Chapter 6

6

Wage Rates and Trade Union Organization

The Second Session of the Congress was scheduled to commence on July 23, at ten in the morning; all subsequent sessions would be held in the Hall of St. Andrew at one of the buildings of the Kremlin.

Although we arrived at the Kremlin promptly at ten that morning, the session did not begin until after noon.

This delay did not affect just that session; every subsequent session was subject to the same delay, or an even longer one. One day, the session was scheduled to begin at ten p.m., but it did not start until two in the morning.

During breaks we sought to obtain the most accurate reports we could concerning the proceedings.

The fact that Kibalchich and other employees of the Third International were in Moscow facilitated our efforts in this regard.

One of the people Kibalchich introduced me to as soon as I arrived in Moscow was Sasha Kropotkin, Peter Kropotkin’s daughter, to whom I expressed how pleased I would be to have an opportunity to speak with her father.

I also visited the anarchist Club located on the Tverskaya, where I met, among other comrades, Askarov and Gordin. Through Schapiro, I was introduced to Maximov and others, as well.

In the anarchist Club, during one of my visits, we held a sort of conference where I spoke in French and Askarov translated my speech into Russian.

Speaking with the comrades of the Club, I discovered that many of them were inclined to accept centralism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Gordin was their most visible spokesperson, the most cultivated, whom they called “The Universalist”, and who had just recently been released from the prison at Butyrka, where he spent three months for the crime of having been elected to the Moscow Soviet by the workers of the factory where he worked.

Gordin’s case is a curious one that bears upon the way the Bolsheviks understand the idea of freedom and what meaning can be attributed to the Soviets in their hands.

Gordin was a worker in a munitions factory. When the elections for the Soviet of the district that his factory belonged to were held, despite the fact that the communists always allowed only their nominees on the election list for the Soviet and did not allow any of their candidates to be defeated, the workers in the factory where Gordin worked chose him instead of the communist nominee.

When the votes were counted at the Soviet headquarters, and it was discovered that a communist was not selected and that Gordin was chosen instead, the Soviet exercised its veto powers and annulled the election, but only with regard to this particular delegate, and not with regard to the communists who were elected during that same proceeding.

A new election was held after ascertaining the number of voters and votes that a candidate required to be named a delegate in that factory. The result of the second election was the same as the first. Gordin was elected.

Another veto and another election. This was the third one.

But this one did not favor the Bolshevik communists either.

The official results gave an overwhelming majority to Gordin.

Then, the Bolsheviks, so respectful of the will of the workers and the dictatorship of the proletariat (?), annulled the election, threw Gordin in jail and allowed, for the moment, that his factory should be without representation in the district Soviet.

At this point we must confirm what someone has already written concerning Russia: that all elections to the Soviets take place under the surveillance and rigorous control of the Cheka, which is not imposed in order to inspire ideas of independence and respect for the will of the voters.

With Gordin imprisoned and the election annulled, it was proposed to the workers that they participate in another election, which they refused, and it was proposed to Gordin that he refuse to accept the post to which he was elected. Since Gordin obstinately refused to surrender his rights, the Bolsheviks saw no way to get what they wanted.

Nominating a new candidate would not work, since as long as the workers of the factory vote for Gordin, the communist will always be defeated.

Finally, as the comrades of Gordin came to understand that if they persisted in their conduct they would join Gordin in prison, they chose instead, if the Soviet were to hold another election, to abstain from voting, so that the official candidate would be elected despite obtaining a minority of the votes cast. And this is what happened.

Since the Soviet was apprised of the position of the workers in the munitions factory, it held yet another election in the factory, and the communist candidate was elected with about three hundred votes out of the more than two thousand eligible voters in the factory.

And this is why Gordin, like most of the members of the Tverskaya anarchist Club, gave in and reached some kind of accommodation to centralism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Despite the fact that the activity of the members of the anarchist Club was not oriented towards disturbing the Bolsheviks, it received frequent visits from the Cheka. Otherwise, cases like Gordin’s were common throughout Russia.

It was from these comrades that I obtained my first news of the Ukrainian insurrection, and the part played by Makhno in the fight against reaction. The Club existed on the proceeds from a restaurant its members had established, where they prepared meals that, sold for a slight profit, allowed some money for the Club.

The Club held frequent meetings; but it was necessary to exercise restraint and moderation.

