Circular about the cook's children Alexander III. Alexander III and the decree about the "cook's children"

The report “On the Reduction of Gymnasium Education,” better known as the “Circular on Cooks’ Children” (although cooks were not mentioned there), was published on June 18 (July 1), 1887 by the Minister of Education of Russia, Count Ivan Davidovich Delyanov. The Minister recommended that directors of gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums when admitting children to educational establishments create conditions to free them from the admission of “the children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like, whose children, with the exception of those gifted with genius abilities, should not at all strive for secondary and higher education.” The idea was to limit the ability of representatives of the “non-noble” sections of the population to move into commoners and students, who were seen as the main driving force revolutionary movement.

The appearance of this circular was the logical conclusion of the policy of counter-reforms in the field of education and censorship. The assassination of Alexander II and the accession to the throne of his son Alexander III entailed a ministerial change, including in the educational department. Already on March 24, 1881, Minister of Education A.A. Saburov was replaced by Baron Alexander Pavlovich Nikolai. Although to prove oneself in new position During the year, the minister did not have much time; during his tenure, the tasks facing the government in relation to education were clearly outlined in the manifesto of April 29, 1881. In this document, compiled by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev, educational principles actually boiled down to the implementation of the formula of “autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality.” In March 1882, Baron Nikolai was replaced as Minister of Public Education by a supporter of the conservative line, I.D. Delyanov, whose parish was associated in liberal circles with the period of the ministry of Count D.A. Tolstoy. As D.A. ironically noted. Milyutin: “Between the previous regime and the future there will be a difference only in the lining: Tolstoy’s lining was bile; Delyanov will be idiotic.” Nevertheless, despite the derogatory characteristics given to the minister by his contemporaries, he remained in his post until his death at the end of December 1897.

In the field of secondary education, the Ministry of Public Education was faced with the task of developing gymnasiums, and, first of all, liberating them from multi-subject and overloaded curricula and programs. A fundamental means of improving the quality of studies new minister saw in "restoring order" in high school and, above all, in the difficulty of access to male and female gymnasiums for “children of lower classes.” The circular of November 20, 1882 actually began a return to the rules of May 4, 1874, developed under D.A. Tolstoy. On June 26, 1884, a circular was issued aimed at strengthening the role of class teachers. It was indicated that class teachers, along with directors and inspectors, would be responsible for detecting in the class entrusted to them “the harmful influence of perverse ideas inspired by malicious people.”

In 1887, government expenses for maintaining secondary education institutions amounted to about 10 million rubles, or 166 rubles per high school student. While the level of academic achievement in gymnasiums, pro-gymnasiums and real schools was very low. According to the Ministry of Public Education, in gymnasiums it was 68.2% in 1883, and in 1884 - 68.9%. In pro-gymnasiums the situation was approximately the same (65.3% and 65.5%, respectively). Academic performance in real schools also increased slightly (from 66.9% to 69.1%).

It was with this statesman that the birth of the “Circular on Cook’s Children” was associated. The report was developed at a meeting of interior ministers, state property, Administrator of the Ministry of Finance and Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostseva. Although the document was secret, the trustee of the Odessa educational district, H.P. Based on it, Sokolsky drew up an order for the directors of gymnasiums, published in the Odessa Bulletin. The trustee of the Moscow educational district, Count P. Kapnist, recommended that the authorities of the gymnasiums, at the same time as refusing admission, recommend educational institutions with a shorter duration of study and a status more appropriate to their environment.

The public's attitude towards this circular was rather negative. Even conservatives close to power, who did not question the class principle in education, criticized the tactlessness and ill-considered actions of the Minister of Education, which undermined the prestige of supreme power. For example, Prince V.P. Meshchersky believed that it was worth limiting himself to secret instructions to the trustees of educational districts, which would have allowed the newspapers to avoid a campaign against the government. Yes and public opinion would not have been affected "in its democratic instincts."

The uproar around the circular was also caused by the fact that it contradicted the current law of July 30, 1871, which proclaimed the absence of class and religious qualifications for education. For the liberal public, accusing children from the lower strata of being depraved was complete nonsense. For radical circles, there was an obvious connection between the circular and the March 1st assassination attempt on the Tsar. Finally, although the circular did not contain instructions on the expulsion of representatives of the lower strata of society, they did occur. To implement this instruction, preparatory classes were closed almost everywhere, giving children from low-income families the opportunity to enter school.

