education in russia ancient rus was one of the early

Ancient Russian History: A Fascinating Journey into the Past

Ancient russian history.

Russia, a land of vast landscapes and rich cultural heritage, holds a fascinating history that stretches back thousands of years. Unveiling the ancient Russian history is like embarking on a captivating journey into the past, where one can explore the origins, civilization, rulers, artifacts, mysteries, daily life, economy, religion, warfare, and the eventual decline and transformation of this remarkable civilization. Through archaeological discoveries and historical records, we can piece together the puzzle of ancient Russia and understand its profound impact on modern society.

The Origins: Tracing Russia’s Ancient Beginnings

Tracing Russia’s ancient beginnings takes us back to the Paleolithic era when nomadic tribes first inhabited the vast territories. These tribes, such as the Finno-Ugric and Slavic groups, laid the foundations for the future civilization of Russia. As these tribes settled and established agricultural communities, the roots of ancient Russian culture began to take shape.

Russia, the largest country in the world, is not just known for its vast landscapes and rich culture, but also for its ancient roots that stretch back thousands of years. Unveiling Russia’s historical origins is like embarking on a captivating journey, taking us deep into the past and shedding light on the diverse civilizations that have shaped the country’s identity. In this article, we will explore the fascinating history of Russia under two main headings: Russia’s Ancient Heritage and Tracing Russia’s Roots.

Russia’s ancient heritage is a tapestry woven with threads from various civilizations that have flourished in the region. The earliest evidence of human habitation in what is now Russia dates back to the Paleolithic era, around 30,000 years ago. Ancient tribes such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Slavs left their mark on the land, each contributing to the cultural mosaic that forms present-day Russia.

One of the most influential ancient civilizations in Russia was the Kievan Rus, which emerged in the 9th century. The Kievan Rus, a federation of East Slavic tribes, established its capital in Kiev and played a crucial role in the development of the Russian state. They adopted Christianity from Byzantium, laying the foundation for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which remains a prominent religion in Russia today. The Kievan Rus also established trade routes that connected the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, contributing to the economic growth and cultural exchange in the region.

The Mongol invasion in the 13th century, led by Genghis Khan and later his successors, left a lasting impact on Russia. The Mongols, known as the Golden Horde, ruled over Russia for nearly two and a half centuries. During this time, they brought with them new technologies, cultural practices, and even a system of governance. While the Mongols’ influence was significant, it also sparked a sense of nationalism among the Russian people and eventually contributed to the overthrow of Mongol rule, leading to the formation of the Russian Empire.

Tracing Russia’s roots takes us beyond the timeline of recorded history, into the realm of myth and legend. According to ancient Russian chronicles, the Varangians, a group of Scandinavian warriors, were invited by Slavic tribes to rule over them in the 9th century. This legendary event, known as the “Rurik Dynasty,” is often considered the origin of Russian statehood. The Varangians, later known as Rus, established the principality of Novgorod, further solidifying the foundation of Kievan Rus.

The exploration of Russia’s roots also uncovers the influence of Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire, with its rich culture and advanced civilization, served as a source of inspiration for Russia in various aspects. Byzantine art, architecture, and religious practices shaped the development of Russian culture, particularly in the Orthodox Church. Icons, frescoes, and onion-domed churches are some of the enduring legacies of Byzantine influence in Russia.

As Russia expanded its territory, other civilizations left their imprint on the country. The reign of Peter the Great in the 18th century saw a deliberate westernization of Russia, with a focus on adopting European customs, fashion, and technology . This period marked a turning point in Russia’s history, leading to its transformation into a major European power.

Unveiling Russia’s ancient roots is a captivating journey that reveals the diverse civilizations that have shaped the country’s identity. From the early tribes and the Kievan Rus to the Mongol rule and the influence of Byzantium, each chapter in Russia’s history contributes to its unique cultural tapestry. Tracing Russia’s roots not only allows us to understand the nation’s past but also provides insight into its present and future. As we delve deeper into Russia’s history, we gain a greater appreciation for its rich heritage and the contributions of its ancestors.

Early Russian Civilization: A Mosaic of Cultures

Ancient Russian civilization was a mosaic of diverse cultures and influences. As settlers mixed with neighboring tribes and absorbed their customs and traditions, a unique blend of Slavic, Norse, and Byzantine cultures emerged. This cultural fusion shaped the language, art, architecture, and social structures of ancient Russia.

Rulers of Ancient Russia: Dynastic Legacy Explored

The dynastic legacy of ancient Russia is a tale of power struggles, conquests, and cultural exchanges. From the legendary Rurik dynasty to the mighty reign of Ivan the Terrible, each ruler left their mark on the fabric of Russian history. Through their reigns, ancient Russia experienced both periods of expansion and consolidation, forever shaping the empire’s destiny.

Russia’s dynastic history is a captivating tale that spans centuries, leaving a lasting mark on the country’s culture, politics, and society. Through the rise and fall of various dynasties, Russia’s ancient rulers shaped the nation’s destiny, leaving behind a rich legacy that continues to influence the country to this day. In this article, we will delve into the depths of ancient Russia’s dynastic legacy, tracing the footsteps of these rulers through time and unveiling their immense contributions to Russian history.

The history of ancient Russian dynasties can be traced back to the medieval period, where the Rurik dynasty took root. Founded by the legendary Viking warrior Rurik, this dynasty went on to rule over Russia for more than seven centuries, until the Romanovs took over in the 17th century. The Rurik dynasty, with its rich heritage and glorious reigns, laid the foundations for the future of Russia, establishing the first centralized state and setting the stage for the rise of subsequent dynasties.

Following the decline of the Rurik dynasty, Russia witnessed the rise of the Romanovs, one of the most famous dynasties in Russian history. The Romanovs ascended to power in 1613 and ruled until the Russian Revolution in 1917. Under their reign, Russia experienced significant transformations, from territorial expansions to cultural and societal advancements. The Romanovs’ contributions shaped Russia into a major European power, leaving an indelible mark on the country’s art, literature, and architecture.

One cannot discuss ancient Russian dynasties without mentioning the House of Vladimir-Suzdal, which emerged in the 12th century. This dynasty played a crucial role in strengthening the political and territorial unity of Russia. Notably, it was during their reign that Moscow rose to prominence as the capital city, becoming the center of political, economic, and cultural life in the country.

Another noteworthy dynasty is the House of Jagiellon, which originated from Lithuania and ruled over parts of Russia in the 14th and 15th centuries. The Jagiellons brought significant influences from Western Europe, introducing new ideas, customs, and technologies to Russian society. Their reign marked a period of cultural exchange and integration, as the Jagiellons sought to bridge the gap between East and West.

The dynastic legacy of ancient Russia is a testament to the enduring power and influence of these ruling families over the course of centuries. From the Ruriks to the Romanovs and beyond, each dynasty played a pivotal role in shaping the course of Russian history. Their contributions, including the establishment of centralized rule, territorial expansion, and cultural advancements, continue to resonate in modern-day Russia. Exploring this dynastic legacy offers a glimpse into the rich tapestry of Russian heritage, reminding us of the profound impact these rulers had on the nation’s past and future.

Ancient Russian Artifacts: Chronicles of the Past

Ancient Russian artifacts offer a glimpse into the daily lives, beliefs, and artistic achievements of its people. From intricately crafted jewelry and pottery to elaborately decorated manuscripts and religious icons, these artifacts serve as timeless chronicles of the past. Each artifact tells a story, shedding light on the cultural, social, and religious practices of ancient Russia.

Russia, a country rich in history and culture, has been the site of countless archaeological discoveries that have shed light on its ancient past. From the vast Siberian plains to the bustling cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, archaeologists have unearthed a plethora of artifacts that provide a fascinating glimpse into the lives of ancient Russian civilizations. These artifacts not only help us understand the material culture of these societies but also offer insights into their social, religious, and economic practices. In this article, we will explore some of the most remarkable ancient Russian artifacts that have been discovered in recent years.

