the quality of education in modern society.
Accessibility and inclusiveness
One of the most significant advantages of the Soviet school system was its accessibility. This right was constitutionally enshrined (Article 45 of the 1977 USSR Constitution). The main difference between the Soviet education system and the American or British was the unity and consistency of all levels of education. A clear vertical system (initial, high school, technical school, university, graduate school, doctoral studies) allowed me to accurately plan the vector of my training. Uniform programs and requirements were developed for each level. When parents moved or changed schools for any other reason, there was no need to re-study the material or try to understand the system adopted in the new educational institution. The maximum trouble that a transfer to another school could cause was the need to repeat or catch up on 3-4 topics in each discipline. Textbooks in school library were issued free of charge and were available to absolutely everyone.
It is a mistake to believe that in a Soviet school all students had the same level of knowledge. Of course, the general program must be mastered by everyone. But if a teenager is interested in a particular subject, then he was given every opportunity for additional study. Schools had math clubs, literature clubs, and so on.
However, there were specialized classes and specialized schools, where children had the opportunity to study certain subjects in depth, which was a source of special pride for parents of children who studied in a mathematics school or a school with a language focus. This instilled in both parents and children a sense of their own exclusivity and “elitism.” It was these children who in many ways became the “ideological backbone” of the dissident movement. In addition, even in ordinary schools, by the end of the 1970s, the practice of hidden segregation had developed, when the most capable children ended up in classes “A” and “B”, and class “D” was a kind of “sink”, which is the practice in today’s schools considered the norm.
Fundamentality and versatility of knowledge
Despite the fact that the Soviet school had a powerful range of leading subjects, including the Russian language, biology, physics, and mathematics, the study of disciplines that gave a systematic understanding of the world was mandatory. As a result, the student left school with almost encyclopedic knowledge. This knowledge became the strong foundation on which it was possible to subsequently train a specialist in almost any profile.
The key to quality education was the synchronization of acquired knowledge in different subjects through ideology. The facts learned by students in physics lessons echoed the information obtained in the study of chemistry and mathematics and were linked through the dominant ideas in society. Thus, new concepts and terms were introduced in parallel, which helped to structure knowledge and form in children a holistic picture of the world, albeit an ideological one.
Availability of incentive and involvement in the learning process
Today, teachers are sounding the alarm: schoolchildren lack motivation to study, many high school students do not feel responsible for their own future. In Soviet times, it was possible to create motivation due to the interaction of several factors:
- Grades in subjects corresponded to the knowledge acquired. In the USSR, they were not afraid to give twos and threes even for a year. Class statistics, of course, played a role, but were not of paramount importance. A student with poor grades could be kept for the second year: this was not only a shame in front of other children, but also a powerful incentive to take up his studies. You couldn’t buy a grade: you had to study, because it was impossible to earn an excellent result in any other way.
- The system of patronage and guardianship in the USSR was an undeniable advantage. The weak student was not left alone with his problems and failures. The excellent student took him under his care and studied until the poor student achieved success. It was also for strong children good school: in order to explain the subject to another student, they had to work through the material in detail and independently learn to apply optimal pedagogical methods. The system of patronage (or rather, assistance from elders to younger ones) trained many Soviet scientists and teachers, who later became laureates of prestigious international awards.
- Equal conditions for everyone. The social status and financial situation of the student’s parents did not in any way affect the results at school. All children were in equal conditions, studied according to the same program, so the road was open to everyone. School knowledge was enough to enter a university without hiring tutors. Mandatory placement after college, although perceived as an undesirable phenomenon, guaranteed work and demand for the acquired knowledge and skills. This situation, after the coup d'etat of 1953, began to slowly change and by the 1970s, the children of the partyocracy became more “equal” - “those who are more equal” received places in the best institutions, many physics, mathematics, and language schools thus began to degenerate into “elite” “, from where it was no longer possible to simply remove the careless student, since his dad was a “big man.”
- The emphasis is not only on training, but also on education. The Soviet school embraced the student’s free time and was interested in his hobbies. Sections and extracurricular activities, which were mandatory, left almost no time for aimless pastime and generated interest in further study in various fields.
- Availability of free extracurricular activities. In the Soviet school, in addition to the compulsory program, electives were regularly held for those interested. Classes in additional disciplines were free and accessible to anyone who had the time and interest to study them.
- Financial support for students - scholarships amounted to almost a third of the average wages countries.
The combination of these factors generated a huge incentive to study, without which Soviet education would not have been so effective.
Requirements for teachers and respect for the profession
A teacher in a Soviet school is an image with a high social status. Teachers were respected and their profession was treated as valuable and socially significant work. Films were made about the school, songs were composed, presenting teachers in them as intelligent, honest and highly moral people whom one should emulate.
Being a teacher was considered an honor
There were reasons for this. High demands were placed on the personality of a teacher in a Soviet school. People who graduated from universities and had an inner calling to teach children came to teach.
This situation continued until the 1970s. Teachers had relatively high salaries even compared to skilled workers. But closer to “perestroika” the situation began to change. The decline in the authority of the teacher’s personality was facilitated by the development of capitalist relations. The focus on material values, which have now become achievable, has made the teaching profession unprofitable and unprestigious, which has resulted in the leveling of the true value of school grades.
So, Soviet education was based on three main pillars:
- encyclopedic knowledge achieved through versatile training and synchronization of information obtained as a result of studying various subjects, albeit through ideology;
- the presence of a powerful incentive for children to study, thanks to the patronage of elders over younger ones and free extracurricular activities;
- respect for teachers' work and the school institution as a whole.
Looking at the Soviet education system from the “bell tower” of our time, we can note some shortcomings. We can say that they are something like a brick that we, many years later, could add to the temple of science built by the country.
Let's look at some imperfections that are better seen from a distance.
Emphasis on theory rather than practice
The famous phrase of A. Raikin: “Forget everything you were taught at school and listen...” did not appear out of nowhere. Behind it lies an intensive study of theory and a lack of connections between the acquired knowledge and life.
If we talk about the system of universal compulsory education in the USSR, it was superior to the education system foreign countries(and above all - developed capitalist ones) in terms of the breadth of the thematic spectrum and depth of study of subjects (especially mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other branches of natural science). Based on secondary education of a very high quality (by world standards of that era), USSR universities provided students with knowledge not of a directly applied nature, but mostly knowledge of a fundamental nature, from which all directly applied knowledge and skills flow. But Soviet universities were also characterized by the general defect of the Western-style education system, which has been characteristic of it since the second century. half of the 19th century century
Lack of “industry philosophies”
A common defect of the Soviet and Western education systems is the loss of the canons of professional activity: therefore, what can be called the “philosophy of design and production” of certain technospheric objects, the “philosophy of operation” of certain devices, the “philosophy of healthcare and provision of medical care" and so on. applied philosophies - in training courses There were no Soviet universities. The existing courses called “Introduction to the Specialty” for the most part did not cover the problems of this kind of philosophies, and, as practice shows, only a few of the entire mass of university graduates were able to independently reach its understanding, and then only many years after receiving their diplomas.
But their understanding of this issue in the overwhelming majority of cases was not expressed in publicly available (at least among professionals) texts:
- partly because the few who understood this issue were mostly busy with their professional work and did not find time to write a book (a textbook for students);
- but among those who understood there were also those who consciously maintained their monopoly on knowledge and the skills associated with it, since such a monopoly underlay their high status in the social hierarchy, in the hierarchy of the corresponding professional community and provided one or another informal power;
- and partly because this genre of “abstract literature” was not in demand by publishing houses, especially since this kind of “philosophy of work” could largely contradict the ideological guidelines of the apparatus of the CPSU Central Committee and the stupidity of the bureaucratic leaders higher in the hierarchy of power (in the professional sphere) .
In addition, those who were able to write such books, for the most part, did not hold high leadership positions, as a result of which it was not always “in their rank” to write on such topics in the conditions of the tribal system of the post-Stalin USSR. And those who were “in rank” in post-Stalin times were for the most part careerist bureaucrats, incapable of writing such vital books. Although books were sometimes published by bureaucrats that purported to fill this gap, they were essentially graphomania.
An example of this kind of graphomania is the book by the commander-in-chief of the USSR Navy from 1956 to 1985, S.G., which is still being advertised by many klutzes. Gorshkova (1910 - 1988) “The Sea Power of the State” (Moscow: Voenizdat. 1976 - 60,000 copies, 2nd updated edition 1979 - 60,000 copies). Judging by its text, it was written by a team of narrow specialists (submariners, surface watermen, aviators, gunsmiths and representatives of other branches of the forces and services of the fleet), who did not perceive the development of the Fleet as a whole as the construction of a complex system designed to solve certain problems, in which all elements must be presented in required quantities and the relationships between the functions assigned to each of them; a system that interacts with other systems generated by society and with the natural environment.
S.G. Gorshkov himself hardly read “his” book, and if he did, due to the feeble-mindedness of a careerist, he did not understand the vital inconsistency and mutual incompatibility of many of the positions expressed in it by the authors of different sections.
