"Labor culture" and "cultural revolution" in the USSR. The activity of the CIT in the 1920s - 1930s.

Nadekhina Yuliya Petrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-3059-2620 PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Psychology of Management and History, State University of Management 109542, Russia, Moscow, Ryazan Avenue, 99 yp_nadekhina@guu.ru Kryukova Elena Vyacheslavovna ORCID: 0000-0002-3059-2620 PhD in Politics Associate professor; Department of Sociology, Psychology of Management and History; State University of Management 109542, Russia, Moscow, Ryazan Avenue, 99 Ev_kryukova@guu.ru

Geokchakyan Artem Gevorgovich ORCID: 0000-0002-3666-367X Assistant, Department of Project Management, State University of Management 109542, Russia, Moscow, Ryazan Avenue, 99, p.4 geokchakyan@guu.ru Other publications by this author

IntroductionThe term "culture" is a polysemantic concept and in modern science there are many interpretations of it, they differ depending on the sphere for which the definition is formulated: cultural studies, history, sociology, etc.

All interpretations are united by one thing: culture implies the results of human activity, the development of man and society. In this article, the term "labor culture" means the process of forming new labor skills, techniques and attitudes in the conditions of building an industrial economy in a young Soviet country.

The generally accepted interpretation of the term "cultural revolution", as applied to our country, was first formulated by V.I. Lenin in 1923, which has been repeatedly noted by modern researchers ^[1;4]. The "cultural revolution" means, first of all, the elimination of illiteracy, the creation of a new education system covering all segments of the population; the formation of the Soviet intelligentsia; overcoming the influence of old ideological views and the establishment of Marxist-Leninist ideology.   

Thus, the cultural revolution and the process of formation of the Soviet culture of work were aimed at the implementation of the same tasks.

In the modern world, the question of the role of labor in the formation of the information economy is relevant. Scientists of various formations say that there is a basic difference "both in socio-cultural and anthropocultural terms between two types of work: template (repetitive), characteristic of industrial society, and creative, associated with renewal and innovation" ^{[8, p.95]}. Similar changes can be traced in the conditions of transition to an industrial economy, which took place in our country in the 1920s - 30s. Labor institutes created at that time, on the initiative of talented enthusiastic scientists, played an important role in this. The relevance of the topic is enhanced by the fact that most modern research on this issue has been conducted by economists, whereas, in our opinion, the historical aspect of this topic deserves special attention. 

Literature reviewThe issues of rationalization and optimization of various labor processes have been considered in the USA and European countries since the XIX century, they have found their scientific and practical application in the experience of F.

Taylor, G. Ford, et al. Research and analysis of their activities remains in the field of view of scientists today ^{[3, 9]}.

In our country, these issues were also actively developing even before the revolution of 1917, for example, in the Moscow Imperial Technical School (now the Bauman Moscow State Technical University) in the 70s of the XIX century. the first experiments were conducted to optimize the labor process ^[10], and in the early twentieth century, in due to the spread of Taylor's methods, experiments on the scientific organization of labor are beginning to be actively discussed by the engineering and scientific community, special literature and even periodicals appear. "The first mention of the famous Taylor system appeared, according to modern researchers, in the specialized magazines "Metalist" and "Notes of the Russian Technical Society" in 1908-1909. The peak of interest in the Taylor system of scientific organization of labor (NOT) occurred in 1912-1913. There are scientific debates about Western novelties in the field of MUSIC. Research on this topic is being published. Numerous articles on this issue are published in the periodical press, both scientific and publicly available. Russian Russian Word, Stock Exchange Vedomosti, Morning of Russia, etc. are the most interesting newspapers reflecting the interests of Russian entrepreneurs" ^{[10, p.212]}. In the discussions that unfolded in scientific and business circles, the Taylor system was seen as a symbol of scientific and technological progress, an opportunity to overcome the cultural backwardness of Russian industry, etc.

