The task before us is to restore the productive forces, to revive agriculture, industry, and transportation. The devastation and impoverishment wrought by imperialist war have been so profound that an economic crisis now grips the entire globe—and even in the most advanced nations, which prior to the war had far outstripped Russia in terms of development and had suffered comparatively little from the conflict, the recovery of their economies proceeds with extraordinary difficulty and will stretch over many long years. This is true even in many of the “victorious” countries, despite their close alliance with the wealthiest capitalist powers and the enormous tribute they exact from defeated, dependent, and colonial states.
It is only too clear that backward Russia—having endured not only imperialist war but also more than three years of civil war, imposed upon workers and peasants by landowners and capitalists with the aid of the global bourgeoisie—faces incomparably greater challenges in rebuilding its economy. The severe crop failure of 1920, coupled with widespread famine and livestock mortality, rendered the plight of the peasant economy utterly unbearable.
In accordance with a decree issued by the All‑Russian Central Executive Committee, the system of grain requisitioning has been replaced by a food tax. Tax rates have been established— The first page of V. I. Lenin’s manuscript “Instruction from the Council of Labor and Defense to Local Soviet Institutions: Draft.” — May 1921.

Reduced

INSTRUCTION FROM THE COUNCIL OF LABOR AND DEFENSE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
the freedom for farmers to exchange surplus produce for all manner of goods. By resolution of the Sovnarkom, tax rates have been published. The tax burden is roughly half that of the former requisitioning system. The Sovnarkom has enacted a new law on cooperation, expanding its rights in light of the freedom to exchange agricultural surpluses—100.
These laws have already accomplished much toward the immediate improvement of the peasant economy, toward strengthening peasants’ incentives to expand cultivated land and to enhance both agricultural practices and animal husbandry—and, in doing so, toward fostering and developing small-scale, local industries that do not depend on the procurement and long-distance transport of vast state reserves of food, raw materials, or fuel.
The independent, localized initiative to improve the peasant economy, to develop industry, and to establish a dynamic interplay between agriculture and industry now assumes particularly great significance. New opportunities are emerging to harness fresh energies and innovative forces in the reconstruction of the national economy.
The Council of Labor and Defense, obligated by the resolution of the Eighth All‑Russian Congress of Soviets to coordinate the activities of the economic People’s Commissariats and to direct them accordingly, now issues a pressing appeal to all local institutions: to marshal every available resource and, come what may, to launch broad-based efforts aimed at comprehensively improving the peasant economy and revitalizing industry—strictly adhering to the new laws while guided by the fundamental principles and directives set forth below.
The primary, dual yardstick by which we measure the success of our economic endeavors on a nationwide scale is this: first, the swift, complete, and legally sound collection of the food tax; and second—and this is especially crucial—the successful exchange of agricultural products for industrial goods, the smooth circulation of commodities between agriculture and industry.

This is the most urgent task, one that must be accomplished without delay and at all costs. It is the litmus test for our entire economic program—and the foundation upon which we can build the grand plan of electrification, which will enable us to restore large-scale industry and transportation on such a massive scale and with such advanced technological foundations as to finally and irrevocably overcome hunger and poverty.
We must collect 100% of the food tax—and then gather an equal amount of foodstuffs through the free exchange of agricultural surpluses for manufactured goods. Of course, it will not be possible to achieve this everywhere at once; yet we must all set this immediate goal for ourselves, and we can realize it in the shortest possible time—if we correctly grasp the current state of our economy and energetically embark upon the proper path of recovery. All local authorities, all local institutions in every province, every county, every regional center, every autonomous republic must work together in a unified and coordinated manner to advance the exchange of surpluses. Let experience show how far we can push this exchange by increasing production and delivering state-supplied goods from large socialist enterprises; how effectively we can encourage and develop small-scale, local industry; what role cooperatives and private trade will play—how entrepreneurs and capitalists under state supervision, along with every conceivable method and approach, must be tested, with the greatest possible emphasis on local initiative. We stand before a new challenge, one that has never before been tried anywhere in the world; we are tackling this task under conditions where postwar devastation leaves us unable to accurately assess our resources or to predict in advance just how much strain workers and peasants—having borne unprecedentedly heavy sacrifices in their struggle to defeat landlords and capitalists—can endure. We must apply diverse methods and approaches to the task from multiple angles, allowing varying degrees of capital investment and private trade, unafraid of the gradual emergence of capitalism—as long as we can immediately boost the flow of goods and services.