One of the most significant periods in Russian history is the Bronze Age, which lasted from around 2500 BCE to 700 BCE. During this time, early Russian tribes flourished, leaving behind a legacy of impressive artifacts. Among the most notable discoveries is the Shigir Idol, a 9,000-year-old wooden statue found in the Ural Mountains. Standing at 5.3 meters tall and adorned with intricate carvings, this artifact offers valuable insights into the early artistic expression and spiritual beliefs of the people who inhabited the region. Other remarkable Bronze Age finds include gold and bronze jewelry, weapons, and pottery, all of which showcase the advanced craftsmanship of these ancient cultures.

The medieval period in Russia witnessed the rise of powerful dynasties and the formation of new states. Archaeological excavations have unearthed stunning artifacts that shed light on this era. One such discovery is the Novgorod Birch Bark Letters, a collection of over a thousand letters written on thin birch bark and preserved in the moist soil of Novgorod. These letters provide a unique glimpse into the daily lives of ordinary people, their concerns, and even their love letters. Another notable find is the Suzdal Gold Cup, a masterpiece of medieval Russian goldsmithing. This intricately designed cup, adorned with precious stones and enamel, showcases the wealth and artistic brilliance of the time.

The Soviet era in Russia left an indelible mark on the country’s history. Recent archaeological excavations have uncovered fascinating artifacts that shed light on this turbulent period. One noteworthy discovery is the Gulag Archaeological Collection, a collection of items recovered from labor camp sites. These objects, including tools, personal belongings, and even handmade jewelry, offer a poignant glimpse into the lives of those who suffered under Soviet repression. Another significant find is the Soviet propaganda posters, which provide a visual representation of the ideology and political messages disseminated during that time.

Archaeological discoveries in Russia continue to unearth new insights into the country’s rich history and ancient civilizations. From the Bronze Age to the Soviet era, these artifacts provide a tangible connection to the past, enabling us to understand the complexities and nuances of Russian culture. As technology and research methods advance, we can only anticipate more remarkable discoveries that will further enhance our understanding of Russia’s fascinating past. By studying and preserving these ancient artifacts, we ensure that the legacy of these civilizations will endure for future generations.

Archaeological discoveries continue to unravel the mysteries of ancient Russia, shedding new light on its history. Excavations of burial sites, ancient settlements, and fortresses have uncovered valuable artifacts and provided insights into the daily lives and customs of the ancient Russians. These discoveries fuel our curiosity and deepen our understanding of this enigmatic civilization.

Daily Life in Ancient Russia: Insights into the Past

Daily life in ancient Russia revolved around agriculture, trade, and religious practices. The majority of the population were farmers, cultivating crops and raising livestock. Communities were tightly knit, and village gatherings and festivals played an essential role in social cohesion. Religion, particularly Slavic paganism, infused every aspect of daily life, with rituals and ceremonies held to appease gods and ensure harmony.

Trade and Commerce: Ancient Russian Economy Revealed

Trade and commerce were crucial components of the ancient Russian economy. Rivers such as the Volga and Dnieper served as vital trade routes, connecting the Baltic Sea with the Caspian Sea and the Byzantine Empire. The Varangians, Scandinavian traders, played a significant role in facilitating trade and cultural exchange. The abundance of resources in Russia, such as furs, honey, and precious metals, attracted merchants from far and wide.

Religion and Beliefs: Spiritual Life in Ancient Russia

Religion played a central role in the lives of ancient Russians. Slavic paganism, with its pantheon of gods and goddesses, shaped their spiritual beliefs. Ancient Russians worshipped nature deities, performed rituals, and sought guidance from priests known as volkhvs. The conversion to Christianity in the 10th century introduced a new religious paradigm, merging Byzantine influences with traditional Slavic customs.

Warfare and Conflict: Battles and Empires in Ancient Russia

Warfare and conflict were inherent to the history of ancient Russia. The region faced invasions from various nomadic tribes, including the Mongols, who established the mighty Mongol Empire in the 13th century. Russian principalities fiercely defended their lands, leading to significant battles such as the Battle of Kulikovo and the Time of Troubles. These conflicts shaped the borders and political landscape of ancient Russia.

Decline and Transformation: Transition of Ancient Russia

The decline and transformation of ancient Russia began with the Mongol domination, which lasted for centuries. However, as the Mongol Empire weakened, the Russian principalities started to regain their independence. The rise of the Moscow principality marked a turning point, leading to the formation of the Russian Empire under Ivan the Terrible. It was during this period that Russia transitioned from an ancient civilization to a modern nation.

Legacy of Ancient Russia: Impact on Modern Society

The legacy of ancient Russia continues to resonate in modern society. The Russian language, art, literature, and architecture all bear the imprints of this ancient civilization. The Orthodox Church, with its rich traditions and spiritual significance, remains a pillar of Russian society. Furthermore, the cultural diversity and resilience of ancient Russia have shaped the country’s identity and contributed to its global influence.

The ancient Russian history takes us on a captivating journey through time, where we discover the origins, civilization, rulers, artifacts, mysteries , daily life, economy, religion, warfare, and the transformation of this remarkable civilization. Through the exploration of its past, we gain valuable insights into the modern society we live in today. Ancient Russia’s profound legacy serves as a reminder of the enduring power of history and the importance of preserving and studying our shared human heritage.

History of Primary Education in Russia

• 1 Historical factors that shaped the Primary Education system of Russia
• 2.1 After reading this chapter, the learner will
• 3.1 Pre-socialist legacy
• 3.2 Socialist legacy / Post-World War I / The October Revolution of 1917
• 3.3 Post-Soviet period
• 4 Conclusion
• 5 Reference List
• 6 Review Questions

Historical factors that shaped the Primary Education system of Russia [ edit | edit source ]

• Created in Miro, an online whiteboard for visual collaboration.

Objective Overview of the Chapter [ edit | edit source ]

After reading this chapter, the learner will [ edit | edit source ].

• Know the history of primary education system of Russia and how it evolved throughout the years
• Be able to identify economic, social and political influences that shaped the current primary education of Russia
• Understand how centralization/decentralization has influenced primary education of Russia
• Understand different political agendas, reforms and views on primary education in Russia

Pre-socialist, socialist legacies and Post-Soviet period [ edit | edit source ]

Pre-socialist legacy [ edit | edit source ].

In the late 18th century, during the Russian Empire, education had become a state concern with several universities, an academy of science and secondary schools being established followed by the creation of the Ministry of Education back in 1802 (Silova & Eklof, 2013). The influence of the Orthodox church was also seen through seminaries which were founded by the church that played an important role in educating the prominent civil servants and revolutionists. The Russian educational system was at the turning point during the Great Reforms of the 1860s which was carried out as part of fundamental transformations under Czar Alexander II (1818-1881). Elementary education was declared open to all social class under The Statute on Elementary Public Schools of 1864. (Cherkasov, 2015). The Great Reforms have made the schooling possible for the newly liberated serfs and women were given better educational opportunities. However, in the late 19th century, the peasant class was still mainly uneducated (Rumyantseva et al., 2018).

In 1894, Nikolay II inherited the Russian Empire with the population of 120 million people, and the state of education was inspected by the Literacy Committee under his orders. Based on the results of the inspection, it was shown that the primary schools and literacy schools accounted for 60,592 with 2,970,066 students. (Cherkasov, 2015). All-Russian First Census Data (1905), also shows that only 21 percent of the population were able to write and count. (p. 139). Prior to World War I, there had been a rise of state emphasis on public schooling for the lower classes in hopes of achieving universal primary education by 1922 (Silova & Eklof, 2013). According to the public education system data in the late 19th century, by 1897, more than 3.3 million people studied in primary educational institutions. (Cherkasov, 2015). There was a great emphasis in youth’s upbringing to labor in pre-revolutionary textbooks. Academic year at primary schools usually started from 1 to 15 September with children in the age group of 8-11 attending the school. In 1903, the Ministry of Public Education published a report that shows an increase in the number of primary schools of different types up to 87,973 with the number of students studying up to 5,088,029 (Cherkasov, 2015). This achievement was not as significant as it seemed, in fact, the government’s efforts for public education was rather inadequate due to the fact that it coincided with the demographic explosion occurred at that time. Nevertheless, during the years of 1894-1917, the primary education in Russia made some positive progress.