Now and then a comrade arrived from the interior of Russia who provided news from his comrades and all of these reports indicated that the Bolsheviks were persecuting the anarchists who did not totally submit to their rule.

They referred to accounts in Izvestia and Pravda that pointed to the resurgence of shootings by the Cheka. The anarchist comrades held the opinion that the Government was afraid that the foreign delegates to the Congress of the Third International would request an amnesty and this is why, in order to avoid having to release the prisoners, it shot them instead. Those who were shot, although they were sometimes referred to as bandits and speculators in the newspapers, were for the most part labeled as counterrevolutionary elements.

Since we had conveyed to Lozovsky our earnest desire to get acquainted as closely as possible with the operation of the Labor Center, the Trade Union Central and everything that affects the question of labor organization, he placed an interpreter at our disposal and put us in touch with all the high-level offices that could help us in our quest.

I shall confess in advance that, even if our opponents may attempt to use this to their advantage, we were unable to get a clear understanding of the operation of the Trade Union organization in Russia. In its general outlines, yes; but in detail, no. We shall likewise confess, and not in order to divest ourselves of responsibility due to any incapacity or a lack of understanding that the pro-Bolshevik factions might attribute to us, but as a simple truth, clearly demonstrated by experience, that the majority, not to say all, of the employees and officials involved in the operations of that burdensome trade union machine, were completely useless when we asked them for explanations and details about the organization. Not even they knew how it worked.

For these and other reasons, it appeared that the Trade Union structure of Russia did not assume the form of an organization. The trade union organization was in continuous transformation, constantly assuming various forms and tendencies.

The precise knowledge of how the Trade Unions worked was in the hands of the workers who were their members and the numerous bureaucrats who led them, and was used for the purpose of establishing a norm of conduct in their relations with the State, which was supposed to redound, in the long run, to the benefit of the workers, since they assured them of a certain degree of independence from the tyranny of the Communist Party; but the latter, far-seeing and clever, sought to prevent this outcome by all the means at its disposal and there was no better way to do so than the constant replacement of one method of organization by another, whether or not each change was appropriate for the circumstances or not. In addition, this policy seemed to confer a certain eclecticism on the thinking of the Trade Union officials. Something like a fanatical zeal for discovering the best and the most perfect forms of organization. But, in reality, what the Party was really doing was carrying out a maneuver to assure its own domination, a crude and dishonest maneuver.

In our attempt to obtain as much information as necessary to understand what was going on, we first of all wanted to know about the wages of the workers, how they were distributed and who fixed their rates.

The chart showing the categories of wage rates contained thirty-six such categories, plus four extraordinary categories, which were only applicable to those persons who were considered by the Committee of the General Confederation of Labor, the Commissariat of Labor and the National Economic Council to be members of the categories. And while the thirty-six wage categories established limits for pay, whether in rubles or in kind, which can under no circumstances be exceeded, the four extraordinary categories had no limits, and the Commission with jurisdiction over them could set the wage rates and the distribution in kind at it discretion.

The base rate for these four extraordinary categories was the standard rate for one of the thirty-six basic categories; but the maximum rate for these extraordinary categories, as we have said, was not fixed. It was left to the discretion of the Commission.

It is this system that led to one of the most widespread deceptions perpetrated throughout the world concerning the Russian revolution, and which caused its most conspicuous personalities to be bathed in an aura of austerity and sacrifice that is far from the truth.

We were told that Lenin, Trotsky, Radek and the other leading personalities of the Communist Party and the revolution, as testimony to their love of the people and their sacrifice for the revolution, also submitted to all the privations and scarcities that the shortage of products forced upon them and that, since they considered themselves to be proletarians and workers, they assigned themselves a wage like everybody else and access to the same rations to which the intellectual workers were entitled.

Theoretically this was true. But in practice, it was otherwise.

It was a fact that Lenin, Trotsky, Radek and the rest of the commissars and aspirants to leadership roles, were considered and registered as intellectual workers with regard to the wage and the ration they were to receive, and with this little shell game and this procedure they tried to make us all believe in the disinterested attitude and the altruism of the Bolshevik commissars.

But there can be no doubt that, thinking that it would pass unnoticed or that no one would think it was relevant to their interests to know about it, they failed to mention that they had established the four extraordinary wage categories referred to above, which were applied to the political personalities of the Revolution. In accordance with these categories, the rate could vary from the bare minimum to a superfluity of riches. This should have been mentioned immediately and not the opposite, which is what was disseminated.

