V. I.

Lenin

Itseems that we are now passing through a period in which our
working-class movement is once more about to engage with irresistible
force in the sharp conflicts that terrify the government and the
propertied classes and bring joy and encouragement to socialists. Yes, we
rejoice in these conflicts and are encouraged by them, notwithstanding the
tremendous number of victims claimed by military reprisals, because the
working class is proving by its resistance that it is not reconciled to
its position, that it refuses to remain in slavery or to submit meekly to
violence and tyranny. Even with the most peaceful course of events, the
present system always and inevitably exacts countless sacrifices from the
working class. Thousands and tens of thousands of men and women, who toil
all their lives to create wealth for others, perish from starvation and
constant malnutrition, die prematurely from diseases caused by horrible
working conditions, by wretched housing and overwork. He is a hundred
times a hero who prefers to die fighting in open struggle against the
defenders and protectors of this infamous system rather than die the
lingering death of a crushed, broken-down, and submissive nag. We do not
by any means want to imply that scuffling with the police is the best form
of struggle. On the contrary, we have always told the workers that it is
in their interests to carry on the struggle in a more calm and restrained
manner, and to try to make use of all discontent for support to the
organised struggle of the revolutionary party. But the principal source
that sustains revolutionary Social-Democracy is the spirit of protest
among the working class which, in view of the violence and oppression
surrounding the workers, is bound to manifest itself from time to time in
the form of desperate outbursts. These outbursts arouse to conscious life the
widest sections of the workers, oppressed by poverty and ignorance, and
stimulate in them a noble hatred for the oppressors and enemies of
liberty. That is why the news of massacres such as that which took place
at the Obukhov Works on May 7, makes us exclaim: “The workers’
revolt has been suppressed; long live the revolt of the workers!”

Therewas a time, and not very long ago at that, when workers’ revolts
were a rare exception, called forth only by some special
circumstances. Now things have changed. A few years ago industry was
flourishing, trade was brisk, and the demand for workers was
great. Nevertheless, the workers organised a number of strikes to improve
their working conditions; they realised that they must not let the moment
slip by, that they must take advantage of the time when the employers were
making particularly high profits and it would he easier to win concessions
from them. The boom, however, has given way to a crisis. The manufacturers
cannot sell their goods, profits have declined, bankruptcies have
increased, factories are cutting production, and workers are being
discharged and turned into the streets in masses without a crust of
bread. The workers now have to fight desperately, not to improve their
conditions, but to maintain the old standards and to reduce the losses the
employers impose on them. And so the working-class movement develops in
depth and extent:

at first, struggle in exceptional and isolated cases; then, unceasing and
stubborn battles during industrial prosperity and the trade boom; finally,
similar unceasing and stubborn struggle in the period of crisis. We may
now say that the working-class movement has become a permanent feature of
our life and that it will grow whatever the conditions.

Thechange-over from boom to crisis will not only teach our workers that
united struggle is a permanent necessity, it will also destroy  the
harmful illusions that began to take shape at the time of industrial
prosperity. By means of strikes, the workers were able in some places to
force concessions from the employers with comparative ease, and this
“economic” struggle assumed an exaggerated significance; it
was forgotten that trade unions and strikes can, at best, only win
slightly better terms for the sale of labour-power as a commodity  Trade
unions and strikes cannot help in times of crisis when there is no demand for this
“commodity”, they cannot change the conditions which, convert labour-power into a commodity and which doom the masses of
working people to dire need and unemployment. To change these
conditions, a revolutionary struggle against the whole existing social
and political system is necessary; the industrial crisis will convince
very many workers of the justice of this statement.

Letus return to the massacre of May 7. We give below avail able
information on the May strikes and manifestations of unrest among the
St. Petersburg workers. [2]
We shall also examine the police report of the massacre. Lately we have learned to understand the
significance of government (and police) reports of strikes,
demonstrations, and clashes with the troops; we have gathered sufficient
material to judge the reliability of these reports—the smoke of
police false hoods may sometimes give a clue to the fire of popular
indignation.

“On May 7,” says the official report, “about two hundred
workers employed in various departments of the Obukhov Steel Works in
the village of Alexandrovskoye on the Schlüsselburg Highway stopped
work after the dinner break, and in the course of their interview with
Lieutenant-Colonel Ivanov, assistant to the director of the works, put
forward a number of groundless demands.”

Ifthe workers stopped work without giving two weeks’ notice (assuming
the stoppage was not due to lawless acts all too frequently committed by
the employers), even according to Russian law (which of late has been
systematically enlarged and sharpened against the workers), they have
merely committed a common offence for which they are liable to
prosecution in a magistrate’s court. But the Russian Government is
making itself more and more ridiculous by its severity. On the one hand,
laws are passed designating new crimes (e.g., wilful refusal to work or
participation in a mob that damages property or resists armed force),
penal ties for striking are increased, etc., while on the other, the
physical and political possibility of applying these laws and imposing
corresponding penalties is disappearing. It is physically impossible to
prosecute thousands and tens of thousands of men for refusing to work,
for striking, or for “mobs”. It is politically impossible to try each case of this
sort, for no matter how the judges are selected and no matter how
publicity is emasculated, there still remains at least the shadow of a
trial, naturally a “trial” of the government and not of the
workers. Thus, criminal laws passed for the definite purpose of
facilitating the government’s political struggle against the
proletariat (and at the same time of concealing the political character of
the struggle by “state” arguments about “public order”, etc.) are steadily forced into the background. by
direct political struggle and open street clashes. “Justice” throws off the mask of majesty and
impartiality, and takes to flight, leaving the field to the police, the
gendarmes, and the Cossacks, who are greeted with stones.

