Now it is often said that the youth has no opportunities to reach the top (because of rebels). But when the Soviet government with the social elevators were all much better. Who was nothing became everything and so on. About the present now we will not talk about the past. There is nothing in terms of social mobility was not good.
The Bolsheviks had good is the collective cerebral sex with shirnarmass. Cerebral from Latin сerebrum the brain.
All the seventy years of Soviet power they were doing with the mass consciousness.
photo: Alexander Astafyev
Fooled from the October revolution, when he promised “land — to peasants, factories — to workers, peace — to the peoples.” The land from the peasants away, the workers made poor by increasing surplus value at times, and the world under Soviet rule, the people almost did not see — each generation has passed the war, if not two.
Even the Bolsheviks promised “liberty, equality and fraternity”. About it as about the first slogan, in Russian censorship and not say. “Freedom” over the iron curtain and the Gulag, about the brotherhood to tell for a long time, and I’m about equality, rather about social mobility.
As I wrote in previous articles devoted to the “Soviet” mythology “the Communists would have to play on the opposition of what “was” and “became” in comparison with the pre-revolutionary level”, in order to show the progressiveness of the Communist system. For this Communist propaganda launched into circulation a set of myths about what “under the tsars simple man was doomed to poverty”, “the peasants and workers did not have access to education”, etc. It was usual for the Bolsheviks lie.
Of course, not to say that the tsarist government had advanced social systems, not at all. And, of course, was not universal equality, but what to expect from a monarchy who abolished serfdom for half a century before.
However, social mobility was, they worked. Intelligent and studious man could make a brilliant career, even without wealth and aristocratic origin. A simple worker, if he is not drinking and not lazy, able to give their children education, even primary education, and then if children showed a good level of diligence and ability, could finish high school and University. Yes! That’s right — University. By the XX century the universities were available to all classes. Known saying Herzen that the English universities, in contrast to the Russian “exist solely for the aristocracy and the rich.”
Access to education is one of the most important social elevators, but there were others. Citizens of the Russian Empire was able to realize themselves in the field of private enterprise, that success was doing. The founders of famous dynasties of Industrialists and entrepreneurs, multimillionaires ryabushinskys, Morozovs, the Stroganovs were natives of peasants! If you look at the “List of the richest entrepreneurs of Russia” in 1914, we see that almost three quarters of the list are such families.
Was not closed to the common people the road and in the higher military elite of the Empire. For example, the chief of staff of the Supreme commander in 1915 — General Mikhail Alekseyev was the son of a common soldier, rose to Sergeant and then to Lieutenant. The same peasant origins had generals Kornilov and Denikin.
A lot of such examples.
What happened to social mobility after the revolution of 1917?
Of course, they have not gone away. But! Has violated the most important principle of selection — selection of the mind, knowledge, zeal. Replaced the selection based on “social origin”, “profile”, “party line”. It was a serious blow to the formation and cultivation of personnel in all sectors.
The person of the “wrong” social origin, that is, having “socially alien” parents (landlords, merchants, the king’s officers, etc.), it was extremely difficult, sometimes almost impossible to get into College or a good job. Subsequently a similar difficulty arose with the children of the peasants, if they are ranked as the fists and dispossessed.
A similar fate befell the other categories of the repressed. Children of the repressed, if they wanted to receive higher education or get good jobs, were forced to hide their origin, to fake profiles and even give up parents! The man had publicly, in the Komsomol, party meeting or meeting of the labor collective to renounce their parents, brother, sister, son, husband or wife or any other relative, if they suddenly came under a mass cleaning that took place regularly in the Soviet Union since the 20-ies, and was sentenced under a political article (the famous 58-I).
But even if people do not fall under the steamroller of repression, this does not mean that he had access to social mobility. The most numerous class in the Soviet Union were peasants, were the most powerless! The Bolsheviks actually restored serfdom! Soviet farmers did not have passports until 1961! A person without a passport could not travel from his village, wish to change their place of residence. In a sense, the farmers were in the position of slaves attached to the land. What sort of “social elevators”!
The way to get upstairs was if to understand the rules of the game clearly and follow them. The rules were these: a good questionnaire, the membership of the party and readiness to execute any orders of the party leadership. With bad form is not something that the party, even in the Komsomol was not to enter. And non-partisan in this social mobility was closed.
The principle of selection of “social origin” is very rigidly worked about the first forty years of the existence of a “scoop”. During the Khrushchev “thaw” came some relief, but all this was not abolished until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even today the legacy left by the era — special questionnaires that are filled in the passport when applying for certain posts made in those years.
Such a principle of selection of personnel has caused irreparable harm to all spheres of the national economy, ranging from agriculture to science and defense. Huge human losses of the USSR during the Second world war largely the result of the fact that leading and command positions in the army and the defense industry, in intelligence, in education and science many people were not at the level of competence, professionalism, education, honesty, and ability to mimic, to imitate the tastes of party leaders of different levels. For that we have paid tens of millions of lives.
Terrible purges in the army, actually the mass destruction of the highest command structure before the war led to a perverted job of social mobility. Staff shortages resulting from executions or sending to prison of more than 40,000 senior officers, generals and marshals, led to the fact that yesterday’s Lieutenant set to command a regiment, and the commander could become yesterday’s combat. Of course, these officers did not have proper education and experience and is not consistent with their positions that led to the catastrophe of the initial period of war: the border battles, we lost the entire regular army! But all the “red commanders” had all the right forms, the right social background and unwavering loyalty personally to comrade Dzhugashvili.
Gross incompetence of managerial personnel led to delays in science, industry, low efficiency.
I am sure that some readers with a bit of a kick to ask: “If everything was as bad as we won the war? Like a rocket launched into space?” The answer is simple: for all this we paid double, triple and sometimes ten times the price! Especially the terrible price we paid win! Still, there are disputes about how much we have lost in the war. According to some, for one German soldier we put ten of our.
As far as the material side — that most of the Soviet period, the Soviet people lived in poverty.
The second half of the Soviet period, starting in the sixties, the broad masses better and better assimilate the rules of double standards, and gradually unprincipled careerists, clearly owning the techniques of the party of demagoguery for career growth, began to constitute the majority. Even the party bosses stated. The head of the KGB and later General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Yuri Andropov wrote: “his biggest [of socialism] the disadvantage of the system, and most importantly, the lack of objective criteria for the selection and nomination of personnel. Under capitalism there is a natural selection of leaders on the basis of competition, if we exclude a relatively small percentage of a large inheritance of capital. We have a lot of subjectivity, grades are given by spoken slogans, and even political demagoguery”.
All this contributed to a negative personnel selection, tribalism, the growth of corruption and mismanagement. Ultimately, this led to stagnation and then to the collapse of the Soviet Union.