Delyanov had to constantly fight off the indignant public

adjust the provisions of the circular towards softening the wording. In particular, the minister justified that the circular did not mean to limit admission to the gymnasium on the basis of class and did not apply to children “from the best peasant and bourgeois families.” They say that we were talking about those children who, “due to the conditions of their home life and environment, may encounter not support, but all sorts of obstacles to the successful completion of a long-term gymnasium education,” due to the lack of supervision in the family, the poverty of their parents, etc. Indeed, a circular approved by Emperor Alexander III ordered the educational authorities to admit only children from wealthy families to gymnasiums and pre-gymnasiums. By the way, on November 23, 1888, on the day of the half-century anniversary of his service, Delyanov was elevated to the rank of count.

The circular was an attempt to change the social composition of gymnasiums and transform them into semi-privileged educational institutions. But the consequences of the publication of the circular were not as clear-cut as it seemed at first glance. It's about, first of all, about accelerating the reform of vocational education. Until 1888, instead of real gymnasiums, real schools with a 6-7-year period of study, created in 1872, gave the right to enroll only in technical, industrial and trade higher education institutions. And in 1888, real schools were transformed into general education institutions, which gave the right to enter the physics, mathematics and medical faculties of universities. Along with the expansion of the network of technical, vocational and industrial schools, a whole series of legalizations followed in this area: on industrial schools (1888), on the organization of vocational schools (1891) and their curriculum and programs (1890), plans for chemical-technical schools (1891) and vocational schools with carpentry and plumbing departments (1891). Women's education developed at a rapid pace: if in 1882 there were 51,367 students studying in secondary women's educational institutions, then by 1895 the number of students increased to 71,781 people. Constantly growing government spending for the maintenance of women's gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums. The Ministry of Public Education during the reign of Alexander III tried to regulate and inner life women's educational institutions.

Amazingly, the circular, canceled 13 years after its publication, is still remembered. Although statistics show that in 1894 the number of students at the gymnasium level was 224.1 thousand people or 1.9 students per 1 thousand inhabitants of the empire. By 1897, among students in gymnasiums and secondary schools, the share of hereditary nobles was only 25.6%, and among students - 22.8% and continued to decline.

July 2nd, 2013 , 04:40 pm

A strange anniversary that makes you think about historical parallels. These days, on July 1, 1887, the so-called Delyanov’s circular “On cooks’ children” was published in Russia, which limited admission to secondary educational institutions.

Report “On the reduction of gymnasium education” (“Circular about cook’s children”) by the then Minister of Education Russian Empire Count I.D. Delyanov was introduced monetary qualification for higher education. The document decreed that from now on, “gymnasiums and pre-gymnasiums are exempt from enrolling children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like, whose children, with the exception of those gifted with genius abilities, should not at all strive for secondary and higher education.” . (Does this remind you of anything?)

The report was based on:

1) Views of Alexander III. Alexander III wrote a response to the testimony of a peasant woman that her son wanted to study at the gymnasium - “This is terrible, man, but he’s also trying to go to the gymnasium!”

2) K.P. Pobedonostsev’s opinion on the need to “cool down” Russian society by limiting the movement from the “ignoble” layers of the population to commoners and students, the main driving force of the revolutionary upsurge of previous years.

The provisions of the circular began to be strictly applied. Representatives of the lower strata of society were expelled from gymnasiums, including those whose parents were able to pay for their children’s education. In particular, Nikolai Korneychukov (K. Chukovsky) was expelled from the Odessa gymnasium.

In all likelihood, the current government turns to the experience of Alexander III and also seeks to limit the universal literacy of the population. It is impossible to interpret the education reforms currently underway in any other way. Of course, no one will be expelled. Simply introduced on the sly, fee-based education and trashy TV will, in a couple of generations, lead to the natural washing away of “excessive literacy” and the formation of that same marginal class of laundresses, coachmen and small shopkeepers, which will cease to be the “mainstream” driving force revolutionary upsurge" and thus disturb our government.

Verbal counting. At the public school of S. A. Rachinsky. 1895. N. P. Bogdanov-Belsky. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

« Circular about cook's children “The entire progressive public of the Russian Empire was indignant. But it was not this outrage that led to the revolution.

