[7] A. A. Bogdanov, "Nauka i rabochii klass," 1918, reprinted in O proletarskoi kul'ture, 1904–1924 , by A. A. Bogdanov (Moscow, 1924), pp. 200–221, quotation p. 208.
[8] Protokoly pervoi Vserossiiskoi konferentsii proletarskikh kul'turno-prosvetitel'nykh organizatsii, 15–20 sentiabria, 1918 g ., ed. P. I. Lebedev-Polianskii (Moscow, 1918), p. 39.
[9] Bogdanov, "Nauka i rabochii klass," pp. 213–15.
[10] Ibid., pp. 216–18; and M. N. Smit, "Blizhaishchie etapy proletarizatsii nauki," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 17/19 (1920), p. 79.
― 164 ―
simpler, more harmonious and vital. Its fragmentation must be overcome, it must be brought closer to the labor that is its primary source."[11]
To realize this ambitious agenda, Bogdanov proposed to start proletarian universities that would be based on his own experiences in workers' educational circles and in the Capri and the Bologna schools.[12] He chose the title "university" because it evoked the kind of universalist knowledge he hoped to achieve. The explicit class label was meant to distinguish the new institutions from both elitist schools and "people's universities," which were open to the population at large. As Bogdanov's colleague Mariia Smit explained, proletarian universities would not fit workers into old educational systems, nor would they simply try to train revolutionary agitators. Their purpose was to prepare proletarian leaders, to create "the brain of the working class."[13]
The national Proletkult and numerous local groups enthusiastically embraced these proposals.[14] However, they were not alone in their passion for scientific education. During the first years of Soviet power institutions of higher learning proliferated at a dazzling rate.[15] Not only state organs but also unions, factories, cooperatives, and many other groups at the
[11] A. A. Bogdanov, Engineer Menni, in Red Star , by A. A. Bogdanov, ed. Loren R. Graham and Richard Stites, trans. Charles Rougle (Bloomington, 1984), p. 187.
[12] A. A. Bogdanov, Kul'turnye zadachi nashego vremeni (Moscow, 1911), pp. 69–74; and idem, "Proletarskii universitet," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 5 (1918), pp. 9–21.
[13] M. N. Smit, "Proletarizatsiia nauki," Izvestiia TsIK , June 8, 1919.
[14] See the Moscow Proletkult's endorsement of proletarian universities, Pervaia Moskovskaia obshchegorodskaia konferentsiia proletarskikh kul'turno-prosvetitel'nykh organizatsii, 23–28 fevralia, 1918 goda (Moscow, 1918), pp. 6–8; and the national organization's endorsement, Protokoly pervoi konferentsii , p. 42.
[15] On early Soviet education see Oskar Anweiler, Geschichte der Schule und Pädagogik vom Ende des Zarenreichs bis zum Beginn der Stalin Ära (Berlin, 1964), esp. pp. 78–153; Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Commissariat of Enlightenment (Cambridge, Eng., 1970); N. Hans and S. Hessen, Educational Policy in Soviet Russia (London, 1930); R. H. Hayashida, "Lenin and the Third Front," Slavic Review , vol. 28, no. 2 (1969), pp. 314–24; David Lane, "The Impact of the Revolution on the Selection of Students for Higher Education," Sociology , no. 7 (1973), pp. 241–52; F. Lilge, "Lenin and the Politics of Education," Slavic Review , vol. 27, no. 2 (1968), pp. 230–57; James C. McClelland, "Bolshevik Approaches to Higher Education, 1917–1921," Slavic Review , vol. 30, no. 4 (1971), pp. 818–31; and idem, "The Utopian and the Heroic: Divergent Paths to the Communist Educational Ideal," in Bolshevik Culture , ed. Abbott Gleason, Peter Kenez, and Richard Stites (Bloomington, 1985) pp. 114–30.