Before understanding the problems of developing the country's naval power, expressed in the works of Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union I.S. Isakova (1894 - 1967), S.G. Gorshkov was very far away, which had an extremely harmful effect on the defense capability of the USSR and the development of its Navy during those 30 years when S.G. Gorshkov headed the USSR Navy.
Those who are prejudiced that under the leadership of S.G. Gorshkov built a mighty fleet, we must understand that every fleet is a collection of ships, coastal forces and services, but not every collection of ships, coastal forces and services, even with their number and diversity, is truly a Fleet. The latter took place in the USSR, when the commander-in-chief of the Navy was S.G. Gorshkov, and it was very ruinous for the country and not very effective militarily.
Non-interference in technical issues of ideological bureaucracy
“How could it happen that the sabotage took such wide proportions? Who is to blame for this? We are to blame for this. If we had handled the business of managing the economy differently, if we had moved much earlier to studying the techniques of the business, to mastering technology, if we had more often and intelligently intervened in the management of the economy, the pests would not have been able to do so much harm.
We ourselves must become specialists, masters of the business, we must turn our faces to technical knowledge - this is where life pushed us. But neither the first signal nor even the second signal provided the necessary turn. It’s time, it’s high time to turn our face to technology. It’s time to discard the old slogan, the outdated slogan about non-interference in technology, and become specialists ourselves, experts in the matter, become complete masters of economic affairs.”
The slogan about non-interference in technical issues in management practice during the Civil War and the 1920s meant that a “politically ideological”, but illiterate and not knowing technology and technology, person could be appointed as a leader, as a result of which “politically immature” people found themselves under his leadership "and potentially counter-revolutionary professionals. Next, such a leader set tasks for the professionals subordinate to him that were set for him by superior managers, and his subordinates, in turn, relying on their knowledge and professional skills, had to ensure their solution. Those. The “politically ideological” but not knowledgeable manager was responsible for the first stages of the full function of managing an enterprise (or a structure for another purpose), and the professionals subordinate to him were responsible for the subsequent stages.
- If the team leader and the professionals were conscientious or at least honest, and, as a result, ethically compatible in the common cause, then in this version the enterprise management system was workable and benefited both parties: the manager learned the business, subordinate professionals expanded their horizons, were drawn into political life and became citizens of the USSR (in the sense of the word “citizen”, understandable from N.A. Nekrasov’s poem “Poet and Citizen”) de facto, and not just de jure.
- If the manager or professionals turned out to be ethically incompatible due to dishonesty and dishonesty of at least one of the parties (be it the “ideological” leader or the professionals), then the enterprise management system to a greater or lesser extent lost its functionality, which entailed consequences that could be legally qualified as sabotage either by a leader, or professionals, or all together (such an article was in the criminal codes of all union republics).
How such a system worked in practice in military affairs, see the story of the writer-marinist, and earlier - the professional military sailor L.S. Sobolev (1898 - 1971, was non-party) “Exam”. In this story, the “spirit of the era” is presented accurately in many aspects, but from the point of view of liberals - slanderously. However, this same “spirit of the era” was also “in civilian life”, therefore the system “political-ideological leader - subordinate professional specialists, apolitical and unprincipled” (the same as Professor Nikolai Stepanovich from A.P. Chekhov’s story “Boring” history") also worked in civilian life.
Essentially I.V. Stalin, in the quoted speech, set the task: since “ideological conviction in the correctness of socialism” alone is not enough for business leaders, their ideological conviction should be practically expressed in their mastery of the relevant technical knowledge and the application of this knowledge to identify and resolve problems of economic support for the policies of the Soviet state in all its components: global, external, internal; otherwise, they are hypocrites, covering up real sabotage with their “ideological conviction” - idle talk.
Now let's turn to the speech of I.V. Stalin “New situation - new tasks of economic construction” at a meeting of business executives on June 23, 1931 (emphasis in bold is ours):
“...we can no longer make do with the minimum of engineering, technical and industrial command forces that we used to make do with before. It follows from this that the old centers for the formation of engineering and technical forces are no longer enough, that it is necessary to create a whole network of new centers - in the Urals, in Siberia, in Central Asia. We now need to provide ourselves with three times, five times more engineering, technical and industrial command forces if we really think about implementing the program of socialist industrialization of the USSR.
But we don’t need just any command and engineering forces. We need command and engineering forces that are able to understand the politics of the working class of our country, are able to assimilate this policy and are ready to implement it conscientiously» .
At the same time, I.V. Stalin did not recognize the party and its members’ monopoly on the possession of conscience and business qualities. In his same speech there is the following fragment:
“Some comrades think that only party comrades can be promoted to leadership positions in factories. On this basis, they often wipe out capable and enterprising non-party comrades, putting party members in first place, although they are less capable and uninitiative. Needless to say, there is nothing more stupid and reactionary than such, so to speak, “politics.” There is hardly any need to prove that such a “policy” can only discredit the party and alienate non-party workers from the party. Our policy is not at all to turn the party into a closed caste. Our policy is that there should be an atmosphere of “mutual trust”, an atmosphere of “mutual verification” between party and non-party workers (Lenin). Our party is strong in the working class, among other things, because it pursues precisely this policy.”
In post-Stalin times, if we relate to this fragment, personnel policy was stupid and reactionary, and it was as a result of it that M.S. ended up at the top of power. Gorbachev, A.N. Yakovlev, B.N. Yeltsin, V.S. Chernomyrdin, A.A. Sobchak, G.Kh. Popov and other perestroika activists are reformers and unable to put them in the place of V.S. Pavlov, E.K. Ligachev, N.V. Ryzhkov and many other “opponents of perestroika” and bourgeois-liberal reforms.
The mention of conscience as the basis of the activity of every person, and above all managers, in the conditions of the construction of socialism and communism contrasts with the statement of another political figure of that era.
“I free man,” says Hitler, “from the humiliating chimera called conscience. Conscience, like education, cripples a person. I have the advantage that I am not held back by any theoretical or moral considerations.”
The quote itself is from the report of I.V. Stalin at the ceremonial meeting of the Moscow Council of Working People's Deputies on November 6, 1941, dedicated to the 24th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
But A. Hitler is not an innovator in denying conscience. Nietzsche
“Have I ever felt remorse? My memory remains silent on this score” (Vol. 1. P. 722, “Evil Wisdom”, 10).
“Remorse is as stupid as a dog trying to chew a stone” (Ibid. P. 817, “The Wanderer and His Shadow”, 38)”
As a result of this, F. Nietzsche ended his life in a madhouse.
Communism translated from Latin into Russian means community, community; Moreover, in Latin this word has the same root as “communication”, i.e. with communication, including information communication between people and not only between them, and the root of the word “conscience” is the same “communication” - “news”. In other words:
"Communism— a community of people based on conscience: everything else in communism is a consequence of the unity of conscience among different individuals.”
Low level of foreign language teaching
The lack of experience in communicating with native speakers gave rise to the study of languages based on cliches that did not change in textbooks from year to year. Soviet schoolchildren, after 6 years of studying a foreign language, were still unable to speak it even within the confines of everyday topics, although they knew the grammar perfectly. The inaccessibility of educational foreign literature, audio and video recordings, and the lack of need to communicate with foreigners relegated the study of foreign languages to the background.
Lack of wide access to foreign literature
The Iron Curtain created a situation in which citing foreign scientists in student and scholarly works became not only shameful, but also dangerous. The lack of fresh information has given rise to some conservation of teaching methods. In this regard, in 1992, when Western sources became available, the school system seemed outdated and in need of reform.
Lack of home education and external studies
It is difficult to judge whether this is good or bad, but the lack of opportunity for strong students to pass subjects externally and move to the next grade hindered the development of future advanced personnel and made them equal to the bulk of schoolchildren.
Non-alternative co-education for boys and girls
One of the dubious Soviet innovations in education was the compulsory co-education of boys and girls instead of the pre-revolutionary separate education. Then this step was justified by the struggle for women's rights, the lack of personnel and premises for the organization of separate schools, as well as the widespread practice of co-education in some leading countries of the world, including the USA. However latest research in the same USA they show that separate education increases student results by 10 - 20%. Everything is quite simple: in joint schools, boys and girls are distracted by each other, and noticeably more conflicts and incidents arise; Boys, right up to the last grades of school, lag behind girls of the same age in education, since the male body develops more slowly. On the contrary, with separate education, it becomes possible to better take into account the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of different sexes to improve performance; adolescents’ self-esteem depends to a greater extent on academic performance, and not on some other things. It is interesting that in 1943, separate education for boys and girls was introduced in cities, which was again eliminated in 1954 after the death of Stalin.