The Decree of the Council of Labour and Defence to Local Soviet Institutions
To invigorate both agriculture and industry through this means, and to assess—on the basis of practical experience—the resources at the nation’s disposal and the most reliable path forward for improving the conditions of workers and peasants, thereby paving the way for broader, more robust economic development and the realization of the electrification plan.
Beyond taxation, how many agricultural surpluses did the peasants exchange for goods produced by small-scale industry and private trade, and how many were exchanged for products supplied by the state? These are the two questions that should first and foremost engage every Soviet worker dedicated to the task of economic construction. These are the principal, most immediate lines of endeavor along which we must achieve our greatest successes—and by which we shall measure the degree of our work’s effectiveness, and on the basis of which we will determine how best to advance toward our further objectives. All questions of economic construction, in general, must be framed in accordance with these two most pressing concerns.
To effect this coordination, to encourage initiative, independence, and broad-based activity at the local level to the greatest possible extent, while also enabling local experience and local oversight to inform and guide the work of the central apparatus—and vice versa, thereby eliminating red tape and bureaucratic inertia—the Council of Labour and Defence decreed (see the full text of the decree separately):
First, to establish economic councils nationwide, tasked with coordinating the work of local bodies under all economic People’s Commissariats;
and second, to institute proper reporting mechanisms for local economic councils, designed to facilitate the exchange of experience, the organization of competitive emulation, and—above all—to ensure that local work and its outcomes serve as a reliable gauge for assessing the soundness of operational methods and the efficacy of the approaches adopted by central institutions.
Local economic councils should be organized along the model of the Council of Labour and Defence.

* See this volume, pp. 264–265. Ed.

They should stand in the same relationship to local executive committees as the Council of Labour and Defence stands to the Sovnarkom. The Council of Labour and Defence operates as a commission of the Sovnarkom; by selecting members of the Council of Labour and Defence from among the members of the Sovnarkom, complete harmony is achieved in the work of both institutions, eliminating any possibility of friction between them, accelerating the pace of work, and simplifying the administrative apparatus—since the Council of Labour and Defence does not create its own separate apparatus, but instead works through the existing agencies of the various departments, striving to streamline their operations and harmonize their procedures with one another.
Regional economic councils should likewise maintain a relationship with regional executive committees; in practice, this is precisely how things have unfolded. Moreover, when endorsing the members and chairpersons of provincial and territorial economic councils, the Council of Labour and Defence seeks to take local workers’ experience into account and refrains from making appointments without first consulting with them. There is no doubt that provincial economic councils must—and will—endeavor to align their work with the regional economic councils, ensuring their fullest possible participation, their informed engagement, and their genuine interest in the process. It would hardly be timely at this juncture to attempt to codify all these relationships: there is still little experience to draw upon, and any such attempt at formalization might well result in nothing more than sterile bureaucratic tinkering. It is far more prudent to allow practice itself to develop appropriate forms of interaction—after all, the Council of Labour and Defence had been working alongside the Sovnarkom for nearly a year, without in essence possessing any formal constitution. Let these forms be, at first, less than entirely rigid: diversity is desirable, indeed beneficial—and even necessary—in order to study different systems of interrelationship more thoroughly and to compare them more comprehensively.
County and township economic councils should be established on similar principles—though, of course, with allowance for all manner of modifications to the basic model; that is, executive committees may fully assume the tasks and responsibilities of economic councils, they may equate their own “administrative” or “economic” meetings with economic councils, or they may designate special commissions—or even individual officials specifically appointed—to carry out all or some of the

The Decree of the Council of Labour and Defence to Local Soviet Institutions
tasks of economic councils and the like. At the lowest level, village councils should serve as the primary cells—101 of them—and they should become the most junior organs of the Council of Labour and Defence in the countryside. The law concerning the appropriate expansion of village councils’ powers and the definition of their relations with rural soviet departments was already approved by the Sovnarkom and published in May 1921. It falls to the regional executive committees to establish, in one form or another, the most suitable rules for each locality—always with the imperative to expand, rather than curtail, the scope of local initiative and self‑governance, especially at the level of the lower cells.
In industrial counties and settlements, the lower organs of the Council of Labour and Defence should be district committees and factory committees—or the management boards of factories and plants—depending on whether the local economy is centered on a single industry or multiple industries. In any case, the integration of work with county executive committees, township executive committees, and village councils in the pursuit of guiding all aspects of local economic life is, in one form or another, absolutely essential.
Furthermore, the question of proper accountability of local bodies before the Council of Labour and Defence assumes exceptional importance, for one of the chief evils from which we suffer lies in the lack of systematic study of practical experience, the dearth of experiential exchange, and the absence of mutual oversight—namely, the failure of central directives to be effectively implemented by local practice, and of local practices to be duly guided by central leadership. One of the most important means of combating bureaucracy and red tape must consist in verifying the implementation of laws and central directives at the local level; to this end, reports are needed—reports that are publicly disseminated and printed, with the mandatory inclusion of non‑party members and individuals outside the official hierarchy. A journal such as “Our Economy,” the “biweekly organ of the Tver Provincial Economic Council” (No. 1, April 15, 1921; No. 2, April 30, 1921), demonstrates that locally, the need to study, illuminate, and publicize the results of our economic experience is being recognized—and that appropriate avenues are being found to meet this need. Of course, not every province will be able, at least in the coming months, to launch a regular journal, nor will it be possible everywhere to publish twice a month.

