Organizational Affairs Report by Comrade Kaganovich
XVII Congress of the CPSU (B.) 1934
"I have already briefly reported how the Central Committee handled the selection of personnel for the Soviet and economic organisations, and how it strengthened the checking on the fulfilment of decisions. Comrade Kaganovich will deal with this in greater detail in his report on the third item of the congress agenda." Stalin
(The twenty-first meeting of February 6, 1934, morning) Postyshev (presiding). I consider the meeting of the congress open. The floor for the report on organizational matters is L. M. Kaganovich . (Stormy, unceasing applause for a long time. Everyone stands up. Shouts of "Hurray." Cheers roll in the hall in honor of Comrade Kaganovich. When Comrade Kaganovich appears on the rostrum, the congress delegates again greet him with a stormy and prolonged applause.)
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS
(Party and Soviet construction)
Kaganovich. Comrades, organizational issues are discussed by our congress as the last question on the order of the day. The regularity of this is quite obvious, for the development of organizational issues is the sharpening of an instrument for the successful implementation of the political and economic tasks set by the party at the XVII Congress. You can fully understand the essence of organizational tasks only by understanding and feeling the greatness and meaning of the path we have traveled, the paths of socialist victories, the greatness of the tasks set before us, so brightly illuminated by the powerful spotlight of Comrade Stalin's report . (Prolonged applause.)
Each congress of our party, the leading party of the world proletariat, is a major historical milestone in the development of not only the proletarian revolution in our country, but also the international labor movement.
Our XVII Congress, the great congress of the great Leninist party, reflects a whole historical era, short in terms of time, but unprecedentedly rich in content, an era that turned the Soviet Union into a powerful state that occupied leading positions in political, technical, economic, military and cultural terms.
The world-historical significance of Comrade Stalin's report at the XVII Congress consists precisely in the fact that it was a report on the leadership of the greatest coup that history of mankind knew, a coup that broke the old economic system and created a new collective farm system based on the socialist industrialization of our country.
This was a report on the leadership of the movement of millions of the best, most advanced representatives of mankind in their struggle for complete and final liberation from the old world and for the victory of the new socialist society.
That is why not only the vast masses of the Soviet Union, but also the proletarians and the oppressed people of the whole world, specifically perceive and feel our grand victories, our successes.
In an unprecedentedly short time, on the basis of the socialist industrialization of the country, the technical re-equipment of agriculture, the defeat of the kulaks and agents of the class enemy in our party - Trotskyism, the right, the "left" and all and all kinds of opportunists - we have solved the most difficult task of the proletarian revolution.
Comrade Stalin in his report showed how we turned a country of dispersed, small and minute peasant farming into a country where the collective farm system - the system of the largest socialist agriculture - finally won, where the socialist form of management is the main way of life.
In fact, what were we and what have we become in the several years that separate us from the 16th Congress?
We were one of the most backward industrialized countries, one of the most agricultural countries in Europe. We have become one of the most industrialized countries in the world.
We were a country of small, atomized and backward agriculture. We have become the country of organized, the largest mechanized agriculture in the world.
We were a plow country. We have become a country of tractor and combine harvester.
We were a country of patriarchalism, the Middle Ages and illiteracy. We have become, or rather become, one of the most advanced countries in terms of literacy and culture.
We were far behind the advanced capitalist countries militarily and were always at risk of infringement of our interests even by small countries. Now we have become, as it was especially clearly revealed at the congress, a first-class, powerful, armed force and one of the decisive factors in the struggle for world peace. (Applause.)
We have achieved all this, comrades, in a fierce struggle against numerous class enemies, in the struggle against the last serious capitalist class — the kulaks. He was supported by world capitalism through the organization of wrecking and counter-revolutionary groups, he was supported by the right-wing, Trotskyists and "left" opportunists in our own ranks. We defeated the kulaks, defeated wrecking, counter-revolutionary groups and opportunists.
The fist had the largest roots in the economy, our party pulled out these roots with battle. It was one of the most serious, if not the most serious battle with capitalism. The seriousness and difficulty of this battle was brilliantly foreseen by Lenin. At the XI Congress of our party, he said:
“We had a lot of moves and exits from our political and economic difficulties. We can proudly boast that we still knew how to use all these moves and exits in different combinations, for different circumstances, but now we have no more ways No, let me tell you this without any exaggeration, so in this sense, indeed, the “last and decisive battle", not with international capitalism - there will still be many "last and decisive battles" - no, but with Russian capitalism with that which wall of small-scale farming so that they are supported. Here have to fight, the term of which can not be accurately determined in the near future. There will "last and decisive battle"
This last and decisive battle with Russian capitalism is the main and main link of the great path we have traveled. In these years, we fought the last and decisive battle with Russian capitalism, the battle that Lenin predicted. And this battle was brilliantly and triumphantly conducted by the great army of communism - our party under the leadership of its leader Comrade Stalin. (Stormy applause.) The result of this battle is the solid foundation of the socialist economy in our country, the strengthening of the position of the international proletarian revolution.
At all stages of this battle, with all the difficulties that stood in our way, are we talking about the struggle for Lenin’s doctrine of building a socialist society in a single country, are we talking about specific political slogans, are we talking about building and mastering such metallurgy giants as Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk, on the organization of state farms, MTS, collective farms, ors, catering canteens, etc., our Lenin Central Committee, and above all Comrade Stalin, armed and organized the masses for victorious battles.
In this struggle and work, the Central Committee all the time emphasized the crucial importance of the subjective factor, the crucial importance of the organization, mobilization and preparedness of living people who are creating the cause of socialism.
Our party, its Central Committee and Comrade Stalin — the united, inextricable strength of the party leadership — have managed to raise the struggle for socialism to a level of truly grandiose proportions.
This is precisely what Comrade Stalin showed, presenting a report to the congress, clearly highlighting the path and conditions for the victory of socialism, giving an analysis of the course taken and at the same time outlining a militant, concrete program of action for the socialist army advancing forward.
Comrade Stalin's report ingeniously combines issues of the most profound theory, politics and organizational practice. This unity of will and action, the unity of politics and practice, characterizing the activities of our Leninist Central Committee, lies at the basis of all the political and organizational work that the party has carried out, is carrying out and plans to carry out under the leadership of Comrade Stalin. (Stormy applause.)
I. SCOPE OF THE PARTY'S ORGANIZATIONAL WORK IN THE YEARS OF THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR PLAN
Turning to organizational issues, it should be said that the theses proposed by the congress are based on the tasks that were set by Comrade Stalin back in 1929 at the April plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.), When he, exposing the right deviation, spoke about the essence of the Bolshevik offensive and the restructuring of the levers of the proletarian dictatorship. Comrade Stalin spoke about this in a report at the 16th Congress of our Party, as well as in a speech at a meeting of business executives in 1931, known as the six historical conditions for our victory.
If the implementation of the plan of the first five-year plan prepared all the material prerequisites for the successful implementation of the plan of the second five-year plan, which was reported here by Comrades Molotov and Kuibyshev.
That organizational work carried out in the first five-year plan allows us now to continue, with respect to the tasks of the second five-year plan, the further restructuring and improvement of all the levers of the proletarian dictatorship.
All the tremendous organizational work, all the in-depth restructuring that the party carried out over the years, was wholly subordinate to the solution of the key tasks of the socialist offensive on the whole front.
Our Central Committee in its leadership has never been limited only to slogans or general political directives. Comrade Stalin, putting forward the next slogans of our general line, always immediately ensured that these slogans were fulfilled by a practical plan of organizational action, concrete instructions on the ways and means of accomplishing certain tasks.
Comrade Stalin in his report at the XVII Congress emphasized that "victory never comes by itself, it is usually dragged." Speaking about the organizational work of the party, he in 14 condensed paragraphs gave, in fact, an exhaustive report on the organizational work of the party, on the ways that organize and ensure victory.
The party’s organizational work has taken on a truly unprecedented scale over the years. Thousands of newly built enterprises, MTS, collective farms and state farms are the material expression of the political line and organizational leadership of the party.
The party carried out the slogan of the Bolshevik pace of industrialization of the country, the slogan of the socialist reorganization of agriculture, the slogan of mastering the technology, first of all, by mobilizing the masses, restructuring all drive belts, first of all the trade unions, defeating the opportunist, trade-unionist elements of the trade unions, turning the trade unions to shock and competition, to new socialist methods of labor.
The party rebuilt its own ranks in production and on collective farms, stubbornly seeking the avant-garde, organizational role of each communist in the shop, in the brigade.
The task of the socialist reorganization of agriculture was provided by mobilizing the masses to eliminate the kulaks, to overcome the resistance of its remnants, to select many, many thousands of proven, seasoned Bolsheviks for the village and to improve the work of all our party, Soviet and economic organizations.
Comrade Stalin spoke of thousands of new enterprises built over the five-year period. This means, comrades, that on average several enterprises were running out and running daily on average. To build all these thousands of new enterprises, it was not enough to include them in the plan, it was not enough to release funds, it was necessary to organize the construction itself, that is, organize the construction apparatus, select people, and after the construction of enterprises appoint new people, organize the management apparatus, start up enterprises and master them.
For the years 1929-1933. 191 thousand collective farms and about 7 thousand state farms were organized, including untrained ones. This means that on average 120 collective farms, 2 MTS each, and 4 state farms were organized daily on average. This is an average, and you know that things went unevenly with us - there were days when not more than 120, but 500 and more collective farms were organized. Here one should add the organization of more than 150 thousand trade units, the scale of construction of the urban economy, urban enterprises in old cities, which was completely unprecedented before the five-year period, and the creation of dozens of new cities, thousands of settlements around state farms, MTS and new factories in a bare spot.
Opened 35 thousand primary and secondary schools, 2 thousand schools of factory apprenticeship, 1 thousand vocational schools, 2 1/2 thousand technical schools, about half a thousand universities, more than 400 research institutes, 23 thousand club-type institutions, almost 20 thousand new movie installations. Printing grew from 1,189 newspapers in 1928 and 3,061 in 1930 to 10,535 printed newspapers in 1933, not counting several hundred thousand wall newspapers.
All this construction was carried out not in one place, but throughout the vast space of the great Soviet Union. Many cities, enterprises and collective farms were created not in cultural areas where there are personnel, skills, certain work experience, but in completely unpopulated places, on bare land, in wastelands. If we recall that in all the remote corners of the USSR - from Khibin to Kara-Kum, from Igarka to Rion, from the White Sea-Baltic Canal to Turksib, from the Dnieper to Amur - intense construction work was carried out, as a result of which our face literally changed for several years country; if you understand that the construction of all this required practically - organizationally provide a gigantic work of people, leadership,
Let me not dwell on all the stages of organizational work over the years. This would take too much time, and this work is in full view. Every construction site, every new plant, every MTS, every collective farm speaks for itself! Allow me, in the reporting procedure, to dwell on the key issue of organizational work — the problem of personnel, the education, training, selection and distribution of people.
1. Five-year plan doubled the number of specialists
You know that the question of personnel turned out to be one of the most difficult questions of socialist construction. A significant part of the old cadre of specialists was not adapted, even with all its desire, to new tasks, to a new pace. One can imagine: if in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party, in the ranks of the old Bolsheviks, even in the ranks of the Central Committee there were people who could not stand the Bolshevik pace, people who were behind, emasculated and who did not have gunpowder for a new great cause, then what happened by many old non-partisan experts, who often left the camp of others? The party worked to involve the best of the old specialists in socialist construction, and for the best this task was completed.
The tasks of creating their own, dear to the proletariat command structure of socialist production has been and remains the largest historical task of socialism. In all its acuteness, this task was set by Comrade Stalin back in 1928, in connection with the well-known Shakhty process of pests.
The Shakhty process showed that a significant part of the old technical personnel is unreliable and, in difficult times, is betraying the proletariat. On the other hand, the Shakhty process, like all subsequent processes, revealed that many of our communists - leading workers, without knowing the technology and not trying to master it, blindly trusted these specialists, worked like the worst-type "commissars": stamped papers, didn’t enter to the heart of the matter and thereby facilitated the work of pests.