And some pitfalls lurking in the harmless undertaking of Alexander III.

130 years ago, on July 1, 1887, a circular appeared in the Ministry of Education of the Russian Empire entitled: “On the reduction of gymnasium education.” The document was secret, so to speak, for official, internal use. It did not have the status of a law or even a decree. Nevertheless, great importance is attached to this modest paper. To make it clear why this happened, we will have to remember the name under which it established itself in history. " Circular about cook's children».

One often hears that it was this document that was one of the reasons for the greatly increased public discontent, which subsequently led to an explosion of revolutionary sentiment. In particular, this fragment caused outrage:

“It is necessary to explain to the authorities of gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums that they admit to these educational institutions only such children who are in the care of persons who provide sufficient guarantee of proper home supervision over them. Thus, with strict observance of this rule, gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums will be freed from the enrollment of children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like, whose children, with the exception of those gifted with genius abilities, should not at all strive for secondary and higher education. education".

"We need professionals"

You can see that we are not talking specifically about “cook’s children” here. However, one can also see what would now be called discrimination on social grounds. It turned out that if you were born in poor family some sweeper, not only will they not take you to study at the gymnasium, but you shouldn’t even think about it, and you shouldn’t strive.

Now, with the passage of time, they are retroactively trying to justify the appearance of this circular on completely objective grounds. They say that the industrial development of the state was slowly beginning, for which the overproduction of graduates of classical gymnasiums with their Greek, Latin and general humanitarian bias was not really necessary. More likely, even harmful. But on the contrary, it is necessary more people with a strong secondary vocational education.

And indeed, in parallel with the circular about the “cook’s children” there appears whole line regulatory documents that seem to show: yes, the government is working in this direction. Already in 1888, industrial schools, vocational schools, chemical-technical schools, and even separate schools at vocational schools with plumbing and carpentry departments were successively established.

Moreover, in 1888, a multi-stage reform was completed, which finally provided the Russian Empire with secondary technical educational institutions. It was a long and tedious journey, almost half a century. In 1839, the first “real classes for temporary teaching of technical sciences” appeared.

In 1864 the classes became real gymnasiums. In 1872 - real schools. And now, a year after the circular about the “cook’s children,” real schools became full-fledged educational institutions: their graduates received the right to enter the university. True, only to the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics or Medicine.

It would seem that this is a real breakthrough. Let the “cook’s children” not be able to enter the gymnasium. There are also other establishments. There is a choice, after all. Go where you want. You will learn yourself, and the state will benefit.

Management crisis

However, in reality there was no breakthrough. And these steps did not bring any truly serious benefit to the state.

Contemporary and witness of these reforms, historian Vasily Klyuchevsky, gave a well-formulated commentary on education policy:

« In Russia there are no average talents, simple masters, but there are lonely geniuses and millions of worthless people. Geniuses can do nothing because they have no apprentices, and nothing can be done with millions because they have no masters. The first are useless because there are too few of them, the second are helpless because there are too many of them.».

Golden words, and spoken on time. Moreover, it seems that the government listened to them and launched a whole network of real schools precisely in order to provide “masters”. It should have turned out beautiful. There are “geniuses”, there are “performers”, so we give them “masters” and expect the system to work.

But for some reason it works every other time, and even then with slipping. Why, if there are both qualified specialists of the highest and middle levels, and cheap labor? The fact is that it was precisely then that the country was struck by the first crisis of industrialization. There is a categorical shortage of managers. They had to be taken from somewhere, and in fairly large quantities.

But at this time a circular about “cook’s children” arrived, which was intended to reduce wide access specifically to humanitarian gymnasium education. Just in the area that could provide managers of a wide profile. Not technicians or craftsmen, but specialists who know how to work with people. So this is not just a matter of popular outrage or discrimination.

It’s just that thirteen years of validity of this circular turned out to be quite enough to ensure that the shortage of literate management personnel grew to appreciable size. The Empire was clearly losing control of its parts.

And, in the end, this led to the thesis Lenin: « We demand an immediate break with the prejudice that running a state, carrying out everyday work, daily work only the rich or officials taken from rich families are able to govern».

With just one amendment. This was demanded not so much by the Bolsheviks as by life itself.