Socialist legacy / Post-World War I / The October Revolution of 1917 [ edit | edit source ]

World War I led to the collapse of the Russian Empire and all the new countries, including Russia itself, started to build a strong foundation for educational infrastructure. Most policymakers highly supported the creation of a comprehensive primary education system. The Russian revolution of 1917 got rid of all the old systems of the Russian Empire and educational institutions of all types were nationalized. The responsibility for development and control of education were taken by the People’s Commissariat for Education. The statue on Unified Labor School was approved in 1918 that created the free, unified, labor compulsory school divided into two stages: primary school (ages 8-13) and the secondary school (ages 13-17) with the emphasis on polytechnic education and productive labor. (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.). New, secular and democratic, school system was implemented without uniforms, grades, textbooks, religious education or conventional disciplinary boundaries of the czarist school. (Silova & Eklof, 2013). “The collective” as the main agent of socialization was put into effect by rejecting teachers’ and parental authority. The Bolsheviks designed the schools in a way that it would eventually build socialism by indoctrinating communist ideology. The Russian educational system incorporated political and ideological indoctrination and the practice became an integral part of the system. (Froumin & Remorenko, 2020).

Toward the middle of 1920s, under Joseph Stalin’s rule, education system became highly centralized placing a great deal of emphasis on industrialization, collectivization of agriculture, and cultural revolution. The communist Party controlled all the levels of education, including primary education, by materializing the legal decisions in standard curricula, syllabi, and textbooks. The education system under Stalin’s rule was rather egalitarian and collectivist that rejected individual initiative or choice. (Silova & Eklof, 2013). However, it’s worth noting that delivering universal literacy was effectively implemented under Stalin’s reign. Another positive aspect of the Soviet educational system was associated with its attempts and efforts to achieve social equality and offer mass educational opportunities despite the issues of repression and corruption (Froumin & Remorenko, 2020).

Following the death of Stalin, the Communist Party headed by Nikita Khrushchev started de-Stalinization of the country which brought about radical changes in economic, political and social spheres of life. (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.). Major features that came with Khrushchev’s educational reforms were later eliminated after new figure Leonid Brezhnev rose to power in 1964. However, new changes initiated by the government under Brezhnev’s rule mainly concerned the secondary education and by the mid-1970s the transfer to universal secondary education was accomplished. As for primary school system, the propagation of Communist Ideology resumed through the Octobrist organization involving children aged 7-10. (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.). The qualitative increase under the new leadership did not compensate for the gap between the country's requirements and the educational system's capabilities. This education problem, which emerged in the 1980s, echoed broader trends in Soviet society. The long-standing Russian educational tradition and collected intellectual property have clashed with the Soviet bureaucratic administrative machine's ideological strain. The state's monopoly on education lacked initiative, diversity, and enthusiasm. It eventually curtailed society's intellectual capacity. The attempt at educational reform in 1984 did not only fail to resolve the situation but exacerbated it. School, which was largely used to indoctrinate children, was unconcerned about their uniqueness, national, and regional requirements.

Post-Soviet period [ edit | edit source ]

Since 1991, Russian education has undergone a post-Soviet transformation that must be viewed in the context of social, political, cultural, and economic change (Silova & Palandjian, 2018). The major concepts of the revolutionary reforms launched by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, ‘perestroika’ (restructuring) and ‘glasnost’ (openness), had a tremendous impact on the educational system (Silova & Eklof, 2013). The All-Union Educational Convention accepted democratization, pluralism, diversity, humanization, and continuity as the primary principles for its ongoing development in 1988. (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.). The new program began in 1990 and was carried out in Russia, which formed as an independent country following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The post-Soviet Russian educational changes were notable for a number of factors. The school had finally gained its independence and could now pursue democratic teaching methods. From the late 1980s through the early 1990s, novel ideas were rapidly developed and spontaneously implemented. Educators recognized the need to pay greater attention to each individual student, but they concluded that doing so in classrooms of twenty-five to thirty individuals was far too challenging. It became evident that the concept of humanization could only be achieved in tandem with significant societal changes. The fundamental objectives are outlined in the federal Education Law of 1992. (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.).

Conclusion [ edit | edit source ]

Because of the socioeconomic background, the changes were a lengthy and hard process. The need to make economic changes eclipsed the educational duties to some extent. The autonomy granted to educational institutions was not always handled wisely and resulted in unfavorable outcomes. Many instructors began generating low-quality courses, textbooks, and methodological materials because they lacked adequate professional training, psychology, and practical experience. These unfavorable inclinations prompted the creation of state standards. By 1999-2000, the situation had stabilized, and the educational system had undergone fundamental legislative and conceptual adjustments (Education Encyclopedia, n.d.).

Reference List [ edit | edit source ]

Cherkasov, A. (2015). All-Russian Primary Education (1894–1917): Developmental Milestones. Social Evolution & History , Vol. 10 No. 2, (pp. 138–149). ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House.

Education Encyclopedia, (n.d.). Russian Federation. History & Background.

Froumin, I., Remorenko, I. (2020). From the “Best-in-the World” Soviet School to a Modern Globally Competitive School System. In: Reimers, F. (eds), Audacious Education Purposes . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3_9

Rumyantseva, N., Matveenko, V., Tretiyakova, L., & Yurova, Y. (2018). State Reforms in the Field of Education in Russia (Late 18th-Early 19th Centuries). Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7 (1), 46-54. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i1.1440

Silova, I. & Eklof, B. (2013). Education in Eastern and Central Europe: Re-thinking post-socialism in the context of globalization. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic between the global and the local (4th edition) (pp. 379-402). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Silova, I., & Palandjian, G. (2018). Soviet empire, childhood, and education. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 31 , 147–171. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592.

Miro [Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration]. (2011). Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://miro.com

Review Questions [ edit | edit source ]

• How would you categorize the historical periods of Primary Education development of Russia?
• What are the main factors that influenced the Primary Education in Russia?
• Please explain, how centralization and decentralization of the Primary Education occured.
• What were the main educational reforms that shaped the Primary Education of Russia throughout the history?

• Book:History of Primary Education in Russia
• Shelf:Education
• Subject:Education
• Subject:Education/all books
• Subject:Social sciences/all books
• Subject:Books by subject/all books
• Book:Wikibooks Stacks/Books
• Shelf:Education/all books
• Department:Social sciences/all books

Navigation menu

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.1: Rurik and the Foundation of Rus’

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 72253

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objective

• Understand the key aspects of Rurik’s rise to power and the establishment of Kievan Rus’
• Rurik and his followers likely originated in Scandinavia and were related to Norse Vikings.
• The Primary Chronicle is one of the few written documents available that tells us how Rurik came to power.
• Local leaders most likely invited Rurik to establish order in the Ladoga region around 862, beginning a powerful legacy of Varangian leaders.
• The capital of Kievan Rus’ moved from Novgorod to Kiev after Rurik’s successor, Oleg, captured this southern city.

Primary Chronicle

A text written in the 12th century that relates a detailed history of Rurik’s rise to power.

Norse Vikings who established trade routes throughout Eurasia and eventually established a powerful dynasty in Russia.

Rurik Dynasty

The founders of Kievan Rus’ who stayed in power until 1598 and established the first incarnation of a unified Russia.