Many in 1928 did not understand the great significance of the personnel problem. In the disputes that were here in this room at the plenary session of the Central Committee on the private organizational issue of reorganizing universities and technical colleges and transferring them to production people's commissariats, some spoke opportunistically. Since they either did not understand or did not want the Bolshevik scope of socialist construction, they resisted the solution of the problem of personnel training. I am talking about speeches at that plenum of Comrade Rykov and others. But then there were also comrades who stood behind the scope of socialist construction, but did not understand then that in this organizational matter the most important condition for the success of a socialist offensive was concluded.
You all remember what decisions the Central Committee took in July 1928, what decisions the Central Committee took in November 1929 in order to verify the implementation of decisions of 1928.
Throughout the entire reporting period, the Central Committee stubbornly and persistently returned to the issue of personnel, clarifying and improving the work of their education and training. The Central Committee dealt with this issue not only from the point of view of general attitudes, but also from the point of view of improving the quality of study, production practice, building new technical schools, technical schools, selecting students, sending them to production after graduation, etc.
Allow me, comrades, to give a table of what we have achieved in preparing our Soviet industrial and technical intelligentsia:
By universities and colleges
| 1928 | 1933 | |
| The number of universities and colleges in the USSR in all sectors | 129 | 600 |
| The number of students in them (in thousands) | 160 | 491 |
The percentage of workers in the composition of students in universities and higher educational institutions doubled: 1928 - 25%, 1933 - 50%. The percentage of communists in the composition of students in universities and colleges rose from 15 in 1928 to 22 in 1933, and the number of Komsomol members rose from 19% in 1928 to 30% in 1933.
During the years of the First Five-Year Plan, 170 thousand specialists were graduated from universities and technical colleges, and 37 thousand specialists were graduated in 1933 alone.
As a result, the number of specialists with higher education in all sectors increased from 179 thousand in 1928 to 303 thousand at the beginning of 1933.
By technical schools
1928
| 1933 | |
| Number of technical schools | 1,033 | 3,522 |
| Number of students in technical schools (in thousands) | 188 | 672 |
The percentage of workers in college students increased from 25 in 1928 to 41 in 1933, and the percentage of Komsomol members increased from 36 in 1928 to 42 in 1933.
During the years of the first five-year plan, 309 thousand people were graduated from technical schools, and for one in 1933 - 153 thousand.
As a result, the number of specialists with secondary technical education in the USSR increased from 313 thousand in 1928 to 669 thousand at the beginning of 1933.
These figures indicate enormous quantitative shifts. But even more significant are the qualitative changes in the training of our specialists, improving the quality of study, changing the technical qualifications and the political person of our economic and technical personnel.
In 1928, most higher education institutions were not technical. Polytechnism was misunderstood, they trained a universal specialist who often knew anything, but least of all the technique of the business where he was sent. We drastically changed the system of work of technical colleges, industrial practice and specialized technical colleges. Of course, there were some excesses. Often the scope of training was too narrow. But the main direction of perestroika was right. I do not want to say that we are already doing well. In universities and colleges, the quality of education is still lame. In particular, this applies to the training of architectural personnel, who acquire special significance in the second five-year plan. Now we must pay more attention to the quality of education, to the quality of training.
If you take into account that the number of graduates is already showing a certain increase, that in 1934/35 we will receive the results of a recruitment organized in 1931/32, it will become clear how we have improved the training of personnel both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Comrade Stalin’s historical slogans : “Technique decides everything during the reconstruction period”, “The Bolsheviks must master the technique,” aroused great enthusiasm and a thirst for knowledge on the part of the Communists, advanced non-partisan workers and collective farmers. As a result of the enormous organizational work of our party, the Soviet Union turned into a country of mass technical education. We are now beginning to reap the bountiful fruits of these historical directives of Comrade Stalin and are entering the second five-year plan with the strong backbone of young proletarian command personnel, especially in industry.
In large-scale industry, the number of specialists with completed higher education increased from 13.7 thousand in 1928 to 50.7 thousand in 1933; with completed secondary education - from 10.5 thousand in 1928 to 71.8 thousand in 1933, and all specialists together with practitioners - from 100 thousand in 1928 to 331 thousand in 1933
Young specialists who graduated from universities and technical schools during the years of the first five-year plan account for more than half of all specialists in machine tool construction - 66%, automotive industry - 70%, oil - 68%, coal - 58%, automotive industry - 60%, etc.
In team positions in production, among the heads of workshops, their deputies and shift supervisors, young specialists comprise: in the iron and steel industry - 65%, automotive and tractor - 62%, construction - 62%, the electric industry and energy - 64%.
At the car factory to them. Stalin half of the entire command staff was nominated from the workers during the years of the first five-year plan.
We already have such facts today when entire factories, entire workshops are managed only by young specialists, when many of our young specialists work no worse, and better than not only old specialists, but also some foreign ones.
I could give an example from our trip with comrade Ordzhonikidzeat the start of the Stalinogorsk chemical plant. We saw a young professor there who graduated from high school only in 1931. He really earned the title of professor, not like sometimes he gets the title of professor na charmak, lipo (laughter), but earned this title for real. So, this comrade Gelperin, when he worked at the Berezniki Nitrogen Plant, dismantled, updated the catalysts, mounted and put into operation exclusively one of the synthesis columns by Soviet specialists. The Americans who installed this column were not able to let it go because there were constructive flaws. Comrade Gelperin, together with the young engineer Moiseevich, changed the design of the column and managed to let it go. Today it works successfully. From Japan, he was invited as a consultant to build a new plant. But this young Soviet professor delicately replied that he had no time, we had enough of our own business. (Laughter, applause.)
One could cite a number of the brightest examples of talented people who grew up over the years of the five-year period. I could talk about Comrade Butenko, a member of the party since 1931, in the recent past - a locksmith who graduated from technical college in 1928. For five years, this Butenko had practical experience - from a shift engineer, assistant chief, head of a blast furnace, chief engineer of the plant them. Stalin - until the post of technical director of the largest metallurgical plant in the Donbass.
Ordzhonikidze . In addition, he is now replacing the director of the plant, Comrade Manaenkov.
Sarkisov. It does a very good job.
Kaganovich . And very good. Here is the director of the battery trust, Comrade Admiralsky, born in 1902, in the recent past an active Komsomol worker. This director graduated from a technical college in 1928, has grown in production and is now successfully coping with the difficult post of director of a battery trust.
Thousands of examples could be cited when yesterday's laborers became foremen, craftsmen, and technicians. This is the result of the struggle that the party launched for proletarian cadres.
2. How the party strengthened the collective farm village workers
It is especially necessary to dwell on personnel for agriculture. Here, just as in industry, the training of our technical personnel has been expanded:
Training for agriculture
| 1928 | 1933 | |
| The number of agricultural universities and technical colleges | thirty | 116 |
| Number of agricultural technical schools | 204 | 328 |
| The number of students in agricultural universities and universities (in thousands) | 29th | 99 |
| The number of students in agricultural technical schools (in thousands) | thirty | 121 |
Graduated from agricultural universities during the years of the first five-year plan 29 thousand, and in 1933 - 6 thousand; from agricultural technical schools - during the years of the first five-year plan - 67 thousand, and in 1933 - 31 thousand.
As a result, if at the beginning of the first five-year period about 18 thousand specialists with a completed agricultural education worked in agriculture, according to the State Planning Committee of the USSR, by the end of 1933 about 126 thousand specialists with completed agricultural work in production (including regional land bodies) higher and secondary agricultural education, i.e., a growth of 7 times.
Of course, the need for technical personnel for agriculture is still far from being satisfied. But in agriculture, the issue of leading managerial personnel has become especially acute in recent years.
If industry itself could be a source of replenishment of its personnel, then in agriculture these opportunities were extremely limited until recently, to say the least.
The village, which had risen under the banner of socialism, was to be helped by the city, and this our party accomplished. The previously sprayed village could not nominate from its midst the necessary number of new types of organizers for large-scale socialist agriculture, such as collective farms, MTS and state farms. Hence the task - to give the village people from outside, to give it strong workers from the proletarian city, who could create a strong party organization in the village, could forge the Bolsheviks, educate cadres and create reserves from which we could later draw the leadership for our socialist Agriculture.
You all remember the parcel of 25 thousand workers. This was the first step. At first they helped and played a good role, but this was not enough strength to consolidate the village on new, collective farm roads.
And so, Comrade Stalin, in a Leninist way generalizing the situation in the village, put forward the task of creating a new organization in the village — political departments — to send tested, strong people from the city there who could solve the tasks facing the party.
When we began only the organization of political departments, some comrades had doubts about how the workers were sent to the village from above, how the peasantry would perceive it. Today we hear a powerful voice coming from the pure heart of tens of millions of peasants who literally glorify the political separatists as organizing Bolsheviks, as people who united the collective farm masses in the struggle for the Bolshevik collective farms, for the prosperous cultural life of the collective farmers. (Stormy applause.)
When we began to select workers for political departments, Comrade Stalin specifically pointed out: look so that you do not have a sweeping mobilizing approach here; select personally; carefully study each candidate individually; pick large people, regardless of the fact that institutions and organizations will complain; choose carefully, because you are sending people to the great reconstruction of the village.
In order to select one political unit, we had to miss 5, and sometimes 10, people. And not because these people were bad, but because in the political department we selected the very best. Sometimes people came, literally cried - why are you rejecting me in the political department? You called me, well, you don’t want to send me as the boss, send me as a deputy, assistant, instructor.
Around the premise to political departments, a literal movement unfolded among the Communists.
We formed one group of army workers. The army gave us the first group of political department chiefs of 300 people. This was the first detachment of strong, wonderful people. (Applause.)
Over 18 thousand political detachments were sent to the village, of which 58% were workers; 35% with a party experience until 1920; the heads of political departments with party experience until 1920 - 79%; 45% of the heads of political departments have higher party or higher general education: 46% - secondary education.
In addition to the employees of the political department, each region sent people to the village, to collective farms. According to incomplete data, 23 regions sent about 40-50 thousand workers to the Village. The sending of political separators by the Central Committee pushed the regions and territories.
Of the heads of political departments, at least half are people from Moscow and Leningrad. Moscow and Leningrad - these two capitals honorably fulfilled their duty to the country. (Applause.)
3. The Central Committee strengthened workers in agricultural and remote regions
Particularly noteworthy is the assistance to places by strengthening their workers. Between congresses, the Central Committee distributed 45 thousand workers (between the XV and XVI congresses, only 10 thousand workers were distributed). The increase in the number of distributed did not affect the quality of the sent. More than 70% of those distributed joined the party no later than 1920; over half are workers in the past; 62% of those sent have completed higher or secondary education.
Workers received from the Central Committee: the Urals - 2,238 workers, Western Siberia - 2,242, Eastern Siberia - 1,381, the Far East - 1,913, Central Asia - 1927, Kazakhstan - 2,261. Thus, nearly 12 thousand were received by Asian territories and republics. . workers. 1,800 workers were taken back from them (turnover, transfer, etc.).
A lot of workers were sent to the main agricultural areas: Ukraine received 5,581 workers, the North Caucasus - 3,197, the Lower Volga - 2,140, the Middle Volga - 1,625, the central central district - 1,788. In total, over 14 thousand workers received these areas; 3 thousand were taken from them. The region into which we sent a few people is Transcaucasia. The Central Committee has the opportunity to state that in recent years new people have been cultivated with great success in all the republics of Transcaucasia. (Applause.)
