N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE ORGANISATION OF INDUSTRY

§ 93. The Expropriation of the Bourgeoisie and the proletarian Nationalisation of large-scale Industry.

The very first task of the proletariat, and of the Soviet Power as instrument of the proletarian dictatorship, was to wrest the means of production from the bourgeoisie, or, as the phrase runs, to expropriate the bourgeoisie. It is self-evident that we were not concerned with the expropriation of small-scale industry or with the expropriation of artisan production, but with the seizure of the means of production that were in the hands of the great capitalists, with establishing large-scale industry upon a new foundation, and with organising it in accordance with new principles. How could the Soviet Power do these things? In Part One we learned that the proletariat must not attempt to divide up the factories and workshops, and must not plunder them, but must undertake the social, the cooperative, organisation of production. Obviously, in the epoch of proletarian dictatorship there is only one way of doing this, namely by proletarian nationalisation, by which we mean the transfer of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange into the hands of the proletarian State, the greatest and most, powerful of working-class organisations.

We must carefully avoid confusing the nationalisation of production under the bourgeois regime with the nationalisation of production under the proletarian regime. Nationalisation means “transfer into the hands of the State.” But one who speaks of the State without qualification, and without enquiring whether the State is a bourgeois State or a proletarian State, misses the whole point. When the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and when it nationalises its trusts and syndicates, this nationalisation nowise involves the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. All that happens is that the bourgeoisie takes its goods out of one pocket and puts them into the other. Everything is transferred into the possession of its own State, the masters’ State. The bourgeoisie continues to exploit the working class as heretofore. The working class, as heretofore, works not for itself but for the enemies of its class. Such nationalisation is bourgeois nationalisation. The result of such nationalisation is to produce the social order we considered in Part One under the name of State capitalism. It is a very different matter when nationalisation is effected under the rule of the proletariat. Now the factories, the workshops, the means of transport, and so on, are transferred to the proletarian Power; they do not pass under the control of the organisation of the masters, but under the control of the organisation of the workers. In this case, therefore, there is actually effected the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. The capitalists actually forfeit the foundations of their wealth, their dominion, their energy, and their power. The whole basis of exploitation is destroyed. The proletarian State cannot exploit the proletariat, for the simple reason that it is itself an organisation of the proletariat. A man cannot climb upon his own back. The proletariat cannot exploit its own self. Under State capitalism, the bourgeoisie loses nothing by the fact that the private entrepreneurs have ceased to work separately, and have joined hands to fleece the public. In proletarian nationalisation, obversely, the workers in the separate factories lose nothing by the fact that they are not independent masters in their own factories, by the fact that all the enterprises belong to the working class in its entirety, to the greatest of all workers’ organisations, which is known as the Soviet State.

The expropriation of the bourgeoisie, which was begun immediately after the November revolution, has now been practically completed. Within the confines of Soviet Russia, the entire transport system (railways and waterways) has been nationalised, and from 80 to 90 per cent. of large-scale production is in the hands of the proletarian State. According to the reports of the Department for Factory and Workshop Statistics of the Supreme Economic Council, by September, 1919, there had been nationalised, in 30 provinces, 3330 enterprises, at which 1,012,000 workers and 27,000 employees were occupied. These figures underrate the amount of nationalisation, for we learn from other data that more than 4000 enterprises have already been nationalised. The biggest of the 3330 enterprises mentioned in thereport are functioning. This is plain from the following figures. By September, 1919, 1375 national enterprises were actually at work, and in 1258 of these, 782,000 workers and 26,000 employees were occupied. Out of the million workers, nearly 800,000 are actually at work, notwithstanding the terribly difficult conditions prevailing in industry. There were 691 enterprises closed down, at which 170,000 workers should have been occupied. Details are lacking concerning 1248 enterprises occupying 57,000 workers. These are comparatively small enterprises.

In the autumn of 1919, the nationalised undertakings actually at work, and combined into “chiefs” or into “centres,” were as follows:

I. Mining and kindred industries (under the general management of the Mountain Soviet).

1. Chief-coal (chief administration of coal production).
2. Chief-mines.
3. Chief-petroleum.
4. Chief-peat.
5. Chief-slate.
6. Chief-salt.
7. Chief-gold.

II. Metal industries (under the general management of the Department for Metals of the Supreme Economic Council).

1. Gomza (portmanteau word for State machine shops).
2. Chief-aviation.
3. Centro-copper.
4. Chief-nails.
5. Motor-car manufacture.
6. Group of Malzov workshops.
7. Group of Kaluga and Ryazan workshops.
8. Locomotive works in Podolia.

III. Electro-technical industries (“Ogep,” a portmanteau word like Gomza.“Ogep” means United State Electrical Enterprises).

IV. Textile industries (“Chief-textile”).

V. Chemical industries (under the general management of the Department for Chemical Industries of the Supreme Economic Council).

1. Raw chemicals.
2. Chief-aniline-dyes.
3. Centro-varnish.
4. Chief-drugs.
5. Chief-matches.
6. Chief-glass.
7. Chief-potash.
8. Centro-cement.
9. Centro-paints.
10. Centro-asbestos.
11. Chief -hides.
12. Chief-furs.
13. Centro-bristles.
14. Chief-bone.
15. Centro-fat.
16. Chief-paper.
17. Chief-rubber.
18. Chemical wood-working.
19. Chief-vegetable-oils.
20. Centro-spirits.
21. Chief-tobacco.
22. Chief-starch.
23. Chief-sugar.

VI. Preparation of food-stuffs (Department for the Preparation of Food-Stuffs of the Supreme Economic Council).

1. Chief-flour.
2. Chief-sweets.
3. Centro-tea.
4. Centro-milk.
5. Chief-tinned-goods.
6. Centro-cold-storage.

VII. Chief-timber-committee.

VIII. Printing industries (Printing Department of the Supreme Economic Council).

IX. Central auto-section (assembly and repair of motor cars).

X. Centro-garment-working (small tailoring shops, etc.).

XI. Utilisation of waste products (Centro-Util.).

XII. War Transport.

XIII. Building materials and the building industry (Committee of State Building)

XIV. Munitions of war (Department of Munitions of War — “Centro-Voyenzag” [portmanteau word]).

XV. Transport, lading, and storage department of the Supreme Economic Council (“Tramot” Department for the Transport of Material of the Supreme Economic Council).

The expropriation of the bourgeoisie, based upon principle, must be carried to its logical conclusion. This is the first task which is incumbent on our party. But we must be careful not to forget that petty proprietors are not to be expropriated. The “nationalisation” of small-scale industry is absolutely out of the question: first of all, because it is beyond our powers to organise the dispersed fragments of petty industry; and secondly because the Communist Party does not and cannot wish to alienate the many millions of small masters. Their adhesion to socialism will be quite voluntary, and will not result from their forcible expropriation. This fact must be especially borne in mind in those regions where small-scale production is widely prevalent.

Subject to this reservation, the first task we have to face is the completion of nationalisation.

