collective opinion
Intensive consultations with the leaders of other socialist countries regarding Czechoslovakia began in early 1968. The first tangible result was an agreement to meet in Dresden. At this meeting, in addition to delegations from the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, representatives of the communist parties of the GDR and Poland were to be present. Hungary and Bulgaria.
The meeting of representatives of the communist parties of the six socialist countries in Dresden on March 23 began with the fact that the leaders of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were told that "the concept of their activities is incomprehensible to the fraternal communist parties." The Prague delegation was criticized for the fact that "the press, radio and television were out of control"; that as a result of attacks by the media, “well-tested, battle-hardened cadres of the party and the state” are removed from their posts; that 80% of those fired are people who studied in Moscow; that mass resignations of secretaries of district committees and regional committees began. It was pointed to the beginning decomposition of the army, "drawn into rallies instead of service." However, it was not possible to achieve complete unity, not in words but in deeds, in condemning the Czechoslovak leadership in Dresden. Some of the participants in the meeting, primarily the Hungarian leader J. Kadar, had a dissenting opinion. Moreover, on April 18, Kadar cautiously, but expressed his approval of a number of actions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.
The results of the Dresden meeting were discussed and approved by the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, held in Moscow on April 9-10. The main refrain of the speeches was: "We will not give up socialist Czechoslovakia."
After the Dresden meeting, there was a temporary lull in the relations between the conflicting parties. TASS, without any comments, reprinted fragments of A. Dubcek's speech at a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The election of General L. Svoboda to the post of President of the country was generally received with approval. Thus, the high probability of the election of Smrkovsky, a figure completely unacceptable to Moscow, was eliminated.
The "truce", however, was short-lived.
In the second half of April in the Czech press, for the first time, there were demands to purge the HRC of the "stained" - those who were involved in the repressions of past years. The demands found support among a significant part of the public, primarily among young people and students. An attempt at this campaign could have had far-reaching consequences. In some cases, those who collaborated with the Soviet underground during the Second World War were also considered “stained”.
The implementation of calls for a purge could blow up the entire political system of the country, directly threatening almost all representatives of the party-state elite.
Indicative in this sense was the speech of the writers E. Goldstücker, chairman of the Writers' Union of Czechoslovakia, and J. Prochazka, which took place on April 26, 1968 in Prague, in the House of the Czechoslovak Army.
They sharply criticized the entire path of development of Czechoslovakia after February 1948, pointing out that as a result of the events of 1968, prerequisites appeared in the country for the creation of a new social system of democratic socialism. The Soviet Union, according to Goldstucker, was "a classic country of dictatorship."
Goldstücker's theses were developed by Prochaska. Commenting on the recent suicide of General Janko, one of those responsible for the political repressions of the early 1950s, the writer stated that he "acted like an honest man", adding: "But I do not recommend that the entire General Staff shoot out."
The Czechoslovak leadership was invited to Moscow for an explanation.
On May 4, A. Dubcek, O. Chernik, I. Smrkovsky and V. Bilyak arrived in Moscow. From the Soviet side, L.I. Brezhnev, A.N. Kosygin, N.V. Podgorny, K.F. Katushev and K.V. Rusakov. The conversation went on for a long time - more than nine hours - and caused undisguised irritation in the Kremlin.
At a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU on May 6, Brezhnev, commenting on the results of the meeting, said: “When you recall all the stages of relations after the first conversation with Comrade Dubcek, in particular, my conversation in Prague, and subsequent conversations, you get the impression that he deliberately says one thing, but does something completely different, although he speaks wobbly, vaguely. As an example, Brezhnev cited Dubcek's assurances to keep the personnel. However, according to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party changed all the cadres from top to bottom. Dubcek effectively "decapitated the party". Brezhnev also spoke extremely sharply about the “Program of Action”: “I think we are unanimous that this is a bad program that opens up opportunities for the restoration of capitalism in Czechoslovakia, though veiled by different phraseology. This is an expression of the petty-bourgeois element. Smrkovsky at a meeting with the leadership of the Central Committee of the CPSU, according to Brezhnev, did not speak much. The main thing in his speech was the condemnation of the previous repressions. During those disputes that arose between the Czech and Soviet sides, Smrkovsky made on Brezhnev, who saw him for the first time, the impression of a strong man and a whole personality. However, according to Brezhnev, he did not see any concern and anxiety, no positive proposals in Smrkovsky's speech.
The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU gave a low rating to Chernik's speech - in his words, confused, containing unsupported promises. Above all, Brezhnev assessed Bilyak's position. In it, “one could really feel anxiety for the state of affairs, for the development of events. For example, he said that events were developing in such a direction that it threatened the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the socialist gains that all non-communist parties raised their heads.
Brezhnev's conclusion was as follows: “Today at the Military Council we considered issues, we have already discussed specific plans for our practical measures in connection with the current situation. Our first step was: we informed them of a proposal to send 20-25 of our marshals and generals, led by Marshal Konev and Moskalenko, to celebrate Victory Day ... We also discussed a number of other measures, which I will talk about a little later.
Kosygin brought a new, even tougher tone to the discussion. The leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, he said, is preparing rehabilitation, “they are thinking of playing with this, believing that Gottwald and Zapototsky have blood on their hands and that they acted together with the Soviet Union. Against this background, they are thinking of organizing a new party, in fact, a bourgeois party and the bourgeois order. According to Kosygin, the request of the Czechoslovak side for a loan of 500 million rubles. gold are inherently provocative: “They know that we will refuse this, that we will not give this loan under such conditions as they propose, and they also want to play on this.”
The May 1968 plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, which Moscow counted on, did not bring any changes in the alignment of political forces and did not ensure the defeat of the reformers.
On June 4, a message was received through diplomatic channels in Moscow about a meeting between the Soviet ambassador and Bilyak. This time, he gave a detailed description of the situation in the leadership of the HRC, paying special attention to the so-called “Prague center”, which, according to him, included Szyk, the first secretary of the South Moravian Regional Committee of the HRC J. Spacek, Cisarzh, Kriegel and the Minister of the Interior J. Pavel. They were joined by the head of the organizational and political department of the Central Committee F. Kolář and the head of the department of administrative and state bodies V. Prhlik. These people, Bilyak claimed, hold meetings in the building of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, in the office of Tsisarzh. The Prague Center is trying to operate in the Prague districts, discrediting Dubcek. Bilyak also noted that Dubcek has up to 10 thousand of the most dedicated soldiers and officers as an "operational force", who, if necessary, will be immediately alerted.
Relations between the CPSU and the CPC continued to deteriorate in the meantime and gradually reached a critical point. The situation became comparable to the Soviet-Yugoslav rupture of 1948. However, Moscow still hoped that the next multilateral negotiations could still rectify the situation.