― 165 ―
grass roots contributed to this remarkable expansion. The Proletkult could not even claim a monopoly on the title of "proletarian university," which was used by many other sponsors.[16]
The Proletkult's first short-lived experiment in higher education began in the spring of 1918 with the opening of the Moscow Proletarian University. Its curriculum had a very Bogdanovian flavor. The school journal, which only survived one issue, announced that the institution aimed to reassess the culture of the past in light of the proletariat's collective spirit. Significantly, it also contained Bogdanov's best-known treatise on proletarian science.[17] But the Proletkult shared leadership of the school with the city soviet and the local Narkompros division. A three-way fight to control the staff and the course offerings brought about its early demise. Bogdanov blamed its failure on internal factors. He felt that the faculty members had not worked together and that the student body, composed mainly of white-collar employees, had not expressed a proletarian point of view.[18]
After this false start the Proletkult opened another school
[16] See V. Smushkov, "Narodnye universitety," Vneshkol'noe obrazovanie (Moscow), no. 2/3 (1919), columns 34–43.
[17] Izvestiia Moskovskogo proletarskogo universiteta , no. 1 (1918), pp. 1–10.
[18] On the university's closure see the July 13, July 24, and August 6, 1918, minutes for the collegium of proletarian culture in Narkompros, Tsentral'nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv RSFSR [henceforth cited as TsGA RSFSR] f. 2306, op. 17, d. 1, ll. 2–3, 6–6 ob.; A. A. Bogdanov, "Proletarskii universitet," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 5 (1918), pp. 15–16.
― 166 ―
that followed Bogdanov's educational ideals more closely. He was intimately involved in the curriculum planning for this new institution, and his detailed course outlines provide a glimpse of how he hoped to realize a proletarian science. The school had three levels, each lasting one year. During the first year, designed as an orientation course, students would be introduced to methods of scientific inquiry and taught how to express themselves in a written and oral fashion. They would survey the natural scientific disciplines, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, and physiology, in order to assess the contributions each had made to the labor process. Wherever possible, Bogdanov wanted to use experiments and hands-on techniques as pedagogical tools, not just lectures or text-books. After this basic grounding in the natural sciences students would turn to the study of society. The curriculum included classes in economics, Russian history, socialism, and the structure of the state and the economy. Here, too, Bogdanov stressed a personalized, participatory approach. Students would use original documents and case studies to gain a sense of historical development and struggle.[19]
After the first year of introductory courses, Bogdanov's aversion to specialized programs became even more pronounced. Rather than presenting each subject separately, he proposed a thematic study plan. The second year opened with an overview of the methodological techniques of scientific investigation, the principles of evolution, the basic theories of energy, and the ways that biology could be applied to the labor process. Students then turned to the social sciences, beginning with a course that examined the history of technology in society. The cycle ended with a class on dialectical materialism as the foundation for a general scientific approach to the world. Bogdanov's integrated, monistic approach to science and society was most apparent in his proposals for the final year. Students were expected to mesh their
[19] A. A. Bogdanov, "Proletarskii universitet," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 5 (1918), pp. 17–19.
― 167 ―
knowledge into an encyclopedic system, culminating their work with a course called "The General Organization of Science."[20]
To avoid the problems of the first university, the Proletkult set out to find a working-class clientele. Both Proletkult and Narkompros journals publicized application requirements for the new school. Students were supposed to be recommended by working-class organizations, very broadly defined to include unions, soviets, and the Red Army. Workers and poor peasants were eligible, but white-collar workers were encouraged to go elsewhere. One article by Stefan Krivtsov, a central Proletkult leader, gave a clear explanation of the university's unique pedagogical approach. The university would not teach narrow specialties, nor would it try to create "mandarins of science." Instead, the school would encourage "builder-engineers engaged in all aspects of human endeavor."[21]
In March 1919 the Proletkult's experimental school opened with much pomp and circumstance in Moscow. It was named the Karl Liebknecht University, after the recently assassinated German Spartacist leader. Lunacharskii, Bukharin, and an Austrian representative from the Third International spoke at the opening celebration.[22] Bogdanov claimed that student selection had indeed followed the guidelines set by the central organization and that the four hundred participants came mainly from the working class and peasantry, with only a handful from the laboring intelligentsia. The scant published biographical information about a few of the students tends to confirm his assessment.[23]
The Karl Liebknecht University only flourished for a few
[20] Ibid., pp. 19–22.
