Features of Soviet science, ideology and art. Soviet literature The influence of Soviet ideology on literature

At the theoretical, ideological (in the broad sense of the word) level of culture of the twentieth century. plays a decisive role the science. She already occupied an essential place in the spiritual life of tsarist Russia. In post-revolutionary Russia, its importance has increased dramatically. All types of sciences have been developed: natural, technical, logical-mathematical and humanitarian. The Academy of Sciences became the main scientific center. In 1925 the Russian Academy of Sciences was renamed the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the 1920s, such institutes as radium, physics and mathematics, etc. appeared in its structure, in the 30s - physics, metallurgy, etc. In 1936, in connection with the incorporation of the Communist Academy into its structure, institutes of history, philosophy, and others appeared. Since 1932, republican and regional branches of the USSR Academy of Sciences (for example, the Ural) were created, on the basis of which republican AS were then formed.

Scientific societies began to play an important role, for example, the Perm Medical Society (founded in 1923) and research institutes, the first of which in the Urals was the Biological Institute, which arose in 1922 at the Perm University. The number of scientific workers increased from 11.6 thousand in 1913 to 98.3 thousand in 1940. In 1985 it exceeded 1.5 million *. The state showed concern for the professional growth and implementation of the achievements of the most talented scientists. Back in 1922, the government adopted a decree “On the conditions ensuring the scientific work of Academician I.P. Pavlov”. In 1934, the academic degrees of candidate and doctor of sciences and academic titles were established: assistant, associate professor and professor. By 1940, there were 1,500 doctors and 8,000 candidates of sciences in the USSR, and by 1985 their number had grown 30 and 60 times, respectively *.

These impressive figures should not obscure the contradictions and problems of the development of Soviet science. The struggle for the "ideological purity" of the ranks of the intelligentsia, psychological pressure, administrative and criminal prosecution, up to the physical elimination of scientists, became a fairly common phenomenon in the 30s. They were used, albeit not on such a scale, and later. Suffice it to recall the post-war "case of doctors" or the link of Academician AD Sakharov. Moreover, not only scientists, but also entire scientific directions and schools were subjected to repression.

The biggest example here is genetics. Thanks to the efforts of a brilliant scientist and organizer of science, the president of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences, N.I. Vavilov and his associates, Soviet genetics by the 30s stood at the most advanced world frontiers. His opponent, T.D. Lysenko, without succeeding in science, managed to convince the Stalinist leadership (as well as Khrushchev's later) that his scientific (allegedly) methods would give a rapid increase in agricultural production. As a result, NI Vavilov was repressed, and TD Lysenko's falsifications were exposed only in 1965! Our scientific and agricultural losses during this time are simply difficult to calculate.

On the whole, however, Soviet science is rightfully considered a unique phenomenon in the history of culture. World science is proud of the achievements of P.L. Kapitsa, I.V. Kurchatov, A.D. Aleksandrov and other prominent Soviet scientists. Largely thanks to their work, the USSR already at the end of the 30s moved from 5th to 2nd place in the world in industrial production, won World War II, began space exploration, etc. How did our scientists, who worked in difficult conditions, with low material costs for project development, manage to achieve such high results in the shortest possible time?

This is due to the special style of solving large scientific problems, which was distinguished by a broad vision of the problem, very (even unnecessarily - from the point of view of common sense) deep theoretical study of it and rapid (using the “brainstroke, or storm” method) progress towards the goal. At the same time, the “academic” norms and rules adopted in Western science were often violated, but a good practical result was achieved. For example, the design of the famous "Katyusha" was extremely simple, it was welded from tram rails, but the Germans, no matter how they tried, could not reproduce it, because behind this simplicity were the brilliant developments of mathematicians, physicists, aerodynamics and other specialists.

Although this style was polished already in Soviet times, it has always been characteristic of Russian science to some extent, since she often had to solve major problems on her own and quickly. A certain analogy can be seen here in the entry of Japanese electronics into the world market, etc. At the same time, many of our scientists were distinguished not only by the encyclopedic breadth of knowledge, but also by the philosophical and cosmic view of the world, a characteristic manifestation of which was the so-called “Russian cosmism” at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. (the period of the “Silver Age” of Russian culture), which gave a galaxy of brilliant thinkers (N.A. Berdyaev, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, A.A. Bogdanov and many others), who limitedly linked the solution of specific problems with the fate of Russia, the world and The universe.

So, for K.E. Tsiolkovsky, the issues of rocketry were only a "step" in his philosophical thoughts that a person, having populated space and knowing its laws, could, having passed into a new (non-physical) energy state, live in space, no longer using technical devices. This approach gave remarkable discoveries “at the intersection of sciences” and gave birth to new sciences. For example, Academician V.I. Vernadsky, who in the 30s proposed a rather deep philosophical concept of the noosphere (see question 1), became the founder of genetic mineralogy, geochemistry, biogeochemistry, radiogeology, hydrogeology.

Scientific and technological revolution has created a serious problem: a sharp rise in the cost of science. In the USSR (as always in Russia) it was financed by the state. Today the state cannot and does not want to take full responsibility for this. The help of foreign "sponsors", to put it mildly, is not selfless. We can only hope that the patriotism and endurance of our scientists will help preserve and develop the still very rich scientific potential in tomorrow's Russia.

Fewer other branches of knowledge were lucky in Soviet times social thought and social sciences. Revolutionary storms did not interrupt the Russian philosophical Renaissance of the late 19th century. Despite the difference in political views, many "Russian cosmists" - philosophers, scientists, artists - remained in Russia. Some emigrants did not lose hope of restoring ties with the Motherland. In 1921-22. they publish the magazine Smena Vekh in Paris, which is also supported by the liberal intelligentsia that remains in Russia. “Smenovekhovtsy” believed that the transition to NEP meant not only a multi-structured economy, but also pluralism in culture.

In the conditions of the continuing civil war in the Far East, wishing to strengthen their ideological positions, the Bolsheviks in August - September 1922 expelled from the country 160 prominent scientists, writers and public figures (N.A. Berdyaev, P.A. Sorokin, etc.) disagreeing with their ideology, thereby making it clear that freedom of creativity in Russia can exist only within the framework determined by the authorities. This, of course, did not mean the cessation of social thought, although it seriously impoverished it.

Along with the theorists of Marxism (and often in polemics with them) until the end of the 1920s, such well-known social scientists as P.A. Florensky, AV Chayanov, AL Chizhevsky and others. Many of their ideas found recognition only decades later. Thus, the outstanding philosopher, economist, biologist, mathematician, physician, revolutionary, science fiction writer, theorist of proletarian culture A.A. Boganov created a “general organizational science” or “tectology” that anticipated many of the ideas of the modern science of management - cybernetics. In 1926 he founded the world's first Blood Transfusion Institute. In 1928, he died as a result of an experiment on himself in blood transfusion.

ND Kondratyev tried to develop a scientific concept of a regulated market (about which there is so much controversy today) in the 1920s. He believed that planning should take into account long-term (48-55 years) fluctuations in the economic environment. The ups and downs of inventive and entrepreneurial, investment and other activity are interconnected, natural and have a “wave” character. The theory of "long waves in economics" was not supported by the Soviet leadership. In 1930, ND Kondratyev was arrested on false charges, and in 1938 he was shot. Subsequently, his ideas were developed and implemented in practice, though not in our country, but in the West.

By the 1930s, all non-Marxists, as well as former and potential opponents of J.V. Stalin, were removed from the discussion of social problems. By the mid-1930s, thanks to the efforts of his comrades-in-arms, Marxism in the USSR was turning into a rigid dogmatic scheme, which was instilled in the population as a state religion (see more details 1 question 1 of the topic). The narrowness of the methodological base gives rise to numerous errors in social theory and practice. For example, in the 40-50s, cybernetics in the USSR was considered “bourgeois pseudoscience”. Sociology practically did not develop in the 1930s-1950s. Having correctly grasped the beginning of the scientific and technological revolution (it was discussed at the July 1955 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU), our leadership did not find strong levers to stimulate it in production. Of course, shortcomings in methodology did not exclude serious concrete work by social scientists. For example, in 1955 the publication of the multivolume "World History" began.

The 1960s saw a revival of the social sciences. Serious research is being conducted in the field of sociology, cultural studies, history, etc. In the 70s, a systematic approach to the study of social phenomena became widespread. On its basis, comprehensive programs for the social and economic development of enterprises, cities, regions and the country appear (for example, the Food Program 1982). In 1983, Yu.V. Andropov declared the need to study the contradictions of socialism (since the 30s they were not even mentioned); on his initiative, a commission of social scientists was created to work out possible reforms in economics and politics.

In the late 70s. in Russian social science, there are also clearly non-Marxist motives, discussions are underway about parapsychology and the information field. The works of the ethnographer and historian L.N. Gumilyov are published, who believed that the development of peoples is based not on economic, but on space and biological, incl. genetic factors. The ideological pluralism generated by perestroika has created certain problems in the public consciousness. But it is he who gives hope that our social scientists, freed from dogmatism, will suggest to politicians the best options for solving today's problems.

Soviet art,being the heir of the pre-revolutionary Russian culture, as well as reflecting the general trends in the development of 20th century culture, especially European, has become, at the same time, a rather distinctive phenomenon.

The October Revolution forced artists to make difficult choices. Many preferred emigration (almost all famous writers and poets, S.V. Rachmaninov, F.I.Shalyapin, etc.), some openly sided with Soviet power (V.V. Mayakovsky and others), some took a neutral position. Emigration has caused a huge damage to our artistic culture. The return of some emigrants (A.N. Tolstoy, A.M. Gorky, etc.) compensated for it to a very small extent. True, the talents of many emigrants were not wasted, enriching foreign culture and largely defining the face of 20th century modernism.

However, the artistic life in Russia has not died out. On the contrary, the 1920s gave rise to a surge of various art trends, especially modernist ones. The latter gave impetus to the formation of a new, proletarian culture, the expression of the development of which was the emergence of RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers), AHRR (Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia), RAPM (Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians) and other creative associations. The attitude of the Soviet government to artistic culture is characterized by the decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) "On the Party Policy in the Field of Fiction" (June 1925), in which, on the one hand, party organizations were called upon to support proletarian writers, to help them take leading positions in literature; to fight counter-revolutionary manifestations in literature, the liberalism of the “Smenovekhovites”, but on the other hand, the free competition of various forms and styles of literary creativity was proclaimed.

Gradually, the method of socialist realism began to take shape in Soviet art, which influenced the creation of such famous works as “The Quiet Don” by M. Sholokhov, “How the Steel Was Tempered” by N. Ostrovsky, “Walking Through the Torment” by A. Tolstoy, the film “Battleship Potemkin ”(directed by S. Eisenstein), the work of such artists as M. B. Grekov, M.S. Saryan, sculptors - V.I. Mukhina, I.D. Shadr, composers - I.O. Dunaevsky, S.S. Prokofiev, R.M. Glier and many others.

At the turn of the 20-30s, in art, as in other areas of culture, the influence of the emerging administrative-command system begins to be felt. Dozens of creative unions break up or close. New units are created instead. Thus, according to the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1932 "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", all literary associations were abolished, and writers were to unite into the Union of Soviet Writers (created at the first congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR in 1934). After that, the remaining 6 creative unions that existed until recently are formed.

Socialist realism is declared not only predominant, and even not only dominant, but the only possible method. At the same time, the understanding of the essence of the method itself also changes: it is driven into narrow frames, beyond which even the most outstanding artists had no right to go. Lenin's idea that “art must be understood by the masses” is replaced by the fact that it must be “understandable to the masses”. The "incomprehensible" artists were declared formalists (for whom the main thing is the form, not the content of the work). Most of them were modernists, incl. representatives of proletarian culture. Thus, modernism in the USSR was officially ended, although some of its techniques became firmly established in the arsenal of Soviet art. Novelty, avant-garde, revolutionary spirit were no longer needed by the Stalinist regime, which was striving to strengthen its positions. This also explains the fact that the traditions of not only realism, but also classicism of the eighteenth century, with its apparent simplicity and monumentality, were revived.

The fate of many artists was tragic. Some were repressed. Some “fit into the administrative system” (A. Fadeev, A. Tolstoy) and even continued to create works at a high level. Some were torn between democracy and Stalinism. For example, O. Mandelstam (who went mad in exile in Suchan) wrote poems against Stalin and an ode to Stalin.

The orientation of socialist realism primarily towards “heroic-patriotic” themes in the difficult conditions for the country in the 1930s-1950s is understandable, and in some cases it was even justified. So, at the beginning of the war, the population had to aim not just at victory, but at hatred of the enemy and a long struggle, because ideas about the invincibility of the Red Army and the sense of class solidarity of the German workers were very widespread. It is difficult to overestimate the contribution of artists to the victory and rapid post-war reconstruction of the country.

But life was not only about this. However, any hobby for everyday life or pre-revolutionary topics, interest in the true life of people in the West, lack of "partisanship" in works of art, and in general independence of views - in the post-war years were severely punished: remember the persecution of A.A. Akhmatova under Stalin and avant-garde artists under Khrushchev, etc. It can be said that the struggle of the authorities for the ideological consistency of art and the intelligentsia for freedom of creativity went on "with varying degrees of success." However, the palette of the artistic life of the USSR in the 40s-80s, of course, was much wider than this struggle, and the framework of socialist realism, into which it is very difficult to fit V. Vysotsky and A. Makarevich, M. Shemyakin and I. Glazunov, A. Solzhenitsyn and V. Shukshin, hundreds of other talents.

Without state ideology, there is no unity of the people in society and no common goal of movement towards higher meanings. Such a society is doomed to degradation and extinction.

Let us remember what helped the Soviet people during the historical period when the USSR existed to consistently achieve very large-scale achievements: to completely overcome the illiteracy of the population, to build a new strong state without class inequality on the site of a collapsed empire with a ruined economy in the shortest historical terms, to win victory over fascism in the Great Patriotic War, to perform the "Stalinist economic miracle" after such a destructive war, to rebuild cities, factories, restore and develop industry.

The state that emerged on the site of the Russian Empire managed to raise the level of education and medicine very high. In the Soviet Union, national natural resources became a national property, and the country's cultural heritage was open to everyone. The greatness of Soviet achievements, assessed by us after the collapse of the USSR, pushes us to seek an answer to the question: how exactly were all these results achieved?

A significant role was played by what kind of ideology became state in our country in that historical period. The ideal goal that the Soviet state called to strive for was communism.

Approaching the goal meant that changes for the better appeared in all spheres of life, not of individual people and not of individual categories of citizens, but of the entire nation. And everyone was moving towards this together, the whole country.

In that incredibly difficult time for the people and the country after the 1917 revolution, when hunger and devastation were still raging everywhere, communist subbotniks arose as heralds of a brighter future. They have become a visible example of the fact that building a communist society is not just empty words. An example of the fact that it is already under construction. Overcoming fatigue and malnutrition, the workers deliberately worked on subbotniks free of charge and overtime, doing an enormous amount of work.

In his articles, VI Lenin pointed to the enormous historical significance of these Subbotniks, since they demonstrated "the conscious and voluntary initiative of the workers in the development of labor productivity, in the transition to a new labor discipline, in the creation of socialist conditions of economy and life."