§ 94. Our Goal, the Development of Productivity.

The foundation of our whole policy must be the widest possible development of productivity. The disorganisation of production has been so extensive, the post-war scarcity of all products is so conspicuous, that everything else must be subordinated to this one task. More products! More boots, scythes, barrels, textiles, salt, clothing, corn, etc. — these are our primary need. How can the desired end be secured? Only by increasing the productive forces of the country, by increased productivity. There is no other way.

But here we encounter a formidable difficulty, arising out of the onslaught made upon us by the world-wide forces of the counter-revolution. We are blockaded and put upon our defence, so that we are simultaneously deprived of labour power and cut off from the material means of production. We have to wrest by force of arms petroleum and coal from the landlords and capitalists. Here is our first great task. We have to set the work of production upon a proper footing. Here is our second great task. We are hard put to it, indeed!

Before the working class had become master of the whole country, this was not our affair. But now the working class is in power. Everything is at its disposal. It is responsible for the destiny of the country. Upon its shoulders rests the whole burden of saving the Soviet Republic from the miseries of famine, cold, and disorder. Before the working class rose to power, its main task was to destroy the old order. Now its main task is to construct the new order. Formerly it was the business of the bourgeoisie to organise production; now it is the business of the proletariat. Evidently, therefore, in the days of the most widespread disorganisation, all the thoughts of the proletariat, as far as this matter is concerned, must be concentrated upon the organisation of industry and the increase of production. To increase production means to increase the output of labour, to produce more goods, to work better in every possible way, and day by day to achieve better results. The time for fine phrases is past, and the time for hard work has come. No longer does it devolve upon us to fight for our rights in Moscow or in Petrograd; the working class has secured its rights, and is defending them at the front. What we have to do now is to increase the number of nails, horse-shoes, ploughs, locks, machines, great coats. These things have become absolutely vital if we are to avoid dying of hunger amid the ruin resulting from the war, if we are to be clothed, if we are to regain our strength, if we are to advance by rapid strides along the road to the new life.

The problem of increased production comprises a number of problems. How can we increase the quantity of the material means of production (machinery, coal, and raw materials); and how can we increase the amount of labour power? How can we best organise production (what is the best way of planning out economic life as a whole, how should one branch of production be linked up with another, how should production be administered, what is the best and most economical way of allotting the reserves of raw material, how can we best dispose of the available labour power?) How can we secure better work, in so far as this depends upon the workers themselves? (the question of a comradely labour discipline; that of the struggle against slovenliness, slackness, idleness, etc.) Last of all comes the question of applying science to production, the question of the work of skilled experts.

All these questions are of immense importance. We have to solve them practically, to solve them in action. We have to solve them, not in a single factory or for a single factory, but for the whole of a huge country, where the working class and the semi-proletariat are numbered by millions. It is evident that in this matter we must stick to one point of view, must drive the nail home, must increase the productivity of the whole country which is building its economic life upon the new foundation of communist labour.

Our opponents — the social revolutionaries, the mensheviks, the bourgeois, etc. — declare that we are not Marxists at all, that our communism is only a consumers’ communism, a communism of distribution. The bolsheviks, they say, shear the bourgeois, compel the bourgeois to give up their houses; the bolsheviks divide up the articles of consumption; but they do not organise production. The charge is utterly unfounded. The productive forces of society consist of two things: of the material means of production, on the one hand; and of living persons, the workers, on the other. The working class is the basic force of production. If machinery, tools, etc., have been destroyed, this is unfortunate, but the loss is not vital, for experienced workers can, even though at the cost of much labour, reproduce everything that is lacking. Very different is the state of affairs when the living force of production is destroyed, when the workers migrate to the villages, when cold and hunger lead them to abandon the towns, when the working class crumbles to pieces. This must be prevented at all costs. The organised expropriation of the means of consumption is in such a case the best way to protect living labour power. Communism of the articles of consumption is thus no more than an indispensable preliminary to our real aim, the organisation of production. The bourgeoisie everywhere wishes to impose upon the proletariat all the costs of the war, all the poverty which arises out of it, all the cold, all the hunger. For the sake of its own future, the proletariat must force the bourgeoisie to shoulder the burdens of the post-war period. But of course our leading task is the organisation of production and the development of productivity.

§ 95. The purposive Organisation of economic Life.

The break-up of capitalism left as its legacy to the proletariat, not only a widespread lack of the means of production, but also widespread confusion. Russia was utterly disintegrated; the connexion between the various regions of the country had been destroyed; intercourse between one industrial district and another had become extraordinarily difficult. As a result of the revolution, the factory owners had dropped the reins of administration, and at first, in many places, the factories were simply masterless. There then ensued an unsystematic seizure of the enterprises by the workers, who could wait no longer. A local “nationalisation” of this kind had begun before the November revolution. Of course it was not really nationalisation, but only the unorganised seizure of enterprises by the workers who had been employed in them; not until later did the seizure become transformed into nationalisation. Even after the November revolution, nationalisation was at first conducted at haphazard. Manifestly, the primary need was to nationalise the largest and best equipped enterprises; but things did not always work out this way. The general tendency was to nationalise those enterprises which the owners had abandoned and which could not be left uncared for. In many cases, however, enterprises were nationalised because their owners were especially hostile to the workers. It was natural that in the days of the civil war there should be a great many such enterprises; but it was equally natural that among these there were not a few which were in bad order and practically unworkable. Quite a number of them, in especial, were mushroom growths of the war period, inaugurated for “defensive” purposes; having been hastily put together, they collapsed with equal speed during the revolution. All this inevitably led at first to increased disorganisation.

At the outset, the Soviet Power and its instruments had no accurate reports of what was going on. There was no list of undertakings; there were no tabulated statements of the supplies of raw materials, fuel, and finished commodities; there was no account of the productive possibilities, no definite idea concerning how much the undertakings that were being nationalised were competent to produce. The bourgeoisie was dying, but it was dying intestate. The proletariat became the “heir” to the wealth of the bourgeoisie — but it became the heir in virtue of a seizure of the property in an embittered civil struggle. Obviously, therefore, in these early days, there could be no talk of any general economic plan. The old organisation, the capitalist system, had collapsed; the new organisation, the socialist system, had not yet come into being.

NEVERTHELESS, ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TASKS OF THE SOVIET POWER WAS AND IS THAT OF UNITING ALL THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNTRY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A GENERAL PLAN OF DIRECTION BY THE STATE. Thus only is it possible to retain productivity at such a level as will permit a subsequent farther development. We have learned in Part One that one of the great merits of the communist system is that it puts an end to the chaos, to the “anarchy,” of the capitalist system. Herein lies the very essence of communism. It would of course be absurd to expect that within a brief space of time, when hunger and cold are rife, when there is a lack of fuel and raw materials, it will be possible rapidly to achieve permanent and satisfactory results. But while it is true that people do not live in the foundations of their house, and that they cannot live in the house at all till it has been erected upon its foundations, and until the scaffolding has been removed, nevertheless the foundation is absolutely indispensable. This comparison may be applied to the upbuilding of communist society. The foundations of communist society are laid by the organisation of industry, and first of all by a purposive unification of industry under State control.

