It has long been pointed out and is generally recognized that 1912 represents an outstanding phenomenon in the development of strike struggle. But not everyone has understood and correctly taken account of this phenomenon. Let us take the data on political strikes for the first 11 months of the year. We obtain:

The number of political strikers for the first 9 months was determined, by the most conservative estimates, at 700 thousand people. Strikes occasioned by the explanation of delegates in Petersburg{161} encompassed up to 50 thousand workers, the protest strike against the Sevastopol executions and the strike of November 15, on the day of the opening of the Duma, encompassed, according to the data of the Moscow society of manufacturers, 188 thousand people. These are the figures up to November 20. It is clear that 900 thousand is a minimum figure. Subtracting even 100 thousand—scarcely comparable with 1905–1907 (factories outside the jurisdiction of the factory inspectorate)—we have 800 thousand.

In any case, the movement has unquestionably outgrown 1906 and 1907 and lagged only slightly behind 1905!

What does this mean?

The all-national scope of the movement at the present moment is, of course, considerably weaker than in 1905. Consequently, the beginning of the revolutionary upsurge now is immeasurably higher than it was before the first revolution. Consequently, the coming second revolution already reveals now a far greater store of revolutionary energy in the proletariat. The number of the proletariat has grown—at minimum by 20 percent. The concentration of the proletariat has grown. The purely proletarian fundamental base of the movement has strengthened owing to accelerated liberation from ties to the land. The mass of proletarian and semi-proletarian population in "cottage" industry, in handicraft, and in agriculture has increased in enormous dimensions that defy accounting.

Finally, the consciousness, experience, and determination of the advanced democratic class have grown. Everyone agrees with this, but not everyone dares to think through to the end what follows from it. Not everyone dares to look truth in the face and recognize that before us stand revolutionary mass strikes, the beginning of a revolutionary upsurge.

This is indicated, first and foremost, by the fundamental and most objective fact, the one least permitting subjective distortion: the scale of the movement. In no country in the world—outside conditions of a revolutionary social situation—would it have been possible to raise hundreds of thousands of workers several times a year for political actions on the most various pretexts. But here such an upsurge is taking place spontaneously, is taking place because tens of millions of semi-proletarian and peasant population transmit, if one may so express it, to their vanguard the mood of concentrated indignation, which springs forth like a fountain, overflows the brim.

The revolutionary strike of Russian workers in 1912 bears, in the full sense of the word, an all-national character. For by an all-national movement one must understand not at all one with which—under conditions of a bourgeois-democratic revolution—the whole bourgeoisie, or even the liberal bourgeoisie, stands in solidarity. Only opportunists look at it that way. No. A movement is all-national which expresses the objective needs of the entire country, directing its heavy blows against the central forces of the enemy, preventing the development of the country. A movement is all-national which is supported by the sympathy of the enormous majority of the population.

Precisely such is the political movement of the workers of the current year, supported by the sympathy of all the toiling and exploited, of all democracy, however weak, downtrodden, fragmented, and helpless it may be. A more definite demarcation between liberalism and democracy (achieved not without struggle against those who dreamed of "wresting the Duma from the hands of reaction") is a tremendous plus of the new movement. In order to succeed, the revolution must know as precisely as possible with whom it can go into battle, who is an unreliable ally, where the real enemy lies.

This is why the direct statements of liberals (Cadets) against the new revolution are of such great significance. This is why the slogan of the republic, cleansing the consciousness of democracy willing to fight from those monarchical (also "constitutional") illusions that so weakened the thrust of 1905, has, precisely now in Russia, an exceptional importance (compared with Europe). The historical significance in the process of the growth of the new revolution in Russia belongs to two moments: first, the April-May strikes, when Petersburg workers—even despite the arrest of their leading organization, the PC—put forward the slogan of the republic, an 8-hour working day, and confiscation of lands. Second, the November strikes and demonstrations (see letters from Riga and Moscow{162}; the same occurred in Petersburg, but arrests swept away our correspondents). The slogan of these demonstrations was not only "Down with capital punishment! Down with war!" but also "Long live the revolutionary working class and the revolutionary army!"

On the streets of Petersburg, Riga, and Moscow the proletariat extended its hand to the advanced fighters of the peasant army, who heroically rose up against the monarchy.

The liberal bourgeoisie against the new revolution, against the revolutionary mass strike. But the liberals are not at all against political strikes in general, if they testify only to an "enlivening" and support only the liberal slogan of constitutional reforms. And objectively, independent of their "good" intentions, our liquidators are simple handmaidens of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, who both historical moments of the upsurge marked with "statements"… against revolutionary strikes!! In No. 1 of the "Nevsky Voice," May 20, 1912, the unforgettable and incomparable V. Yezhov rose up against the "complication" of economic strikes by political ones and vice versa, against their "harmful mixing" (cf. "Social-Democrat" No. 27, p. 4[36]).

In November 1912 the liquidationist "Ray" also took up arms against the strikes. It subsequently tried to put inattentive people "on the false track" by citing the fact that the s.-d. faction was also against the strike of November 15. But anyone who at all understands the meaning of the event will easily see the distortion of "Ray."

Indeed, both the s.-d. faction and the PC deemed the strike of November 15 untimely. Against this strike on this day they warned. It was the duty of the workers' press to inform about this. Both "Ray" and "Pravda" did this.

But "Ray" did more than this.

