Written: Written on October 17, 1921
Published: First published in 1933 in Lenin Miscellany XXIII. Printed from the original.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1976, Moscow, Volume 45, pages 343b-344a.
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov
Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. • README
This is secret.
Read it and return this very day, tomorrow morning, at the latest.
The author is partly right: I shall change the assignment to the State Planning Commission in the conclusion (assignment to the People’s Commissariat for Agriculture).
Please think about the way to co-ordinate and specify S.P.C. tasks and let me have your plan (draft decision on drawing a line of distinction between S.P.C. and the planning commissions) in writing.
With communist greetings,
 The author is N. Osinsky, Deputy People’s Commissar for Agriculture, who in his letter of October 17, in reply to Lenin’s letter (see this volume, Document 444), insisted on a legal settlement of the relations between the People’s Commissariat for Agriculture and Gosplan. He proposed that Gosplan’s role should be confined “only to a general co-ordination of plans submitted by the departments; Gosplan is not to work out any plans on its own, everything being done in the planning commissions of the Commissariats” (Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee).
In reply, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky wrote that N. Osinsky was right “in the sense that Gosplan’s work should have a follow-up character. But it is wrong to interpret this as meaning that the people at Gosplan should in some way engage in ‘summarising’, without having special sections which make use of some of the departmental specialists. I have already raised with all the sections the question of transforming and delimiting the work of primary planning organs and our own work” (ibid.), Krzhizhanovsky went on to set out a number of measures to improve the work of Gosplan.