Bolshevik Leaders correspondence

Bolshevik leadership Correspondence. 1912-1927
Collection of documents 1996.
Compiled by: A.V.Kvashonkin, L.P.Kosheleva, L.A.Rogovaya, O.V.Khlevnyuk.

L. B. Krasin - V. I. Lenin

November 8, 1921

To Comrade V. I. LENIN. Moscow .

Dear Vladimir Ilyich 1 .

The English newspapers today quote your speech at some meeting of communists 2 in which you allegedly declare the rejection of state capitalism and the transition to complete freedom of private-capitalist relations. Of course, newspapers almost always misrepresent your speeches, but, nevertheless, I consider it necessary to express my views on this matter to you.

This kind of capitulation, if it really came up, in my opinion, is by no means justified either by our international position or by obtaining any direct material benefits for the RSFSR.

World capitalism has more or less come to terms with the idea that no government other than the Soviet government is possible in Russia in the near future. World capitalism will also come to terms with the existence of the Soviet system, if only it is given the opportunity to participate in the exploitation of Russia's natural wealth and labor force. Based on all the conversations and impressions that I have had in recent weeks, I definitely affirm that the capitalists will come to terms with very many features of our system and that, in particular, we have no need to renounce state control of large-scale industry, the monopoly of transport and foreign trade. insofar as we will use all these monopolies in their practical application in such a way as not to exclude the broad participation of foreign capital in the exploitation of Russia. There is no need to let go of the possibility of regulating the production of the whole country according to some unified state plan. No one really wants this from us. Meanwhile, for us to preserve this gain of the revolution is a matter of paramount importance.

If, having failed with complete communism and with the conduct of all production through trade unions or the Economic Council, we shall be able, within the framework of state capitalism, to establish and maintain state planned regulation of industry, transport and foreign trade, and in this way we will be able to avoid the chaos and anarchy of purely capitalist production within the country and the unrestrained mutual competition of individual enterprises and individual branches of industry, this will already be a huge step forward against the former system of pure capitalism, an advantage no less than the advantages of the Soviet state system over the "democracies" of the capitalist states.

By renouncing the state monopoly and the state planned economy, we will absolutely not buy any additional concessions at this price, and we will not receive any handouts of foreign capital for this voluntary hara-kiri.

The demands that the capitalists are now placing on us boil down essentially to the following:

First, we must establish and firmly maintain an order that ensures the possibility of industrial and commercial work, the unhindered circulation of values, goods and people, without which capitalist production is not possible. Here the question of our Cheka, as well as the interference of the trade unions in the work of industry, is of the first importance. While incompetent and even simply ignorant in matters of production of equipment, etc., bodies and investigators will fester in prisons of technicians and engineers on charges of some kind of ridiculous, ignorant people invented crimes - “technical sabotage”, or “economic espionage”, foreign capital will not go to Russia for any serious work, even if you swore 100 times to abandon communism and restore private property. The emergency cases in this area will have to be reduced in the most definite and decisive way, and I have almost no doubt that the transfer of all cases against employees of foreign firms and companies from the Cheka to some kind of general judicial regulations will probably be set as a condition for any work of foreign capital in Russia. . We will not establish a single serious concession or commercial enterprise in Russia unless we give some definite guarantees against the arbitrariness of the Cheka. Felix Deutsch, Chairman of the Board of the General Electricity Campaign, recently visited me and said that he continues negotiations with the largest German, British and American firms on the formation of a concern for the economic restoration of Russia and, first of all, for the restoration of agriculture. This project is of particular interest to Germany, because the implementation of it does not create any competition for German industry, but, on the contrary, gives it earnings in the form of orders for plows, tractors, agricultural machines and other products. At the same time, by promoting peasant agriculture, Germany opens up prospects for obtaining relatively cheap grain and raw materials, partly in payment for the loan provided by this concern. It is possible that already in December I will have to go to Moscow together with representatives of this group for more serious negotiations. But at the end of the conversation, Deutsch took out of his pocket a whole list of engineers arrested in Petrograd and Moscow and declared that with such a policy of our Cheka, it was impossible to conduct any business with Russia. I have to say that I didn't feel particularly confident about this part of our conversation, because I definitely know that most of these arrests are completely ridiculous. In St. Petersburg, for example, a certain Gosh, a 60-year-old old man, a former director of Siemens, was arrested for receiving some kind of allowance from abroad in the amount of several hundred marks, or crowns. I definitely know that this Gosh is dying of hunger and I absolutely cannot see anything criminal in the fact that one of his acquaintances sent him this manual. Among those arrested, Deutsch also named Schwartz, who was released from prison in my presence in July, having been kept for several weeks on a completely absurd occasion. Such facts can be cited as many as you like, and as long as our engineers and technicians are in the clutches of people like Agranov and others who understand absolutely nothing either in technology or in economics, we will not get any work and no, even simple, capitalism. former director of Siemens, for having received from abroad some kind of allowance of several hundred marks, or crowns. I definitely know that this Gosh is dying of hunger and I absolutely cannot see anything criminal in the fact that one of his acquaintances sent him this manual. Among those arrested, Deutsch also named Schwartz, who was released from prison in my presence in July, having been kept for several weeks on a completely absurd occasion. Such facts can be cited as many as you like, and as long as our engineers and technicians are in the clutches of people like Agranov and others who understand absolutely nothing either in technology or in economics, we will not get any work and no, even simple, capitalism.3 .

