After the declaration of independence in 1991, attitudes towards work changed. Under the new embrace of capitalism, personal effort and diligence are important preconditions for prosperity and personal growth. However, the free market, in turn, posed new challenges. In particular, an irregular work schedule, low pay and unregulated exploitation significantly impair diligence, and reduce the motivation to work. On the other hand, conviction in success through work had not yet been internalized in newly-independent Armenia, and many looked for easier ways to succeed. In the opinion of journalist Karpis Pashoyan,[13] work has been considered a damning occupation in our society. “Hard work is viewed as naivety, and mental work as ‘nerdiness’. Social mechanisms have degraded human labor. Instead, our youngsters thought it more fashionable and were more impressed with getting rich and achieving prosperity by completely different means. Corruption, becoming an oligarch and the embezzlement of state property was glorified, while the working man was not perceived as an example of prosperity,” he says. In the film “Mechanics of Happiness”, shot by the HayFilm film studio toward the end of the Soviet period, one of the protagonists asks the other whether he had “extra income”. The portrayal reveals that non-state, non-salary income (often illegal) was acceptable to society, and in fact the attitude toward those who did not have such an income was markedly negative. Pashoyan points out another important phenomenon, which he formulates as a “cult of work”: “An individual works like a slave for many years but does not get rich, and the cultural environment places the responsibility on the individual. This legitimizes all the injustices of capitalism: if you are not getting rich, then you are to blame, you are not doing something right, you are not working enough, you are to blame.” For a while, it had become a trend to use the hashtag #գործկա (“there is work”) when sharing job opportunities, especially on Facebook. In fact, it was a jab at those complaining about a lack of job opportunities in Armenia, implying that the issue was really that the individual did not want to work. Although accusations of laziness were in some cases fair and called for; however, it is also worth noting that the work being offered is often at such a low wage that it genuinely undervalues the person’s time and dignity. “For example, a person does not want to go and do hard, arduous work for 80,000 AMD/ month [$160/month], but the capitalists or propaggandists depict it as laziness,” says Pashoyan. In the last couple of decades, the connection between diligence and personal success has often been discussed in Armenia. Simultaneously, the rhetoric of explaining poverty as the outcome of laziness has also taken root. “If you are poor, then you yourself are to blame. You don’t work enough, you are lazy. Some research has been done on this issue. The roots of shaming and discrimination against the poor in Armenia goes back to the Soviet era, when although the official ideology did not view poverty as shameful, in everyday life it was considered dishonorable and humiliating. There was also discrimination against the poor, which led people to hide their poverty. Moreover, in Soviet times, although a significant portion of society lived in need and poverty, it was widely believed that the condition of the majority was not to be considered poverty; it was viewed as normal or average. People who could not provide for their family’s minimal needs, including quality food, were the ones considered poor.”[14] In his research, cultural anthropologist Aghasi Tadevosyan also mentions that poor people are stereotyped as stupid, while rich people are viewed as smart. At the same time, society strives to imitate the rich and to achieve wealth at any cost. “It is considered that the poor are poor because of the stupid decisions they make, or that the poor do not like to work and prefer to take handouts than to be proactive and hardworking. That is, a poor person is guilty of their own poverty and is condemned for it. At the same time, this approach was also clearly reflected in interviews with representatives of the former ruling elites. Moreover, such an approach is also noticeable in the period following the Velvet Revolution in 2018, especially in the approaches of the new liberal-minded government members regarding tax and social policies,” he writes.[15] The comparisons and parallels with the Soviet social system are understandable; we bear and will continue to bear the marks of that country for a long time. However, in Karpis Pashoyan’s opinion, it is not worthwhile to make comparisons with the USSR in issues pertaining to work, as the latter was also built on fear and coercion. “Later, after Stalin’s death [in 1953], that fear was replaced by some kind of robotic system, where a person had to live in forced legal, political and social structures from birth. Whereas, a person also needs other motivation for work, so that they can manage the fruits of their labor freely and independently,” Pashoyan notes. Labor was always at the center of attention during the Soviet era. Photographs of good workers were published in newspapers and magazines, broadcasts were made about them, and labor was praised everywhere. It cannot be said that people did