To carry out this design in practice, it was necessary, first of all, to take stock. We had to know precisely what resources were available for the proletarian Power. We had to know what supplies there were, how many enterprises, etc. By degrees, ties arose between what had formerly been independent enterprises. Central instruments came into existence for the supply of raw materials, fuel, and accessories. A network of organs for the local and central administration of industry was created, and this was already in a position to elaborate a general plan and to apply the plan all over the country.

The administrative apparatus of industry, regarded from above, is constructed as follows. At the head of each factory there is the workers’ factory administration. This usually consists of the workers in the enterprise, who are members of the appropriate trade unions, and of members of the technical staff who are appointed subject to the approval of the central committee of the workers’ trade union; two-thirds of the members of the factory administration are ordinary workers, and one-third belong to the technical staff. In certain cases, where we have to do with a number of comparatively small undertakings, there are district administrations in close touch with the local economic councils, and these in their turn are in touch with the local soviets of workers’ delegates. Larger undertakings are directly subordinated to the so-called “chiefs” and “centres.” These “chiefs” and “centres” constitute unions of whole branches of production. For example, the Chief-textiles supervises the whole textile industry; Chief-nails supervises all the production of nails; Chief-coal supervises all the production of coal. (Refer back to the small-type list in §93.) The organisations which, under State capitalism, had been State trusts presiding over specific branches of production, have in our system become “chiefs” and “centres.” The composition of these chiefs and centres is decided by the presidium or executive committee of the Supreme Economic Council (see below) and by the central committee of the respective trade union. Should any dissension arise, the place of this trade union is taken by the All-Russian Central Soviet of Trade Unions, which decides the composition of such a “centre” in conjunction with the presidium of the Supreme Economic Council. The local economic councils are usually responsible for the organisation of minor enterprises.

The “chiefs” and the “centres,” in their turn, are united into groups of kindred industries. For example, such unions of “chiefs” constitute respectively the “Gomza” (State machine shops), the Centro-copper, the Chief-gold, the Chief-nails, etc.

Here, for instance, is a list of the groups comprising the Department for Metals.

In the textile industry, at the head of which is Centro-textile, we have in addition the so-called “Kusts” (especially in the cotton industry); these unite undertakings which produce half-manufactured products in various stages of manufacture, and also finished products.

Speaking generally, it may be said that all this organisation is still in a state of flux; new forms are continually arising, and old forms are continually dying out. This is inevitable during a time of febrile constructive activity, and when the conditions are so unfavourable because we may own the Ural region to-day and lose it to the enemy to-morrow, because we may be excluded from Ukraine to-day and may be in control there to-morrow.

Not only, then, are the individual branches of production unified, but these branches of production are further integrated into larger unities. It need hardly be said that such combinations of branches are formed, first of all, between branches of a kindred character. For example, the production of nails, that of machinery, that of copper, and that of copper utensils, etc., are combined into a metal group. This group of “chiefs” constitutes the Department for Metals of the Supreme Economic Council. There are several such departments. Besides the Department for Metals, we have the Department for Chemical Industries, the Department for Foods, the Printing Department, etc. In the autumn of 1919, the structure of these various departments was still far from uniform. In the Department for Metals, the predominant influence was exercised by the Central Committee of the All-Russian Union of Metalworkers. The metalworkers belong to the workers’ vanguard; they are mentally alert; they are splendid workers; for these reasons they have excellent administrative capacity. In some of the other departments the conditions are less favourable. For example, it was not until the autumn of 1919 that the workers began to participate in the administration of the Department for Chemical Industries, for not until that date had there been constituted any corporative unity in this class of work.

All the departments are subordinated to the Supreme Economic Council (Vysovnarhoz [or S.E.C.]). This consists of representatives of the Soviet of Trade Unions, of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets, and of the people’s commissaries. Its affairs are managed by a presidium. Thus the S.E.C. coordinates all the economic activities of the country, and the primary duty of the council is to draw up and to carry out a unified scheme for the State administration of economic life.

The activities of the Gomza demonstrate the capacity of the workers, with the aid of the requisite types of organisation, to increase production. The Union of Metalworkers, it will be remembered, has the decisive influence here.

QUANTITIES PRODUCED.

The period of time to which the second line in the table relates was three times as long as the period to which the first line relates. It will be seen that the production was more than three times as great.

With the aid of a certain amount of organisation, which is already progressing satisfactorily, it has become possible to make a more purposive use of the apparatus for controlling the supply of raw material than has hitherto been made by the “chiefs,” and also to secure a better centralisation of production by restricting it to the best equipped undertakings. The latter is a logical consequence of the general plan. Plainly, it is more advantageous to utilise the best equipped undertakings, to concentrate all our energies upon the maintenance of these, rather than to trouble ourselves fruitlessly by having recourse to inefficient and badly equipped undertakings. In this matter, likewise, we have of course to reckon with the general scarcity of fuel and raw materials. Owing to the scarcity, we have often been compelled to close down some of the largest works (in the textile industry, for instance). Even to-day we owe to these causes the still persistent partial disorganisation of production. The main trouble here, however, is not the lack of organisation properly speaking, but the lack of material things requisite for production.

Nevertheless, the centralisation of production advances with irresistible strides. The Gomza, for instance, has closed a considerable number of second-rate enterprises, and has concentrated production in sixteen of the best-equipped works. The electro-technical industry, which was quite disintegrated under capitalism, has now been unified. The same thing has happened in various other branches of production (tobacco, farinaceous foods, sugar, textiles, etc.).

The wise and thrifty utilisation of the extant supplies of materials and energy is a matter of immense importance. At first, as we have seen, there were no inventories. A number of warehouses were destroyed, and the stores they contained were pillaged, or they disappeared no one knew whither, before there had been any discussion of the right utilisation of these resources. But in this field, likewise, order was gradually introduced, although with great difficulty. In the case of many articles, we now have definite information as to the amounts available. (See table, p. 271.]

It is perfectly plain that a great deal still remains to be done to perfect the regulation and organisation of economic life. Confusion and disorder are still widely prevalent. The apparatus does not yet dovetail properly; but the general framework has already been constructed. Our task now consists in advancing the work along three lines: first, we must perfect the unification of all the economic activities of the country; secondly, we must perfect our general plan of economic administration, must centralise production more completely, must organise it better, and must continue to improve our administrative apparatus; lastly, we must learn to make a still better use of all the raw materials and stores in the country.

The following table gives a comparative statement relating to the supply of fuel and of raw material in the years 1918 and 1919 respectively. The data have been furnished by Comrade Milyutin.

The table shows that order was being established in many departments. It likewise shows that our chief trouble has been the loss of the petroleum supplies.

§ 96. The Development of economic Cooperation with other Lands.