Degradation of the secondary vocational education system in the late USSR
Although the USSR extolled the working man in every possible way and promoted working professions, in the 1970s the system of secondary vocational education the country began to clearly degrade, even despite the noticeable advantage that young workers had in terms of wages. The fact is that in the USSR they tried to ensure universal employment, and therefore they en masse took into vocational schools those students who had failed and failed to enter universities, and also forcibly placed juvenile criminals there. As a result, the average quality of the student population in vocational schools has fallen sharply. In addition, the career prospects of vocational school students were much worse than in the previous era: a huge number of skilled workers were trained during the industrialization of the 1930s-1960s, best places were busy, and it became more difficult for young people to get to the top. At the same time, the service sector was extremely underdeveloped in the USSR, which was associated with serious restrictions on entrepreneurship, but it is the service sector that creates the largest number of jobs in modern developed countries (including places for people without higher or professional education). Thus, there were no alternatives in employment, as there are now. Cultural and educational work in vocational schools turned out to be poorly done; “vocational school students” began to be associated with hooliganism, drunkenness and a general low level of development. “If you do poorly at school, you’ll go to a vocational school!” (vocational technical school) - this is what parents told careless schoolchildren. The negative image of vocational education in blue-collar occupations still persists in Russia, although qualified turners, mechanics, milling operators, and plumbers are now among the highly paid professions, the representatives of which are in short supply.
Perhaps the time will come when we will return to the experience of the USSR, having mastered it positive sides taking into account modern requirements of society, that is, at a new level.
Conclusion
Analyzing the current culture of our society as a whole, we can come to the conclusion that historically established societies on earth give rise to three levels of unfreedom for people.
Level one
It is inhabited by people who have mastered a certain minimum of commonly used socially significant knowledge and skills, but who do not know how to independently master (based on literature and other sources of information) and produce “from scratch” knowledge and skills that are new to them. Such people are able to work only in professions that do not require any specialized qualifications, or in mass professions that can be done without special costs labor and time to master on the basis of a universal educational minimum.
They are the most unfree, since they have practically no free time and are not able to enter other areas of activity except those that they have somehow mastered and in which they find themselves, perhaps not of their own free will.
Level two
Those who have mastered the knowledge and skills of “prestigious” professions in which relatively short-term employment (daily or occasional) provides a fairly high income, which allows them to have a certain amount of free time and use it at their own discretion. The majority of them also do not know how to independently master and produce “from scratch” new knowledge and skills, especially outside the scope of their professional activities. Therefore, their lack of freedom begins when the profession they have mastered depreciates in value, and they, not being able to quickly master any other fairly highly profitable profession, slide into the first group.
At this level, in the cultures of most civilized societies, individuals are given access to knowledge and skills that allow them to enter the sphere of government of overall social significance while remaining conceptually powerless. The term “conceptual power” should be understood in two ways: firstly, as that type of power that gives society a concept of its life in the continuity of generations as a single whole (i.e., determines the goals of society’s existence, ways and means of achieving them); secondly, as the power of the concept itself over society.
Level three
Those who are able to independently master previously developed and produce “from scratch” new knowledge and skills of social significance for them and society as a whole, and exploit them on a commercial or some other social status basis. Their unfreedom begins when they, without thinking about the objectivity of Good and Evil, about the difference in their meaning, fall consciously or unconsciously into permissiveness and begin to create objectively unacceptable Evil, as a result of which they are faced with a stream of circumstances that are restraining their activity - circumstances beyond their control - even murderous. These factors can be both intrasocial and general in nature, and can have a scale both personal and broader - up to the global.
Reaching this level is conditioned by mastering, among other things, managerial knowledge and skills, including those necessary for acquiring and exercising conceptual authority. In societies in which the population is divided into the common people and the ruling “elite”, in which an even narrower social group is reproduced from generation to generation, carrying one or another internal closed tradition of management, access to this level is blocked by the system of both the universal and “ elite" education. Access to it is possible either spontaneously (rare self-taught people are capable of this), or as a result of belonging to certain clans of those who carry internal traditions of management or the election of an individual by these clans to include him in their ranks. This blocking is not spontaneous and natural in nature, but is a purposefully built system-forming cultural factor, the action of which expresses the defense of their monopoly on the conceptual power of certain clan groups, which allows them to exploit the rest - managerially incapable - of society in their own interests.
Level of gaining freedom
The level of gaining freedom is one and only: a person, acting according to conscience, realizes the objective difference between Good and Evil, their meaning, and on this basis, having taken the side of Good, acquires the ability to independently master and produce “from scratch” knowledge and skills that are new to him and society in advance or as the situation develops. For this reason, it gains independence from corporations that have monopolized certain socially significant knowledge and skills on which it is based. social status their representatives. Let us note that in the religious worldview, conscience is an innate religious feeling of a person, “connected” to his unconscious levels of the psyche; on its basis, a dialogue between man and God is built, if a person does not shy away from this dialogue himself, and in this dialogue God gives everyone proof of His existence in full accordance with the principle “practice is the criterion of truth.” It is for this reason that conscience in the religious worldview is a means of distinguishing between objective Good and Evil in the specifics of the constantly ongoing life of society, and a kind person- a person living under the rule of a dictatorship of conscience.
In the atheistic worldview, the nature and source of conscience are not knowable, although the fact of its activity in the psyche of many people is recognized by some schools of atheistic psychology. We can talk about conscience and freedom in the indicated sense as a self-evident fact, without going into a discussion of theological traditions of historically established concepts of religion, if circumstances do not favor this; or if you have to explain this problem to materialist atheists, for whom turning to theological issues is a known sign of the interlocutor’s inadequacy, or to idealist atheists, for whom the interlocutor’s disagreement with their accepted religious tradition is a known sign of possession and Satanism.
In accordance with this non-economic and non-military-technical task in its essence - the task of changing the current concept of globalization to the righteous concept of the system universal compulsory and professionally specialized education in the country was oriented under the leadership of I.V. Stalin's goal was for everyone who is capable and willing to learn to acquire knowledge that would allow them to reach at least the third level of unfreedom, including the acquisition of conceptual power.
Although the gradation of levels of unfreedom shown above and the phenomenon of conceptual power in the era of I.V. Stalin was not realized, however, this is exactly what he wrote about directly in the terminology of that era, and this can be clearly understood from his words:
“It is necessary... to achieve such cultural growth of society that would provide all members of society comprehensive development their physical and mental abilities so that members of society have the opportunity to receive an education sufficient to become active workers social development…» .
“It would be wrong to think that such a serious cultural growth of the members of society can be achieved without serious changes in the present state of labor. To do this, you must first reduce the working day to at least 6, and then to 5 hours. This is necessary to ensure that members of society receive enough free time necessary to receive a comprehensive education. To do this, it is necessary, further, to introduce compulsory polytechnic training, which is necessary so that members of society have the opportunity to freely choose a profession and not be chained to one profession for the rest of their lives. To do this, it is necessary to further radically improve living conditions and raise the real wages of workers and employees at least twice, if not more, both through a direct increase in money wages, and especially through a further systematic reduction in prices for consumer goods.
These are the basic conditions for preparing the transition to communism.”
Real democracy, which is based on the availability for the development of knowledge and skills that allow the full management function in relation to society, is impossible without the development of sufficiently wide layers in all social groups the art of dialectics (as a practical cognitive and creative skill) as the basis for the development of conceptual authority.
And accordingly, dialectical materialism was included in the USSR as a standard of both secondary (later becoming universal) and higher education, due to which a certain number of students in the process of becoming acquainted with “diamatism” developed in themselves any kind of personal culture of dialectical knowledge and creativity, even with that dialectics in “diamat” was crippled by G.V.F. Hegel: reduced to three “laws” and replaced by a certain logic, in the form in which it was perceived by the classics of Marxism - K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin, L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky).
However, the education system of the USSR did not provide access to the level of freedom due to the totalitarian dominance of Marxism, which distorted the worldview and brought it into conflict with conscience, which was also facilitated by the principle of “democratic centralism” that underlay the internal discipline of the CPSU (b) - the CPSU, the Komsomol and the Pioneer organization, Soviet trade unions, which became an instrument of subordination of the majority to the not always righteous will and essentially mafia discipline of the leading minority.
But even with these vices, the education system in the USSR still did not prevent the breakthrough to freedom of those who lived under the rule of the dictatorship of conscience and treated Marxism and the internal discipline of the party and public organizations controlled by the party leadership as a historically transitory circumstance, and conscience - as an eternal basis, on the basis of which the essence and fate of every individual and every society is built.
And ensuring the effectiveness of the education system as a means of innovative development of the economy at a faster pace and economic support of the country’s defense capability is a means of solving the above-mentioned I.V. Stalin's main task: so that everyone could become active figures in social development.
If we talk about the development of the Russian education system in the future, then - based on what has been said above - it can only be expressed in the construction of a system of universal compulsory education, capable of bringing the student to a single level of freedom in a previously defined sense and motivating everyone who has problems to achieve this result health problems do not interfere with mastering the curriculum.
At the same time, education (in the sense of providing access to the development of knowledge and skills and assistance in their development) is, without alternative, associated with the upbringing of younger generations, since access to the only level of freedom is not only the possession of certain knowledge and skills, but also the unconditional self-subordination of the will of the individual. conscience, and this is the topic of raising each child personally in accordance with the specific circumstances of his life.