After the events of November 15 (when the very Vyborg district, which until now had been most connected with the Mensheviks, struck most vigorously), after the movement had grown into a demonstration, the wise "Ray" came out with articles (leading article and, following the leading article of November 17, a feuilleton of November 21) with cries against the "dangerous squandering of strength," with assurances that "from frequent application people will stop sympathizing with strikes," with the slogan: "let us seek another path," "with flare-ups (!?!) you will achieve nothing," with shouts against "playing at strikes."

That is what your "philosophy" is, gentlemen liquidators, long known to Petersburg workers both from the "Nevsky Voice" and from the speeches of members of your "initiative group," aroused legitimate hatred and contempt toward you from Petersburg workers. A separate strike may turn out unsuccessful or come at an inopportune moment. But to speak of "playing at strikes" before one of the greatest movements in the world, which has raised nearly a million proletarians to their feet, is permissible only to liberals and counter-revolutionaries!

Frequent strikes may exhaust the workers. It is entirely possible that one will then have to call for shorter strikes, for more carefully prepared demonstrations. But the event of November 15 is remarkable precisely for the new step forward of the demonstration movement!

Instead of honestly confessing your mistake (for you clearly erred concerning the significance of November 15), you, liquidators, began, with the brazenness of the most shameless liberals, to speak of the "political illiteracy" of the revolutionary appeal—you, who repeat the ABCs of liberal politics!

Let the workers judge what the flattering speeches of the liquidators are worth about their "unity" with the party, when in the era of the birth and development of revolutionary strikes and demonstrations they raise a struggle against them, in the legal press marking with curses the illegal appeals!!

There is, however, a deeper reason for the liquidators' campaign against strikes. The liquidators are slaves of the liberals. And the liberals truly became uneasy from the persistence of revolutionary strikes. The "progressive" manufacturer began to grumble and even to rage. Milyukov became fearful for the tranquility of their "bloc" with Rodzyanko.

Liquidationist policy serves the subordination of workers to the liberals. Marxist policy raises workers to the role of leaders of the peasantry. One cannot speak of this legally, gentlemen liquidators, but it must be thought about and discussed by those who wish to be revolutionary s.-d.s.

In free, constitutional Europe, the political strike serves for now (until the socialist revolution has begun) the struggle for individual reforms. In enslaved, Asiatic, tsarist Russia, which is approaching the next bourgeois-democratic revolution, the political strike is the only serious means to shake, rock, agitate, and raise the peasantry and the best part of the peasant army to revolutionary struggle! That time has, fortunately for Russia, already passed when there was no one to "go to the people" except heroic individual Populists. That time is passing when individual terrorists could speak of "exciting" the people by terror. Russia has moved forward from those sad times. The revolutionary proletariat in the fifth year found for itself another "path to the people," another means of drawing the masses into the movement.

This means is the revolutionary strike, persistent, moving from place to place, from one end of the country to the other, the repeated strike—the strike that raises the backward to new life through struggle for economic improvements—the strike that brands and scourges every outstanding act of violence, arbitrariness, and crime of tsarism—the strike-demonstration, unfurling the red banner on the streets of the capitals, carrying revolutionary speeches and revolutionary slogans to the crowd, to the popular masses.

Such a strike cannot be artificially provoked, but it cannot be stopped once it has begun to encompass hundreds and hundreds of thousands.

Let the liberal, moved by the fact that he has been seated in an armchair next to "the very" Rodzyanko himself, say to the workers: "Brothers! there is no need for flare-ups, seek another path, occupy yourselves with peaceful trade union activity, prepare yourselves seriously for an open European party, do not stir up the peasants, do not squander your energy on strikes, otherwise 'we' will cease to sympathize with you"!

The workers will be able to evaluate such speeches and recognize them even in the garb of "almost Marxist" expressions from any writer of "Ray."

The workers will direct all their attention to supporting, strengthening, developing, and consolidating consciously the spontaneously growing revolutionary strike in preparation for the uprising of peasants and soldiers. If strikes exhaust the workers—they must be conducted in rotation, giving rest to some while raising rested or "fresh" forces to struggle. One must conduct shorter strikes. One must sometimes replace strikes with demonstrations. But the most important thing is that strikes, meetings, demonstrations go on continuously—so that all peasantry and all soldiers learn of the persistent struggle of the workers—so that the village, even the most remote, sees that the cities are in ferment, that "their own" have risen, that they are fighting not for their daily bread but for their very lives, that they are fighting for a better life, for higher wages, for an end to the outrages and arbitrariness of authority, for the transfer of the landowners' lands to the peasants, for the overthrow of the landowners' monarchy of the tsar, for the republic. It is necessary that the dull rage and repressed murmuring of the village, together with the indignation of the barracks, find in the revolutionary strike of the workers their center of attraction. One must work on this without sparing effort—and we shall see the day when the proletariat together with the peasantry and the army overthrows the landowners, topples the tsarist monarchy through popular uprising.

P.S. "Ray" progresses: after the frank-hearted V.A. (No. 56)—the diplomat F.D. (No. 65). But despite the "diplomacy," the meaning of F.D.'s speeches is the same: against the revolutionary strike! Before us stands a thoroughbred liberal, who has not the slightest thought that strikes awaken peasants, lead them to uprising, develop revolutionary agitation in the masses, awaken the army, that from strikes (insofar as they exhaust) one must transition to street demonstrations, etc.

The vulgar liberal phrases of F.D. about "the struggle for the right of organization," as a "matter on the agenda"—constitutional reform "on the agenda" under Treshchenko!—are the sole covering for the struggle of "Ray" against revolutionary strikes. That is not enough, gentlemen liquidators!

"Social-Democrat" No. 30, January 12 (25), 1913

Printed from the text of the newspaper "Social-Democrat"