The question of our relationships to the foreign world is closely connected with the question of the organisation of large-scale industry. Soviet Russia is encircled by a blockade, and this does immense harm to the country. The figures in the following table show how important the interruption of economic intercourse with other lands has been in its influence upon Russian manufacturing industry and agriculture.

Our chief imports were manufactured articles, and between 1909 and 1918 the quantity of these imports increased by 65 per cent. The import of raw materials and half-manufactured goods increased in the same period by 60 per cent. Thus the importance of imports notably augmented. The most notable imports were industrial machinery apparatus of various kinds, hardware, agricultural machinery, chemical products, electrical accessories, and other means of production. But there was also a steady increase in the import of articles of consumption (textiles, leather goods, etc.).

All intercourse with Germany was broken off at the outset of the war. When Soviet Russia was blockaded, trade relations with the Entente likewise came to an end. According to pre-war estimates, our total imports of goods amounted to nearly one and a half milliards of roubles. This shows what a loss the blockade has inflicted upon us.

The policy of our party must therefore aim at the reopening of economic relationships with other States — in so far, of course, as this is compatible with our general aims. The best guarantee, in this connexion, would be a decisive victory over the counter-revolution.

A second task concerns the mutual economic relationships between Russia and those countries in which the proletariat gains the upper hand. We must aim, not merely at economic exchanges with such countries, but if possible we must collaborate with them in accordance with a common economic plan. Should the proletariat prove victorious in Germany, we should establish a joint organ which would direct the common economic policy of the two soviet republics. It would decide what quantity of products German proletarian industry should send to Soviet Russia; how many skilled workers should migrate from Germany (to the Russian locomotive factories, for instance); and, conversely, what quantity of raw materials should be sent from Russia to Germany. We are perfectly well aware that Europe will be able to recover far more rapidly from the present state of disorganisation in the event of a union being formed between the various countries. Naturally, we have no intention to unite with any capitalist land. On the other hand, we can and must enter into a close economic alliance with soviet republics, must collaborate with them in accordance with a common economic plan. THE ECONOMIC PROLETARIAN CENTRALISATION OF PRODUCTION UPON AN INTERNATIONAL SCALE — SUCH IS OUR GOAL.

§ 97. The Organisation of small-scale Industry, Handicraft, and Home Industry.

We have seen that one of the chief obstacles to the upbuilding of communism in Russia arises from the fact that in general our country, like all undeveloped and backward lands, is one of petty enterprise. Above all is this true of Russian agriculture. But the manufacturing industry of Russia likewise retains vestiges of the old type of relationships; we have large numbers of home workers, independent artisans, and small-scale producers. According to pre-war statistics, in 34 provinces there were in all about 1,700,000 petty enterprises carried on by home workers.

In the following statement, these home industries are numerically classified according to the nature of the products.

According to some estimates, the number of independent home workers was reduced by one million during the war, and this despite the fact that, owing to the disorganisation of large-scale manufacture, many workers took to home industry. The reduction is to be explained by the migration and dispersal of home workers in search of regions where there was more to eat. In the provinces of Vologda, Novgorod, and similar regions, where the food conditions were particularly bad, the falling off ranged from 20 to 25 per cent. On the other hand, in the provinces of Kursk, Orel, Simbirsk, and Tambov, there was an increase of from 15 to 20 per cent.

The proletarian Power is faced by the question, How is this mass of petty producers to be incorporated into the general system of the socialist economy now in course of construction?

In the first place, it is absolutely clear that forcible expropriation is here quite inadmissible. The petty producers must not be bludgeoned into the socialist realm. We must do everything in our power to make it easy for them to undergo the necessary change, and to understand that it is not merely necessary but advantageous. This can be achieved by surrounding the home worker with certain conditions. What are these conditions? How can they be secured?

First of all, WE MUST INCLUDE HOME INDUSTRY IN THE GENERAL SCHEME FOR THE STATE PROVISION OF FUEL AND RAW MATERIALS. For if the home worker receives from the State organisation of the proletariat the fuel and the raw materials which are requisite for his productive occupation, then he will become dependent upon that proletarian organisation. In former days, under capitalism, the dealer or the factory owner often supplied the home worker with raw materials, and thereby the latter became dependent upon the former. Of course the dealer or the factory owner “looked after” the home worker in this way in order to exploit him. The home worker was really working, not for himself, but for a capitalist. Of a very different character is the dependence of the home worker upon the proletarian State. The proletarian State, the workers’ State, neither wants to, nor will, nor can, exploit the home worker. The proletarian State only wants to help the home workers to organise themselves jointly with the other workers. The proletarian State will not extract profit from the home workers (it does not extract profit from anyone); its aim is to attract the home workers and their organisations into the general labour organisation of industry. The home worker who is dependent upon the dealer or the factory owner, works for the dealer or the factory owner. He becomes their beast of burden. The home worker who is dependent upon the proletarian State is a social worker. Thus the first requisite is to include the home worker in the general scheme for the supply of fuel and raw materials.

Secondly, it is essential that THE HOME WORKER SHOULD RECEIVE FINANCIAL AID FROM THE STATE. Formerly, under capitalism, the usurious dealer likewise helped out the home worker in money matters. But he “supported” the home worker much as the cord supports the man who has been hanged. The dealer enslaved the home worker in the most barbarous fashion, for the dealer, spiderlike, sucked a golden juice out of the home worker. The proletarian State can really help the home worker with money, supplying the money to enable the home worker to execute State orders, with no intention of extracting profits, with no usurious aim whatever.

Thirdly, it is self-evident that THE PROLETARIAN STATE MUST PLACE ITS ORDERS WITH THE HOME WORKER IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CENTRALISED SYSTEM. Supplying the home worker with raw materials, with fuel, with accessories, and in case of need with implements, the proletarian State authority places its orders in accordance with a definite plan, and is enabled to include the home worker in the general scheme of social production.

Thus the home workers will by degrees be drawn within the general system of production now being organised upon socialist foundations. They will be drawn within that system, not only by being supplied with certain products of social production, but also because they themselves will be directly working for the proletarian State in accordance with a plan prescribed for them by the instruments of the proletarian State.

Fourthly, THE HELP GIVEN TO THE HOME WORKERS (in the manner just described) MUST BE CONDITIONAL UPON THEIR ORGANISING THEMSELVES LIKE OTHER WORKERS. The proletarian State must give the preference to those home workers who unite, who organise themselves into artels or cooperatives of production. More important still, it must give the preference among such organisations, to those which are undertaking large-scale cooperative production instead of petty production.

