Alexey Andreev: “We will continue to support the workers of the North, who, through many years of work, have proven their right to respect for them and their work. public reception press service

Ancient Greek philosophers actively defended the ideas of the natural nature of the division between mental and physical labor. Thus, Plato, when creating the principles for constructing an ideal state, proposed to consider the division of labor as a natural phenomenon. Considering the state as a community of people generated by nature itself, he substantiated the inherent inequality of people and the inevitability of dividing the state into rich and poor. Plato associated the need for exchange with the natural division of labor. He saw the division of labor as the main reason for the hierarchical structure of society and the basis for the identification of different classes depending on the types of labor performed.

Another Greek thinker Xenophon (c. 430 BC - c. 355 BC) discusses the attitude of society to physical labor, in particular to craft activities. The philosopher notes that engaging in “low crafts” (i.e., heavy physical labor) destroys the body of those who engage in them, which means their soul becomes weaker. In a work entitled "Domostroy" he sets out his views on the rules and principles of the slave economy and was one of the first to pay great attention to the analysis of the division of labor as a natural phenomenon, as well as as an important condition for increasing the use value of things. Xenophon came close to understanding the principle of the manufacturing division of labor and was the first to point out the relationship between the development of the division of labor and the market.

Discussing the division of labor, Aristotle noted that in a state, worthy citizens should not lead a life like that of artisans or merchants. The philosopher, like other thinkers of his era, realized the need for the spiritual development of man, which in an era of low labor productivity was greatly hampered by physical or craft activities. Exploring the laws of social life and the mechanisms that contribute to the integrity of society, Aristotle comes to the conclusion about the natural nature of inequality and justifies the division of people into slaves and freemen. Thus, the philosopher associated slavery with the division of labor, which was based on natural differences in human abilities.

The Roman philosopher Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) believed that all activities of everyday craft work designed to satisfy the needs of life are insignificant and utilitarian. We must be content with little, with what nature provides. Everything that crafts supply as a product of their labor is superfluous, since “all these crafts, the noise of which excites the city, work for the needs of the body, which was previously given as much as a slave, and now they offer everything as if it were an owner. Therefore, in that workshop they weave , in this forge, in that they brew perfume, here they teach pampered body movements, there - pampered, relaxed tunes. The natural measure that limits desires to what is necessary is now lost;

Representatives of medieval thought did not make much progress compared to the views of ancient philosophers on the nature of the division of labor. In particular, Thomas Aquinas characterized the latter in the spirit of ancient thought as a natural phenomenon and believed that it lies at the basis of the division of society into classes. In his opinion, people are born different by nature: peasants are created for physical labor, and the privileged classes must devote themselves to spiritual activities.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who can be called one of the main denouncers of civilization, puts forward as an argument against modern civilization the thesis that the consequence of the division of labor is the transformation of people into one-sided individuals. Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) criticized the capitalist division of labor for its deep contradictions. K. A. Saint-Simon spoke about the need to organize a labor system that would coordinate its parts, their closer connection and dependence on the whole. Charles Fourier (1772-1837), in order to overcome the negative consequences of the division of labor, put forward the idea of a change in activity, which would help maintain interest in work.

Representatives of classical political economy, David Ricardo (1772-1823), William Petty (1623-1687) and especially A. Smith, were the first to begin to consider the division of labor from the standpoint of production efficiency and progress in the development of productive forces.

Important to remember!

The first who discovered and substantiated the law of division of labor from a scientific (economic) point of view was A. Smith. He also owns the term “separation of the pile.”

In economics, since the time of A. Smith, the division of labor has been considered as a process of increasing the efficiency of social production. He saw in the division of labor a miraculous force of social nature, an irreplaceable source of surplus value.

Classic opinion.

This is how A. Smith describes the production of pins in his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”: “One man draws out a wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth sharpens it, a fifth flattens its top to make a cap; in order to make a cap , two or three separate operations are required; putting it on is the next operation, whitening the pins is another; the whole craft is wrapping them in paper; thus, the important business of making pins is divided into about eighteen separate operations, which in some manufactories are performed by different workers, and in others, two or three of them may be performed by the same person."