But in what followed between L.I. During a telephone conversation between Brezhnev and A. Dubcek, it became clear that the Czechs were refusing a joint meeting of representatives of the six communist parties in Warsaw. It was a blatant demarche.
Brezhnev attacked Dubcek with accusations, saying that the refusal to meet opens a new confrontational stage in relations between the CPSU and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Dubcek languidly justified himself, admitting that the press did make some mistakes, in particular anti-Soviet attacks.
The “Letter of Five,” as it was called in Prague, to the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, containing an invitation to Czechoslovak leaders in Warsaw, was still regarded in Czechoslovakia as unacceptable interference in internal affairs.
During the Warsaw Conference (in the absence of the Czechoslovak delegation) a message was drafted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The document stated that “in view of the counter-revolutionary offensive that has unfolded in Czechoslovakia, the fraternal parties urgently demand that the Czechoslovak leadership urgently take energetic measures to repel the onslaught of the enemy, given that the defense of socialism in Czechoslovakia is not a private affair of this country only, but the sacred duty of the entire socialist community ".
The news from Prague was less and less encouraging. One of the leaders of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia informed that the Soviet embassy and the villas where Soviet diplomats live were monitored, all their meetings were controlled.
In mid-July, a secret letter addressed to L.I. Brezhnev from a candidate member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia A. Kapek. It reported: “In the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, a group of the leadership of the party in the person of Smrkovsky, Kriegel, Shpachek, Shimon, Tsisarzh, Slavik has mastered all the media and is conducting anti-Soviet and anti-socialist work.” At the end of the letter, A. Kapek directly called: “I appeal to you, Comrade Brezhnev, with an appeal and request to provide fraternal assistance to our Party and all our people in rebuffing those forces that pose a serious danger to the very fate of socialism in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.”
The letter was read out at a meeting of the Politburo, but it was considered insufficient for making an important military-political decision. A few days later, Brezhnev received another letter through the same channels, signed by now five Czechoslovak leaders. The letter spoke of the emergence in Czechoslovakia of the possibility of a "counter-revolutionary coup" and contained a call for intervention in Czechoslovak events. “In such a difficult situation, we appeal to you, Soviet Communists, leading representatives of the CPSU and the USSR, with a request to provide us with effective support and assistance with all the means that you have. Only with your help can Czechoslovakia be pulled out of the threatening danger of counter-revolution. We are aware that for the CPSU and the USSR this last step in the defense of socialism in Czechoslovakia would not be easy.
Due to the complexity and danger of the development of the situation in our country, we ask you for the maximum secrecy of this statement of ours, for this reason we will send it directly to you personally in Russian.
On July 19, at a regular meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, L.I. Brezhnev declared that a new stage had begun in relations with Czechoslovakia. Time, according to him, “does not work in our favor, against us. Now in Prague they are waiting for the arrival of Ceausescu and Tito, there is talk of some kind of Danube conspiracy, a Danube meeting. Brezhnev emphasized that the CPC received support in the European communist movement, and the Italian and French communist parties called for a European meeting where the actions of the CPC Central Committee could be approved. From this followed the conclusion: “Not only a new moment has arisen, but also new requirements for our actions. One question arises: have we exhausted everything from the arsenal of political influence, have we done everything before taking extreme measures? We declared at the plenum that we would take all measures of political influence depending on us. If this does not give the appropriate effect, only then will we take extreme measures.”
With this cautious, restrained statement, Brezhnev made it clear that at this stage he still remains a supporter of political pressure on the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Kosygin agreed with him, who believed that a bilateral meeting could become an effective form of exerting political pressure.
This position, however, did not find support among the majority of the members of the Politburo. The object of criticism, of course, was not Brezhnev, but Kosygin. Andropov, Ustinov, Mazurov, Kapitonov - they all believed that the time had come for tough measures. Ultimately, the Politburo came to a compromise solution: to consider the meeting with the Czechoslovak leaders as the last political measure of influence.
The policy of pressure on Prague was greatly facilitated by the relatively neutral attitude of international public opinion towards what was happening in Czechoslovakia.
The meeting with US Secretary of State D. Rusk on July 22 showed that the Americans do not want to interfere in the conflict. Rusk stated: “The US government tends to be very restrained in its comments in connection with the events in Czechoslovakia. We definitely do not want to be somehow involved or involved in these events. It was a signal for Moscow. It became clear to the political leadership of the USSR that the implementation of "extreme measures" would not lead to active opposition from the United States.
According to the decisions of the Politburo of July 19 and 22, a hasty practical study of these "extreme measures" began. On July 20, the first, and on July 26, the second version of the Declaration was prepared on behalf of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Revolutionary Government of Czechoslovakia on domestic and foreign policy, as well as the “Appeal to the citizens of Czechoslovakia, to the Czechoslovak army”. These documents were to be made public after the troops of the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries entered Czechoslovakia. On July 26-27, at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, all the necessary documents were fully worked out, including the statement "To the Soviet people." The hour of decision was inexorably approaching.
The last Soviet-Czechoslovak negotiations on July 29 - August 1, 1968 were held with the participation of almost the entire composition of both the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. They took place in Cierna nad Tisou. The absence of the heads of the most important Soviet departments at the talks: Minister of Defense A.A. Grechko, Minister of Foreign Affairs A.A. Gromyko and KGB Chairman Yu.V. Andropov - clearly indicated the desire of the participants to present the discussion as a purely party affair.
The meeting, however, could hardly be called negotiations in the exact sense of the word. In Moscow, it was conceived rather as a form of massive pressure; the bet was made on finally forcing Prague to make concessions and change its position.
On the eve of the negotiations, the Politburo received almost simultaneously messages from N. Ceausescu, I. Tito and 18 European Communist Parties, which contained a request (a veiled warning) not to put too much pressure on the leadership of Czechoslovakia. The delegations settled down in a marching fashion - in two trains in the middle of tobacco plantations near the border strip, which was supposed to indicate the urgency of what was happening and put psychological pressure on the Prague leaders.
The talks opened with a four-hour speech by Brezhnev, in which he mixed quotations from the Czechoslovak press with accusations of pandering to Western imperialism and trying to "slip through the counter-revolution." If the goal was to achieve mutual understanding, this performance could not be considered successful.
From the very beginning it aroused the displeasure of the opposite side. The event was in jeopardy.
The Kremlin leaders did not take into account the mentality of the Czechs and Slovaks. They did not expect that by unceremonious pressure they would only revive a sense of cohesion in the Prague leadership. In such a situation, even Bilyak and Indra with their supporters considered it prudent to join the common camp.
During the negotiations, P.E. behaved most aggressively. Rustle. He raised the issue of the status and position of the Ukrainian national minority in Slovakia. Engaged in finding out who was "right" in the Czechoslovak leadership, Shelest insulted Kriegel, calling him a "Galician Jew." The attack escalated the situation to the limit. Kosygin was forced to go to the train of the Czechoslovak delegation and apologize for Shelest, "who had gone too far."
