V. I.

Lenin

Geneva, November 1 (October 19)

Late Monday night the telegraph brought Europe the news of the tsar’s Manifesto
of October 17. The Times correspondent wired: “The people have won the day. The Emperor has surrendered. The autocracy has ceased
to exist.” Friends of the Russian revolution living in distant Baltimore
(U.S.A.) expressed themselves differently in a cable they sent to
Proletary : “Congratulations on the first great victory of the
Russian revolution.”

Thelatter appraisal of the events is undoubtedly far more accurate. We have
every reason to be jubilant. The concession made by the tsar is indeed a great
victory for the revolution, but this victory is still a long way from deciding
the fate of the entire cause of liberty. The tsar is far from having
surrendered. The autocracy has by no means ceased to exist. It has merely
retreated, leaving the field of battle to the enemy; it has retreated after an
exceedingly heavy battle, but it has not yet been defeated by a long ways It is
mustering its forces, and the revolutionary people have still to solve many
important military problems before they will be able to carry the revolution to
real and final victory.

October17 will go down in history as one of the great days of the Russian
revolution. On this day the nation-wide strike, the like of which the world had
never before seen, reached its climax. The mighty arm of the proletariat,
which. was raised in an outburst of heroic solidarity all over Russia, brought
the entire industrial, commercial and administrative life of the country to a standstill. It was the lull before the
storm. Reports, one more alarming than the other, began pouring in from
various big cities. The troops were wavering. The government refrained
from taking repressive measures, the revolutionaries had not yet launched
any serious open attacks, but insurrection was erupting on all sides.

Atthe eleventh hour the tsarist government decided to yield, realising that an
explosion was inevitable, that already under no circumstances was it at all
capable of gaining a full victory, but was very likely to suffer complete
defeat. Trepov is reported as having said, “First there will be blood
shed, and then a constitution.” The inevitability of a constitution could no
longer be doubted, even if the uprising were suppressed, so the government
decided that it was better to avoid the risk of serious and general bloodshed,
for tsarist rule would be swept away altogether in the event of the victory of
the people.

Weknow only an infinitesimal portion of that information possessed by the
government on Monday, October 17, which compelled it to evade a desperate battle
and yield. The local and central authorities strained every effort to hold up or
curtail messages about the alarming progress of the uprising, but even the
scanty, random and curtailed reports that found their way into the European
press leave no doubt that this was a genuine uprising, capable of inspiring
mortal fear in the tsar and his ministers.

Theforces of tsarism and of the revolution are equally balanced, we wrote a
week ago, on the basis of the first news of the country-wide political
strike. Tsarism was no longer strong enough to crush the revolution; the
revolution was not yet strong enough to crush tsarism. But with such an
equilibrium of forces, all delay was fraught with the greatest danger to
tsarism, for delay was bound to cause the troops to waver.

Theuprising was spreading. Blood was already being spilt all over Russia. The
people were fighting at the barricades, from Revel to Odessa, from Poland to
Siberia. In isolated and small encounters the troops were victorious. but at the
same time tidings of a new and unprecedented phenomenon began to come in, a
phenomenon plainly testifying to the military impotence of the autocracy. This was the news of the
negotiations between the tsarist troops and the insurgent people
(Kharkov), the news of the withdrawal of troops from cities (Kharkov,
Revel) as the only way to restore tranquillity. Negotiations with the
insurgent people, the withdrawal of troops—that is the beginning of the
end. Better than any arguments it proves that the military authorities were
aware of the extreme precariousness of their position. It shows that
disaffection among the troops has spread to a truly formidable extent. Scattered
news items and rumours seeped through to the foreign press. In Kiev soldiers who
had refused to fire were arrested. Similar cases occurred in Poland. In Odessa
the infantry were confined to their barracks, the authorities fearing to bring
the men out into the streets. In St. Petersburg unrest was beginning to manifest
itself in the navy, and it was re ported that the guards regiments were totally
unreliable. As for the Black Sea Fleet, it has been impossible to this very day
to ascertain the whole truth. On October 17, telegrams were already reporting
that rumours of a new mutiny in this fleet were very persistent, that all
telegrams were being intercepted by the authorities, who resorted to every
means in an attempt to prevent reports of the events from spreading.

Ifwe bring together all these fragmentary reports we cannot but arrive at the
conclusion that even from a purely military standpoint the autocracy’s position
was desperate. It was still suppressing isolated outbreaks, its troops were
still taking barricades here and there, but these isolated encounters merely
served to inflame passions, merely in creased indignation, merely accelerated a
mightier general outbreak, which the government particularly dreaded, since it
could no longer rely on the army.

