On the Tasks of the People’s Commissariat of Justice in the Context of the New Economic Policy
LETTER TO D. I. KURSKY
Copies: 1) To Molotov, for the members of the Politburo

2) To A. D. Tsiurupa

3) To Rykov (when he arrives)

4) To Comrade Enukidze, for the members of the Presidium of the VTsIK.
With a special request: do not make copies—simply show them upon receipt, and ensure that no one lets word get out, that no one betrays these matters to the enemy.
February 20, 1922.
Comrade Kursky!
The activities of the People’s Commissariat of Justice, it seems, are still far from being fully adapted to the new economic policy.
In the past, the primary organs of Soviet power were the People’s Commissariat of War and the Cheka. Now, the People’s Commissariat of Justice is assuming an especially crucial role in the struggle; yet, unfortunately, this fact remains largely unrecognized by the leadership and leading figures within the People’s Commissariat of Justice.
It is imperative to intensify repression against the political enemies of Soviet power and against agents of the bourgeoisie—especially the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries—conducting such repression through revolutionary tribunals and people’s courts in the swiftest, most revolutionary, and most expedient manner possible. A series of model trials—characterized by their speed and severity of punishment, and distinguished by their ability to clearly explain to the broad masses, via the courts and through the press, the significance of these measures—must be held in Moscow, Petrograd, Kharkov, and several other key centers. Moreover, we must exert influence over people’s court judges and members of revolutionary tribunals through…

ON THE TASKS OF THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSARIAT OF JUSTICE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEP
…by working to improve the performance of the courts and to strengthen repressive measures—this work must be carried out systematically, persistently, and with unwavering determination, while maintaining strict accountability (in the briefest possible form, in telegraphic style, yet businesslike and meticulous, complete with comprehensive statistics on how the People’s Commissariat of Justice punishes—and how it learns to punish—the “communist riffraff” that so often prevails among us, those who can chatter and posture but lack the capacity to actually work).
No less important is the People’s Commissariat of Justice’s combat role in the realm of the NEP—and all the more outrageous is the weakness and lethargy displayed by the People’s Commissariat of Justice in this domain. There is no clear understanding that we have recognized, and will continue to recognize, only state capitalism; and that the state is we—conscious workers, we communists. Therefore, we must regard as utterly unfit for communism those communists who have failed to grasp their task: to limit, to rein in, to control, to catch in the very act of committing crimes, and to mete out severe punishment—up to and including execution—to any form of capitalism that oversteps the bounds of state capitalism as we understand the concept and the tasks of the state.
It is precisely the People’s Commissariat of Justice, precisely the people’s courts, that bear the particularly critical and especially weighty responsibility in this area. Yet this responsibility remains largely unappreciated. The newspapers are filled with clamor over abuses committed under the NEP—abuses that are countless in number.
But where is the outcry over exemplary trials against the scoundrels who exploit the new economic policy? There is no such outcry, because there are no such trials. The People’s Commissariat of Justice has “forgotten” that this is its duty—that failing to tighten up, to shake things up, to revitalize the people’s courts, and to teach them to punish mercilessly, even to the point of execution, for abuses committed under the new economic policy, is a fundamental obligation of the People’s Commissariat of Justice. It is accountable for this. Not a single trace of vigorous, proactive work on the part of the People’s Commissariat of Justice in this sphere can be seen—because none exists.
The educational value of the courts is immense. Where, then, is our concern for this vital task? Where is the careful assessment of real-world outcomes? Such attention is lacking—and yet this is the very ABCs of all legal work.
The same basic principle applies: a threefold penalty for communists, as opposed to a single penalty for non‑party members. And yet the People’s Commissariat of Justice shows the same careless indifference.