Afterword
Soviet school teachers provided basic knowledge in their subjects. And they were quite enough for a school graduate to enter higher education on his own (without tutors or bribes). educational institution. Nevertheless, Soviet education was considered fundamental. The general educational level implied a broad outlook. There was not a single school graduate in the USSR who had not read Pushkin or did not know who Vasnetsov was.
At the end I would like to cite an essay by a Soviet schoolchild about the Motherland. Look! This is how our mothers and grandmothers knew how to write. 1960-70 in the USSR... And this was written not with a ballpoint pen, but with a fountain pen!
Congratulations to you all on the Day of Knowledge!
Myth: The Soviet education system was ideal
This myth is actively replicated by communists and people simply ardently nostalgic for the USSR. In fact, Soviet education was comparatively strong in the field natural sciences, mathematics and engineering, and sports. However, in most other areas it was comparatively weak, both compared to Western counterparts of the era and compared to modern education:
History, economics, philosophy and others humanities in the USSR were extremely ideologized, their teaching was based on a deeply outdated Marxist paradigm of the 19th century, while the latest foreign achievements in these areas were largely ignored - or presented exclusively in a negative way, as “bourgeois science”. In general, students of Soviet schools and universities formed a rather simplified and distorted humanitarian picture of the world.
Foreign languages in Soviet schools were taught on average at a very low level. Unlike Western countries, in the USSR there was practically no opportunity to invite native-speaking teachers, and at the same time access to foreign literature, films and songs in the original language was difficult. There was almost no exchange of students, which made it possible to seriously improve the level of language proficiency while living abroad.
In art education, architecture and design in the late USSR, a rather sad situation developed, which is clearly evident from the deterioration of the architectural appearance of Soviet cities in the 1960s - 1980s, as well as from the massive desire of Soviet citizens to buy foreign things - high-quality and beautifully made.
If it seems to someone that all these humanitarian areas are not important, then it is worth noting that it was precisely because of underestimation, because of the insufficient or incorrect development of these areas, that the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed so easily.
Myth: problems in the education system began during the era of perestroika and the collapse of the USSR
In reality, there have always been certain problems in the Soviet education system, and the main crisis phenomena that had to be dealt with modern Russia, began to grow in the late USSR and were noticeable already in the 1970s and 1980s.
Until the 1960s Soviet education faced a key task: to train as many workers, engineers and scientists as possible in order to meet the country's needs for specialists and labor during rapid industrialization, and also to make up for the colossal losses of educated people and skilled workers caused by civil war, white emigration, the Great Patriotic War, as well as repression. Moreover, workers and specialists needed to be prepared with a large reserve in case of a new war and new human losses (in the same way, duplicate enterprises and production sites were built in the USSR in case of war). In the then conditions of a serious shortage of personnel, any graduates of universities and vocational schools were very quickly “ripped off”, getting jobs at various great construction sites, new factories, and design bureaus. Many people were lucky and found interesting and important jobs and could make a good career. At the same time, the quality of education was not critically important: everyone was in demand, and they often had to complete their studies directly at work.
Around the 1960s. the situation has changed. The rate of urbanization and industrial growth in the country has sharply decreased, industry and science have had time to fill up with personnel, and their overproduction in the conditions of a long period of peace has lost its meaning. At the same time, the number of vocational schools, universities and students had grown sharply by that time, but if previously they were in great demand, now the state could no longer provide everyone with the same attractive jobs as before. New industries were created in insufficient quantities, in the old ones key positions were firmly occupied, and the old people of Brezhnev’s times were by no means in a hurry to give up their places to the youth.
Actually, it was then, in the last decades of the USSR, that problems in education began to grow, which can be summarized approximately as follows:
A sharp increase in the number of universities and vocational schools, which led to a drop in the average level of students and a drop in the state’s ability to provide good jobs for everyone (the obvious solution would be to develop the service sector, allow entrepreneurship to create new jobs, develop self-employment opportunities - but due to its specifics, the Soviet state could not or did not want to take such steps).
The decline in the social role of teachers and lecturers, the decline in salaries in the field of education in the late USSR (if in 1940 the salary in the Soviet education system was 97% of the industry average, then in 1960 - 79%, and in 1985 - only 63%).
The growing lag behind the West in a number of disciplines, caused by closed borders and ideological intervention of the state in science.
These problems were inherited by modern Russia; they were partially solved, and partially worsened.
Myth: Soviet education was better at educating people
From the point of view of those nostalgic for the USSR, Soviet education educated Man and the Creator, while modern Russian education educates philistines, consumers and businessmen (it is not entirely clear why the latter are denied the right to be both people and creators).
But were people really raised that well in the USSR?
Soviet education raised entire generations of alcoholics - from the 1960s to the 1980s. Alcohol consumption in the country more than tripled, as a result of which, since 1964, life expectancy for men in the RSFSR stopped growing (unlike Western countries), and alcohol mortality and alcohol crime increased sharply.
Soviet education produced a society of people who, since the late 1960s. stopped reproducing itself - the number of children per woman fell to less than 2.1, resulting in the number of subsequent generations being smaller than those of previous ones. Moreover, the number of abortions in the USSR exceeded the number of children born and was estimated at about 4-5 million per year. The number of divorces in the USSR was also colossal, and remains so in Russia to this day.
Soviet education raised a generation of people who destroyed the USSR and relatively easily abandoned much of what they had previously been taught.
Soviet education produced people who massively joined the ranks of organized crime in the 1980s and 1990s. (and in many ways, even earlier).
Soviet education raised people who easily believed many charlatans during perestroika and the 1990s: they joined religious sects and neo-fascist organizations, took their last money into financial pyramids, enthusiastically read and listened to various freaks-pseudo-scientists, etc.
All this indicates that with the upbringing of a person in the USSR, to put it mildly, not everything was ideal.
Of course, this is not only about the education system, but also about other aspects of the social situation. However, Soviet education was unable to reverse this situation and largely contributed to its formation:
— critical thinking was not sufficiently cultivated;
— initiative was not sufficiently encouraged;
— paternalism and excessive reliance on authorities were actively fostered;
— there was no adequate education in the field of family and marriage;
— ideological frameworks narrowed the view of the world;
— many negative social phenomena were kept silent, instead of being studied and combated.
Myth: Capitalism main reason problems in education
From the point of view of communist-minded critics, the main cause of problems in education is capitalism. We are talking not only about the commercialization of education and the general approach to human upbringing, but also about the capitalist structure of society and the economy in general, which are supposedly in deep crisis, and the crisis in education is just one of the manifestations of this.
The capitalist crisis of society and education can be thought of as global or primarily as domestic—Russia, allegedly surrounded by enemies and ruined by capitalists, can no longer afford capitalism and capitalist education.
From the point of view of Marxists, the main types of crisis associated with capitalism are a crisis of overproduction and a crisis associated with a lack of resources. The first is caused by the excessive production of goods that consumers cannot or do not want to consume, and the second is caused by a lack of resources to produce and maintain the achieved standard of living in an ever-expanding capitalist economy (resources include land and labor). Both types of crises force capitalists to reduce consumption among the country's population and at the same time start wars - for new markets or for new resources. Now the West is in a state of double crisis, and therefore Russia is in danger - partly because they want to profit from its resources, and partly because it itself has adopted capitalism instead of socialism.
The global crisis is indeed taking place, but all these constructions linking it with the opposition of capitalism and socialism, as well as with the problems of education, are rather shaky and dubious.
Firstly, crises of overproduction and lack of resources also occur under socialism - for example, the same overproduction of workers and engineers in the late USSR, or a crisis of shortage good teachers in foreign languages (more famous examples are the overproduction of tanks and children's shoes in the late USSR).
Secondly, in the current global crisis, Russia has a very high chance of surviving, both thanks to the Soviet military heritage (strong army and military-industrial complex), and thanks to the tsarist legacy in the form of a vast territory with rich resources.
Thirdly, the way out of the crisis is not necessarily associated with war - the development of technology can help to develop new resources or create new markets. And here both the West and Russia have good chances.
It is also worth remembering the obvious fact: the Western education system (of which the Russian system is an offshoot, followed by the Soviet system) was created precisely under the conditions of capitalism in the modern era. As for the Soviet system, it is a direct continuation of the education system in the late Russian Empire, which was created under capitalist conditions. At the same time, although the education system covered only a part of society by 1917, it quickly grew in scale, and already in the middle of the 19th century Russia had excellent higher and engineering education by world standards, and in the early 1910s. Russia has become the European leader in the number of engineering graduates.
Thus, to contrast capitalism and quality education no reason. As for attempts to explain the degradation of education not just by capitalism, but by capitalism in a crisis stage, then, as already mentioned, crises also occur under socialist conditions.
Myth: Russian education has changed dramatically compared to Soviet education
From the point of view of critics, the educational reforms have incredibly changed the educational system in Russia and led to its degradation, and only the last few remnants of Soviet education still survive and keep everything afloat.