LOOK:

« Last call» Episode 1.

Film by Konstantin Semin and Evgeny Spitsyn about education

The first episode of the film "Last Call" is dedicated to the situation that has developed in the strategic region of Russia - Arkhangelsk region(nuclear submarines are assembled here and rockets are launched into space).
Why did they stop giving students the usual “A’s” and “B’s” in one of the remote schools? What do teachers and parents think about this? Under whose cover is the experiment on children taking place? What, according to regional authorities, should a modern person be like?

“Russia should be ashamed of this” (Time-forward! #250)

“Russia owes this, Russia owes that, Russia should be ashamed.” Tired of it. New release Our program once again proves, based on the facts of the past week, that we are a self-sufficient state that is not indebted to the world. At the same time, we present new section“Debriefing”, in which we respond to the most pointed comments from viewers.

What kind of collapse is our state being prepared for in the future and whether it will take place depends on each of us?

Refrain “from enrolling in them the children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and similar people, whose children, with the exception of those gifted with extraordinary abilities, should not be taken out of the environment to which they belong.”

The circular was based on the views of Alexander III (Alexander wrote a response to the testimony of the peasant woman M.A. Ananina that her son wants to study at the gymnasium - “This is terrible, man, but he’s also trying to go to the gymnasium!”) and K.P. Pobedonostsev about the need to “cool down” Russian society by limiting the movement from the “ignoble” layers of the population to commoners and students, the main driving force of the revolutionary upsurge of previous years. Representatives of the lower strata of society who managed to pay for their children’s education were expelled from the gymnasiums. In particular, Nikolai Korneychukov (K. Chukovsky) was expelled from the Odessa gymnasium.

Links

• Report of the Minister of Public Education I. Delyanov “On the reduction of gymnasium education”

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “About the cook’s children” is in other dictionaries:

- “Circular about cook’s children” was published on July 1, 1887 by the Minister of Education of the Russian Empire, Count I.D. Delyanov, and ordered that when admitting to gymnasiums, refrain from “enrolling children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers... ... Wikipedia

The original source of the infamous circular (1887) Russian minister enlightenment of Ivan Davidovich Delyanov (1818 1897). This circular, approved by Emperor Alexander III and received in society the ironic name “about ... ... Dictionary of popular words and expressions

Ivan Delyanov- Count Ivan Davidovich Delyanov (in Russian Ivan Davydovich Delyanov) (December 12,1818 ndash; January 10,1898) was a Russian statesman of Armenian descent. Delyanov graduated from Moscow State University s Law School in 1838. In 1857 ndash; 1897, he... Wikipedia

- (Peacemaker) (02/26/1845 10/20/1894), Russian Emperor(crowned on May 15, 1883, the delay was caused by mourning for his murdered father). Contrary to the liberal myth about his ignorance, he received an excellent humanitarian and military education from outstanding teachers I ... Russian history

- (1818 1897/1898), count (from 1888), statesman, honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1859). Director of the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg(1861 1882). Since 1882, Minister of Public Education. He pursued a policy of counter-reforms: ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

- (February 26 (March 10) 1845, St. Petersburg October 20 (November 1) 1894, Livadia, Crimea), Russian emperor (from March 1, 1881) from the Romanov dynasty (see ROMANOVS), second son of Alexander II Nikolaevich. In the first half of the 1880s Alexander III… … encyclopedic Dictionary

Wikipedia has articles about other people named Alexander III. Alexander III Alexandrovich ... Wikipedia

Years 1883 · 1884 · 1885 · 1886 1887 1888 · 1889 · 1890 · 1891 Decades 1860s · 1870s 1880s 1890s · … Wikipedia

- ← July → Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 1 2 3 4 … Wikipedia

Ivan Davydovich Delyanov ... Wikipedia

One of the proofs of the onset of reaction during the reign of Emperor Alexander III is usually called the famous “circular about cooks’ children.” According to a common point of view, this circular contained recommendations to the directors of gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums to filter children when admitting them to educational institutions. The purpose of such recommendations was quite clear - to ensure a kind of segregation on social grounds, not allowing children from low-income segments of the population to attend gymnasiums and pre-gymnasiums.