WITH mid-19th V. Western social thought is characterized by an apology (defense) of the division of labor. O. Comte and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) consider the latter in the context of social progress, noting its beneficial effects. However, external influences have a distorting effect, which manifests itself as negative consequences or costs of the division of labor.

Most of all, K. Marx and F. Engels were engaged in the analysis of the division of labor as a process and law in various socio-economic formations. The division of labor in societies other than primitive ones, according to the terminology of K. Marx, is called the social division of labor. Understanding the process of transition from the natural division of labor to the social one and its characteristic features is fundamental to clarifying not only the essence of the social division of labor, but also its fate in the future. According to the neo-Marxist G. Braverman, “each individual cannot himself “produce in accordance with a standard of any kind” and invent standards unknown to any animal, but the entire human race is able to accomplish this partly through the social division of labor. Thus, social division labor obviously becomes characteristic feature labor performed by the human race - as soon as this labor becomes social, i.e. labor performed in and through society."

In this sense, K. Marx identified three types of division of labor: general, private And single, but attributed only the first two types to social division. The general and private division of labor is characterized by a consistent process of separation of large spheres of activity, which differ from each other in the form of the product. In this case we are talking about the occurrence agriculture, industry, trade and other things, and then - about the emergence of industries. For example, within industry there are extractive industries, mechanical engineering, metallurgy, etc. IN modern society The service sector and scientific production emerged and became a separate large type of activity. Private division of labor is the process of separating individual industries within large types of production. A single division of labor occurs within the manufacture and can be called in another way an operational division of labor.

1 The origins of the social division of labor lie within society (clan, community). F. Engels, dwelling on the emergence of the social division of labor, writes: “At earlier stages of development, only random exchange could take place; special art in the manufacture of weapons and tools could lead to a temporary division of labor. For example, in many places undoubted remains were found workshops for the manufacture of stone tools of the late Stone Age; the craftsmen who developed their art here probably worked at the expense and benefit of their team, as permanent artisans of tribal communities in India still do. At this stage of development, exchange could only arise within the tribe. , and even here he remained an exceptional phenomenon."

According to K. Marx, division of labor and private property are historical categories. The division of labor at first had a physiological basis, and with the emergence of private property it acquired a social character and specific characteristics in individual socio-economic formations (in class formations it has a class character). K. Marx came to the conclusion that the social division of labor is a condition for commodity production.

The division of labor has its own specific characteristics in various socio-economic formations. Under capitalism, the development of technology and the division of labor become more and more ramified, leading to the “fragmentation” of labor and workers. However, K. Marx did not identify the social division of labor and the individual division of labor that exists in the manufacture, or the operational one: “Despite the significant similarity and interconnection of these phenomena, the division of labor within society and the division of labor within the workshop differ not only in scale, but also in quality.”

The division of labor impoverishes the humanity of the worker to the point that labor no longer contributes to the development of his personality, but is only a means of satisfying his basic life needs. However, division is not only a source of dehumanization of labor; along with the increase in the division of labor, the worker becomes more and more dependent only on the work and cannot give it another direction. The universal consequences of the division of labor are not limited to workers. The division of labor also has positive results under capitalism, associated primarily with the development of productive forces.

E. Durkheim is one of the most famous sociologists who worked on the division of labor. Among his main works, the work “On the Division of Social Labor” stands out.

E. Durkheim's main goal is to study the division of labor not as an economic process, but from the point of view of its social functions and causes, to show that the division of labor is based on the social division of people. The division of labor has become dominant in modern society:

and in industry, and in agriculture, and in trade. In addition, it invades science, art, politics; the morality of society approves of the division of labor, supporting professionalism and condemning amateurism. According to E. Durkheim, economics failed to consider the causes and consequences of the division of labor. It is usually believed that the division of labor increases the productivity of the latter, thereby creating benefits for society in the form of increased welfare, variety and quality of goods, etc. The reasons for the division of labor are seen in the natural inclinations of a person towards one or another type of work. However, in reality the causes and consequences of the division of labor go deeper.

Social function of the division of labor, according to E. Durkheim, is to create solidarity, i.e. a more closely interconnected society. The feeling of solidarity can be defined as “three mutual feelings of interconnectedness, interdependence and mutual interest of people in society, which leads to a feeling of its integrity. The question arises of how changes in solidarity in society can be studied. For E. Durkheim, an accurate and strict indicator of solidarity was needed , and he found it in the facts of law. In the history of civilization, two fundamentally different types of law can be distinguished: repressive law (criminal), distinguished on the basis of punishment, and restitutive (.economic, negotiable, administrative, civil), determined but based on the restoration of broken relationships or order.