But to return to the thirty-six categories established in Russia in order to catalog every worker in one of them, we must first go over the following procedures:

In the lowest categories, from the first to the sixth, are included the porters and laborers in the factories, workshops, warehouses, etc., etc.

Because it seemed odd to us that such meticulous distinctions should be made between six categories when it seemed that one would suffice, they tried to convince us of our error, adducing reasons that we do not consider childish.

“So, for example,” they told us, “when a laborer comes to work at a factory for the first time, the Factory Committee classifies him for the first month under category number one, whose wage is two thousand rubles a month, because he has no experience in that position.”

“What specialized knowledge or technical abilities are required,” we asked, “of a laborer who is hired at a factory to haul stuff, to assist an experienced worker, to sweep the floor or do similar things? After ten minutes, by the second day at most, he is already fully qualified for his job. There is no reason for such a strict and arbitrary classification.”

“There might be some situations where what you say is true,” they responded, “but for the most part, no. It is undeniable that, after having worked several days, the new worker gets a better understanding of all the customs of the factory and becomes more accustomed to his duties.”

“We admit that criterion,” we countered. “In any case, two categories are enough, first and second, with a period of fifteen days for the transition from one to the other. But six categories seems excessive!”

“Perhaps you are right,” they replied, only adding by way of justification, “Those who established these categories had their reasons for doing so.”

Concerning these fine points, as is the case with regard to other issues related to the same question, we would speak later with Lozovsky. Thus far we had only obtained the regulation explanations that we were already familiar with due to encounters with other employees of the Trade Union Confederation. The fundamental principle was that of having worked for the maximum period of time at the same factory, since the time spent working in another factory of the same kind did not enter the calculations to determine the ability of a worker, so the usual practice is that every new worker admitted to a factory or a workshop is always classified at the lowest wage category.

We inquired about who established the thirty-six wage categories and what criteria were used, and we were told that they were established after an exhaustive investigation carried out throughout Russia by a commission composed of individuals from the General Confederation of Labor and from the Commissariat of Labor.

The project was an immense one, and it took about one year for the final reports to be completed.

The decree creating the commission was issued sometime during the first few months of 1918 and the commission’s final report was published in January of 1919. In February the wage categories set forth in the commission’s report were made obligatory, which was a great step forward and beneficial for everyone, we were told.

“And since then, how have the wage relations between the State and the workers been regulated?”, we asked.

“By contracts and agreements established in each particular case, or else by way of agreements applied to all similar industries in a municipality.”

“And these particular agreements—do they not lead to conflicts?”

“No. They are modified as circumstances require.”

“So now, once these general and compulsory wage categories have been established, do they regulate wages? There should be no exceptions. They should not need to be modified.”

“You are incorrect. These wage rates, so meticulously established, which required a year of labor to elaborate and systematize; which required hundreds of workers and thousands of reports to complete, HAD TO BE MODIFIED TWENTY-ONE DAYS AFTER THEY WERE DECREED, because the divergence between the official value of money and the market price of consumer goods, and even the nominal value attributed to money in the rationing system, demonstrated the uselessness of so much effort and so many reports. We had to return to the old game of particular contracts, although we took the wage categories that had been established as a point of departure.”

“In that case, the wage would be the same in all the provinces of Russia! A mechanic in Tobolsk, in Ekaterinoslav, in Odessa, in Moscow or in Petrograd, would surely be paid the same wages.”

“By no means. The price of subsistence goods in these cities various widely, and these variations have a determinate impact on the wage rates.”

“With three thousand rubles in Simbirsk or Saratov you can live better than in Moscow or Petrograd and wages are regulated in accordance with and in constant reference to the lowest cost of subsistence goods in any particular location.”

“Could you tell me just what is the extent of these differences?”

“Not precisely; it varies according to the city or the province. But it can be said that it attains proportions that vary from between ten and twenty-five percent in terms of money. The equivalent in terms of the ration received by each worker is invariably the same for every region or province, always depending on the category the worker is registered to.”

“Could you also tell me how the Trade Unions are structured? By industry, by industrial group, or by trades, locally, or regionally?”

“The Trade Unions are organized by industries and by provinces.”

“By provinces?”

“Yes, by provinces. The Metal Workers Trade Union of Moscow, for example, is a provincial Trade Union, since all the metal workers of the province belong to it. The Factory Committees and the Regional Committees connect each worker with the Executive Committee of the Trade Union.”