But in reality, any official legislative or other normative act entitled “circular about cook’s children” simply did not exist. These recommendations were only set out in a report that on June 18, 1887, the Minister of Public Education of the Russian Empire, Ivan Davydovich Delyanov, presented to Emperor Alexander III.

The famous Russian statesman Ivan Davydovich Delyanov (1818-1897), who previously headed the Public Library, took the post of Minister of Public Education on March 16, 1882. The choice of the emperor was not accidental: Delyanov was considered a figure of a conservative orientation, so Count Dmitry Tolstoy, Konstantin Pobedonostsev and Mikhail Katkov lobbied for his appointment. At one time, when Count Dmitry Tolstoy held the post of Minister of Public Education, Ivan Delyanov was a comrade (deputy) of the Minister of Public Education, which led to the count’s patronage.

It is interesting that while Emperor Alexander II was in power, he carried out quite a liberal politics, If Delyanov could be called a person of conservative views, then he was very moderate in his conservatism. He didn't really stand out among the others. government officials, and when he was the head of the Public Library, he noted exclusively positive deeds in this post, taking care of comprehensive development institution entrusted to him. It was he who was the author of the extremely liberal charter of the library, which stated that “the library, having the purpose of serving science and society, is open to everyone.” This charter was rejected, by the way, at that time it was Count Dmitry Tolstoy, and liberal public at that time I highly appreciated this project.

Since after the assassination of Alexander II there was a clear conservative turn in the country, the sphere of public education was recognized as one of the most important in terms of combating revolutionary sentiments. The education system had to be monitored very carefully in order, firstly, to exclude the possibility of further radicalization of student youth, the spread among them revolutionary ideas, and secondly, to limit as much as possible access to education for the lower strata of the population. At the same time, if we talk specifically about the educational component, then during the reign of Alexander III it developed by no means poorly - for example, special attention was paid to improving technical education, since this was required by the tasks of developing industry, railway communication, navy.

Having become the Minister of Education, Delyanov quickly grasped the changed vector domestic policy and reoriented towards extreme conservatism. He reassigned elementary education The Holy Synod, under whose jurisdiction all parochial schools and junior literacy schools were transferred. As for higher educational institutions, in 1884 university autonomy was limited, professors began to be appointed, and students now took special state exams.

In 1886, Delyanov ordered the closure of the Higher Women's Courses. True, they were reopened in 1889, but the training program was significantly changed. In addition, Delyanov seriously limited the opportunities for persons of Jewish nationality to enter higher educational institutions of the empire by introducing percentage standards for their admission.

On May 23, 1887, Delyanov turned to the Emperor with a proposal to introduce a legislative ban on the admission to the gymnasium of children of most Russian classes except nobles, clergy and merchants. However, Alexander III, although he was a conservative man, was not deprived common sense and was not going to take such drastic measures. After all, such a law would make it impossible to obtain quality education children of bourgeois and peasants.

The adoption of such a law would be a serious blow to the country’s economy, since it demanded more and more qualified specialists in a variety of areas, and only the nobles, clergy and merchants were no longer able to provide these needs, and the children of the clergy and merchants usually followed in the footsteps of their parents, and the children of the nobles - into the military or public service.

The emperor understood this very well, but conservative leaders were not going to give up their position - they saw mass gymnasium education as a very serious danger to the existing system. Although nobles, including titled ones (for example, Prince Peter Kropotkin), often became revolutionaries, the main force of the revolutionary movement were students who came from the bourgeois and peasant environment.

During a meeting of the Ministers of Internal Affairs, State Property, the Administrator of the Ministry of Finance, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod of the Russian Empire and the Minister of Public Education, it was concluded that it was necessary to limit “vertical mobility” from the “non-noble” segments of the population by creating barriers to education for the burghers and peasants. Thus, Delyanov gained the support of Pobedonostsev and key ministers, which gave him even more confidence.

As a result of the meeting, a special report “On the reduction of gymnasium education” was presented to the emperor. It was in it that the so-called “cook’s children” were discussed, although this term was not used. Delyanov emphasized that, regardless of payment of tuition fees, it is necessary to recommend that the management of gymnasiums and pre-gymnasiums accept for education only those children who are in the care of persons who can guarantee proper home supervision of them.

The report emphasized:

Thus, with strict observance of this rule, gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums will be freed from the admission of children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like, whose children, with the exception of those gifted with genius abilities, should not at all strive for secondary and higher education. education.