Repressive law existed for a long time in primitive societies where there was no division of labor. It, in the form of custom or tradition, presupposed, on the one hand, general norms of behavior and responsibilities, and, on the other, sanctions for violating these norms and responsibilities. Law itself usually had religious legitimacy, and punishment acted as an appeal to God. Punishment was usually aimed at causing suffering to the offender (corporal punishment) or at restricting freedom or taking life. However, its main significance was to instill fear and law-abidingness in respectable citizens. Repressive law punishes a person for his differences from others, for his individuality, and fosters the sameness and similarity of people’s behavior. This type of law reflects deeper social relations - the same behavior and thinking of members of a social group. E. Durkheim calls these relations mechanical solidarity. The latter was the only means of integrating society, a guarantee of its stability in the face of various external shocks. Thus, mechanical solidarity corresponds to repressive law; this type of society (primitive tribes, hordes, clans) is based on the sameness of consciousness and behavior and strict sanctions for difference and individuality.

In societies where the division of labor is highly developed, the restitutive type of law usually dominates. This right does not have a redemptive nature and is aimed at restoring general order without restricting the freedom of activity of subjects of law. It not only does not restrain the individuality of the subjects’ actions, but, on the contrary, presupposes various types of activities and their regulation. This type of law arises when there is differentiation of labor, and therefore of people, when people differ from each other in their way of life, when society does not absorb individuality, but assumes personal characteristics of activity.

Important to remember!

This type social relations E. Durkheim calls organic solidarity; it corresponds to restitutive law.

Organic solidarity is much stronger than mechanical solidarity; with the latter, the community is divided without compromising its basic functions. A typical example of the emergence of organic solidarity is a medieval city.

Important to know!

Social function economic process division of labor is to create a new type of interaction in society - organic (or natural) solidarity.

The next problem posed by E. Durkheim was to determine reasons emergence of division of labor. Typically, economists, starting with A. Smith, associated the division of labor with a person’s natural inclinations to various types activities. The division of labor, in their opinion, depends on the division of people according to individual abilities. People themselves realize the benefits of the division of labor and follow it in their economic life. Another option, almost repeating the first, is associated with the idea of the inherent desire for well-being and happiness in a person.

These explanations of the division of labor as a social phenomenon do not suit E. Durkheim from a methodological point of view, since they come down to the individual characteristics of a person - his needs, motives, values. Social phenomena are explained only by social reasons, individual life itself is subject to social reality.

E. Durkheim believed that hereditary inclinations can serve as a reason for the division of labor in the most general view. People are born with only the most general inclinations (for the exact sciences, music or drawing), but there is no innate inclination towards one profession or another. The greater the specialization of types of activity, the less the influence of heredity. In this regard, this factor does not explain the emergence of the division of labor.

Thus, the main reason for the emergence of the division of labor, according to E. Durkheim, was the collapse of the segmental structure of primitive society.

Important to know!

Gradually, over time, in a primitive society consisting of a number of clans and tribes not connected with each other, where within each clan people are approximately the same, an increase in physical and moral density begins to occur. Physical density means that the population increases in volume while the territory of residence remains unchanged, and moral density associated with an increase in the number of human interactions or communication in connection with the transition from a nomadic to a sedentary lifestyle, from village to city, with the development of means of communication - language, roads, mail, etc. This is how differentiation of people and types of economic activity arises.

Under changed conditions, the segmentary structure of society would lead to interpersonal and social conflicts, since in a limited territory homogeneous objects come into a state of conflict.

In addition to the identified main reason for the division of labor, E. Durkheim names other accompanying social reasons. First, the transition from polytheism to monotheism weakens the influence of collective consciousness. Monotheism gives freedom to everyone to understand God in their own way, the idea of God as a whole, which allows individual thinking to develop. Secondly, during the transition from a rural to an urban way of life, tradition in society weakens. In an urban gathering of a large number of people, a person is free from public opinion and may not follow the everyday traditional way of life and economic activity.