The Central Committee dealt with the issue of providing skilled workers. In particular, under the leadership of the Central Committee, the Komsomol and trade unions did a great job of mobilizing people for new buildings in the Urals. Or now new textile mills are being organized, and the Central Committee is mobilizing textile workers from the Moscow and Ivanovo regions to send them to Central Asia and Western Siberia. In just 3 years, our Komsomol mobilized 66 thousand workers tons of the Ural-Kuzbass enterprise, 36 thousand - in the Donbass, 7 thousand - on the Stalingrad Tractor, 10 thousand - on the Metrostroy, 6 thousand - in the communications authorities, 20 thousand .- for logging, over 3 thousand - in the DCK, etc.
All this is enough to get an idea of the enormous scope of organizational work, which is characterized not only by the training, growth and distribution of personnel, but also by the creation of new enterprises, institutions, etc.
Of course, with regard to the training and distribution of workers, we still have many shortcomings. The practice of a sweeping mobilizing approach to the selection of workers has not yet disappeared; personal selection, taking into account the personal abilities of employees is still not enough.
The most important disadvantages are: the lack of a thorough selection of people, a personal assessment of these people, not by diploma, but by practical work; inability to raise and nominate those people who deserve this nomination; unsatisfactory quality of work of many universities and especially technical schools.
And most importantly, these are the diseases discovered by the Central Committee on the example of the coal industry and railway transport, which means that a huge number of people are stuck in the office.
The work done on the transfer of specialists from the chancellery to production in the coal industry and on the railways has already yielded tangible results.
So, for example, as of March 1, 1933, there were 643 mining engineers working in the Donbass, of which only 26 were in the areas; as of October 1, 854 people were already working; of which 350 are on the plots. The number of employees in the plots increased 13 times. In total, engineers and technicians at the sites worked on March 1, 1933, 228 people, and on October 1 - 1,120 people. 5 times growth.
As of July 1, 1933, 446 engineers worked in the main depot on the railways, and as of October 1, 976 engineers. In total, on July 1, there were 1,012 engineers and 7,575 technicians working at the depot, wagon sections, stations, and communication distances, and on October 1, 3,095 engineers and 14,342 technicians were working, i.e. the number of engineers working in the lower links of railway transport, increased 3 times, technicians - 2 times.
The experience of mines and railroads shows what enormous opportunities are available in this regard in all other sectors of the national economy.
But it’s not enough just to transfer people to the lower ranks. Why were the results of staff reductions previously not effective enough? This is because the staff was reduced without a radical and deep adjustment from top to bottom, without changing the organizational system and reporting. And only with the latest staff reduction, which was carried out on behalf of the Central Committee by the Central Control Commission-NK RCI bodies, the change in the structure of the apparatus itself, however, was not decisive enough.
Royzenman. Correctly!
Kaganovich . Not only at the enterprise, but also in the workshop, on the site with the wrong organizational structure, with functional, the employee can not be engaged in business, not technical guidance, but in writing, writing reports, etc., as this, unfortunately, is now observed in a number of industrial enterprises , in transport, in MTS and state farms.
It is not enough to send an employee to the lower ranks. From the point of view of the further growth of personnel, their training in the practice of socialist construction, from the point of view of eliminating the type of honest talker that Comrade Stalin spoke vividly , the elimination of the clerical-bureaucratic method of leadership, verification of performance and further restructuring of work in accordance with those installations given by Comrade Stalin in his report.
When people are inundated with bureaucracy and the writing of general resolutions, they look through the "smallness", they look through the living people. They do not see the new master, the new engineer, the new technician, they do not see the new heroes of labor, they do not see the Komsomol members who are growing and who can be promoted to new jobs.
When they say that we do not have people, this is wrong. There are people, and talented people, we must be able to nominate, raise, put them in the right place. We must be able to truly manage them.
It is necessary to educate the worker who has been put in place, to raise him in the process of work so that he does not become emasculated, so that he does not become dusty. From time to time it is necessary to wipe off a dust with a cloth that falls on it. (Laughter, applause.)
4. The importance of the organizational question at the present stage of building socialism
We have gone through the great years of glorious struggle and we are summing up the results of our victories at the XVII Congress. We are not summing up these results for rapture with the victories that we are rightfully proud of. We summarize these results not from the academic, historical point of view, but as an army of revolutionary fighters. We look back on the path traveled in order to test and hone our weapons for the upcoming great battles in the lessons of the past.
Our achievements allow us to strengthen the fight against organizational weaknesses. We must consolidate the conquered during the years of the first five-year plan, improve the quality of work and the pathos of construction to complement the pathos of development.
The organizational scope of our work was great. In this case, gaps were inevitable - like in the newly built factory, garbage and garbage from a great construction site were accumulating in separate corners. Now you need to clean, put everything in order.
We must dramatically reveal our weaknesses. Criticism of them does not detract from our achievements. On the contrary, it shows the consciousness of one's own strength, confidence in the strength and stability of the organism of the proletarian dictatorship.
The theses proposed to the XVII Congress say:
“Now that the party’s general line has won, when the party’s policy has been tested by life, not only the members of the party, but also the millions of workers and working peasants experience, the task of raising organizational work to the level of political leadership arises in full growth. Organizational question, remaining subordinate to issues nevertheless, in view of this, it acquires exceptional significance for the further successes of socialist construction. "
Lenin and Stalin have repeatedly pointed out that the highlight of the organizational issue is the selection of people and verification of execution. These two problems are inextricably linked with each other. Their correct resolution is inconceivable without restructuring the structure and system of work of our Soviet and party bodies.
With a functional function that causes depersonalization, it is impossible to put in clear operational leadership, it is impossible to achieve strict personal responsibility, and, therefore, it is impossible to provide a systematic and thorough verification of performance. With the functional and intricate structure, the states of middle and higher links are inflated. Today workers will be transferred to production, tomorrow they will again be dragged into swelling chancery.
That is why we pose all organizational issues holistically, comprehensively: the selection of people, and the verification of execution, and the change in the organizational structure, and the elimination of clerical and bureaucratic methods of leadership.
It must be said bluntly that the clerical-bureaucratic methods of leadership, the reduction of leadership to general orders, the inability to combine administrative management with managing in essence, functionalism — all this is the inheritance of bourgeois management methods. Many of our, albeit honest, good business executives and leaders do not understand the fundamental difference between the establishment of governance in our country and the formulation of governance in bourgeois countries.
Nowhere in the world does the organizational issue stand and cannot stand as acute and as wide as it stands with us. Capitalism is not interested, did not know, and does not know, the very problem of organizing the country's economy as a whole, for this contradicts the very nature of capitalism. Even the organization of a separate capitalist enterprise or trust is purely relative. That is why all the utopian attempts of petty-bourgeois ideologists, Owen, and others failed to introduce elements of organization into a capitalist economy without eliminating capitalism itself. That is why all the attempts of the social fascists, and their accomplices, our right-wing opportunists, failed to substantiate the theory of "organized capitalism" on the basis of the development of monopolies, cartels and trusts. In fact, we see
The bourgeois state apparatus, bourgeois ministries do not manage the economy. The bourgeois-state apparatus predominantly plays the police-regulatory role, protecting the interests of the capitalists against revolutionary workers, and each enterprise is controlled by the capitalist.
While in our country - in a socialist society - it is the state that implements the unity of political and economic leadership.
Our very formulation of the organizational question with particular acuteness follows from the content of the dictatorship of the proletariat, from the content of the tasks of building socialism. Lenin and Stalin have repeatedly emphasized that after the victory over the bourgeoisie, after the conquest of power, the main and most difficult task is the task of organizing new social relations, the task of organizing the planned production and distribution of products necessary for the existence of tens of millions of people.
V.I. Lenin said:
“... for successful management it is necessary, in addition to the ability to convince, in addition to the ability to win the civil war, the ability to practically organize. This is the most difficult task, because it is about organizing in a new way the deepest, most economic foundations of the lives of tens and tens of millions of people. And this is the most grateful task, because only after its solution (in the main and main features) can it be said that Russia has become not only a Soviet, but also a socialist republic "(vol. XXII, p. 442).
Comrade Stalin showed at the congress how much at the present moment, when we created thousands of new largest enterprises, when the demands of the masses have grown tremendously, when each worker requires in-depth knowledge of the details of work, when the socialist system "is the undividedly dominant, sole commanding force in the entire national economy "- how sharply the questions of the organization are put forward.
Under conditions when the socialist economy acts as the sole commanding force, not in individual sectors, but in the entire field of management, poor organization of business, poor management, poor verification of performance directly and directly hinder the development of productive forces, the successful completion of the task of mastering and technical reconstruction of the entire national households.
If in the first five-year plan history did not give us any delays in carrying out the industrialization of the country, then in the second five-year plan we have no delays in the development, mastery of new technology, the development and strengthening of new forms of life. And the success of this business depends only on our organization, only on the organization of the business in industry, transport, agriculture, trade, etc. Comrade Stalin said at the congress that from now on, nine-tenths of the responsibility does not rest on our breakthroughs and shortcomings in our work. "objective" conditions, but on ourselves, and only on us.
The organizational issue occupied the largest place at all stages of our construction, and now it is acquiring an even deeper and more decisive character. Organizational questions are arising in full growth right now - in the era of building a classless socialist society. If the brigades on the collective farm or the state farm’s branches are poorly organized, if the labor is poorly organized, if the means of production are misused, if the head of this brigade or state farm does not really know what they are doing, they don’t understand the construction of new, modern agricultural machines, if the tractor is a combine harvester for him " dark power, "it strikes at strengthening socialist agriculture, slows down the organization of socialist forms of economy, slows down the construction of a socialist society.
Pulling the party’s organizational work to the level of its political leadership means ensuring the necessary pace of putting the general line into practice, the necessary pace of building a socialist society. It is precisely on the elimination of the organizational backlog that the quickest development of new technology and new enterprises will depend, precisely on this the organizational strengthening of the collective farms and their transformation into centers of cultural and prosperous socialist life will depend.
It should come to the consciousness of every Bolshevik that the organizational question is not posed as a correction of the small flaws of the mechanism. The organizational question was posed by the Central Committee on the initiative of Comrade Stalin as broadly as the struggle for the general line of our party was unfolded. The general line of the party won. This is clear to everyone. In accordance with it, organizational work was also tightened, but it was lagging behind, it needed to be pulled up to the level of political leadership, to the level of the grandiose scale of the tasks of the second five-year plan.
We must consider the organizational question not only from the point of view of restructuring certain top-level organizations, but also from the point of view of restructuring all organizations, starting from a factory, factory, collective farm, MTS, shop, hospital, etc., i.e., with those links where material wealth is produced, where real life is created.
An example of such a statement of the question is the decision of the Central Committee on the coal industry.
II. REorganization of the Soviet Economic Management Bodies
1. Organizational matters in heavy industry
I will not dwell here in detail on the whole formulation of the question of coal. One thing is clear that in this matter, as in no other, was the connection between the political and economic task and its organizational solution.
The political and economic task of overcoming such a bottleneck as the lagging of the coal industry was provided by the Central Committee with such organizational measures as a blow to the clerical-bureaucratic method of leadership, such as transferring qualified engineering and technical forces directly to production, as well as fighting functionalities and anonymity in management and equalization in wages. These organizational activities, as you know, went far beyond the framework of the decree on the Donbass. These events are the main organizational link in the entire system of restructuring our economic, state and party work. This is already proven. It is not a matter of downsizing and then six months later they again swell. It is necessary to change the system.
The party fiddled with the Donbass for a long time, but since they did not get to the fundamental organizational issues, the cart remained in place. Fractional standards of production reached ugly sizes. These norms totaled tens of thousands. For example, in only one Krasnogvardeisky mine department there were up to 12 thousand. The published “Norming Standards” envisaged 1,500 norms for some miners using jackhammers. Even for such a simple operation as carrying conveyor pans, more than 400 standards were provided. The workers, of course, could not know their rates and prices per ton or per trailer.
