Talk:Anton Makarenko

Untitled

Anton Semenovich's death at 51, right during the big purges of 1939 that were persecuting especially true believers in the community, who had little patience with Stalin, smells strongly of foul play. I have heard a version that he committed suicide, but no confirmation so far through google... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.138.150 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 1939 was a year of relaxing of the terror. - Altenmann >t 16:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Relaxing? Well, it's true that it was better than 1938 and obviously a lot better than 1937, but it's still basically the period of the Great Purge. All in all, even in perfect health, I wouldn't bet on Makarenko making it alive to 1954. I guess the reason he survived 1937 was the fact that he wasn't even a party member yet (he applied for membership as late as in 1939, the year of his death), so he probably wasn't considered prominent enough to deserve attention.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that version of suicide for Makarenko is wrong, because latest research (e.g. by Dr. Richard Sokolov, famous expert of Makarenko system, Makarenko biography, child’s movement, etc.) show that Makarenko’s parents (as he self) was Orthodox believer, more over, Semyon Makarenko (father of Anton) was churchwarden of local district. And among Orthodox believer suicide are vied as one of biggest sins.

The second argument is that known many signs (indicators) of Makarenko’s health decreasing during last years of his life in consequence of many years (more than 14) of very intensive work without rest and free day, often without night rest (full or partly)... Dmitru (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Communist propaganda source

The text by Filonov was published 1981, so it was censored and inspired by the Soviet party. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But it was also published by UNESCO and was re-published in 1994. If Filipov had wanted to withdraw his praises and curse Makarenko, he could have done it.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I know many censored texts republished by their authors without any change. Censorship educates writers and only some of them revolt.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So your issue is not with the time when the text was published but with the mind of the person who wrote it? That is, you are arguing that any writer whose career started before 1991 and who you feel hasn't "reformed his thinking" to your satisfaction, does not count as a reliable source? I'm afraid that this Stalinist/Orwellian approach does not meet any support in Wikipedia's policies as they stand.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence "The establishment and development of educational theory and the education system in the USSR was closely bound up with the scientific creativity and practical labours of an outstanding group of Soviet educators." makes the whole text innaceptable. Murdered or imprisoned educators should be listed, to explain the context.Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this sentence must be false. There were also outstanding and creative people in the Red Army, in the (pro-Soviet) arts, in the (pro-Soviet) cinema, etc.. Sure, many of them were murdered or imprisoned later at one point or another, but that doesn't change the fact that the establishment and development of the relevant fields were "closely bound up" with their activities. If you mean that "the establishment and development of educational theory and the education system in the USSR" involved absolutely no creativity and labours and consisted primarily of murdering and imprisoning previously existing educators, then you're welcome to cite your source.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The same the III Reich supported Jewish academicians. Prove that terrorised or dead people are creative. The Soviet leadership wanted controllable specialists, robots, "vintiki" as Stalin said. The reader should be informed about the context. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

fought actively ?

People who "fought actively" under Stalin were murdered or sent to labor camps.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what they "fought for". In any case, I don't think this was intended to imply armed struggle. But I've changed the wording slightly to avoid militant connotations.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean any form of "fight", including writing personal notes at home or posessing foreign books.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that if you happened to be "fighting" against something else than communism - say, malaria, lice, petty theft, poor sewerage, lack of education among juvenile delinquents - then you weren't automatically murdered or sent to labour camps. Such was Makarenko's case, too.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

False, almost any activity was punished, including Esperanto language. There existed Party line regarding youth. Did Makarenko oppose the line openly or declared acceptance but opposed factually?Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You have an exaggerated idea of this. Esperanto was a very special case, because it was strongly associated with the previous "internationalist" line and with Trotsky in particular. As far as I can tell, Makarenko developed most of his ideas and practice and became a recognized authority at a time when there was room for disagreements, before the Stalinist system had crystallized and before a single undisputed party line had been imposed. When it did develop, he probably did his best to fit in and to argue that all of his positions coincided with the "party line" or were mere elaborations of it. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just reading "The Whisperers", the book unfortunately doesn't discuss Makarenko's influence, but Soviet system didn't certainly educate individuals. Makarenko was very lucky to survive so long.Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He also rejected physical punishment

In a country where millions were executed or imprisoned, Makarenko rejected...Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Makarenko writes in Pedagogical Poem that other educators who disagreed with his methods were against physical punishment. He was also criticized by at least one of his staff when he hit a guy in their care. Also, the way mass executions and imprisonment were set up, people were not clearly aware of at least the extent of them (that's why this was possible in the first place). 69.69.247.22 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)somebody

Yes. And in 1928 Nadezhda Krupskaya criticized Makarenko exactly for that: resorting to physical violence (even if he denied the accusation). I remove the phrase, it's highly contentious. -- Evermore2 (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

AM's collective authoritarianism doesn't fit the humanist image that was painted of him by some. But Makarenko has to be seen in context of his bad times. The criticism section needs input of Soviet/Russian historians... Yohananw (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Makarenko 'sources'?

Now, this neat bit of original research has to be removed, no matter how many grains of truth there might be. You see, while the author indeed 'mentions literature about reform schools in the USA' in the opening passages of the book, there is no evidence at all that he refers to "the book "Fifty Years of Prison Service" by Zebulon Reed Brockway".
Now, check the opening dialogue here. The Chief of the Gubernia Department of Public Education "What can you have to tell me? I know what you're going to say: 'If only we could do like they do over there... er ...in America! ...' I've just read a book about it--someone shoved it on to me. Reforma--...what d'you call them? Oh, yes, reformatories! Well, we haven't got any here yet!"
What exactly this American book was, that the official mentions, remains unclear. Even if it was indeed the one by Zebulon Reed Brockway, that would hardly be good enough reason to proclaim it a Makarenko source, wouldn’t it?
Having said that, any well-sourced data on the literature that might have influenced Makarenko, would be very welcome, of course. -- Evermore2 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section, NPOV

"Supposed" faults? To his credit on 8 Sept 2015 the knowledgable editor/gnome Evermore2 added new section Criticism: "Like most things Soviet, Makarenko's ideas came under heavy criticism after the fall of communism. His system has been accused of many of the same supposed faults as Soviet Communism in general...". - Now this section currently reads:

Criticism of Makarenko's ideas were raised by Soviet educators and Russian dissidents both before and after the fall of Soviet communism. The humanist educator Vasyl Sukhomlynsky ventured in an unpublished manuscript, “Our Good Family” (1967), against "Makarenko’s false statement that the main objective of Soviet moral and character education is found in the collective."[1] Vladimir Sirotin (Karkov 1960 - Moscow 201?) described Makarenko as "the bard of punitive pedagogy" whose ideas were contrary to democratic freedoms and human rights including the natural rights of child and parents.[2] Makarenko's system has been faulted for giving the child collective too much power over the individual child.[3] - Yohananw (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for crediting me in such a nice way, much appreciated)) No, what I did with this edit was add not a section, but only a heading, by way of structuring the text. The paragraph that you've rightly corrected dates back to 2005 and I have nothing to do with it whatsoever. And - no, I am not knowledgeable in the subject at all, my job was only to expand the biography section according to the sources available, that's all. -- Evermore2 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anton Makarenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226043303/http://imp.rudn.ru:80/psychology/labour_psychology/biograf24.html to http://imp.rudn.ru/psychology/labour_psychology/biograf24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ukranian or Russian?

Maybe I'm way off base here, but given that Makarenko was from Ukraine (which granted was a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union during his lifetime) would it not be more accurate to state his nationality as Ukrainian, rather than Russian?