With 3,000 copies, as Tver is printing—yet not only in every province, but in every county as well—reports on local economic activities could—and should—be compiled once every two months (for a start, we might allow, by way of exception, somewhat longer intervals). Such reports could be printed in, say, 100–300 copies. Paper and printing facilities for this modest undertaking would undoubtedly be available everywhere—if only we recognized the importance and urgency of this work, and understood that satisfying this need required diverting paper from numerous departments that were printing vast quantities of material either unnecessary or far from essential. If we were to set the type in small font; if we printed in two columns—as our comrades in Tver do; if we grasped that simple truth—that even a mere hundred copies, distributed at one copy each to every provincial library and to every major national library—while meager, would nonetheless provide a clear, undeniable opportunity for nationwide awareness and for the systematic recording of experience—then the feasibility and urgency of this endeavor would become abundantly clear.
The proper documentation of experience, the genuine exchange of practical knowledge, and the mobilization of all outstanding and capable organizers from among the non‑party ranks—all of this is impossible without the careful, systematic publication of reports, even if only in the smallest possible print run. This goal can—and must—be achieved without delay.
When preparing these reports, it is essential to strike a balance between maximum conciseness and precise, thorough answers to the questions posed. The questions fall into four distinct categories: the first group comprises those issues that are currently being given top priority. Answers to these questions are mandatory in every report, and they must be provided with the greatest possible accuracy and detail. This is especially crucial because, for the vast majority of counties, these questions bear an exceptionally urgent, pressing significance precisely at this moment. For a smaller number of counties and districts—particularly those that are purely industrial—the priorities shift toward other questions. The second group consists of questions whose answers are likewise required in every report,

INSTRUCTION FROM THE COUNCIL OF LABOR AND DEFENSE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
Very often, such reports can—and indeed should—be presented in the form of brief summaries of the reports already submitted to the relevant authorities. In all such cases, the report to the Council of Labor and Defense must clearly state: “Reports were sent on such-and-such a date to such-and-such institutions,” and then briefly summarize the work accomplished, expressing the results achieved in numerical terms. These kinds of responses are indispensable for the Council of Labor and Defense—not only for auditing individual departments, but also for obtaining aggregate figures that reflect the overall progress made in the areas of food supply, fuel, industry, and beyond. The third group of questions requires answers that are not mandatory in every report. While answers to these questions are initially required—in the very first report—subsequent reports should merely note any additional developments or new insights as fresh material accumulates. In many instances, there will be little—or nothing—to report on these questions every two months. The fourth group encompasses all manner of supplementary questions that are neither pre‑specified nor placed at the center of attention; rather, they arise organically in local contexts. These questions should be formulated by the local institutions themselves, unbound by any rigid framework. It goes without saying that questions constituting state secrets—whether military in nature or related to military operations, state security, and the like—must be treated as a separate category of report, not intended for public release but reserved exclusively for the Council of Labor and Defense as a confidential document. Let us now turn to the list of questions:
FIRST GROUP OF QUESTIONS
1. COMMODITY EXCHANGE WITH THE PEASANTRY
This is the most important and most pressing question of the moment. First, without the full and proper supply of food to the army and urban workers, the state cannot engage in economic construction of any kind—and commodity exchange must become the primary means of procuring food. Second, commodity exchange serves as a crucial test of the proper relationship between industry and agriculture, and it forms the very foundation upon which any reasonably functioning monetary system must be built. With regard to the question of commodity exchange—including product exchange, since a state-produced good—a product of the socialist factory, exchanged for peasant food—is not, in the political‑economic sense, a commodity—at least not solely a commodity; indeed, once it ceases to be a commodity, it no longer qualifies as a commodity—it is no longer a commodity—attention must now be focused above all else on this question by all economic councils and all bodies engaged in economic construction.
Preparations for commodity exchange? What exactly has been done in preparation for this endeavor?—Through the Commodity Administration?—Through cooperative organizations? How many cooperative stores have been established for this purpose? Are there cooperative stores in every township? In how many villages? What is the fund allocated for commodity exchange? What are the prices on the “free” market? What surpluses of grain and other agricultural products exist? Has there been any experience with commodity exchange—and if so, what kind of experience? What have been the outcomes and results? How is the fight against theft of commodity exchange funds and food supplies progressing? (This is a particularly important point, requiring a detailed examination of each individual case of theft.)
Are salt and kerosene suitable commodities for exchange? What about manufactured goods? Other products? What does the peasantry need most urgently? What is most lacking in the lives of rural peasants? What could be supplied by local, small-scale, artisanal production—or by the development of local industries?
The figures and facts pertaining to the implementation of commodity exchange and its ultimate outcomes are of paramount importance for the nationwide dissemination of practical experience.
Are the relationships between the Commodity Administration—as the body responsible for overseeing and regulating commodity exchange—and the cooperative organizations—as the entities actually carrying out commodity exchange—properly balanced? What, in practice, do these relationships look like in their local implementation?
What role does private trade play in commodity exchange? To what extent has private trade developed—or is it developing? How many merchants are there, and what are their turnovers for the principal commodities? Especially when it comes to foodstuffs?