The muteness of the foreman, the foreman and the head of the site, the fragmentation of the professions and the functionary in managing the mine, brought to the point of absurdity, were revealed. If the foreman and the site manager needed to repair a logging machine, he had to ask the head of the mine mechanization department, who was sitting on the surface, so that he would send him a locksmith. If the trolleys were drilled and the path deteriorated, then the head of the site had to ask the manager of the track department, who also sat on the surface, to send repair workers. The best engineers and technicians sat in trusts, mine administrations and mine administrations. As a "reward" good workers were transferred to the office. This was considered a "boost".
You know the first decision of the Central Committee and then the subsequent provision on the mine, mine administration and trust. In this position, we started with the foreman and ten's manager, from the primary production cell, gave rights to the head of the site, resolved issues of rationing labor, wages, repair of machinery, etc. Organizational issues were resolved thoroughly and deeply in the coal industry. The results are known.
The example of coal shows how to reduce staff, change the structure and what results can be achieved. Here are some examples. As of March 1, 1933, there were 171 employees at the Ilyich mine (Kadievugol), and on January 1, 1934 - 84, half as much. And the number of engineering and technical workers working below, in the face, increased by 13 people. With a reduction in employees by half, the mine yielded twice as much coal as compared to 1932: instead of 157 thousand tons, 288 thousand tons, exceeding the plan by 12%.
Dramatically reduced reporting. If before the decision of the Central Committee the mine was to produce 51 1/2 thousand indicators per month in 64 forms, now reporting has been reduced by seven times. Writer became smaller, papers spoil less, and more coal is mined. In May, the actual average daily production of the Ukrainian Donbass was 121 thousand tons, in November - 134 thousand, an increase of 11%. In May, the productivity of one coal worker was 36 tons, in October - 42 tons, an increase of 16%. The wages of workers rose: in May it was 118 rubles, in October - 150 rubles, an increase of 27%. The elimination of functionalities dramatically reduced the accident mechanisms. For example, in the Ilyich mine (Kadievugol) in 1932 there was 31 major accident of logging machines, in 1933 - 19; in 1932 there were 14 accidents of conveyor drives, in 1933 - 6, with most accidents in 1933 refers to the first half of the year; in the second half of the year there are almost none. At the same mine, there was a special coal concentration department. The head of the site was almost not responsible for the quality of coal. Now the department has been liquidated, and the ash content of coal has dropped sharply.
The liquidation of the enrichment department enriched coal. We are “poorer” by one department, but the mine has become richer in coal. (Laugh.)
Of course, in the coal industry, perestroika is not over yet. And there is still a number of mines and trusts, which can be said about: drive nature through the door, it will enter the window. I speak in this case of a bureaucratic nature. There still needs to be a struggle, verification of performance is needed, and it is impossible to get carried away, but nevertheless we can say that the coal industry is ahead of the rest of the industry in the organizational matter.
Has the entire industry taken the coal lesson into account? I must directly say that the lessons of Donbass are poorly and unsatisfactorily taken into account by our industry.
Our factories work certainly better than Donbass worked before the reorganization. There is more culture, workers are better organized. But there is a lot of organizational confusion and irresponsibility in management, and we must immediately restructure the work in the whole industry, following the example of coal. This will provide an opportunity for further maximum use of existing large production capacities.
If we take control of the plant and its relationship with the workshop, we must say that there is still functionalism there, as it was at the mine. The workshop, if we compare it with the site in the mine, does not occupy the place that it should occupy, which now occupies the site in the mine. The management of the plant is still so cumbersome that it often puts pressure on workshops instead of help. There is endless correspondence between departments, functional sectors and workshops, which interferes with the shop manager. Moreover, in the workshops themselves, purely formal relations often arise between the shop manager and his staff.
Take, for example, Mytishchi Carriage Building Plant. There are all the signs of the clerical-bureaucratic method of managing the plant, the functional in the structure of the apparatus and the swelling of the states. There are 14 departments in the plant management, in which 367 people work.
In addition, 234 employees are in the workshops of the plant. To the total number of employees at the plant, 3,832 people, this is 16%. In addition to the director at the plant there are: deputy. technical director, deputy Director for Logistics, Deputy. production supply directors, production department, production preparation department, chief mechanic department, technical control department, economic planning department, human resources sector, special department, execution control, central accounting, commercial department, subdivided into financial and supply and sales subdivisions, management affairs, pantry, capital construction department, work supply department.
This whole apparatus, since it receives a salary, "must" write. And they write. In the woodworking workshop, for example, for 7,000 workers in January, 7 thousand orders were issued. They also wrote outfits where it was possible to do without any scriptures, and engineers are also engaged in these scriptures. In vain, some think that all engineers, once at the factory, are engaged in production. Many of them are entrusted with clerical work both in the factory and in the workshop. At the place of production, manufacture of parts, at the place of assembly, there are still few engineers. Of the 65 engineers at the Mytishchi plant, 36 work in the plant management apparatus and only 19 in the workshops. If you delve into other plants, then you will find the same thing there.
The directorate for the most part communicates with the shop manager not directly, but through functional departments. The workshop, for example, receives its plan from two departments: from the so-called production and planning, whose function is to determine specific tasks, and for other indicators, it receives a task from the planning and economic department, and there are frequent cases when tasks of one and the other department diverge .
A large number of functional departments cannot but lead to excessive paper scribbling, irresponsibility and unspecific leadership. I could illustrate a series of exceptionally comical examples of how various departments of the plant administration correspond with the heads of the shops and how the latter shrug. One old master, the head of the workshop at the Mytishchi plant, said: "There is nothing to be done, they write papers from a gnawing pencil." (Laugh.)
Here are the instructions to the head of the foundry, Comrade Katkov. The head of industrial sanitation requires: “Not later than January 19, 1934, give information on the following issues: cubic capacity of the workshop, number of workers in each workshop, in different shifts; on chipped sections - the number of emery and drums; on a mechanical one - the number of emery with screens; on utility rooms - the number of nipples in the washbasin and the number of places in latrines, lighting in the workshops in the evening and at night; in the foundry - the number of castings and cupola loads; the frequency of dispensing workwear and the issue of washing and repairing it; in the mechanical workshop - the number of GUT machines with motor transmissions and the total number of machines, for forge - number of furnaces with a furnace oil, the amount of steam hammers and furnaces ", etc...
If the shop manager needs to contact the plant administration for anything, he must contact the energy recruitment and dismissal department for labor, the fuel department to the energy bureau of the mechanical department, and the materials department to the supply department; drawings - to the production preparation department, on the issue of the program - to the production department and the planning and economic department, on the issue of tariffs and norms - to the tariff and economic sector, etc.
This functional system directly leads to the fact that the director, who is free from direct management of the workshops, is engaged in general orders. Here is one order from this director to organize a health and chemical service at a plant.
He begins like this: "The capitalist world is suffocating in the grip of a global crisis." (Merry animation in the hall.) Literally, competition with Comrade Manuilsky! (General laughter.) “They are conducting furious preparations for a new world war. They are seeking a way out of the deep economic and political crisis by intensifying the exploitation of the workers and working peasants of all countries and in preparing for an armed attack, primarily against the USSR. Therefore, it is our duty to strengthen power and the defense of the USSR, the key to which is the fulfillment and overfulfillment of the industrial financial plan at the plant. "
And this is not a random order. Comrade Khrunichev alone is not a bad worker, but this, comrades, is the style of his work. He has many such orders.
Of course, it is necessary to agitate for the industrial financial plan, for defense capability it is necessary. But when the operational leadership is replaced by aquatics or chatter, neither action nor agitation is obtained. Such leaders obviously understand the word lead, how to drive with their hands. (General laughter.)
Here they talked a lot about the struggle for quality. This is absolutely correct. But while maintaining the functional at the output, the struggle for quality is undoubtedly difficult. How many times have you come to the factory and asked: why the marriage, why the part was ruined? They answer: the department of projects or the department of organization of production processes is to blame, they gave incorrect drawings. You ask in the project department: why did you screw up? Yes, the shop is not right. This is the irresponsibility that is created by the functional, which prevents finding the guilty of marriage.
I believe that special attention should be paid to the organization of the technological process. For the most part they tear him from the shops. Donbassers remember the famous OPPPOT that existed in mines, and how the miners shared this "department of designing production processes and the Organization of Labor." And now, imagine, in factories in a different form, it still exists to this day.
There are pre-production departments at the plants, and the technological process is detached from the workshop. The shop managers - the main team power at the plant - do not take any part in this important matter, and their wealth of experience is not used at all to develop (the first and most important case) a technological process that defines drawings, materials, processing method, time required to process the part etc. Of course, it is necessary to connect the workshops with the development of the technological process. Apparently, a certain design bureau should exist in the plant management, where shop managers could receive basic instructions or give something like orders. The designers who designed this or that part, this or that part of the machine, should be directly in the workshop and there to help implement this part. The current departments of production, to a large part, round off the most important business of organizing the technological process at the enterprise.
Here, for example, at the car factory to them. Stalin's director, his friend Likhachev, reorganized his plant management, unlike the Mytishchi plant, and converted the production design department into a kind of small technological bureau that exists during plant management, gives a general direction to the technological process, and transferred the design forces to the workshops. All parts are constructed in workshops under the guidance of shop managers and are produced there. The results of this will undoubtedly affect, they are already available.
From an example of a car factory to them. Stalin shows that not at all of course factories the situation is the same as at Mytishchi. But at the majority of factories, functionalism exists to one degree or another; the majority of employees at the factories are employees of functional departments, who individually give orders to the heads of the workshops. The course on the head of the workshop, and on the workshop on the master as the main command force in production has not yet been truly taken. And the task is to, with respect to each industry, without the same template recipe for everyone, specifically restructure the work of plant departments, the work of workshops in order to reduce, as much as possible, the clerical industry and bureaucracy and strengthen the role of the foreman and shop manager.
This also applies to construction. As soon as they begin to build, so numerous building apparatus is formed at once. I personally had to see one of these construction sites, where 30 departments were piled up. The workers have nowhere to live, while the apparatus occupied a huge room.
The technical reconstruction of all sectors of the economy, the construction of new giant enterprises, the introduction of mechanized and automated equipment require the greatest coherence and harmony of the entire production process. Therefore, as never before, the strictest implementation of one-man management at all levels of industry management is necessary. The master is the sovereign head of the site, the head of the workshop is the sovereign head of the workshop, the director of the plant is the sovereign head of the factory with all the rights, obligations and personal responsibility arising from this.
The new technology imperiously requires the comprehensive strengthening of technical guidance. Therefore, the foreman, shop manager, plant director can be real production commanders only when they manage not only the economic, but also the technical side of the production process. At the same time, technical personnel, especially the foreman and the shop manager, must manage not only machines, but also people, the organization and rationing of their labor, and wages.
In the entire restructuring of industry, and not only industry, the most important thing is to reduce the number of links in management. Instead of the existing and existing four-link system, it is necessary to establish a three-link system, and even better, a two-link system, which, for example, is now achieved in some industries by liquidating associations and a number of trusts.
According to the decree of the Central Committee, the People’s Commissariat of Industry made a significant restructuring of the middle and top management of heavy industry. A number of industry chapters have been disaggregated to improve specific leadership. A number of enterprises are directly subordinate to the People's Commissariat of Industry. Experience confirms the absolute correctness of the subordination of a number of enterprises directly to the people's commissariats. A number of trusts and almost all associations have been liquidated.
What possibilities does the correct resolution of the organizational question open to us from the point of view of reducing the apparatus, improving its operation, shows the example of the aviation industry: in Glavaviaprom, two trusts were liquidated - aircraft and engine-building. Glavaviaprom himself directly contacted the factories. For both trusts, 440 people were thus reduced. Administrative expenses for these trusts amounted to about 3 million rubles. Both trusts are liquidated, and aircraft factories work no worse, if not better.