Every entrepreneur, however small the scale of his operations, and even the independent home worker, has at the bottom of his heart a desire to become a great entrepreneur, a desire to “get on in the world,” a desire to have an “establishment” of his own, to engage “hands,” and so on. Under capitalism, artels or cooperatives of production have tended, as they have grown stronger, to degenerate, in actual fact, into capitalist undertakings. It will be very different under the proletarian dictatorship. Here there is no scope for capitalism. Instead, we have the State authority of the workers, which organises all possible kinds of unions among the workers, and which holds in its hands all the financial resources of the community, and, still more important, all the means of production. Formerly it was absurd to believe that artels could bring us nearer to socialism; inevitably, in the course of their development they became transformed into capitalist companies. But now, when we are able to draw them within the organisation of the workers’ State, such bodies can be helpful in the upbuilding of socialism. They can be helpful, not because the home workers are themselves eager for communism (many of the home workers, like petty entrepreneurs in general, are prejudiced against communism), but because new roads are being opened, while the old roads have been completely closed.

By encouraging the home workers to form labour organisations, we encourage their painless transformation into workers of the great united, organised, “mechanised” system of social production.

Much has already been done in this direction. For the winter season of 1919-20, for example, State orders were extensively placed among home workers: 2,000,000 pairs of felt boots; 2,200,000 pairs of woollen mits; large quantities of knitted goods; bast shoes; sheepskin jackets; etc. An improvement in production has already become noticeable. For the winter season 1918-19 the deliveries of felt boots down to March 1st, 1919 (!) were only 300,000 pairs; for the winter season 1919-20 there have already been delivered 500,000 pairs by November, 1919.

The advances were given in accordance with a definite plan; raw materials, petroleum, illuminants, and fuel were supplied. In the years 1918-19, the work of organisation took the following form. Conferences were summoned consisting of the representatives of cooperative organisations, of the home workers’ leagues (Centrosoyus, Centrosectia, Moska, Kustarsbyt, etc.), and representatives of the section for home industry of the Supreme Economic Council. These conferences drew up a general plan. Kustarsbyt (the central league of cooperatives for the production and distribution of goods manufactured by home workers and artels) is the largest organisation of home workers which has been drawn into the general organisational scheme. It embraces 29 leagues with 1306 cooperatives, representing in all 631,860 homeworking enterprises. They receive their supplies either from the central organisation or through the local economic councils.

Under the soviet regime, the number of assoeiations is steadily increasing.

It need hardly be said that, since the links between the various parts of the economic soviet apparatus are now in course of construction, no final forms have yet been attained. Everything is still in a state of flux. But there is one matter upon which we have to keep our attention fixed — the regulation of the apparatus, the harmony of organisation, the purposiveness of all our activities.

§ 98. The Organisation of Industry and of Trade Unions.

In Russia, the apparatus which has proved preeminently suitable for the new tasks in the domain of organising and administering industry has consisted of the trade unions.

In capitalist society the function of the trade unions — constituted first upon a craft basis and subsequently upon an industrial (productive) basis — was primarily to serve as a means for the struggle against capitalism, as a means for the economic struggle. During the days of storm and stress, the trade unions joined forces with the party of the working class, with the bolsheviks, to lead the general onslaught upon capital. The party, the unions, and the soviets marched side by side against the capitalist social order. After the conquest of political power, the role of the trade unions naturally underwent a change. Hitherto, for example, they had engaged in strikes against the capitalists. Now the capitalists no longer existed as ruling class, as masters, as entrepreneurs. Hitherto, the principal aim of the trade unions had been to effect the destruction of the system which then prevailed in the factories. But after November, 1917, the time had arrived for the establishment of the new order.

The organisation of production — this was the new task of the trade unions in the epoch of proletarian dictatorship. The unions were able to bring together immense numbers of the proletariat. They were the most powerful of all the proletarian organisations, and they were directly associated with the work of production. In Russia, moreover, at the time of the revolution, they were in entire agreement with the idea of the proletarian dictatorship. It is not surprising, therefore, that it proved necessary to hand over to these organisations the actual responsibility for the management of production, including the management of the most important of all the elements of production — the management of labour power.

What should be the relationship between the trade unions and the State Power of the proletariat?

Let us recall what the bourgeoisie did in order to secure its greatest successes. It built up the system of State capitalism, associating all its other organisations more closely with the State Power, this applying in especial to its economic organisations (syndicates, trusts, and employers’ associations). The proletariat, which has to carry to a successful issue its struggle against capital, must in like manner centralise its organisations. It has its soviets of workers’ delegates, which constitute the instruments of State authority; it has trade unions; it has cooperatives. Manifestly, if their work is to be effective they must be mutually interconnected. The question now arises, with which organisation must the others be linked up. The answer is simple. We must select the greatest and most powerful of all. Such an organism is constituted by the State organisation of the working class, by the Soviet Power. It follows, therefore, that THE TRADE UNIONS AND THE COOPERATIVES MUST DEVELOP IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY WILL BE TRANSFORMED INTO ECONOMIC DEPARTMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS OF THE STATE AUTHORITY; THEY MUST BE “STATIFIED.”

The social solidarians (those who continually overlook the significance of the class struggle), when considering the part that must be played by the trade unions in the epoch of the proletarian dictatorship, usually adopt the point of view of those who demand “independence” for the trade-union movement. The unions, these gentry assure us, are class organisations, and for this reason they must remain entirely independent of the State authority.

It is quite easy to detect the fallacy which underlies what here masquerades as a “class” outlook. The “State” cannot be thus contrasted with “class” organisations, for the State is itself a class organisation. When mensheviks and others protest against a union with the workers’ State, they are in fact expressing their hostility towards the workers’ State. They are taking sides with the bourgeoisie. We note that they likewise advocate independence of the bourgeois State.

They speak slightingly of unions “supported by State funds.” But now [in Russia] the State treasury belongs to the workers. Apparently the mensheviks would prefer that the State revenues should still belong to the bourgeoisie! Independence of the workers’ State Power really means dependence upon the bourgeoisie.

The new tasks which were incumbent upon the trade unions made it essential that with all possible speed they should become huge industrial (productive) unions. It is obvious that if the members of the trade unions are to be responsible for the organisation of production, the workers must be organised upon the lines of productive industry, and not upon craft lines. In other words, for the proper fulfilment of the new function it was requisite that the trade unions should be so organised that all the workers and employees in any enterprise should be united in one union, and that for each enterprise no other union should be available. Previously, the unions were so constructed that the workers were organised in accordance with their petty crafts. When subsequently endeavours were made to organise on the lines of industry (production), confusion still prevailed. For example, the Metalworkers’ Union accepted as members, not only the workers who were really engaged in the metallurgical industry, but any worker whose craft had something to do with metals, although the industry with which he was connected had nothing to do with metallurgy. Of course we do not achieve real industrial (productive) organisation when each undertaking or each branch of production is treated as a separate organism. To achieve the industrial organisation of production, we must organise in an appropriate manner, in accordance with whole branches of production, and must organise in a single union all the workers and employees engaged in any particular branch.

As an example of the fusion of a number of small craft unions to form a great industrial union, we may take the organisation of the Petrograd metalworkers.

In this way, in place of large numbers of little unions organised upon a craft basis, there have come into existence the great centralised industrial (productive) unions, THE TASK OF OUR PARTY IN THIS CONNEXION IS TO HASTEN THE TRANSFORMATION, AND TO FAVOUR THE FORMATION OF INDUSTRIAL (PRODUCTIVE) UNIONS, EACH OF WHICH SHALL ENROL ALL THE WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES WITHOUT EXCEPTION ENGAGED IN A SPECIFIC BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION.