Rurik (also spelled Riurik) was a Varangian chieftain who arrived in the Ladoga region in modern-day Russia in 862. He built the Holmgard settlement near Novgorod in the 860s and founded the first significant dynasty in Russian history called the Rurik Dynasty. Rurik and his heirs also established a significant geographical and political formation known as Kievan Rus’, the first incarnation of modern Russia. The Rurik rulers continued to rule Russia into the 16th century and the mythology surrounding the man Rurik is often referred to as the official beginning of Russian history.

The identity of the mythic leader Rurik remains obscure and unknown. His original birthplace, family history, and titles are shrouded in mystery with very few historical clues. Some 19th-century scholars attempted to identify him as Rorik of Dorestad (a Viking-Age trading outpost situated in the northern part of modern-day Germany). However, no concrete evidence exists to confirm this particular origin story.

The debate also continues as to how Rurik came to control the Novgorod region. However, some clues are available from the P rimary Chronicle. This document is also known as The Tale of Bygone Yea rs and was compiled in Kiev around 1113 by the monk Nestor. It relates the history of Kievan Rus’ from 850 to 1110 with various updates and edits made throughout the 12th century by scholarly monks. It is difficult to untangle legend from fact, but this document provides the most promising clues regarding Rurik. The Primary Chronicle contends the Varangians were a Viking group, most likely from Sweden or northern Germany, who controlled trade routes across northern Russia and tied together various cultures across Eurasia.

The various tribal groups, including Chuds, Eastern Slavs, Merias, Veses, and Krivichs, along the northern trade routes near Novgorod often cooperated with the Varangian Rus’ leaders. But in the late 850s they rose up in rebellion, according to the P rimary Chronicle . However, soon after this rebellion, the local tribes near the Novgorod region began to experience internal disorder and conflict. These events prompted local tribal leaders to invite Rurik and his Varangian leaders back to the region in 862 to reinstate peace and order. This moment in history is known as the  Invitation of the Varangians  and is commonly regarded as the starting point of official Russian history.

Development of Kievan Rus’

According to legend, at the call of the local tribal leaders Rurik, along with his brothers Truvor and Sineus, founded the Holmgard settlement in Ladoga. This settlement is supposed to be at the site of modern-day Novgorod. However, newer archeological evidence suggests that Novgorod was not regularly settled until the 10th century, leading some to speculate that Holmgard refers to a smaller settlement just southeast of the city. The founding of Holmgard signaled a new era in Russian history and the three brothers became the famous founders of the first Rus’ ruling dynasty.

Rurik died in 879 and his successor, Oleg, continued the Varangian Rus’ expansion in 882 by taking the southern city of Kiev from the Khasars and establishing the medieval state of Kievan Rus’. The capital officially moved to Kiev at this point. With this shift in power, there were two distinct capitals in Kievan Rus’, the northern seat of Novgorod and the southern center in Kiev. In Kievan Rus’ tradition, the heir apparent would oversee the northern site of Novgorod while the ruling Rus’ king stayed in Kiev. Over the next 100 years local tribes consolidated and unified under the Rurik Dynasty, although local fractures and cultural differences continued to play a significant role in the attempt to maintain order under Varangian rule.

• Boundless World History. Authored by : Boundless. Located at : https://www.boundless.com/world-history/textbooks/boundless-world-history-textbook/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

History of Russia: Primary Documents

EuroDocs > History of Russia: Primary Documents

Chronological History of Russia

• Ancient Rus through 1440
• From Muscovy to Russia 1440-1584
• Russia 1584-1696
• Russia 1696-1796
• Russia 1796-1917
• Russian Revolution, Civil War and USSR 1917-1991                            
• Russia 1991 to the present                            

Other Sources for Russian History

• Russian Sources by Topic
• Russian Legal and Governmental Documents                            
• Russian Regional, Local and Family History Sources                            
• Other Collections Relevant to Russian History                            

EuroDocs Creator: Richard Hacken, European Studies Librarian, Harold B. Lee Library , Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA. Feel free to get in touch: Hacken @ byu.edu With special thanks to Natalya Georgiyeva for her help with this webpage.

Navigation menu

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with JSH?
• About Journal of Social History
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• Coming for the “Daily Feed”: Recruiting Nobles to Schools under Peter I
• “I wish to be in the Guards”: Nobles Voice their Preferences, 1730s–1740s
• Shaping the Choices: Social Links and Cultural Affinities
• < Previous

Nobility and Schooling in Russia, 1700s–1760s: Choices in a Social Context

Work on this article has been funded by the Basic Research Program at the National Research University—Higher School of Economics (HSE). I would like to thank Igor Khristophorov, Ekaterina Pravilova, Elena Minina, and the audiences at seminars at the HSE Moscow and St Petersburg campuses for their insightful comments on its earlier versions. Ernst A. Zitser and an anonymous reviewer at the JSH provided extremely helpful criticism of the final version of the paper. For excellent research assistance, I am grateful to Egor Nasedkin and Artur Mustafin, as well as Natalia Nemtseva, who also provided invaluable editorial support. Address correspondence to Igor Fedyukin, School of History, Higher School of Economics, Petrovka 12, Moscow, Russia.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Igor Fedyukin, Nobility and Schooling in Russia, 1700s–1760s: Choices in a Social Context, Journal of Social History , Volume 49, Issue 3, Spring 2016, Pages 558–584, https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shv055

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article explores the role of formal schooling in the social mobility and social reproduction of the elite in the early modern context of post-Petrine Russia. An analysis of career and educational choices made by Russian nobles in the 1730s–1740s and recorded in the registers of the Heraldry and petitions for enrolment into the Noble Land Cadet Corps demonstrate that the members of the post-Petrine elite had very clear preferences regarding their service trajectories. As the choices made by noble families were shaped by the specific combinations of resources and threats each of them faced, there emerged deep cleavages within the elite in terms of the attitudes towards schooling. While wealthier nobles tended to join state schools, especially the Cadet Corps, the poorest nobility overwhelmingly ignored educational requirements and service registration rules imposed by the government, avoiding schools and preferring instead to enlist directly into regiments as privates. Despite numerous attempts, the government failed to force these poorer nobles to follow the new rules for entering schools and state service, codified in 1736–1737, and had to regularly issue collective pardons to the offenders. While wealth was one crucial factor shaping the nobles' service trajectories, their social connections and cultural endowments were no less important in channelling their educational and career choices and pushing them to embrace or reject the post-Petrine educational regime. As a result, the early modern “Westernization” of the Russian elite emerges as a dynamic social process driven by the choices made by the nobles themselves.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1527-1897
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Education, literacy, and the Russian Revolution

All Russia was learning to read, and reading—politics, economics, history—because the people wanted to know. . . . In every city, in most towns, along the Front, each political faction had its newspaper—sometimes several. Hundreds of thousands of pamphlets were distributed by thousands of organisations, and poured into the armies, the villages, the factories, the streets. The thirst for education, so long thwarted, burst with the Revolution into a frenzy of expression. From Smolny Institute alone, the first six months, went out every day tons, car-loads, train-loads of literature, saturating the land. Russia absorbed reading matter like hot sand drinks water, insatiable. And it was not fables, falsified history, diluted religion, and the cheap fiction that corrupts—but social and economic theories, philosophy, the works of Tolstoy, Gogol, and Gorky. —John Reed,  Ten Days That Shook the World 1

THERE IS no greater school than a revolution. It is therefore not surprising that some of the most innovative, radical, and successful literacy campaigns are those that are born out of revolutions—when, on a mass scale, people fight for a better society. In revolutionary periods, ideas matter as never before, and literacy needs no motivation as it becomes a truly liberatory endeavor. Thus, from the trenches of the US Civil War and the Russian front to the battle lines of El Salvador, there are innumerable stories of soldiers teaching each other to read newspapers in the midst of war and famine. One of the most inspiring examples of the revolutionary transformation of literacy and education is the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Russian Revolution was a watershed historical moment. That workers and peasants were able to overthrow tsarism and create a new society based on workers’ power was an inspiration to millions of oppressed and exploited people around the world. At the time of the revolution, the vast majority of Russians were peasants toiling under the yoke of big landowners and eking out a meager existence. More than 60 percent of the population was illiterate. 2 At the same time, however, Russia was home to some of the largest and most advanced factories in the world, with a highly concentrated working class. By October 1917, the Bolshevik Party had won the support of the majority of workers and established political rule based on a system of soviets, or councils, of workers, peasants, and soldiers.