Communism, Lenin wrote in his work The Great Initiative, begins where the selfless, overcoming hard work, concern of ordinary workers to increase labor productivity, to protect every pound of grain, coal, iron and other products that does not go to workers personally and do not their "neighbors", and "distant", that is, the whole society as a whole ... "

Speaking about the transition to a new social order, Vladimir Lenin repeatedly stressed that socialism must convincingly prove its advantages in the economic sphere in order to defeat capitalism. And for this it is important to create industrial production that surpasses all capitalist models in terms of its level of organization, and to achieve higher indicators in terms of output.

"Communism," Lenin wrote, "is the highest, against the capitalist, labor productivity of voluntary, conscious, united workers using advanced technology ... Labor productivity is, in the last analysis, the most important thing, the most important thing for the victory of the new social system."

The idea of \u200b\u200bbuilding socialism and communism as the supreme goal for which the USSR was created has accompanied the Soviet person since birth. According to the plan of those who created the Soviet Union, the desire to build a good, just society should permeate work and social activities, study, free time from work, rest, entertainment, family relations. Books, feature films, theatrical performances, concerts, TV shows, museum excursions, exhibitions were to serve to root this ideology in the mass consciousness.

The fundamental concepts underlying the official state ideology were: freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice, and unity. And the people supported the political course based on the above principles. Citizens were united with the government, declaring loyalty to the principles that became the foundation, the basis of the Soviet project. Therefore, the government enjoyed full confidence and support.
The main postulate, in accordance with which the basic principles of the ideology of the USSR were formulated, is the "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism", approved by the XXII Congress of the CPSU in 1961.

This set of provisions of communist morality is a moral law for everyone, the rules of life that help a person to become a highly moral, cultured, educated, creative person in society, to be an example to others, as well as to work and work for the good and prosperity of their country:

1. Devotion to the cause of communism, love for the socialist homeland, for the socialist countries.

2. Conscientious work for the good of society: he who does not work does not eat.

3. The concern of everyone for the preservation and enhancement of the public domain.

4. High awareness of public duty, intolerance of violations of public interests.

5. Collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: each for all, all for one.

6. Humane relations and mutual respect between people: man to man is friend, comrade and brother.

7. Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, simplicity and modesty in public and private life.

8. Mutual respect in the family, care for the upbringing of children.

9. Intransigence to injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism, money-grubbing.

10. Friendship and brotherhood of all the peoples of the USSR, intolerance of national and racial hostility.

11. Intolerance towards the enemies of communism, the cause of peace and freedom of peoples.

12. Fraternal solidarity with the working people of all countries, with all peoples.

Guided by these principles, we will be able to educate the younger generations in a dignified manner, strengthen the spirit of the people, and contribute to its unity. Without reliance on these principles, it will not be possible to cope with corruption and eliminate huge class divisions. The political course proposed by the government must be clear and understandable for the entire population of the country: who we are, WHAT we are moving towards and WHAT we must come to.

A certain stamp, quite common during the existence of the USSR, which characterized both the life of each person and the entire life of people on the territory of this large country. The Soviet way of life could relate to various moments of life, of course, it was consistent with the socialist system, influencing living conditions, economic, cultural, and behavioral habits. The Soviet way of life was imbued with collectivism in contrast to American individualism. The Soviet way of life was perhaps created in opposition to the American way of life and even the American dream with a Protestant work ethic. The Soviet way of life glorified friendship between peoples, solidarity, morality, resilience in the face of difficulties, love for the party, one's homeland, commitment to the cause of communism, and the like.

The phrase Soviet way of life could often be used for those who were seen in love for the West, especially for the United States, for example, many Western pop groups, films that could criticize socialism or the USSR did not agree with the Soviet way of life. The Soviet way of life is on the same ladder with Soviet ideology, this is the official ideology of the USSR, though after the death of Stalin and the recognition by Soviet leaders that the communist system cannot economically overtake the capitalist, Soviet ideology has gone to the bottom, at least it has ceased to be so popularized.

An integral part of the Soviet way of life were various goods that were available for purchase by Soviet citizens. Compared to the American Dream, what the Soviet way of life offered was very scanty. In the USSR, a consumer rating of goods was even created, the so-called Consumer Ideal in the USSR: "Apartment, dacha, car" or - "dacha, wheelbarrow and dog."

If you remember in stagnant times not every family had a refrigerator, TV, tape recorder, not to mention a car and a summer house, the last two things were one in a million in the literal sense of the word. Look at old photographs of your cities, which flaunt deserted, but wide avenues, along which trolleybuses and trucks drive with the inscription bread or milk.

We all remember such everyday clichés as crystal, imported wall, complete works, radio, the pinnacle of chic was the TV, later even the color image.

Ideology in the USSR

The car and the dacha were available only to party officials for seniority. Please note that unlike the American Dream, which had to work hard in the USSR, access to the highest benefits had to be served, the Soviet way of life had to be served, such simple hard workers and engineers could not afford a car, and then the USSR leadership wondered why the USSR could not catch up and overtake the West, although in the first time after the end of World War II, the growth rates of the USSR economy even outstripped the rates of the Protestant West. At first, in the USSR, cars for private use were not sold at all, and then they were a means of pumping money from the people, an ordinary worker had to work for a car for several decades.

In Berlin today there is a museum of the GDR, which presents the whole life of East Germany under the Soviets, foreigners or West German tourists visit this museum with curiosity, but it is completely unpopular with tourists from Russia who are very ashamed of their Soviet past and do not want to once again this horror to watch, while the Western world is wonderingly trying to figure out the purpose of many household items, for example, a boiler.

In many ways, the only thing that people endured after the collapse of the USSR was apartments that were issued in the USSR for free, as you know, an apartment or house in the Western world is called the limit of the American Dream, in this sense, citizens of Russia or Ukraine, after free privatization of their apartment, could be considered as having achieved the American Dream. in Russia or Ukraine.

The layout and quality of Soviet real estate is relatively nasty, especially if the standard buildings of the Khrushchev period. Many Russians still cannot update the design of the Soviet era, of course, first of all, a new TV, a music center may appear, an old broken refrigerator will be replaced with a new one, a new washing machine cannot be dispensed with, large expenses for replacing old windows, since we have it is not prohibited, the mayors do not strictly monitor the preservation of the historical appearance of the facades. Modern and advanced people can live in a completely western interior, the loft style is gaining popularity, when large spaces and bare brick walls imitate the residential arrangement of industrial or attic premises. The understanding that there can only be wallpaper on the walls is a thing of the past, many people like the redevelopment with the demolition of the walls, when the living room is combined with the kitchen, the studio does not mean economy housing, these are large spaces that hint at the business class of housing and raise prices, the Russians are finally they are starting to take off the walls, carpets, which were also considered the pinnacle of home improvement in stagnant times, they were still bought as an investment of money. By the way, prices for Soviet housing in Moscow are very high, here you can compare with the cost of similar real estate in some Paris or New York.

In the USSR, they invented their own holidays, they fully met the conjecture of the Soviet style of life, of course the main holiday was New Year, which replaced the traditional Christmas for the people, the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution, May 1, March 8, Constitution Day, Lenin's birthday were widely celebrated.

Fashion, clothing and style in the USSR

If you look at old photographs, then the fate of a Soviet person in relation to fashion was not so bad as compared to the Americans, and of course a Soviet person could only have one sweater, jacket, pair of boots, a suit, whereas a Western person could have such things about a dozen, and this is an ordinary person, and not some fashionista there, it is unlikely that this state of affairs has changed in modern Russia or Ukraine. In the USSR, there has never been such a surplus of goods, a constant deficit of everything, something good could be obtained through thrift shops and birches.

After the 1917 revolution, the symbols of capitalism were abolished, no one would dare to go out into the street in a traditional bowler hat, it was replaced by a Lenin cap. Women's style has changed a lot, and for the better from a modern point of view, fashionistas from Scandinavia would approve of this, women began to look businesslike, especially in the 60s the fashion of trouser suits and the like came.

Since the 1970s, the influence of America began, jeans became popular in the USSR, you will not find an imported version in the daytime, even local hippies appeared, but they seemed completely harmless. During this period, clothes became surprisingly colorful, if in the 1960s people were all dressed in black or gray coats, then in the 70s red, yellow, green, blue and orange became popular, especially in women's fashion, men began to wear light gray paints. At the same time, a fashion appeared for men's and women's flared trousers, tight trousers with wide legs. The 1990s were marked by the fashion for boiled jeans and leggings.

Back to section

Abstract on the topic:

Marxism-Leninism

Plan:

Introduction
• 1 Origin and use of the term
• 2Distinguishing features
• 3Relationship with Other Teachings and Doctrines
• 4Official ideology of the USSR

Notes
Literature

Introduction

Marxism-Leninism - a doctrine that is Marxism (the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels) in its development by V.I. Lenin.

As a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views, Marxism-Leninism integrates conceptual views on the cognition and revolutionary transformation of the world, on the laws of development of society, nature and human thinking, on the class struggle and forms of transition to socialism, including the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, about the creative activity of the working people directly involved in the construction of a socialist and communist society.

1. The origin and use of the term

In the Soviet Union, the term "Marxism-Leninism" came into circulation as the name of a doctrine, on the one hand, maintaining continuity in relation to the theory of the classics of Marxism, and on the other hand, developing it due to the revolutionary practice of the Bolsheviks and the experience of building a socialist state and its subsequent economic development. As a kind of ideology, it was the basis of the programs of the ruling parties of other socialist countries, and in the capitalist and developing countries - the programs of many parties of the international labor movement. The Soviet-Chinese split led to a split in the international workers' (communist) movement, initially associated with the fact that both sides declared their commitment to Marxism-Leninism, mutually accusing each other of deviating from it.

Later, despite the well-known evolution of views in the PRC itself, some parties, organizations and movements of the so-called. of the Maoist persuasion both in the West and in the East, continue to refer in their program documents to "Marxism-Leninism", the interpretation of which in each specific case requires independent study.

2. Distinctive features

• The doctrine of the decisive role of the revolutionary party ("conscious minority") in social transformations. Emphasis on the decisive importance of the subjective factor in the revolution. Criticism of "spontaneity" and "spontaneous flow", as well as the theory of the reverse influence of the "superstructure" on the "basis".
• The doctrine of the possibility of a proletarian revolution and the building of socialism in a single country with undeveloped capitalist relations.
• The doctrine of the revolutionary role of the peasantry (at this point, Marxism-Leninism diverges from Trotskyism) with the leading role of the proletariat and the revolutionary role of the national liberation movement. This thesis found its expression in the hammer and sickle symbol.
• Interpretation of the modern development of capitalism as imperialism.

3. Relationship with other teachings and doctrines

3.1. Stalinism

3.2. Maoism

After the XX Congress and the growing contradictions between the USSR and the PRC, the supporters of Mao Zedong in the international communist movement declare themselves to be carriers of the traditions of Marxism-Leninism, as opposed to the bourgeois party bureaucracy of the CPSU. Justifying the theoretical theses proposed by Mao Zedong (such as: criticism of the party bureaucracy ("fire on headquarters") and the stake on amorphous groups of revolutionary youth (hungweipings); awareness of guerrilla war as the only revolutionary practice in a colonial and semi-colonial state; emphasis on the idea of \u200b\u200ba cultural revolution ), the Maoists declare them to be the creative development of Marxism-Leninism in the form of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This understanding of Marxism-Leninism is widespread among the left in the West.

4. The official ideology of the USSR

Marxism-Leninism was enshrined in the official ideology of the Soviet Union in the 1977 constitution. Prior to that, the 1936 Constitution of the USSR formalized the role of the CPSU as the dominant party, guided by the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

Volumes of complete collected works of the founders (Marx, Engels, Lenin) stood in a place of honor in all Soviet libraries (at one time there were also collected works of Stalin next to them). There was also an officially approved interpretation of the works of the classics, which changed over time.

Marxism-Leninism was subject to mandatory study in all Soviet educational institutionsstarting in high school. A large number of books and scientific articles devoted to the interpretation of Marxism-Leninism were also published. However, all the controversy was about minor issues; any attempts to doubt the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism were severely suppressed.

In addition to the works of the founders were decisions and resolutions of congresses and plenums of the CPSU; these documents were also subject to compulsory study in educational institutions of the USSR.

The ultimate goal of Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed the establishment of the communist system throughout the world; at the same time, the USSR and other socialist countries were supposed to serve as the starting point for the spread of communism to other countries (in the West, this was called the "export of revolution"). The USSR also claimed to be the leader of the entire world communist movement, which created the basis for a conflict with Yugoslavia and later with China.

Notes

1. Wed: Mitin M. B. Marxism-Leninism. // Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd ed. - M.: Sov.encyclopedia, 1974.vol. 15 - slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00045/73200.htm
2. Stalin. Report to the 17th Party Congress, 1934: “The victory of the revolution never comes by itself. It must be prepared and conquered. And only a strong proletarian revolutionary party can prepare and conquer it. "
3. Stalin. On dialectical and historical materialism, 1938: "The spontaneous process of development gives way to the conscious activity of people"
4. Stalin. On the foundations of Leninism, 1924: "The front of capital will break through where the chain of imperialism is weaker, for the proletarian revolution is the result of breaking the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest point, and it may turn out that the country that started the revolution, the country that broke through the front of capital, is less developed capitalistically "
5. Article 6. “The leading and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people. " - USSR Constitution of 1977).
6. article 126 of the KSSSR of 1936 - “In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to develop organizational initiative and political activity of the masses, citizens of the USSR are provided with the right to join public organizations: trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations, sports and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies, and the most active and conscientious citizens from the ranks of the working class and other strata of the working people are united in the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and represents the leading core of all organizations of working people, as social, and state "

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The establishment of the personality cult of Stalin. Ideology and politics of Stalinism. Massive political repression.

Stalin's personality cult - exaltation of the personality of I. V. Stalin by means of mass propaganda, in works of culture and art, state documents, laws, the creation of a semi-divine halo around his name

K. l. Stalin arose in complete contradiction with the nature of socialism, Sov.

Soviet ideology. "Nationality, ideology, concreteness"

building, with the nature of the Communist Party.

Stalinism - totalitarian political system in the USSR in the late 1920s - early 1950s and the underlying ideology. Stalinism was characterized by the dominance of authoritarianism, the strengthening of the punitive functions of the state, the merging of state bodies and the dominant Communist Party, and strict ideological control over all aspects of society. A number of researchers consider Stalinism to be one of the forms of totalitarianism.