The Decree to Local Soviet Institutions
2. THE STATE’S RELATIONSHIP TO CAPITALISTS
Commodity exchange and freedom of trade inevitably give rise to capitalists and capitalist relations. There is no need to fear this. The workers’ state possesses ample means at its disposal to permit the development of these relations—relations that are both beneficial and indispensable in an environment characterized by small-scale production—and to exercise effective oversight over them. The key now lies precisely in accurately assessing the scale of this phenomenon and in identifying appropriate (not overly restrictive, or rather: not prohibitively restrictive) mechanisms for state control and accounting.
To what extent is private trade expanding in tandem with the shift from requisitioning to tax collection? Is it subject to proper accounting—or not? Is it merely petty trade, or does it include more systematic, even legitimate forms of commerce? How should such trade be registered, and what are the outcomes of that registration?
Entrepreneurship: Are there instances in which capitalists and entrepreneurs have offered to lease various enterprises, establishments, or commercial premises? And how should these cases be recorded and analyzed? How is the determination—albeit approximate—of the overall balance of commercial transactions carried out? Likewise, what about the reporting obligations of lessees and commission agents, should such entities exist?
Have there been offers of a commission-based nature—such as the collection of goods, their purchase on behalf of the state in exchange for a percentage fee? Or perhaps the sale and distribution of products? Or the establishment of industrial enterprises?
How has artisanal industry evolved following the introduction of the tax-in-kind system? What is the overall degree of its development? Where can we obtain reliable data?
3. ENCOURAGING INDEPENDENT INITIATIVE IN COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND IN ECONOMIC CONSTRUCTION MORE GENERALLY
This question is closely linked to the preceding one. Encouraging initiative often need not be tied to capitalist relations. But how can we effectively foster such initiative? This is the question that must be posed before economic councils and all bodies engaged in economic construction—generally speaking. Given the novelty of this task, it is hardly possible at this stage to offer fully precise guidelines. The crucial point is to devote immense attention to this issue, to encourage every form of economic initiative, to rigorously study practical experience, and to disseminate that experience throughout the entire state.
A smallholder who pays taxes to the state and engages in commodity exchange with the state itself, or with a socialist factory—this is a mode of economic activity that undoubtedly calls for comprehensive encouragement of initiative and enterprise on the part of the state, and especially of its local organs. The exchange of observations and experiences among local institutions will enable us to gather valuable materials and, in time, perhaps supplement this broad yet still somewhat vague question with concrete examples and detailed directives.
4. COORDINATING THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WITHIN LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS: VOLOSTS, DISTRICTS, PROVINCES
The lack of coordinated work among various departments at the local level is one of the most serious obstacles impeding economic construction. We must accord this issue the utmost attention. The task of economic councils is to eliminate this lack of coordination and to foster the autonomy of local institutions. Practical examples must be collected so that we may achieve better organizational arrangements and turn successful models into exemplars for all. In times of acute food shortages, for example, it was only natural—and indeed inevitable—to impose severe restrictions on the autonomy of local authorities in the use of harvested grain. With proper oversight and as grain reserves gradually increase, we must expand that autonomy. By doing so, we can—and indeed must—reduce bureaucracy, cut down on transportation costs, stimulate production, and improve the conditions of both peasants and workers. Food supplies, small-scale local industries, fuel, large-scale national industries, and so forth—all these sectors are closely interconnected; and while “departmental” divisions among them are necessary for the administration of the state,

THE DECREE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
can prove detrimental if we fail to engage in continuous efforts to harmonize operations, to resolve conflicts, to eliminate red tape, to overcome departmental narrow-mindedness and bureaucratic tendencies. At the local level, where officials are closer to the working masses and to the peasantry, these shortcomings become all the more apparent—and it is precisely here that local authorities must, through the exchange of experience, develop effective strategies for combating these problems.
In what specific ways, and in what precise forms, has the coordination of activities among local state farms, forestry offices, land management departments, state economic councils, and the like taken shape? These are the questions for which accurate, thorough, and detailed answers are absolutely essential.
How were those employees punished who prioritized local interests over central directives, acting against the orders of the central leadership? What were the names of those subjected to disciplinary action? Are instances of such violations becoming less frequent? Has the severity of penalties been increased—and if so, how exactly?
5. IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF WORKERS AND 6. — PEASANTS
All advances in economic construction serve to improve the conditions of workers and peasants. Yet, first and foremost, departmentalism and a lack of coordination continue to cause considerable harm. Second, we must single out these issues for special attention, carefully monitoring the results achieved in this area. What exactly has been accomplished? How exactly? Answers to these questions are indispensable.
Fatigue—and all too often, outright exhaustion—stemming from the long years of war, first imperialist and then civil, is so profound that extraordinary efforts to improve the conditions of workers and peasants are absolutely essential. Far from all that could—and should—be done, given our limited resources, is actually being done. Far from all departments and institutions are giving this matter the attention it deserves. That is why collecting and studying local experience in this regard is an urgent necessity. Reports on this topic must be as precise, as comprehensive, and as meticulous as possible—only then will it become immediately clear which departments, or which particular areas, are lagging behind. Only through concerted effort can we accelerate progress toward meaningful improvement.

7. EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF STATE WORKERS ENGAGED IN ECONOMIC CONSTRUCTION
We are in dire need of such expansion, yet we observe very little systematic effort toward achieving it. Under capitalism, individual “owners” would strive—often in secret, even going so far as to undermine one another—to secure the best clerks, managers, and directors for their enterprises; they would devote decades to this pursuit, and only a few of the most well‑organized “firms” managed to achieve truly outstanding results. Today, however, the worker‑peasant state has become the “owner,” and it must systematically, methodically, and openly undertake the task of identifying and recruiting the finest workers for economic construction—administrators and organizers at both the specialized and general levels, at the local and national scales alike. All too often, we still encounter the legacy of the early period of Soviet power: the era of the fiercest civil war and rampant sabotage—a legacy that manifests itself in the tendency of communists to confine themselves within a narrow circle of those in power, either out of fear or simply because they lack the capacity to enlist non‑party members in sufficient numbers to contribute meaningfully to the work.
We must address this shortcoming with urgency and all our might. Among the masses of workers, peasants, and intellectuals, there are countless capable and honest non‑party individuals who should be entrusted with increasingly important roles in economic construction, while maintaining the necessary oversight and guidance from the communists. At the same time, non‑party members must also exercise oversight over the communists; to this end, groups of trusted, morally upright non‑party workers and peasants should be brought into the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, and beyond formal positions, they should be informally engaged in scrutinizing and evaluating the work of others.
Local institutions—especially volosts, uyezds, and raions, which know the composition of the working and peasant masses better than anyone—should submit to the Council of Labour and Defence, in their regular reports, lists of non‑party members who have proven their integrity through their work, or who have distinguished themselves at non‑party conferences, or who enjoy undisputed respect among their peers.

INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL OF LABOUR AND DEFENCE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
for factories, villages, volosts, and the like—and then specify the types of work to which these individuals are assigned within the realm of economic construction. By “work,” we mean not only the holding of official positions, but also participation in oversight or inspection without formal appointment, regular informal meetings, and the like.
Responses to these questions must be submitted on a regular basis. Without this, the socialist state cannot properly organize the process of engaging the masses in economic construction. New workers exist—honest and dedicated individuals, many of whom are found among the non‑party ranks. We simply do not know them. Only local reports can help us identify them, test them in broader, gradually expanding roles, and ultimately eliminate the scourge of isolating small groups from the wider mass—a problem that persists in many localities.
8. METHODS AND OUTCOMES OF THE STRUGGLE AGAINST BUREAUCRACY AND DELAYING TACTICS
In the early days, most responses to this question will likely be quite simple: no methods employed, no results achieved. The resolutions of the Eighth All‑Russian Congress of Soviets were read and then forgotten.
But if matters in this regard are indeed grim, we must by no means follow the example of those who succumb to despair and throw up their hands in resignation. We know that bureaucracy and delaying tactics in Russia are most closely linked to the level of cultural development—and to the devastating consequences of extreme ruin and impoverishment brought about by war. The fight against such evils can succeed only through immense persistence over many long years. Therefore, rather than giving way to despair, we must begin our work again and again, resuming what has been interrupted, experimenting with diverse approaches to achieving our goals.
The reorganization of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection; the recruitment of non‑party members, both through this very Inspection and outside of it; judicial prosecution; reducing the number of officials and carefully selecting those who remain; auditing and coordinating the work of various departments—and much more besides. All of these measures, all that was prescribed in the resolutions of the Eighth Congress of Soviets; all the measures and techniques noted in the press must be systematically, steadily, repeatedly, and frequently tested, compared, and studied.
Regional economic councils and all other bodies responsible for coordinating and guiding economic construction at the local level must demand strict compliance with the measures mandated by law and informed by practical experience. Local experience must be systematically collected. While it may prove difficult at first to elicit precise, comprehensive, and timely answers to the aforementioned question, such responses must nonetheless be submitted to the Council of Labour and Defence. The Council of Labour and Defence will ensure that this is done—and the work will undoubtedly yield positive results, even if not as quickly as some people might hope. Too often, people turn “the struggle against bureaucracy” into nothing more than empty rhetoric—or into a mere repetition of old gossip, including the White Guard–Socialist Revolutionary and Menshevik narratives—rather than engaging in persistent, tenacious efforts to implement concrete measures.
SECOND GROUP OF QUESTIONS
9. BOOSTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: a) PEASANT FARMING;
b) SOVIET FARMING ENTERPRISES; c) COMMUNES; d) ARTELS; e) COOPERATIVES; f) OTHER FORMS OF COLLECTIVE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION
The briefest possible summaries, complete with figures from reports sent by each department, along with the dates each report was submitted.
More detailed information—not in every report, but periodically, every four to six months, and so forth—should be provided on the most critical aspects of local agriculture, on the outcomes of surveys, and on the key measures implemented, with mandatory verification of their results.
At least twice a year, accurate data must be gathered on the total number of all types of collective farms (collective agricultural enterprises, b–e), broken down according to whether each farm has been performing well, adequately, or unsatisfactorily. Each of the latter three categories should be described in detail at least twice a year, with precise documentation of all relevant data pertaining to the farm under consideration.

