V. I.

Lenin

239

To:   G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY

March 14

Gleb Maximilianovich, After looking through the statement by the
GOELRO [1] and thinking over yesterday’s talk, I have come to the
conclusion that it is dry .

It is not enough.

Can’t you write, or commission an article from Krug (or someone else) of such a kind as to
prove

or, at any rate, illustrate

a) the tremendous advantage,

b) the necessity of electrification.

For example:

I. Transport. To restore in the old way— we need a millions (at pre-war prices)

or a fuel + β working days.

But to restore it on the basis of electrification a minus x million rubles a minus y fuel + ( β minus z ) working days.

Or also

α

—,

α + β

but with an effect so many times greater than the previous one.

II. Steam power. If industry is restored in the old way,
we must spend more than for restoring it on the basis of
electrification.

III. Agriculture.

To restore, say, + 5 million ploughs and teams of horses.

The cost of doing this in the old way, and with electrification?

This is a rough idea . I think an intelligent specialist
will do this work in a couple of days (if he wants to do it
conscientiously), taking either the Figures of pre-war statistics (a few, really a few, summary figures), or a rough and approximate calculation “(as a first
approximation” [2] towards a first approximation ).

Commission this. Perhaps yon will commission somebody to collect the material for you and write the article yourself
or give an interview . I will send an interviewer. Then we
shall have the warp for propaganda. And that is important.

After reading this, ring me up on the telephone.

Yours, Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
Reference is to the programme of work of (ho State Commission
for the Electrification of Russia (GOELRO) and the explanatory
note to it, passed at a session of GOELRO on March 13, 1920.

[2]
Krzhizhanovsky subsequently wrote that when Lenin used the
words “as a first approximation” he was teasing him for his habit
of prefacing any calculations or plans with this cautious formula.