V. I.

Lenin

598

To:   G. Y. SOKOLNIKOV

Sunday, 22/I.

Comrade Sokolnikov:

Concerning your letter of
18/I. [2]

About Basha and the State Depository of Valuables. I very much fear that you have been carried away here by
the apparent “harmony” of the reorganisation plans.
Basha, who had been recommended to me by reliable men, and who has proved his ability to safekeep, can (I felt)
only safekeep, safeguard and no more. That is enough. That
is a great deal. Under Trotsky’s general supervision and
pressure, let them safekeep, safeguard, fight stealing and
realise. That is enough. That is very much.

Why then “reorganise Gokhran”? Why reorganise it into a “gold—currency—administration”?

I very much fear that reorganisation will be the death of us, without bringing any of the practical jobs to
completion.

Let Trotsky and Basha carry out the State Depository of Valuables job to the end: which is to collect, to
safeguard and to realise.

The currency administration must be separate. It was in Litvinov’s charge. There is some mix-up between him
and Krasin—the most painful question which caused a
Politbureau decision a few days ago. [3]

At all costs this mix-up should be eliminated and their
(Litvinov’s and Krasin’s) work made concerted swiftly, immediately .

If Litvinov is unable to devote himself entirely to this
(because of the diplomacy), and if (you) intend to have
Krasnoshchekov head the currency administration, why not
bring this up before the Politbureau: the State Depository
of Valuables—safekeeps, collects and assigns for realisation; Krasnoshchekov—currency administration (instead
of Litvinov or together with Litvinov?)?

I am in mortal fear of reorganisations. We are always reorganising things, instead^ of getting on with the
practical business. You will do well to bear my words in mind:
if the Commissariat for Finance does have a bitter enemy,
it is the overdoing of reorganisation, and the underdoing
of the practical business.

I cannot agree with you that the restructuring of our budget is at the centre of our work. Trade and restoration
of the ruble is at the centre.

It is true (as you write) that Larin is “undoubtedly” the “father” of the monstrous confusion of the budget. It
is also true that Preobrazhensky is the second guilty one.
And what about O. Y. Schmidt? He has not got
Preobrazhensky’s excuses! This O. Y. Schmidt should be removed.
He is a most harmful fumbler, and is the more dangerous
because he fumbles with “pomposity” and is “superklug” [1]

....

I think you should not engage in “restructuring” on the
question of the budget: hand nine-tenths of it to the State
Planning Commission and reduce all this to practical , prudent amendments. Otherwise, the “restructuring” will
run away with you, and in any case it is impossible just
now, right away, to have a tolerable budget, and we shall
perish because of the collapse of the monetary system, scattering our attention on tasks which are not feasible
just now.

At the centre of everything just now is trade, first, domestic, and then, foreign trade; in connection with trade
and on the basis of trade—a restoration of the ruble.

All attention should be concentrated on this. The important, the most important, the basic task is to make
a practical start on this.

Development of trade, organisation of the State Bank’s trade department, to have it moving the whole of trade,
instead of sleeping—is the main thing.

What I mortally fear is that you, now actually in charge
of the most important People’s Commissariat, will be carried away with restructuring, reorganisation, and the
theoretical line (you do have a weakness on this score)—
instead of practice, practice and practice: raising trade,
increasing and collecting taxes , restoring the ruble. Really
and truly I am in mortal fear of this; do not succumb to
this weakness, otherwise we shall collapse. Go on promoting Krasnoshchekov: he appears to be a practitioner.

With communist greetings, Lenin