E. Durkheim, in his theory of the division of labor, proves the thesis about the increasing solidarity of society with the course of economic development. The normal function of the division of labor is to create solidarity, but there is also a pathology - social contradictions that arise as a result of anomie, i.e. lack of organizational forms of these relations.

Thus, E. Durkheim showed that economic progress is associated with the creation of a new type of society based on organic solidarity. The division of labor means for a society based on organic solidarity an increase in differentiation and integration; the reasons for the division of labor lie in the objective process of increasing the physical and moral density of the population; the abnormal social consequences of the division of labor can be overcome provided that the anomic nature of these relations is destroyed.

In conclusion, it should be noted that of the sociologists of the 20th century. Division of labor issues were dealt with mainly by neo-Marxists, in particular, Harry Braverman (1920-1976), who considered the issues of division of labor in an enterprise, the content of labor functions and control over the labor process. G. Braverman criticized the contemporary organization of labor in the field labor relations, both in capitalist countries and in socialist countries. In his opinion, we can even talk about the general law of the capitalist division of labor, which manifests itself not only in industry, but in any other activity.

Scientist's opinion.

In a modern hierarchical production organization, all labor processes are strictly polarized; as a result, the labor process is isolated from real labor skills, and decision-making is isolated from executive actions.

As a result, a “partial worker” arises, possessing the “scarce skills” necessary in production, otherwise, the qualifications that are needed by the capitalist mode of production. This happens to the detriment of the possession of versatile skills: “The capitalist mode of production systematically destroys versatile skills where they exist, and creates skills and abilities that correspond to its needs. From now on, technical abilities are distributed on the rigid basis of “necessary knowledge.” Generalized distribution of knowledge between from this moment on, becomes not just “not necessary” for all participants in the productive process, but truly hinders the functioning of the capitalist mode of production.”

In the second half of the 20th century. sociologists were also interested in the problem of the division of labor in modern society, but more indirectly. Thus, if in earlier concepts scientists made attempts to understand the nature of social changes, then recent research is associated with attempts to understand the modern social order and trends in the development of society. Thus, Shmuel Eisenstadt (1923-2010) conducts a comparative study of civilizations and proposes a civilizational structure in which complex contradictions in the social and spiritual organization of society are resolved. In particular, he notes the inadequacy of the organization of the social division of labor in modern society, which gives rise to uncertainty regarding public trust and solidarity, doubts about the role of power, a feeling of exploitation and, at the same time, the need to form a social order that would be supported by the existing division of labor, and other mechanisms.

That saying of the great Russian writer expresses a very deep and correct thought. Man is a higher, intelligent being, sharply separated from the rest of the world. The making of tools separated man from the animal environment.

The entire human body is adapted to work. He has free hands, which he does not rely on when walking. The structure of the hands is such that they are convenient for grasping, moving and holding objects: they are extremely capable of precise movements. Human legs are adapted to walking on the ground.

Humans have an extremely highly organized nervous system, especially the brain" By weight, our brain is almost three times larger ( average weight it is about 1500 g) than the brain of the higher large apes - gorillas and chimpanzees - and is much more complex in structure.

Human labor is of a social nature. This requires people to have mutual understanding. It is achieved primarily through articulate speech. Animals have weaker means of communication. They are expressed in screams and expressive body movements.

Already this brief description the basic characteristics of man shows how far he has gone from the rest of the animal world. But modern science has shown not only how various bodily features of the human body arose, but also how what most distinguishes man from an animal appeared and developed, and first of all labor, articulate speech and other features. Paleontology and anthropology show what human ancestors were like. Archeology - a science that studies the material monuments of ancient culture and the development of ancient human society - reveals to us the history of the emergence and development of human society, its productive forces and production relations.

In the second half of the last century, Charles Darwin and other scientists showed that the ancestor of man was a breed of ape, covered with hair, with a small tail and rather large fangs. And indeed, comparing people with apes, one can see not only differences, but also many similarities in the structure of the skeleton, muscles, internal organs, V chemical composition blood and a number of other features.

The orangutan has about 50 common characteristics with humans, the gorilla has 90, and the chimpanzee has about 100. However, Darwin and other scientists did not know the real ancestors of humans: they had not yet been discovered. They also failed to explain how and why basic human characteristics arose.