“But when they have to meet to debate a question that affects all the members of the Trade Union, how is this arranged?”

“The meetings are held under the auspices of each separate Trade Union Local, although most often they are held in the factories.”

“The Executive Committee of the Trade Union issues a notice that is transmitted to every Factory Committee and Regional Committee, and these committees then pass the notice on to the workers at each workplace. The latter then meet, debate and reach some conclusion on the topic in question. Then the resolutions of the workers are submitted to the Executive Committee for the latter to decide, in accordance with the will of the majority or its own opinion.”

“This form of organization,” we objected, “is arranged so that the workers of the same Trade Union will never meet in a general assembly to debate any problem that is of interest to them. Rather than bringing them together, they are divided, since they have no way to establish direct relations with one another, but their relations are represented through their Executive Committees or Factory Committees.”

“Why do you need to have such general assemblies?”, they retorted. “From the moment when they can discuss all the problems and transmit their decision to the Executive Committee, for the latter’s ruling, that is all you need. Also, you should recall that, when it is thought to be necessary, the Trade Union can hold General Congresses or Conferences that are attended by the delegates of each workshop, which is why they were elected to their posts.”

“Whatever you say; but the essential thing is that the workers of each factory do not have any direct relation with the workers in similar factories or with the workers of the same Trade Union. Rather than united, they are separated. The Trade Union is not an institution constructed on the basis of the individual initiative of the worker, but it is the Executive Committee that does all the thinking and deciding in the name of the Trade Union. That is, the impulse does not come from below, as it should, but from above, which is contrary to any sense of freedom and voluntary organization. And this system of organization: who consented to it?”

“It was consented to by the workers themselves meeting in the Trade Union Congress on the basis of a plan that was previously elaborated by the Commissariat of Labor.”

“Their delegates to this Congress: what tendencies or what ideologies did they advocate?”

“All of them were members of the Communist Party, except for a small percentage that were not members of any party; but they accepted the point of view of the majority.”

“And besides the Trade Union, what other institutions exist?”

“There are the National Industrial Federations, to which the provincial Trade Unions of each industry belong.”

“Then there are the Provincial Federations of Trade Unions, and the General Confederation of Labor, formed on the basis of the National Industrial Federations and the Provincial Trade Union Federations.”

“The delegates for the Congresses of the General Confederation of Labor, and for the National Industrial Federations, and those who comprise the Committees of these institutions: how are they chosen?”

“The workers of each factory meet and nominate various delegates for a provincial Trade Union Assembly; at this provincial Trade Union Assembly, delegates are chosen for a provincial Conference or Assembly of all the Trade Unions, and then, at the provincial Assembly of Trade Unions, the delegates are chosen who must attend the relevant Congress, either that of the General Confederation of Labor or that of the National Industrial Federation. At these Congresses, the members of the respective Committees are chosen.”

“So the delegate or the delegates to each Congress: they are not directly elected, it is not the Trade Union itself that chooses them?”

“No. We already told you how it works. Sometimes, when it is urgently necessary for the purposes of holding a regional Congress or an Assembly, instead of having the workers meet separately in each factory, all the workers of a district or a certain number of factories will meet together in one place, without any distinctions with regard to trade or industry, and all of them together choose their delegates.”

“The choice, in these cases, would be very difficult, since the workers do not know each other, each worker will want a delegate who best represents his interests to prevail.”

“That almost never happens anyway, because the Communist Committee has already prepared the list of those who must be chosen for the delegation.”

“The choice of the workers representatives to the Congresses is therefore not direct; the workers are twice removed from the decision.”

“Precisely. First they choose the delegates to the provincial Assembly of the Trade Union, then the latter choose whoever they want to represent them at the provincial meeting of all the Trade Unions, and the latter, in turn choose the delegates to the Trade Union Congress.”

“And the topics or resolutions presented for debate at the Congress: who elaborates them?”

“The Executive Committee of the General Confederation of Labor, when it is a national Congress of the entire organization; or the Committee of the respective Federation, when the Congress is a Congress of an Industrial Federation.”

“This means that the worker, the real worker, the Trade Union member, is a passive element with regard to most of the problems that his Trade Union must resolve. He is only called upon to ratify—since it is not possible for him to revise them—the decisions of the Committees.”