Letus take the government’s reference to the “demands” of the
workers. From a legal standpoint stoppage of work is a misdemeanour,
irrespective of the workers’ demands. But the government has lost its
chance of basing itself on the law it recently issued, and it tries to
justify its reprisals carried out with “the means at its
disposal” by declaring the workers’ demands to be without basis. Who
were the judges in this affair? Lieutenant-Colonel Ivanov, assistant to
the director of the works, the very authority against whom the workers
were complaining! It is not surprising, therefore, that the workers reply
to such explanations by the powers that be with a hail of stones.

Andso, when the workers poured into the street and held up horse trains a
real battle began. Apparently the workers fought with all their might,
for, although armed only with stones, they managed twice to beat
off the attacks by police, gendarmes, mounted guards, and the armed
factory

guard. [1]

It is true, if police reports are to be believed, “several shots” were fired from the crowd, but no one was
injured by them. Stones, however, fell “like hail” , and the workers not only put up a stubborn resistance, they displayed resourcefulness and ability
in adapting themselves immediately to the situation and in selecting the
best form of struggle. They occupied the neighbouring courtyards and
from over the fences poured a hail of stones on the tsar’s
bashi-bazouks, so that even after three volleys had been fired,
killing one man (only one?) and wounding eight (?) (one of whom died the
following day), even after this, although the crowd had fled, the fight
still continued and some companies of the Omsk Infantry Regiment had to be
called out to “clear the workers out of the neighbouring
courtyards”.

Thegovernment emerged victorious, but such victories will bring nearer
its ultimate defeat. Every clash with the people will increase the number
of indignant workers who are ready to fight, and will bring into the
foreground more experienced, better armed, and bolder leaders. We have
already discussed the plan of action these leaders should follow. We have
repeatedly pointed to the imperative necessity for a sound revolutionary
organisation. But in connection with the events of May 7, we must not lose
sight of the following:

Muchhas been said recently about the impossibility and the hopelessness
of street fighting against modern troops. Particularly insistent on this
have been the wise “Critics” who have dragged out the old
lumber of bourgeois science in the guise of new, impartial, scientific
conclusions, and have distorted Engels’ words that refer, with
reservations, only to a temporary tactic of the German

Social-Democrats. [3]

But we see from the example of even this one clash how absurd these arguments are. Street fighting is possible; it is
not the position of the fighters, but the position of the government that
is hopeless if it has to deal with larger numbers than those employed in a
single factory. In the May 7 fighting the workers had nothing but stones,
and, of course, the mere prohibition of the city mayor will not prevent
them from securing other weapons next time. The workers were unprepared
and numbered only three and a half thousand; nevertheless, they repelled
the attack of several hundred mounted guards, gendarmes, city police, and
infantry. Did the police find it easy to storm the one house,
No. 63, Schlüsselburg

Highway? [4]

Ask yourselves—will it be easy to “clear the workers” out of whole blocks, not merely out of one or two courtyards, in the St. Petersburg working-class
districts? When the time of decisive battle comes, will it not be
necessary to “clear” the houses and courtyards of the capital, not only of workers, but of all who have not forgot ten the
infamous massacre of
March 4, [5] who have not become reconciled to the police government, but are only terrified by it and not yet confident of
their own strength?

Comrades!Do your best to collect the names of those killed and wounded on
May 7. Let all workers in the capital honour their memory and prepare for
a new and decisive struggle against the police government for the people’s
liberty!

---
Notes:
[1]
Note this! The government communication states that “the armed
factory guard” “were already standing by in the factory
yard”, whereas the gendarmes, mounted guards, and the city police
were called out later. Since when, and why, was an armed guard
maintained in readiness in the factory yard? Since the First of
May? Did they expect a workers’ demonstration? That we do not know; but it
is clear that the government is deliberately concealing facts that would
explain the mounting discontent and indignation of the workers.
— Lenin

[2]
Lenin refers to a contribution to Iskra , No. 5 (June 1901),
entitled “The First of May in Russia”, which was published in
the section “Chronicle of the Working-Class Movement and Letters
from Factories”.

[3]
Lenin refers to Frederick Engels’ Introduction to Karl Marx’s work The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850; the 1895 edition of the
Introduction was distorted by the German Social- Democrats and construed
by them to mean a rejection of armed uprising and barricade fighting.

Thefull text of the Introduction was first published according to Engels’
manuscript in the U.S.S.R. (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works ,
Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, pp. 118-38). p. 29

[4]
Lenin refers here to the clash between the police and the striking workers
of the Maxwell factory in St. Petersburg in December 1898. For several
hours the police (200 on foot and 100 mounted police), who had arrived to
arrest the “ringleaders” of the strike, could not penetrate
into the workers’ barracks. The workers, who had barricaded themselves,
fought against the police with logs, with bottles, and with boiling water
which they poured on the police.

[5]
Lenin refers here to the brutality of the tsarist police and Cossacks in
dispersing a demonstration in Kazan Square, St. Peters burg, on March 4
(17), 1901. Thousands of students and workers took part in this protest
demonstration against the drafting of students into the army. The tsarist
government used armed force to disperse the demonstration. The
demonstrators were brutally beaten, several were killed and many
crippled. A detailed report of the event was given in Iskra ,
No. 3, in April 1901.