The main reason for the emergence of man, the humanization of our ape-like ancestors, was established about 80 years ago by Friedrich Engels. In his work “The Role of Labor in the Process of Transformation of Ape into Man,” he proved that labor played a decisive role in the emergence of man.

The decisive step from ape to man was made during the transition to a terrestrial lifestyle and the development of an upright gait. The development of forest-steppes and steppes in the second half and especially at the end of the Tertiary period over vast areas of Asia, Europe and Africa led to the extinction of many species of monkeys. Others adapted to life on Earth rather than in trees. “If the upright gait of our hairy ancestors was destined to become first a rule and then a necessity, this suggests that in the meantime more and more other activities fell to the hands. Already among monkeys there is a well-known division of functions between the arms and legs" ( F. Engels. Dialectics of nature, M., Gogpolitizdat, 1955, p. 133).

Bipedal walking freed up hands with which the monkeys could grab stones and sticks to defend themselves from enemies; in addition, they could also dig the ground with sticks, looking for roots and bulbs of plants, and insect larvae. “Before the first flint was turned into a knife by the human hand, such a long period of time must have passed that in comparison with it the historical period known to us is insignificant. But the decisive step was taken, the hand became free and could now assimilate acquired more and more skills, and the greater flexibility acquired by this was passed on and increased from generation to generation.

The hand, therefore, is not only an organ of labor, it is also a product of it" ( F. Engels. Ibid., page 133).

Engels expressed the essence of the entire process of the emergence of man in three words: “Labor created man.” He believed that the process of humanizing the ape took place over enormous periods of time.

After the work of Darwin and Engels, many discoveries were made in science that confirmed, supplemented and developed their thoughts.

In 1891, on the island of Java, in layers dating back to the beginning of the Anthropocene, the age of which is estimated at approximately 1 million years, the Dutch scientist Dubois found the remains of ancient people, or Pithecanthropus. Pithecanthropus translated from Greek means “ape-man.” Darwin suggested the existence of such intermediate creatures between man and ape, and his scientific foresight was brilliantly confirmed. Judging by the size of the hips, the height of Pithecanthropus was about 170 centimeters, and the volume of the brain, as shown by the skull cap, turned out to be approximately 900 cubic centimeters (in modern humans, as we have already said, 1400-1500 cm3). This ancient man still carried many ape-like features: he had a low sloping forehead, sharply protruding supraorbital ridges, and the entire cranial vault was very low. The inferior frontal gyrus of the brain, where the motor center of speech is located, judging by the relief on the skull cap, is much more developed than in monkeys. In terms of the structure of the hip, the ape-man is closer to the modern one than in the structure of the brain and skull. He had an awkward but straight gait. Subsequently, skulls of other Pithecanthropus and the crude stone tools they made were found in Java. But, apparently, they did not yet know how to use fire. When Pithecanthropus lived, Java was connected to the mainland and represented the southeastern tip of Asia. The climate was similar to today's, but a little cooler. Together with Pithecanthropus, elephants, tapirs, deer, monkeys and other animals lived in the forests.

The distribution area of Pithecanthropus was not limited to Java or even South Asia. IN recent years French scientists found the mandibles of similar people, along with simple stone tools, in North Africa, in Algeria.

In 1927, the Chinese archaeologist Pei Wenzhong made another remarkable discovery in caves near Beijing. In connection with systematic excavations carried out in caves near the village of Zhou Kau Tien for a number of years, the bones of many ape-men were found of different ages and floors, bones of various animals, crude stone tools, remains of fires. They were called Sinanthropus, that is, Chinese ape-men. Sinanthropus lived 100-200 thousand years later than Pithecanthropus and in its own way physical development and culture have moved ahead in comparison with them. Sinanthropus had a brain with a volume of about 1100 cubic centimeters and a more convex forehead than Pithecanthropus. This development of the brain was obviously associated with the constant production and use of tools. Sinanthropus is observed to develop right-handedness - using predominantly the right hand when working. This is evidenced by significant asymmetry of the brain.