Of course, well-known work has been done in the restructuring of the heavy industry management system, but least of all, especially after Comrade Stalin’s report, should be operated on with the words: “there is a turning point” and “shifts are outlined”. Despite the fact that a number of chapters were disaggregated in the People’s Commissariat for the approximation of production, a number of trusts were liquidated in order to eliminate multi-linking in the industrial management system — the organizational system is still underfunded in the trusts and in the People’s Commissariat, for example, there are still many functional sectors. All functional sectors are eliminated and not required. Some of them can and should remain, but, firstly, they need to be reduced as much as possible and, secondly, functional sectors must be prohibited from acting through the heads of production departments and directorates. There must be one owner giving orders. A functional sector should be a small auxiliary drug device that does not give any direct orders. Then, in any case, there will be less harm from him. (General laughter, applause.)
One may wish that the heavy industry, which was the first to receive a lesson on coal, try to be the first in the restructuring of all branches of heavy industry.
2. Organizational matters in the light, food and forest industries
Particularly poorly and unsatisfactorily was set up work in the entire system of light industry, from the People's Commissariat to the factory.
Comrade Lyubimov spoke here; he tried to touch upon some organizational issues. However, he criticized him extremely timidly and narrowly, it can be seen from his speeches that he knows the organizational issues of light industry too easily, so I will have to reveal the shortcomings a little more sharply than he.
Vote. Of course of course.
Kaganovich. In light industry, the wrong organization system, the clerical-bureaucratic method of enterprise management, and the functionalities made their nests. Functionality here has adopted an extremely large scale. The “production” of functional and clerical work in the sectors and divisions of the People's Commissariat for Industry is more extensive than its work in the production of light industry products. (Laugh.)
All textile workers very well remember the story with the functional in the textile industry, which captured all industries and caused sufficient harm. I do not touch on many issues of organization here, in particular, I do not touch on the issues of labor organization in detail, since this requires a special report, but in connection with the functional in textiles, I will touch on this issue.
What was a functional in the textile industry? The essence of the matter was that for decades a qualified weaver or weaver, a skilled spinner, who were somewhat proud of their specialty, was eliminated. In the spinning industry, the duties of the spinner, the waterwomen were broken down between pieders, shearers and lovers, and in weaving, weavers, loaders and loaders were replaced. Thus, in spinning and weaving, instead of an integral process of labor, fractional (three functionaries) were created. This has led to irresponsibility and poor industry performance and a sharp increase in marriage.
It took the instructions of Comrade Stalin and the decision of the plenum of the Central Committee to abolish this functionality in the textile industry and restore the qualifications of a weaver and spinner with their full rights of skilled workers.
In factories of light industry, the functional is expressed no less clearly, if not more, than in the given example of the Mytishchi plant.
Until recently, a large number of functional departments and sectors existed in a textile factory, and the entire organization system was unsatisfactory. So, for example, there were 18 functional departments at Proletarka, and at them. Sverdlov - 13 functional departments and 10 sectors. The following officials were at the Proletarka weaving mill: 1) director, 2) deputy. Director, 3) Director for work supply, 4) room. directors for mass work, 5) production manager, 6) head. planning department, 7) head. rationalization department, 8) the head. department of labor organization, 9) head. Department of Technical Control, 10) Head. Human Resources Department, 11) Head. supply department, 12) chief accountant, 13) head. Finance Department, 14) Head. a table of personnel, 15) managerial affairs, 16) head. techprop, 17) head. safety measures, 18) chief mechanic, 19) head. control and execution sector; and 20) the head. capital construction sector.
It is clear that the functional in production and such a functional construction of the entire management system, especially in the factory, contributed to the production of poor quality products. The marriage of products (marriage and second analysis) has come to enormous proportions. Some enterprises allowed up to 30 and 40% of marriage.
The marriage came not only from a poor management system and functionalities, but also from the absurd centralization of the subsidiary farm. The People's Commissariat for Industry created with itself a trust of subsidiary enterprises and deprived the factory of the right to produce the auxiliary materials they needed (reloading of reeds, repair and production of races and shuttles, moldings, production and repair of heaps, rolls, etc.). This created and still creates additional difficulties for the correct operation of the factory.
At the Orekhov conference of textile workers in the Moscow region, all these shortcomings were revealed. In particular, one non-partisan old engineer Kopylov told how it was before, as it is now, and what the mistakes were, he wrote a very interesting letter in which he revealed the bureaucracy and bureaucracy in the work of the Dreznensky factory. We cannot launch the struggle against marriage, he wrote, because we do not have a whole range of auxiliary materials and details that are needed today. There is no operational communication between the director and the technical director of the factory, as it should be, and it is not with the heads of the shops. We have the same picture of poor, non-operational management both in trusts and in the People's Commissariat of Industry itself.
If we take the work of central organizations and trusts, I must say that planning often turns into a mockery. Here is an example of the Krasnaya Zarya knitting factory. She worked all 1933 without a plan. The Red Dawn plan was considered in five bodies (the People’s Commissariat of the USSR, Glavtrikotazh, the People’s Commissariat of the RSFSR, the regional department of light industry of the Moscow Region and the Mostrikotazh trust), in 46 sectors.
The factory received 19 directives that contradicted one another. The plans were redone: for production - 7 times, for labor - 4 times, at cost - 8 times. As a result, the whole year the factory worked without a plan. The plan for 1933 was finally approved on January 4 ... 1934. The plan for 1933 was late only for one year and 4 days. (Laughter.) There are many such vivid examples of bureaucracy and paper-clerical leadership in the People's Commissariat of Industry.
In the cotton industry, the trust apparatus consisted of 19-22 functional departments. The apparatus of the Moscow Cotton Trust consisted of 19 units - sectors and groups on the rights of sectors. The Commission on the reorganization of the People's Commissariat of Industry plans to leave 8 departments and sectors in the trust instead of the existing 19-22.
As for the People’s Commissariat of Light Industry, it is extremely bulky: it has 39 large control units and 60 sectors. There are such main branch departments that do not have their own production base (main departments of the clothing industry, haberdashery and handicraft, printing industry, etc.). The industry of these departments is largely run by places.
Management - this means that people can distribute material values, move and displace subordinate people, in a word, dispose completely of the enterprise, but if the industry belongs to republican or local authorities, then what do the existing union administrations “manage”?
Of course, it would be wrong to raise the question of transferring all-union plants and factories to places, but now, in connection with the question of the development of local industry, handicraft industry, it will be necessary to pay more attention to regional administrations so that they are not just an appendage, but serious governing bodies through which both the people's commissariat and the local executive committee run local industry. In any case, it is necessary to besiege the aggressive expansion of the People's Commissariat of Industry.
Vote. Correctly!
Kaganovich. I do not want to say that it is necessary to satisfy the aspirations of many local comrades and to transfer indisputably allied enterprises to the jurisdiction of the places. But the people's commissariats must rely to a much greater extent on the help of local councils and executive committees.
Voices from the seats. Right, right.
Kaganovich. As for the administrations, which are in charge of the union industry, they are so cumbersome that in fact they do not manage industry. Take, for example, the General Directorate of Cotton. This department unites 14 union trusts and combines with 179 enterprises and 350 thousand workers. Its enterprises produce products worth 2.5 billion rubles, which is about 1/3 of the products of the People's Commissariat of Industry. This, if I may say so, Glavk, naturally, does not cover the management of trusts and enterprises. Hence the congestion and interruptions in the work of trusts and enterprises. Why didn’t the People’s Commissariat think about it, didn’t come to the Central Committee, put up a question? Because, apparently, he is engaged in "high matters", and is not essentially involved in organizational matters,
Wouldn't it be better if such a leviathan as the cotton management is to disaggregate and create capable, organized, really operational departments that will know their factories, manage them, fight for the quality of products and fulfill our decisions on the production of consumer goods. (Applause.)
Comrade Lyubimov did not reveal all the shortcomings in his speech, comrade Lyubimov should look more seriously and broadly at his tasks. He must understand that this is not about the minor flaws of the mechanism, it is about changing the methods of operational management of light industry. The matter is about eliminating clericalism and bureaucracy, which made their nests in his People’s Commissariat, the thing is about eliminating the paper management methods that prevail in the People’s Commissariat of Industry, getting closer to the factories and putting them on their feet. The point is, comrades, in order to fulfill the five-year plan for expanding the production of consumer goods that we have outlined.
If we take other industries, such as food and forestry, then there are a lot of organizational flaws and confusion, and if I do not analyze them here in detail, it is simply because there is no opportunity and time to analyze all industries in detail, but not at all because that they have a better situation.
It is enough to recall the biggest shortcomings of the food industry that led to the production of poor-quality products and to poisoning people. It can be undoubtedly argued that it was the people's inattention and careless attitude to organizational issues that led to this. In the food industry, and in the fishing business, and in canning, etc., there is a lot of irresponsibility, depersonalization and red tape. How bad, for example, the oil and fat industry was organized, can be seen from the following fact. The oil and fat industry was led by Glavraszhirmaslo, Soyuzrasmaslo, Glavzhirprom and OMPK and 3 people's commissariats — the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR, the People's Commissariat of the USSR and the People's Commissariat of the RSFSR. Four headquarters had 493 employees. Such leadership of the oil and fat industry led to the irrational expansion and loading of enterprises in some regions and undersupply of the market and oncoming traffic in others. As a result, there was less heat and oil, and soap.
Such a structure led to the fact that our resources were squandered, soap from the North Caucasus had to be transported to the Urals, and the Urals and the factories nearby had no raw materials. Now, by a resolution of the Central Committee, this business has been liquidated; now everything is concentrated in the People's Commissariat of Labor alone. The Central Committee has given very great and serious attention to this matter, and we are confident that things will go better.
Take the Narcomles. This People’s Commissariat generally has its own characteristics. He is a bit of a “forest” people's commissariat (laughter), but the connection between the People’s Commissariat and the real forest is extremely weak and unsatisfactory. (Laughter. Applause.) The distance from the People’s Commissariat to the forest site and rafting point is enormous, and this is because the management of local authorities in the People’s Commissariat is confused and irresponsible, because everyone who is not too lazy to manage it. Here, for example, Soyuzleszag. This organization is responsible for 46% of all products of the People’s Commissariat. Yes, comrade Lobov, almost half of all the products of the People’s Commissariat are run by Soyuzleszag. Firstly, such a construction is absurd in itself; it is impossible to concentrate almost half of the Commissariat's products in one head office. But next to Soyuzleszag there is an abundance of functional departments.
So look how Soyuzleszag leads Soyuzsevles. Establishing the assortment of products of the trust is decided not by Soyuzleszag, but by the functional body of the People's Commissariat of Forestry - the sector of material balances. It would seem that since Soyuzleszag exists, it should determine the supply of the trust with technical materials, equipment, and tools. It turns out that this is decided by the functional bodies of Soyuzlestekhsnab, while the issues of raw materials are decided by Soyuzlestsbyt. Thus, Soyuzleszag, being called the production commander in chief, does not determine either material or human resources for logging. The question is, what kind of management is this, which "knows" 50% of all forest products, but does not manage anything? Of course, organizationally this does not climb into any gates. And most importantly - timber harvesting suffers from this. Such a People’s Commissariat and such headquarters should be rebuilt immediately.
I will not give new illustrations. People working in the field are well aware of how organizational confusion in the People’s Commissariat, trust, in their relations with the plant is reflected in production, and thereby in the general rise of the country and the rise in the material situation of the masses.
Our industry should show examples of organizational restructuring for other sectors of the national economy, and in particular for agriculture.
If perestroika and organizational matters are difficult for industry, then even more so it is difficult for agriculture.
3. Organizational restructuring in socialist agriculture
In agriculture, organizational issues, due to the lack of experience in organizing large-scale production, are much more acute than in other sectors of the national economy.
Industry is much richer in experience in resolving organizational issues. Industrial workers, where there is already a solid staffing base, could, with a careful approach, study a number of fairly good examples of labor organization and enterprise management both in the USSR and abroad. In the field of agriculture, we do not have this. In agriculture, we met with a completely new form of agriculture, with new equipment, and we have to start resolving organizational issues from the very beginning.