These words of Delyanov subsequently gave rise to the dissatisfied public calling the report “a circular about cooks’ children.” Why the cooks, laundresses and small shopkeepers did not please Delyanov, and why their children were less trustworthy than the children of peasants or industrial workers, one can only guess. For some reason, it was precisely the listed professions, whose representatives, by the way, did not play any significant role in the revolutionary movement, that were chosen by the Minister of Public Education as the personification of social troubles and political unreliability.

Minister Delyanov asked for the final approval of this recommendation by the Emperor himself, explaining that this would allow the Committee of Ministers to come up with the idea of ​​limiting the admission of Jewish children to a certain percentage in secondary schools and gymnasiums, to whom a measure could be applied to prevent Jewish children from entering gymnasiums and secondary schools. lower classes.

But, strangely enough, Minister Delyanov’s report did not lead to any real consequences for Russian gymnasium education. Firstly, education in gymnasiums was paid. Accordingly, in any case, only those parents who were able to pay for tuition could send their children to gymnasiums. Among the representatives of the listed professions there were practically no such people.

Secondly, Delyanov’s report emphasized the possibility of granting the right to study in a gymnasium to gifted children of the listed professions. By the way, gifted children, already under a limited quota, could be accepted to study at a gymnasium at public expense. That is, the empire still did not disown their training, although it is clear that it was very, very difficult to prove their talent.

The only measure that could really limit the opportunities for people from the lower strata to enter a gymnasium was the closure of preparatory classes at gymnasiums. Since representatives of the non-noble classes could not independently prepare their children to enter the gymnasium, for obvious reasons, the closure of preparatory classes was indeed a serious blow.

Nevertheless, the “circular about cook’s children” caused an extreme storm of indignation in Russian society. Revolutionary and liberal circles were especially outraged. This was understandable - Minister Delyanov used a tone in his report that would have been appropriate in the 18th century, but not in the late XIX century, when the whole world had already changed, and it was very short-sighted to engage in open discrimination against one’s own subjects on social grounds.

However, the text of the report was sent to all school district trustees. After this, most preparatory classes at gymnasiums were abolished in the Russian Empire. In addition, there were cases of expulsion from gymnasiums of children from “non-noble” classes. Naturally, this policy received comprehensive coverage in the revolutionary and liberal press, which had the opportunity to once again brand the reactionary component political course Alexandra III.

Summarizing the educational policy of the Russian Empire during the “period of reaction”, it should be noted that it was extremely short-sighted. Ruling circles The empires were convinced that public education was one of the main threats to the existing order. Education for the general population was associated with the “decomposition” of the population; it was believed that education was supposedly “harmful” for workers and peasants. It did not take into account that almost all key figures Russian revolutionary movement came either from the nobility, or from the clergy, or from the merchant class, and the commoners only followed them and accepted the ideas they popularized.

The direct consequences of restrictions on education include, for example, the radicalization of the Jewish population. Jewish youth from wealthy families, for the most part, traveled to receive higher education to countries Western Europe, where they practically existed at that time unlimited possibilities to get acquainted with new revolutionary ideas. Young students and university graduates returned to Russia not only with higher education, but also with “full baggage” in the form of revolutionary ideas and personal connections established with Western revolutionaries. Meanwhile, maybe this would not have happened if they had received an education in the Russian Empire.

Restrictions on education for people of different ethnic and social groups directly harmed and economic development countries. Instead of creating comprehensive conditions for increasing the literacy of the population, obtaining secondary and higher education, especially in popular technical specialties, the government artificially preserved outdated social orders, prevented vertical social mobility, and sought to keep peasants and townspeople in a degraded social position and prevent them promotion to some significant positions. It is clear that ruling elite feared for her position, sought to preserve the maximum of her privileges, while not possessing political foresight and the ability to predict further developments. Thirty years later, she has lost everything.

As a result, Russia has a technological lag and a shortage of qualified personnel against the backdrop of an oversupply of unskilled and illiterate workers. work force, reproduced among the peasants. The logical result of such a policy of extreme social polarization and discrimination was the three revolutions of the early twentieth century, the second of which destroyed the autocracy, and the third became Starting point to a colossal and unprecedented socio-political experiment - the creation of the Soviet state.