The second condition is a full guarantee of the inviolability of property and property and any acquired rights. This, of course, does not preclude foreigners from being bound by our laws, which prohibit speculation, the purchase of jewels, etc. We can enforce these laws to the fullest extent, bringing foreigners to justice for their violation. Such a court must be organized according to some legal norms, and I do not see why we cannot create people's courts or tribunals that will, in the most magnificent way, throw any foreigner caught buying diamonds or selling cocaine into a concentration camp. Why it is imperative to carry out all these cases through the Cheka, and not through the courts, is completely incomprehensible; no one can argue against the court. Of course, the Cheka will be unhappy, she has already decided to shoot Bogdatyan,

The third, extremely serious condition will be the demand for compensation for various delivered goods (Gutuev customs), for confiscated bank accounts, for safes, etc. These demands will be joined further by the demand for the denationalization of industrial property, as well as compensation for losses from our social legislation and from the arbitrary actions of local councils and individual Soviet bodies and employees.

This point will be one of the most difficult in our negotiations. It will be most easy to refuse any compensation for the confiscation of landed property; it is very characteristic that the majority of the representatives of the big bourgeoisie, even including such as Urquhart, agree that obtaining any compensation for the confiscated lands is a completely and completely hopeless matter. Compensation for delivered and unpaid goods and services, such as various Gutuev customs, etc., will be fully insisted on, and here it will not be possible to get a big discount. The situation is more difficult in relation to plants, factories and other enterprises. In essence, we could, with a fairly consistent implementation of the whole plan, go for the return of property, but without any obligation of the state, to assist the owner in any way in the further running of the enterprise, i.e., not to provide either railways, or electric energy, or general protection of state power, etc.; but, of course, it is difficult to hold on to this position, and the capitalists, using first the recognition of their property rights in principle, then, through their governments, will be able to put pressure on us and achieve nationwide assistance. On the other hand, the practical implementation of individual claims will be of great difficulty. If each owner makes individual demands, decades can be spent verifying these demands and still not achieving definite results. Most likely, we will have to reckon with some summed lump-sum4 requirements, as it was in 1918 during the negotiations in Berlin. We could, in principle, recognize such lump-sum demands, but on the indispensable condition that our demands be recognized by the capitalist states for losses due to intervention and blockade. Here, for the thousand and first time, I lay claim to you for disrupting the work of the Groman commission . Due to some unfortunate rations, this work was stopped halfway. The Goichbarg Commission 6 has crumpled up everything and has not obtained any convincing data, and now we will find ourselves empty-handed during the negotiations.

Since a situation is being created in which we will have to throw away some piece of world capital for the dishes we have broken, I would consider such a lump-sum agreement to be most in line with our interests, as was reached with the Germans in August 1918, i.e., in other words, the ransom for a certain amount of all former foreign interests in Russia. This would save us from difficult and unprofitable negotiations for us over some of the largest and most valuable enterprises that foreigners will try to regain. We would become masters of all Russian industry and then be able to attract foreign capital on the basis of concession agreements. Our compensation would have to enter into the total amount of our debts and, so to speak, would be dissolved in the latter.

It would be extremely unprofitable to return to individual owners their former enterprises, and even with the payment of their losses, and all the potential benefits from the further development of these enterprises would already fall into the hands of the owners. If we take this path, then in any case, some completely new legislation and a whole system of industrial taxation, etc., will be required in order to somehow tax the capitalist.

From a number of indications, I see that in Russia, both on the part of the cooperatives and on the part of the Economic Council, a fierce campaign is being waged in favor of "Freedom of Foreign Trade."