[21] S. Krivtsov, "Proletarskii universitet," Vneshkol'noe obrazovanie (Moscow), no. 1 (1919), pp. 18–30, quotation p. 20.
[22] "Torzhestvennoe otkrytie proletarskogo universiteta," Izvestiia TsIK , March 25, 1919.
[23] Bogdanov, cited in Izvestiia TsIK , May 17, 1919; and M. F., "82 pokazaniia: Ankety sredi studentov Moskovskogo proletarskogo universiteta," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 11/12 (1919), pp. 48–57.
― 168 ―
months before it was summarily shut down in late July 1919. Its president, N. V. Rogzinskii, who came from the Adult Education Division in Narkompros, felt that its curriculum and staff did not really express the needs of the proletariat. Instead, he proposed that the university be merged with the Sverdlov courses, which offered short-term classes for soviet and party agitators, in order to create a new institution called the Sverdlov Communist University. Although technically a merger, this proposal really meant the total loss of Proletkult control because the Communist Party Central Committee and Narkompros were to take charge of the new school.[24] Party officials explained the step as a temporary measure caused by the demands of the Civil War.[25] However, Bogdanov's innovative educational approach must have also prompted the action. Once the Sverdlov University opened in early 1920, its first president, V. I. Nevskii, went out of his way to denounce the idea of a proletarian university in general and Bogdanov's theory of organizational science in particular.[26]
Bogdanov's unusual curriculum was hardly tested during the university's brief existence, and student questionnaires published after its demise gave mixed reviews. Some students made modest statements about their experience. "I learned what I had to read and how to understand what I read," asserted one participant. But others offered a more positive assessment. "I am entirely convinced that it is necessary to develop a new scientific method," concluded an enthusiastic student. "Only in this way will it be possible to take the valuable and necessary elements from bourgeois culture in order
[24] Izvestiia TsIK , May 17, 1919; and "K zakrytiiu proletarskogo universiteta," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 9/10 (1919), pp. 56–59, esp. p. 57. See also Fitzpatrick, Commissariat , pp. 101–3.
[25] See Elena Stasova's announcement to the Proletkult central committee, August 2, 1919, Tsentral'nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva [henceforth cited as TsGALI] f. 1230, op. 1, d. 3, l. 101.
[26] V. I. Nevskii, Otchet raboche-krest'ianskogo Kommunisticheskogo universiteta imeni Ia. M. Sverdlova (Moscow, 1920), p. 7.
― 169 ―
to create and strengthen genuine proletarian culture and ideology."[27]
Many of the former students certainly cared enough about the school to protest its sudden closure. In a poignant letter to the Proletkult central committee, they questioned whether the new school would really meet their needs. The Karl Liebknecht University had aimed to educate proletarian intellectuals in a rigorous three-year program, but the Sverdlov University planned to train agitators in only four months.[28] But one critic writing in Izvestiia argued that this was precisely the point. The state needed agitators, not self-styled proletarian leaders. Paraphrasing Marx, S. Novikov claimed that the former proletarian university had hoped to teach students to have a revolutionary worldview, but the new Communist university would teach them how to change the capitalist world into a socialist one.[29]
The failure of the Karl Liebknecht University certainly did not put an end to Proletkult experiments in proletarian science. Various provincial organizations opened their own schools that were intended to educate the working class in a new spirit. "All over Russia a wave to build workers' universities is spreading," exclaimed one central organizer in 1919. In Orel workers donated wages from an extra day's work to finance such a venture. New proletarian institutes of higher learning opened in Smolensk, Tula, Penza, Sormovo, Tsaritsyn, and Balashov.[30]
However, many of these schools were not directly controlled by the Proletkult, nor did they follow Bogdanov's
[27] M. F., "82 pokazaniia," Proletarskaia kul'tura , no. 11/12 (1919), pp. 48–58, quotations pp. 50, 51.
[28] Ibid., pp. 52–58; and "Vypiska iz protokola obshchego sobraniia studentov byv. Moskovskogo proletarskogo universiteta," TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 3, ll. 103–103 ob.
[29] S. Novikov, "Kommunisticheskii universitet," Izvestiia TsIK , June 17, 1919.