1

I fully associate myself with Comrade Trutovsky that the aspirations and attempts we have heard about here are a complete deviation from the tasks of the workers’ and peasants’ government and have nothing in common with socialism{158}. The task of socialism is to transfer all means of production into the property of the entire people, and not at all to hand over ships to the ship workers, banks to bank employees. If people take such trifles seriously, then nationalisation must be cancelled{159}, for this is sheer savagery. We see the task, the aim of socialism as transforming the land and enterprises into the property of the Soviet republic. The peasant receives land on condition that he cultivates it well. If the rivermen receive vessels, it is on condition that they treat them as economic units: they must present estimates, so that at least income and expenditure can be approved, and handle the vessels carefully. If they cannot do this, we shall remove them. And if they argue for three weeks, I would propose removing them all from administration, because this is sheer organisational incapacity, a complete failure to understand the vital tasks of the Soviet republic. This is chaos, disorganisation, worse—not far from sabotage. They have organised some kind of campaign into the Union and come with complaints. Meanwhile, vessels on the Volga stand unrepaired. What is this? What is this, a madhouse? I am perfectly confident that they realise that if we exist in such chaos, even more severe calamities will befall us. For us, the basic condition is discipline and the organised transfer of all property to the people, of all sources of wealth into the hands of the Soviet republic, and strict, disciplined management of them. So if we are told that the rivermen will be private masters of administration, it is clear that we do not agree to this. The Soviet power must administer. And you organise some sort of debates on the path towards the unity of all organisations…[46] If they are dissatisfied, they could have requested that the order be rescinded. But they again propose first to consider to whom the vessels belong, so that the ship workers can demand a 140% raise.

2

I fully agree with much, but regarding the composition of the collegium, I think that the proposal of the Comrade rivermen is completely unacceptable. We are, first of all, not discussing that question. The main question is that people are not receiving money. This is indeed the height of disgrace. Why do we allocate money? So that it remains on paper? We have heard thousands of complaints that if the money is not sent, our transport perishes. If money was allocated on 21 February and on the 22nd it had not arrived, they should have come with a complaint on the 23rd. We have a money famine, we lack banknotes, the printing office cannot print as many as needed. If we allocate and you re-allocate, then in fact nothing is sent. You should have come here on 23 February, not on 3 March. We demanded that these tens of millions be provided. I do not know whom to blame more. I think the representatives of the Council of the National Economy. We cannot satisfy everyone. We feed Petrograd—Moscow starves for banknotes…[47] If they only wrote vouchers and took no measures, they should have come here, called me or someone else on the telephone and stated it. It is a rare week that I do not receive statements that we are not being issued money, but from you I have received not a single statement. They must be held accountable, at least reprimanded. The decision of 21 February obliges the congress of rivermen to present an estimate. As for the composition of the collegium, I think we should have amended our decree rather in the spirit proposed by Comrade Shlyapnikov. Paragraph 3 creates a collegium of seven members. Why this was not included is incomprehensible. A number of representatives of the trade unions can be included in it. I propose that decisive measures be taken to send this money immediately by special route trains. Then, immediately notify in the usual manner that the money has already been dispatched. As for the second point, I believe that the only collegium which can be in this case and which is the most acceptable for all, for the Council of People’s Commissars, I believe the only possible one is the collegium adopted yesterday by the Council of People’s Commissars. There are no grounds for changing this. I believe we must carry that through. And if it is indeed a fact that here are the 200 roubles salary, which were accepted as fixed and it was indicated that transport would be nationalised only on this condition, if that is so, if demands appear for levelling with other organisations, then I personally propose to raise the question of the nationalisation being rescinded. In a while, a situation may arise where there will be absolutely no money. We had the sole guarantee on the basis of which we wanted to nationalise, and it is being taken from us. If that is so, this measure must be rescinded. If this does not happen, yet another enterprise of enormous unprofitability will be undertaken.

3

I find the appointment of a commissar inconvenient in many respects. There is no indisputable candidate for this post. So we will not satisfy all demands, since both sides will remain dissatisfied. To eliminate the Union in such a form that we appoint a commissar is an undemocratic measure. We shall pass a resolution that they give us a proposal by morning. If the collegium is very unwieldy, it can elect an executive committee. And we can carry this out organisationally tomorrow or the day after, so that it is carried out organisationally immediately within a definite time limit. When the executive committee is appointed, it may be that individual persons are appointed to it. This will be correct, since we are not eliminating the rivermen. They cannot object to the cooperation of the trade unions. If this does not work, then we shall raise the question of appointing a commissar. The Comrades People’s Commissars know that the question of the candidate is, of course, a difficult one, and to decide now to appoint a commissar is to decide nothing, since we very often lose a whole week because of this. It is better to apply this method. One proposal remains—to repeal points 5, 6 and 7. Adopted. As for paragraph 3, replace the six members of the collegium with temporary representation of the trade unions.