User:DSverdlov/sandbox

Education after perestroika
In the prevalent 70 years of Perestroika, Russian individuals were categorized by scientific and cultural approaches. It was believed that the thought process of a person was strictly designated toward one particular social class. In reality, there were two different classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. This categorization system did not affect everyone, of course, but the general population belonged to one set of minds aside from others.

This approach was used due to its simplicity and ease of enforcement. The task of differentiating a friend from a foe was a remarkably easy thing to do, only in accordance to the “touchstone of class affiliation”. The only way to take out this battle between the two minds sets, was the liquidation of the opposing power – hidden undertones of the term liquidation were exile, confinement in a labour camp or physical extermination were the. According to Stalin, peasants at the time have been liquidated.

At the same time, civilians of Russia didn’t just see deaths as just the physical take on, they saw it as a death of an idea or a new ideology. This destruction of ideas lead to the belief that achievements, artworks or unpublished writings were all intellectual significances that were simply deleted from the face of the earth. This death penalty was a result of refusal to conform to the stated ideal of proletarian culture, science, painting and education along with many other factors. This resulted in an overload of ideologies by the end of the 1920’s in the areas of science and education in the Soviet educational system. Russian individuals came up with rather new ideologies: “Everything that was progressive, was considered to be a proletariat way of thinking, and everything “reactionary” were deemed as capitalist ideas and were in need of re-instatement, or even worse, deletion.” At the time, there was no such idea that belonged to the general human value that rose above class boundaries. It was as simple as a community being “our people” or “our enemies”; same goes for individuals.

Before teachers were trained for the job, they were taught the history of ideas from both “progressive” and “reactionary” thinker’s points of view. The information that was learned by these teachers was believed to be the “most progressive” and “scientifically based”. But of course there is also a less successful side to this type of educational teaching: a turn on the situation occurred with the introduction of computers. By this time, any ideas that were present during the perestroika were shaved down. That lead to the beginning of self- criticism of Soviet education by educationalists, which further lead to newspaper articles and journals describing: “never had there been a worse thing than Soviet education.”

Perestroika and Glasnost
On the 27th of January, 1987, a meeting of the central committee members occurs. The CPSU have Gorbachev to present his criticism that justifies his policies of perestroika and glasnost being the only solutions to the Soviet Union.

Over Gorbachev’s time spent in power of the Soviet Union, perestroika and glasnost were his two more important elements that make up his leadership goals. Economic, social and political aspects of the Soviet Union have been partly implemented due to these two elements which heighten his seriousness of pushing toward his current objective. Also, Gorbachev’s vigorous campaign for perestroika and glasnost motivated him to move from Moscow to Vladivostok in order to propose his revolutionary changes in the Soviet society.

One of the final important measures taken on the continuation of the movement, was a report that was at the central committee meeting of the CPSU titled: “On Reorganization and the Party’s Personnel Policy”. This report was in such high demand in Prague and Berlin, that many people could not get a copy, as well as a sudden demand for Russian dictionaries in order to understand the content of Gorbachev’s report.

Why the Perestroika failed.
When terms come down to finding a reason for the failure the perestroika, it can easily be re-stated as a concern of why socialism failed – in accordance to the book Why Socialism Failed by Peter J. Boettke, a book titled properly due to its content. The overall synopsis of the book are the multiple latitudes of economic theories fired up by Gorbachev. Most of the cited works that went toward the writing of the book were the thoughts and ideas of principle Soviet architects of economic reform. Some of these architects include Leonid Abalkin, Abel Aganbegyan, Stanislav Shatalin and Grigory Yavlinsky.

It is believed that Gorbachev’s attempt at “renewing socialism”, were “doomed not only by tactical error but fundamental contradictions”, stated by Boettke himself – a favourite Marxist notion. But the framework of the actions that were executed prove that they were not only effective, but persuasive and appealing at the same time. These actions that could possibly make perestroika an event that economically and socially, brings the Soviet Union back to its former glory.