Ideology

• The first approach - according to this approach, Stalin and Stalinism did not have any particular ideology of their own. According to this version, Stalin was not a political theorist, or even more so a philosopher, therefore he did not invent any special ideological provisions. Stalin simply followed the direction laid by his predecessor, Lenin, and which was the essence of the entire Bolshevik system in the territory of the former Russian Empire. Supporters of this opinion believe that Stalinism did not have any special ideology, because they perceive Stalinism exclusively as a system of personal power of one person built on the basis of the party bureaucracy and repressive organs. Stalinism is in its purest form a dictatorship that uses, in addition to the apparatus of violence, already existing ideological slogans and ideas to control the masses. So the verdict of this opinion is that Stalinism had no ideology, except perhaps the ideology of personal absolute power;
• The second approach - it was formulated by the most vivid and influential opponent of Stalin, Trotsky, who was defeated in the struggle for power in the party and in the state as a whole. He also, in fact, refused Stalin to create any special ideology that would serve as a support for his regime. Trotsky believed that the very coming of Stalin to power and his support from the majority of party members was nothing more than a victory of the petty-bourgeois consciousness over the pure socialist and communist ideas that allegedly made the 1917 revolution. Trotsky considered himself the guardian of these traditions, among which in the first place were the slogans of internationalism and the priority of the world revolution. Stalinism from this point of view was a victory of the conservative consciousness, which guided many party members who could not rise to the theoretical heights of the world struggle for global communism. They thought in petty-bourgeois categories, for which building communism in a single country was an understandable and tangible task, and the world revolution was something distant, vague, indefinite. It was on these attitudes that Stalin relied on, according to Trotsky, it was they who brought him to power and helped create a totalitarian state;
• The third approach is the opposite of Trotsky's opinion. Supporters of this hypothesis about the ideology of Stalinism believe that Stalin was just a much more consistent and unyielding "romantic" in relation to the ideas of communism and socialism than Trotsky, many other leaders of the Bolsheviks and even Lenin. Since it was Lenin who came forward in the early 1920s with the initiative to start the NEP, a new economic policy that returned many market elements to the economy. It was Lenin in the last years and months of active conscious life that actually abandoned the previous purely theoretical ideas about the construction of socialism and communism - because the Bolsheviks believed that with the help of a mobilized and disciplined party that seized power and a series of purposeful transformations, they would "slip through" the capitalist stage of socialism. economic development and go straight to socialism. Lenin understood the need for at least a partial departure from such sentiments, which caused a serious crisis in the party. Stalin, according to this opinion, on the contrary, returned to the roots, he just built his system, Stalinism, in the expectation that the construction of socialism without capitalist elements is possible. Only for this it is necessary, on the one hand, to destroy all the old social, economic and cultural institutions that hinder this, and in their place to build new ones already oriented towards socialist principles. That is why, as it is assumed, the majority of the Bolsheviks enthusiastically supported Stalin and raised him to the pinnacle of power - in him they saw a man who returned to his roots after Lenin's temporary apostasy, whose ideas could not be criticized.

Stalinist politics

The Constitution of the USSR, adopted on December 5, 1936 at the VIII All-Union Extraordinary Congress of Soviets, which is commonly referred to as "Stalinist", since Stalin took direct part in its creation, some historians reasonably call one of the most democratic constitutions of his time. For example, according to this Constitution, Soviet women enjoyed absolute equality in rights with men, including in the sphere of political rights, while in most Western countries such equality was not observed at that time. In general, the citizens of the country were endowed with a wide range of all kinds of rights and freedoms, which included basic political, economic, and personal rights.

According to this Constitution, it was the citizens of the country who, by voting within the framework of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot, formed the supreme governing body of the country, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which consisted of two chambers, the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities. However, in reality, these rights were just a declaration, with a practice that had nothing to do. Much more important for the Stalinist system was the declaration in the Constitution of the "basically victory" of socialism and, above all, the elimination of private property and its replacement by two other types of property - state and collective-farm-cooperative. This was the political basis of Stalinism, as it gave the system a reason to continue its actions, primarily repressive - since socialism has already been "basically built", it is necessary to build it further, and all who oppose it are enemies of the people, the supreme holder of power ...

Education

USSR: ideology and culture (1945-1953)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - USSR - this abbreviation is known not only in Russia and the CIS countries, but all over the world. This state, which existed for only 69 years, but its military power, greatness, outstanding scientists are remembered to this day. And the name of the first and only Generalissimo of the Soviet Union still terrifies everyone. What kind of state is this?

What is the ideology of the USSR? Why doesn't such a country exist today? What are the features of its culture, outstanding public figures, scientists, artists? Many other questions arise if we recall the history of this country. However, the objects of this article are the ideology and culture of the USSR.

As a result of the October Revolution of 1917 on the territory of Russia (then it was called the Russian Empire), the Civil War began, the overthrow of the Provisional Government ... Everyone knows this story. December 1922 (12.30) was marked by the unification of the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Transcaucasian Republics, as a result of which one large state was formed, in terms of its land area incomparable with any other country in the world. In December 1991 (namely December 26), the USSR ceased to exist. An interesting issue of this amazing state is ideology. The USSR was a state in which no state ideology was officially proclaimed, but Marxism-Leninism (communism) was tacitly accepted.

Marxism-Leninism

Let's start with the definition of communism. A theoretically possible social and economic system, which would be based on equality (i.e., not only equality before the law, but also social), public ownership of the means of production (i.e., no one has their own business, their own private enterprises and etc.) is called communism. In a practical sense, such a state in which there would have been such a system has never existed. However, the ideology of the USSR was called communism in the West. Marxism-Leninism is not only an ideology, it is a teaching about building a communist society through the struggle to destroy the capitalist system.

Related Videos

The first decades in the cultural life of the USSR

These times were marked by many changes in the cultural aspect of the state. First of all, reforms began in the field of education - a commission on education and a commission on control over culture (state bodies), departments of public education were created. Through the meetings of the people's commissars of education of the republics, control over this area was carried out. There was such a thing as a cultural revolution. These are the political actions of the government of the Soviet Union aimed at creating a truly socialist (primordially popular) culture, eradicating the illiteracy of the population, creating a new and universal education system, compulsory education in the native languages \u200b\u200bof the peoples of Russia (to achieve universal education), providing conditions for scientific development and art ...

The ideology and culture of the USSR in 1945-1953 (post-war period) underwent a tightening of the influence of the authorities. It was during this period that such a frightening concept as the Iron Curtain arose - the government's desire to protect its country, its people from the influence of other states.

This phenomenon concerned not only the cultural development in the country, but also all other areas in the life of the state. Literature was hit first. Many writers and poets have been heavily criticized. Among them are Anna Akhmatova, and Mikhail Zoshchenko, and Alexander Fadeev, and Samuil Marshak, and many others. Theater and cinema were no exception in terms of isolation from the influence of Western states: not only films, but also the directors themselves were actively criticized. The theatrical repertoire has undergone just the most severe criticism in its address, up to the removal of productions by foreign (and therefore capitalist) authors. Music also fell under the pressure of the ideology of the USSR in 1945-1953. The works of Sergei Prokofiev, Aram Khachaturian, Vano Muradeli, which were created for the anniversary of the October Revolution, aroused particular indignation. Other composers were also criticized, including Dmitry Shostakovich and Nikolai Myaskovsky.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili)

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin is generally recognized as the bloodiest dictator of the Soviet Union. When the power was in his hands, there were massive repressions, political investigations, execution lists were created, there were persecutions for political views that were undesirable to the government, and similar terrible things. The ideology of the USSR directly depended on this very contradictory personality. His contribution to the life of the state, on the one hand, is simply terrifying, but it was during the Stalinist period that the Soviet Union became the winner in World War II, and also received the title of one of the superpowers.

With the kind permission of the editorial board of the journal "New Literary Review", we are reprinting an article devoted to teaching literature - the main ideological subject of the Soviet school, the main points of teaching methods that formed an ideologically literate Soviet citizen.

One of the conclusions of the article - modern literary education largely inherits that era and requires serious reform. We invite our colleagues in literature to discuss this topic.

The school was rebuilt along with the country

Literature as a separate discipline was not immediately studied in the Soviet school, from the mid-1930s. Close attention to the study of literature coincided with a sharp turn in the state ideology of the USSR - from a world-revolutionary project to a national-imperial conservative project. The school was rebuilt together with the country and began (not forgetting about its socialist essence) to be partly guided by pre-revolutionary gymnasium programs. Literature, which in many respects formed the humanitarian cycle of Russian gymnasiums, took a central place in the Soviet educational process. First place in the student's report card and diary.

The main ideological tasks in the sphere of educating the young generation were transferred to literature. First, poetry and novels of the 19th century told more interesting and vividly about the history of the Russian Empire and the struggle against autocracy than the dry text of a history textbook. And the conventionally rhetorical art of the 18th century (and a little bit of verbal creativity used in the program Ancient Rus) made it possible to expose tyrants much more convincingly than analytical social studies. Second, the pictures of life and complex life situations, with which works of fiction are filled, made it possible, without going beyond the limits of historical discourse, to apply historical and ideological knowledge to concrete life and their own actions. The development of convictions, which the heroes of classical literature inevitably engaged in, called on the Soviet schoolchild to clearly define their own convictions - they, however, were practically ready and consecrated with the aura of revolution. The desire to follow once and for all the chosen beliefs was also borrowed from the classical texts and was encouraged in every possible way. The ideological creativity of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia was thus persistently turned into a school routine, while at the same time instilling in children the confidence that they were following the best traditions of the past. Finally, the dogmas of Soviet ideology, which were taught in school, received indisputable authority in literature lessons, because “our ideas” (as theorists put it) were presented as the centuries-old aspirations of all progressive humanity and the best representatives of the Russian people. Thus, Soviet ideology was perceived as a collective product developed by the joint efforts of Radishchev, Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky and many others, including Gorky and Sholokhov.

It is no coincidence that already by the end of the 1930s, theoretical pedagogues declared on the pages of the Literatura v shkola magazine, which appeared in 1936 for pedagogical support of the main school subject: of the two components of teaching literature - the study of a work of art and the education of a Soviet citizen - education should be at the first place. The words of M.I. Kalinin at a teachers' meeting at the end of 1938: “The main task of a teacher is to educate a new person - a citizen of a socialist society” [Kalinin 1938: 6]. Or the title of the article by the editor-in-chief of Literature at School N.А. Glagoleva "The upbringing of a new person is our main task" [Glagolev 1939: 1].

Any classical text turned into a testing ground for applying the ideas of socialism to certain issues and situations.

Studying creativity at a seven-year school, for example, N.A. Nekrasov, the teacher seeks not to tell his students about the poet and his work, but to consolidate the ideological postulate: before the revolution, the peasant's life was bad, after the revolution - good. Contemporary Soviet folklore, the poems of Dzhambul and other Soviet poets, and even the Stalin Constitution are involved in the study of the Nekrasov theme [Samoilovich 1939]. The themes of the essays that have just been introduced into school practice demonstrate the same approach: “Old Russian heroes and heroes of the USSR”, “The USSR is our young cherry orchard” [Pakharevsky 1939].

The main tasks of the lesson: to find out how the student will behave in the place of this or that character (could I, like Pavka Korchagin?) - this is how behavior patterns are created; and teach how to think on this or that topic (did Pavka think correctly about love?) - this is how thinking patterns are created. The result of this attitude to literature (learning about life) is "naive realism", which makes us perceive the book hero as a living person - to love him as a friend or hate him as an enemy.

Characteristics of literary heroes

"Naive realism" came to the Soviet school from the pre-revolutionary school. The understanding of literature as a "reflection of reality" is characteristic not only of Lenin and Leninism; it goes back to the traditions of Russian criticism of the 19th century (and further to French materialism of the 18th century), on the basis of which the pre-revolutionary textbook of Russian literature was also created. In the textbooks of V.V. Sipovsky, according to which the schoolchildren of the pre-revolutionary years studied, literature was considered in a wide cultural and social context, but, approaching the 19th century, the presentation increasingly used the metaphor of reflection. Interpretations of works in a pre-revolutionary textbook are often structured as a sum of characteristics of the main characters. These characteristics were borrowed by the Soviet school, bringing them closer to the new, bureaucratic meaning of the word.

Characterization is the basis for the "analysis" of program works in the Soviet textbook and the most common type of school essay: “Characterization of a hero is the disclosure of his inner world: thoughts, feelings, moods, motives of behavior, etc.<...>... In characterizing the characters, it is important to identify, first of all, their common, typical features, and along with this - private, individual, peculiar, distinguishing them from other persons of a given social group ”[Mirsky 1936: 94-95]. It is indicative that the typical traits are in the first place, for the heroes are perceived by the school as a living illustration of obsolete classes and bygone eras. "Private features" allow one to look at literary heroes as "senior comrades", to take an example from them. It is no coincidence that the literary heroes of the 19th century are compared (an almost mandatory methodological method in the middle level of the school) with the heroes of the 20th century - the Stakhanovites and Papaninites - a modern role model. Literature here breaks through into reality, or, more precisely, the mythologized reality merges with literature, creating the fabric of social-realistic monumental culture. Thus, "naive realism" plays a crucial role in the education of the worldview.

The educational role of characteristics is no less important. They help to learn that the collective is the main thing, and the personal can exist only insofar as it does not interfere with the collective. They teach to see not only human actions, but also their class motives. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this method in the era of persistent search for the class enemy and vigilant surveillance of the neighbor. The teaching of characterization also has a pragmatic character - it is the main genre of official expression (both orally and in writing) in Soviet social life. Characteristics are the basis of personal discussions at a pioneer, Komsomol, party meeting, (comradely) court. A profile from the place of work / study is an official document that is required in a number of cases - from hiring to relations with law enforcement agencies. Thus, it is not accidental that a child is taught to describe a literary hero as his school friend. This equation can easily be reversed: a Soviet student will characterize a schoolmate as skillfully as a literary hero. A transitional genre (especially if we take into account that many speech genres in the 1930s approached the style of denunciation) is the genre of reviews - not only of current printed materials, but also of the works of classmates.

Characteristics are applied to all heroes without exception (including Empress Elizaveta Petrovna from Lomonosov's ode or Gorky snake - funny examples of G.A.Gukovsky), they are built according to a standard plan, but the main template that students should take from literature lessons is wording positive and negative qualitiesdirectly arising from certain actions, statements, thoughts.

All Soviet methodologists (both the elegantly thinking G.A. Gukovsky and the straightforward ideological V.V. Golubkov) agree on one most important idea: you cannot entrust a student to read classical works on his own. The thought of the student must be directed by the teacher. Before studying a new work, the teacher conducts a conversation, talking about the main problems raised in the work and the era of the creation of the text. A special role in the introductory conversation is given to the author's biography: “... the story of a writer’s life is not only the story of his growth as a person, his writing, but also his social activities, his struggle against the dark forces of the era<…>"[Litvinov 1938: 81]. The concept of struggle becomes key in the school literature course. In many respects following the “stage theory” of GA Gukovsky, who laid the foundations of the Soviet science of literature, the school perceives the literary process as the most important instrument of social struggle and revolutionary cause. Studying the history of Russian literature, schoolchildren join the history of revolutionary ideas and themselves become part of the revolution that continues in our time.

The teacher is the transmission link in the process of broadcasting revolutionary energy.