After the revolution, in the conditions of the collapse of the national economy after the First World War and the active phase of the Civil War, the problem of rapid restoration of industrial potential arose. Within the framework of state ownership, workers worked not to increase the profit of the capitalist, but for the prosperity of the state. The NOTES acquire the character of an important tool for the speedy progress on the path of economic recovery. To this end, despite the acute shortage of funds and the difficulties of the Civil War, a number of labor institutes and music laboratories were established in the country.

The Central Institute of Labor (CIT), located in the capital, was headed by an energetic, creative and talented person – A. K. Gastev. Many works have been written about this amazing man, and each of them reveals a separate facet of Alexey Kapitonovich's life ^[2,9,15].

Of particular interest, within the framework of this article, are works devoted to the scientific organization of labor ^[3,17]; labor culture ^[8,12] and the cultural revolution in the USSR ^[1,4,16].  

The activities of the CIT and the Cultural Revolution in the USSRThe Central Institute of Labor was opened in 1921, when the cultural revolution was gaining momentum in the country.

Intellectual potential was needed to implement the country's modernization plans. The main steps on the way to this were to be: the elimination of illiteracy, the creation of a solid material and technical base, as well as the solution of the personnel issue in the educational environment.

Under the leadership of Alexey Kapitonovich Gastev, the CIT has become a leading institution in the field of scientific organization of labor. A creative well-coordinated team worked at the Institute, which managed to develop and put into practice a synthesis of research, rationalization, consulting and educational work in the field of labor. For each of the designated areas, there were corresponding divisions in the structure of the CITA.

All the activities of the Moscow Institute of Labor were covered in the press. In the journals "Bulletin of the CITA" and "Organization of Labor", the Gastev team published notes on all areas of the institute's work. Alexey Kapitonovich was the editor and author of many publications. 

 The Bulletin set itself the following tasks: "to provide comprehensive and systematic information about the work of the Institute in the form of a concise chronicle. The audience he counts on is the employees of the CITA, as well as institutions and persons interested in his work. This chronicle is divided according to the main activities of the CIT into departments: 1)Organizational chronicle; 2) Survey work; 3) Educational work; 4)Consulting and reorganization activities 5)Work on impact" ^[5]. Since June 1923, the program of the Bulletin of the CIT has been expanded with "concentrated information" about everything that happens in the field of NOTES in the USSR and abroad ^[7]. According to a similar program, other publications of the Moscow Institute of Labor were published.

As an active participant in the formation of a new work culture, the CIT opened experimental stations in different parts of the capital: GUM, Taganskaya Prison, the Political Department of the Revolutionary Military Council, factories, factories, etc. In one of the issues of the "Bulletin of the CIT" we find the message: "Laboratory No.2. Technical, investigated the question of the length of the hammer handle depending on the distribution of mass in the hammer, the shape and weight of the striker and the handle… Laboratory No. 6, Pedagogical, designed devices for passive training of "wrist" and "elbow" blows, built a training device for "filing" and precision devices for training micro-movements" ^[6]. Thus, work was carried out at experimental stations. CITA employees observed, conducted experiments and conducted consultations on the implementation of their developments.

In line with the cultural revolution, the idea of creating a "proletarian culture" arose. The public organization "Proletkult", of which A.K. Gastev was an active member, set itself the task of creating a new, socialist culture through the development of creative amateur activity of the proletariat. The organization sometimes acted from very aggressive positions in relation to the cultural pre-revolutionary heritage of our country. In particular, the leader of the Petrograd Proletkult, P.K. Bezsalko, wrote in a report on the activities of the organization headed by him: "The October revolution allowed us not platonically, but actually, one can say physically, to take possession of the possessions of the old culture. How did the proletariat use the culture of the old world to its advantage? I must admit that there is no way." In his reasoning, Bezsalko comes to the conclusion that: "the bourgeois culture did not have a soul, there were only "good wishes" that, like thin screens, covered the predatory class character of bourgeois culture" ^{[14, p.6]}. Summing up the activities of the Proletcult, the modern researcher notes the main goal of the organization: the creation of a new culture, while it is important "that it be purely proletarian, i.e. it should be addressed to the proletariat and created only by proletarian artists and writers" ^{[16, p.95]}. Of course, this was an extremely erroneous position, and the Soviet government paid attention to it in time, not allowing the legacy of "bourgeois culture" to be sent to the "dump of history".