According to the data made available by the statistical department of the All-Russian Central Soviet of Trade Unions, the membership of the unions was as follows:

In the first half of the year 1919, the membership of 31 All-Russian unions, excluding the Railwayworkers’ Union and the Water Transportworkers’ Union, was 2,801,000 — the rest of the workers were organised in local unions. If we add the 722,000 railwayworkers and the 200,000 water transportworkers, we find that the total membership of the trade unions was more than 3,700,000. They have 33 central executive committees. In addition, there are still quite a number of trade unions which have not yet been centralised. The statistical department estimates that the total number of organised workers (including the provinces occupied by the enemy) is 4,000.000. We must not forget that the workers belonging to the factories which are not running are still reckoned as workers of these factories, and remain members of their respective unions.

In accordance with the laws of the Soviet Republic, and in accordance with established practice, the trade unions (industrial or productive unions) participate in the work of all the central and local organs of the administration of industry. They participate in the work of the commissariats, of the economic councils, of the Supreme Economic Council, of the chiefs and the centres, of the workers’ factory administration — in a word, everywhere the trade unions play an important, nay a decisive role.

Nevertheless, this taking control of production on the part of the trade unions is still far from complete. There are many branches of economic life in which the workers have not yet assumed, as they should assume, control. Especially does this apply to the “chiefs” and “centres.” In these we frequently find that bourgeois specialists are at work, persons who are not subject to any proper control, and who would like to reconstruct economic organisation in accordance with their own plans, hoping for a return of the “good old times,” for the speedy transformation of the centres into capitalist trusts. To counteract any such designs, it is essential that THE TRADE UNIONS SHOULD TAKE AN EVER-INCREASING SHARE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDUSTRY, UNTIL THE DAY WHEN THE WHOLE OF ECONOMIC LIFE, FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP, SHALL CONSTITUTE A UNITY WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE INDUSTRIAL (PRODUCTIVE) UNIONS.

On the lower levels of industrial administration, we must refer in especial to the activity of the factory committees. These are really cells of the trade unions, subordinated in each case to the guidance of the respective union. Elected by the workers of a given factory or workshop, these factory or workshop committees control affairs within the enterprise so far as labour power is concerned. They are responsible for engaging aud dismissing workers; they care for the workers’ families; they supervise the pay, regulate the hours of work, are supreme in matters of discipline, etc. They are, moreover, admirable elementary schools of administrative work for the broad masses of the people.

In this way the trade (industrial or productive) unions effect the closest association between the central organs of State administration, economic life, and the broad masses of the workers.

The first, the most important, function of the industrial (productive) unions is to an ever-increasing degree to ensure that the masses shall participate in the control of economic life. Taking the factory committees as their foundation, and uniting practically all the workers, the industrial (productive) unions must induce more and ever more workers to interest themselves in the organisation of production. Direct practical experience of administrative work is here especially valuable (for example, on the factory committees, in the workers’ factory administrations, in the economic councils, the “chiefs,” etc.). Of great value, likewise, is a special work of enlightenment undertaken by the unions (courses of instruction, etc.).

This introduction of the masses to participation in constructive work is also the best way of counteracting the tendency to bureaucracy in the economic apparatus of the Soviet Power. In places where there are very few workers but a great number of “soviet employees,” bureaucracy is apt to assume formidable proportions. Routinism, red tape, bad manners, slackness, sabotage — there is too much of all these in the economic organisations. We know only one way of getting rid of such abuses, and it is by lifting the lower grades of workers to a higher level. For thus only can be ensured a genuine, popular control of the activities of all our economic institutions.

§ 99. The Utilisation of Labour Power.

Of extreme importance to the future of Russia is the right utilisation of the available supplies of labour power. When means of production are nearly exhausted and raw materials are very scarce, everything depends upon the right application of labour power. We have, then, the following duties to perform. We must utilise all the available labour power; in other words, we must take care that all the elements capable of work have something to do, that they are all employed. We have to remember that in days of famine everyone who eats without doing useful work is a dead weight upon society. There are plenty of such persons. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of work which can be done without any complicated means: for example, the removal of town refuse; the repair of streets, high roads, and railways; street cleaning; emergency fortification work; the cleaning of barracks; etc. There are various kinds of work connected with the provision of fuel and raw materials, the felling of trees, the transport of timber, the procuring of peat, etc. Here, of course, we encounter a great many difficulties. We may have men and axes, but may lack food for the men, so that our wood-cutting schemes come to nothing. It is obvious, however, that the only way out of our many difficulties is through the right utilisation of the labour power at our disposal.

Associated with this problem is that of carrying out general mobilisations for the performance of one kind of social work or another. When work of fortification was urgently required, an excellent use was made of the labour power of the masses which would otherwise have run to waste. This task must be systematically performed. The universal obligation to labour is part of the constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, but in practice we are a long way from its realisation. Our first duty, then, is to see to it that all the labour power of the Workers’ Republic shall be adequately utilised. Our second duty concerns the distribution and redistribution of labour power. It is sufficiently obvious that the productivity of labour will depend upon how far we can effect a purposive distribution of labour power throughout the various districts and throughout the various branches of work.

This distribution of labour power, the supply of labour power to the places where it is required, will need an enormous amount of registration of labour power, if the assignments are to be made intelligently. Unless we know precisely what means we have to dispose of, we cannot dispose of them to advantage. Here is work which the Soviet Power cannot perform properly without the collaboration of the trade unions, and indeed the work must be done through the instrumentality of the trade unions.

§ 100. Comradely Labour Discipline.

The productivity of a country is not solely determined by the quantity of machinery, raw materials, and other material means of production it contains; its productivity depends also upon labour power. In Russia at the present time, since the material means of production are so scanty, the condition of labour power, of living labour, assumes enormous importance.

The capitalist method of production kept the workers in subjection; compelled them to work for their masters; imposed upon them, in effect, the discipline of the lash.

The revolution undermined and overthrew this discipline of capitalist labour, completely abolished it, just as in the army it abolished the imperialist discipline, and made an end of the obedience of the soldiers to the tsarist officers. It is plain, however, that the task of socialist reconstruction will never be achieved without a new discipline. Here, likewise, comparison with the army holds good. We destroyed the old army. For a season, there was “anarchy,” disorder, confusion. But we constructed a new army, on new foundations, and for new ends — an army which is in the hands of the proletariat, and fights against the landlords and capitalists to whom the old army belonged.

The same thing is happening in the case of the “army of the toilers,” in the case of the working class. The period of the destruction of the old discipline is over. There is now being inaugurated a new, a comradely labour discipline, not imposed and sustained by the masters, not imposed and sustained by the capitalist whip, but by the labour organisations themselves, by the factory committees, the workshop committees, and the trade unions. When we are organising production, we cannot leave out of account the organisation of labour in the factory.