Under the tsarist regime, prosecutors were rewarded—and promoted—based on the percentage of cases they won. We have inherited from Tsarist Russia its worst traits: bureaucracy and the spirit of Oblomovism, which literally suffocates us, while we have been unable to adopt anything truly wise from that legacy. Each member of the collegium of the People’s Commissariat of Justice, each official in this department, ought to be evaluated according to their service record—after a thorough inquiry: how many communists did you imprison three times more harshly than non‑party members for the same offenses? How many bureaucrats did you send to prison for bureaucratic inefficiency and needless delays? How many merchants did you bring before the firing squad—or subject to some other serious punishment, not merely symbolic (as often happens in Moscow, right under the nose of the People’s Commissariat of Justice)? If you cannot answer this question, then you are nothing more than a good-for-nothing, a fellow who should be expelled from the Party for “empty talk” and “comradely bluster.”
Preparations are underway for new civil legislation. The People’s Commissariat of Justice is “drifting with the current”—a fact I can plainly see. But it is obligated to fight against the current—not to simply adopt (or, rather, to avoid being duped by) the old, bourgeois notions of civil law, but to forge a new legal framework. We must resist the Nar‑komindel, who, “by virtue of his position,” seeks to follow the line of “adaptation to Europe,” and instead confront this line head-on, developing a new civil law and a fresh approach to “private” contracts and the like. We recognize nothing as “private”; in the realm of economic affairs, everything is public‑law in nature, not private. We permit only state capitalism—and as we have stated above, the state is we. From this perspective, we must expand the scope of state intervention in “private-law” relations; broaden the state’s authority to annul “private” contracts; move away from the corpus juris romani when dealing with “civil legal relations,” and instead draw upon our own revolutionary legal consciousness; and through systematic, persistent, and determined efforts—demonstrated repeatedly in a series of model trials—show the world how this work must be done with wisdom and energy. Through the Party, we must expose and expel those members of revolutionary tribunals and people’s courts who fail to learn this lesson and refuse to grasp its significance.

* — the body of Roman law. Ed.

On the Tasks of the People’s Commissariat of Justice in the Context of the NEP
Before Genoa—and before the entire world—Narkomjust will be utterly disgraced unless it immediately shakes itself awake and, with full vigor, commits itself to a shift toward militant, combat-oriented work, to new, forward‑moving lines of action.
I propose that you:
1) Have all members of the Narkomjust Collegium read my letter;
2) Likewise, convene a gathering of roughly 100–200 communists who are actively engaged in the fields of civil, criminal, and state law;
3) Prohibit, under threat of Party accountability, any further talk about this letter—because it is sheer folly to reveal our strategic intentions to our enemies;
4) Ensure that several communists—fully aligned with the spirit of this letter, and working within the judiciary and the Narkomjust—publish a series of articles on these themes in the press, along with a number of public lectures;
5) Assign responsibility among all members of the Collegium—and, where possible, among other prominent communists working within the purview of the Narkomjust—to:
(a) the departments responsible for the new civil legislation (with particular emphasis on the most crucial areas);
(b) likewise, the criminal law division; (c) the state law division—though less urgent and more political in nature;
(d) the task of initiating and conducting exemplary, high‑profile, educationally significant trials in the aforementioned centers;
(e) the implementation of substantive, rather than merely formal, oversight over people’s courts and revolutionary tribunals—so that they may, in practice, effectively intensify repression—not only against political enemies of Soviet power (for if this repression fails to grow, Narkomjust will bear the primary blame), but also against the abuses endemic to the NEP.
Trade and profit as you will—we will allow you to do so—but we will triple the demands placed upon you to act with integrity, to submit truthful and meticulous reports, to adhere not only to the letter of our communist legislation, but also to its spirit; to permit no shadow of deviation from our laws—such must be the fundamental commandment of Narkomjust with regard to the NEP. If Narkomjust cannot ensure that our capitalism remains “well‑bred,” “decent,” if Narkomjust fails to demonstrate, through a series of exemplary trials, that it knows how to detect violations of this rule and to punish them—not with shamefully foolish, “communistly obtuse” fines of 100–200 million, but with execution—then Narkomjust is utterly unfit for purpose, and I shall feel it my duty to urge the Central Committee to effect a complete replacement of Narkomjust’s leading personnel.
Please inform me as soon as possible of how you intend to distribute this work among all members of the Narkomjust Collegium, so that I may have a precise understanding of who—beyond the People’s Commissar, who bears overall responsibility—for which specific departments of civil law (and later, criminal law, and so forth), and for the conduct of exemplary trials (each member of the Collegium must prove their mettle by initiating and presiding over several such trials), as well as for the substantive oversight of revolutionary tribunals, people’s courts, judicial investigators, and the like—of a given province or a particular district within Moscow.
It is not a matter of mere “departmental divisions” or bureaucratic slumber here; rather, it is the personal responsibility of every Communist serving on the Collegium for this or that concrete, living, revolutionary task—that is what the People’s Commissar must strive to achieve and to demonstrate that he knows how to accomplish.
Chairman of the Sovnarkom, V. Ulyanov (Lenin)
P.S. Not a single word of my letter should appear in the press. Let those who wish to speak out do so under their own names, without mentioning me—and let them provide as many concrete details as possible!
First published in part in 1924, in the book “The Second All‑Russian Congress of Soviet Justice Officials: A Stenographic Report.”
Moscow, Legal Publishing House of the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the RSFSR.

Printed in full for the first time, from the manuscript.