Telling students the biography of Chernyshevsky, he should burn all over, excitedly and fascinatingly "infecting" children (the concept is borrowed from the "psychological school", as well as literary journalism of the late 19th century - see, for example, the work of Leo Tolstoy "What is art? ") with the ideas and feelings of a great man. In other words, the teacher must show the students samples of oratory and teach children to produce the same "infected" speech. You can't talk about great people without excitement, the Methodists say in chorus. From now on, the student can not calmly talk about Belinsky or Nikolai Ostrovsky in the lesson and even more so during the exam. A child from school learned acting, an artificially inflated tear. At the same time, he was well aware of what degree of strain corresponds to the topic under discussion. The result was a sharp and fundamental discrepancy between genuine feeling and feelings portrayed in public; own thought and words passed off as one's own thought.

The task of "infecting", "igniting" students determines the dominance of rhetorical genres in literature lessons - expressive reading aloud, emotional stories of the teacher (the term "lecture", which appeared at first, is ousted from the sphere of school pedagogy), emotional statements of students. Methodists are increasingly reducing the informative content of a school subject to rhetorical genres of a lesson. For example, they argue that it is the expressive reading of the text that helps to better understand the author's idea. A well-known Moscow teacher is sure that the “text exposition” is deeper and preferable to any analysis: “Three lessons given to reading (with commentary) Hamlet in class will give students more than long conversations about the tragedy ...” [Litvinov 1937: 86].

Rhetorization of teaching leads to the perception of any teaching device as a (rhetorical) act of belonging to a socialist state. Educational essays that take the history of literature to the vastness of ideology quickly turn into essays declaring loyalty to the party and Soviet leaders. The culminating moment of such education and upbringing is the invitation to the pupils to write letters of congratulations to the outstanding people of the Soviet country for the May 1 holiday: “Write such letters to comrades Stalin, Voroshilov, etc. themselves citizens of a great country, to feel bloodily, close to the great people of our era<...>.

And quite often such a letter ends with promises "to study excellently" and "well", "not to have bad grades", "to become like you." The mark for knowledge becomes for the little author a real political factor and is weighed in terms of his civic duty to the whole country ”[Denisenko 1939: 30].

The work reveals itself in the mythology of socialist realism, demonstrating both by its task and its execution: 1) the unity and almost kindred affinity of the people who make up the Soviet state; 2) direct contact between the masses and the leader; 3) the duty and responsibility of every citizen of the USSR, even a child.

Essays of this kind are practiced by more and more teachers, and, as if by magic, there are no spelling errors [Pakharevsky 1939: 64]. Ideology replaces learning and works wonders. The pedagogical process reaches its climax, and it becomes unclear what else can be taught to a student who wrote a brilliant essay addressed to Comrade Stalin?

Strengthening the ideological support of the lessons of literature naturally occurs in the era of war and immediately after it. In the country, the ideological postulates were changing. By the end of the 1930s, the school moved from the education of revolutionary internationalism to the education of Soviet patriotism [Sazonova 1939]. With the outbreak of the war, the patriotic stream became the basis of Soviet ideology, with love for the Motherland mingling with love for the Communist Party, its leaders and personally for Comrade Stalin. The writers of the school curriculum were declared to be ardent patriots, the study of their work was reduced to the memorization of patriotic slogans, which were cut from the classical texts by a new generation of literary critics. Phrases that seem unpatriotic (in the spirit of Lermontov's "Goodbye, unwashed Russia ...") should be considered patriotic, since the struggle against autocracy, as well as any indication of the backwardness of the Russian people, is dictated by love for the Motherland.

Russian Soviet literature was called the most advanced on the planet; textbooks and new programs, as well as themes of graduation essays, began to focus on the thesis "The World Significance of Russian and Soviet Literature."

Patriotism breathed new life into the biographical method.

Reading the biography of the writer, the student had to learn patriotism from the writer and at the same time feel pride in the great son of Russia. Within such biographies, the most common act turned out to be a patriotic service: “Gogol's attempt to enter the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater, his classes in the painting class of the Academy of Arts, an attempt to appear in print<...> all this testifies to Gogol's striving to serve the people with art ”[Smirnov 1952: 57]. The biographical approach was often determined by the study of the text: “It is advisable to build a conversation about the novel (“ Young Guard ”- EP) according to the stages of the life of the Young Guard” [Trifonov 1952: 33]. With the reduction of program hours allotted to literature, many biographies are studied in less detail, and the biography of the writer as a whole becomes typical. But, in spite of everything, biography is an end in itself: the life of writers is studied at school, even if their work completely drops out of the program.

In order to assimilate the patriotic ideas of the writer, you don't need to read him at all. Survey study of topics and works (survey lectures) has become a common practice. If in the 1930s the school abandoned analysis in the name of the text of the work, then in the early 1950s it also abandoned the text. The student, as a rule, now read not works, but excerpts from them, collected in textbooks and anthologies. In addition, the teacher was careful to ensure that the student understood what he was reading “correctly”. Since the 1949-50 academic year, the school received not only literature programs, but also comments on the programs. If a reader, a review, and a biography replaced the original text with another, abbreviated one, then “correct understanding” changed the very nature of the text: instead of a work, the school began to study methodological instructions.

The idea of \u200b\u200ba "correct" reading of the text appeared even before the war, for the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, on which interpretations were based, explains everything once and for all. The patriotic doctrine finally consolidated the "correct" reading of the text. This idea suited the school very well, it made literature similar to mathematics, and ideological education - a rigorous science that did not allow random meanings, such as differences in characters or tastes. Literature education turned into memorizing the correct answers to every possible question and stood on a par with university Marxism and the history of the party.

Ideally, it seems that detailed instructions were provided for studying each piece of the school curriculum. Literature at School publishes many instructional articles of an almost absurd nature. For example, an article on how to read the poem "Reflections at the front entrance" in order to study it "correctly": where to express sympathy with a voice, where - anger [Kolokoltsev, Bocharov 1953].

The principle of analyzing a work - by images - has not changed since the pre-war period (the extraction of images from a textual fabric did not contradict the methodical desire to kill the text by all means). The classification of characteristics has grown: they began to be divided into individual, comparative, group. The basis of the story about the character was an indication of his "typicality" - for his environment (synchronic analysis) and epoch (diachronic analysis). The class side of the characterization was best manifested in the characteristics of the group: Famus society, officials in the "Inspector General", landowners from "Dead Souls". The characterization also had an educational value, especially when studying Soviet literature. Indeed, what could be more instructive than the characterization of a traitor from Molodaya Gvardiya: Stakhovich's life, the methodist explains, is the steps along which a person slides to betrayal [Trifonov 1952: 39].

The composition acquired exceptional significance during this period.

The final grade maturity exams began with a mandatory essay in literature. For training, they began to write essays several times in each of the senior classes (in high school, its analogue was a presentation with elements of an essay); ideally after each topic covered. In practical terms, it was the consistent teaching of free written speech. On the ideological level, the essay turned into a regular practice of demonstrating ideological loyalty: the student had to not only show that he had mastered the "correct" understanding of the writer and the text, he had to simultaneously demonstrate independence in the use of ideologemes and the necessary theses, moderately show initiative - let ideology into yourself, inside your own consciousness. The writings taught the teenager to speak in an official voice, passing off the opinion imposed at school as an inner conviction. After all, written speech turns out to be more weighty than oral speech, more “our own” - written and signed by our own hand. This practice of "infecting" with the necessary thoughts (so that a person perceives them as his own; and was afraid of unverified thoughts - what if they were "wrong"? Suddenly "I will say something wrong"?) Not only promoted a certain ideology, but created generations with deformed consciousness who know how to live without constant ideological support. The entire Soviet culture provided ideological support in subsequent adult life.

For the convenience of "infection", the compositions were divided into literary and journalistic ones. Literary essays were written based on the works of the school curriculum, publicistic outwardly seemed to be essays on a free theme. At first glance, there is no fixed "correct" solution in them. However, one has only to look at exemplary themes ("My Gorky", "What do I value in Bazarov?", "Why do I consider" War and Peace "my favorite work?") To understand that freedom in them is illusory: a Soviet schoolboy could not write that he did not appreciate Bazarov at all and did not like War and Peace. Independence applies only to the layout of the material, its "design". And for this it is necessary to re-enter the ideology into oneself, independently separate the “right” from the “wrong”, come up with arguments for the previously given conclusions. An even more difficult task for those writing essays on free topics in Soviet literature, for example: "The leading role of the party in the struggle of Soviet people against fascism (based on the novel" Young Guard "by AA Fadeev)." Here you need to use knowledge of general ideology: write about the role of the party in the USSR, about the role of the party during the war, and provide evidence from the novel, especially in cases where there is not enough evidence "from life." On the other hand, you can prepare for such an essay in advance: no matter how you formulate the topic, you need to write about the same thing. The statistics of essays for the certificate of maturity, which are cited by employees of the Ministry of Education, suggests that many graduates choose journalistic topics. These, one must think, are the "best students" who have not mastered the texts of works and the literature program too much, but have masterfully mastered ideological rhetoric.

In essays of this kind, heightened emotionality (tested even before the war in oral answers) greatly helps, without which it is impossible to talk about either literature or the ideological values \u200b\u200bof the Soviet person. This is what the teachers say, these are literary examples. At the exams, pupils answer “convincingly, sincerely, excitedly” [Lyubimov 1951: 57] (three words with different lexical meaning become contextual synonyms and make up a gradation). The same is in writing: the "elementary scientific" style, according to the classification of A.P. Romanovsky, must be combined with the "emotional" [Romanovsky 1953: 38]. However, even this methodologist admits that schoolchildren are often overly emotional. "Excessive rhetoric, stilt and artificial pathos are a particularly widespread variety of campy speech in graduation essays" [Romanovsky 1953: 44].

The formulaic emotion corresponds to the formulaic content of schoolwork. Fighting patterns in essays is becoming the most important task for teachers. “It often happens that students<…> write essays on different topics on a stamp, changing only the factual material.<...> “Such and such a century (or such and such years) is characterized ... At this time, such and such a wonderful writer lived and created his works. In such and such a work, he reflected such and such phenomena of life. This can be seen from this and that ”, etc.” [Kirillov 1955: 51]. How to avoid the pattern? Teachers find only one answer: with the help of the correct, unconventional formulation of topics. For example, if instead of the traditional topic “The Image of Manilov” a student writes on the topic “What revolts me in Manilov?”, He will not be able to copy it from the textbook.

Reading outside of school remains out of control

In the postwar period, the attention of methodologists and teachers was attracted by the extracurricular reading of students. The thought that reading outside of school remained uncontrollable was haunted. Recommended lists for out-of-class reading were formed, the lists were issued to schoolchildren, after a certain time, a check was carried out how many books had been read and what the student had learned. In the first place in the lists is military-patriotic literature (books about the war and the heroic past of Russia, the exploits of Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Suvorov, Kutuzov). Then books about their peers, Soviet schoolchildren (not without an admixture of a military theme: most of these books are devoted to pioneer heroes, children in war). As the curriculum shrinks, the field of extracurricular reading fills up everything that no longer has a place in the classroom (for example, all Western European classics). For extracurricular reading lessons, the popular in the thirties forms of dispute, discussion, dispute go. It is no longer possible to debate about programmatic works: they have an unshakable "correct" meaning. But it is possible to argue about non-classical works - checking them with the knowledge gained in the lessons. Schoolchildren are sometimes allowed to choose - not a point of view, but a favorite character: between Pavel Korchagin and Alexei Meresiev. Option: between Korchagin and Oleg Koshev.

Books about labor, and especially books about Soviet children, relegated the lessons of extracurricular reading to the level of ideologized life. Discussing the story of I. Bagmut "Happy Day of Suvorov's Krinichnogo" at the reader's conference, the director of one of the schools points out to the children not only the correct understanding of the feat, but also the need to maintain discipline [Mitekin 1953]. And the teacher K.S. Yudalevich slowly reads "The Tale of Zoya and Shura" by L.T. Kosmodemyanskaya. From military heroism, only a halo remains, the attention of the students is riveted to something else - to Zoya's upbringing, to her school years: the students talk about how Zoya helped her mother, how she defended the honor of the class, how she fought with lies, with prompting and cheating [Yudalevich 1953] ... School life becomes part of ideology - this is the Soviet way of life, the epic life of the victorious people. Prompting or learning poorly is not just bad, it is a violation of these rules.

Teachers never tire of calling literature "the textbook of life." Sometimes literary characters also note such an attitude towards books: “For the Young Guard, fiction is not a means of recreation or entertainment. They perceive the book as a “textbook of life”. This is evidenced, for example, by Uli Gromova's notebook with extracts from books read, which sound like a guide to action ”[Trifonov 1952: 34]. Didactics, which is becoming more and more in literature lessons, results in frank moralizing, and lessons from the point of view of "How to live?" become moral lessons. An “agitated” tenth grader writes an essay on “Young Guard”: “You read it and think:“ Could you do that? Could you, without fear for your life, hang out red flags, put up leaflets, withstand severe hardships?<…> Stand up against the wall and die from the executioner's bullet? ”[Romanovsky 1947: 48]. Actually, what can prevent the death of something put up against the wall? The question "Could you?", Reaching from the beginning of the passage to the last element of the gradation, denies itself. But neither the girl nor her teacher feel the stretch that produces the necessary sincerity. Such turns of the topic are encouraged in every possible way: every time students are invited to try on the dress of the heroes for themselves, dive into the plot for self-examination. And once in the plot, the student's consciousness hardens, becomes straightforward and moralistic. This is education of the worldview.

The era of the Thaw somewhat changed the practices of the Soviet school. The fight against templates, which has stalled since the late forties, received encouragement from above. The instructional instructions were decisively discarded. Together with the instructions, they rejected the survey study of topics, talk about the "typical" characters and everything else that takes the student's attention away from the work. The emphasis was now not on common features that bring the text under study closer to others, but on individual features that set it apart from the general series. Linguistic, figurative, compositional - in a word, artistic.

The idea that “artistic creation” cannot be taught non-creatively dominates the articles of teachers and methodologists. The main reason for the transformation of literature lessons into "gray, boring chewing gum" is believed to be "dried" (the word will soon become a generally accepted term. - EP), regulating every step of the program "[Novoselova 1956: 39]. Reproaches against the programs rained down. They were all the more convenient as they allowed many to justify their pedagogical helplessness. However, criticism of programs (and any unification of teaching) had the most important consequence - teachers de facto received freedom not only from obligatory interpretations, but also from any regulation of the lesson. The methodologists were forced to admit that teaching literature is a complex process that cannot be planned in advance, that the teacher can, at his discretion, increase or decrease the number of hours allotted to a particular topic, change the course of the lesson if an unexpected question from the student requires it.

New authors, innovative teachers appear on the pages of Literature in School, who set the tone for the entire magazine and offer several new teaching concepts. They strive for a direct perception of the text - remembering pre-war ideas. But at the same time, for the first time, they talk about the reading perception of students. Instead of an introductory conversation, innovators believe, it is better to simply ask students what they have read and what they liked and disliked. If the students did not like the work, the teacher should convince them of the whole study of the topic.