The Decree to Local Soviet Institutions the nature of the enterprise, its scale, its geographical location, its production outcomes, the extent of support it provides to peasant households, and so forth.
10. THE REVIVAL OF INDUSTRY: a) LARGE ENTERPRISES UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY;
b) LARGE ENTERPRISES THAT ARE PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF LOCAL BODIES; c) SMALL, ARTISANAL, HOME-BASED, AND THE LIKE ENTERPRISES.
The responses should be of the same general character as those for the preceding item. With regard to category (a), local bodies that closely and directly observe the life and operations of large, nationally significant enterprises—along with their impact on the surrounding population and the attitudes of local residents toward these enterprises—must, in every report, provide detailed information about such enterprises: what assistance local authorities have extended to them, what the outcomes of this assistance have been, what kind of support these enterprises extend to the local population, what are the most pressing needs of these enterprises, what shortcomings exist in their organizational structure, and so on.
11. FUEL: a) WOOD; b) COAL; c) OIL; d) SHALE; e) OTHER FORMS OF FUEL (WASTE FUEL, ETC.)
As with the two preceding questions: concise summaries, complete with figures from reports submitted by the relevant departments, accompanied by mandatory indications of the dates on which these reports were filed.
Detailed accounts of matters of particular importance—those that extend beyond the purview of the department itself—as well as of local coordination efforts and related issues.
Particular attention must be paid to fuel conservation. What measures are being taken? And what have been the results?
12. FOOD SUPPLIES
General summaries of Comprod reports, in accordance with the above-mentioned requirements.
Garden cultivation and suburban (near-factory, near‑plant) agriculture—along with their respective outcomes.
Local experience in organizing school and children’s meals, cafeterias, public catering in general, and the like.

It is imperative to compile data in two key figures: the number of individuals receiving food supplies, and the total quantity of food distributed over each two‑month period.
In every major consumption center—whether a large city, a medium-sized town, military installations in a special settlement, or the like—we feed many “unnecessary” mouths: parasitic officials, hidden bourgeois elements, speculators, and the like. We must systematically “hunt down” these “superfluous” eaters who violate the fundamental principle: “He who does not work shall not eat.” To this end, each such locality must appoint a designated statistician, charged with studying the census data from August 28, 1920, alongside current statistical records—and every two months, submit a report on surplus eaters, bearing their own signature.
13. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Responses should follow the same pattern as before. In this sphere, local initiative and self‑reliance are especially crucial and should be given particularly broad application. Detailed information is required regarding the most important undertakings in this field and their corresponding outcomes.
14. MODEL AND DESPERATE ENTERPRISES AND ESTABLISHMENTS
A mandatory description of every enterprise, establishment, or institution engaged in economic development that merits the designation “model,” or at least “outstanding,” or “successfully operating” (even if there are no model enterprises and no truly outstanding ones). The composition of the governing board (including names) of such institutions. Their methods of operation. Their outcomes. The attitudes of workers and local residents toward these entities.
The same applies to enterprises that are hopeless or otherwise unproductive.
Of particular importance is the question of closing enterprises that are not strictly necessary—those that are doomed to fail; those that could be shut down and their operations consolidated into fewer, larger enterprises, and the like. It is essential to keep systematic records of such “superfluous” establishments, to track their numbers, and to gradually free the republic from their burdens.