At the January plenum (1933) of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission, Comrade Stalin said:
“We are all happy that the collective farm form of farming has become the dominant form in our grain districts. But not everyone understands that this circumstance does not reduce, but increases our concerns and our responsibility in the development of agriculture ... the transition to collective farming, as the predominant form of economy, it does not reduce, but increases, our concern for agriculture, it does not decrease, but increases the leading role of the Communists in raising agriculture. Gravity flow is now more than ever dangerous for rural development "economy. Gravity can now ruin the whole thing."
And 1933 was a year of organized struggle against gravity, a year of tremendous growth in the organizational role of our party and the proletariat in the countryside.
The rich experience of 1933, after organizing the political departments of MTS and state farms, after turning all party organizations to agriculture, showed what enormous opportunities are opening up before us in solving the problems of socialist reconstruction of agriculture, if organizational issues are correctly resolved. Such a large state apparatus as the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, as well as the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture, if he paid due attention to organizational issues, at least half the attention that the Central Committee pays to these issues, could have done a lot, neither the People’s Commissariat nor the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture attention. I will say it more sharply. If organizational issues, verification of performance and efficiency were not in the pen in the People’s Commissariat,
The main weakness of the work of the People's Commissariat of Territory consists precisely in the fact that it sent dozens and hundreds of orders down, demanded accounting and reporting, distributed machines and machines, but did not understand the essence of the operational work and organizational structure of the grassroots bodies, did not provide day-to-day management of all these organizations.
Comrades, the People’s Commissariat of Natural Resources manages huge material resources; it distributes tractors and agricultural machinery. True, agricultural issues, including the distribution of tractors, machines and other material means, especially in recent years, pass through the Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars. However, one cannot think that the distribution by the Central Committee of these funds is already deciding the matter of their correct use. The decision on the distribution must actually be made. If there is a decision to send so many tractors, so many spare parts, this does not mean that someone cannot lubricate or disrupt the implementation of this decision. We know what the apparatus is. We know what decisions mean. Any wonderful decision can be corrupted, distorted beyond recognition in practice,
In Narkomzem, the apparatus often approaches the directives mechanically, without taking into account local specific conditions. Due to the infinite number of sectors and departments of the People's Commissariat of the USSR, the simplest question put forward by places passes through an infinite number of instances. As a result, places remain unanswered.
Local workers know this well. For example, on December 1, 1933, the People’s Commissariat of Kyrgyzstan applied to the People’s Commissariat of the Union to satisfy the Republic with seeds from 28 cultures. This letter came initially to the grain department, from there to the fodder, then to the fruit and vegetable department, then to the seed-growing department, and from there it went to the sectors. In each administration and sector, dozens of performers visited the request, each performer imposed a resolution. Paper rioted at the People's Commissar for 40 days. During this time, only the grain group wrote an answer around the edge, and then on one culture. When answers will be given for the remaining 27 cultures, this is unknown. Most likely, after spring sowing. (Laugh.)
I could give a number of striking examples, but this is enough. It’s enough to tell you that in the People’s Commissariat there are 29 departments, 202 sectors.
Voice, Oh, oh, oh !!!
Kaganovich. This is still nothing - every sector knows all the USSR. (Laughter, movement.) Thus, in order to resolve any issue, it is necessary to go through dozens of sectors. In order to find out about the situation of a particular issue, for example, about the state of sowing of any field, you need to go through at least 20-30 sectors, 202 thin strings. Can you imagine, if you would twist them, create some strong ropes, then, comrade Yakovlev, you would not have this bedlam. This is why poor management and poor leadership are obtained.
Vote. Correctly!
Kaganovich. Such an important matter as the development of forms of in-kind settlement between MTS and collective farms required 140 days of tribulation from 44 people through the Narkomzem’s apparatus. The form approved and sent to the places on April 25 was then canceled by the Zernotractor Center. They began to remodel again. Until mid-July 1933, neither the form nor the instructions were sent to the field, although by this time the bread delivery had already unfolded widely.
This is due to the clerical approach to the construction and dynamics of the apparatus.
As you can see, the functional has reached special “achievements” in the People’s Commissariat. (Laughter.) It is appropriate to recall the Shchedrin heroes of Variegated Letters. There is a second letter there. Three public advisers appear as heroes: Semyon Mikhailovich Neoslabny, Petr Samoilovich Prelestnikov and Nikodim Lukich Peredryagin (some surnames!). Two of them were in charge of the departments. "One - Semen Mikhailovich Neoslabny - by the knotting department (laughter), the other - Pyotr Samoilovich Prelestnikov - by the Department of untying those. (Deafening laughter.) The joint existence of both departments seemed extremely useful, because as soon as it happened, Semen Mikhailovich would tie a knot, so Pyotr Samoilovich will now untie him (homeric laughter), and then Semyon Mikhailovich will tie him again, and Pyotr Samoilovich will untie again. And while they were doing their job, Nicodemus Lukić walked around and noted: the first knot, the second knot, etc. (Laughter.) And when enough notes were accumulated, the statistics of the nodes were compiled from them, how many were tied (laughter) and how many were untied. And for what - it is unknown. (Burst of laughter, applause.)
In conclusion, a balance was drawn: the parish with the expense is correct, and nothing at the box office ... (explosion of laughter, applause.) All three lived in perfect harmony, and all three were happy and worthy of raising (laughter) in this magical world ...
In this world, Peredryagin, Neslabny, and Prelestnikov not only felt like a fish in water, but were seriously convinced that any attempt to get out of it was a riot and a shock to the foundations. "(Laughter.)
Comments are redundant. We can only emphasize that when we talk today about the functional and its destruction, about tying and untying the knots, of course there are people who probably think that this is a riot and a shock to the foundations. But we must say: this is the elimination of the remnants of the old world.
That is why the organizational question is posed with such acuteness. That is why the people's commissariats, primarily the People’s Commissariat, must restructure their structure.
No words, more than 200 thousand collective farms and about 3 thousand MTS are much more complicated than several thousand factory enterprises. That is why it is necessary for the People's Commissariat of Agriculture to organize the work of state farms, collective farms, MTS, regional and regional committees, as well as its apparatus so that the system is smooth and economic-operational work goes smoothly.
Precisely because it is difficult, that is why it was necessary to establish the right relations with the regional and district land administrations, which is why it was necessary to pay much more attention to this. It was necessary to allow the organizational construction of the apparatus of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs in such a way that relations with the lower land bodies were the simplest.
A couple of months before the congress, we took up this matter, but did not finish, because it is difficult to solve the organizational issue in one fell swoop, by simply approving a project. Each People’s Commissariat, each department requires a special approach and serious thoughtfulness in deciding the organizational structure. And now at the congress there was a meeting with local comrades on this issue, and after the congress the new structure of the apparatus of the People’s Commissariat, as well as other people's commissariats, will be approved.
All tractor centers existing in Narkomzem still liquidated, and the corresponding functions are assigned to departments directly responsible for organizing production on collective farms and MTS (the main grain department, the main beet department, the main cotton department, the main flax and hemp plant). These main departments concentrate all the functions previously scattered in various departments and departments. The main departments (for grain, for beets, for cotton, for flax, etc.) should be divided into territorial sectors according to the corresponding groups of districts (southerners and eastern, Far and Middle East, central, northern strip).
Each of these departments concentrates in its jurisdiction a whole range of issues related to this crop, such as: sowing issues, distribution of tractors, spare parts, agricultural machinery, pest control, etc. Does your local comrade know what OBV is?
Vote. There is one.
Royzenman. Yes Yes.
Kaganovich. This is a pest control association. But before fighting pests in agriculture, it would be necessary to break down the existing conscious or unconscious wrecking in the pest control association itself. (Applause.)
Accordingly, we must rebuild and devices in the areas. There is no need for the drug addiction to strive to master all the details. For this, there are regional and regional land administrations.
It is wrong to think that the People’s Commissariat can hold direct operational communications and manage thousands of its organs on the ground. Local executive committees should, to a greater extent than now, deal with operational issues, checking the implementation of so much their directives, but also directives of government bodies and people's commissariats. Local executive committees should not limit their activities to giving directives. They should promptly intervene in the work of the regional, regional land administration, on the go trying to correct one or another defect, considering it a matter of honor to achieve the best performance in the work of all departments of the executive committee. Accordingly, the work of the executive committees should be restructured - less parliamentarism, more lively, operational affairs,
It is necessary to organize the matter in such a way that the People's Commissariat of Agriculture focuses its attention on the main, decisive levers, so that he can, if he, for example, distributes finances, verify the execution of the distribution of these finances. It is necessary to get rid of the situation in which the People’s Commissariat automatically lists the millions received from the government on dead tables. It is necessary to build the matter in such a way that it is possible to correct errors during the distribution, so that telegrams received from tens of hundreds of places about lack of money, about non-payment to workers, do not remain unanswered.
We must create an integrated production apparatus, free it from everything unnecessary, and then we will have real strength in the economic leadership. After all, we cannot endure for so long, comrades of the People's Commissars, the position that has been created.
This year, the whole party and its Central Committee were engaged in agriculture. The party will continue to do this, the party will hold the commanding heights of agriculture in its hands, the party will organize collective and state farms. But keep in mind that solutions to practical business operational issues Must be provided with the work of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture. It is impossible to tolerate that there was a huge land apparatus, eating up millions and hundreds of millions of rubles and working, at best, half wasted. This party will not allow it. Land workers must decisively restructure. In particular, Comrade Yakovlev must draw serious lessons for himself, to take the lessons not by external, ostentatious "decisiveness", but by rough work, getting into practice for real.
The Central Committee, members of the Politburo, the leader of our party, Comrade Stalin, criticize the People’s Commissariat not to leave everything as it was after the congress. (Applause.) Either you will be able to mobilize the truly apparatus of the entire People's Commissariat, hundreds of thousands of people in order to fulfill the task of the parties, or it will be done by the party through your head. (Applause.)
I would like to touch upon some organizational issues of agriculture that go beyond the framework of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture. I mean a raiso, MTS, collective farm, brigade. Raizo is in our carriage, he is in a state of interregnum, as if he were not finding his duties. Often, planning a raiso comes down to the fact that he mechanically unrolls production tasks on collective farms without taking into account tax, labor, economic opportunities. Raizo must be built so that he provides knowledge of each collective farm.
Comrade Stalin suggested that it is impossible to impose on MTS a number of functions unusual for it. It is necessary to fully strengthen the raiso and reject attempts to eliminate them. Raizo, this government agency, needs to take charge of a number of agricultural operations, in particular with regard to animal husbandry. The tasks of animal husbandry, which were set at the congress by Comrade Stalin with all their acuteness, require a serious reorganization of the entire system of organizational management of animal husbandry.
What do we have today? You know, comrades, that in livestock farming there are still traces of the old cooperative system of special collective farm centers of the Union of Unions, the so-called Molzhyvkolkhoz Association. The management of collective farm livestock farms in Narkomzem with its local integrated MTF eats up to 40 million rubles annually. deductions from collective farm commodity farms for their maintenance. (Movement in the hall.) Yes, but there is very little sense from him.
Take the regional and regional links of the apparatus of the People's Commissariat of Education - regional and regional. Thousands of people work there. And how many people are there involved in animal husbandry of collective farms and collective farmers? At best, Tens. And this is despite the fact that 85-80% of the total livestock is concentrated on collective farms. The situation is better in Narkomzem.
I must say that in the field of animal husbandry, our land authorities limited their work only to general instructions, general instructions. The Ukrainian proverb about a cow is fully applicable to them: "Mumbles, not calves." (Laughter.) People mumble, it cannot be said that they do not mumble ... (laughter), but they did not smack (laughter), practically did not organize things.
Agro-technical service delivered poorly. See what happens to livestock personnel. Of the 3,540 livestock specialists in 15 important regions, 2,600 are concentrated in the regional apparatus, 300 in the regional administration, 160 in state farms, and not a single livestock specialist in collective farms. This situation must be drastically changed. In the field of livestock, we must reorganize organizationally.