Another question is how to study the work. Supporters and opponents of text analysis arranged loud discussions at teachers' congresses and conferences, on the pages of Literature at School and Literaturnaya Gazeta. Soon a compromise was born in the form of a commented reading of works. The commentary contains elements of analysis, contributes to a deeper understanding of the text, but does not interfere with direct perception. On the basis of this idea, by 1968 the last Soviet textbook was created for the 8th and 9th grade (according to classical Russian literature). There are fewer direct ideological invectives in it, their place is taken by a commented retelling of works (for more details, see [Ponomarev 2014]). Commenting greatly diluted Soviet ideologemes in teaching practice. But the duty of the teacher to re-convince the student who said that he was bored with Mayakovsky's poetry or the novel "Mother" left ideologemes in force. It was easier for a disciple, who unsuccessfully opened his heart to the teacher, to play a converted than to persist in his heresy.

Along with commentary, scientific literary studies slowly returned to school.

In the late 1950s, the school perceives the term "text" as a scientific and generalizing synonym for an ordinary "work", the concept of "text analysis" appears. An example of a commented reading of a Chekhov play is given in the article by M.D. Kocherina: the teacher dwells in detail on how the action develops, on the "undercurrent" and hidden subtext in the replicas of the heroes and the author's remarks, landscape sketches, sound moments, pause [Kocherina 1962]. This is an analysis of poetics, as the formalists understood it. And in an article devoted to the actualization of the perception of "Dead Souls", L.S. Gerasimova literally proposes the following: “Obviously, when studying the poem, one should pay attention not only to what these characters are, but also to how these images are“ made ”[Gerasimova 1965: 41]. It took almost half a century for the classic article by B.M. Eichenbaum to walk to school. Along with it, the latest Soviet research, which continues the line of formal analysis, is entering the school with a cautious approach to structuralism. In 1965 G.I. Belenky publishes the article "Author - Narrator - Hero", dedicated to the point of view of the narrator in "The Captain's Daughter". This is a methodical retelling of the ideas of Yu.M. Lotman ("The Ideological Structure of" The Captain's Daughter "", 1962), the fashionable word "structure" also sounds in the finale. The school saw the prospect - the possibility of moving towards the science of literature. But then she got scared of the prospect, closing herself in pedagogy and psychology. The formalist "how it was made" and the Tartu "structure" turned into the concept of "artistic skill of the writer" in the school methodology.

The Writer's Skill became a lifeline that led from “direct perception” to “right meaning”. It was a handy tool in the event that the student considered the novel "Mother" boring and unsuccessful, and Mayakovsky's poetry - rhyming. Here an experienced teacher pointed out to the student the poetic (writing) skill, and the student had no choice but to admit the correctness of scientific knowledge.

Another innovative technique - "emotionalism" - offered to focus on those traits of characters that are of universal human significance. AND I. Klenitskaya, reading “A Hero of Our Time” at the lesson, spoke not about a superfluous person in the conditions of Nikolayev's reign, but about the contradictions of human nature: that an outstanding person who spends all his strength on satisfying his own whims brings people only evil. And at the same time about the grief of rejected love, the attachment of a lonely Maxim Maksimych to a young friend and other aspects of mental life [Klenitskaya 1958]. Klenitskaya reads aloud passages that can evoke the strongest emotions in students, seeking deep empathy. This is how the idea of \u200b\u200b"contamination" is transformed: from patriotic fervor, the school moves to the universal one. This new - well forgotten old: in the 1920s M.O. Gershenzon suggested using “feeling into the text” in the lessons, but the great methodologist V.V. Golubkov branded this technique as non-Soviet.

Klenitskaya's article caused a powerful resonance due to the chosen position. Without giving up the socio-political assessments of the text, she pointed out their one-sidedness and incompleteness. But in fact (without saying it out loud) - their uselessness. Emotionalism allowed for multiple interpretations and thus denied the "correct meaning" of the text. For this reason, emotionalism, even if maintained at a high level, could not take a dominant position. Teachers preferred to combine it with "analysis" and, one way or another, reduce it to the usual ("serious") methods. It became an adornment for explanations and answers, it became a new version of pedagogical excitement.

The real school reform was greatly hampered by the "correct meaning of the work." It did not leave school and was not questioned. While condemning particulars, the innovator teachers did not dare to swipe at the foundations of state ideology. Rejection of the "correct meaning" meant rejection of the very idea of \u200b\u200bsocialism. Or, at least, the liberation of literature from politics and ideology, which contradicted Lenin's articles studied at school and all the logic of the literary course built in the thirties. The reformist attempts, which had lasted for several years, were stopped by official literary critics and ideologists. Almost the only time in his life, having condescended to "Literature in School", D.D. Blagoy published a programmatic article in it, in which he argued that the irresponsibility of the reformers had gone too far. The goal of teaching literature, the leading Soviet literary functionary teaches, is to "deepen ... direct perception to the correct - both historical and ideological and artistic - understanding" [Blagoi 1961: 34]. No commenting, no emotionality, in his opinion, can replace a teaching lesson. The place for emotions and arguments is outside the classroom: at literary circles and pioneer meetings.

In short, the reformist fuse of the thaw passed just as quickly in the Soviet school as in the entire Soviet country. Commenting and emotionalism remained in the educational process in the role of auxiliary methods. Neither one nor the other could replace the main method. They did not have a powerful overarching idea comparable to Gukovsky's "stage theory", which continued to build a school course even after the author's death.

However, the era of the thaw significantly changed some school practices, which at first glance seem to be secondary. To a lesser extent, this applies to essays, to a greater extent - to extracurricular reading. They began to fight against formulaic essays not only in words - and this gave certain results. The first step was to abandon the three-part plan (introduction, main part, conclusion). It turned out that this plan does not follow from the universal laws of human thinking (until 1956, the Methodists believed the opposite). The struggle against stereotyped formulations of topics intensified, they became “personality-oriented” (“Pushkin is a friend of my youth”, “My attitude to Mayakovsky's poetry before and after studying it in school”) and even sometimes associated with aesthetic theory (“What is the correspondence form of work to content? "). Innovative teachers suggested topics that were completely unconventional: "How do I imagine what happiness is", "What would I do if I were an invisible man", "My day in 1965 - the last year of the seven-year plan." However, ideology hindered the new quality of writing. Whatever the Soviet schoolchild writes about, he, as before, demonstrates the "correctness" of his convictions. This is, in fact, the only topic of school essay: the thoughts of a Soviet person. A.P. In 1961, Romanovsky formulates weightily: the main goal of the final essay is to test the maturity of the world outlook [Romanovsky 1961].

The liberal era significantly expands the horizons of extracurricular reading.

The list of books about the life of children in tsarist Russia is growing: "Vanka" by A.P. Chekhov, "White Poodle" A.I. Kuprin, "The lonely sail is white" by V. Kataev. It is significant that now complex, not straightforward ideological works are being selected. They are completely new for extracurricular reading of works of foreign authors: J. Rodari is studied in the 5th grade; older children are offered to read "The Gadfly" by E.L. Voynich. Innovative teachers read themselves and encourage schoolchildren to read all the literature that they have missed over several decades (Hemingway, Cronin, Aldridge), as well as modern Western works that have been translated into the USSR: The Winter of Our Trouble (1961) by John Steinbeck, The Catcher in the Rye (1951) by Jerome Salinger; To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) by Harper Lee. Schoolchildren are actively discussing modern Soviet literature (on the pages of Literature at School there is a discussion about the work of V.P. Aksenov, A.I.Solzhenitsyn is repeatedly mentioned, recent works A.T. Tvardovsky, M.A. Sholokhov). The culture of reading that developed among schoolchildren in the early 1960s, the desire to read as new as possible, previously unknown, and unlike anything else, determined the book "binge" of the perestroika era - the time when schoolchildren of the sixties grew up and matured.

An unprecedented expansion of literary horizons led to an unprecedented expansion of the topics discussed. It has become much more difficult for teachers to reduce school classics to commonplace truths and worked-out matrices. Having learned to read and express themselves more freely, schoolchildren of the sixties (of course, not all and not in everything) learned to value their own impressions of what they read. Appreciate above the template phrases of the textbook, although they continued to use them to prepare exam answers. Literature was slowly getting rid of the ideological gum.

The fact that something had changed significantly at school was evidenced by the discussion about the goals of teaching literature.

The main goals were formulated by N.I. Kudryashev:

1. tasks of aesthetic education;
2. moral education;
3. preparing students for practical activities;
4. the volume and ratio of knowledge and skills in literature and the Russian language [Kudryashev 1956: 68].

It is significant that the list does not include education of the worldview. It gave way to aesthetics and morality.

Innovative teachers began to add to the list. M.D. Kocherina pointed out that the development of thinking seems to her the most important goal of literature lessons [Kocherina 1956: 32]. AND I. Klenitskaya believed that literature is important first of all “for understanding the human heart, for ennobling the feelings of students<…>"[Klenitskaya 1958: 25]. Moscow teacher V.D. Lyubimov stated that the works of the school curriculum "are, as it were, fascinating statements by writers on the issues of social life that concern them ..." [Lyubimov 1958: 20]. Social life was a concession to the old methods, but the general concept proposed by Lyubimov brought the study of literature closer to the history of philosophy and sociology; in modern parlance, we would call it the history of ideas. The teacher of the famous Second School of Moscow G.N. Fein (in the future, a dissident and an emigrant - a rare case among Soviet teachers) suggested teaching the specifics of figurative thinking: "To teach to read means to teach, deeply penetrating into the movement of the author's thought, to form your understanding of reality, your understanding of the essence of human relations" [Fein 1962: 62]. Diversity suddenly appeared in Soviet pedagogical thought.

And above all the proposed goals, they again set the main one - the education of a person of the communist era. This formulation appeared after the XXII Congress of the CPSU, which precisely named the date of the building of communism. The new goals were reduced to the old ones - a model of late Stalinism. Teachers had to re-educate the worldview. All other goals were reduced to the level of technical problems.

In the status of technical tasks, some innovations were adopted. Most fortunate was the idea of \u200b\u200ba comprehensive aesthetic education. Teachers are allowed to use "related arts" in class (although they are not advised to "go too far") - paintings and musical works. For they help to understand the nature of the lyrics, which, not without the influence of the new poetry of the 1960s, gradually cease to be reduced to the slogan forms of the late Mayakovsky. Increasingly, teachers try to explain to their students the nature of the poetic image: for example, fifth-graders are asked what they imagine after reading the phrase "white fringe" (the poems of SA Yesenin slowly penetrated the curriculum from the junior school). The connection between lyric poetry and music is indicated when studying Pushkin's love lyrics, which turned into romances. The role of essays on the painting is growing. Now it is not just a method of teaching storytelling, but an act of familiarizing with art, comprehending painting. The visual arts are essential in explaining the importance of landscape in classical texts. All this together, on the one hand, emphasizes: literature is not an ideology; artistic image is not equal to the concept of "character". On the other hand, being carried away by music and paintings, the teacher inevitably falls into the temptation to talk about art in general, forgetting about the specifics of literature, about the narrative nature of the text. To teach a student to read, he was taught to look and listen. It is paradoxical, but true: to comprehend literature was taught bypassing literature.

Another accepted formulation is moral education.

If we add the epithet “communist” to the word “morality”, the task connected with the education of the worldview was easily obtained. However, teachers are increasingly transferring "morality" to the everyday level, ridding it of the train of abstract ideologemes. For example, in the lessons of Eugene Onegin, teachers cannot help but discuss with the girls whether Tatyana is right, having declared her love. In this context, the writer was perceived as a bearer of absolute morality and a teacher of life, an expert (no longer an engineer) of human souls and a deep psychologist. A writer cannot teach bad things; everything considered immoral by the school (the anti-Semitism of Dostoevsky, the religiosity of Gogol and Leo Tolstoy, the demonstrative immoralism of Lermontov, the love of A.N. Tolstoy) was hushed up, declared accidental, or completely denied. The history of Russian literature turned into a textbook of practical morality. This trend has existed before, but it has never taken on such a complete and frank form.

The moral dominant, which subjugated the school course of literature, brought to school a concept that was destined to have a long pedagogical life. This is the "author's position", described for the most part as the attitude of the author to his hero. While innovative teachers tried to convince colleagues that the position of the narrator in the text should not be confused with the author's convictions in life, and the thoughts of the characters with the thoughts of the writer, some literary historians decided that all this unnecessarily complicated the lesson. So, P.G. Pustovoit, explaining to the teachers a new understanding of the principle of partisanship, said: in all works of Soviet literature "we will find ... the clarity of the authors' attitude to their heroes" [Pustovoit 1962: 6]. A little later, the term "author's assessment of the depicted" will appear; it will be opposed to naive realism. The "author's position" gradually took the leading place in school analysis. Directly connected with the teacher's idea of \u200b\u200bmorality, with the sentimental-naive thought about the "spiritual friendship" of students with the authors of the school curriculum, it has become a tool for school analysis of the text, which is fundamentally different from the scientific one.

Freed outwardly from the rigor of ideological postulates, having acquired the right to diversity and relative freedom, the school did not try to return to the pre-ideological era, to the gymnasium course of literature. This recipe sounds utopian-unreal, but the era of the sixties is saturated with the spirit of utopia. Theoretically, a turn to the scientific study of literature was possible, even within the framework of Soviet ideology. There was practically no chance of such a turn: Soviet academic literary criticism in its concepts was ideologically evaluative and unscientific. Having received permission to weaken the belt of ideology, the school moved where it was closest to go - towards didactics and moralism.

The Brezhnev era took up the particular issues of teaching literature.

The "stage theory", corrected and cleared of direct ideologization, continued to serve as the core of the school course. Methodists began to be interested not in general issues of art and worldview (they seemed to be forever resolved), but in ways of revealing a particular topic. In the mid-1960s, the Leningrad methodists T.V. Chirkovskaya and T.G. Brazhe formulated the principles of "holistic study" of the work. They were directed against commented reading, which did not provide an analysis of the composition and general design of the work. In parallel, the teacher L.N. Lesokhina, who developed the method of the lesson-dispute during the thaw years, came up with the concept of “problematic literature lesson” and “problematic analysis of the work”. The concept was directed mainly against "emotionalism". Interestingly, the variety of thawing techniques was attacked by those who, in previous years, had shown themselves as an innovator who contributed to democratization. educational process... Having become candidates of pedagogical sciences by the mid-sixties, having received the status of methodologists and leaving school (this applies to Brazhe and Lesokhina, Chirkovskaya defended her Ph.D. thesis earlier), these people began to work to unify teaching, creating new templates to replace those with which they themselves fought. The ideological conformism of the Brezhnev era has not yet been sufficiently studied, but it seems to be an extremely important phenomenon.

The interaction of methodologists with the Ministry of Education is no less indicative. Soon, "holistic analysis" will be declared wrong, and T.G. Brazhe, who has published a three-hundred-page manual for teachers on this method, will actively criticize its shortcomings. And the "problem analysis" is privatized by the experts of the Ministry: they will keep the term, but change its content. Problematic will mean not a burning problem associated with the work and relevant for schoolchildren, but the problem of the text and the author's work. All the same "correct meaning".

The school was again forced to live according to instructions.