THE DECREE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
15. IMPROVEMENTS IN ECONOMIC WORK
Particularly significant and exemplary innovations carried out by individual inventors and exceptional workers—complete with their names; experiments that local authorities deem worthy of note, and so forth.
16. NATURAL BONUSES
This is an institution that ranks among the most important in terms of its role in socialist construction. Engaging people in productive labor is the paramount—and most challenging—task of socialism.
Systematic recording of practical experience, along with its collection and thorough study, is indispensable.
Reports must be submitted every two months, based on actual data: How much in natural bonuses has been distributed? Which products were awarded? By which line of work? (Separately: forestry work and all other types of labor.) How do the overall results of the work, its outcomes, and the quantities of products compare with the figures for the amounts of natural bonuses actually disbursed?
Are there instances in which natural bonuses are converted into reserves of wage payments? Each such case must be noted in detail.
Are natural bonuses being awarded to particularly successful enterprises—and to individual workers? A precise description of each instance is required.
Calculation: Is there any local product that could be obtained—both for trade with foreign countries and for particularly valuable domestic use—by increasing the level of natural bonuses to a specified amount? This calculation is of great importance, for if we carry it out correctly and on a widespread basis, we will discover many valuable products that we can supply abroad with profit and gain, even while exporting a certain quantity of natural bonuses back from overseas.
17. TRADE UNIONS AND THEIR PARTICIPATION IN PRODUCTION
Local Gubernia Trade Union Councils and district-level trade union bodies are obligated to immediately appoint rapporteurs and their deputies, who, both individually and with the assistance of local statisticians, must prepare a report on this issue once every two months.

In relation to production propaganda, we need precise factual data—numbers of lectures, meetings, and demonstrations, along with the names of organizers and the like.
But even more crucial than production propaganda are the data concerning the actual involvement of factory committees and trade unions in the production process as a whole. What forms does this participation take? A detailed account of each typical case. The practical outcomes achieved. A comparative analysis of enterprises where union participation in production is well established or at least adequately organized, contrasted with those where such participation remains weak or nonexistent.
The question of labor discipline is of particular importance. Reports on the number of absenteeism incidents must be submitted without fail. A comparison should be made between enterprises characterized by low levels of labor discipline and those distinguished by high standards of discipline.
Techniques for enhancing labor discipline.
Comradely disciplinary tribunals: How many have been established, and when? How many cases are handled each month? What are the overall results?
18. EMBEZZLEMENT
Alongside institutions that recognize the widespread prevalence of this evil and actively combat it, there are also those that respond by claiming, “There is no embezzlement within the department, institution, or enterprise under our jurisdiction,” or “Everything is proceeding smoothly.”
Accurate reports must be submitted every two months. How many institutions, establishments, and other entities are actually submitting such reports? And how many are not?
A concise summary of these reports.
Measures to combat embezzlement.
Are managers held accountable? What about boards of directors? Factory committees? (for failing to adequately address embezzlement.)
Are searches conducted? Are other forms of oversight employed—and if so, what kinds?
Has the new law on barter and the provision of a portion of workers’ output for this purpose had any discernible impact on reducing embezzlement? Precise data on this matter are essential.
Local warehouses—whether owned by the state or by local government authorities—located within the given region. Brief summaries of their operations.

ORDERS FROM THE COUNCIL OF LABOR AND DEFENSE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
Reports on warehouse operations, specifying the date each report was submitted.
Local authorities’ accounts of state-owned warehouses. The methods employed to safeguard these warehouses. Instances of embezzlement. The number of personnel working at the warehouses, and so forth.
19. MARKET SPECULATION
The extent of this phenomenon, according to local data. Who comprises the ranks of market speculators—predominantly workers? Peasants? Railway employees? Other public-sector workers? And so on. The condition of railways and waterways. Measures taken to combat market speculation—and the results achieved through these measures. How is the accounting for market speculators and speculative activities organized?
20. THE USE OF MILITARY UNITS FOR LABOR-RELATED PURPOSES
Labor armies: Their composition, size, and scope of work. How is reporting structured? What is the attitude of the local population toward them?
Other forms of utilizing military units—for example, the All-People’s Military Training program, which is also put to use in labor-related endeavors.
The numbers of local military units—also including local All-People’s Military Training institutions and the youth who pass through their programs.
Practical experiments involving the deployment of youth from All-People’s Military Training programs and Red Army soldiers in specific tasks related to oversight, sanitation, assistance to local communities, and various economic operations. A detailed description of each experiment—or, if there are several, of two representative cases: the most successful and the least successful.
21. LABOR DUTY AND LABOR MOBILIZATION
How are local branches of the People’s Commissariat of Labor organized? What is their work like?
Brief summaries of the reports they submit to the People’s Commissariat of Labor, with the mandatory inclusion of the date each report was sent.
A description, at least once every four months, of two typical cases of labor mobilization—highlighting both the most successful and the least successful instances.