A comradely labour discipline is one of the most important means for the organisation of social production and for the increase of productivity. Comradely discipline must be accompanied by the complete spontaneity of the working class. The workers must not wait for orders from above, must not lack initiative. Far from this, every improvement in production, every discovery of new methods of organising labour, must break trail for itself. Backward strata of the workers often fail to recognise how their work ought to be managed. But the means are to hand. The workers are organised in unions, and these unions control production; every day the workers have before their eyes the factory and workshop committees and the workers’ factory administrations. Everything that is needed can be effected from below upwards through the instrumentality of the labour organisations, provided only that a little more zeal is displayed, less timidity, a fuller realisation that the working class has now become the master of life.

Labour discipline must be based upon the feeling and the consciousness that every worker is responsible to his class, upon the consciousness that slackness and carelessness are treason to the common cause of the workers. The capitalists no longer exist as a dominant caste. The workers no longer work for capitalists, usurers, and bankers; they work for themselves. They are engaged upon their own affairs; the edifice they are constructing belongs to the workers. Formerly, under the capitalist regime, it was not our business to trouble ourselves how their purses might best be filled. Now, another day has dawned. This sense of responsibility towards the whole working class must animate the mind of every worker.

Finally, labour discipline must be based upon the strictest mutual control. Since all the comrades know that a decline in the productivity of labour will involve the ruin of the whole working class, that if we fail to improve in this respect we shall inevitably perish, they must all supervise with a proprietary eye the common task of utilising the life-giving energies of nature. For labour is a struggle; it is a struggle with nature. We have to win the victory over nature; we must transform nature’s crudities into clothing, fuel, and bread. And just as in the forefront of the struggle with the enemies of our class, with the capitalists, the landlords, and the military officers, we measure our successes, and keep a vigilant eye upon all who are afraid, all who are slack, all who are treacherous — so, here, we must control one another mutually. He betrays the workers’ cause who fails now to help in getting the workers’ cart out of the mire; such a one is a blackleg.

It is plain that the work of creating a new labour discipline will be arduous, for it will involve the re-education of the masses. A slave psychology and slavish habits are still deeply ingrained. It is just as it was in the case of the army. When the tsar drove, the soldier moved on; but when it was a case of defending his own cause, the soldier scratched his head and did nothing. Still, we were able to deal with this question of the army because the members of the workers’ vanguard were well aware of what was at stake, and they did all that was necessary. Now we have to achieve similar results in the case of production. The re-education of the workers will be facilitated by the fact that the toiling masses themselves realise (and have been taught by daily experience) that their fate is in their own hands. They had a very good lesson when for a time, in various regions, the Soviet Power was overthrown by the counter-revolution. For instance, in the Urals, in Siberia, etc.

The communists, the workers’ vanguard, gave a striking example of the new, comradely discipline when they instituted the so-called Communist Saturdays, when they worked voluntarily and gratuitously, increasing the productivity of labour far beyond the ordinary.

Comrade Lenin spoke of the Communist Saturdays as “the great initiative.” The Moscow railwaymen were the first among the communists to organise Communist Saturdays, and from the very outset there was a notable increase in the productivity of their labour. On the Alexander Railway, 5 turners in 4 hours made 80 cylinders (213% more than the ordinary production); 20 labourers, in 4 hours, assembled 600 poods of scrap iron and 70 carriage springs each weighing 3½ poods (300% more than the ordinary production). This was the beginning. Thereupon Petrograd adopted the Communist Saturdays, and organised them on the grand scale. Here are the figures:

From Petrograd and Moscow, the Communist Saturdays made their way into the provinces, and non-members of the party began to work in the same way. The initiative of the Moscow railwaymen was so effective because they were the pioneers of a new discipline.

It need hardly be said that the establishment of the new labour discipline would be impracticable without the cooperation of the trade unions. Nay more, it is incumbent upon the trade unions to advance along this road, to try new methods and new paths. For here everything is experimental; we have no precedents.

Among the measures which have already been adopted, and which have in every possible way to be developed and perfected, our party lays stress upon the following:

1. The introduction of account taking. In Russia, we have been very backward in this respect. But without proper records no kind of organisation, investigation, or control can be achieved. Without records it is impossible to get to the root of the matter.

2. The introduction of a normal working day and of a normal intensity of labour. Here, too, we are as yet only in the first stage of development. The capitalists in their enterprises had fixed hours and a fixed standard of speed for the workers, with the aim of extracting surplus value. The hours and speed were fixed by the masters’ organisations. In Soviet Russia the hours of work and the intensity of labour are settled by the trade unions, that is to say by the workers’ organisations, whose business it is to take further action in this field. The workers’ organisations decide the possibilities of work, taking into account cold, hunger, the scarcity of materials, and the general disrepair of the machinery. As soon as hours and intensity have been prescribed, the worker does ill who fails to work up to the standard. We must establish a workers’ code of honour, so that any worker who, without good reason, fails to contribute his quota to the common cause, shall be regarded as a contemptible loafer.

3. The establishment of responsibility to comradely labour courts. This implies, not merely that everyone will be under the supervision of his workmates, but that everyone will be positively called to account for bad work. In this matter, once more, it is not a master supervising his slaves, but the working class and its organisations enforcing the responsibility of individual members.

Many similar measures might be considered. They would one and all be directed towards the same end, which is to marshal the ranks of the army of the toilers, the army of the pioneers who are building the way to the new social order.

§ 101. The Employment of bourgeois Experts.

Contemporary large-scale production is inconceivable without managing engineers, technicians, learned specialists, investigators, and persons with peculiar practical experience. Among the ranks of the workers, very few come within these categories. Neither in the tsarist and feudalist regime nor in the bourgeois regime were the workers given any opportunity to learn. But we have to get on with the work, and there is only one way out of the difficulty. We must make use of those persons with specialised skill who served the bourgeoisie, not from fear, but from inclination. The party is well aware that this stratum of technicians and intellectuals no less than the stratum of ex-managers and capitalist organisers, is saturated with bourgeois ideology. Nay more. Many such persons are directly hostile to us, and would like to betray us to our class enemies. Nevertheless we have to take these bourgeois into our service. There is nothing else for us to do.

The experts and technicians have carried on a fierce struggle against the proletariat, in the first instance by sabotage. But the Soviet Power was able to put an end to sabotage. By degrees, many groups came over to our side, when they saw that the workers were creating as well as destroying, and that our party by no means intended to betray Russia to the German imperialists. Some of them are beginning to realise that the knell of capitalism has really sounded. A split in their ranks has begun. It devolves upon the proletariat to widen this breach to the utmost.

We should be wrong, of course, to expect fidelity from these “experts,” to expect from them devotion to communism. It would be absurd to hope that such people, who are connected with the bourgeoisie by a thousand ties, will undergo a sudden transformation. But here the proletariat must act like a far-seeing employer. It needs the bourgeois experts, and it must compel them to work for it.