"Lesson systems" are in vogue for each topic of the program. The authors of the new textbook M.G. Kachurin and M.A. Schneerson has been publishing school year planning instructions for every class since 1971 - bashfully calling them "guidelines." This detail conveys well the stability of stagnation. From the early 1970s to the mid-1980s, methodological thought did not produce a single concept. They continue to write about the "problematic nature of learning" in the first half of the 1980s, just as in the early 1970s. At the turn of the 1970s and 1980s, a project appears new program (reduction of the former). It will be discussed in every issue of Literature in School for 1979. Wordy and without fuse, because there is nothing to discuss. The same can be said about concept papers related to pedagogy and teaching. In 1976 (No. 3 "Literature at school") N.A. Meshcheryakova and L. Ya. Grishina spoke about the formation of reading skills in literature lessons. This article was discussed in the pages of the magazine for half of 1976 and all of 1977; the first issue of 1978 summarizes the discussion. But its essence is extremely difficult to convey. It boils down to the meanings of the term "reading skills" and the scope of its application. Scholastic things that have no practical meaning. This is how the characteristic (and in many respects deserved) attitude towards Methodists is born on the part of practicing teachers: Methodists are talkers and careerists; many of them have never taught lessons, others have forgotten how to do it.

Almost half of every issue of the magazine of this era is devoted to memorable dates (from the 100th anniversary of Lenin to the 40th anniversary of Victory, the anniversaries of the writers of the school curriculum), as well as new forms of attracting the attention of adolescents to literature (especially a lot of materials about the All-Union holidays of schoolchildren - the form of work, combining a literary club with all-Union children's tourism). One urgent task emerges from the actual practice of teaching literature: renewing interest in the texts of Soviet literature (neither Gorky, nor N. Ostrovsky, nor Fadeev enjoy student love), as well as ideologemes that need to be articulated in the classroom. It is indicative that it is becoming more and more difficult for the teacher to prove to the students the greatness of “socialist humanism”, which the program requires to discuss when studying the novel “Defeat”: schoolchildren cannot understand how the murder of the partisan Frolov, committed by a doctor with the consent of Levinson, can be considered humane.

Perestroika dramatically changes the entire teaching style, but this change was almost not reflected in the Literatura v shkola magazine. The magazine, as before, was slowly adapting to the changes: editors brought up in the Brezhnev era pondered for a long time what could be printed and what not. The Ministry of Education reacted more quickly to the changes. In the spring of 1988, literature teachers were allowed to freely change the wording on their final exam tickets. In fact, everyone could write their own tickets. By 1989, the practice of innovative teachers who became the heroes of the day - they were devoted to TV shows and publications in the press, many guests came to their lessons, often not directly related to school literature teaching - was not limited by anything. They taught according to their own programs; they themselves decided which works would be covered in the lesson, and which ones were mentioned in the survey lectures, which texts would be used to write essays and works for the city Olympiads. In the themes of such works, the names of D.S. Merezhkovsky, A.M. Remizov, V.V. Nabokova, I.A. Brodsky.

Outside of school, the mass of readers, which, of course, included schoolchildren, was flooded with a stream of previously unknown literature: these were works from Europe and America that had not previously been published in the USSR; all the literature of the Russian emigration, repressed Soviet writers, previously forbidden literature (from Doctor Zhivago to Moscow-Petushkov), modern literature of the emigration (E. Limonova and A. Zinovyeva, Soviet publishing houses began to publish in 1990-1991). By 1991, it became clear that the course of Russian literature of the 20th century, which was studied in the last grade (at that time already eleventh; the general transition from ten to eleven years took place in 1989), should be radically rebuilt. Extracurricular reading, which became impossible to control, won out over cool, programmatic reading.

The use of ideologemes in the classroom has become absurd

And most importantly, the "correct meaning" has lost its correctness. Soviet ideologemes in the context of new ideas caused only sarcastic laughter. The use of ideologemes in the classroom has become absurd. A plurality of points of view on classical works has become not only possible, but obligatory. The school got a unique opportunity to move in any direction.

However, the mass of teachers trained by the pedagogical institutes of the Brezhnev era remained inert and oriented towards the Soviet tradition. She resisted the removal of the novel "Young Guard" from the program and the introduction of the main perestroika hits into the program - "Doctor Zhivago" and "The Master and Margarita" (it is significant that the school immediately adopted "Matrenin Dvor" from Solzhenitsyn - this text fit into the ideas of the eighties about the villagers as the pinnacle of Soviet literature, but still does not accept the "Gulag Archipelago"). She resisted any change in the traditional teaching of literature, probably believing that a violation of the established order of things would bury the school subject itself. The army of methodologists and other educational management structures that developed in Soviet times (for example, the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR, renamed the Russian Academy of Education in 1992) also showed solidarity with the teaching masses. Those who found themselves on the ruins of Soviet ideology no longer remembered and did not understand how to teach literature in a different way.

The massive exodus from the country (including the best teachers) in the first half of the 1990s also affected. Affected by the extremely low wages at school in the 1990s and 2000s. Teachers-innovators somehow disappeared into the general context of the era, the tone of the young Russian school was set by teachers of retirement age, who formed and worked for many years under the Soviet order. And an extremely small number of young change was brought up by the same theoreticians and methodologists from pedagogical universities, who previously trained personnel for the Soviet school. The "connection of times" was so easily realized: without creating an intelligible request for a change in the entire teaching system, literature teachers limited themselves to cosmetic cleaning of programs and methods from elements that clearly smack of Soviet ideology. And we stopped there.

The school literature program in 2017 differs little from the 1991 program

It is significant that the last Soviet textbook on literature of the 19th century (M.G. Kachurin and others), first published in 1969 and serving as a mandatory textbook for all schools of the RSFSR until 1991, was regularly reprinted in the 1990s and was last published already in the late 2000s. It is no less significant that the school curriculum in literature in 2017 (and the list of works for the exam in literature) differs little from the program (and the list of works for the final exam) in 1991. Russian literature of the 20th century is almost completely absent in it, and classical Russian literature is represented by the same names and works that were in the sixties and seventies. The Soviet government (for the convenience of ideology) sought to limit the knowledge of the Soviet person to a narrow circle of names and a small set of works (as a rule, having responses from “progressive critics” and, thus, having passed the ideological selection) - in the new conditions, it was necessary to focus not on ideological goals , and for the purpose of education and, first of all, to radically restructure the curriculum of 9-10 grades. For example, to include in it the romantic stories of A.A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, Slavophil poems by F.I. Tyutchev, drama and ballads by A.K. Tolstoy, along with the works of Kozma Prutkov, in parallel to the Turgenev novel (not necessarily "For Fathers and Children") read "A Thousand Souls" by A.F. Pisemsky, add to "Crime and Punishment" "Demons" or "The Brothers Karamazov", and to "War and Peace" by the late Tolstoy, to revise the range of studied works of A.P. Chekhov. And the most important thing is to provide the student with a choice: for example, to be allowed to read any two Dostoevsky's novels. The post-Soviet school has not done any of this until now. She prefers to limit herself to a list of fifteen classics and fifteen works, not teaching either the history of literature, or the history of ideas in Russia, or even the art of reading, but investing in the consciousness of modern schoolchildren long-cooled behests. Liberated from ideology, teaching literature could become a mental antidote for post-Soviet Russia. We have postponed this decision for over 25 years.

Bibliography

[Good 1961] - Good D.D. On the goals, objectives, program and methods of teaching literature in the IX-XI grades // Literature at school. 1961. No. 1. P. 31-41.

[Gerasimova 1965] - Gerasimova L.S. Perception of the poem "Dead Souls" by ninth-graders // Literature at school. 1965. No. 6. P. 38-43.

[Glagolev 1939] - Glagolev N.A. Raising a new person is our main task // Literature at school. 1939. No. 3. P. 1-6.

[Denisenko 1939] - Denisenko Z.K. On the development of students' creativity // Literature at school. 1939. No. 6. P. 23-38.

[Kalinin 1938] - Speech by Comrade M.I. Kalinin at a meeting of excellent teachers of urban and rural schools, convened by the editorial board of the "Uchitelskaya Gazeta" on December 28, 1938 // Literature at school. 1939. No. 1. P. 1-12.

[Kirillov 1955] - Kirillov M.I. On the use of literary text in compositions of the logical type // Literature at school. 1955. No. 1. P. 51-54.

[Klenitskaya 1958] - Klenitskaya I.Ya. How to achieve emotional perception of the hero's image by students // Literature at school. 1958. No. 3. P. 24-32.

[Kolokoltsev, Bocharov 1953] - Kolokoltsev NV, Bocharov GK Study of N.A. Nekrasov "Reflections at the front entrance" // Literature at school. 1953. No. 1. P. 32-37.

[Kocherina 1956] - Kocherina M.D. How we work // Literature at school. 1956. No. 2. S. 28-32.

[Kocherina 1962] - Kocherina M.D. Lessons of commented reading of the play "The Cherry Orchard" // Literature at school. 1962. No. 6. P. 37-48.

[Kudryashev 1956] - Kudryashev N.I. On the state and tasks of literature methods // Literature at school. 1956. No. 3. S. 59-71.

[Litvinov 1937] - Litvinov V.V. Reading a literary text at literature lessons // Literature at school. 1937. No. 2. P. 76-87.

[Litvinov 1938] - Litvinov V.V. Biography of the writer in school studies // Literature in school. 1938. No. 6. P. 80-84.

[Lyubimov 1951] - Lyubimov V.D. About the knowledge of graduates of secondary schools in Moscow // Literature at school. 1951. No. 1. P. 52-59.

[Lyubimov 1958] - Lyubimov V.D. Literature teacher // Literature at school. 1958. No. 6. P. 19-28.

[Mirsky 1936] - Mirsky L.S. Questions of the methodology of essays on literary themes // Literature at school. 1936. No. 4. S. 90-99.

[Mitekin 1953] - Mitekin B.P. Reader's conference on the book by I. Bagmut "Happy Day of the Suvorovite Krinichny" // Literature at school. 1953. No. 3. S. 57-59.

[Novoselova 1956] - VS Novoselova About fiction and language teacher // Literature at school. 1956. No. 2. P. 39-41.

[Pakharevsky 1939] - LI Pakharevsky On the subject of essays in the VIII-X grades // Literature at school. 1939. No. 6. P. 63-64.

[Ponomarev 2014] - Ponomarev E.R. Common places of literary classics. The textbook of the Brezhnev era collapsed from the inside // UFO. 2014. No. 2 (126). S. 154-181.

[Pustovoit 1962] - P. V. Pustovoit. Lenin on the partisanship of literature // Literature at school. 1962. No. 2. S. 3-7.

[Romanovsky 1947] - A.P. Romanovsky From the practice of ideological and educational work in literature lessons // Literature in school. 1947. No. 6. P. 44-49.

[Romanovsky 1953] - A.P. Romanovsky Style of writing for the certificate of maturity // Literature at school. 1953. No. 1. P. 38-45.

[Romanovsky 1961] - A.P. Romanovsky What kind of essay should be in high school? (answers to the questionnaire) // Literature at school. 1961. No. 5.P. 59.

- Sazonova M.M. On the education of Soviet patriotism // Literature at school. 1939. No. 3. P. 73-74.

[Samoilovich 1939] - Samoilovich S.I. The works of N.A. Nekrasov in the 5th grade // Literature at school. 1939. No. 1. P. 90-101.

[Smirnov 1952] - Smirnov S.A. How to work in the 8th grade on the topic “N.V. Gogol "// Literature at school. 1952. No. 1. P. 55-69.

[Trifonov 1952] - N.A. Trifonov Study of A.A. Fadeeva "Young Guard" in the VII grade // Literature at school. 1952. No. 5. P. 31-42.

[Yudalevich 1953] - KS Yudalevich How we worked on "The Tale of Zoya and Shura" in extracurricular activities // Literature at school. 1953. No. 1. P. 63-68.

Evgeny Ponomarev,

associate Professor of the St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture, Doctor of Philology

Keywords

SOVIET CULTURE / IDEOLOGY / FEAT / CIVIL WAR / THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR / SOVIET CULTURE / IDEOLOGY / FEAT / CIVIL WAR / GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

annotation scientific article on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work - Olga Skubach

In the 1920s-1940s. soviet culture actively searches for a new type of heroic personality and forms the concept of heroism. Art and especially literature are widely used for this purpose. The specific ideology of heroism does not take shape in the country at once. The elementary semantics of heroism, which presupposes the isolation, personalization of an exceptional personality, contradicts the spirit of revolutionary culture, which places collectivist values \u200b\u200bhigher than any manifestation of individualism. Feats of the period Civil War are perceived by contemporaries as collective exploits, and therefore anonymous. By and large, this era does not need heroes. The active formation of the ideology of heroism began in the country in 1930, when the USSR award system was first modernized, and continued throughout the decade. During the period Great Patriotic War the concept of heroism reaches its highest point of development. The determining factors here are not only the number of actual displays of courage, but also the well-functioning work of the ideological apparatus. The concept of feat is conditional, conventional. In a real military situation, the line that distinguishes heroic behavior from actions caused by being in an extreme situation is often imperceptible. However, the concept of feat is a necessary element of culture's self-identification. In this capacity, the feat is not so much on the battlefield as it is born later, thanks to the work of ideological mechanisms; some of them are discussed in this article. In addition, this work highlights certain characteristic features of the Soviet heroic canon of the wartime.

Related topics scientific works on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work - Skubach Olga Aleksandrovna

• Historical memory of heroism in the Great Patriotic War as a factor in the upbringing of patriotism and national self-awareness of youth

  2015 / Mikhailova E.M.

• The story of M. I. Ritman-Fetisov "Hero of the Soviet Union Malik Gabdullin" about the participation of Kazakhstani soldiers in the battle near Moscow

  2016 / Marat Oralbaevich Absemetov

• Coverage of the problem of the Great Patriotic War in the works of Professor G. Kh. Khaidarov

  2016 / Z. A. Abdulloeva

• Chechen warriors - participants in the storming of Berlin

  2016 / Tsutsulaeva Sapiyat Saypuddinovna

• Female faces of war. On the issue of the Military Medical Service of Ossetian Women during the Great Patriotic War

  2015 / Tedeeva Nina Vasilievna, Dzagurova Natalia Khadzhumarovna

• Women-heroes of Crimea: military feat, memory and immortality

  2019 / Gogunskaya Tatiana Alexandrovna

• Historical memory of the First World War: features of formation in Russia and in the West

  2009 / Senyavskaya E.S.

• The image of the hero as seen by the combatants of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905

  2016 / Y.I.Dokuchaeva

• The feat of residents and defenders of the Belgorod region during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945

  2017 / Kadira Alexander Sergeevich

In the 1920-1940-ies Soviet culture is actively looking for a new type of heroic personality and creates the concept of heroism. The art and literature are widely used for this purpose. Specific ideology of heroism is formed not at once in the USSR. Elementary semantics of feat involves the allocation of an extraordinary personality, it contradicts the spirit of revolutionary culture that puts collectivist values \u200b\u200bhigher than any manifestation of individualism. Gests of the Civil war period are perceived by contemporaries as a collective feats, and therefore anonymous. We can say, this era does not need heroes. Active formation of the heroic ideology began in 1930 in the USSR, when it was made first modernized award system, and continued throughout the decade. During the Second world war the concept of heroism culminates its development. Determining factors are not only the amount of real courage, but also well-organized work of the ideological apparatus. The concept of heroism is a conditional concept. The border that separates the heroic behavior from actions caused by being in an extreme situation, it is often imperceptible in a real war situation. But the concept of heroism is a necessary element of culture identity. In this sense, a feat not born on the battlefield, it born later, by the work of ideological mechanisms, some of which are discussed in this article. In addition, this article deals with some characteristics of the Soviet heroic canon of wartime.