But has modern Russian education really moved so far from Soviet education? In fact, for the most part, Soviet education in Russia has been preserved:
In Russia, the same class-lesson system operates as in the USSR (originally borrowed from German schools of the 18th-19th centuries).
The specialization of schools is maintained.
The division of education into primary, complete and incomplete secondary, secondary specialized and higher education is maintained (at the same time, higher education was largely transferred from a 5-year course to a bachelor's + master's degree system - 4 + 2 years, but by and large this changed little ).
Almost all the same subjects are taught, only a few new ones have been added (at the same time, in some humanitarian subjects the programs have been greatly changed - but, as a rule, for the better).
There remains a strong tradition in the teaching of mathematics and science (compared to most other countries).
In general, the same assessment system and the same system of work for teachers have been preserved, although reporting and bureaucracy have noticeably increased (introduced to improve control and monitoring, but in many ways it turned out to be unnecessary and burdensome, for which it is rightly criticized).
The accessibility of education has been preserved and even increased, and although about a third of students are now paying students, a significant part has also become paid out-of-school education. However, there is nothing new in this compared to the Soviet era: paid education for students and high school students was in effect in the USSR in 1940-1956.
Most of the school buildings remained the same (and the renovations clearly did not worsen them).
Most of today's Russian teachers were trained in the USSR or in the 1990s, before reforms in education.
The Unified State Exam was introduced, which is the most noticeable difference Russian system from the Soviet one, however, it is worth emphasizing once again that this is not some kind of teaching method, but simply a more objective method of testing knowledge.
Of course, in Russia, various experimental schools have appeared in noticeable numbers, in which the organization and teaching methods differ significantly from Soviet models. However, in most cases we are dealing with slightly modified and modernized Soviet-style schools. The same is true for universities, if we exclude the frankly profane “diploma-building” institutions (which began to be actively closed in 2012).
Thus, in general, Russian education continues to follow Soviet models, and those people who criticize Russian education are essentially criticizing the Soviet system and the results of its work.
Myth: Returning to the Soviet education system will solve all problems
First, as shown above, Soviet education had many problems and weaknesses.
Secondly, as shown above, Russian education as a whole has not moved that far from Soviet education.
Third, key contemporary issues Russian education began in the USSR, and no solutions were found there for these problems.
Fourthly, a number of modern problems are related to the development information technologies, which were simply absent at this level in the USSR, and Soviet experience there's no help here.
Fifthly, if we talk about the most successful period of Soviet education (1920s - 1950s), then society has changed significantly since then, and in our time we have to solve many different problems. In any case, it is now impossible to reproduce the socio-demographic conditions in which Soviet successes became possible.
Sixth, education reforms do indeed carry a certain risk, but maintaining the situation and abandoning reforms is a sure path to defeat. There are problems and they need to be solved.
Finally, objective data show that the problems of modern Russian education are largely exaggerated and, with varying degrees of success, are gradually being resolved.
Myth one: Soviet education was the best in the world. When we talk about Soviet education, we imagine something monolithic, static, unchanged throughout its entire length. In fact, this was not the case. Soviet education, like any social system, of course, changed, was subject to certain dynamics, that is, the logic of this formation changed, the goals and tasks that stood before it changed. And when we generally say the word “best,” it is very loaded with emotional evaluation. What does “best” mean, compared to what is best, where are the criteria, where are the assessments, why do we think so?
In fact, if we look at Soviet education from the early 1920s, when the Bolsheviks finally came to power, until the collapse of the Soviet Union, we see that it changed significantly. For example, in the 1920s, the main goal of Soviet education was the elimination of illiteracy. The majority of the population - almost 80%, and not only among the peasant population, but also some people in the cities, practically could not, or did not know how to read and write at all. Accordingly, it was necessary to teach them this. Special schools were created for adult citizens from 16 to 50 years old, special courses were created for the younger generations, and there was a completely understandable task - the elimination of illiteracy.
If we take the later era of the 1930s-1940s, then of course the most important task there was to create personnel for accelerated naturalization, to prepare specific technical personnel who would ensure accelerated modernization of industry. And this task is also understandable. School courses were built accordingly, technical schools and colleges were built accordingly, and so on. And Soviet education also coped with this task, courses were prepared and, as you and I know, Stalin’s industrialization was carried out in the shortest possible time.
If we take the post-war era of the 1950-1960s, then the most important task for Soviet education is to provide, again, scientific and technical personnel for a big breakthrough in space, in the military-industrial sphere, and again, Soviet education coped with this task, we We remember the words of John Kennedy that we lost the space race to the Russians at school. That is, in principle, it coped with the tasks that faced Soviet education. But you and I can already see that it was heterogeneous and these tasks changed.
However, we are talking mainly about physics and mathematics education, that is, Soviet education was aimed at specific main tasks. All other spheres, and primarily the humanitarian sphere, were accordingly in a completely different state; there were virtually no foreign languages, and at the level at which they were taught, those people who were lucky enough to escape abroad were told that few people understood them. Moreover, humanitarian knowledge itself was blinkered by ideological clichés. And in general, this area has been mothballed and its development has been called into question.
Why was there mainly a focus on mathematics, physics and exact sciences? There were both objective and subjective reasons. Objective reasons were that it was necessary to train personnel, as I already said, for the military-industrial complex, engineers were needed, engineers qualified in the first place. Not just a person who could work at a machine, but a person who would understand how it all works. And the subjective reasons were that since the humanitarian sphere was completely ideologized and there was nowhere for scientific thought, as such, to develop in the humanitarian sphere, everything was prohibited. Therefore, the person who wanted to engage in science with relative freedom could afford to do this in the field of mathematics, in the field of physics - in the field of exact sciences. And it is characteristic that future philosophers of logic came mainly from Soviet mathematical schools. And if we take the humanitarian sphere, a classic example is with our philosopher Alexei Fedorovich Losev, who was forbidden to engage in philosophy, and under the guise of philosophy he studied aesthetics, although he practically did the same thing.
For the exact sciences, physics and mathematics, Soviet education was indeed very good. But the fact is that when in 1943 Soviet troops began to push the Germans to the borders of the Soviet Union and new cities and villages were liberated, the question arose of who would restore it all. Of course, the choice was made in favor of high school students and future students of technical vocational schools. But it turned out that the literacy level of these people was at the lowest level; they could not even enter a technical school as a first-year student, such was the low level of education.
Subsequently, a gradual increase in the educational level began to occur. First, a compulsory seven-year plan, then, from 1958, an eight-year plan, from 1964, a ten-year plan, and from 1984, an eleven-year plan. What this led to - it led to the fact that those poor students who previously could go to work, or say, to a factory, or to a factory school, get some kind of education there, without interrupting practice and become a good worker, or they could simply leave to work immediately without improving their educational level, now they are forced to stay in school. And those who could not be sent to vocational schools were forced to stay at school and teachers had to do something about it. Moreover, since all this was done spontaneously and our educational level increased quickly, that is, yesterday, very a large number of teachers did not have time to master this increased level, that is, take advanced training courses, understand what is required of them.
And therefore, a very ugly situation turned out - what we call culling, when most of the students could not go anywhere and the formalization of education, when the teacher pretended that he was teaching, the children pretended that they were studying in order to survive to the end of school, draw threes and release them in peace great life. And the result was a situation of segregation, when on average 20-30% of school graduates entered universities in the 1960-1970s. The remaining 70-80% were rejected, they did not go anywhere, they went to production, but the 20% who entered received a good academic education at school, they could get it and wanted it. They then received a very good education in universities and then made glory for Soviet science, primarily fundamental physico-mathematical science. They will then launch rockets into space and so on. But the remaining 80% were left behind and not taken into account, and the literacy rate among them was very low. That is, they knew how to read, write, count, and in general, after that they immediately went into production.
Soviet schoolchildren for the most part had a fairly good set of fragmentary knowledge in subjects, but, firstly, they did not know how to apply this knowledge in life, and secondly, they had no idea how to transfer knowledge from one subject area to another. A classic example with mathematics and physics - any physics teacher knew that if physics fails, most likely it is necessary to look for problems in mathematics. But this was more problematic for other subjects, such as chemistry and biology, or history and literature. And most importantly, when they talk about the best educational system in the Soviet Union, they forget that practically no one copied this system. We now know the best educational systems in the world - in Finland, in Singapore, people from all over the world flock there. This system is in demand, it is bought for a lot of money. No one bought the Soviet system, and even for free, by and large, no one needed it. A diploma from a graduate of an average Soviet university was not valued anywhere in Europe or the world. Now I’m not talking about those bright minds who went abroad and then received good money, first of all - these are, again, physicists and mathematicians, someone could even become a Nobel laureate. But the question is how much the education system itself has invested in these people, how much is from the system and how much is the result from them, from these outstanding people.
Soviet education in certain circles is considered to be the best in the world. In the same circles, it is customary to consider the modern generation as lost - they say, these young “victims of the Unified State Exam” cannot stand any comparison with us, technical intellectuals who went through the crucible of Soviet schools...