The revolution itself, occurring in two major stages in February and October, took place in conditions of extreme scarcity. In addition to the long-standing privation of Russia’s peasants, the First World War caused further food shortages and disease. No sooner had the revolution succeeded than the young Soviet government was forced to fight on two military fronts: a civil war against the old powers just overthrown, and a battle against some dozen countries that sent their troops to defeat the revolution. As the Bolsheviks had long argued, the longevity and success of the Russian revolution depended in large part on the spread of revolution to advanced capitalist countries, in particular to Germany. Despite five years of revolutionary upheaval in Germany, the revolution there failed. The young revolutionary society was thus left isolated and under attack.

Despite these conditions, however, the Russian Revolution led not only to a radical transformation of school itself but also of the way people conceived of learning and the relationship between cognition and language. Indeed, the early years of the Russian Revolution offer stunning examples of what education looked like in a society in which working-class people democratically made decisions and organized society in their own interest. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, education was massively overhauled with a tenfold increase in the expenditure on popular education. 3  Free and universal access to education was mandated for all children from the ages of three to sixteen years old, and the number of schools at least doubled within the first two years of the revolution. 4  Coeducation was immediately implemented as a means of combating sex discrimination, and for the first time schools were created for students with learning and other disabilities. 5

Developing mass literacy was seen as crucial to the success of the revolution. Lenin argued: “As long as there is such a thing in the country as illiteracy it is hard to talk about political education.” 6  As a result, and despite the grim conditions, literacy campaigns were launched nationally among toddlers, soldiers, adolescents, workers, and peasants. The same was true of universal education. The Bolsheviks understood that the guarantee of free, public education was essential both to the education of a new generation of workers who would be prepared to run society in their own interests and as a means of freeing women from the drudgery of housework. Thus, there were attempts to provide universal crèches and preschools.

None of these initiatives was easy to accomplish given the economic conditions surrounding the young revolution. Victor Serge, a journalist and anarchist who later joined the Russian Communist Party, describes the staggering odds facing educators and miserable conditions that existed in the wake of the civil war: “Hungry children in rags would gather in winter-time around a small stove planted in the middle of the classroom, whose furniture often went for fuel to give some tiny relief from the freezing cold; they had one pencil between four of them and their schoolmistress was hungry.” 7  One historian describes the level of scarcity: “In 1920 Narkompros [the People’s Commissariat for Education] received the following six-month allotment: one pencil per sixty pupils; one pen per twenty-two pupils; one notebook for every two pupils…. One village found a supply of wrappers for caramel candies and expropriated them for writing paper for the local school.” 8  The situation was so dire that “in 1921, the literacy Cheka prepared a brochure for short-term literacy courses including a chapter entitled ‘How to get by without paper, pencils, or pens.’” 9  Nonetheless, as Serge explains, “in spite of this grotesque misery, a prodigious impulse was given to public education. Such a thirst for knowledge sprang up all over the country that new schools, adult courses, universities and Workers’ Faculties were formed everywhere.” 10

Historian Lisa Kirschenbaum describes the incredible gap between the conditions imposed by famine and what kindergartens were able to accomplish. On the one hand, these schools had to provide food each day for students and teachers in the midst of a famine simply to prevent starvation. And yet, as Kirschenbaum writes, “even with these constraints, local administrations managed to set up some institutions. In 1918, Moscow guberniia [province] led the way with twenty-three kindergartens, eight day cares (ochagi) and thirteen summer playgrounds. A year later it boasted a total of 279 institutions…. Petrograd had no preschool department in 1918, but a year later it reported 106 institutions in the city and 180 in the guberniia outside the city. Other areas reported slower, but still remarkable, increases.” 11

Within these preschools, teachers experimented with radical pedagogy, particularly the notion of “free upbringing,” as “teachers insisted that freedom in the classroom was part and parcel of the Revolution’s transformation of social life.” 12  Kirschenbaum elaborates: “By allowing, as one teacher expressed it, the ‘free development of [children’s] inherent capabilities and developing independence, creative initiative, and social feeling,’ svobodnoe vospitanie [free upbringing] played a ‘very important role in the construction of a new life.’” 13

A central aspect of expanding literacy in revolutionary Russia was deciding in which language, or languages, literacy should be developed. Before the revolution, tsarist colonialism had forged a multinational empire in which ethnic Russians comprised only 43 percent of the population. A central political question for the Bolsheviks—the majority of whom were Russian—was how to combat the legacy of Russian chauvinism while also winning non-Russian nationalities to the project of the revolution. A full discussion of this history is beyond the scope of this chapter. 14  But it is important to underscore how progressive Bolshevik politics were with respect to native language education.

Already in October 1918, the general policy was established to provide for native language education in any school where twenty-five or more pupils in each age group spoke the same language. Implementing the policy depended on a number of factors. For example, within Russia proper, where some national minorities such as Ukrainians and Byelorussians were already assimilated, few native-language programs were set up. Within Ukraine itself, however, the extent of native-language education was reflected in the rapid demand for Ukrainian language teachers and Ukrainian-language textbooks in the years following the revolution.

Nativizing language and literacy education for populations in the Caucasus and Central Asian regions of the old empire was a more complicated task. In part, the difficulty stemmed from efforts under tsarism to use differences in dialect to divide native peoples in these regions. In addition, in some cases the languages most widely spoken had not yet developed a writing system. Thus, part of nativizing education meant deciding which language should be used in school, and which system (for example, Cyrillic, Roman, or Arabic script, or something different altogether) should be used to write it. Despite these practical challenges, native language education became the rule rather than the exception. Again, a key indication is the number of languages in which textbooks were published, which grew from twenty-five in 1924 to thirty-four in 1925 to forty-four in 1927. As British socialist Dave Crouch summarizes: “By 1927 native language education for national minorities outside their own republic or region was widespread, while in their own republic it was almost total.” 15

At the same time universities were opened up to workers as preliminary exams were abolished to allow them to attend lectures. The lectures themselves were free, art was made public, and the number of libraries was dramatically increased. There was an incredible hunger for learning in a society in which people were making democratic decisions about their lives and their society. One writer describes: “One course, for example, is attended by a thousand men in spite of the appalling cold of the lecture rooms. The hands of the science professors . . . are frostbitten from touching the icy metal of their instruments during demonstrations.” 16

A whole new educational system was created in which traditional education was thrown out and new, innovative techniques were implemented that emphasized self-activity, collectivism, and choice, and that drew on students’ prior experience, knowledge, and interaction with the real world. Anna-Louise Strong, an American journalist who traveled extensively in Russia after the revolution, wrote about her experiences and recounts a conversation with one teacher:

“We call it the Work School,” said a teacher to me. “We base all study on the child’s play and his relation to productive work. We begin with the life around him. How do the people in the village get their living? What do they produce? What tools do they use to produce it? Do they eat it all or exchange some of it? For what do they exchange it? What are horses and their use to man? What are pigs and what makes them fat? What are families and how do they support each other, and what is a village that organizes and cares for the families?” “This is interesting nature study and sociology,” I replied, “but how do you teach mathematics?” He looked at me in surprise. “By real problems about real situations,” he answered. “Can we use a textbook in which a lord has ten thousand rubles and puts five thousand out at interest and the children are asked what his profit is? The old mathematics is full of problems the children never see now, of situations and money values which no longer exist, of transactions which we do not wish to encourage. Also it was always purely formal, divorced from existence. We have simple problems in addition, to find out how many cows there are in the village, by adding the number in each family. Simple problems of division of food, to know how much the village can export. Problems of proportion,—if our village has three hundred families and the next has one thousand, how many red soldiers must each give to the army, how many delegates is each entitled to in the township soviet? The older children work out the food-tax for their families; that really begins to interest the parents in our schools.” 17

Within schools, student governments were set up—even at the elementary school level—in which elected student representatives worked with teachers and other school workers to run the schools. 18  In so doing, schools became places where students learned “collective action” and began to put the principles of the revolution in practice. As Strong described: “We have our self-governed school community, in which teachers, children and janitors all have equal voice. It decides everything, what shall be done with the school funds, what shall be planted in the school garden, what shall be taught. If the children decide against some necessary subject, it is the teacher’s job to show them through their play and life together that the subject is needed.” 19

She continues by describing a school for orphans and homeless children where basic needs such as food, clothing, and hygiene had to be met before any real learning could begin. Additionally, the students spoke more than a dozen different dialects, making the shared development of a common language one of the school’s first goals. But, as the writer describes, “those were famine conditions. Yet the children in this school, just learning to speak to each other, had their School Council for self-government which received a gift of chocolate I sent them, duly electing a representative to come and get it and furnishing her with proper papers of authorization. They divided the chocolate fairly.” 20

A more skeptical writer, William Chamberlin, a journalist with the Christian Science Monitor who passed on information to US intelligence, described a school in which students in the higher grades “receive tasks in each subject, requiring from a week to a month for completion. They are then left free to carry out these tasks as they see fit.” 21  He continued:

Visiting a school where this system was in operation I found the pupils at work in various classrooms, studying and writing out their problems in composition, algebra, and elemental chemistry. Sometimes the teacher was in the room, sometimes not, but the students were left almost entirely to their own resources. The teacher seemed to function largely in an advisory capacity, giving help only when asked. If the students preferred talk or games to study, the teacher usually overlooked it. Each student was free to choose the subject or subjects on which he would work on any particular day. This absence of external restriction is a very marked characteristic of the Soviet school. The maintenance of discipline is in the hands of organizations elected by the students themselves, and while one seldom witnesses actual rowdyism in the classroom, one is also unlikely to find the strict order that usually prevails in the schools of other countries. 22

Chamberlin questioned Lunacharsky, the commissar for education, about whether such a model provided sufficient education in basic skills such as grammar and spelling. Lunacharsky replied: “Frankly, we don’t attach so much importance to the formal school discipline of reading and writing and spelling as to the development of the child’s mind and personality. Once a pupil begins to think for himself he will master such tools of formal knowledge as he may need. And if he doesn’t learn to think for himself no amount of correctly added sums or correctly spelled words will do him much good.” 23  But, Chamberlin explained, it was hard to provide hard data on the success of the program, as “marks are proverbially an unreliable gauge of students’ ability; and Russia has no grading system.” 24  Examinations were also largely abolished, including those that had previously been necessary to gain entrance into institutions of higher education. Why? Because “it was believed that no one would willingly listen to lectures that were of no use to him.” 25

The revolution inspired a wide range of innovative thinkers in education and psychology. Lev Vygotsky, known as the “Mozart of psychology,” 26  created a legacy of influential work in child and adolescent psychology and cognition, despite being stymied and all but silenced under Stalinism. He began with a Marxist method and analyzed the way in which social relations are at the heart of children’s learning process. He wrote that he intended to develop a new scientific psychology not by quoting Marxist texts but rather “having learned the whole of Marx’s method” and applying it to the study of consciousness and culture, using psychology as his tool of investigation. 27

Vygotsky used this method to investigate the creation of “higher mental processes,” as opposed to more “natural” mental functions, which are biologically endowed. These higher mental processes are mediated by human-made psychological tools (for example, language), and include voluntary attention, active perception, and intentional memory. 28  He also traced the dialectical development and interaction of thought and language, which results in the internalization of language, verbalized thought, and conceptual thinking. 29  He argued that mental development is a sociohistorical process both for the human species and for individuals as they develop, becoming “humanized” from birth. Personality begins forming at birth in a dialectical manner, with the child an active agent in appropriating elements from her environment (not always consciously) in line with her internal psychological structure and unique individual social activity. For Vygotsky, education plays a decisive role in “not only the development of the individual’s potential, but in the expression and growth of the human culture from which man springs,” 30  and which is transmitted to succeeding generations.

Through applied research in interdisciplinary educational psychology, Vygotsky developed concepts such as the zone of proximal development, in which joint social activity and instruction “marches ahead of development and leads it; it must be aimed not so much at the ripe as the ripening functions.” 31  This view clashed with Piaget’s insistence on the necessity of passively waiting for a level of biological and developmental maturity prior to instruction. Vygotsky devoted himself to the education of mentally and physically handicapped children; he founded and directed the Institute for the Study of Handicapped Children, which focused on the social development of higher mental processes among children with disabilities. He also discovered characteristics of “preconceptual” forms of thinking associated with schizophrenia and other psychopathologies. 32

Vygotsky saw as the historical task of his time the creation of an integrated scientific psychology on a dialectical, material, historical foundation that would help the practical transformation of society. As he argued, “it is practice which poses the tasks and is the supreme judge of theory.” 33  Although this task was incomplete upon his death, and both his work and the revolution itself were derailed by Stalinism (his work was banned under Stalin for twenty years after his death), 34  he made great headway in this process, and laid a foundation for others who have been inspired to further elaborate upon and develop his ideas. 35

The immense poverty and scarcity of material resources after the Russian Revolution and the subsequent Stalinist counterrevolution distorted the revolutionary promise of education reform in the early years. Nonetheless, the Russian Revolution provides important examples of the possibilities for the creativity and radical reform that could be unleashed by revolutionary transformation of society at large—even amid the worst conditions.

While the adult literacy campaign’s accomplishments were thus limited, and much of the data is hotly contested as a result of Stalinist distortions, it had important successes. In its first year of existence, the campaign reached five million people, “about half of whom learned to read and write.” 36  While literacy statistics are hard to find, it is worth noting that the number of rural mailboxes increased from 2,800 in 1913 to 64,000 in 1926 as newspaper subscriptions and the exchange of written communications substantially increased—a notable corollary of increased literacy. In unions, literacy programs were quite successful. To give one example, a campaign among railway workers led to a 99 percent literacy rate by 1924. 37  Similarly, in the Red Army, where literacy and education were deemed crucial to ensure that soldiers were politically engaged with its project, illiteracy rates decreased from 50 percent to only 14 percent three years later, and 8 percent one year after that. On its seventh anniversary, the army achieved a 100 percent literacy rate, an immense accomplishment, even if short-lived, as new conscripts made continual education necessary. 38

Perhaps more important than any of the data, however, are the plethora of stories of innovation and radically restructured ideas of schooling, teaching, and learning as students at all levels took control of their own learning, imbued with a thirst for knowledge in a world which was theirs to create and run in their own interests.

Conclusion The complete transformation of education and literacy during the Russian Revolution exposes the lies at the heart of American education—that competition drives innovation, that punishments and rewards are the only motivations for learning, and that schools are the great levelers that provide every child with an equal opportunity to succeed.

If we have anything to learn from the revolutionary literacy campaigns of Russia, it is that genuine learning triumphs in revolutionary situations that provide people with real opportunities for collective and cooperative inquiry and research; that literacy is always political; and that radical pedagogy is most successful when it actively engages people in the transformation of their own worlds—not simply in the world of ideas, but by transforming the material conditions in which reading, writing, and learning take place. Compare that to rote memorization of disconnected bits of information, bubble tests, and scripted, skill-based curricula that suck the love of learning out of children in our schools.

