V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v42;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

We wanted to lure the foreigners. That is why the terms are enumerated at the end of the decree:

First point: “The concessionaire shall be remunerated by a share of the product, as specified in the contract, with the right to export it abroad.” Without this they will not come. The share is not stated. There will be a fight over this share; we shall bargain, we shall fight, and each of us will start calculating his advantage. Comrades have said that we must keep our eyes open; that is absolutely correct.

Second point: “In the event of the introduction of major technical improvements on a large scale, the concessionaire shall be granted trade privileges (such as priority in the procurement of machinery, special contracts for large orders, etc.).” What does trade privilege mean? We shall give a contract for priority to a certain firm, but not to others. And if a firm takes a concession, we may buy it out from them; we may perhaps give them a price increment. But the main thing is that they should supply us with machinery. It seems to me this consideration is clear enough, and again we shall support the elements of propaganda.

Third point: “Depending on the character and conditions of the concession, long-term concessions shall be granted to ensure full compensation to the concessionaire for the risk and the technical means invested in the concession.” This concerns the duration of the concessions. This is a completely indefinite term, and on other conditions we could not have given Kamchatka; Comrades Fedotov and Skvortsov are right that this is a special concession, which we are granting for major political considerations. By granting it on such terms, we gladly give away what we do not need ourselves, and this loss will not be burdensome to us either economically or politically.

Fourth point: “The Government of the R.S.F.S.R. guarantees that the property of the concessionaire invested in the enterprise shall not be subject to nationalisation, confiscation or requisition.” But have you forgotten that the courts remain to us? This is a carefully considered phrase, in which we were very interested. At first we wanted to say something about it, then we thought it over, turned it around, and decided it was better to keep silent. Speech is silver, silence is golden. There will be no confiscations or requisitions, but the courts remain, and they are our courts; and as far as I know, our courts consist of persons elected by the Soviets. For my part, I am not so gloomy about our courts being bad. So we shall make use of them.

Fifth point: “The concessionaire shall be granted the right to hire workers and employees for his enterprises in the R.S.F.S.R., subject to observance of the Labour Code or a special contract guaranteeing observance of definite labour conditions safeguarding their life and health.” There is nothing cautious here. And if the workers go on strike and it is a reasonable strike, we may then secretly support the strikers. What do the capitalists threaten? “We’ll throw you out into the street, you’ll starve.” But here, perhaps, they may get a food ration from somewhere; that is in our hands. We can and will give it to them. And if the strike is foolish, unreasonable, we’ll send them to the Soviet and give them a good cleaning out, so that they come out as if from a bath. It is written here that there is a special contract; this is expressed very cautiously. But as an exception it will have to be applied to Kamchatka, because we are unable to create any Soviet bodies there. So Vanderlip had to say—give a special contract. But we have not yet tried to apply our own laws to Kamchatka.

Sixth point: “The Government of the R.S.F.S.R. guarantees the concessionaire that unilateral alteration of the terms of the concession contract by any government orders or decrees shall be inadmissible.” We do not undertake to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally, because then no one will come. So some kind of intermediaries are needed. Of whom? All neutral states are capitalist. Workers’ organisations? Perhaps we shall have to invite Menshevik workers’ organisations. In Western Europe they are in the majority. Perhaps the Mensheviks will decide alternately—even numbers for the Bolsheviks, odd numbers for the capitalists. Well, if we cannot come to terms, we can break the contract. This danger remains, but if the contract is a property contract, it is not forbidden. From the standpoint of the basic principles of international law, it is a private contract, and you can break it, but you must compensate. If you break it—compensate. There have been cases in the practice of international law where a foreign ship has been sunk by mistake during war. They think it is an enemy ship, but it turns out to be neutral. What then? Compensate. So it is here; in the last resort, there remains—buying off. A way out of war still remains. War, of course, is ultimately the main, fundamental argument. Of course, as long as there are capitalists in the world, we shall be prepared for war, if you have a socialist state. Further, here we are already getting excited, but no one has yet taken any concessions. When some comrades say: “Well, the end has come, now they will all flock to us,” I repeat, it is still possible that no one will want this at all.

First section: “Timber concessions in Western Siberia.” The Northern Sea Route is open; we can export, but we have no fleet. A comrade reports that representatives have arrived who wish to obtain 6,000 desyatinas in a chessboard pattern. A northern pamphlet says that if we take the surplus electric power stations of Petrograd, we can use them for exporting timber from the northern regions, and we can develop such production that we shall receive 500,000 gold rubles in foreign currency per year. And the whole electrification, according to the State Commission’s estimate, will cost one billion and one-tenth. Whether we shall be able to do this is a question. But concessions ease this task. One would not offer concessions from a good life, but when life is hungry, when you have to twist and turn in every way to give the people a respite, you have to reason differently.

Third section: “Mining concessions in Siberia.” Siberia has immense copper wealth. Copper is extremely valuable in the world economy and is one of the main metals for electrification. We are offering a concession and do not know who will take it. America or the Germans. America will think that if she does not take it, Germany will.

When we have carried out electrification, we shall be a hundred times stronger economically. Then we shall speak a different language. Then we shall talk about buying out. They know that a socialist society not only quickly creates a Red Army, but can also move faster in some other things.

Further, individual concessions. 3 million desyatinas in the European part of Russia alone. Of these, over 800,000 desyatinas in the former Region of the Don Cossack Army. There are no Soviet farms or livestock. Along the Ural River whole villages are ruined; magnificent virgin lands lie empty. Even if we give away three-quarters of the wheat grown, we shall get one quarter. We need to strengthen our transport, and we can stipulate that tractors be supplied more cheaply.

If we cannot cultivate 3 million desyatinas of magnificent land, which can yield 100 poods of wheat per desyatina, what kind of farming is that? What kind of policy is that?

The Italians are interested in this, and Italy is on the eve of revolution. In Italy the main argument against revolution is: “We shall not be able to feed ourselves; the capitalist powers will not give us bread.” But a socialist power says: “I have 3 million desyatinas of land, I have oil and petrol.” It must be understood—agitation can be conducted on different planes, that capitalism is a dead thing, that it must be strangled. We have seen much. The European, however, is in conditions similar to those of the Russian when he went into revolution from a tormenting war. Their war is over; they live by plundering other peoples. All the more weight does this argument have. They cannot restore their economy, while we propose to begin restoration now. Here a political argument and socialist agitation are combined, but in a different form. We must know how to conduct agitation, otherwise the plans for the national economy will come to naught. And we are not only agitators; we are a Socialist Republic standing against all the capitalist states of the world. You do not know how to manage, but we do. Here there is an opportunity for comparison.