A list of labor duties currently in effect. Final figures regarding the number of individuals called upon to perform labor duties, along with an assessment of the overall outcomes of these efforts.
In what ways do local institutions affiliated with the Central Statistical Administration participate in the implementation of labor duties and labor mobilization efforts?
THIRD GROUP OF QUESTIONS
22. REGIONAL AND LOCAL ECONOMIC COUNCILS
When and how were economic councils established at the regional, provincial, district, and township levels? What is the relationship between their work and that of village councils? And with factory committees?
Economic councils attached to the district Soviets of major cities—what is their composition and function? How are their tasks defined? What is their relationship to the city-wide Soviet Executive Committee?
Do district committees and district economic councils exist? Is there a genuine need for them? Should we identify the most industrialized or manufacturing-oriented settlements—and their surrounding districts, and so forth?
23. THE STATE PLANNING COMMISSION (STATE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE COUNCIL OF LABOR AND DEFENSE) AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH LOCAL ECONOMIC ORGANIZATIONS
Are there regional bodies of the State Planning Commission? Or specially appointed representatives? Or specialized teams acting in this capacity?
Has some form of coordination—or, more precisely, what kind of coordination—been established with the State Planning Commission? Is there a real need for such coordination?
24. ELECTRIFICATION
Does the local provincial and district library possess a copy of the “Plan for the Electrification of the RSFSR,” presented at the Eighth Congress of Soviets? 102 How many copies are there? If not, then either the local delegates to the Eighth Congress of Soviets were dishonest individuals—persons who ought to be expelled from the Party and removed from all positions of responsibility—or else they were idlers who should be taught, through imprisonment, the duty they owe to their country (at the Eighth Congress of Soviets, 1,500–2,000 copies were distributed to local libraries).

DIALECTICS AND SELF-MOVEMENT: ON THE ROLE OF COGNITION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

The question of how to advance the plan for electrification—promulgated at the Eighth Congress of Soviets—has been widely debated. How many articles have appeared in local newspapers on this topic? How many formal reports have been delivered? And how many listeners have attended these presentations?

Have all local workers who possess theoretical or practical expertise in electricity been mobilized to deliver such lectures and conduct educational sessions? How many such workers are there? What is the nature of their work? Are local power stations—or nearby facilities—being utilized as venues for lectures and workshops? If so, how many such stations are involved?

According to the resolution adopted at the Eighth Congress of Soviets, in how many educational institutions has instruction on the plan for electrification been introduced?

Has anything concrete been accomplished—and if so, what specifically—in the implementation of this plan? Or are efforts focused instead on other projects related to electrification that fall outside the official plan?

Does each locality have its own localized plan for electrification, complete with a prioritized list of specific tasks?

25. FOREIGN TRADE AND BARTER
While this question undoubtedly calls for responses from all border regions—and indeed, from beyond them as well—counties and provinces adjacent to border areas also offer significant opportunities for trade and for monitoring the execution of barter arrangements. Moreover, as noted above (§16: “Natural Compensation”), even locales situated far from the border can participate in international trade through barter.

What is the condition of local ports? How is border security maintained? What are the scale and forms of commercial exchanges? A brief summary of the reports submitted to the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Trade, including the date each report was filed.

Has the NKVT conducted inspections of local power stations? What are their assessments regarding the practical implementation of electrification efforts and the outcomes achieved thus far?

26. RAILWAY, WATERWAY, AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
A concise compilation of reports submitted under this heading, with the date each report was filed clearly indicated.

An assessment of the local transportation landscape—from a local perspective.

What are the shortcomings of the transport system? What measures have been taken to improve it, and what results have been realized? What is the current state of local transportation, and what steps are being taken to enhance it?

27. PRESS COVERAGE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
Local press organs and “Economic Life”: How effectively is economic activity being covered in the media? To what extent do non‑party members participate in this coverage? How are these practices evaluated and assessed?

How widespread are local press organs and “Economic Life”? Are they preserved in libraries and made accessible to the general public?

The publication of pamphlets and books on economic development: A catalog of works already released.

What is the demand for foreign literature, and how is this demand being met? Have publications issued by the “Binta” Bureau—specializing in foreign science and technology—been received favorably, and how are they evaluated? What other foreign publications have been translated into Russian and other languages?

FOURTH GROUP OF QUESTIONS
This group should encompass questions pertaining to the selection and designation of local institutions and individual figures—questions that may be directly or indirectly related to economic construction, closely or remotely connected to it.

Local staff from the Central Statistical Administration must be actively involved in the preparation of reports. While the direct responsibility for drafting reports may rest with local officials, or with other designated individuals, the participation of provincial statistical bureaus and district statisticians is mandatory. Each report—or each response to a question, when written by different authors—must bear the signature of the author, along with their official title if they hold a position of authority. Both the author of the report and the entire composition of the local economic councils share responsibility for ensuring that—

NAKAZ FROM THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE TO LOCAL SOVIET INSTITUTIONS
whose duty it is to submit accurate, timely, and truthful reports.
In cases where local resources are insufficient, training courses on report preparation should be organized under the supervision of statisticians and specially appointed comrades—drawn from the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection and other relevant agencies—while clearly identifying those responsible for leading these courses and establishing a detailed schedule for their implementation.

21 May 1921
Lenin
Published in 1921 as a separate pamphlet.

Printed according to the text of the pamphlet, verified against the manuscript.