After the break, the parties agreed to continue the exchange of views in groups.
In the end, the Czechoslovak leadership made a commitment to curb the press, reaffirmed the commitment to socialism and the loyalty of their country to the obligations under the Warsaw Treaty Organization. However, the Prague leadership, headed by Dubcek, was asked to once again express their position at a multilateral forum in Bratislava. The delegation of the HRC did not hide its surprise: why meet again? But she was forced to agree on the condition that the meeting would take place on the territory of Czechoslovakia and would not interfere in internal affairs.
In fact, the meeting left a deeply negative impression on both sides.
V.A. Alexandrov believed that the two Czechoslovak leaders, Chairman of the National Assembly I. Smrkovsky and head of the National Front F. Kriegel, were constant “sources of inflating distrust” in the course of a frank discussion, “the first - due to his ambitions, claims to be the main tribune, the second - in force of breathtaking political infantilism. As soon as Dubcek or Chernik said some kind of phrase friendly towards the USSR, both of them "enfant terribl" hurried in their circle to refute what was said: they say, do not believe it, in fact, "Sasha" thought differently. In other cases, such disagreement would have meant nothing, but it was about relations that were called “brotherly”, and here trust or its absence acquired decisive importance.
In turn, after returning from Cierna nad Tisou, F. Kriegel said: “After Cierna I cannot sleep. I discovered the incredibly low level of these people who have not read a single book by Marx or Lenin in their lives. When I think that the fate of the world depends on them, I can't sleep."
After negotiations, Prime Minister O. Chernik called C. Cisarzh - the only member of the top party leadership remaining in Prague - and conjured him to try to avoid the appearance in the press immediately before the new meeting of the leaders of the bloc of harsh publications that could irritate Moscow.
However, the Czechoslovak press was already beyond the reach of party control. One of the issues of the mass publication Literary Lists came out with a caricature of W. Ulbricht. The agreements reached were not respected.
The Bratislava meeting remained the last, more and more illusory hope. At the meeting in Bratislava, there were many handshakes, kisses and flowers. It was reminiscent of a meeting of old friends, not burdened by disagreements and disputes, delighted at the opportunity to see each other after parting. The delegations in full force were seated in the large hall. A lively discussion ensued that threatened to drag on forever.
Brezhnev soon stopped the collective discussion. He suggested that only the first secretaries stay, adding: "Here, Kosygin will also be with me." The party leaders locked themselves in a separate room and began to read the text of the draft joint statement, which was prepared by the Soviet working group in a saloon car on the way from Cierna to Bratislava. None of the assistants and persons who were not part of the leadership were admitted to this work. Corrections to the project were made directly by Brezhnev, who gave the text sheet by sheet to his assistant G.E. Tsukanov - the only person who received the right to enter the negotiation room.
Everyone else was waiting in the adjoining hall – lower-ranking leaders, experts, accompanying persons.
The statement of the six fraternal Communist Parties, adopted in Bratislava, did not contain any statement about the offensive of the counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia. In the most general terms, the socialist achievements of the past were spoken of; on the observance of the general laws of socialist construction in accordance with the documents of the Moscow Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties of 1957, including the leading role of the party, the principle of democratic centralism, and the uncompromising struggle against bourgeois ideology; about close ties within CMEA and the Warsaw Pact; about fraternal mutual assistance and solidarity.
But in phrases that at first glance seemed to be formulaic statements in newspaper editorials, there was a far from harmless meaning hidden.
The main point of the Bratislava statement was the provision on defending the gains of socialism as a common international duty of all socialist countries. It was a rather vague thesis that allowed for various interpretations. Among other things, he assumed the use, if necessary, of collective (including military) measures against the offending country. Each side, leaving the meeting, considered itself a winner. Dubcek viewed the results of the meeting in Bratislava as "the legalization of the Czechoslovak path to socialism."
But he was wrong. Recognizing the defense of socialism as a matter of the entire socialist community and thus the right of "fraternal" parties to discuss, and, on occasion, intervene in the internal problems of a sovereign country, Dubcek thereby admitted the possibility of replacing interstate relations with interparty ones.
Western journalists who watched the meeting noted an incomprehensible timidity in Brezhnev's behavior and the angry look of Ulbricht and Gomulka.
Immediately after the Bratislava meeting, a somewhat reassured Brezhnev went on vacation. He was replaced in the Central Committee of the CPSU by A.P. Kirilenko, who was instructed to transmit to the Crimea, where the Secretary General was located, generalized information and assessments of the situation in Czechoslovakia.
In fact, the information that came to the Crimea from Moscow was of secondary importance to Brezhnev. The main channel of information, which he completely trusted, was the Yalta-Prague telephone cable, conversations with the Soviet embassy that went on continuously, several times a day. Representatives of the “healthy forces” in the Czechoslovak leadership contacted Brezhnev through this channel. Their lively speech, apparently, was more convincing than the corresponding written presentation in the reports of Ambassador Chervonenko.
The main leitmotif of the conversations was one: the Dubcek team interprets the results of the Bratislava meeting in a completely different way than the leaders of the other communist parties.
Shortly after the Bratislava meeting, Brezhnev received encrypted messages about meetings of party activists in the Prague districts, at which F. Kriegel and I. Smrkovsky shared their impressions of how they “deceived the Russians” and noted that “everyone will do it their own way.”
Brezhnev was finally convinced that further negotiations with the Czechoslovak reformers were useless, in the near future they would inevitably be swept away by a second, more radical wave, which would lead to the restoration of the bourgeois order in Czechoslovakia.
The dissonance and clash of ambitions in the ranks of the Czechoslovak reformers allowed Moscow to actively search for a replacement for Dubcek - either offering the post of first secretary to E. Erban, who was not in the front positions, which he prudently refused, or hatching plans to create a puppet "workers' and peasants' government". According to Mlynarzh, the Kremlin’s search for a 100% reliable candidate was affected by “the Russian tradition of betting on someone alone, invested with absolute trust,” the inability to take into account, and even more so, cooperate with various political forces or silent factions of one party.
On August 9, in a telephone conversation with Dubcek, Brezhnev expressed his claims about the actual refusal of the Czechoslovak side to fulfill the previous agreements.
“One gets the impression,” Brezhnev said, “that no conclusions have been drawn from the meetings. The commitments that we made in Cierne nad Tisou are not being fulfilled.” He then spoke of measures to take over the media and to shut down the activities of the Social Democratic Party and clubs.