Not the slightest need for such freedom, at least at the moment, is not foreseen. Our monopoly of foreign trade is flexible enough to allow the satisfaction of all the needs of both the co-operatives and individual central administrations and centers for foreign goods. Here we have a very definite counter-revolutionary conspiracy of big speculators and petty swindlers, who want not only to warm their hands on foreign trade and constant relations with foreign countries, but simply to blow up the last remnants of any state regulation of economic relations. Recently, some commission at the STO allegedly allowed the Tsentrosoyuz to freely open its departments abroad, and the Politburo allegedly approved this decision 7. Here again is a completely unnecessary suicidal concession to the enemies of the Soviet system without any compensation. The Tsentrosoyuz has not even tried trading with foreign countries, it cannot assert that such trade is not possible for it through the organizations of the Foreign Trade, but it insists on independent organizations in order to get the possibility of uncontrolled work, all sorts of Shiberian and speculative transactions, the right to send its people and etc. How can you not understand that as soon as the gentlemen from the Tsentrosoyuz get free access abroad, the capitalists will make every effort to nullify all trade with us, close all credits to us and let all this go exclusively along the channel of the Tsentrosoyuz. Do you really think that the Korobovs and the Berkenheims will better serve the commercial interests of the Republic than Vneshtorg can and is already doing.

I conclude this letter: there is no need to hasten to make concessions to the capitalists. Much of the gains of the October Revolution can still be salvaged. We must act systematically according to the plan worked out without such kurbets as we did in August and September and which set us back at least half a year or a year.

I suggest that all policy changes of any importance be subjected to some, at least a brief, preliminary discussion. In particular, it is necessary already now to designate the commission that will be entrusted with conducting negotiations if Britain, France and other countries agree to the conference proposed by Chicherin 8 . It is necessary to think in advance both about people and about the program of work of this conference. Otherwise, we will again make mistakes in a hurry.

With comradely greetings

L. Krasin.

RTSKHIDNI. F. 2. On. 1. D. 22043. L. 1-4. Typewritten text. The signature is an autograph.

Notes:

1 Letter written on letterhead: NEW BOND STREET LONDON W. 1. At the top of the first sheet is Lenin's inscription: “Secret. Comrade Molotov! I ask you to let the members of the P/Bureau into the circle for your information, with a return. 19/XI. Lenin"; below the signatures of Molotov and Trotsky with Molotov's note: "Read." In the margins of the letter, Lenin's notes: on the first page, opposite the words: "You seem to declare the rejection of state capitalism and the transition to complete freedom of private property relations" Lenin wrote: "What nonsense!!"; on the third sheet, opposite the phrases: “Here I lay claim to you for the thousand and first time for disrupting the work of the Groman commission” and “The Goichbarg commission crumpled everything up” Lenin wrote: “Nonsense”; on the fourth sheet, Lenin singled out three sentences with the sign "NB" with the words: "Not the slightest need for such freedom, at least at the moment, is not foreseen."

2 Lenin's report on the NEP at the VII Moscow Provincial Party Conference on October 29, 1921.

On June 30, 1921, Lenin asked the Cheka for information about the arrest of engineer Schwartz. The response, signed by Menzhinsky and Agranov, stated that "Schwartz is accused of engaging in economic espionage for Siemens." On June 28, 1921, Schwartz was sentenced to 2 years of probation (V. I. Lenin and VChK M., 1975, p. 479).

4 Lump-sum (from German pauschal) - taken as a whole, entirely, not divided into its component parts.

5 This refers to the commission chaired by Groman, which has been working since 1920 to determine the losses inflicted by the imperialist and civil wars on the national economy of Russia. At the end of 1920, work was suspended, but in the middle of 1921, in the course of working out issues of the concession policy, it was resumed again.

6 This is a commission for the study of issues related to the claims of foreign concessionaires for their pre-revolutionary property, chaired by Goykhbarg. This commission worked in 1921 in parallel with a similar commission of Groman. On October 22, 1921, in a letter to Chicherin, Lenin asked the latter to check the work of the Groman and Goykhbarg commissions in the light of Krasin's letter on the difficulties of the concession policy (V. I. Lenin. Biographical Chronicle. T. 11. P. 534).

On October 7-8, the plenum of the Central Committee considered the theses of Khinchuk, Frumkin and Preobrazhensky on barter and cooperation and appointed a commission consisting of Chubar, Khinchuk, Frumkin, Preobrazhensky and Bogdanov to study this issue. The commission's directives stated: "Give maximum advantages to cooperation" (RTSKHIDNI, F. 17, Op. 2, D. 72, L. 2). On October 14, the Politburo approved in principle the proposals of the commission, including granting the right to the Central Union to organize its representative offices abroad (Ibid. Op. 3. D. 215. L. 11).

The 8th International Conference on Economic and Financial Questions was held from April 10 to May 10, 1922 in Genoa with the participation of representatives of 29 states. The conference was devoted to the post-war restoration of the European economic system. The "Russian Question" became one of the main ones in her work. The provision of loans to Russia was made dependent on the return of the debts of the tsarist government to the Entente states. Representatives of the Soviet government put forward a counterclaim for damage caused during the civil war and intervention.