Text of scientific work on the topic "Mechanisms of the formation of the ideology of the Soviet feat in the literature and culture of the 1920s-1940s"

MECHANISMS FOR FORMING THE IDEOLOGY OF SOVIET FEAT IN LITERATURE AND CULTURE 1920-1940s.

About A. Skubach

Altai State

university

[email protected]

In the 1920s-1940s. Soviet culture is actively looking for a new type of heroic personality and forms the concept of heroic deeds. Art and especially literature are widely used for this purpose.

The specific ideology of heroism does not take shape in the country at once. The elementary semantics of heroism, which presupposes the isolation, personalization of an exceptional personality, contradicts the spirit of revolutionary culture, which places collectivist values \u200b\u200bhigher than any manifestation of individualism. The feats of the Civil War period are perceived by contemporaries as collective feats, and therefore anonymous. By and large, this era does not need heroes. The active formation of the ideology of heroism began in the country in 1930, when the USSR award system was first modernized, and continued throughout the decade. During the Great Patriotic War, the concept of heroism reaches its highest point of development. The determining factors here are not only the number of actual displays of courage, but also the well-functioning work of the ideological apparatus.

The concept of feat is conditional, conventional. In a real military situation, the line that distinguishes heroic behavior from actions caused by being in an extreme situation is often imperceptible. However, the concept of feat is a necessary element of culture's self-identification. In this capacity, the feat is done not so much on the battlefield as it is born later, thanks to the work of ideological mechanisms; some of them are discussed in this article. In addition, this work highlights certain characteristic features of the Soviet heroic canon of the wartime.

Key words: Soviet culture, ideology, feat, Civil War, Great Patriotic War.

MECHANISMS OF FORMATION OF THE SOVIET HEROIC IDEOLOGY IN THE LITERATURE AND CULTURE OF THE 1920s-1940s

Altay State University, Barnaul [email protected]

In the 1920-1940 -ies Soviet culture is actively looking for a new type of heroic personality and creates the concept of heroism. The art and literature are widely used for this purpose.

Specific ideology of heroism is formed not at once in the USSR. Elementary semantics of feat involves the allocation of an extraordinary personality, it contradicts the spirit of revolutionary culture that puts collectivist values \u200b\u200bhigher than any manifestation of individualism. Gests of the Civil war period

are perceived by contemporaries as a collective feats, and therefore anonymous. We can say, this era does not need heroes. Active formation of the heroic ideology began in 1930 in the USSR, when it was made first modernized award system, and continued throughout the decade. During the Second world war the concept of heroism culminates its development. Determining factors are not only the amount of real courage, but also well-organized work of the ideological apparatus.

The concept of heroism is a conditional concept. The border that separates the heroic behavior from actions caused by being in an extreme situation, it is often imperceptible in a real war situation. But the concept of heroism is a necessary element of culture identity. In this sense, a feat not born on the battlefield, it born later, by the work of ideological mechanisms, some of which are discussed in this article. In addition, this article deals with some characteristics of the Soviet heroic canon of wartime.

Key words: Soviet culture, ideology, feat, the Civil war, the Great Patriotic war.

Its own specific ideology of heroism is not immediately formed in Soviet Russia. The beginning of a new era, filled with storms and upheavals of the First World War, two revolutions, the Civil War, as it might seem, provides rich opportunities for the manifestation of the heroic sides of human nature. However, the memory of the exploits of the revolutionary period boils down to a relatively poor list of names, among which the overwhelming majority are the leaders of the revolutionary movement and military leaders, glorified not so much by the heroism of specific deeds as by the overall productivity of efforts to establish the new government: V.K. Blucher, S.M. Budyonny, Comrade Artem (F.A. Sergeev), G.I. Kotovsky, M.V. Frunze, V.I. Chapaev, N.A. Shchors. This quite laconic picture corresponds to the parsimony of the award system: until 1930, the only award in the Soviet Union was the Order of the Red Banner.

The revolutionary era puts collectivist values \u200b\u200bimmeasurably higher than any manifestation of individualism. Characterizing the Soviet 1920s, V. Paperny wrote: “Culture 1, in accordance with its egalitarian-entropic aspirations, hardly distinguishes an individual person from the masses;

dit. The subject of any action for Culture 1 is the collective ”1. The elementary semantics of feat, which presupposes separation, the personalization of an exceptional personality, strictly speaking, contradicts the spirit of a culture in which it is shameful at best to isolate oneself from the collective. Fiction, by virtue of its specificity, is designed to reproduce the mental strategies of culture, has preserved examples of the feat transformed in the style of the era of perception. In D. Furmanov's novel Chapaev, written in 1923, an attempt to reward the Red Army soldiers who showed themselves in the Chishminsky battle ends with a funny incident - the soldiers unanimously refuse the award: “One of the heroic, especially distinguished regiments did not accept awards. The Red Army men and commanders who were awarded the awards declared that all of them, with the whole regiment, equally bravely and honestly defended the Soviet Republic, that there were no bad or good among them, and even more so, there were no cowards, because they would be dealt with by their own guys. "We wish to remain without any awards," they said. "We will all be the same in our regiment ..." "2. “In those days,

1 Paperny V. Culture 2. - M .: New literary review, 1996. - P. 145.

2 Furmanov D. Chapaev. - M .: Sovremennik, 1981 .-- S. 215.

such cases were very, very common, ”the narrator comments. The same principle of self-perception is demonstrated by one of the characters in Gorky's "Tales of Heroes" (1930-1931). Outwardly, completely unpresentable Zausay-lov ("... very unprepossessing, disheveled, somehow all crumpled, limping heavily on his right leg and in general is broken" 4, - the narrator describes him) in a conversation with random fellow travelers is revealed as capable of extraordinary actions a man with a heroic past. However, Zausailov seems special only against the relatively ordinary background of the turn of the 1920s-1930s, while in the context of the first post-revolutionary years, his fate is the norm, and not an exception to the rule: “A hero, then you,” said one of the girls. “In the civil war for the Soviets, we were all heroes ..,” 5

The feats of the Civil War period are perceived by contemporaries as collective feats, and therefore anonymous. By and large, this era does not need heroes. Rare exceptions here rather confirm the general rule. It should be admitted, moreover, that the pantheon of heroes of the early 1920s. was created mainly by agitprop of the later period. The Vasiliev brothers' film about Chapaev (Chapaev, 1934), The Song of Shchors (music by M. Blanter, lyrics by M. Golodny, 1935) and the film Shchors (dir. A. Dovzhenko, 1939 g.), the book6 and the film "Kotovsky" (directed by A. Fayntsimmer, 1942) about Kotovsky appeared in the 1930s - early 1940s. The material for heroization was

4 Gorky M. Complete. collection cit .: In 25 volumes - T. 20. Stories, essays, memoirs (1924-1935) / M. Gorky. - Moscow: Nauka, 1974 .-- P. 290.

5 Ibid. - S. 293.

6 Schmerling Victor. Kotovsky (Series ZhZL),

provided, of course, by the era of the Civil War, but the heroes themselves were born later - not earlier than the propaganda mechanisms for creating the concept of feat were worked out.

The active formation of the ideology of heroism began in the country in 1930, when the USSR award system was first modernized, and continued throughout the decade. During the Second World War, the concept of heroism undoubtedly reaches its climax. The USSR is the only country where the status of a hero was formally institutionalized, becoming the official title “Hero of the Soviet Union” (approved in 1934). A complex, ramified pantheon of heroes from 1941-1945. cannot be compared with the meager list of distinguished Civil war... The determining factor here is not only the number of actual manifestations of courage, but also the superbly well-oiled work of the ideological apparatus, which acts as a kind of factory for the creation of Heroes.

The concept of feat is conditional, conventional. In a real military situation, as a rule, the line that distinguishes heroic behavior from actions caused by being in an extreme situation is often simply imperceptible. A subtle and intelligent observer of front-line everyday life A. Tvardovsky in his military notebooks (essay "On Heroes") recalls a typical case: “On the first morning of the war, a man took off on alarm, in the heat of the moment shot down six enemy aircraft, then he himself was shot down. The wounded man, with the help of kind people, recovered and left the encirclement. His strongest experience in these battles of the first morning was the fear that this was not a war, but some kind of misunderstanding.

menie and he, Danilov, having shot down six German bombers, did, perhaps, irreparable troubles. But when they knocked him down and tried to finish off on the ground two "messers" from machine guns, when he crawled in the rye, pursued by them, he was convinced that this was a war, and his soul relieved: everything is in order, it is not his fault, but on the contrary , well done.<...> It seemed that he was still glad himself that everything had turned out so well ”7. It is not the nature of the deed itself that makes a heroic deed, but the totality of external conditions. It is easy to make a mistake: one and the same act is assessed diametrically opposite, depending on whether the war happened, or "some kind of misunderstanding." “It is difficult in a war to choose a day when it is most profitable to die, profitable - in the sense of the trace that will leave your feat and death in the memory of your comrades, army, people” 8, - A. Tvardovsky expands the same idea in an essay on the Finnish campaign of 1939 1940, which, as you know, brought a fair harvest of corpses, but not heroes.

It is not even worth mentioning that the same forms of behavior of Soviet and enemy soldiers are considered in an extremely polar system of measures and assessments. Here, for example, is the "semi-fantastic story" told to the military commander Tvardovsky "by a resident of the once front-line<. > side ": in a remote forest village, at a time when the front had already gone far to the west, artillery shelling suddenly began. In search of the gun to fire, the locals climb far into the thicket of the forest, and there, finally, they find an arrow: “There was a light

7 Tvardovsky A. Prose, articles, letters. - M .: Izvestia, 1974 .-- S. 329.

8 Ibid. - S. 173.

a field cannon, ammunition boxes were scattered around, covered with long-crumbling brushwood, and near the cannon was controlled by a single completely wild-looking German ”9. It is clear that this doomed and lonely war could well become the plot of another legend, if its character was on the "right" side. However, what makes the Soviet soldier a hero is, in the German performance, nothing more than a form of deviation: “The signs of madness were evident,” the narrator concludes. - The wild, lost his mind, the German encirclement fired and fired wherever. There could be no question of taking him alive. To the hail "handehoh"

he furiously began to throw

natami, and they had to finish him off. " In another essay dedicated to the capture of Konigsberg, to the last patron, the Germans who resisted are certified as

“Evil souls capable of anything in despair-

nii defeat ".

The middle of the twentieth century is not the era of knights, it is not customary to believe in the valor of the enemy. Among the enemies, by definition, there are not and cannot be heroes. However, even allies and like-minded people look dubious in their heroic role - of course, from the Soviet point of view. M. Koltsov in The Spanish Diary (1938), with a touch of irony, sketches a portrait of Durutti, one of the leaders of the republican army: “He himself with his headquarters was located on the highway, in the house of the road warden, two kilometers from the enemy. It's not very careful, but everything here is subject to a display of demonstrative courage. "Let's die or win"

9 Ibid. - S. 346.

11 Ibid. - S. 370.

"We will die, but we will take Zaragoza", "We will die, covering ourselves with world fame" - these are on banners, on posters, on leaflets ”12. Obviously, the slogans of the Spanish Popular Front do not differ from the corresponding propaganda clichés popular in the pre-war and war years in the Soviet Union, but, of course, the latter do not evoke a shadow of irony.

The concept of feat is undoubtedly an important element of the self-perception of culture, one of the key ideas on which the national, historical, class self-identification of the bearer of cultural consciousness is based. However, in this capacity, the feat is not so much on the battlefield as it is born later, thanks to the work of ideological mechanisms. The first meeting with the future hero is provided, as a rule, by the military commander in the bulletin of the information bureau, on the pages of a newspaper essay or in a magazine article. Then comes the turn of the reaction of representatives of the authorities - from the military command of various levels to the main person of the state: it is known, for example, what role Stalin personally played in the canonization of Alexander Matrosov - not at all the first one who rushed to the machine-gun embrasure during the war years. Finally, in the event of a positive resolution, the authorities take over all the tools of agitprop, and in a short time the country will learn about the new Hero. In this context, the question of the authorship of this or that feat is not far-fetched. Perhaps it would make sense to mention next to the name of the hero and the name of the correspondent who provided him with a ticket to fame: N. Gastello - P. Pavlenko and P. Krylov, Liza Chaikina - B. Polevoy, Z. Kosmode-

12 Koltsov M. Favorites. - M .: Pravda, 1985 .-- S. 517.

myanskaya - P. Lidov, A. Maresyev - B. Polevoy, etc.

In the end, it is the nature of coverage of a particular situation in the press that determines its final assessment; the same event may look completely different. On August 27, 1941, the Baltic Fleet, which at the beginning of the war found itself locked up by German troops in the Tallinn Bay, escaped the encirclement and retreated to Leningrad. The writer and journalist N.G. Mikhailovsky became a witness and participant of this maneuver, who did not fail to reflect the entire drama of events in the essay "Breakthrough of the Ships" (1941). After describing the plight of the narrator, who was washed away during the bombing from the deck of the ship and was waiting for help on the high seas for at least half a day, but was eventually rescued, a characteristic scene follows - the crew of the boat discovers a young sailor in the water, with the last of his strength clinging to a mine. The narrator, who recently experienced a similar ordeal himself, is filled with sympathy for the young man's natural human thirst for life: “Death and salvation! It seems that both are concentrated in this mine. Let her go at least for a moment, having lost her support, and he, exhausted, will not be able to move on, he will go to the bottom. Mina is now a rescue ball in this battle between man and death. And to hold on to it, who knows where the stray wave will hit and where it will explode ?! ”13. However, his position is put to shame in the very first conversation with the rescued - a cadet of the school. Frunze, demonstrating, as it turns out, a completely heroic code of conduct:

13 Mikhailovsky N. Breakthrough of ships //

Frontline essays on the Great Patriotic War

war: in 3 volumes.Vol. 1. - M .: Voenizdat, 1957 .-- P. 21.

“- And how did you sit down to the mine? - I ask him.

Swam, swam. Watching mine. I was delighted. He grabbed onto her. There is a silver lining. I decided that if the Germans came up, they would try to take prisoner - then it would be better to take off. And I will never give myself up alive ... "14

The young sailor is not the narrator's alter ego, but rather his antipode: unlike the latter, in a situation of trial, he clearly cares more about quality death than salvation. This detail sets the gradation of two models of behavior in an extreme situation, allows you to feel the difference between the position of a passive victim of circumstances and the role of a hero who, in any conditions, retains the ability to act to the detriment of the enemy. In other words, there is always a place for feat in life. This conclusion is, of course, the ideological task of the essay.