At the same time, with difficulty, thinking and speech arose and developed in the most ancient ancestors of modern people. Speech is a means of communication between people, and in social and working life, cases of mutual support and joint activities have become a necessity. “First, work, and then, along with it, articulate speech, were the two most important stimuli, under the influence of which the monkey’s brain gradually turned into the human brain, which, for all its similarities with the monkey’s, far surpasses it in size and perfection. And in parallel with the further The development of the brain was accompanied by the further development of its closest tools - the sense organs" ( ).

The fact that synanthropes could speak is evidenced by the complex relief in the area of the lower part of the left frontal gyrus of their brain, where the so-called motor speech center is located. The limbs of Sinanthropus, even more than the skull, resemble in structure the limbs of modern humans.

During the era of the existence of Sinanthropus, the climate in northern China was milder and damper than it is now. Many generations of Sinanthropus lived in caves. They used fire. However, as research has shown, they did not yet know how to artificially produce fire. The fire produced during a forest or steppe fire or volcanic eruption was maintained, not allowing it to go out. Like Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus lived in small groups, collectively collecting plant food - fruits, berries, roots, and jointly hunting various rodents, wild horses, wild boars, buffalos, sometimes even elephants and rhinoceroses. This was the initial stage of the primitive communal system, the first socio-economic formation in human history.

The distribution of Sinanthropus was not limited to Northern China. Finds of bones of people standing at approximately the same level were made in various places in Europe, Asia and Africa. Back in 1907, near the city of Heidelberg, in Germany, the lower jaw of a primitive man close to Sinanthropus was found. Recently, the bones of a man resembling Sinanthropus were found in Central Vietnam. In various places in Africa, the remains of various ancient people have been discovered, close to Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus or to primitive people who appeared later. These are the "Cape Telanthropus", close to Sinanthropus and Heidelberg people, Afrikanthropus, which is called African Sinanthropus. According to some characteristics, Afritropians are already similar to primitive people, or Neanderthals.

Without a doubt, paleontological and archaeological research in the future will reveal new ancient fossils of people of various physical types, who were on the path of development to modern man.

Several hundred thousand years ago, from the ancient people about whom we spoke, primitive people developed, standing between modern man and the ape-man. These primitive people were called Neanderthals (after the Neanderthal River valley in Germany, where their remains were first found in 1856). Their head and arms have already lost most of their apelike characteristics and become almost human. Primitive people were short, about 160 centimeters, but they were distinguished by significant strength. They were stocky, muscular, slightly stooped, with wide, protruding faces, with a wide, sometimes strongly protruding nose. The teeth are large, strong, adapted for chewing solid food. Monkey features were reflected in the powerfully developed supraorbital ridges, obliquely set teeth and the absence of a chin. The lower leg and forearm were relatively short, and the hands and feet were massive, which made the movements of Neanderthals clumsy. This is the general portrait of a Neanderthal, which is reconstructed by anatomists and anthropologists based on the study of his bone remains. Soviet anthropologist M. M. Gerasimov developed an accurate restoration method appearance people's faces based on their skulls. This gives us the opportunity to see portraits of our ancestors who lived tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Neanderthals had a large head, and their brain volume was on average 1400-1500 cubic centimeters. Their speech center in the brain was better developed than Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus. Their bones were found in

Europe, Central Asia, Palestine, Java and South Africa (Rhodesia). They were not in America and Australia. In the USSR, they were discovered in the caves of Crimea near Simferopol, in Uzbekistan (Teshik-Tash grotto near the city of Baysun). Along with the remains of bones and skeletons of Neanderthals, stone tools and other objects of material culture dating back to the ancient Stone Age were discovered. Neanderthals were better at making rough stone wedges (axes), various scrapers and other tools than their predecessors. Bone processing was just in its infancy. There is no doubt that they also used wooden tools - clubs, spears, digging sticks. But they didn’t reach us.

The favorite habitats of Neanderthals were caves and river valleys. They collected edible plants, their fruits, roots, and also hunted various wild animals. Neanderthals made extensive use of fire and probably knew how to produce it by rubbing pieces of wood or hitting flint stones.

Neanderthals, like other ancient people, led hard and harsh lives. Most of them, as the study of bone remains shows, died or perished in childhood and young age. They had to fight with nature: overcome climatic and other adversities, defend themselves from attacks by wild animals, etc. Therefore, V.I. Lenin said that there was no golden age behind us and that primitive man was depressed by the difficulty of existence.