Gorbachev’s attempt to reform the economy based on the New Economic Policy of Lenin, an older central technique of central planning was one of the first flaws to the re-gaining of status. Another important factor were the markets, as they did not focus on the ideals of Gorbachev’s economic theories, rather, their emphasis was toward the reality of communism. Even during the central committee plenary meeting in the late 1980s, crucial questions regarding the details of the reform plan of the movement were discussed. Even at the time, Gorbachev’s economic theories were suffering from a downfall in strategy.

But at the same time, the Soviet Union economic failure as an overstatement isn’t something that is being overstated rarely. The most accurate reasoning leading the economic collapse of the Soviet Union’s was due to the “halting steps of perestroika”. Some of the results of an economic collapse were the long lines in combination with empty shops, industrial breakdown becoming active as the result of strikes and protests, and most importantly – the power of picking and choosing suppliers and customers was given to the managers. Gorbachev attempted at closing off and ending each one of these problems one after another, although it was argued that it was not at all possible. The Soviet Union at that point was easily comparable to what might nicely be described as “a well-developed third world country”, stated by Boettke. But it was also stated that the interesting differences between the two would be blurred out. For example comparisons in the Soviet military and KGB could not at all be compared, seeing as third-world countries would not be able to support such institutions: their economy would just not rise to the task. Health was also a factor that could not be sustained very well in third-world countries, while the Soviet Union was at very close ties with the U.S.A. in the late 1980’s.

An important point that could be made to counter many of Boettke’s arguments is “if Gorbachev’s economic ideologies were doomed from the start, how come they didn’t collapse as early as 1931, but instead as late as 1991?” It is well worth noting that this specific question was avoided and not addressed, the author did not have any strong argumentative points, which can lead to the assumption that the author did not entirely cover the topic.

The conclusion is that Boettke was not entirely correct or entirely wrong on his points regarding the failure of perestroika. But the fact remains, the Soviet Union was in peril during the Gorbachev era, and was in need of economic reconstruction to push toward any former glory that it has attained in the past before any collapses. "If it is understood that the ugliness that occurred was due to institutional failings, then institutions can be established to guard against it’s ever happening again,” Boettke writes.

Women's activism in Russia during Perestroika
Women were well armed with knowledge and abilities: there were women with the alphabet teaching the younger children how to read and write, there were women constructing both industrial plants and factories in their thirties, and of course, there were women defending the Soviet Motherland all across the front and rear of the country during the occurrence of Perestroika. Women’s activism played a key part in the success of stabilizing the speed at which Perestroika took its toll on the country. Previously named positions were only few of their active roles of contribution.

To women, their equality was granted as early as 1918. In the later years, organizations focused on the implementation of women into public life. They were allowed to teach, work and even arrange boarding schools and orphan homes for abandoned children. But unfortunately, at the turn of the century, these deemed necessary and fair integrations were never acted upon and never re-established. In the following years, the Soviet Women’s Committee was established and had successfully broadened their network across the country. This committee brought their focus upon the assistance of employment and gain in professionalism with the community of women and battle against fascism in the Soviet Union. During the first years of perestroika, the women’s councils were granted independence and cast varying levels of political significance. Unfortunately, not all of the women’s councils survived the post – perestroika years, but others managed to pull thought, independently leading themselves forward – which signifies the success of the council.

During the time of perestroika, women were given the ability to voice the concerns and difficulties of what they are currently facing with gender inequality. The activism of women may be broken down into two general sections: one of which were during perestroika (1985 – 1891) and the other being post – perestroika: 1991-1993. During the first section of activism, the number or councils expanded in numbers so quickly, that by the end of the event, there were a total of 300 registers women’s organizations in Russia. Till this day, five of these organizations have international status, two of them have a national status and as many as fourteen have a republican status.

All of these organizations around the country focused on very similar functions, but emphasized on the general equalization of rights between women and men. Throughout these different councils, a vast amount of activities were established to enhance the amount and types of information a woman can learn in the Soviet Union. For example, the activities ranged from economic focus like providing services, running small businesses and training to more general employment jobs that may be sustained: like political lobbying and raising women’s advocacy. It is important to note that some female political leaders like Larisa Bogoraz, Valeria Novodvorskaya and Elena Bonner all established their power with the assistance of these organizations.