so they appointed her, in contrast to the yard there, the step there, and so on, so we lost a lot of humanity, artists like mukhina, they kept it, even though the diameter was probably already calculated there in millimeters, but still they they maintained the connection of the manual and through the classical proportion with all this, because all this remained, that is, it is on one side. i drew there these classic examples of a worker and a collective farm woman, on the other hand, and kept in mind where the center of the figure was, how the length of the arms is laid out, how it fits, how many times the palm fits in the foot, and so on, these interconnected human modules, it - through them we moved on to design, where , as sasha rightly says,

i think it appeared, why, because already then this mode of broad discussion was adopted, yes, we were invited, we are participating in the expo, yes, that means, as is usually done, we are participating in the expo, a government meeting, directors of large, so to speak, are invited to it there enterprises, everyone asks the question, so what are we going to exhibit, and some say, oh, and here we are... planes can and indeed

chkalov baidukov ferried planes to an exhibition in paris in 1937, someone says: and we will be there, i don’t know , show it in paintings, yes, someone else says: oh, we can offer you chromium-nickel steel, how about you, and here we are, that’s all you have there, sculpture, well, of course i’m exaggerating, i didn’t sit at this meeting, but this is roughly how it happens, there was such a proposal, it naturally, it was defended by representatives of this metalworking enterprise of some kind, it suddenly turned out that this steel, despite being half a millimeter thick, is quite ductile, plus it is not assembled with rivets, welding, and so on and so on, that is, it had some -that, plus it’s shiny and literally reflects sunlight, but it just glows, right? glows, all these

qualities, it really was some kind of purely technological breakthrough, well, that is, it really wasn’t vera’s choice mukhina, it was a proposal, she was told that she needed to make it out of steel, that is, it was as if they had already come to her with this material, i wonder what she was doing when, for example , sculpture expired about the synthesis of arts and about how she generally thought unconventionally, in the fifties there was an exhibition in the russian museum, where she showed a female torso made of glass and it was matte. matte, as it were, it showed volume, but vera mokhina wanted a transparent, transparent cake to be shown, because it’s not in a museum, but somewhere in a park or in the garden, where there is greenery all around, and as if this sculpture had collected moisture from the plants around it, it was formed from dew, from rain, that’s what she wanted, that is, how she even thought about the sculptures, how they would be exhibited, she had this figurative conceptual thinking, it was as if she was after all - not just an application specialist

, but to make something to order, she thought very globally. dear friends, you can watch all episodes of podcast lab on the website of the first channel 1tv.ru, but it’s true that at first, this figure, well, this sculpture of a working collective farmer should have been naked, but she was forbidden? well, yes, well, thank god, because this scarf was added there, and that is, it was going, well, how can i say it. ordinary creative work here, of course, it’s not good when people from the outside interfere, but sometimes they are useful, this was also not the first version, there are other search layouts that are in the new third block on krymsky val, you can come and see the actual progress thoughts of vera mukhina, and how much they had time to do it all, that is, it was still done in record time, extremely, you know, i myself participated in one here in 2015... from such

expos, it’s terribly simple, and even i don’t understand, the gigantic experience of participation, they still start to get together and decide something in a few months. because, well, it’s kind of customary to see if the sculptor was checked, although the work was almost at random, he works on the model, makes the model and then it comes, the shapers come, they enlarge it eight times, here the model itself it was a meter or 95 cm, small, but

you just had to increase it more than 20 times, and it’s kind of incomprehensible, you’re making a mistake , a millimeter mistake here, it can grow. it was such a process, well , that’s why i said luck, luck was with them, they did everything very well, everything came together and so on, then there were adventures when it all had to be taken to paris, and there was a whole train there with 28 cars filled, which consisted of fragments, yes, but here’s what’s funny, 65, they carefully divided it into 65 fragments, arms, legs, yes, yes, yes, they were lucky, everything was there somewhere in poland. some kind of tunnel is not allowed, you have to go through the fields, and they also said there were some attempts to drive them into a siding to prevent the soviets from passing there; they said that in some tunnel they had to saw off something protruding beyond this with an autogen