Interestingly, Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons who replaced them suffered from rheumatism and traumatic injuries. They did not have many diseases characteristic of later people (for example, tuberculosis, dental caries).

Over the course of approximately 300-400 thousand years, the body of primitive man was improved. Gradually, as a result of his work, his entire appearance changed. About 100 thousand years ago, descendants of Neanderthals appeared, outwardly similar to modern humans - Cro-Magnons.

At this time, the great cooling on Earth was greatest. But man has already learned to make clothes and master fire well. He also learned to make thin and long, like a knife blade, silicon plates and other well-processed tools. Widely used for various crafts and bone. Carefully finished knives, awls, scrapers, chisels, bone needles with eyes for sewing clothes, etc. appeared. This was the late ancient Stone Age. In the sites of these ancient people of modern appearance, in addition to household items and hunting tools, they found female figurines or various images of animals carved from mammoth ivory, and in the caves they found skillfully made drawings.

Collecting plants and hunting were still the main means of subsistence for the new, or, as they are called, intelligent people. The first "new people" were nomadic hunters. They even hunted such large animals as bison, rhinoceros and mammoth. They especially exterminated reindeer, as well as sheep, partridges and other small animals. When excavating their sites, they usually find many bones of various animals that were left over from “mammoth and reindeer hunters.”

Tens of thousands of years passed. Major changes took place in the way of life and in the economy of people. They developed settled settlements, and about 15-20 thousand years ago, on the verge of the modern geological era - the “Holocene” - man invented the bow and arrow. This expanded hunting opportunities. A new era has begun in the history of mankind - the New Stone Age, or Neolithic. By this time, man had already become an inhabitant of dwellings, the owner of various clothes, he surrounded himself with domestic animals and cultivated plants. However, 6000-7000 years ago the Stone Age ended. The era of metal has arrived. Man moved from collecting ready-made products of nature to consciously producing and accumulating them. He became a transformer of nature. But this is the topic of a special book. We will continue our journey into the depths of time, into the distant history of life.

Create a new history of the Belarusian Railway and carry out work responsibly in your place. With such parting words, the head of the railway, Vladimir Morozov, addressed more than eighty railway workers, who were presented with industry awards on the eve of Independence Day of the Republic of Belarus.

The ceremony took place in the capital. Among the awardees are representatives of each department, as well as separate structural divisions and the Highway Department.
“We have gathered to celebrate your merits, your contribution to the development of the road,” noted Vladimir Morozov. – Your work and responsible attitude to business did not go unnoticed. You have achieved good results over many years.
According to him, economic difficulties are testing the strength of the road. And in such a situation, it is especially important to approach implementation as seriously as possible. job responsibilities. After all, not only the safety of train traffic, the perfect execution of schedules, the rhythm of freight and passenger transportation, but also the overall competitiveness and attractiveness of railway transport services depend on this.
“Each of the participants in the ceremony is a part of the large team of the Belarusian Railway,” emphasized Vladimir Morozov. – Among you are representatives of different professions and specialties. And with your work you have proven that you are true professionals. According to the head of the highway, behind each such promotion there are many years of hard work.
For example, Olga Titova, a conductor of a passenger carriage at the Mogilev carriage section, worked on the road for about 15 years. During this period, she was not only able to gain a wealth of experience, but also skillfully uses the acquired knowledge in her daily work. Perhaps this is why she achieved great success in professional competitions, including victories in the road final.
Another participant in the gala event, Elena Arkhipova, leading engineer of the estimates department, has a completely different profile of activity. State enterprise"Institute "Belzheldorproekt". Her activities are more related to documents than to people.
“I’ve been working at the institute for about 37 years,” she says. – I started out as a draftsman. Now, when computer programs have replaced manual labor, I am doing estimates. In this matter, you can’t do without a good ability to “read” drawings.
Her “portfolio” includes participation in the development of various projects for the Belarusian Railway. For example, she applied her experience in updating the infrastructure in Fanipol and reconstructing utility networks at other highway facilities.