Of course, the truth lies far away from these stereotypes. If a certificate of completion of a Soviet school is a sign of the quality of education, it is only in the Soviet sense. Indeed, some people who studied in the USSR amaze us with the depth of their knowledge, but at the same time many others amaze us no less strongly with the depth of their ignorance. Not knowing Latin letters, not being able to add simple fractions, not physically understanding the simplest written texts - alas, for Soviet citizens this was the norm.
At the same time, Soviet schools also had undeniable advantages - for example, teachers then had the opportunity to freely give bad grades and leave “not performing” students for the second year. This whip created the mood necessary for studying, which is so lacking in many modern schools and universities now.
I smoothly move on to the essence of the post. Through the efforts of a team of authors, a long-overdue article on the pros and cons of Soviet education was created on the Patriot's Handbook. I am publishing this article here and ask you to join in the discussion - and, if necessary, even supplement and correct the article directly on the “Directory”, fortunately this is a wikiproject that is available for editing by everyone:
This article examines the Soviet education system from the point of view of its advantages and disadvantages. The Soviet system followed the task of educating and shaping individuals worthy of realizing for future generations the main national idea of the Soviet Union - a bright communist future. This task included not only the teaching of knowledge about nature, society and the state, but also the education of patriotism, internationalism and morality.== Pros (+) ==
Mass character. During Soviet times, for the first time in Russian history, almost universal literacy was achieved, close to 100%.
Of course, even in the era of the late USSR, many people of the older generation had only 3-4 years of education behind them, because not everyone was able to complete a full course of schooling due to the war, mass relocations, and the need to go to work early. However, almost all citizens learned to read and write.
For mass education, we must also thank the tsarist government, which in the 20 pre-revolutionary years practically doubled the level of literacy in the country - by 1917, almost half of the population was already literate. The Bolsheviks, as a result, received a huge number of literate and trained teachers, and they only had to double the share of literate people in the country for the second time, which they did.Wide access to education for national and linguistic minorities. During the process of so-called indigenization, the Bolsheviks in the 1920s and 1930s. for the first time introduced education in the languages of many small peoples of Russia (often, simultaneously creating and introducing alphabets and writing for these languages). Representatives of the outlying peoples were given the opportunity to learn to read and write first in their own language. native language, and then in Russian, which accelerated the elimination of illiteracy.
On the other hand, this same indigenization, partially curtailed in the late 1930s, managed to make a significant contribution to the future collapse of the USSR along national borders.
High accessibility for the majority of the population (universal free secondary education, very common higher education). In Tsarist Russia, education was associated with class restrictions, although as its availability grew, these restrictions weakened and eroded, and by 1917, if they had money or special talents, representatives of any class could receive a good education. With the Bolsheviks coming to power, class restrictions were finally lifted. Primary and then secondary education became universal, and the number of students in higher educational institutions increased manifold.
Highly motivated students, public respect for education. Young people in the USSR really wanted to study. Under Soviet conditions, when the right to private property was seriously limited, and entrepreneurial activity practically suppressed (especially after the closure of the artels under Khrushchev), getting an education was the main way to advance in life and start earning good money. There were few alternatives: Stakhanovsky manual labor Not everyone had enough health, and for a successful party or military career it was also necessary to increase their level of education (illiterate proletarians were recklessly recruited only in the first decade after the revolution).
Respect for the work of teachers and lecturers. At least until the 1960s and 1970s, while the USSR was eliminating illiteracy and establishing a system of universal secondary education, the teaching profession remained one of the most respected and in demand in society. Relatively literate and capable people became teachers, moreover, motivated by the idea of bringing education to the masses. Besides, it was a real alternative hard work on a collective farm or in production. A similar situation was in higher education, where, in addition, during Stalin’s time there were very good salaries (already under Khrushchev, however, the salaries of the intelligentsia were reduced to the level of workers and even lower). They wrote songs about the school and made films, many of which entered the golden fund of Russian culture.
Relatively high level of initial training of those entering higher education institutions. The number of students in the RSFSR at the end of the Soviet era was at least two times lower than in modern Russia, and the share of young people in the population was higher. Accordingly, with a similar population size in the RSFSR and in the modern Russian Federation, competition for each place in Soviet universities was twice as high as in modern Russian ones, and as a result, the contingent recruited there was of higher quality and more capable. It is precisely this circumstance that is primarily associated with the complaints of modern teachers about the sharp drop in the level of training of applicants and students.
Very high quality higher technical education. Soviet physics, astronomy, geography, geology, applied technical disciplines and, of course, mathematics were, without a doubt, at the highest world level. The huge number speaks for itself outstanding discoveries and technical inventions of the Soviet era, and the list of world-famous Soviet scientists and inventors looks very impressive. However, here too we must say special thanks to pre-revolutionary Russian science and higher education, which served as a solid basis for all these achievements. But it must be admitted that the Soviet Union managed - even despite the massive emigration of Russian scientists after the revolution - to fully revive, continue and develop at the highest level the domestic tradition in the field of technical thought, natural and exact sciences.
Satisfying the colossal state demand for new personnel in the context of a sharp growth in industry, army and science (thanks to large-scale state planning). During the course of mass industrialization in the USSR, several new industries were created and the scale of production in all industries was significantly increased, several times and tens of times. For such impressive growth, it was necessary to train many specialists capable of working with the most modern technology. In addition, it was necessary to make up for significant personnel losses as a result of revolutionary emigration, civil war, repressions and the Great Patriotic War. The Soviet education system successfully trained many millions of specialists in hundreds of specialties - thanks to this, the most important state tasks related to the survival of the country were solved.
Relatively high scholarships. The average stipend in the late USSR was 40 rubles, while an engineer's salary was 130-150 rubles. That is, scholarships reached about 30% of salaries, which is significantly higher than in the case of modern scholarships, which are large enough only for excellent students, graduate students and doctoral students.
Developed and free out-of-school education. In the USSR there were thousands of palaces and houses of pioneers, stations young technicians, young tourists and young naturalists, many other clubs. Unlike most of today's clubs, sections and electives, Soviet out-of-school education was free.
The best sports education system in the world. From the very beginning, the Soviet Union paid great attention to the development of physical education and sports. If sports education was just emerging in the Russian Empire, then in the Soviet Union it reached the forefront in the world. The success of the Soviet sports system is clearly visible in the results Olympic Games: The Soviet team has consistently taken first or second place at every Olympics since 1952, when the USSR began participating in the international Olympic movement.
== Cons (−) ==
Low quality of humanities education due to ideological restrictions and cliches. Almost all humanitarian and social disciplines in schools and universities of the USSR were, to one degree or another, loaded with Marxism-Leninism, and during Stalin’s life, also with Stalinism. The concept of teaching Russian history and even history is based ancient world lay " Short course history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks),” according to which the entire world history was presented as a process of maturing prerequisites for the revolution of 1917 and the future construction of a communist society. In the teaching of economics and politics, Marxist political economy occupied the main place, and in the teaching of philosophy - dialectical materialism. These directions in themselves are worthy of attention, but they were declared to be the only true and correct ones, and all others were declared either their predecessors or false directions. As a result, huge layers of humanities knowledge either dropped out of the Soviet education system altogether, or were presented in doses and exclusively in a critical manner, as “bourgeois science.” Party history, political economy and mathematics were compulsory subjects in Soviet universities, and in the late Soviet period they were among the least liked by students (as a rule, they were far from the main specialty, divorced from reality and at the same time relatively difficult, so their study was mainly came down to memorizing stereotyped phrases and ideological formulations).
Denigration of history and distortion of moral guidelines. In the USSR, school and university teaching of history was characterized by denigration of the Tsarist period in the history of the country, and in the early Soviet period this denigration was much more widespread than the post-perestroika denigration of Soviet history. Many pre-revolutionary statesmen were declared “servants of tsarism”, their names were erased from history textbooks, or mentioned in a strictly negative context. And vice versa, outright robbers, like Stenka Razin, were declared “ folk heroes", and terrorists, like the assassins of Alexander II, were called "freedom fighters" and "advanced people." In the Soviet concept of world history, a lot of attention was paid to all kinds of oppression of slaves and peasants, all kinds of uprisings and rebellions (of course, these are also important topics, but by no means less important than the history of technology and military affairs, geopolitical and dynastic history, etc.) . The concept of “class struggle” was implanted, according to which representatives of the “exploiting classes” were to be persecuted or even destroyed. From 1917 to 1934 history was not taught at universities at all, all history departments were closed, traditional patriotism was condemned as “great power” and “chauvinism,” and “proletarian internationalism” was implanted in its place. Then Stalin sharply changed course towards the revival of patriotism and returned history to universities, but the negative consequences of post-revolutionary denial and distortion historical memory are still felt today: many historical heroes have been forgotten, for several generations of people the perception of history is sharply divided into periods before and after the revolution, many good traditions have been lost.