it’s easy to cut off, but it still wasn’t scary, then they brought it to paris, the french communists came to the rescue , they helped a lot there, including even with... guarding this site, that’s it, because they discovered there was some kind of sawed cable, the communists helped a lot, thank god, very well, and they really built it very quickly, they built a pavilion there in less than a month, a gigantic pavilion, 160 m long , they built it, but they didn’t let anyone back for dismantling , people who were completely unfamiliar with the installation of the sculpture, the technologies there , and so on came, sawed it. into 44 pieces, there in 65 neat ones, and here just like that, this is in paris, and in paris they sawed it into 44 pieces, roughly, and there they somehow sent it everything was already collected from us, the metal was already changed there from thin to thick,

the proportions were violated, in general, they put it on this stump, in quotes, and so on, in general, it was already, i think it was traumatic for her extremely. but still, the game was worth the candle, as i understand it, this statue created a sensation in paris, that everyone was completely delighted, of course, but of course a mass film did even more to perpetuate it, and well , naturally, because since 1945, forty fifth, in my opinion, yes, it is the screensaver of all massfilm films, the entire soviet union and the surrounding area, everyone learned about this sculpture simply from the outposts, but it became just a symbol, of course such a symbol of the soviet... union since then, and then yes, then you want it, you don’t want it, even if you draw a political caricature there, it’s all the same it ’s as if you can’t go around it, it’s wonderful, well, after all, it’s clear that vera ignatievna is best known for this sculpture, and for this cut glass, about

which the quarrels will always continue, after all, what else are her important ones? i need work, please, over there is the conservatory pyotr ilvich is sitting yes...

at that time a lot happened, yes, in fact, a lot in general from mukhina’s life, we don’t know, it’s widely unknown, for example, the same plant. the work of this art department, but since 1945 the work was in full swing and

new craftsmen were being trained, and what was very interesting was that not only, for example, did she make a project and then send it to production, she stood at the forge and watched how everything was cast , she always communicated with technologists and together with them found adequate solutions and forms, including, because it was important, yes, how to go together with technology and material, that is, as if she had all the time... she was such a hard worker all the time, and it’s interesting not only in art in such a pure high, but in production directly. straight to the workshop, right into the thick of it to work with the workers, this was interesting to her, here

are her students, mukhina’s school, you can talk about it, i don’t think so, that is, she remained like this and remained such a unique unprecedented phenomenon , well, word to god, but in fact, being an artistic director and being on artistic councils is also very important, because firstly , they not only send something to production and sign it, they give recommendations on when to do it, what needs to be changed from a technological point of view, then there is, as it were, really like... not for the whole, but there for some period of his creative life, and moreover, the plant

was created in order to do, as we would say now, set trends, because that it would be necessary to make good samples in order the artists made, and then it was assumed that these projects would be bought by glass factories throughout the country, that is, it’s like they make art glass, then they experiment, develop new models, and then it is produced everywhere, that is, in fact, this is the same thing ...happened with some ordinary glasses , the same ones, or something called wine utensils, these are like sets, but still the most important thing is that this is a working collective farmer and the most famous and of course very cool, that first of all, the sculpture returned here, i understand that the french wanted to keep it, buy it, at least i read such information, they wanted to buy it, but they didn’t give money, but that, well, may be so, but in any case that’s what i read, yes, that they still brought it here, that they didn’t lose it, they installed it.

thank you for this conversation, i personally learned a lot of new things for myself, with this we say goodbye to you, our dear viewers, so we talked about vera ignatievna mukhina, alexandra sankova, director and founder of the moscow design museum and yuri avakomov, architect, artist, curator. thank you very much, dear friends.

capital has one single vital desire, the desire to grow, to create surplus value, to absorb with its constant part the means of production, the largest possible mass of surplus labor, this is a quote from perhaps the most famous work on capitalism. hello, today we have gathered our thoughts about capitalism, its current state, and, i think, many other topics that we let's go out with my today.