On August 13, a new telephone conversation took place with Dubcek. Brezhnev demanded an explanation for the anti-Soviet attacks in the Czechoslovak press. Brezhnev also raised two other problems: the promised changes in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and in the party leadership. In this difficult emotional conversation with a lot of mutual reproaches from Brezhnev, accusations of deceit and refusal of obligations were made. In turn, Dubcek constantly referred to the changed circumstances, to the impossibility of resolving the issues raised at the Presidium. It is still unclear, however, what Dubcek meant by "changed circumstances." Apparently, control over the situation really slipped out of his not very firm hands.
The conclusions drawn in Moscow after Brezhnev's conversation with Dubcek on August 13 became decisive. No one doubted or dared to doubt the need for a military invasion of Czechoslovakia.
On August 16, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU approved the text of Brezhnev's message to Dubcek. In it, on two pages, point by point, the obligations violated by the Czechoslovak leadership were listed.
The next day, August 17, the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee was chaired by Brezhnev himself. From this meeting began the final stage of preparations for the invasion. It was decided to convene on August 18 a meeting of the leaders of the countries - members of the Warsaw Pact, whose troops were involved in the military operation in Czechoslovakia.
when using materials from www.psi.webzone.ru
This dictionary was created specifically for site users so that you can find any psychological term in one place. If you have not found some definition or, on the contrary, you know it, but we do not have it, be sure to write to us and we will add it to the dictionary of the psychological portal "Psychotest".
collective opinion
COLLECTIVE OPINION - cumulative assessments, desires, requirements, which express the attitude of the members of the team to certain issues, phenomena, events, facts affecting their interests and needs. not only personally experiences the impression of the perceived event, but shares this impression with others, compares his point of view with the views of others. There is a complex process of interaction and synthesis of individual opinions, as a result of which some judgments are eliminated, others are enriched, refined. This is how a collective opinion is formed, supported, if not by all, then by the majority. This unity of opinion brings people together, creates the prerequisites for the unity of their actions and rallying. The collective does not arise for any reason, but only for those events and facts that closely affect their interests. The answer to the question about what events, facts, etc., there is a common opinion, testifies to the moral character of the team, its educational opportunities. For example, the moral climate in the team as a whole, the behavior of individual students, the results of their activities largely depend on who is authoritative in the study group of students, on the course, on what his authority is based.
List of random tags:
,
Expressive movements - Expressive movements - a manifestation of the emotional experiences and intentions of the individual through facial expressions (facial expression, smile, eye movements), pantomime (body movements, posture, gestures), intonation of speech. The biological basis of expressive human movements are the reactions of higher animals (expressions of rage, fear, parental instincts), which are accompanied by adaptive behavior and changes in the functioning of internal organs, blood vessels, endocrine glands. At the same time, human expressive movements, due to their significant role in social relations as a kind of “language” for conveying shades of feelings, assessments, desires, have gone through a significant evolutionary path (differentiation of shades, connection with typical social situations). Ritualized forms of expressive movements are created to convey various states and intentions (expression of dissatisfaction, approval, praise, anger, contempt, requests, prayers). In ontogenetic development, expressive movements are initially formed as involuntary movements (cries, tears, smiles) that accompany emotional experiences. When growing up, when parents begin to point out the admissibility or inadmissibility of certain expressive movements, their conscious control arises, leading to their modification (hidden fear, a guilty smile).
,
Grouping - Grouping is a logic structure. In psychology, the concept was introduced in 1937 by J. Piaget as one of the basic concepts of his operational concept of intelligence. This structure is considered as a link between logical and psychological structures. In formal-logical terms, a grouping is a closed, reversible system in which all operations are subject to five formal criteria: 1. Combination: A + B = C; 2. Reversibility: C - B = A; 3. Associativity: (A + B) + C = A + (B + C); 4. General identity operation: A - A = 0; 5. Tautology, or special identity: A + A = A. Forms of grouping are such logical operations as simple and multiplicative inclusion of classes, simple and multiplicative seriation, symmetry. Psychologically, grouping is a state of “thought balance”. The whole process of intellectual development, according to Piaget, is described by a sequence of groupings, the possibility of performing each of which is determined by the development of the previous one. But the actual intellectual development does not begin immediately, but after passing through the preperceptive and perceptual levels, as a result of consistent decentration, which involves the liberation of objects from perception and one's own action with them. The possibility of true grouping appears only at the level of specific operations. J. Piaget singled out eight elementary groupings of the logic of classes and relations, the formation of which is necessary for the child to reach this level: classifications, seriation, substitution, symmetry establishment, representing groupings of an addictive order, which correspond to four groupings of a multiplicative order, in which we are talking about several systems simultaneously classes or relationships. At the level of formal operations, the child can carry out sixteen types of groupings, independent of their content, but not having a completely combinatorial character. Based on the combinatorial system, groupings of a higher order are carried out, which make up the system of propositional operations.
,
Iconic memory - Iconic memory (from the Greek eikon - image) is a sensory copy of information presented to the observer visually for a very short time (up to 100 ms.), which has a large capacity; quickly fades away in time (about 0.25 s.); works with touch code; not consciously controlled; depends on the physical characteristics of the stimulus. Provides translation of information into short-term memory.
Depending on the degree of unity and agreement in the dynamics of the public opinion of a military collective, three of its main stages are distinguished: diffuse, polarized, and unified collective opinion.
Diffuse opinion is a disparity in views and in judgments. Warriors have conflicting, inconsistent positions; some of them find it difficult to determine their point of view, cannot objectively evaluate the judgments of their comrades and consciously adhere to any position.
A polarized opinion takes place if the leading points of view have already been determined, as a result of which the personnel are divided into two or three groups, each of which has its own position and defends it. This state can have negative consequences, conflict.
A single collective opinion is characterized by maximum agreement and the presence of one, common, consciously and sincerely shared by all positions.
The process of forming a collective opinion can be observed in various forms of communication between soldiers: during a meeting, in a friendly conversation during a rest, when discussing films, books, and printed materials. Participating in these forms of communication, observing how agreement is reached on positions and views on issues of concern to personnel, how differences are overcome, commanders draw conclusions about the essential moral and psychological characteristics of the team.
In interaction with the collective, the individual appears as a self-regulating system in the social environment. From this point of view, collective opinion can be viewed as a feedback channel, as the most important source of socio-psychological information about the immediate environment for the individual. It informs a person about the reaction to his actions and deeds from other people and, thus, contributes to the adoption of adequate decisions. Moreover, the group itself carries out certain social sanctions in relation to the individual. It continuously compares the behavior of each of its members with the system of norms that exists within this group, and the results are expressed in the characteristics of the attitude towards this person in the team, which can reflect approval and praise or, conversely, condemnation.
It should be noted that the collective opinion is not only a multifaceted phenomenon, but also a very dynamic one. In the dynamics of the formation and development of public opinion, a number of degrees are distinguished.
