To enable democracy, which depends on a population endowed with well developed judgement to work properly.

And to enable society, which depends on counting a large amount of members the individual will trust, professionally and personally, to be hold as a value triggering synergy.

So, to enable widespread civilization, which is required to achieve the basicmost goal of a liveable environment.

Cultivation is one of the tentative ways to increase civilization. Education shapes the person; the impacts from the environment may be random in gain or loss, while education comes out of a positively progressive effort. It shapes your neighbours and the professionals you rely on.

as it should, we humans arent here to do menial task but to solve problems both personal and societal and MAYBE we should give more value to people as factor of production?

Enough culture to recognise a demagogue when they see one? Enough basic scientific knowledge to avoid falling into wellness scams and understand how climate change works? In a democracy, a well-educated people is absolutely required. You don’t need to apply all of your knowledge in your daily work; it does not mean acquiring it was a waste of time.

> This is how Soviet Union ended. "Workers and peasants" were 100% OK with Communism. It's the educated masses who were too educated and did jobs that did not justify their qualification, and lived in deep poverty, ended it.

The problem with the Soviet Union was not too much education. It is also a strange example to pick when arguing about democracies.

And Soviet Union is a good example because a democracy would fare worse in same conditions. Soviets could apply unlimited violence to keep people in check, democratic government can't do that.

I am not quite sure how rewriting history somehow validates your argument. The USSR was in a very specific situation and you'll never know how a democracy would have fared. In all likelihood, a democracy would not have ended up in that specific situation anyway.