“There are no random people on the road,” Vladimir Morozov is sure. “Those who can handle such hard work stay for a long time.”
Perhaps this is why, according to him, it is not uncommon to see people with extensive experience on the highway. According to some estimates, the average length of time a person works on the road is 20 years. And with such a team of professionals, we can handle any task.
– The ceremonial presentation of industry awards is held on the eve of Independence Day. And this is very symbolic,” the head of the road noted. – Our fathers and grandfathers won a peaceful sky for us in a difficult struggle. It’s our turn to create a new history of the railway and the whole country.
Vladimir Morozov emphasized that the next important page could be turned in December 2017. It is at this time that the Belarusian Railway will celebrate its 155th anniversary.

Ruslan ANANEV

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And VKontakte

Ludwig van Beethoven, Albert Einstein, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra - we have heard these names since childhood. But few people know what trials they had to go through. They achieved success only through willpower.

website presents the stories of people who showed the world that there are no barriers for those who believe in themselves.

Marlee Matlin

Having been deaf since she was one and a half years old, she made her credo the phrase “The only thing I can’t do is hear.” As a child, despite the advice of doctors, her parents sent the girl to a regular school (instead of an institution for the deaf), and with the help of special programs she adapted over time. This made her the first and only deaf actress to win an Oscar. Marley often says, "I try to make sure people understand what my parents taught me, that deaf people deserve not only respect, but to be heard."

Nick Vujicic

“I don't need arms and legs. I need life. And never give up!” - this credo helped him become one of the most famous motivational speakers, get an economics education, get married and have two children. Nick Vujicic received willpower from his mother. In an interview, he said that her words set the tone for the rest of his life: “Nicholas,” she said, “you should play with normal children, because you are normal. Yes, you are missing something, but it’s nothing.”

He writes books, sings, surfs and plays golf. He often travels around the world giving lectures to help young people find the meaning of life, realize and develop their abilities and talents.

Stephen Hawking

During his student years, Stephen began to show signs of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The disease progressed, and after a few years he became completely immobile, and after throat surgery he lost the ability to speak. However, this did not stop him from marrying twice, raising three children, and becoming one of the most outstanding scientists of our time by the age of 74.

He is now one of the most influential theoretical physicists today. According to him, he achieved success largely thanks to his illness: “Before, life seemed boring. I'm definitely happier now. The prospect of dying early made me realize that life is worth living. There is so much that can be done, everyone can do so much!”

Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo is an outstanding Mexican artist who became famous thanks to her extraordinary paintings. At age 6, she became seriously ill with polio, causing one of her legs to become thinner than the other. At this moment, her iron character began to form. To get rid of the ridicule of her peers, who teased her “Frida is a wooden leg,” the girl took up swimming, dancing, football and boxing.

As a teenager, Frida was involved in a car accident, which left her with severe pain in her spine all her life. After the accident, the girl could not get out of bed for several months. At this time, she constantly painted pictures, most of them self-portraits. Now Frida Kahlo's works are worth millions of dollars.

Ray Charles

Ray Charles is a legendary American musician who has received 12 Grammy awards. As a child, he began to lose his sight, and by the age of 7 he was completely blind. When Ray was 15 years old, his mother died. The young man could not sleep, eat or speak for many days. He was sure he would go crazy. When he came out of depression, he realized that having survived this tragedy, he could cope with anything.

At the age of 17, the musician began recording his first singles in the styles of soul, jazz and rhythm and blues. Now many consider Ray Charles a legend: his works were even included in the US Library of Congress. In 2004, after the musician's death, Rolling Stone magazine included Ray Charles at number 10 on its list of the 100 greatest artists of all time.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

At the age of 39, he fell ill with polio. Years of treatment did not help, and the future president remained confined to a wheelchair. After he realized how serious the illness was, no one heard him complain. Gathering his will into a fist, Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to learn to walk using crutches and heavy orthopedic devices. Despite his illness, he became President of the United States. “The only obstacle to the implementation of our plans for tomorrow can be our doubts today,” said Roosevelt.

Helen Adams Keller

At 1.5 years old, after suffering from an illness, Helen Keller lost her sight and hearing. But this did not break her spirit; she managed to realize her dream of becoming a writer: several books and more than 400 articles were published under her name. She became the first deaf-blind person to receive a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree. In addition, Keller was actively involved in politics: she fought for the rights of women and workers.

Helen Keller achieved success thanks to her strong character and curiosity. She often said: “When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but we often do not notice it, staring at the closed door.”