The negative impact of ideology and political struggle on academic staff and individual disciplines. As a result of the revolution and civil war in 1918–1924. About 2 million people were forced to emigrate from the RSFSR (the so-called white emigration), and most of the emigrants were representatives of the most educated segments of the population, including a very large number of scientists, engineers and teachers who emigrated. According to some estimates, about three quarters of Russian scientists and engineers died or emigrated during that period. However, already before the First World War, Russia occupied first place in Europe in terms of the number of students at universities, so that there were a lot of specialists trained in tsarist times left in the country (although, for the most part, quite young specialists). Thanks to this, the acute shortage of teaching staff that arose in the USSR was successfully filled in most industries by the end of the 1920s (partly due to an increase in the workload on the remaining teachers, but mainly due to the intensive training of new ones). Subsequently, however, the Soviet scientific and teaching personnel were seriously weakened during the repressions and ideological campaigns carried out by Soviet power. The persecution of genetics is widely known, because of which Russia, which at the beginning of the 20th century was one of the world leaders in biological science, by the end of the 20th century became a laggard. Due to the introduction of ideological struggle into science, many outstanding scientists of the humanities and social sciences suffered (historians, philosophers and economists of a non-Marxist persuasion; linguists who participated in discussions on Marrism, as well as Slavists; Byzantologists and theologians; orientalists - many of them were shot on false charges espionage for Japan or other countries because of their professional connections), but representatives of the natural and exact sciences also suffered (the case of the mathematician Luzin, the Pulkovo case of astronomers, the Krasnoyarsk case of geologists). As a result of these events, entire scientific schools were lost or suppressed, and in many areas a noticeable lag behind world science arose. The culture of scientific discussion was overly ideologized and politicized, which, of course, had a negative impact on education.
Restrictions on access to higher education for certain groups of the population. In fact, opportunities for higher education in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. The so-called disenfranchised were deprived, including private traders, entrepreneurs (using hired labor), representatives of the clergy, and former police officers. Children from families of nobles, merchants, and clergy often encountered obstacles when trying to obtain higher education in the pre-war period. In the Union republics of the USSR, representatives of titular nationalities received preferences when entering universities. In the post-war period, a percentage rate for admission to the most prestigious universities was secretly introduced in relation to Jews.
Restrictions on familiarization with foreign scientific literature, restrictions on international communication of scientists. If in the 1920s. In Soviet science, the pre-revolutionary practice continued, involving very long foreign business trips and internships for scientists and the best students, constant participation in international conferences, free correspondence and an unlimited supply of foreign scientific literature, then in the 1930s. the situation began to change for the worse. Especially in the period after 1937 and before the war, the presence of foreign connections simply became dangerous for the lives and careers of scientists, since many were then arrested on trumped-up charges of espionage. At the end of the 1940s. During the ideological campaign to combat cosmopolitanism, it came to the point that references to the works of foreign authors began to be regarded as a manifestation of “adulation to the West,” and many were forced to accompany such references with criticism and stereotyped condemnation of “bourgeois science.” The desire to publish in foreign journals was also condemned, and, most unpleasantly, almost half of the world's leading scientific journals, including publications like Science and Nature, were removed from public access and sent to special storage facilities. This “turned out to be beneficial to the most mediocre and unprincipled scientists,” for whom “massive separation from foreign literature made it easier to use it for hidden plagiarism and pass it off as original research.” As a result, in the middle of the 20th century, Soviet science, and after it education, in conditions of limited external relations, they began to fall out of the global process and “stew in their own juice”: it became much more difficult to distinguish world-class scientists from compilers, plagiarists and pseudoscientists, many achievements of Western science remained unknown or little-known in the USSR. » Soviet science was corrected only partially, as a result there is still a problem of low citation of Russian scientists abroad and insufficient familiarity with advanced foreign research.
Relatively low quality of teaching foreign languages. If in the post-war period the West established the practice of involving foreign native speakers in teaching, as well as the practice of large-scale student exchanges, in which students could live in another country for several months and learn the spoken language in the best possible way, then the Soviet Union lagged significantly behind in teaching foreign languages from -due to the closed borders and the almost complete absence of emigration from the West to the USSR. Also, for censorship reasons, the entry of foreign literature, films, and song recordings into the Soviet Union was limited, which did not at all contribute to the study of foreign languages. Compared to the USSR, in modern Russia there are much more opportunities for learning languages.
Ideological censorship, autarky and stagnation in art education in the late USSR. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and the early USSR were among the world leaders and trendsetters in the field of artistic culture. Avant-garde painting, constructivism, futurism, Russian ballet, the Stanislavsky system, the art of film editing - this and much more aroused admiration from the whole world. However, by the end of the 1930s. the variety of styles and trends gave way to the dominance of socialist realism imposed from above - in itself it was a very worthy and interesting style, but the problem was the artificial suppression of alternatives. Reliance on one's own traditions was proclaimed, while attempts at new experiments began to be condemned in many cases (“Confusion instead of music”), and the borrowing of Western cultural techniques was subject to restrictions and persecution, as in the case of jazz and then rock music. Indeed, not in all cases, experiments and borrowings were successful, but the scale of condemnation and restrictions was so inadequate that it led to the disincentive of innovation in art and to the gradual loss of world cultural leadership by the Soviet Union, as well as to the emergence of “underground culture” in the USSR.
Degradation of education in the field of architecture, design, urban planning. During the period of Khrushchev’s “fight against architectural excesses,” the entire system of architectural education, design and construction suffered seriously. In 1956, the USSR Academy of Architecture was reorganized and renamed the USSR Academy of Construction and Architecture, and in 1963 it was completely closed (until 1989). As a result, the era of the late USSR became a time of decline in design and a growing crisis in the field of architecture and the urban environment. The architectural tradition was interrupted and was replaced by the soulless construction of microdistricts inconvenient for life; instead of a “bright future” in the USSR, a “gray present” was built.
Canceling the teaching of fundamental classical disciplines. In the Soviet Union, such an important subject as logic was excluded from the school curriculum (it was studied in pre-revolutionary gymnasiums). Logic was returned to the curriculum and a textbook was published only in 1947, but in 1955 it was removed again, and, with the exception of physics and mathematics lyceums and other elite schools, logic is still not taught to schoolchildren in Russia. Meanwhile, logic is one of the foundations of the scientific method and one of the most important subjects, which provides skills in distinguishing between truth and lies, conducting discussions and resisting manipulation. Another important difference between the Soviet school curriculum and the pre-revolutionary gymnasium curriculum was the abolition of teaching Latin and Greek. Knowledge of these ancient languages may seem useless only at first glance, because almost all modern scientific terminology, medical and biological nomenclature, and mathematical notation are based on them; In addition, learning these languages is good mental gymnastics and helps develop discussion skills. Several generations of outstanding Russian scientists and writers who worked before the revolution and in the first decades of the USSR were brought up in the tradition of classical education, which included the study of logic, Latin and Greek, and the almost complete rejection of all this hardly had a positive effect on education in the USSR and Russia.
Problems with parenting moral values, partial loss of the educational role of education. The best Soviet teachers always insisted that the purpose of education is not only the transfer of knowledge and skills, but also the education of a moral, cultural person. In many ways, this problem was solved in the early USSR - then it was possible to solve the problem of mass child homelessness and juvenile delinquency that arose after the civil war; managed to raise the cultural level of significant masses of the population. However, in some respects, Soviet education not only failed to cope with the education of morality, but in some ways even aggravated the problem. Many educational institutions pre-revolutionary Russia, including church education and institutes for noble maidens, explicitly set themselves the main task of raising a moral person and preparing him either for the role of a spouse in the family, or for the role of “brother” or “sister” in the community of believers. Under Soviet rule, all such institutions were closed, specialized analogues were not created for them, moral education was entrusted to the ordinary mass school, separating it from religion, which was replaced by the propaganda of atheism. The moral goal of Soviet education was no longer the education of a worthy member of the family and community, as it was before, but the education of a member of the work collective. For the accelerated development of industry and science, this may have been a good thing. However, such an approach could hardly solve the problems of the high level of abortion (for the first time in the world legalized in the USSR), the high level of divorce and the general degradation of family values, the sharp transition to small children, growing mass alcoholism and the extremely low life expectancy of men in the late USSR by world standards.
Almost complete elimination of home education. Many outstanding figures of Russian history and culture received home education instead of school, which proves that such education can be very effective. Of course, this form of education is not available to everyone, but either to relatively wealthy people who can hire teachers, or simply to intelligent and educated people who can devote a lot of time to their children and personally go through the school curriculum with them. However, after the revolution, home education in the USSR was by no means encouraged (largely for ideological reasons). The external education system in the USSR was introduced in 1935, but for a long time it was designed almost exclusively for adults, and a full-fledged opportunity for external education for schoolchildren was introduced only in 1985–1991.
