EXCHANGE OF NOTES WITH M. N. POKROVSKY.
November 11, 1919
3 A II II S K A L E P If II A.
Dear Comrade Pokrovsky! In my view, the attached document no. 1 implies that all…
In the People’s Commissariat for Education. Please return it with your comments.
Your Lenin.
NOTES BY LENIN ON COMRADE M. II’S NOTE TO M. II.
POKROVSKY.
If there are Party comrades who are genuinely interested in library work and possess a sound understanding of its principles, we must enlist their participation in our library department—especially since the department is sorely lacking in dedicated personnel—but we must not establish “Party” libraries running parallel to the “Soviet” ones.
RESPONSE FROM LE  II U  H  A.
I agree. Please submit a formal opinion from the People’s Commissar (or the Deputy People’s Commissar) on this matter to the Central Committee of the Party (with a copy sent to me).
1 By “document no. 1,” Lenin refers to a draft submitted to him for review by one of the library’s staff members, outlining plans for the establishment of a Central Party Library in Moscow.
M. N. Pokrovsky was the Deputy People’s Commissar for Education.
NOTES ON P. P. BLONSKI’S BROCHURE “THE WORKING SCHOOL”
[1919]
… 22. Industrial–Socialist Culture. — Through the education it imparts, the school introduces its students into the world of one cultural tradition or another. The question arises: what kind of culture do we, as educators in the industrial–labor school, envision as our ultimate goal?
Above all, this is the culture of a technologically powerful humanity. To me, it sounds almost barbaric when I am accused of being “technicist.” Is it truly a bad thing to be strong? Is it wrong to harness the forces of nature? Is it a failing to master the art of working with maximum efficiency? Is industry not the very pride of human genius? Or have we, even now, continued to cherish the ideals of the rural dweller? There is only one instance in which technology becomes a source of evil: when it is wielded by man against man. But perhaps it is no longer so difficult for the reader to recognize that immense technological challenges presuppose unity and cooperation—and that capitalism is rejected above all because of its technologically reactionary role. The inevitable consequence of consistent industrialization is precisely socialism; and at a certain stage of development—as we see in the “Introduction” to our book—capitalism itself comes to retard industrialization in its technical and cultural achievements. The factory is the cradle in which collectivism is inevitably nurtured. A technically advanced society is inextricably bound up with a socially advanced society. The culture of the future is an industrially collectivist culture, and only that education which initiates individuals into this culture can truly be called genuine education. …