who - supposedly - came up with a very simple formula that the only goal of business is to earn profit for shareholders, that’s all the social utility, it’s gone, but in reality, of course, we need to move a few more steps earlier, so our great karl can be studied, but he’s a lot formulated interesting things, ilisanovich, you are also an economist by training, also an economist by

training, yes, i think that is absolutely correct, knowledge is never superfluous, one cannot relate to... socialism, which will change from country to country, from era to era, this is also clear, that this is a kind of living fabric of reality, yes, there are our intellectual abstractions that are trying to describe what is happening, well, maybe, somewhere not only to look back, but forward, we can more or less agree with this, we risk entering territory where we simply

drown in the history of the concept and its evolution, it is really different, it... is influenced by the conflict with the soviet there with the communist idea has changed a lot, we have big business abroad, so when we come to africa or asia, we compete with whom, with transnational corporations, these are the representatives there, ideas built rather on protestant ideas, attitudes towards money and work, so when we come there for so that how we compete for what, for minds for hearts, this is the battlefield, no, no, these are young people, yes, we need to offer something, here are some of our own meanings in order to separate ourselves with something , i had an interesting experience just visiting this topic, in february of this year i found myself in rwanda, yes, so to speak, we read, followed, worried, i offered just mine there, as a reflection, or something on the history of capitalism

and where we are, i actually started my report with question, let’s try to imagine, and i ’ll ask you to imagine the world. the main idea, you mentioned it, competition, the basic rule, the main rule, everything that is not prohibited is allowed, but by the way, we have article 34 of the constitution, that is, in this model the strong have the legal right to destroy the weak, this is a very cruel world, destroy, well, economically, that is, you

can, so to speak, lose business, let’s say , yes, yes, yes, you can, you must turn into zero, that is, the competitive struggle so that i am left alone, yeah. what marx basically suggests, if this is not limited in any way, that is, your proposal says that we can build a world of capital, where there will be many successful entrepreneurs, but no one will turn into zero, and we will so to speak, love each other, help each other and so on further, this is a very big question, and in general where to start the big question there with business, start with the community state, it seems to me that with business, if we live in this socio-economic formation, then definitely with... then definitely with us we need to start, but we are simply at a historical point when it is no longer possible to do anything, that is , well, the number of conflicts accumulated in completely different... areas of man with nature, man with man, man with the future expected, with what something incomprehensible in the form artificial intelligence or humans with machines, well, that is, something needs to be changed,

the world is going somewhere in the wrong direction, but it all starts right here in the socio-economic model, is it possible to build something so idealistic, romantic, why marx will turn over, well, this is probably a debatable question, i won’t turn him over so easily. as an ideal, you can start discussing something, these three hands that were raised, and yours was the fourth, that is, you yourself believe in it, yes, i believe, we are trying, well, here we are in general, we are developing our company, we are trying to develop it precisely in this logic, and we do not call ourselves a capitalist company, for 30 years already, uh, well, i just started talking about it like that for a couple of years, because this is such a strange approach, capitalists are capitalists, but a social experiment , in the twelfth year, our president ...

on the topic of socio-economic relations, where we are now working, all the best practices that were brought to us, they were brought by western companies, well, from the beginning of the nineties they began to come here, business schools, all well-known, they are all built on the protestant ethic, attitude towards work, and there the attitude towards money is a little different than in our culture, let’s stop here now so that we don’t lose a lot of the value of what ilyanovich said, well, i , i’ll probably still answer the question that i initially asked about capitalism,

the economy of these centuries, it did not differ from the medieval one, that is, in fact, this stark gaze economy did not exist, so it seems to me that i i don't like this periodization, i’m not very myself at all,

it seems to me that a person does not change much, and society changes in some ways, in some special socio-economic relations, that’s right, they differ from those that were there again, as a person who received an education, he formed his worldview and views on socio-economic development in those same years and in the late eighties during the era of the emergence of capitalism in modern times. russia, here i am, well, how would i define several things, the first is, well, as we know, freedom is better than not freedom, this is freedom, economic freedom, i believe that it is not an inherent feature , which means, in fact , capitalism as such in ancient times had the right, here is private property, and in ancient judea there was the right of private property with a ban on selling, for example, ancestral property land, that is, quite strict laws seemed to exist regarding the protection of property at different times, that is, there is no need to imagine the current time as... some kind of ideal or time of capitalism, when another thing is that slaves were also property, and slaves, we imagine slaves as people, which means that the lawful ones are heavy,

who drag them along to the kitchen, which means that while they are cooking there they give them something to drink, no, of course, well, from a philosophical point of view, they were just talking instruments, there were non-speaking ones, these are actually different, different different rights, these were not people for people, again we know the gospels.