The positive traditions and moods that exist in the military collective contribute to the formation of the correct public opinion.
More on the topic The importance of collective opinion in life and work:
- Healthy lifestyle as a biological and social problem. The structure and significance of a healthy lifestyle
collective opinion represents a set of individual judgments of the majority of personnel. It expresses the position, views, beliefs, value orientations of servicemen.
Opinion The military collective takes shape and develops under the decisive influence of ideology and morality, the requirements of the military oath and regulations, orders and orders of commanders (chiefs), decisions of meetings, traditions and customs.
It is known that the collective opinion, expressing the mind, will and feelings of the majority, causes a person to strive for self-improvement. Power and experience, respect and trust make authoritative and impressive every word of the commander, officer of the educator, and separation from reality, idle talk, uncertainty cause mistrust to the commander.
A decisive prerequisite for the sustainability of collective opinion are:
Faith in the commander and his weapon;
Ideological conviction and a sense of patriotism;
Close spiritual contact with a person, the ability to understand his thoughts and interests is a reliable guarantee of mutual respect, unity of opinion and maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the team.
Collective opinion as a socio-psychological process has three conditional stages of development.
On the first At the stage, warriors perceive, experience and evaluate an act or event, each of them has their own subjective assessment and individual opinion-judgment. The main thing at the first stage is to prevent the appearance of immature views. The officer is assisted in this by activists, ensigns, sergeants, who, constantly being among colleagues, quickly react to the news, give it a correct assessment.
On the second At the stage of formation of a common opinion, the soldiers exchange thoughts and assessments. This stage can take place either calmly or in disputes, depending on how much the information affects the interests of each individual. At this stage, it is more difficult for an officer to change the wrong judgments of individual servicemen, since the individual-group opinion has a certain inertia, they get used to it.
On the third The stage of development of a common opinion involves groups of warriors who have different knowledge, beliefs, interests, and experience.
If the servicemen correctly and deeply understand the essence of the ongoing processes, argue not for the sake of their own interests, but in the name of the higher interests of the command, then a team is born competent general opinion.
Sometimes it is enough not to focus on false information so that it loses its meaning and meaning.
Managing group opinions is not easy, even more difficult to develop principled criticism. The experience of working on the formation of a mature collective opinion shows that it is necessary to criticize, first of all, not minor oversights and individual statements, but serious violations of moral standards, military discipline, and the negative orientation of the individual.
Publicity in a military collective, it helps to increase the effectiveness of command and control, accumulates all the diversity of the interests of military personnel, and is an effective way to strengthen internationalism and instill patriotism.
An important place is given to individual and group conversations..
Individual conversation very carefully prepared in advance. It is necessary to collect the necessary material containing information about the upcoming conversation and about the warrior invited to an individual conversation. It is very important to know what you need to achieve in the upcoming conversation. The general plan of the conversation may contain the main steps.
First step- adjust to the consciousness of a warrior, having access to it, using rapport, pacing and sensory experience.
Second step- promotion of the consciousness of a warrior from the current state to the desired one.
Third step- adjustment of the warrior's consciousness to a new (desired) state.
The new state should:
Have a positive outcome
Dominate sensory experience for the benefit of the individual and the cause:
Initiated and supported by the warrior himself;
To exist with the preservation of positive side effects in another situation.
A collective conversation is also very carefully prepared in advance. In this case, we are talking about a preliminary study, and sometimes the formation of a collective opinion, about preliminary work with unit commanders, with leaders of microgroups, etc.
A collective conversation begins with the formation of an emotional upsurge in the audience, giving them undeniable information. Each statement must be supported by the consent of the listeners (“Yes!”). (There is an adjustment to the collective consciousness of the group).
Then you need to try to somehow put the listeners into a trance, i.e. turn each one to his own inner experience. (Present a better picture of the states: - remembrance of the Motherland; - successful solution of current problems; - appeal to one's own conscience, honor, etc.).
A common underlying symptom of this condition may be the "unfocused" gaze of most listeners.
After that, it is necessary to begin the formation of beliefs, which should take the form of short slogans with an active focus.
In conclusion, it is necessary to consolidate the slogans in a relaxed atmosphere, but in such a way that the listeners do not suspect the repetition of already said phrases.
The officer carefully analyzes the results of group and individual conversations and draws a conclusion. Sometimes the collective opinion is fixed in the form of decisions taken at meetings.
In some cases, for the analysis of collective opinion are used written questionnaires and personal interviews. They may contain questions that reveal information about an individual or a team, facts of behavior in the past and present, about an assessment of events or attitudes towards an individual soldier, a group of fellow countrymen, etc. Experiments show that in the process of developing a collective opinion, individual opinions are consolidated into group. This is manifested in the fact that the coefficient of agreement increases after the discussion of the issue in groups that have reached a high level of development.
Thus , control of collective opinion achieves its goal under the following conditions:
Permanent and reliable communication with personnel;
Regular updates on current events;
Preliminary work to prepare the team for a certain impact of public opinion;
Development of openness and culture of discussions;
A skillful choice of the most expedient forms of influencing the consciousness and feelings of soldiers - meetings, press, group and individual conversations;
Bringing truthful information to the personnel, who and how serves, performs his duties, applies to comrades and commanders;
Bringing to the team his own opinion on the most important issues of service and life, its importance for strengthening discipline and increasing combat readiness;
Ensuring pedagogical tact and sensitivity in working with military personnel who have little knowledge of the Kazakh (Russian) language and blindly follow national customs;
Maintenance of statutory relationships and active struggle against deviations from the requirements of military regulations, orders and orders of the commander.
Knowing the collective opinion gives the moral right to the commander to issue orders to the personnel of the unit and ensure their implementation.
Conclusion on the second question: Thus, a high level of unity of action is ensured by the desire of all for collective success (collectivist motivation), as well as the ability of each soldier to organize his actions taking into account the actions and needs of his comrades. The skills and abilities of interaction are based, in turn, on the individual combat skill of each soldier, on his knowledge of his duties, weapons and military equipment and the ability to use them in battle.
In the system of means of moral education, an important place belongs to public opinion. Being a value judgment of classes and other social communities of people on issues of public life, it affects their interests, expresses the attitude of the public to various events, facts, phenomena, to the activities and behavior of people. Public opinion as a value judgment expressing the attitude of the public is organically linked with morality. The norms of morality are based on the power of public opinion, are established and supported by it, just as public opinion, in turn, is based on the norms of morality. It is clear that education in the spirit of morality cannot but rely on it.
Public opinion, embodied in collective opinion, is the most important spiritual force of the collective. However, the opinions of the collective and society do not always completely coincide. If public opinion is the state of consciousness of society as a whole, then collective opinion is the state of consciousness of the collective, the totality of value judgments shared by the majority or all members of the collective, the general position of the collective, its attitude to certain events and facts of life.