The Enemy declined a pitched battle. He retreated, abandoning the battlefield
to the revolutionary people—retreat ed to new positions, which he
considers better fortified, and where he hopes to rally more reliable forces,
weld them together and infuse a new spirit into them, and choose a better moment
for an offensive.

Thisappraisal of the great day of October 17 is confirmed by a number of
relatively “unbiased” reports in the European bourgeois press.

Onthe one hand, the European bourgeoisie is sighing with relief. The tsar’s
Manifesto promises a regular constitution; the Duma is invested with
legislative powers; no law can come into force prior to approval by the
people’s representatives, ministerial responsibility has been granted;
civil liberties have been granted—inviolability of the person,
freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association. The stock
exchange is hastening to express fuller confidence in Russia’s
finances. Russian securities, which have been falling for the last few
days, are now going up. The foreign bankers who fled from revolutionary
St. Petersburg are promising to return within a fortnight. In the
constitution the European bourgeoisie sees a pledge of “peaceful” minor concessions, which will wholly satisfy the
propertied classes without at the same time allowing the revolutionary
proletariat to acquire “too much” freedom.

Onthe other hand, even the liberal bourgeois cannot but see that the tsar’s
Manifesto contains only hollow words, mere promises. Who nowadays will believe
promises alone? Are not all these phrases about inviolability of the person and
freedom of speech sheer mockery when the prisons are still packed with so-called
political offenders, and the censorship is still operating? What kind of people
will carry out the tsar’s promise? The Witte government, which is rumoured to
include Kuzmin-Karavayev, Kosich, Koni? This government will not even be one of
the liberal bourgeoisie. It will only be a government of the liberal
bureaucracy , which has so often been defeated by the reactionary Court
clique. Can it be that the people have spilt their blood in the struggle for
liberty only to have to rely on the liberal bureaucrats, who confine themselves
to mere words and promises?!

No,tsarism is still far from having surrendered. The autocracy has by no means
fallen as yet. Many great battles will still have to be fought by the
revolutionary proletariat, and the first victory will help it to rally its
forces and enlist new allies in the struggle..

“Thevery success of the cause of freedom,” The Times correspondent wrote the day the Manifesto was proclaimed, “will only
stimulate the reactionary elements to greater activity, and so long as the army
remains under its present chiefs Russia cannot be safe from the possibility of a
pronunciamento .” “It is ... doubtful whether the forced
surrender of the government in the very midst of a revolutionary upheaval can be regarded
otherwise than as a signal for further strife.” “It is not known whether
the bureaucracy has been ousted from its citadel or whether it has merely
retreated from its advance positions,” say the bourgeois optimists, although
the facts show clearly that the “citadel” of the autocracy is still
quite intact.

Theenforced nature of the concession is what most of all disturbs the moderate
bourgeois. Le Temps , organ of the ruling money-bags of France, waxed
highly indignant over “anarchy”, and showered abuse and slander on
the organisers of the all-Russia political strike and its participants. Though
satisfied by the tsar’s constitutional promises as such, this newspaper now
remarks with concern: “Instead of acting on his own initiative, the tsar
contended himself with signing the ’instructions’ of the liberal
opposition. This is a poor method, lending the subsequent reforms an enforced
nature, the nature of something fragmentary and sudden. This method places the
government at odds with itself and sets a premium on violence. Unfortunately, it
is only too clear that matters had reached a point where there was no other way
out of the impasse into which the government had been led. Let us pass a wet
sponge over the nature of this capitulation—capitulation not only to the
constitutionalists, moderate souls, who should have been heeded sooner, but
capitulation to a strike and revolution.”

No,gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, the workers will never forget the enforced
nature of the tsar’s capitulation! The workers will never forget that it was
only by force, by the force of their organisation, their unanimity and their
mass heroism, that they wrested from tsarism a recognition of liberty in a paper
manifesto; and only in this way will they win real liberty for themselves.

Westated above that the enemy retreated, abandoning the battlefield to the
revolutionary proletariat. We must add now: the retreating enemy is being hard
pressed. On Monday, October 17, the tsar’s Manifesto was issued. On Tuesday,
October 18, according to a Wolff Press Agency report, a Manifesto of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour

Party was issued in St. Petersburg in a huge number of copies. It declares that
the struggle of the proletariat will by no means cease as a result of the
tsar’s Manifesto. It must be the proletariat’s tactics to take advantage
of rights granted under the force of its blows, to arrange workers’
meetings to decide the question of the continuation of the strike, to
organise a militia to protect revolutionary rights, and to put forward the
demand for a full amnesty. At mass meetings Social-Democratic speakers are
urging the con vocation of a constituent assembly. According to telegrams,
the Strike Committee [1] is demanding an amnesty and the immediate
convocation of a constituent assembly elected on the basis of universal
and direct suffrage.

