V. I.

Lenin

March 4, 1918 [3]

I fully agree with Comrade Trutovsky that the tendencies
and attempts of which we have heard here are completely at variance with
the aims of the workers’ and peasants’ government and have nothing in
common with socialism. [4] The aim of socialism is to turn all the means of
production into the property of the whole people, and that does not at all
mean that the ships become the property of the ship workers or the banks
the property of the bank clerks. If people take such paltry things
seriously, then we must do away with nationalisation, [5] because the whole thing is preposterous. The task,
the aim of socialism, as we see it, is to convert the land and the
industrial enterprises into the property of the Soviet Republic. The
peasant receives land on condition that he works it properly. If the river
transport workers receive ships, it is on condition that they take a
proprietary interest in them: they must submit their estimates if only in
order to have income and expenditure endorsed, and they must take proper
care of the ships. If they cannot do this, we shall remove them. Seeing
that they have been arguing for three weeks, I would propose removing all
of them from, the management, because this shows an utter inaptitude for
organisation, a complete failure to grasp the vital tasks facing the Soviet
Republic.. It is chaos, disorganisation, even worse-it borders on
sabotage. They have started a sort of organised crusade in the Union and
come complaining. Meanwhile, the boats on the Volga stand unrepaired. What
is this? What is it—a madhouse? I am perfectly sure that they realise
that if we go on existing in this chaos we shall bring still greater
calamities down on our heads. The chief condition with us is discipline and
the organised transfer of all property to the people, the transfer of all
sources of wealth to the Soviet Republic, and their strictly disciplined
disposal. So when we are told that the river transport workers will be
private managing proprietors, we obviously cannot agree to it. Soviet power is to do the managing. But you organise a sort of debate preventing unity
among all organisations.... [1]

If they are dissatisfied, they could have asked for the order to be
rescinded. But they are proposing again that it should be decided first
whom the ships belong to, so that the ship workers should demand a 140 per
cent rise.

I fully agree with many things, but as to the make-up of
the Board, I think the proposal of the river transport comrades is
absolutely unacceptable. For one thing, that is not the question we are
dealing with. The question at issue is that the men are not receiving their
money. That’s simply scandalous, of course. What are we allocating money
for? For it to remain on paper? We have heard a thousand complaints, that
unless the money is sent, our transport will collapse. If the money was
assigned on February 21, and on the 22nd it was not received, then they
should have come on the 23rd complaining. We are suffering from a money
famine, we are short of currency notes, the treasury cannot print all we
need. If we assign money and you unassign it, then actually nothing is
sent. You should have come here on February 23, and not March 3. We
demanded that these tens of millions should be given. I don’t know who is
more to blame. I believe the representatives of the Economic Council. We
cannot satisfy everybody. While we are supplying Petrograd, Moscow is
hungering for currency notes… [2]

If people only wrote assignments and did not take any measures, they should
have come here, or called me to the phone or somebody else, and complained
about it. It is a rare week when I do not receive a complaint about money
not being paid out, but from you I never received a single complaint. The
people in charge should be made to answer for it, at least
reprimanded. Under the ruling of February 21 the congress of river
transport workers is obliged to submit the estimates. As regards the
composition of the Management

Board, I think we should have corrected our decree rather in the vein
Comrade Shlyapnikov suggested. Paragraph 3 provides for a Board of seven
members. Why this wasn’t inserted is incomprehensible. A number of trade
union representatives could be included in it. I propose that resolute
measures be taken to have this money forwarded immediately by through goods
trains. Then notification should be sent in the usual way saying the money
has been dispatched. As regards the second point I believe the only Board
possible in this instance and most acceptable for everyone, for the Council
of People’s Commissars-the only possible Board is the one appointed
yesterday by the Council of People’s Commissars. There are no grounds for
changing this. I believe we should put this through. And if it’s really
true about the 200 rubles salary, which was adopted as definite and made a
condition for the nationalisation of transport—if that’s a fact, and if
demands are made for levelling up with other organisations, then I
personally raise the question of cancelling nationalisation. There may come
a time shortly when there will be no money at all. We had a single
guarantee on the basis of which we wanted to carry out nationalisation, and
this is being taken away from us. If that’s the case, this measure should
be revoked. Unless this is done we shall be taking on another
responsibility incurring enormous losses.

I find the appointment of a commissar inconvenient in many
respects. We have no indisputable candidate for this post. Therefore we
shall not satisfy all requirements, inasmuch as both sides will be
dissatisfied. The appointment of a commissar will mean setting aside the
Union, and that form is undemocratic. We shall pass a decision for them to
submit a proposal by the morning. If the Board is too unwieldy it could
elect an executive committee. We can implement that organisationally
tomorrow or the day after and have the thing put through organisationally
at once within a fixed period. In appointing an executive committee,
certain people could perhaps be appointed to it. This would be correct, as we would not be setting aside the river transport
workers. They can have no objection to co-operation by the trade unions. If
this doesn’t go through, we can then go ahead with the appointment of a
commissar. The members of this Council know that the question of a
candidate is, of course, a difficult one, and to decide now on appointing a
commissar is to decide nothing, as we quite often waste a whole week over
it. It is best to use this method. There remains one proposal—to revoke
points 5, 6 and 7. Adopted. Under Paragraph 3 six Board members will be
replaced by temporary representatives from the trade unions.

---
Notes:
[1]
Part of the shorthand report has not been deciphered. — Lenin

[2]
Part of the shorthand report has not been deciphered. — Lenin

[3]
The shorthand record of the C.P.C. meeting from which these speeches
are printed is kept in the Central Party Archives of the Institute of
Marxism-Leninism of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U. It was read back in 1962 for