today we gathered our thoughts about capitalism and its current state, as well as what we can do about it all. ilya kuzmenkov, sergey ivanov, me vladimir ligoida, let's continue. i want to return to your theses, which since they were voiced in rwanda, have been heard, so to speak, in the vastness of the information field, yes, just in case i will repeat, yes, for a sustainable existence in the future, a business model. must satisfy three mandatory criteria, but you already said this today, i repeat, it must be human-centric, multicultural and socially responsible, and well, you talked about empathy, in general, an important concept for you, i have a question, what does capitalism have to do with it? there is, relatively speaking, because all these characteristics are connected, firstly, with the attitude of a particular person, and with a certain cultural and historical context, and

capitalism is like an instrumental... history , it will naturally exist differently depending on this, well, you know, i’ll draw this analogy, there are political institutions and processes, and there is the concept of political culture, this is a system of values, views, yes, when it appeared, in fact, it appeared when they noticed that these political institutions and processes, well, parliament, for example, yes, in different countries, it seems that there is a parliament there and there is a parliament and there is a parliament, but democracies are different, why, because there is a different political culture, yes, to me... it seems that there is a similar story here, therefore , strictly speaking, whether you are talking about capitalism as such, as an instrument where there is a free market, private property, competition, or you are talking about this cultural context, here we generally raise the topic of capitalism, probably with one goal, that this is what we are in something socio-economic formations we live with, this idea has been dominant for the last 30 years, well, this is an attempt

to just think about it, probably we can push it aside. good, because it really is different at different times, so if you try to look into tomorrow , just imagine what a business should be like to begin with, just a business to stand firmly on its feet, so i proposed these three criteria that need to be think, discuss and criticize there, the first thing is human-centric, and what is it, what is it, and what kind of person do we put at the center, and how are you and i generally a company, and how do you and i even define this person, right?

and separated by a comma, just further, the gaming industry , here are the metaverses, the virtualization of all this , the availability of entertainment in this part, the liberalization of the gender agenda, if you look at all this from such a detached perspective, then i’m like a person, just any person, he he he would say that what -it’s a strange thing, this is what i’m being prepared for, this is me being prepared for the transition to the state of a vegetable, and well, as if for something from...

yes, yes, yes, yes, well, actually, probably, this reflection of evangelical thinking is applicable to economics for people, because, well, after all, in defense of the capitalists, but we have the word capitalist, we built capitalism according to suslov, because, in fact,

we knew about capitalism from suslov, therefore our joke turned out to be a little bit outlandish, but in every joke there are more jokes, here is the image in society, unfortunately, the image of a capitalist, there a businessman, it is shaped a little bit...

by the need to create, change the world, transform and so on, here in this, well how there wouldn’t be any, well, sort of theory or artificial construction of a social structure, it’s just that there are people who have it. internal need, i am convinced that the majority of those entrepreneurs who, strictly speaking, have made themselves and who are guided by this entrepreneurial logic, this is not what they say: this is ethical, this is unethical, it should have been human-centric, they they simply create, create a world around them that transforms, understandably, it’s difficult to agree, but more precisely, there are reasons why ordinary people they can give some such assessments, because i, as an entrepreneur, let’s call it this word. let's use this word, i have two sources of motives, set a price and choose, well, the technology or product on which i make money is the first source, but i just want to do something useful for people and somehow

earn value from it, the source of motives another, greed, i want, i want money, passion, humanity historically had the choice to somehow strain and agree on ethics and regulation of all this, but that’s all it’s difficult, difficult, as it were... to pay an employee cheaper, take more from him, the state, taxes not to be paid, the client, or something , an unsustainable model, well, but nevertheless often, but very effective, yes, yes ,

paradoxically, look, if there is such a large, look, macro-philosophical context, yes, that is, it is clear that, well, if we look through, say, religious and philosophical glasses, then any such aspirations, they... will ultimately stumble on the imperfection of human nature and its a fallen state from a christian point of view, yes, that is, we understand that this is an unattainable ideal, all the same, yes, towards which nevertheless humanity is constantly moving, but does this mean so, on the one hand, on the other hand, that this is bad, we even say from the christian point of view that before becoming deified, we must become human, and what i hear in the words of sergei nikolaevich is that guys, well, let’s become human, well... with us there is a certain teaching about the transfiguration of man, this is christian teaching, and even the christian worldview, and i haven’t tried from this point of view, yes, this is what transforms a person, i’m a little afraid of