This or that collective has its own moods, views, judgments, i.e., its own consciousness, which often does not completely coincide with the mood, views and judgments of each of its individual members, as well as with similar manifestations in other collectives. The collective opinion expresses that which most fully expresses common interests. But it does not capture all shades of views, judgments of each member of the team.
The opinion of the collective is embodied in the decisions it makes (of course, the imperative power of the decision depends on the nature of the collective), in the norms operating in it, social attitudes and other formations of the collective consciousness. Through collective opinion, control is exercised over the actions of people, their psychological preparation for solving the goals and tasks facing the collective. It is the real force that sometimes has a decisive influence on human behavior. Under its influence, the process of turning external requirements into internal ones takes place, perseverance, purposefulness, consistency arises, the ability to mobilize one's capabilities and energy is formed.
The educational role of collective opinion is that the individual judges the opinion of society as a whole and perceives the requirements of the collective as the requirements of society. Moreover, she looks at the world, evaluates events, facts, to a large extent under the influence of the collective. The level, the nature of the collective opinion leaves a deep imprint in the individual consciousness of a person. Under its influence, a person learns what actions the collective approves and what condemns. Opinion for him becomes a measure of expediency, reasonableness of behavior from the standpoint of the team.
Public opinion carries out its educational role mainly through the moral control of people's activities and behavior. The function of moral control is determined by the fact that moral relations are the most important aspect of all relations existing in society. In socialist collectives they are formed in accordance with the norms of communist morality, they act as relations of a person to a collective, a person to a person, a collective to other collectives, a collective to a person, a collective to society, and are subject to the control of public opinion.
In our society, perhaps, there is no such collective, no matter how small or large it may be, which would not exert its influence on the relations between people, their behavior through opinion. A variety of relationships, connections that arise in the process of a person's participation in the life of such, for example, groups as labor, educational, family, sports, contributes to the harmonious development of the individual. At the same time, the purposeful formation of a moral personality is impossible without coherence, consistency of such groups in their requirements for human behavior, without proper moral control. Lack of coordination of moral control can give rise to a split in consciousness and behavior. So, it has been noticed that not all people still have strong convictions about the need to comply with moral standards. One of the reasons for this is the difference in the moral requirements that different groups impose on a person. Moreover, even if such beliefs have been formed, then during the transition, for example, from a labor collective with high requirements to a labor collective with low requirements, beliefs in the need to comply with moral standards lose their support and may lose their binding character.
A person's attitude to general opinion, that is, to public and collective opinion, depends to a certain extent on the position of a person in a team, in society. Let's say the plant manager is a member of the production team and at the same time acts as a leader in relation to it. The position of a leader obliges one to listen sensitively to the opinion of the collective, but at the same time, it opens up the possibility of putting one's own opinion above the collective one, not taking it into account. And in life there are cases when a team criticizes its leader, and he abuses his official position, hinders the expression of the collective opinion. For such leaders, collective opinion is not an authority, and not because it is unfair, but because these leaders misunderstand their place in the team.
Psychologically, this is explained (but by no means justified) by the fact that not all leaders understand and feel their responsibility to the team in which they work. For some of them, the team is only subordinates, and they expect flattery, admiration from them, but not censure, condemnation and not even praise. Praise implies the superiority of the one who praises, and they do not recognize the superiority of the collective.
The positive role of collective opinion and social influence is becoming more and more tangible in the life of our society. At the same time, the enormous advantages of educational influence from the side of collective opinion become more obvious in comparison with administrative measures.
With administrative influence, a person acts as an object of education. When referring to him as a member of the team, who is responsible not only personally for himself, but also for the team, a higher type of responsibility for his behavior is carried out - moral responsibility. Collective opinion is addressed to the conscience and duty of a person, that is, to the consciousness of responsibility for one's behavior to the collective.
The same demands, but expressed not by an individual, but by a collective opinion, are perceived by a person in a different way: they are more quickly perceived as objective and fair. For example, a penalty imposed by the administration of an enterprise can be protested by a team of workmates. But if the public condemns, then a person has to think more seriously about his behavior. A person evaluates his actions in accordance with the judgments of the general opinion, which acts for a person as a “measurement of himself”. Acting in such a role, the opinion of the collective thereby acquires great importance in moral education.
In comparison with administrative influence, public opinion also has the peculiarity that it has a constant impact on the individual. Therefore, by exercising constant moral control over human behavior, it can prevent the violation of social norms.
Public opinion, expressing itself on questions of specific actions of people, intrudes into the sphere of their moral convictions and feelings, influences them, giving an assessment of people's behavior, their actions from the standpoint of communist morality.
Moral feelings are a high and complex form of expression of a person's inner world. They arise when a person in his behavior begins to proceed not from private, but from public interests. This implies a high level of consciousness of the individual, her understanding of the need to combine her personal interests with the interests of the public. When there is no such understanding, then the desires and aspirations of a person are not supported and supported by high moral feelings and convictions. It is in such a situation that public opinion comes to the rescue, supporting and reinforcing moral convictions with its authority.
Strengthening and development of moral convictions and feelings depends on the constant demands of public opinion on the behavior of the individual. If the act of a person that does not comply with the norms of morality is not condemned by the collective to the fullest extent and justice, then this person’s sense of conscience is dulled. If the general opinion of the collective does not react at all to such actions, then this leads to the fact that a person, in violation of the norms of morality, gradually ceases to feel remorse. On the contrary, the general collective censure of an immoral act causes a heightened sense of shame in front of their comrades.
The general opinion, constantly and timely reacting to the immoral actions of a person, exerts its influence not only by expressing its judgments, but also by the very possibility of such an expression. Therefore, knowledge of the requirements of the collective opinion on the behavior of the individual strengthens her consciousness and sense of conscience and duty.
Under the influence of public opinion, a person develops self-esteem. What this feeling will be also depends on the exactingness of a person's behavior. A healthy general opinion will not allow this feeling to develop into arrogance, arrogance, arrogant pride. By cultivating moral convictions and feelings, it gives integrity to the moral image of a person who organically merges knowledge, understanding of the principles of behavior and feelings.
Performing the functions of moral control, public opinion brings up highly moral motives for the activities and behavior of people. Thus, the incentive motives for labor activity include both personal motives (material and spiritual) and public (ideological) motives. The personal motives of a person's labor activity include material interest in the results of his work and the desire to gain social recognition. Public recognition of a person's labor merits before the team, society causes spiritual uplift, the desire to work even better. Sensitivity to public praise, along with material interest, is one of the incentives for creative activity. Praise, recognition of a person's merits to the team expresses a common opinion.
The general opinion has a strong emotional impact directly both on the one to whom it is addressed and on others, calling for imitating a worthy example.