“It depends on what you mean by passive element. It is obvious that the workers are not called upon to directly discuss the questions involving their Trade Unions and that it is the latter which must address them, but you have to also take into account the lack of culture of the Russian worker. And, besides, he is often saturated with Menshevik and counterrevolutionary influences.”

“The managers, the engineers, the foremen and the supervisors in the factories: who chooses them?”

“At the beginning of the revolution the workers chose them; now the Soviets choose them. There were cases where the workers chose the former owners or managers, and even the engineers and foremen, and it was necessary to put an end to this.”

“And these elections of the former owners or managers: what was the basis of their authority? Were they obeyed because of their abilities or because they put pressure on the proletariat?”

“One must assume that they were obeyed for the former reason, due to their abilities, since pressure could no longer be a prod to obedience because there was no longer any way to enforce it.”

“So why should their nomination not be respected if their authority was based on their abilities?”

“Because most of those nominated under these circumstances, not to say all of them, were counterrevolutionaries.”

“And the Factory Committee: who chooses it?”

“The workers of each factory.”

“And who provides the list of candidates? Are the workers free to choose whoever they want?”

“Not at all; the list is always provided by the local Soviet or by the members of the Communist Party who work in the factory. The list is not open to revision by anyone. No name on the list may be deleted.”

“So, under these conditions, no one can be elected to the Factory Committees unless he is a communist.”

“No, that is not true; sometimes non-party individuals appear on the lists.”

“And what functions are exercised by the Factory Committee?”

“It represents the workers to the Trade Union and the Government. It exercises vigilance to make sure that the workers work and produce the necessary output; it establishes the wage rates; it imposes penalties and fines on the workers who do not do their duty; it fires those who do not respect the terms of their contracts; it sends requests to the Labor Center for any workers the factory may need; it classifies each worker according to his category; it exercises surveillance to assure that raw materials are not wasted; it serves as a repository for all the workers’ demands and complaints; it serves as an intermediary between the workers and the manager or the foremen; it conducts the elections in its factory and, finally, undertakes measures to keep order, to enforce discipline and make sure that everything flows smoothly and production proceeds without interruption in each factory.”

“Can the workers depose or request the dismissal of their Factory Committee or any one of its members?”

“Of course. All the posts in the Committee are recallable and therefore can be dismissed by those they represent.”

“How do the workers go about dismissing one of their Factory Committee representatives?”

“They request that the Factory Committee call a meeting and when the Committee has agreed to do so, they attend the meeting. At the meeting they air their grievances and the Factory Committee takes note of them and transmits them to the Trade Union Committee, which then examines them and proceeds according to its discretion.”

“But this is a contradiction! The workers have to request permission to hold a meeting from the same individuals they are seeking to depose. The latter, those who are the objects of the complaint, are the ones who have to register the complaint and then set the process to address it in motion, without the least intervention from those who submitted the request. As a result of this kind of procedure, successful recall actions must be rare indeed.”

“Extremely rare. It hardly ever happens. But you know that Party discipline requires that a Factory Committee that has been petitioned by the workers seeking to depose it, is obliged to notify the Trade Union of the desires of the workers that the Committee represents.”

“Good; but against Party discipline you have to consider personal self-interest. One proves one’s party discipline by not ever submitting a request for recall. Besides, all the bureaucratic hoops you have to jump through, the fear of retaliation, the presence of the Cheka at every meeting, the fact that there are no newspapers where one can denounce abuses and arbitrary acts, the fear of being labeled a counterrevolutionary; all these things drown out any inclination to protest and any attempt at rebellion.”

“….”

“The Factory Committees: how long is the delegate’s term?”

“Six months.”

“Can they be re-elected?”

“Yes. They can be.”

“Once a Factory Committee has been chosen, are its members considered to be workers or State employees, with regard to their wages and rations? Are they obliged to work or are they exempt from labor?”

“The members of the Factory Committee, once the latter has been designated, cease to be considered as workers and are transferred to the category of State employees. They have no obligation to work and if they work, they do so voluntarily. Their mission is surveillance, to make sure the others work.”

“So they would be a kind of workplace police force.”

“That is a very harsh expression. It has none of the features of a police force. We have already said what its mission consists of.”

“And when a worker has been browbeaten and humiliated by a Factory Committee or else assigned to a lower wage rate than he thinks he deserves, what hoops does he have to jump through or how hard does he have to work to make the Trade Union protect him in either case?”

“Because we assume that the Trade Unions must have the responsibility for the defense of the organized workers in such cases.”