Radical educators should draw on these lessons wherever possible to fight for an educational system that is liberatory rather than stultifying, sees students as thinkers and actors rather than empty containers to be filled, and recognizes that collaboration and collective action are far more useful for our students than individualism and meritocracy.

But for most teachers, the opportunities to implement the lessons of these struggles are extremely limited as curricula are standardized and stripped of any political meaning, testing triumphs over critical thinking, and our jobs are increasingly contingent on how much “value” we’ve added to a test score.

It is no coincidence that the best examples of radical pedagogy come from revolutionary periods of struggle, as newly radicalized students and teachers put forward new visions of education and reshape pedagogy. As teachers, we know that students can’t just ignore the many inequalities they face outside of the school building and overcome these through acts of sheer will. Genuine literacy that emphasizes critical thinking, political consciousness, and self-emancipation cannot happen in a vacuum. The creation of a liberatory pedagogy and literacy goes hand in hand with the self-emancipation of working people through revolutionary transformations of society as a whole.

Under capitalism, education will always be a means of maintaining class divisions rather than eradicating them. To imagine an educational system that is truly liberatory, we need to talk about fighting for a different kind of society—a socialist society in which, as Marx described, “the free development of each is the precondition for the free development of all.” It is only by transforming our society to eradicate poverty, prisons, oppression, and exploitation in all its forms that we can fully unleash human potential and creativity.

Imagine a society in which teachers and students democratically decided what learning should look like and where learning was freed from the confines of a classroom. Imagine what true lifelong learning could look like in a world in which we were free to develop our own courses of study and unlock the creative potential of humanity. If we can learn anything from the history of education and literacy, it is that such a revolutionary transformation of society is both possible and urgently needed.

This is an excerpt from the chapter “Literacy and Revolution” in the new Haymarket book,  Education and ­Capitalism.

• John Reed,  Ten Days that Shook the World  (New York: International Publishers, 1934), 14.
• As Ben Eklof argues, there is a great deal of debate as to accurate measures of literacy at the time of the Russian Revolution. In 1897, according to Eklof, “only one in five subjects of the Russian Empire could sign his own name” and in rural areas “as late as 1910–1914 only fourteen to 41 percent of the population could read or write.” Nonetheless, by other measures, the literacy rate is higher. Nicholas Timasheff argued that “by 1914, the literacy level in Russia had risen to forty-one percent.” For more on this, see Ben Eklof, “Russian Literacy Campaigns 1861–1939” in Robert F. Arnove and Harvey J. Graff, eds.,  National Literacy Campaigns and Movements: Historical and Comparative Perspectives  (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008), 128–29.   
• See chapter 10, “Communism and Education,” in N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky,  The ABC of Communism  (London: Penguin Books, 1969).
• Lucy L. W. Wilson,  The New Schools of New Russia  (New York: Vanguard Press, 1928), 30–31.
• Victor Serge,  Year One of the Russian Revolution  (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), 362.
• Cited in Eklof, “Russian Literacy Campaigns,” 134.
• Eklof, “Russian Literacy Campaigns,” 133.
• Serge,  Year One , 362.
• Lisa A. Kirschenbaum,  Small Comrades: Revolutionizing Childhood in Soviet Russia, 1917–1932  (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2001), 38.
• See Dave Crouch, “The Seeds of National Liberation,”  International Socialism Journal 94  (Spring 2002). The discussion in the following two paragraphs is based on this article.
• See chapter 23, “Education” in Arthur Ransome,  Russia in 1919  (Champaign, IL: Project Gutenberg, 1999), www.marxists.org .
• See chapter 11, “Education in Soviet Russia,” in Anna-Louise Strong,  The First Time in History  (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1922), www.marxists.org .
• Wilson, New Schools of New Russia, 108.
• Strong, “Education in Soviet Russia.”
• William Henry Chamberlin, “The Revolution in Education and Culture,” in  Soviet Russia: A Living Record and a History  (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company [Atlantic Monthly Press Books], 1930), www.marxists.org .
• Quoted in Chamberlin, “Revolution in Education and Culture.”
• Chamberlin, “Revolution in Education and Culture.”
• Ransome, Russia in 1919, 114.
• See Stephen Toulmin, “The Mozart of Psychology,”  New York Review of Books , September 28, 1978.
• L. S. Vygotsky cited in “Introduction,” in Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, ed. Michael Cole et al. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 8.
• Cole et al., Mind in Society.
• L. S. Vygotsky,  Thought and Language , ed. A. Kozulin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986).
• J. Bruner, “Prologue to the English Edition,” in L. S. Vygotsky,  Collected Works , eds. R. Rieber and A. Carton; trans. N. Minick, vol. 1 (New York: Plenum, 1987).
• Vygotsky,  Thought and Language , 186.
• Alex Kozulin, “Vygotsky in Context,” in  Thought and Language , xlii.
• L. S. Vygotsky, “The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology” in Vygotsky,  Collected Works , 388–89.
• J. V. Wertsch,  Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind  (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 14.
• Thanks to Jeremy Sawyer for his research on Vygotsky and his valuable contributions on the subject in this chapter.
• Wilson,  New Schools of New Russi a, 121.
• Charles E. Clark, “Literacy and Labor: The Russian Literacy Campaign within the Trade Unions, 1923–27,”  Europe-Asia Studies  47 (1995): 1330.
• Wilson,  New Schools of New Russi a, 131–32.

Search form

"A sense of hope and the possibility for solidarity"

Sapronov and the russian revolution, standing up to the zionist backlash against bds, legacies of colonialism in africa, austerity, neoliberalism,
and the indian working class, disability and the soviet union: advances and retreats, the critical communism of antonio labriola, austerity, neoliberalism, and the indian working class, the legacy of louis althusser, "a sense of hope and the possibility of solidarity", islamic fundamentalism, the arab spring, and the left, knocking down straw figures, have the democrats evolved, giving voice to the syrian revolution, from “waste people”
to “white trash”, defending our right to criticize israel.

Ukraine war latest: Russian port suffers 'massive' overnight attack and oil refinery left in flames - as Putin insists his forces aren't trying to capture major city

The northeastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv came under attack once again overnight, according to officials. This one lasted more than 16 hours, according to reports. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is in China, where he has met with president Xi Jinping.

Friday 17 May 2024 13:29, UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

• Russian troops advance - but situation 'stabilised', says Zelenskyy
• Putin: Capturing major city 'not part of plan'
• Kharkiv 'attacked' in 16-hour air raid alert - longest since war began
• Russia claims UK is 'de facto participant' of Ukraine war
• Footage shows oil refinery fire and burning fuel depots after 'massive' overnight attack
• Analysis: Great power politics on display in China visit
• Were Putin and Xi really pictured with their 'nuclear footballs'?
• Live reporting by Narbeh Minassian

Ask a question or make a comment

Earlier we reported Vladimir Putin's claims that there are no plans to capture the city of Kharkiv as his forces continue to attack the region (see 11.17am post).

Our defence and security analyst Michael Clarke   says Russian forces would not be able to take the city even if they tried as they "just don't have the forces to concentrate on big cities".

"It would take them months of grinding warfare to actually conquer Kharkiv," he said. 

"Unless the Ukrainians somehow open the gates and let them in, which they won't."

Moscow's forces are pushing towards the village of Lyptsi, he says, which is about 15 miles from Kharkiv city and well within artillery range.

"If they get there, they could certainly start to bombard the city and Ukrainians would have to do something about that," he said, adding they are also targeting the key town of Vovchansk, possibly to try to link up with forces further south.

While capturing the city of Kharkiv remains a remote possibility, Clarke says they can draw Ukrainian forces away from the south, as they "already have done".