As already noted above, A.K. Gastev also took part in the activities of the Proletcult, but he did not belong to the extreme left of this movement, but rather was part of the educational wing of the Proletcult. It is noteworthy that the organizer of the system of proletarian cultural and educational organizations was also A.A. Bogdanov, a prominent Soviet scientist who proved himself, including in the field of scientific organization of labor. "The greatest contribution of A.A. Bogdanov to science is considered to be the creation of tectology – the doctrine of the general laws of organization, which was ahead of the general theory of systems and the science of cybernetics proposed later" ^{[13, p.97]}. As leaders of the Proletcult, Bogdanov and, in particular, Gastev paid a lot of attention to literature. Alexey Kapitonovich has published several collections of "proletarian poetry", the most famous of them is the collection "Poetry of a working strike". According to P.K. Bezsalko: "the literary department had the right to be proud of this book, because for Russian literature it was a new world, unknown, strong, all-conquering. Gastev's book is a powerful anthem of labor, collective and steel" ^{[14, p.9]}. It is not for nothing that some figures of the scientific organization of labor called Gastev and his entourage a "Literary flow of NOTES", sharply criticizing the activities of the Cytovites ^{[9, p.51]}.

It is worth noting here that other Soviet developers of the theory and practice of MUSIC in the 1920s - 1930s were directly related to culture ^[11], which suggests that the processes of formation of a culture of work and the cultural revolution were parallel and interdependent.

ConclusionsCIT and similar scientific institutions have played an important role in the development of music, in the introduction of new techniques and methods of work, in the development of the innovation movement.

The results of his work have found application in various spheres of industrial and socio-cultural life. The theme of creative search, rationalization work, creative and physical development of the individual has found its embodiment in the daily routine of the student, and in the radio transmission of physical culture lessons – physical exercises, and in the formation of a diet for sanatoriums and rest homes, etc. Now the famous achievements of miner A. Stakhanov, locomotive engineer P. Krivonos, weavers have been somewhat forgotten Dusi and Marusia Vinogradov and many other workers who used the achievements of the NOTES, the rationalization of labor when they achieved their record results in production. This theme was reflected even in cinematography, when the famous Lyubov Orlova embodied the idea of rationalization of labor in the cinematic image of an advanced weaver in the famous film by G. Alexandrov "The Bright Path".

As a modern researcher notes: "The formation of a new work culture is a complex and rather lengthy process in which, from the point of view of the socio-cultural approach, it is necessary to take into account at least three of the most significant components: mental, social and personal-individual qualities of a human worker" ^{[12, p.83]}. The last aspect was also in the sphere of special attention of the Cytovites.

The team of A.K. Gastev, as well as other organizations of the NOTES, formed a new work culture. Laboratories and experimental stations of the Central Institute of Labor focused on the activities of an individual worker and the organization of his workplace. Employees of the Moscow Institute of Labor studied the slightest nuances of an employee's actions at his workplace. The CIT opened a new direction in the scientific school of management, forced Western colleagues to think about the priority of the employee's well-being over obtaining super profits.

The search for rationalization and optimization of labor processes in our country continued. Unfortunately, some scientists who developed the principles of scientific organization of labor were suspended from work and even repressed, but their ideas still live. At the end of the 1930s, the names of A.K. Gastev, A.A. Bogdanov, I.M. Burdyansky, P.M. Kerzhentsev and a number of other prominent experts in the field of MUSIC faded into the shadows. And in the 50s - 60s of the twentieth century, their ideas returned to us again, but in the form of the works of Western specialists, who very actively used their developments, not always referring to the primary sources. Only our contemporaries again paid attention to the 1920s - 30s boiling with innovative ideas. Until now, the legacy of the creators of the national school of MUSIC remains in demand.