the teachings about society about the possibility of changing this society, transforming it within the framework of certain given ethical systems, as if pulling people under these well, as if created by someone, ethical systems, which are partly rational, partly... by socialists, it consisted in the fact that the communists said that it is necessary to destroy capitalism and immediately build communism, that is, the city of soltsey, and the socialists, that means , as if they were against it, that is, it’s like there were different views in general on the development of society, and marx, as it were , tried them on, he said that after capitalism, communism cannot be built, because man is decrepit, he is not ready, he is still a wolf, as if yes, he will a wolf, yes, that’s why we need to build socialism, socialism is a change in relationships and changing a person, creating a new person. here again, we are , so to speak, people who have lived through the soviet era , we remember this as a mantra about the creation of

a new man, so the soviet man is there was a project to create a new man, this is the kind of man we created, we recently saw blood on the asphalt once again in the series , this couple itself is an old man and a new man , she is quite herself - but not through society, but through excuse me, exossential ones, after all, it ’s like processes and through transformation of a person through the deep inner work of a person and

correct me if i’m wrong, after all , there is such a thing as competition, it is fundamental, but for these free market relations, competition, it is actually an incentive for growth and so on, so as far as for that system, so for that, well , even if not the system of how you want to see it built and how you wonderfully said, we need to move somewhere, but for the country in which we want to move, it poses risks , this is more of a risk or an opportunity, yes, what, what are the risks then, we cannot refuse it.

to destroy, probably even tougher than boxing, yes, these are more like fights without rules, and here the question is interesting, here’s what, if we start from the fact that our vital energy is nourished by our cultural cat, yes, that’s it who we are, even the word empathy, when we pronounce it, it doesn’t mean anything to us at all, it’s someone else’s, yes, it’s not ours, well , to be honest, i don’t like it, of course, but if we add, and if we talk about that we mean the prefix with, yes, that's with, which almost every verb makes empathy empathic. compassion, when i feel the pain of another as my

own, this is part of our national trait, such people are not competitive in competition, because they they are pushing them to the sidelines, because they don’t want to fight throats in intrigues there, they will go aside and alexandrich auzan did a study, he counted 75% of them, he says we have two.

the meaning of life can be called becoming the richest in the cemetery, well, the worldview dominates now, it, in principle , feeds this socio-economic idea to a greater extent. the second civilization, it does not argue with the fact that greed is the engine of progress, but it says that money in general has sacred power, money. with her words voluptuousness, love of silver, selfishness, she says that no, this, it is, of course, naturally inherent, but there is nothing good in this, you need to fight this, this is mainly christianity there, this is traditional religion, so if you are in free floating, you launch third civilizations, the third one will always lose, they

must lose some other force in the competitive struggle, yeah, because they won’t be able to either, and in order to give them strength, opportunities, you need what - create conditions. protect special rules, perhaps some more understandable, transparent, to formulate, to create some conditions for them, that is, this, but, but there is vital force there, there is a lot of it, a lot of it, they asked lotman who a cultured person is, and lotman, yuri mikhailovich, our great outstanding compatriot, he said that we all have our own circle of pain, yes, there are people who feel pain when they are offended, they are hurt, yes, there are people who experience pain, when their family is affected. there are relatives there, here he is says: a cultured person is one who is hurt by someone else’s pain, that’s what you said, you feel someone else’s pain as your own, well , probably, this is generally an ideal of holiness, when it’s like your own, but when you, in principle, feel someone else’s pain, yes, when you are in pain, because you can feel pleasure from someone else’s pain, yes, that

’s what he needs, yes, i really don’t know how to connect all this with our topic, but of course the question of competition in our story is in the middle xx century in my opinion. there was a difference, what is competition, what is competition, in competition the strong have the right to destroy the weak, in competition the strong have the obligation to pull the weak up, that is , to take the pole over the weak, you know what a thing, so i remembered our wonderful writer and sinologist, rybakov, rybakov, vyacheslav, vyacheslav mikhailovich rybakov, he says that any pragmatism to the extreme is fraught with betrayal. yeah, it seems to me that this is also relevant to our topic, that is, if there is some kind of competition, which is based on the decision of some pragmatic goal, then in the limit there is always this potential risk of giving in, well, because they can always offer you a solution that will be pragmatically better,