Comrades, it is also necessary to raise the question of the elimination of functionalities and multi-linking on the collective farm and in the MTS. MTS has production sites. Between MTS, the collective farm and the collective farm brigade there is an unnecessary link in the form of these sections. The question is: is this site needed?
Voices from the audience. No no.
Kaganovich. Most local workers are inclined to think that production sites are not needed.
Voices from the audience. Correctly.
Kaganovich. We do not propose to resolve the issue now. But it will be necessary to resolve the issue in order to eliminate production sites for the most part.
We turn to the structure of the collective farm. Our small collective farms copy the structure of large ones. And in the country of 60% of collective farms, these are collective farms having only 60-70 farms. Is it possible to copy the structure of one collective farm from another? It is impossible. You know what a huge managerial apparatus on collective farms. We give a directive: reduce the staff, but since the organization system is not changed and along with the collective farm chairman there are field workers, labor organizers, a planner, an agronomist, a farm manager and a dozen other officials, it turns out that the collective farm has a huge functional apparatus. As a result, the team leader receives orders from so many people, and the collective farm chairman does not always have an idea of the situation in the teams. Here, for example, is what one head of the political department writes:
"If you ask the chairman of the board how to deal with the current task of sowing, cleaning, threshing, you can be sure in advance that there will be only one answer: the farmer has not yet submitted a summary."
You see, the field operator has not yet submitted a summary. These reports stuck on our collective farms. It is necessary to reduce the reporting required from above on our collective farms, to establish a direct link between the chairman of the board, the foreman, to make the chairman of the board the sovereign master who directs, gives orders ...
Voices from the seats. Correctly!
Kaganovich. ... which would not refer to summaries and that the functionary did not give them.
Postyshev. Correctly.
Kaganovich. In the same way, functionalism should not be allowed in the collective farm brigade itself. It is necessary that the foreman be at a certain production site and be fully responsible for everything: for plowing and for sowing, and for cleaning, and for equipment, and for the horse - in a word he would be responsible for everything. It is necessary to turn the brigade into the truly basic production unit of the collective farm.
The relationship between the MTS tractor brigade and the collective farm brigade is a very serious issue. This issue is being addressed locally in different ways. Of course, you cannot give a single recipe here, but, as I think of myself, the collective farm brigade leader in terms of the quality of work should order and supervise the tractor brigade leader. Take you the foreman of the tractor brigade. In order to plow more, process more, he sometimes lets the tractor faster, the plow jumps, he gets flaws. The field collective farm foreman says: stop, let me fix it, wait a minute, but the goth moves on faster to fulfill the norm, regardless of the quality of work. The field foreman should have the right to tell him: I am responsible for the quality of processing, and while you work on my site, please submit.
I have cited only a small part of the organizational issues that are involved in improving the leadership of the MTS and the collective farm, but this also shows how much we all need to pay attention to the organizational issue, especially in the center and in the localities, which is especially difficult to solve in such a new business as socialist agriculture.
As for the state farms, their lag in agricultural work was largely due to poor mastery of the equipment and cumbersome state farms.
Comrade Stalin has already shown here that the Central Committee has raised the question of the disaggregation of state farms. Comrade Yurkin travels a lot to places, he is close to life. However, when he arrives in Moscow, he is littered with such a huge functional apparatus, so much paper scribble that he was unable to generalize this local experience. The main weakness of our state farms is their cumbersomeness, as well as the cumbersomeness of management both in the state farms themselves and in the People's Commissions. Functionality is not less developed in the People's Commissariats than in other people's commissariats. Of the 21 production management, only 6 are production in the real sense, the rest are functional.
Let me give you an example showing what the functional in the apparatus of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture leads to.
There is such a state farm - "Milk". Until April 1933, the state farm was run by the All-Union Dairy and Tribal Trust. May 16, 1933, according to the instructions of the deputy. People's Commissariat of Comrades Gerchikov, the state farm is turning into an independent economic unit. June 11, 1933 - a month after the order of Comrade Gerchikov - Comrade Yurkin transfers the state farm to the Northern Maslotrest. On the same day, June 11, when Comrade Yurkin signs an order to transfer this state farm to the Northern Maslot Trust, deputy. People's Commissar Comrade Grushevsky issues an order to consolidate the state farm ... Northern Institute of Research.
Vote. Here are the orders!
Kaganovich. On June 21, 1933, Comrade Gerchikov received a message from the political administration that his order of May 16 had not been executed. Comrade Gerchikov did not know that his order was canceled by the People's Commissar, and the order of the People's Commissar, in turn, was canceled by another deputy. Commissar. (Laughter.) Comrade Gerchikov writes the following resolution on this message: "Comrade Lvov, personally interrogate who harm and disorganize the work of the people's commissariat (homeric laughter) and mislead the collegium. As a result of the investigation, expel the guilty from the apparatus (noise, laughter) ) so that others remember the four five-year plans. " (The laughter of the whole ass.)
He tied one knot, and untied another. (Laughter, applause.)
It is necessary to give justice, comrade Gerchikov, a great optimist: he expects that four five-year plans (laughter) can remain in such an apparatus, while not only memory, but also reason can be lost in one day. (Laughter, applause.)
The matter, comrades, ended with the fact that the Central Control Commission-NK RKI stated that the state farm had been brought to an ugly state. Now comrade Yurkin has given a certificate stating that the state farm is now improving.
So, comrade Yurkin and state farmers, you need to not only rebuild and downgrade the state farms, but also rebuild your people's commissariat. A commission works for us, it has not finished its work. After the party congress, I hope that we will deal with this matter, and, of course, there will be no more such knots and unties. (Applause.)
4. Organizational issues and improving the business of trade
At this congress and even before the congress, Comrade Stalin posed with all acuteness questions of commodity circulation and transport.
The Central Committee struggled with overstocking, with the incorrect shipment of goods, with planning only in rubles, when the assortment was ignored and under the brand name “haberdashery” the dog collars were transported in one area in such a quantity that all dogs could be dressed from head to toe, and sent to another tons of lamp burners, but without glasses, in the third - lamp glasses without burners, etc.
The Central Committee dealt with the organization of shops, stalls, the deployment of a distribution network.
We fought against the bureaucratic distribution system, which brought trade to naught and is a vivid expression of the “leftist” bias in commodity circulation.
The organizational issues of commodity circulation have not yet been fully developed, at least in the same way as in industry. In the organization of trade, our task is reduced, firstly, to the normal, quick and cultural release of goods from the store and, secondly, to the correct regulation and planning of trade, to the correct delivery of goods to stores, taking into account the demand of consumers, the need for priority supply of those groups consumers who are especially important in the national economy.
What is the position in the store? You would think that in the store where the trade should go, the majority of workers are sellers. But this is not so, comrades.
According to a sample survey, only 25% of sales workers are sellers themselves, the rest is head. sectors, zamzavs, pomzavs, cashiers, etc. These people are also needed, but not to the point of insensibility. Overhead costs are huge, and the buyer is in lines, the goods are sold to him sloppy, because there are not enough sellers.
Seller receives insufficient salary. Meanwhile, the staff of the staff is incredibly inflated, the overhead is enormous, due to the fact that clerical work, paper writing have infiltrated into the area where, it would seem, they have the least place - in trade, in shops.
A huge amount of paper is written in stores. People write, and buyers are often forced to stand in line. This is also in the network of the People's Commissariat of Labor and, in particular, in consumer cooperation stores.
It is necessary to free shop managers from petty trusteeship, to provide them with more rights and initiatives. It is necessary to give the manager the right to choose goods, to determine the assortment of goods himself within the framework of the general task and the plan for trade. It is necessary to provide the right to the manager to select sellers for himself, drastically reduce the administrative and maintenance staff. Finally, it is necessary to surround the sales workers with the attention that the most responsible section of the commodity circulation deserves.
If you expand the rights of the manager, then with his initiative he will find new sources of goods, will stimulate artisanal artels, and influence the quality of products.
Some examples of more cultural trade are the state-owned shops that have recently been organized. There is less red tape, less paper, there are more sellers, and there are fewer lines. But there are still disadvantages.
It must be emphasized that they did not deal with organizational issues of commodity circulation, people knew only one thing - to paint, distribute, send goods. But whether the goods get to the right place, to which warehouse, whether the goods reach the buyer, whether they reach the right place, they were little interested in it.
Take warehouse facilities. Shops and a warehouse are the main links of trade. Warehousing was not involved - neither wholesale nor retail. This is the largest business we must organize.
At one time, we sharply criticized Moscow cooperators. We have a lot of shops, but there are queues. Why are you cooperators sitting in offices? Go to the store, look at the place and correct the defects. For example, I had to go and learn in practice how to delve into the details of the organization of trade,
Came to the store. There is a big queue for cucumbers. There are cucumbers, but they are given out from a small bucket. Each time the bucket is empty, the seller runs into the basement for a new bucket, and the queue is standing. We came incognito. We ask the seller: why is it your turn? Do you have cucumbers? At first he replied that he didn’t, then he said - there is, but not much, and in the basement of the dishes, they say, no, to pull up. We just got to get into the basement with the store manager. There was a huge number of barrels with cucumbers and without cucumbers. But people did not guess to put a few barrels in the store itself instead of going to the basement every time with a bucket. The wives of the workers stand in line and correctly criticize the organization of trade, but this is not easier. I had to poke the nose of our cooperators,
If you take the planning of goods and the regulation of trade, then the congestion is huge. In order to distribute funds to 12 planned goods, it is necessary to go through 20 instances. You can imagine how much paper is written out, how much time people sit until the plan is approved. In the end, this often does not coincide with the beginning, but with the end of the quarter.
Therefore, due to the weakness of the internal organization of the People's Commissariat of Labor and the Central Union, it actually turns out like this: the plan is the plan, and the shipment of goods is by gravity.
In particular, it should be noted that now the general public administration should become the focus of attention of the Central Union. Everyone understands the enormous not only economic, but also the political role that the general public is now acquiring in the development of commodity circulation and cultural Soviet trade in the countryside. Selpo should be raised to political heights. Work in the village general administration should be considered as honorable as work in the board of the collective farm, in the village council.
I do not dwell on the organizational structure of the People's Commissariat of Labor; The Central Union and their regional - regional bodies. This structure also suffers from functional, overblown states.
The extent to which the states of the Central Union are inflated shows the following: in the third quarter of 1933, states were set at 1,563 people against 2,855 people in the fourth quarter of 1932, i.e., the reduction was almost halved (by 46%).
And from this, the supply of goods did not deteriorate, and the work of the Central Union should improve.
I am sure that if you reduce the staff of the Central Union and the People’s Commissariat and improve the internal organization, it will probably be better. The People's Commissariat of Labor and the Central Union will then be able to walk to the store, warehouse, and will manage trade not formally, but essentially. (Applause.)
5. Ensure implementation of the decision of the Central Bank and the Council of People's Commissars on the restructuring of transport
Many spoke about transport, spoke correctly, spoke sharply. Comrade Stalin spoke, comrades Voroshilov and Kirov spoke, and other speakers spoke. Comrade Andreev also spoke.
I want to say, first of all, about water transport. Water transport is clearly underestimated. The production organization for watermen is the simplest - a ship, a marina, a backwater, a ship repair plant. But in fact, they have a functional, irresponsibility and depersonalization.
Do you think that the shipping company manages ship repair? You are mistaken. The shipping company manages the operation of ships, but in order to repair its ship, it must contact a special centralized organization in the People’s Commissariat - Sudostroyremont. The functional instructions of the People’s Commissariat are going to manage the repair of each ship. In the People’s Commodity there is still the Main River Administration (RETU). This department controls approximately 70% of all water transport. This is the same as we had before in the People’s Commissariat - Glavtsuzhel, which disposed of 75% of the entire economy of the People’s Commissariat. It is necessary to liquidate this river management and organize the management of river transport in relation to river systems. The Central Committee Commission outlined 4 such departments of the People’s Commissariat: Volzhsko-Kama, North, South and Asian (Siberia and Central Asia). The functional sectors of the People’s Commissariat of Water should be liquidated and ship repair issues, backwaters, shipyards, coastal and track facilities to river trusts - shipping companies.