We must employ the following methods. Economic considerations dictate our giving every possible encouragement to those who work well; we must not be stingy in the matter of their salaries. But towards any who prove to be counter-revolutionaries, who fight against the proletariat, who are traitors or saboteurs, we must be absolutely ruthless. The proletariat must prize those who serve it faithfully, and it knows how to prize them. But the workers cannot allow anyone to inflict an injury upon them unpunished, above all at such a time as this, when they have to suffer the pangs of hunger and a thousand additional evils.

We must, therefore, exercise strict control, more particularly when we are dealing with experts drawn from among the circles of the managers of great businesses and from among those who were capitalists on the grand scale. Such persons will frequently attempt to serve their own side in secret. We have to adopt the same measures in civil life that we have had to adopt at the front to deal with treachery on the part of ex-officers of the tsarist regime who have entered our service.

On the other hand, the party has to set its face against the unsound and childish view that we can entirely dispense with the services of experts. This would be preposterous. Such an idea can be entertained only by opinionated but ignorant persons who have never given any serious thought to the tasks which have now to be shouldered by the proletariat. The proletariat has to carry on contemporary production with the aid of the latest acquirements of science. Such, at least, must be its aim. It will, of course, create (it is already creating) its own Red managing engineers and technicians, just as it is producing its own Red commanding officers. But time presses. We have to use the materials that lie ready to hand, and need only be careful that when we are using them we take precautions against any ill-results, by an organised control of the work of all persons who are hostile to us in sentiment.

In this connexion, we have another question to consider, the question of remuneration. The aim of communism is to secure equal pay for all. Unfortunately, however, we cannot reach communism at one stride. We are only taking the first steps towards it. In this matter, likewise, we must be guided by utilitarian considerations.

If we were to give the experts the same pay that is received by a common labourer, it would not matter to them whether they were common labourers, engineers, or messenger boys. We should be stupid were we to attempt the enforcement of good work from such persons, who are accustomed to a different kind of life. It is better to give them more money if thereby we can secure better results. In this matter the proletariat must follow the example set by any intelligent employer. It must pay more in order to get better work from persons whose services happen to be indispensable at this juncture.

Manifestly, nevertheless, it remains our fundamental policy to work for a system of equal pay for all. The Soviet Power has already done a great deal in this direction. At one time the pay of the higher employees (managers, head bookkeepers, important engineers and organisers, scientific advisory experts, etc.), with the addition of various special fees, was many dozen times more than the pay of the ordinary labourer. Now the former are paid on the average only four times as much as the latter. Notwithstanding what was said above, we have already advanced a considerable distance towards the equalisation of rates of pay.

An equalisation is likewise being effected as regards the different grades of workers. According to the data furnished by Comrade Schmidt, in the year 1914 a daily wage of 50 kopecks was being paid to 4.48 per cent. of the workers, and in the same year there were a few workers (0.04 per cent.) who were earning more than 10 roubles a day. Thus the latter were in receipt of more than 20 times as much as the former. No doubt the lucky ones who earned such high wages in 1914 were very few in number; but there were some. In the year 1916, the percentage of male workers whose daily earnings were only 50 kopecks was ½ per cent., whilst the percentage of those who earned more than 10 roubles was 1.15 per cent.

In accordance with the decree issued in the autumn of 1919, the minimum income was 1200 roubles and the maximum was 4800 roubles, the latter figure being the maximum for the “specialists” as well.

The detachment of many groups of technically skilled intellectuals from the bourgeoisie, and their espousal of the cause of the proletariat, will be accelerated in proportion as the Soviet Power becomes more perfectly stabilised. Inasmuch as the strengthening of the Soviet Power is inevitable, the adhesion of the intellectuals is likewise inevitable. It would, of course, be absurd of us to repulse them. Far from this, we must accept them into our service upon a basis of comradely collaboration, so that in intercourse with us they may have their angles rubbed off, so that through joining us in the common task they may become our own folk. They have a mass of foolish or mischievous prejudices, but under certain conditions they can and will cooperate with us. Already, through the instrumentality of the trade unions, they are gradually becoming associated with us in our work, are growing accustomed to the new state of affairs, and are even beginning to take kindly to us. Our main task, therefore, is to help in this development, and to go out to meet those elements which are themselves tending to draw near to us. In and through the industrial unions, because they and we are collaborating in the organisation of work, the two great divisions of those who labour, the mental workers and the manual workers, kept asunder by capitalism, will at length be reunited.

§ 102. The Union of Production and Science.

For the proper development of productivity, it is essential that science should be wedded to production. Under capitalism, large-scale production was already making extensive calls upon science. In the United States and in Germany, the great manufacturing institutions had special laboratories in which, by prolonged research, new methods and new apparatus were discovered. All this was done in the interest of profits upon privately owned capital. We, in our turn, must now organise in like manner for the sake of the whole of working society. The investigators of those days kept their discoveries secret. The valuable results of their researches went to fill the pockets and the strong boxes of the entrepreneurs. In contemporary Russia, no undertaking hides its discoveries from other undertakings; whatever is learned becomes the common property of all.

In this matter the Soviet Power has instituted a whole series of measures. It has established a number of scientific institutions of a technical and economic character, and has organised various laboratories and experimental stations. Scientific expeditions have been sent out, and among the fruitful results of these may be mentioned the discovery of petroleum wells and of deposits of schist. A means for manufacturing sugar out of sawdust has been discovered. In general, the scientific resources of the republic have been tabulated and have been turned to account.

We still lack many things, and some of these are things urgently necessary, beginning with fuel and ending with delicate scientific instruments. We must clearly realise the extreme importance of such work, and we must do our utmost to promote the union of science with technique and with the organisation of production. COMMUNISM SIGNIFIES INTELLIGENT, PURPOSIVE, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION. WE SHALL, THEREFORE, DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION OF PRODUCTION.

Notes

¹ From the report made by the committee of the Department for Metals to the presidium or executive of the Supreme Economic Council. The report was drafted by Comrade Milyutin.

² Data furnished by Comrade Larin.

³ Baku occupied by the Britsh.

⁴ Including Turkestan cotton now on the way.

⁵ Including Metal from the Urals.

Literature

OSINSKY, The Upbuilding of Socialism. MILYUTIN, Economic Development and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. MILYUTIN, Articles in “Political Economy” for the year 1919. Reports of the eighth Party Congress (discussion of the party program). The Break-up of Capitalism and the Upbuilding of Communism. STEPANOV, Workers’ Control and Workers’ Administration. Reports of the first and second All-Russian Economic Congresses. TSYPERVICH, Syndicates and Trusts in Russia. TOMSKY, Articles on the trade-union movement in Russia appearing in “The Communist International.” Reports of the trade-union congresses. Articles in “The Metalworkers’ News.” HOLZMANN, The Normalisation of Labour. LENIN, The great Initiative.

Contents  |  Chapter 11  |  Chapter 13

Bukharin Archive   |   Preobrazhensky Archive