Non-alternative co-education of boys and girls. One of the dubious Soviet innovations in education was the compulsory co-education of boys and girls instead of the pre-revolutionary separate education. Then this step was justified by the struggle for women's rights, the lack of personnel and premises for the organization of separate schools, as well as the widespread practice of co-education in some leading countries of the world, including the USA. However, the latest research in the United States shows that separate education increases student results by 10-20%. Everything is quite simple: in joint schools, boys and girls are distracted by each other, and noticeably more conflicts and incidents arise; Boys, right up to the last grades of school, lag behind girls of the same age in education, since the male body develops more slowly. On the contrary, with separate education, it becomes possible to better take into account the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of different sexes to improve performance; adolescents’ self-esteem depends to a greater extent on academic performance, and not on some other things. It is interesting that in 1943, separate education for boys and girls was introduced in cities, which, after the death of Stalin, was again eliminated in 1954.
The system of orphanages in the late USSR. While in Western countries in the middle of the 20th century they began to close orphanages en masse and place orphans in families (this process was generally completed by 1980), in the USSR the system of orphanages was not only preserved, but even degraded compared to pre-war times. Indeed, during the struggle against homelessness in the 1920s, according to the ideas of Makarenko and other teachers, the main element in the re-education of former street children was labor, while pupils of labor communes were given the opportunity to self-govern in order to develop skills of independence and socialization. This technique gave excellent results, especially considering that before the revolution, civil war and famine, most street children still had some experience family life. However, later, due to the ban on child labor, this system was abandoned in the USSR. In the USSR by 1990, there were 564 orphanages, the level of socialization of orphanages was low, and many former orphanages ended up among the criminals and marginalized. In the 1990s. the number of orphanages in Russia almost tripled, but in the second half of the 2000s the process of their liquidation began, and in the 2010s. it is already close to completion.
Degradation of the system of secondary vocational education in the late USSR. Although in the USSR the working man was extolled in every possible way and blue-collar professions were promoted, by the 1970s. The system of secondary vocational education in the country began to clearly degrade. “If you do poorly at school, you’ll go to a vocational school!” (vocational technical school) - this is what parents told careless schoolchildren. They took into vocational schools those students who had failed and failed to enter universities, and juvenile criminals were forcibly placed there, and all this against the backdrop of a comparative surplus of specialist workers and the weak development of the service sector due to the lack of developed entrepreneurship (that is, alternatives in employment, as now, then there were no was). Cultural and educational work in vocational schools turned out to be poorly done; “vocational school students” began to be associated with hooliganism, drunkenness and a general low level of development. The negative image of vocational education in blue-collar occupations still persists in Russia, although qualified turners, mechanics, milling operators, and plumbers are now among the highly paid professions, the representatives of which are in short supply.
Insufficient education of critical thinking among citizens, excessive unification and paternalism. Education, like the media and Soviet culture in general, instilled in citizens faith in a powerful and wise party that leads everyone and cannot lie or make major mistakes. Of course, faith in the strength of one’s people and state is an important and necessary thing, but in order to support this faith one cannot go too far, systematically suppress the truth and harshly suppress alternative opinions. As a result, when, during the years of perestroika and glasnost, these very alternative opinions were given freedom, when previously suppressed facts about the history and modern problems of the country began to emerge en masse, huge masses of citizens felt deceived, lost confidence in the state and in everything that they were taught in school in many humanitarian subjects. Finally, citizens were unable to resist outright lies, myths and media manipulation, which ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR and the deep degradation of society and the economy in the 1990s. Alas, but Soviet educational and social system failed to cultivate a sufficient level of caution, critical thinking, tolerance for alternative opinions, and a culture of discussion. Also, late-Soviet education did not help to instill in citizens sufficient independence, the desire to personally solve their problems, and not wait for the state or someone else to do it for you. All this had to be learned from the bitter post-Soviet experience.
== Conclusions (−) ==
In assessing the Soviet education system, it is difficult to come to a single and comprehensive conclusion due to its inconsistency.
Positive points:
Complete elimination of illiteracy and provision of universal secondary education
- World leadership in the field of higher technical education, in the natural and exact sciences.
- The key role of education in ensuring industrialization, victory in the Great Patriotic War and scientific and technological achievements in the post-war period.
- High prestige and respect for the teaching profession, high level of motivation of teachers and students.
- High level development of sports education, widespread encouragement of sports activities.
- The emphasis on technical education made it possible to solve the most important problems for the Soviet state.Negative points:
Lagging behind the West in the field of humanities education due to the negative influence of ideology and the foreign policy situation. The teaching of history, economics and foreign languages was especially hard hit.
- Excessive unification and centralization of school and, to a lesser extent, university education, coupled with its small contacts with outside world. This led to the loss of many successful pre-revolutionary practices and to a growing lag behind foreign science in a number of areas.
- Direct blame for the degradation of family values and the general decline of morals in the late USSR, which led to negative trends in the development of demography and social relations.
- Insufficient education of critical thinking among citizens, which led to the inability of society to effectively resist manipulation during the information war.
- Art education suffered from censorship and high ideologization, as well as from obstacles to the development of foreign techniques; one of the most important consequences of this is the decline of design, architecture and urban planning in the late USSR.
- That is, in its humanitarian aspect, the Soviet education system ultimately not only did not help solve the key tasks of preserving and strengthening the state, but also became one of the factors in the moral, demographic and social decline of the country. Which, however, does not negate the impressive achievements of the USSR in the field of humanities and art.
PS. By the way, about logic. A textbook of logic, as well as other entertaining materials on the art of civilized discussion, can be found here.
Soviet education, as we know, was the best in the world, and was very popular. I think Russian should be recognized as the second (if not the first in number) international language. Nowadays, foreign specialists with excellent knowledge of the Russian language work in many countries around the world. When asked where from: “I studied in the USSR.” Soviet Union raised a generation of specialists of whom many countries are proud. Doctors, teachers, engineers, architects - for us these are ordinary workers, but in the countries of the East, Africa, Brazil, etc., these are very respected specialists with high salaries and position in society.
They were accustomed to study and train from birth - proof of this is the many published books that are cheap in price and invaluable in content, a huge number of clubs and sections during school years, the development of a lack of ingenuity and resourcefulness (the ability to replace a missing item with cash and make whatever whatever). When foreign citizens came to study in 5-6 years, they completely mastered, if not all the wisdom, then certainly part of our national understanding.
In the world of science, Messenger of Knowledge, World Pathfinder, Inventor and Innovator, Science and Life, Science and Technology - all these magazines popularize science and tell the laws of nature, physics, and technology in an accessible language. Even high school students enjoyed reading them.
History of Russian tea. New experiments in far vision. — Underwater radio. — New English “directional” radio stations. News about the expedition of Professor I. I. Vavilov. — Use of thermal energy of the oceans. — The mechanism of egg laying by silkworms. Questions of the universe and interplanetary communications. — About the flight to the moon. — About the telescope. - About comets. — About the principle of relativity. - Atoms and molecules. — Light and its distribution. — About the phenomena of thunderstorms. — Study of chemistry. — Questions of biology. - Speech and thinking. — “Acmeism.” — Study of literature of the past. — Internal combustion engines and turbines.- these are the topics of the 4th issue of the journal Bulletin of Knowledge for 1927.
Concepts such as innovation and invention were widespread and encouraged in production. Welcomed creativity to work, in which each worker sought to simplify and make the labor process more perfect.
In the film “Rain in a Strange City”, love experiences unfold in parallel with the labor process of the protagonist, during which he is born new idea– rationalization.
Rational proposal is the abbreviated name for innovation in the labor process. The adopted rationalization proposals made the work process more improved - faster, less expensive, and therefore more profitable. Creative teams were created at the factories, which competed with each other to make more innovation proposals.
In order to further develop the mass technical creativity of workers, the All-Union Society of Inventors and Innovators (VOIR) was created in 1958. Its tasks included the development of the rationalization and invention movement - lectures were given, competitions were held and experience was widely exchanged - that is, employees of one enterprise were sent to another similar enterprise and adopted work skills from each other. They moved both within the country and abroad. Going on a foreign business trip to exchange experiences was the height of luxury.
There was a list of regulations regulating relations in this direction - Methodology (basic provisions) for determining the economic efficiency of use in the national economy new technology, inventions and rationalization proposals (approved by the resolution of the State Committee for Science and Technology, the State Planning Committee of the USSR, the USSR Academy of Sciences and the State Committee for Inventions dated February 14, 1977), Regulations, instructions and clarifications, and one of the most important for the employee - the Regulation on bonuses for promoting invention and rationalization (approved by the resolution of the State Committee for Labor USSR dated June 23, 1983).
Rewards were determined based on the amount of annual savings achieved from implementing the proposal. The holiday “Inventor and Innovator Day” was celebrated annually on the last Saturday of June. On this day, the USSR Academy of Sciences selected the best inventions and innovation proposals made over the past year and awarded the best with state awards, prizes and honorary titles “Honored Inventor of the Republic” and “Honored Innovator of the Republic.”
It was beneficial for the country to raise smart citizens and encourage innovation. This is a guarantee of the country's development.