Buffer zone 'propaganda'

Mr Putin claims the Kharkiv offensive is to create a buffer zone between the two countries, so Ukraine cannot attack regions within Russia.

Belgorod, in particular, has reportedly been the target of Ukrainian drone attacks in recent weeks, but Clarke says any buffer zone is unlikely to make much difference.

"At the moment, he's got a boundary of about three miles and the Ukrainians are getting American missiles," Clarke says. 

"The missiles come with maximum ranges of about 170, 180 miles. It's neither here nor there." 

The Ukrainians have got "many ways" of attacking Belgorod and Rostov, he said. 

"So, I think it's more for propaganda purposes inside Russia - that Putin is saying 'we're having a border area to reassure the public in Belgorod and Rostov that these cross-border raids and these missile strikes might not take place in the future'."

UK is 'de facto' participant

Meanwhile, Russia's ambassador to the UK has said Britain is a de facto a participant in the Ukraine war (see our 12.32pm post).

Clarke says this is the "truest thing he's said today".

"The British government has made it very clear we're helping the Ukrainians with intelligence and, where appropriate, we've done it with our aerial intelligence," he said.

"So, the Russian ambassador is telling me something I've known for about the last two and a bit years."

Volodymyr Zelenskiy has waved through two potentially key bits of legislation around service in the military. 

Firstly, the Ukraine president has this afternoon signed a law allowing some categories of convicts to serve in the army.

He also signed off a separate law increasing fines for those not abiding by army mobilisation rules.

Ukraine is trying to fill a shortfall in manpower some military analysts say is Kyiv's biggest challenge against a much larger enemy.

Recruiting convicts is only expected to boost numbers by around several thousand, from a possible pool of up to 20,000 convicts, senior lawmaker David Arakhamia said earlier this month.

Serious criminals barred

The bill would not allow people convicted of the most serious crimes to enlist, lawmaker Oleksiy Honcharenko said.

People convicted of the premeditated murder of two or more people, rape, sexual violence, crimes against national security and serious corruption violations would remain barred.

"It's no secret that the mobilisation resource of our enemy is huge, and therefore we should use all available opportunities to fight back armed aggression," a note attached to the bill said.

"Some of these people are motivated and patriotic citizens who are ready to redeem themselves before society on the battlefield."

Russia's ambassador to the UK has just said Britain is a de facto participant in the Ukraine war.

Andrei Kelin told Russia's Rossiya-24 state TV channel the UK is considered as such because it supplies Kyiv with weapons and shares real-time intelligence.

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has made a similar claim previously.

The US is "playing with fire" over its "indirect war" with Russia, a top diplomat has warned.

Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov told the TASS news agency: "We warn that they are playing with fire. They have long been in a state of indirect war with the Russian Federation."

His comments reflect Russian concern over the West's ongoing support for Ukraine, with recent comments viewed by Moscow as an aggressive shift.

The UK's foreign secretary Lord Cameron said earlier this month Ukraine has a right to use the weapons provided by Britain to strike targets inside Russia - while US secretary of state Antony Blinken made similar comments during a visit this week in Kyiv.

"They somehow fail to realise that, in order to satisfy their own geopolitical ideas, they are approaching a phase in which it will be very difficult to control what is happening and to prevent a dramatic crisis," Mr Ryabkov added, referring to the US.

"This rhetoric, this drumming, this constant baiting of their allies to help Ukraine even more, to expand their support, shows only one thing: people are living, as they themselves say, 'in a box'," he said.

He said this is a "great risk" as it is "impossible to get through" to the Americans.

Russia has shown "no indication" of trying to restrain its forces from "brutally victimising" Ukrainian civilians and committing war crimes, according to the Institute for the Study of War.

It comes as internal affairs minister Ihor Klymenko claimed Russian forces have executed civilians and taken others captive in Vovchansk, in Kharkiv region, which has been hit by several rounds of airstrikes.

The ISW said "the detention and summary execution of civilians is a war crime" and "emblematic of Russian forces' behaviour in all occupied Ukrainian territories".

"Russian military massacres like the massacres in Bucha and Izyum are a microcosm of Russian atrocities throughout Russian-occupied areas," the ISW added. 

"Russian attempts to seize major population centres like Kharkiv city do not just threaten Ukraine with operationally significant setbacks but also with war crimes and violations that accompany Russian occupation."

Vladimir Putin has just claimed capturing the city of Kharkiv is not part of Russia's current plan.

Instead, Moscow intends to create a "buffer zone" for Russia's own security, he said.

Speaking at a news conference in China, Mr Putin, who also says all operations are going according to plan, claimed Kyiv is to blame for the attack in Kharkiv.

"As for what is happening in the Kharkiv direction. This is also their [Ukraine's] fault, because they shelled and continue, unfortunately, to shell residential neighbourhoods in the border areas, including Belgorod," he added.

"Civilians are dying there. It's obvious. They are shooting directly at the city centre, at residential areas. 

"And I said publicly that if this continues, we will be forced to create a security zone, a buffer zone. That is what we are doing."

As we've been reporting, Ukraine says the situation in Kharkiv region - where Russian forces have been mounting new attacks - has "stabilised".

But Volodymyr Zelenskyy has admitted Russia has advanced as far as 10km in one area, as Moscow appears to be expanding the front line to stretch Ukraine's forces.

As the situation around Kharkiv remains "highly dramatic", Germany's foreign minister says Ukraine needs more long-range weapons to cut off Russian supply routes.

While Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the situation has "stabilised" (see our 9.04am post), Russian troops have advanced as much as 10km in one area.

This has put added pressure on Ukraine's already-stretched forces.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers in Strasbourg, Annalena Baerbock said it is important to provide weapons "that can be used over medium and long distances".

"We are also working with other partners on this," she said, adding it is overall an "extremely difficult situation".

Germany is Ukraine's second-biggest supplier of weapons, but Chancellor Olaf Scholz has so far balked at delivering long-range Taurus missiles.

The West has generally prohibited the use of its weapons on Russian territory, but Moscow claims some of those arms have been used within the country's borders.

Kyiv is preparing troops to defend the northern region of Sumy, according to the commander-in-chief of Ukraine's armed forces.

Oleksandr Syrskyi says he expects fighting to intensify as Russia continues to attack Kharkiv - with Sumy the next possible target, roughly 170km northwest.

Russia's attack on Kharkiv has expanded the area of active fighting by almost 70km, he added, which was designed to force Ukraine to divert stretched resources to the region.

Vladimir Putin is in the northern province of Harbin today as part of his official visit to China.

Today, he's said Russia's strategic alliance with China in the energy sector will strengthen further - adding Moscow is ready to supply clean energy to its neighbour.

Speaking at a Russia-China Expo, Mr Putin said the close relationship between the two countries is a guarantor of energy security.

Here are some of the first pictures coming out of his second day of the trip.

Ukraine's military claims it has shot down all 20 drones it says Russia dispatched overnight to Kharkiv, Poltava, Vinnytsia, Odesa and Mykolaiv.

As we reported earlier, Kharkiv sounded its longest air raid alert since the invasion began (see our 6.37am post).

The region of Kharkiv has been increasingly targeted this spring, with Russia intensifying aerial attacks and mounting a new offensive in the border areas, forcing Kyiv's outnumbered troops to try to hold the line on a new front.

The attack damaged five buildings, one of them belonging to the district administration, Kharkiv's regional governor, Oleh Syniehubov, said on Telegram.

Kharkiv city mayor Ihor Terekhov reported four explosions during the attack, adding one of the strikes caused a fire.

Three drones were shot down over the Poltava region with no casualties or infrastructure damages, according to its regional governor, Filip Pronin.

Also on Telegram, Mykolaiv's regional governor, Vitaliy Kim, said there had been no casualties after the overnight attacks.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free