Man's motives for labor are far from being exhausted by his personal material interest and the desire to gain social recognition. They also include ideological motives, due to the awareness of public interests. The significance of ideological motives for work is enormous. They help to overcome the difficulties encountered on the way, encourage selfless work. Ideological motives, such as Soviet patriotism and devotion to the cause of communism, found expression in the scope of socialist competition for the successful implementation of the decisions of party congresses.
By supporting the patriotic undertakings of the Soviet people in the development of new forms of socialist emulation, public opinion strengthens the ideological motives for work, glorifies and morally encourages work, and contributes to the formation and strengthening of positive traditions in the sphere of labor. And by strengthening such traditions, it also directs the development of personal incentives to work. In all this, the huge role of collective opinion is reflected.
Work collectives have already accumulated extensive experience in providing material and moral incentives. However, far from all issues related to the effective use of incentives have already been resolved. LI Brezhnev, speaking at the 16th Congress of Trade Unions of the USSR, said that, while improving material incentives, it is necessary at the same time to seriously increase the role of moral incentives.
It is very important to reduce moral incentives not only to awards, but also to be able to create such an atmosphere, such an opinion, that at every enterprise, in every team they know well who works and how, and everyone is rewarded according to their deserts. Everyone must be sure that good work and decent behavior in the team will always be recognized and appreciated.
Moral stimulation of labor activity by public opinion is the most important prerequisite for increasing social activity and an indicator of the increasing role of public opinion in moral education in modern conditions.
Thus, public opinion, influencing the beliefs and feelings of a person, condemning immoral behavior and, on the contrary, praising highly moral behavior, forms a moral personality.
The influence of public opinion on the formation of habits and traditions.
The implementation of moral control and the maintenance of moral incentives for the activity and behavior of people allows public opinion to form habits in the individual consciousness, and traditions of moral behavior in the collective and public. The formation of habits and traditions can also be considered as one of the important functions of public opinion in moral education.
The habits of moral behavior are the needs, inclinations, aspirations of a person for actions that have moral value, and methods for their implementation that have relative stability.
V. I. Lenin repeatedly drew attention to the need to cultivate habits. But he did not limit the issue of the education of habits only to the area of simple norms of human society. In his work “From the destruction of the age-old way of life to the creation of a new one,” Lenin wrote about the transformation into a habit of the need to work for the common good.
The importance of cultivating the habits of proper behavior in our society is already quite conscious. Some existing prejudice in this regard stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of habits, especially moral habits, which are complex psychological formations. The bottom line is that habit eliminates alleged belief and leads to automatism, and since this is the case, the emphasis should not be on the formation of habits.
In habit there is, undoubtedly, an element of automatism in the performance of actions. Even Hegel said that in this concept, conscious activity is combined with the opposite unconscious mechanical flow of processes, in which the individual is more imperceptible, and only the general comes to the fore. When a person, for example, learns to read or write, every letter and every feature makes up a very noticeable idea, but when he fully learns to read and write through prolonged exercises, he already notices only the whole, and not the individual. But automatism by no means exhausts the concept of habit. Arising due to long repetitions and exercises, the habit includes in its content a purposeful activity of consciousness.
Moral habits of action are associated with a person’s thinking, understanding a particular situation, planning, etc. They are very flexible forms of behavior, which, unlike elementary, say, hygienic habits, are not assigned strictly defined actions and operations. At the same time, the presence of moral habits helps to navigate in certain moral situations, since a person develops a mindset to observe the moral code of the builder of communism in behavior.
Habit, therefore, does not and cannot exclude belief. It develops, as a rule, on its basis and becomes one of the forms of its implementation in human behavior. At the same time, belief is strengthened by the presence of appropriate habits. There are many cases in life when a person who has committed an immoral act knows moral standards and understands that they cannot be violated. And this happens precisely because a conscious attitude to questions of behavior has not yet become a habit with him. Formed habits make it possible to overcome the contradictions that arise between the awareness of proper behavior and the realization of this awareness. Moral convictions and feelings become moral qualities to the extent that they begin to be embodied in practical behavior due to the organic need for a certain course of action. That is why, when solving the problems of moral education, the question of habits inevitably arises.
The role of public opinion is also great in the formation of traditions, including moral ones. Traditions accumulate the social experience of people and through them are transmitted from one generation to another. Tradition ensures the continuity of the past, present and future.
A whole system of revolutionary, military-patriotic, labor and family traditions has developed in socialist society. Moral traditions are included in their content without losing their specificity due to the relative independence of moral relations. The moral experience of our society is concentrated in moral traditions.
Purposeful formation of traditions in the process of moral education presupposes knowledge of their specifics, the principles of approach to their formation, as well as the conditions and sources of their formation and development. In the philosophical, sociological, and ethical literature, when defining traditions, some of their common features are highlighted: relative stability, the ability to pass from generation to generation. However, researchers face difficulties in determining the essence and nature of traditions. Some of them attribute traditions to public consciousness and consider them as norms of behavior (especially moral), norms of social relations. Others do not fully identify traditions with consciousness and include ideological relations in their content. Still others associate traditions with both ideological and material relations.
Traditions, apparently, should not be reduced to the sphere of consciousness and considered only as spiritual phenomena. First, they exist as a reality inherent in the social relations of people and their activities. Secondly, they exist as a reflection of reality in the mind, fixed in certain ideas and views, in symbols, images, etc. The forms and methods of manifestation of real social relations of people and their activities, regularly repeating themselves, take on a traditional character, become traditions. , As K. Marx noted, "if a form has existed for a certain time, it is strengthened as a custom and tradition ...".
The existence of traditions - as a reality, as a side of social relations and people's activities, as a reflection of this reality in the mind - creates considerable difficulties in the process of overcoming old, obsolete traditions, when the relationships that gave rise to them have already been eliminated, and reflection in the form of ideas, views, rituals, etc., are preserved as remnants of the past and hinder the establishment of the new. This creates obstacles in the formation of new traditions. The difficulties are manifested in the fact that until the forms of manifestation of socialist social relations, for example, in everyday life, have not taken on a traditional character, the imposition of a new civil ritual requires considerable effort.
The understanding of the essence and nature of traditions in social science was affected by the existence of traditions as real forms and methods of people's activity and social relations (material and ideological), as a reflection of reality itself. This was expressed primarily in the interpretation of tradition only as a category of social psychology, in the reduction of its content to spiritual elements.
Due to the fact that traditions are realities that exist both in consciousness and outside consciousness, and are inherent not only in ideological, but also in material relations, they have great stability, vitality and play a significant role in all spheres of society (this role can be positive). or negative, because both progressive and conservative traditions can take place in a society). The content and role of traditions are determined by those social relations, the forms of manifestation of which they are.
