Continuation of Notes.

December 27, 1922
On the Assignment of Legislative Functions to Gosplan
This idea had, it seems, been advanced by Comrade Trotsky for quite some time. I initially opposed it, because I believed that such a move would introduce a fundamental inconsistency into the structure of our legislative institutions. However, upon careful consideration of the matter, I have come to recognize that, in essence, there is a sound rationale behind this proposal: Gosplan stands somewhat apart from our legislative bodies—though, as a body of knowledgeable experts, representatives of science and technology, it possesses, in fact, the most robust credentials for rendering informed judgments on matters of state.
Yet up until now, we have proceeded from the standpoint that Gosplan should provide the state with critically analyzed data, while state institutions are responsible for making decisions on matters of state policy. In my view, given the current situation—where state affairs have grown extraordinarily complex, where we are constantly called upon to balance questions requiring the expert judgment of Gosplan members against those that do not, and even more so, where certain issues demand Gosplan’s specialized expertise while others do not—I believe that, at this juncture, we ought to take a step toward expanding Gosplan’s sphere of competence.
I envision this step as follows: Gosplan’s decisions should not be subject to reversal through ordinary Soviet procedures; rather, their reconsideration should require a special procedure—for example, referral of the issue to a session of the VTsIK, preparation of the matter for re-examination under specific guidelines, drafting, according to established rules, detailed reports designed to weigh whether a given Gosplan decision is eligible for annulment—and, finally, the designation of special deadlines for the reconsideration of Gosplan’s decisions, and so forth.
In this regard, I believe we can—and indeed should—extend a measure of support to Comrade Trotsky—but not by assigning him the chairmanship of Gosplan, nor by appointing some other one of our political leaders to that post, nor by designating the Chairman of the Supreme Council of National Economy as its head, and so on. It seems to me that, at present, the question of principle is all too closely intertwined with personal considerations. The attacks currently being leveled at Gosplan’s Chairman, Comrade Krzhizhanovsky, and at his deputy, Comrade Pyatakov—attacks that are directed both ways: on the one hand, we hear accusations of excessive softness, lack of independence, and moral vacuity; on the other hand, we hear charges of overblown bombast, petty authoritarianism, insufficiently solid scientific training, and the like—I believe these attacks reflect two sides of the same coin, exaggerating each to extremes—and that, in reality, what we need in Gosplan is a skillful synthesis of two distinct types of character, one exemplified by Pyatakov, the other by Krzhizhanovsky.
I believe that the head of Gosplan should be a person who is, on the one hand, deeply schooled in science—specifically in technical fields or in agronomy—and who has accumulated decades of practical experience in either engineering or agriculture. I think such a person should possess not so much administrative prowess as a broad range of experience and an innate capacity to attract and inspire others.
Lenin
December 27, 1922

Recorded by M. V.

On the Assignment of Legislative Functions to Gosplan
V
Continuation of the Letter on the Legislative Nature of Gosplan’s Decisions.
December 28, 1922
I have observed among certain of our comrades who are capable of exerting decisive influence on the direction of state affairs a tendency to overemphasize the administrative dimension—which, of course, is necessary in its proper place and at its proper time—but which must not be confused with the scientific dimension, with the ability to grasp the broader realities of life, with the power to engage and mobilize people, and so forth.
In every state institution, especially in Gosplan, it is essential to combine these two qualities. When Comrade Krzhizhanovsky told me that he had brought Pyatakov into Gosplan and had reached an agreement with him regarding their joint work, I gave my consent to this arrangement while harboring certain reservations on one hand, yet sometimes hoping that we might here achieve a harmonious blend of both types of statesman. Whether this hope has been realized remains to be seen—time will tell, and we must observe the results over a longer period. But in principle, I believe there can be no doubt that such a combination of characters and types (of individuals, of qualities) is absolutely indispensable for the proper functioning of state institutions. I hold that it is equally harmful to overemphasize “administrative” qualities as it is to overemphasize anything else. A leader of a state institution must possess, above all, a profound capacity to attract and inspire others, coupled with sufficiently solid scientific and technical knowledge to scrutinize and evaluate their work. This is the foundation. Without it, work cannot be done properly. On the other hand, it is vitally important that such a leader also knows how to administer effectively and has worthy assistants—or a team of assistants—to aid him in this task. The rare occurrence—and perhaps the limited necessity—of finding a single individual who embodies both of these qualities simultaneously is but a testament to the complexity of the challenge.
Lenin
Recorded by L. F.

December 28, 1922

VI
Continuation of Notes on Gosplan

December 29, 1922
The State Planning Commission, it seems, is evolving in our country into a comprehensive body composed of expert commissions. At the helm of such an institution there must inevitably stand a person endowed with extensive experience and a well-rounded scientific education in technical matters. In essence, the administrative apparatus should serve merely as a supporting function. A certain degree of independence and self‑reliance on the part of the State Planning Commission is indispensable from the standpoint of this scientific institution’s authority—and is contingent upon but one condition: the conscientious dedication of its staff and their earnest commitment to translating our plan for economic and social development into concrete reality.
Of course, the latter quality can at present be found only as an exception, since the overwhelming majority of scholars who naturally comprise the State Planning Commission are, by necessity, imbued with bourgeois outlooks and bourgeois prejudices. To scrutinize them from this angle must become the task of a select group of individuals who may form the Presidium of the State Planning Commission—members who should be communists, diligently monitoring day by day, throughout the entire course of work, the extent to which bourgeois scholars remain true to their convictions and renounce their bourgeois prejudices, while gradually shifting their perspective toward the standpoint of socialism. This dual task—combining rigorous scholarly oversight with sound administrative management—should ideally characterize the leadership of the State Planning Commission in our Republic.
Lenin
Recorded by M. V.

December 29, 1922
Is it rational to divide the work carried out by the State Planning Commission into separate assignments, or would it not be more appropriate to strive instead to establish a cadre of permanent specialists who could be systematically vetted?

ON GRANTING LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE STATE PLANNING COMMISSION
Should the Presidium of the State Planning Commission not, on a systematic basis, assume responsibility for resolving the full range of issues falling within its purview? I believe that the latter approach is more rational—and that we ought to aim at reducing the number of temporary, ad hoc assignments.
Lenin
December 29, 1922

Recorded by M. V.
First published in 1956 in the journal “Communist,” No. 9

Printed from a secretary’s record (a typewritten copy)