If in other places clerical bureaucracy prevails, then here it is especially strong. Ask, for example, the Gorky people, how difficult it is to advance any economic issue in the People’s Commissariat. They will tell you. At drug commanders, steamboats sail poorly in the summer, but then, in summer and winter, drug commanders themselves swim in the chancery wonderful. (Laughter.) This is what we must eliminate. And apparently, after the congress, the Central Committee will have to tackle the People’s Commodity more decisively than it has until now.
As for rail transport, the July decision of the Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars gave a certain line of restructuring. The issue with railways is not a new organizational restructuring now. If we begin a new perestroika now, there will be a new catastrophe. The structure is correct, it needs to be implemented. The decisive role now lies in the verification of execution, in operational management, in discipline.
The point is to completely carry out the structure established by the decision of the Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars, to completely defeat the resistance to perestroika.
Here, for example, four sectors are still dealing with issues of boiler economy in steam locomotive management. In heat engineering, the functional chain stretches from the People's Commissariat to the depot. In the locomotive depot there remained special heat engineering instructors, subordinate not to the depot chiefs, but directly to the locomotive service of the road. Therefore, the depot is not responsible for fuel consumption. The result is a large burnout of fuel on the roads.
If we add to this that the coal depots supplying the steam locomotives with coal are not managed by the depot, but the economic and material services and the locomotives have to stand in line for coal for hours and sometimes 10-12 hours and no one is responsible bears, it will become completely clear that the functional and anonymity thrive on the railways.
Not to mention the existence of more than 180 (!) Various decrees, clarifications, instructions governing the remuneration of railway workers. In short, the leadership of the People's Commissariat still has not broken the resistance of bureaucratic elements to the restructuring of transport.
Transport still lacks the organizing Bolshevik force. If the education and rallying of railway workers requires much more effort than in industry, the communist railway workers have not yet shown these tenfold efforts. Moreover, some railway workers feel offended: why are they all hitting us, why are they all criticizing us?
Undoubtedly, the comrades Voroshilov and Kirov who spoke here are right who sharply raised the question: if the transport leaders do not themselves become the head of harsh criticism, do not lead the best people, it will be difficult for them to pick up transport!
There are excellent shock brigades, many heroes-percussionists, and there are wonderful political departments that have already shown themselves at work. In agriculture, the task was more difficult than in transport. They were dealing not with workers, but with peasants. How did they raise the case? They rallied the best people - collective farmers-shockers, fought a sharp struggle with fists and podkulakniki, relying on the masses, began to carry out the activities outlined by the Central Committee. But in transport we still do not see this firm organizational hand!
The workers of the political departments of the railway transport have not yet fully realized the difficulties and seriousness of the front on which they are placed.
Vote. Correctly.
Kaganovich. They haven’t started work yet like, for example, the political departments of MTS, who went to the village, knowing in advance that they were going to a difficult, big job. They imagined that the matter was more difficult than it even turned out for them in life.
And the railway political separators walked and imagined the matter easier. That is why they have not yet overcome difficulties. Some political detachments have already achieved success in their work, but the entire political detachment army has not yet broken through the front and has not overcome difficulties.
The party congress should demand that all railway workers fully implement the decisions of the Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars; the congress should demand that the railway workers finally establish a verification of execution and operational management.
In the railway business, operational leadership and verification of the implementation of the decisions that have been made are needed more than in any other. It is necessary that the railway workers understand that this is not a joke, that it is a matter of normal blood circulation in the national economy, since transport is the blood vessels of our country. The working class and the party have the right to make a demand to all railway workers, especially communists and leaders, political separators: to work in a Bolshevik way, not to be "kind" at the expense of the interests of the proletarian state!
It is necessary to approach the improvement of transport as the party went, it is going to overcome difficulties in individual economic plots. It is necessary to rally the masses, rely on the best people - shock transport, and victory will be ensured. (Stormy applause.)
I have no opportunity, comrades, to dwell on all the other people's commissariats, on all branches of the national economy. This would take too much time, but this does not mean that in other industries, which I have not touched on here, there are to some extent those drawbacks that I spoke of.
I will dwell on the question of setting up verification of performance within the Soviet and economic organizations themselves.
6. On verification of execution in the state apparatus
I have already spoken about the work done by the Central Committee on the training of personnel. However, I want to emphasize once again that the matter is about living people, about growing new people, so that every talented, capable person, who proms from below, will help to grow, to help rise.
We must educate cadres in practical work - both party and non-party. In the theses, the Central Committee emphasized the role of non-partisans. This is not for "politics" at all. No, comrades, the experience of our socialist construction has shown that where a communist works well, he knows how to rally non-partisan people, not only workers, not only those who always came with us, but also specialists who hesitated, doubted.
Our employees must master the technology. There are directors who have mastered the technique of their work, but we cannot say that everything has been done here. To master the technique, stop managing “in general”, stop stamping what the device is slipping on - this is a decisive indicator of good work.
It is necessary to continue the movement of workers to factories and workshops. Do not underestimate the resistance to this cause. Many still do not see that production life takes place at the factory, down there, at the factory, on the collective farm, at MTS. We are working to organize this business. But until now, some people do not understand that going to the factory is the greatest honor and honor for every soldier, every engineer, every technician.
In the Donbass, we managed to achieve a turning point. There, the worker is ashamed to say that he does not want to go to the mine when he is sent. It is necessary that the workers, when they are sent to factories, to collective farms and state farms, so that they not only do not resist, but consider this to be an expression of highest confidence in them.
Crucial is the verification of performance. When you make a decision, but don’t check how it is carried out, even good employees get decomposed. Well, they gave him a decision, he rushes with him for a couple of days, then new things pile up on the employee. He puts the decision under the cloth and sometimes does not even remember about it.
The correct statement of verification of performance in the Soviet apparatus, in economic organs raises, educates a person. Even to workers who work in good faith, you need to come in time and say: you got carried away, dear, on one side of the matter, you got a flux in the job, turn around a bit, correct the mistakes. And this is possible only when the head knows his institution, his system is not "in general", but knows every employee, systematically checks it.
What is the situation with verification of performance in the people's commissariats, in business organizations? Until now, there has been a prejudice that verification of performance is some kind of special function, separate from managing and selecting people. There were special large apparatuses for selecting people and for checking execution.
As a result, the facts of bureaucracy in the verification of execution itself. Strange, but true!
In the best case, these sectors are checked by paper, by correspondence. Well, how could he, poor fellow, check in real life when he himself did not give orders, when he himself did not know the matter, when he did not get into the gut of the matter.
It is clear that such a sector of verification of performance can only speak in common places, write paper or red tape. In a word, we have to recall Shchedrin again: "I didn’t see anything with a dormant eye, but I saw nonsense with a nap." (Laugh.)
Here, for example, is the sector for verifying the implementation of the People’s Commissariat. He had to control the order of the People's Commissar on the secondment by the Leningrad Forest Trust in five days of 13 specialists to Karelia. And this sector slept for exactly five months before it began to control. I woke up, wrote a piece of paper - and calmed down on this. But the matter has not moved forward. Some workers were not sent. It is not without reason that in the People’s Commissariats the execution verification sector, even in official papers, is called SPI in the order of reduction. (Laughter, applause.)
Truly sleeping sectors are verifying the implementation of the people's commissariats and economic bodies.
Take, for example, the maintenance of the working masses. We all say that the holy work of the Bolsheviks is to serve the workers.
The Labor and Defense Council in July 1932 decided: to build seven sanitary checkpoints and fifteen bathhouses, showers and laundries of a simple type, with a simple installation, for the Far Eastern Region and Eastern Siberia. Military people know that this can be built quickly and easily. STO gave the People's Commissariat a month to implement this decision. The People's Commissariat of Agriculture, of course, understands, and probably speeches were made on the meaning of baths, souls and bathing in general (laughter), but did not set up a Bolshevik verification of execution. And what do you think? Eighteen months have passed, and a significant part of these baths and sanitary facilities have not been built. This is what the incorrect execution of the verification of performance leads to, when people, instead of immediately, without resolutions, quickly bring the matter to an end, entrust the case to JFS or anyone else. These SPI, in order to have a better audit, have set up a control group in their sector of verification of execution! (Laughter.) In a word, it turns out, like Gogol’s in “Dead Souls,” is a “commission of observation of a commission of construction.” (Laugh.)
So in some people's commissariats: the commission for monitoring the commission for building, in the very sector of verification of the execution of the control group, but in fact there is no proper Bolshevik verification of the implementation, That is why in theses the problem of verification is associated with organizational restructuring, with the liquidation of the functional.
It’s time to understand that the main thing in the reorganization of the Soviet state apparatus is to turn the governing bodies to the lowest level, move to close, lively relations with the lower levels - the factory, factory, workshop, plot, enterprise, collective farm, village, MTS, state farm and etc. Not a factory for a people's commissariat, but a people's committee for a plant. Not the collective farm for the People’s Commissariat, but the People’s Commissariat for the collective farm. Not a state farm for the People's Commissions, but the People's Commissions for the state farm.
Ordzhonikidze. Correctly.
Kaganovich. The people's commissariats should serve the lower links, and not turn the work and work so that the collective farm exists for the People’s Commissariat. The trouble is that the structure in the trust, in the People’s Commissariat is composed mechanically by the clerks, since the leaders disdain this work. And the clerks have no idea about the essence of operational work. The trouble is that the trust blindly copies the structure of the People’s Commissariat, and the plant copies the structure of the trust, while the matter should go just the opposite. We need to take the plant, build its organization correctly, take the collective farm and state farm and build their organization correctly in relation to the needs of production and then go to the higher links in relation to the main task that each People’s Commissariat faces - the task of increasing production, mastering technology, improving the economy,
Only by reorganizing the work accordingly can we strengthen the lower ranks and their leadership.
Economic, Soviet and party workers must immediately, after the congress, without special reminders and pushings, proceed to eliminate all organizational shortcomings in their work. Proceed seriously, without leapfrog, and make proposals for the restructuring of their apparatus where relies on approval.
The Central Committee will carefully monitor the progress of perestroika in all of our bodies. In the restructuring of the work, in no case can we limit ourselves to only changing the structure and replanting people, changing signs, which Lenin scoffed at so evilly, comrade Stalin mocked mercilessly every day. The Central Committee will not allow the essence of organizational restructuring to be emasculated by a change in signage, the formal conduct of restructuring.
Each leader needs to carefully rethink the methods, the system of work of his and the whole institution, promptly make changes on the go, reduce sharply the scribble, primarily accounting and statistical data, which are incredibly inflated.
Verification of performance should not be carried out formally, but on the merits. She is obliged to bring the matter to the end, that is, to the full implementation of the directive. It is necessary to verify the results of work, and not paper, not formal adoption of measures: received a protocol, imposed a resolution, made an order. It often turns out that I received an order from above, paraphrased it a bit and sent it down. And there he is sent even lower. And so the red tape stretches.
Stalin. And the paper came to the point.
Kaganovich. Quite right, and the paper came to the point.
Our state apparatus has undoubtedly improved recently, the organs of the proletarian dictatorship have strengthened. Our state apparatus could not but be affected by the general economic upsurge and the growth of political consciousness of the broad working-peasant masses.
It is this economic growth, this political upsurge of the masses that allows the party with such courage and determination, as the Central Committee has outlined and, as I hope, the congress will accept, to reveal the shortcomings of our bodies. This gives us a guarantee that we will be able to further improve our state apparatus, which should better serve the masses, must eradicate bureaucracy, bureaucracy, and anonymity.
We are convinced that the party, its Leninist Central Committee, its leader Comrade Stalin will achieve this perestroika and strengthen the proletarian dictatorship. (Stormy applause.)
Source
.jpg)