Apparently, the same colorful episode of the war in the Baltic interested Leningrader M. Zoshchenko. However, in his "Rogulka" (1943), the adventures of the original narrator and a young man from the school. Frunze are united in one story. As in the first text, after the air raid, the narrator finds himself in the water: “I don’t know what chemical or physical laws you have, but only when I was completely unable to swim, I floated out. I swam out and immediately grabbed a flyer with my hand that was sticking out from under the water ”15. The narrator learns about the nature of the mysterious "flyer" only thanks to his stubbornly ignoring sailors from the rescue boat. However, an explanation of the situation is not capable of changing anything in it;

15 Zoshchenko M. Sobr. cit .: in 5 volumes.Vol. 1. - M .: Rus-Slit, 1994 .-- P. 363.

the narrator cannot let go of the mine: “They shout to me from the boat:

Hey you, tramtararam, don't touch it, tramtararam, mine!

Brothers, - I shout, - without a mine, I'm like no hands! I'll drown right away! Get in position! Swim over here, be so generous!

<...> And I myself hold on to the flyer so that even if I want to, I cannot be torn off ”16. The pathos of self-sacrifice, which determined the atmosphere of the first essay (“. If the Germans come up<.. .> better to take off into the air "), removed. Having discovered the hidden comic episode, Zoshchenko completely deheroes it. In general, the feuilleton quite in Zoshchenko's way reveals the pragmatic background of the story told: if you want to live, you will cling to a mine. It is clear that there will be no place for heroes in this work.

A feat is born when a text appears that tells about it - this is the main condition for the work of the agitation apparatus. Needless to say, this entire propaganda machine solves not ethical, but political and ideological problems: the main thing here is not to observe justice and reward the worthy, but to create a series of role models, ready-made behavioral patterns that would suggest how to act in an exceptional situation; to guarantee the work of the mechanism of self-reproduction of feats, to ensure “mass heroism”. Undoubtedly, these attitudes do not exclude the possibility of falsifying the feat, which, for example, happened in the case of the story of the heroic battle of 28 Panfilovites17. At the same time

16 Ibid. - S. 364.

17 In 1948, the USSR Chief Military Prosecutor's Office conducted a special investigation into the circumstances of the battle at the Dubosekovo junction. The final report concluded that specific details

it is they, these attitudes, that determine the direct specificity of Soviet heroism, its characteristic features.

The heroic canon of the Great Patriotic War presupposes a high assessment of sacrifice to the detriment of performance. Even a cursory glance at the statistics of awards with the Star of the Hero of the Soviet Union reveals an obvious pattern: the highest award of the USSR is given, especially in the first war years, mainly posthumously. The era clearly prefers martyrs: martyrdom is quoted here immeasurably higher than courage, initiative, decisiveness, ingenuity - the usual determinants of heroic behavior. Dmitry Lavrinenko, the most productive tanker of the Soviet army during the Second World War, who destroyed 52 tanks in 2.5 months of participation in battles - more than anyone else in the tank forces of the Soviet Union for the entire period of the war - received his Star only in 1990 Lavrinenko died in December 1941, but his death was not heroic - the reason for it was an accidental splinter that overtook the tanker after the battle. Only in 1990, at the end of the Soviet era, was awarded Alexander Marine-sko - the record holder among Soviet submariners during the war for the displacement of the ships he sunk. Zinovy \u200b\u200bKolobanov did not become a Hero of the Soviet Union, who turned into a living legend after the unprecedented Voiskovitsky battle (August 20, 1941), during which only Kolobanov's KV-1 knocked out 22 German tanks, just a tank company under his command recorded on

and the circumstances of the battle were the product of the invention of Alexander Krivitsky, the literary secretary of the editorial board of the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

your account is 43 enemy vehicles. There are many examples of such injustice in the history of the war. An exception to this rule was made only for the aces pilots, primarily Ivan Kozhedub and Alexander Pokryshkin, who did not need to die to receive their share of the well-deserved awards. At the other extreme of this scale of values \u200b\u200b- for example, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, the first woman awarded the title of Hero during the war. From the point of view of military pragmatics, her activities had an insignificant result, but death, with all - by and large - uselessness, quite fit into the canons of martyrdom.

I.P. Smirnov characterized Stalinist culture as fundamentally masochistic18. It can be argued that, at least during the war years, the masochistic tendencies of the Soviet society are cultivated quite purposefully. The country, in which the main advantage over the enemy was the numerical superiority of its population and, accordingly, the possibility of a constant renewal of personnel, learned to use this advantage. Unlike Germany, which was involuntarily forced to value its human resources, the Soviet Union was much more sensitive to technology - it was a scarce commodity, not people. The plot about the rescue of a character with a risk to the life of tanks, tractors, trains or individual wagons with ammunition is a common place of frontline journalism. Freshly baked artilleryman Bogdanov, the hero of A. Tvardovsky's essay "Soldier's Memory", laments the loss of a new weapon:

18 Smirnov I.P. Psychodiachronology. Psychohistory of Russian literature from romanticism to the present day. - M .: New literary review,

“It would be better if I was wounded first, but that I

i managed to shoot from this gun. "

“Not life, cherish patrons,

The defenders of the frontier were killed ”20, writes B. Bogatkov in 1943. And as a logical result of this strategy:

“The guys are silent. The guys are lying.

They have not left the line.

There are enough disks ”21.

Human losses are not catastrophic: everyone believes in it, first of all -

doomed themselves to perish. "We are two hundred

millions, you don’t outweigh everyone ”, - Tanya selflessly throws in the faces of her enemies, she is Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, the heroine of P. Lidov's essay that immortalized her name (“ Tanya ”, 1941). “What are you counting on? There are millions of us! Ours are coming! ”23 - echoes her at the foot of the gallows underground worker Luts, the hero of D. Medvedev's novel“ Strong in Spirit ”(1951). Undoubtedly, by no means everyone who sacrificed their lives during the war years was a toy of ideology. But how to find the boundary that separates the forced from the voluntary, the suggested from the free? According to statistical calculations, the demographic losses of the USSR during the Second World War amounted to 26.6 million24. Could this figure be less? This, perhaps, is still one of the most serious and

19 Tvardovsky A. Decree. op. - S. 360.

20 Until the last breath. Poems of Soviet poets who died in the Great Patriotic War. - M .: Pravda, 1985 .-- P. 46.

22 Lidov P. Tanya // Military journalism and frontline essays. - M .: Fiction, 1966 .-- P. 75.

23 Medvedev D. Strong in spirit. - M .: Soviet writer, 1959 .-- P. 395.

24 Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century: Losses of the armed forces. Statistical research / Ed. G.F. Krivosheeva. - M .: Olma-Press, 2001.

questions of national history of the twentieth century.

Literature

Gorky M. Complete collection. cit .: in 25 volumes. T. 20: Stories, essays, memoirs (1924-1935) / M. Gorky. - Moscow: Nauka, 1974 .-- 638 p.

Until the last breath. Poems of Soviet poets who died in the Great Patriotic War. - M .: Pravda, 1985 .-- 400 p.

Zoshchenko M. Rogulka // Zoshchenko M. Collected. cit .: in 5 volumes. Vol. 1: Stories. - M .: Russlit, 1994 .-- 432 p.

Koltsov M. Favorites / M. Koltsov. - M .: Pravda, 1985 .-- 624 p.

Lidov P. Tanya / P. Lidov // Military journalism and frontline essays. - M .: Art. lit., 1966 .-- 607 p.

Medvedev D. Strong in spirit / D. Medvedev. - M .: Sov. writer, 1959 .-- 486 p.

Mikhailovsky N. Breakthrough of ships / N. Mikhailovsky // Frontline essays on the Great Patriotic War: in 3 volumes. Volume 1. - M .: Voe-nizdat, 1957. - 710 p.

Paperny V. Culture 2 / V. Paperny. - M .: New literary review, 1996 .-- 384 p.

Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century: Losses of the armed forces. Statistical research / ed. G.F. Krivosheeva. - M .: Olma-Press, 2001 .-- 305 p.

Smirnov I.P. Psychodiachronology. Psychohistory of Russian literature from romanticism to the present day / I.P. Smirnov. - M .: New literary review, 1994 .-- 351 p.

Tvardovsky A. Prose. Articles. Letters / A. Tvardovsky. - M .: Izvestia, 1974 .-- 784 p.

Furmanov D. Chapaev / D. Furmanov. - M .: Sovremennik, 1981 .-- 287 p.

SOVIET IDEOLOGY

The Soviet Union was the first super-society on a huge scale in the history of mankind. In its social organization, not just statehood, but superstatehood, not just an economy, but a super-economy, not just an ideology, but a super-ideology took shape. I will specifically return to this topic below. And here I will give a brief description of the Soviet ideological sphere. I will use the word "ideology" rather than "super-ideology" so as not to complicate the presentation.

Soviet ideology was state, obligatory for all Soviet citizens. Departure from it, and even more so the struggle against it, was considered a crime and was punishable.

It was officially believed that Soviet ideology was Marxism-Leninism. This is true in the sense that Marxism and Leninism served as the basis and historically source material for it, as well as a role model. But it is wrong to reduce it to Marxism-Leninism. It took shape after the 1917 revolution. Thousands of Soviet people took part in its development, including Stalin and his associates. It included only a part of the ideas and texts of Marxism of the 19th century, and in a thoroughly revised form. Even from the writings of Lenin, not everything was included in it literally in the form as it arose in its time. Leninism in general entered it to a large extent in the Stalinist presentation. The reflection of the life of mankind and the intellectual material of the twentieth century took its place in it.

Soviet ideology declared itself as a science. This claim is due to historical reasons. It is difficult to name a topic that would not be in the focus of Soviet ideology. But its core consisted of the following three sections: 1) dialectical materialism (philosophy); 2) historical materialism (sociology); 3) the doctrine of communist society (it was called "scientific communism").

Marxist philosophy did not become a science about the world, about knowing the world and about thinking for reasons of both ideological and non-ideological nature. However, this does not in the least detract from the role that it actually played in Soviet society. She spearheaded a colossal educational work, which history had not known before. Through her and thanks to her, the achievements of science of the past and present have become the property of the broad strata of the population. Anti-Soviet criticism drew attention to individual cases when Soviet philosophy played a conservative role (attitude to the theory of relativity, genetics, cybernetics, etc.), and inflated these cases so that they overshadowed everything else. But they actually affected a small part of the pro-Western intelligentsia, who knew little about this. Moreover, they brought with them new types of ideological falsification of scientific achievements.

In the sphere of social phenomena, Soviet ideology felt itself to be a complete monopolist. She was sincerely convinced that she alone gave a truly scientific understanding of society. And she had a reason for this. Everything that was done outside of Marxism with regard to understanding society from the point of view of the level and breadth of understanding was in no way superior to what was done in Marxism. In modern science about social phenomena, there is no less nonsense than in ideology, and the narrowness and pettiness of the results does not pull at the level of general sociological theory. In modern science of society, there is not only a decent general sociological theory, but there are not even theories relating to certain types of societies. And the Marxist-Leninist social doctrine, although it was not a scientific theory in the strict sense of the word, still claimed to explain the historical process as a whole and to explain the main participants in this process - the capitalist and communist systems.

The main goal of communist ideology in a non-communist society was to substantiate the ways of transforming this society into a communist one, as the latter seemed to be, namely, as the socialization of all means of production, the elimination of classes of private owners and entrepreneurs (capitalists and landowners), the seizure of political power by the communist party, the centralization of the entire system power and control, etc. And what the ideology said on this score was not a lie or nonsense, but an extremely serious matter. It was an attitude for action that reflected some aspect of reality. This was the intellectual aspect of the socio-political struggle.

The main goal of Soviet ideology in the established communist society was the apologetics of this society, the substantiation of ways to preserve and strengthen it, the substantiation of the best tactics and strategy of its relations with the outside world. Again, this was not a lie or nonsense. When Soviet ideology, for example, spoke about the absence of capitalist and landlord classes in the USSR, about the absence of antagonistic contradictions between workers and peasants, about the leading role of the party, about the split of the world into two systems, about the struggle of the peoples of the world for liberation from colonialism, etc. , she didn't lie. She simply stated some obvious facts of reality and gave them her interpretation.

From the first days of the existence of communist society, ideology became practically an instrument for the activities of the general leadership of society. When the leaders of the Soviet Union said that they acted in accordance with the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, they were not deceiving or hypocritical. Marxism was in fact a guide to action for them. But not literally, but through a certain system of interpretation, as it should be done in relation to ideological texts. Ideology in this case set a common goal for the leaders of the country, which, regardless of its attainability or unattainability, played an organizing role and indicated the main ways of movement of society towards this goal. Ideology gave a single orientation to the process of society's life and established a single framework and principles for the activities of its leadership.

The doctrine of the highest stage of communism (complete communism) forms a kind of paradise part of Marxism. Here, this paradise descended from heaven to earth. And he promised, although in an uncertain future, but still not after the death of all people, but during the life of our descendants.

The paradise communism of ideology is not just a beautiful fairy tale. He performed certain ideological functions. People tend to dream of a better future. To dream is not to believe. You can dream without faith. A dream smoothes out the troubles of real life and brings some relief. Ideology satisfied this need of people in abundance, and all the variants of such dreams. Different people imagined heavenly communism in virtually different ways. To some, it was presented in the form of a society where there will be spiritual relations between people, to others - as an abundance of consumer goods. Some - as an opportunity to selflessly work, to others - as an opportunity to idle as selflessly.

Paradise communism played the role of an ideal to which society as a whole should strive. And the point here is mainly not in the image of the ideal, but in the very fact of its existence, in its formal organizing role. The fact that the goal was unattainable played a secondary role. The goal played the role of not a scientific prediction, but an indicative and organizing mass consciousness. The country lived with the consciousness of a great historical mission, which justified all the difficulties and misfortunes that befell it. The emergence of such an epochal goal was not an accident for a communist society. She was a necessary factor in his life as an organic whole. She gave a historical meaning to its existence.

The ideological mechanism of Soviet society in its basic features was formed in the pre-war years. But he reached the highest state in the post-war years, especially after the death of Stalin. The task of the ideological mechanism included the following. First, to preserve the ideological doctrine in the form in which it is canonized at a given time. Protect it from heresies, schisms, revisions, alien influences. Keep the teaching in a state of relevance. Important party and state decisions were made. The leaders made long speeches. Important events were taking place in the world. So ideologists constantly had to "update" the doctrine at least with fresh examples of old dogmas. To carry out the interpretation of everything that happens in the world in the spirit of ideological doctrine and in its interests. Secondly, to exercise total ideological control over the entire "spiritual" sphere of society's life. Third, to carry out ideological indoctrination of the population, to create the required ideological state in society, to suppress any deviations from ideological norms.

The ideological treatment of people (ideological "dumbing down") was the basis, essence, core of the process of forming a person in a communist society and preserving him in this capacity. This process began with the birth of a person, continued throughout his life and ended only with his death. Ideological indoctrination covered all strata of society and all spheres of people's life - their work and social activities, leisure time, recreation, entertainment, family relationships, friendship, love, and even illness and crime. And it was not just fooling and deceiving. It was also a positive activity to adapt the masses of people to the conditions of their social life, without which the long life of a human being as a whole is generally impossible.

• Soviet ideology