cooler, yes, which will lead you to the desired goal, you just have to give up those with who you started out with, that's all. there is one pill. perhaps as an option that can save you from this, this is an order from nikolai fedorovich fedorov, which i perceive as a businessman’s order, how to do business not for yourself, not for others, but with everyone and for everyone, well, somehow you try to fit yourself into this logic, it gives you a system of guidelines, imagine that there is a certain young man who... has not yet was engaged in no business, but he wants to, so if you had such a conversation with him over tea, what would you tell him first? well, for starters, i would n’t advise him to become an economist or financier, that’s all, that’s all knowledge acquired, it won’t go anywhere, find a job that will

heart, something resonates in your heart, what you want to do, you can be an entrepreneur in completely different areas. in medicine, in education, in more traditional industries, that is, to find his own business, to succeed in this business, to become a professional, subject knowledge in himself, but if he wants entrepreneurship, he is already somehow oriented, no, well, in this matter, you can try to start both entrepreneurial and projects, you can start right from the first year, there are no restrictions at all today no, but to find your own business, that is, well, that’s also what i have a calling for...

i sort of formulated things, the first thing is , when starting to engage in entrepreneurship, keep it in mind, maybe it’s not even necessary to directly formulate it on the wall , but keep in mind some kind of supergoal, mission, that is, for what, not to earn money, not to become number one, there is number two, these are false goals, who decided to become number one, never number one will not become, why are you doing this, what do you want to change there in world for yourself, that is, to have a mission, no matter how trivial it may sound from the point of view of such textbooks, but this is really so, the second thing is to remain a christian under any circumstances. that is, to put your christian dignity first, not to drop it, under any circumstances, business takes a person through different circumstances, through different temptations, when it goes well, when it goes badly. can i add about

christian dignity and metaphysics in general, we got into this topic, a year and a half ago i also ended up in kostorik event, too, fate abandoned you, too , and also some kind of conference, i had a slide there, i wanted to end it with it, and i show this slide to the consultants, and they tell me: remove this slide, why? this is very indecent, it’s uncivilized, you’ll offend half the room, and in general they don’t do that in polite society, biblical quotes, i’m like, well, okay, i’m cleaning it up, i did a poll on my channel, it’s decent, not decent, for me 30% says take it away, i am a quote from the gospel, i am among the believing businessmen of my comrades i ask, what was the quote, seek first the kingdom of god, his truth, everything else will be added to you, i ask if it’s possible, i’m 50/50, like, where are you going anyway, and i’ll... remake it, i’ll remake it , uh, well, in general, i’m on a 36-hour flight, well

, someone, well, one at the priest’s blessed me, says, well, this is possible, this is how you can change it, yes, i’m going, well, let’s do it, don’t , put it somewhere in the middle of the road, yes, well, don’t you call me again, i return this slide, well, and as if at the end of the speech i take it out, i don’t read what’s there written, i just pronounce words, i say, i am an orthodox christian, for me this is a very important system of meaning. but it seems to me that it generally concerns everyone present, because this is the success formula of a modern creative leader, or at least a message about something important from the past for us, how this can be translated into our modern language, look first to do something useful for others, for whom, for others, for your clients, customers and employees, everything else, that other, business, revenue and profit will definitely come to you. amen. thank you very much, dear friends. sergey ivanov, entrepreneur, public figure, ilya kuzmenkov, media manager,

entrepreneur. i, vladimir legoydyn, today we gathered our thoughts about capitalism, well, in general, we talked about a lot, i found it very interesting. all the best. good afternoon, my dear, beloved country, our big friendly family, family is where it looks in one direction, when it supports, loves each other, is always happy for the success of each family member, being a dad is very good, raise children, help them in everything, you dissolve in your child , you understand that this is a continuation of you, the main thing is together and most importantly together, with love, a cherished dream for our country to prosper, for my son to be happy, you need to dream, believe in your dreams, strive for your cherished goals

, everything will definitely work out. hello everyone, on the first channel of the podcast everyone wants to fly, i’m its host, leonid yakubovich. i have a special feeling today. my guest is a legendary man, and i say this without quotes because i know the attitude of many people towards this person. here in the studio is lieutenant general of aviation, hero of russia, nikolai fetrovich gavrilov. hello hello. well, i 'm glad to see you, let's not hide it, we've known you for almost 30 years, and i'm honored. calling you my teacher because you gave me heaven, are you done? i graduated from the tsizranskaya higher military aviation school

as a pilot in 1979, but how about a boy?