not work in the USSR, but it should be noted that there were always redundant positions, people who did not work and just “kept their head above water”. After independence, we often talk about the organized work ethic of the Western model, but to what extent are we ready to be overloaded? Pashoyan believes that remuneration is a critical factor. “Our employers often think that they can be demanding, but pay little; however, demands and remuneration need to correspond to one another,” he says. Vardan Harutyunyan thinks that, after independence, our state is not able to create the conditions necessary for an individual to manifest themselves, work well and achieve prosperity. “In many cases, we go to extremes. Our society and reality are not at all people-centric. There are many poor people, and I do not agree that poverty is in the minds of those people. I think that the state is not able to create conditions for those people to manifest themselves. The people are much more established than the state,” he says. We often say that we are hardworking people that construct and build, which of course is not far from the truth. However, we also hear the opposite view. “I am against such formulations; they are mythical. You cannot describe a large collective with a single adjective. This is not a scientific approach,” says Pashoyan. At the same time, he finds that we often overestimate our own strengths and capabilities; we set ourselves tasks and demands that are actually beyond our abilities: “We also put a great burden on individuals. In order to ensure the creativity of an individual, you have to shape that environment, institutions and system. An Armenian scientist who has succeeded in America cannot have the same success here, because that academic environment, that system does not exist here. We attribute that individual’s success to their nationality.” In Harutyunyan’s opinion, although we inherited these negative connotations with work from the Soviet system, over time, they will fade. “Yes, we inherited it from the Soviet Union. That legacy will definitely leave us, but it takes time. It was not possible to change it in 10-20 years. Our older generation carries it in full and so do their children; it is an upbringing, an approach, a worldview,” he says. On the whole, when discussing issues pertaining to work and diligence, we often draw parallels between wealth and poverty. As already mentioned, it is commonly thought that the poor themselves are to blame for poverty. We often hear the view that laziness is the cause of poverty. However, our observations also show that hard work is an important but not sufficient condition for achieving prosperity. Perhaps this is why the concept of work efficiency is used in parallel with diligence. The higher the scientific basis of the work, the more innovations and successful experiences applied, and new and knowledge-based modern technologies introduced, the more the efficiency of the hours spent increases. In addition to diligence, it is important to consider the country’s natural resources, communication channels and infrastructure. Of course, Armenia still has work to do in order to develop the culture of work and increase efficiency. However, the difficulties of land communication with the outside world must also be taken into account. In Armenia, the transition from the Soviet planned economy to the free market was accompanied by many difficulties, both objective and subjective. The entire economic and scientific system of Armenia was closely connected with the other re- publics within the USSR, primarily with Russia. The collapse of the Union, the destruction of decades-old relations, regional wars and blockades certainly impacted Armenia’s economy. Among the tens of thousands of people who emigrated from Armenia in the early 1990s, many were skilled workers, who took their skills and knowledge with them. On top of that, the collapse of the financial system led to mass deprivation, which hobbled business growth. Equally negative was the instability of the legal system, due to which labor relations were not clearly regulated, leading to the exploitation of workers and a decline in work initiative. Equally problematic was the process of land privatization, which was accompanied by the fragmentation of production and the supply chain. Some of the privatized technical equipment was sold off due to a lack of fuel and limited markets, as a result of which the industrialization of agriculture became significantly more difficult, reducing labor efficiency. It should be noted that Armenian society has a pretty good grasp of these issues. For years, the state has provided significant resources, privileged credit terms and assistance to increase the efficiency of agricultural work. The importance of the human factor—human capital—is also evident in the planned public and private programs in the field of education. The issue of developing people’s professional skills and bringing them in line with business requirements is a priority in the government’s “Program for Development of Education in the Republic of Armenia until 2030”. In the long-term, a generational change is likely required to eradicate decades of baggage and the Soviet legacy. A commensurate public attitude, healthy discussions and the exchange of successful practices will also help of course.