Socialist traditions are connected with socialist social relations and in their content accumulate vast social experience accumulated in the struggle to establish a new social system, in the process of socialist and communist construction. Socialist traditions are forms of social relations, life activities of people, and their way of life that have arisen historically, have been consolidated and are passing from generation to generation.
The source of the formation of socialist traditions is social practice. Social relations, repeating themselves in the life of a number of generations, lead to the emergence of traditions. For the formation of traditions, therefore, a historically defined period of time is necessary, during which the forms of social relations, the activities of people are transmitted from generation to generation, acquiring a stable, traditional character. The continuity of social relations and forms of their manifestation becomes characteristic of the traditions themselves.
The formation of traditions is essentially a natural-historical process. At the same time, people can consciously strive to create new moral relations, to form appropriate traditions. In this sense, it is legitimate to speak of conscious principles in the formation and development of tradition. And these principles are becoming more and more widespread under socialism. It is clear that the question of spontaneity in the formation of new traditions is not removed, but conscious principles prevail under socialism. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the role of purposefully organized public opinion in the formation and strengthening of traditions.
The role of public opinion is reflected in the fact that its requirements are embodied, fixed in the ideological content of traditions. Differences between public opinion and traditions can be represented as differences between the present and the past in the minds of society. What worries people today, the issues that they are currently rattling around, are the subject of public opinion. Constantly recurring social practice, approved by public opinion, fixes the forms of manifestation of certain social relations, activities, and behavior of people in strong institutions, i.e. in traditions.
The ideological content of traditions has some independence in relation to the phenomena that gave rise to them and can lead to a weakening of the connection between them. At the same time, there is a need for the support of the latter from public opinion. In establishing new traditions, it is important to rely on the experience acquired by Party and other public organizations in their formation and use in ideological and educational work. As an example, one can refer to the experience of a number of regional party organizations; Odessa, Yaroslavl, Irkutsk and others. Thus, the Odessa regional party organization has accumulated considerable experience in the work of patriotic education. Odessa Komsomol members were one of the initiators of the All-Union campaign of Komsomol members and youth to places of revolutionary, military and labor glory of the party and people
Socialist labor traditions as a necessary feature of the socialist way of life have developed throughout the history of Soviet society and are now becoming widespread. For example, in the formation of new labor traditions in the Yaroslavl region, communists pay great attention to strengthening them in every possible way and widely using them in the life of labor collectives. “Notable in this respect is the activity of the party organization and the administration of the Yaroslavl Motor Plant, where they skillfully use the best labor traditions to solve urgent problems ... the development of production ... The party organization is developing in every possible way an innovative attitude to work, inherent in the traditions that the Stakhanovites and shock workers of the first five-year plans passed on to the modern working class » The Irkutsk party organization also pays close attention to the continuity and further development of labor traditions. In both areas, great importance is attached to the use in the education of workers of such new rituals and ceremonies as solemn initiation into workers, honoring the foremost workers, labor veterans, etc.
The experience of the Odessa, Yaroslavl and Irkutsk party organizations allows us to judge that the formation, strengthening and transmission of socialist traditions under the influence of public opinion is a constant concern of the communists.
Role public opinion in the fight against deviations from socialist norms of morality.
The Program of the CPSU gives a high appraisal of the role of public opinion in the struggle against the remnants of the past and points out its increasing importance as our society advances towards communism. At the 25th Congress of our Party, attention was drawn to the need for wide use in the fight against deviations from socialist norms of morality, along with other means, of the opinion of the labor collective.
The effectiveness of public opinion is revealed in the struggle for the establishment of socialist morality in life. The difficulties that arise in this case are due to the fact that individual consciousness is formed not only under the influence of social life, it is also influenced by the specific conditions of a person’s life, his environment. Therefore, under the influence of certain undesirable phenomena, misconceptions and views may develop. First of all, it is up to the public to fight misconceptions and views, as well as the causes that caused them. Under its beneficial influence, a person assimilates the ideas and views contained in the public consciousness.
The daily life of our society provides numerous facts of improvement in people's behavior under the critical influence of common opinion. A person listens to the judgments of the collective opinion because he is faced with the need to answer for his actions before the collective, society. It is this necessity that has a strong influence on the criterion of his personal judgments. When answering to the collective, the grounds for the judgments of his comrades about his behavior become especially clear to him, and he himself begins to see himself, as it were, from the outside. And it's not that he did not know about the requirements of the team for the behavior of its members. The condemnation of his behavior by his comrades shows that the demands of the collective apply to him personally as well. A person begins to realize the correctness of the team, his opinion in assessing his misdeeds. The experience of collective condemnation of comrades gives rise to a sense of shame and remorse.
But does a change occur immediately in the consciousness and feelings of a person subjected to collective condemnation, or not? Of course, this does not always give a quick positive result. Sometimes such a condemnation causes him offensive annoyance, which does not turn into a feeling of shame and does not lead to repentance. And yet, in most cases, the condemnation of the general opinion forces the violator of social norms to submit to the requirements of the collective. At first burrows, this may be external in nature, which is already a certain step towards correction. Acceptance of collective requirements for performance under the control of a common opinion leads to the accumulation of moral experience and further to an internal awareness of the justice of the requirements of the collective.
Condemnation, expressed through a common opinion, can cause a person to quickly restructure his desires, feelings and aspirations. Such a restructuring is accomplished if it is expressed unanimously and very insistently.
However, along with condemnation, the general opinion also enjoys the encouragement of worthy examples of behavior to follow. In our society, advanced people are surrounded by honor and respect, others are brought up by their example. And yet, for the upbringing and self-education of people, it is very important to find and praise what acts as a positive beginning for each person.
A person who has strayed from the right path of life becomes the subject of discussion in the team. This form of influence is positive and mostly justifies itself. At the same time, it is far from ideal, since coercion also appears here.
Moral censure in one form or another is experienced by many people in their lives. The principle of criticism and self-criticism has firmly entered our lives. Moral coercion is often associated with more difficult emotional experiences and the expenditure of moral strength than administrative coercion. It affects not only the person to whom the criticism is directed, but also those who criticize.
There are also such cases in life: before committing an immoral act under the influence of some unfavorable circumstances, a person was a leader in production, an active social activist. The discussion at the meeting of the collective was reduced to a serious censure of his given act. It is clear that a bad deed should receive an appropriate assessment. But moral condemnation is perceived not just as a condemnation of an incorrect action, but as an assessment of a person. And when all attention is focused on a perfect deed, then through it an assessment is given to a person as an immoral person. It is very difficult for a person to accept.
A correct assessment of a person's behavior should, apparently, include both condemnation and support for the good, worthy that he had in life. A reminder of the best pages of a person's life, along with severe condemnation, makes him think about behavior in general. Praise from the team causes a surge of new strength. It elevates a person in his own eyes and gives rise to a sense of gratitude towards the team, society.