“Of course. The Trade Union attends to the needs of the worker in such cases and defends and protects him. When his rights have been violated or he has been assigned to a lower wage category than he believes he deserves, he goes to the Factory Committee and submits his complaint in writing.”

“The Factory Committee then forwards the complaint, always strictly following the regular procedures, to the Local Committee of the Trade Union, which in turn sends it to the Executive Committee of the Trade Union to which the complainant belongs.”

“The Executive Committee of the Trade Union rules either in favor of his complaint or against it, and the verdict is passed down to the original source of the complaint, that is to the worker who initiated it, but it must pass through the same channels that the complaint did in the first place when it found its way to the Executive Committee of the Trade Union.”

“Since the Factory Committees are elected for six months and no more, and although it often happens that the incumbents are re-elected, sometimes a newly-elected delegate will receive a verdict regarding a complaint against one of his predecessors.”

“In such a case the new Committee must abide by the verdict it has received from the Executive Committee of the Trade Union.”

“That is what usually takes place. But you must not overlook how difficult it is for a Factory Committee to resolve a dispute that arose even before it was elected. The faults or shortcomings of one person should not be paid for by another.”

“Of course. But for the worker who was personally wronged or lost pay due to being assigned to a lower wage category than he was entitled to: who is going to compensate him or indemnify him? Because if the rights of the Factory Committee should be respected, no less respect is due to the worker whom the Factory Committee has wronged. Within a communist regime where Power is exercised in the name of the working class, it is only just that justice should be done for the worker. I am not saying he should be conceded privileges: just that he should be entitled to justice.”

“And that is just what happens. Not one single complaint submitted by a worker has ever been ignored.”

“We do not deny that. What we deny is that this system can effectively attend to the workers’ complaints. First of all, because of all the complicated procedures he must negotiate, none of which can be omitted; secondly, because the complaint must be judged without his being present to present his case, which is the most important thing. The Executive Committee of the Trade Union, in order to preserve the prestige of the Factory Committee and that of the Communist Party, which it represents in the workplace, must always find in the Factory Committee’s favor. Hence the few successful recall actions against the Committees and the fact that the workers are not interested in them.”

“To the contrary. The workers are extremely interested in the Factory Committee.”

“The communist workers are. But we doubt very much that the other workers are.” Finally, we left it at that.

By means of the summary of our interview concerning the nature of the Trade Unions in Russia, which we have tried to reproduce as accurately as possible in the above dialogue, the reader will be able to form an approximate idea of the nature of the trade union organization, the role it plays in the Bolshevik economy and its usefulness in defending the interests of the workers against the Bolshevik State.

Our journey from one secretariat to another in search of information that would give us some idea of the nature of the trade union organization was not without difficulties, since, besides the division of functions in each secretariat, it was very hard to obtain detailed information about an institution undergoing constant change, affecting every domain under its jurisdiction and, most importantly, the extremely complex character of an institution that even its own creators were beginning to be unable to understand. These were unsurpassable obstacles for anyone who, like us, needed precise ideas and concrete data.

But the essence of all these difficulties can be condensed in the words of Lozovsky, who expressed the real role of the Trade Unions in Russia.

Lozovsky said that the role of the Trade Unions in Russia was to implement the Party’s platforms, the economic orientations dictated by the latter and the defense of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anything that did not fall within this framework was counterrevolutionary and the Trade Unions would not engage in such a thing nor would the Party tolerate it.

The enormous number of communist employees in the Trade Unions absorbed any impetus to raise the level of the masses self-initiative.

If we were to take another Trade Union as an example and were to choose the Railroad Workers Trade Union, we must confess that the results would be identical. Counting just the employees in the higher bureaucratic posts of the rail network, at the beginnings and the ends of the lines, at the switchyards and repair depots, in the operational and managerial offices, there are thousands. Then, in each station, however small it may be, there is the Extraordinary Commission, composed of at least three individuals, exercising surveillance and command functions. Each train, whether carrying goods or people, also carries its Extraordinary Commission. You may assume that most of the members of these Commissions perform no active service; their mission is solely and exclusively that of surveillance. We do not believe that during the times of Czarism, when the Russian railroads were exploited by individual enterprises, that the number of those persons employed in surveillance, inspection and management of the railroads could have even come close to the number of those persons employed under the Bolshevik regime while we were in Russia.

If the income from transport would have to be used to pay so many employees, it is unlikely that it would have been enough to pay their wages.