Theirrevolutionary instinct at once prompted the St. Petersburg workers to
adopt the right slogan—energetic continuation of the struggle, and
utilisation of the newly-won positions for a continued onslaught and the actual
destruction of the autocracy. The struggle continues. Meetings are being held
ever more frequently and are being attended by larger number of people. The joy
and the legitimate pride evoked by the first victory are not hampering the new
organisation of forces for the purpose of carrying the revolution to
completion. Its success depends on still broader sections of the people being
won over to the side of liberty, on their enlightenment and organisation. The
working class has shown its titanic might in the all-Russia political strike,
but there is still much to be done among the back ward sections of the urban
proletariat. While establishing a workers’ militia—the only bulwark of the
revolution— while preparing ourselves for new and even more determined
struggles, while upholding our old slogans, we must also pay special attention
to the army. The tsar’s enforced con cession was bound to give rise to the
greatest wavering in its ranks, and now we must attract the soldiers to workers’
meetings, intensify our agitation in the barracks, extend our liaisons with
officers, creating, alongside of the revolutionary army of workers, cadres of
class-conscious revolutionaries among the troops as well, troops which only
yesterday were most loyal to the tsar and are now on the verge of becoming a
people’s army.

Therevolutionary proletariat has succeeded in neutralising the army, after paralysing it in the great days of the general strike. It must
now work to bring the army completely over to the side of the people.

Therevolutionary proletariat has brought about the first great victory of the
urban revolution. It must now broaden and deepen the foundations of the
revolution by extending it to the countryside. To raise the peasantry to the
level of conscious defence of the cause of liberty, to demand that serious
measures be taken in the interests of the peasantry, and to prepare in the
countryside a movement which, in conjunction with the advanced urban
proletariat, will deal the final blow at the autocracy and win complete and
genuine liberty—such is Russian Social-Democracy’s next task.

Thesuccess of the revolution depends on the size of the proletarian and peasant
masses that will rise in its defence and for its consummation. Revolutionary war
differs from other wars in that it draws its main reserves from the camp of its
enemy’s erstwhile allies, erstwhile supporters of tsarism, or people who blindly
obeyed tsarism. The success of the all-Russia political strike will have a
greater influence over the minds and hearts of the peasants than the confusing
words of any possible manifestoes or laws.

Whenthe Russian revolution was just getting under way, the liberal bourgeoisie
occupied the whole political fore ground; such was the situation a year ago.

Therevolution asserted itself when the urban working class appeared on the
scene on January 9.

Therevolution won its first victory when the proletariat of all the nations of
Russia rose as one man and made the tsar’s throne tremble, the throne that had
caused such incalculable distress to all the nations, and most of all to the
toiling classes of all the nations.

Therevolution will deal the enemy the final blow and sweep the throne of the
blood-thirsty tsar from the face of the earth, when the workers rise once more,
with the peasantry following their lead.

Andfurther, the Russian revolution has another reserve. Gone are the times when
nations and states could live isolated from one another. Look—Europe is
already stirring. Its bourgeoisie is disconcerted and prepared to give millions and billions to stop the conflagration in Russia. The rulers of the militarist
European powers are contemplating military assistance for the tsar. Kaiser
Wilhelm has already dispatched several cruisers and destroyers to
establish direct links between the German militarists and
Peterhof. European counter-revolution is holding out a hand to Russian
counter-revolution.

Justyou try, citizen Hohenzollern! We too have a European reserve of the
Russian revolution. This reserve is the international socialist proletariat, the
international revolutionary Social-Democratic movement. The workers of the
whole world are hailing the victory of the Russian workers with enthusiasm and,
conscious of the close links between the various contingents of the
international army of socialism, are themselves preparing for the great and
decisive struggle.

Youare not alone, workers and peasants of all Russia! If you succeed in
overthrowing, crushing and destroying the tyrants of feudal, police-ridden,
landlord and tsarist Russia, your victory will serve as a signal for a world
struggle against the tyranny of capital, a struggle for the complete, economic
as well as political emancipation of the toilers, a struggle for the deliverance
of humanity from destitution, and for the realisation of socialism.

---
Notes:
[1]
The reference is to the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’
Deputies, which arose as the united strike committee during the October
All-Russia political strike. On October 13 (26), St. Petersburg workers elected
their representatives to the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies so as to give
leadership to the strike. In point of organisation the Soviet took shape on
October 17 (30), when the provisional executive committee was elected.

Thefirst Soviets of Workers’ Deputies arose out of the strike movement even
prior to the October general strike. In May 1905 a Soviet was formed in
Ivanovo-Voznesensk, and a month later in Kostroma, while in September Soviets of
Deputies were formed in Moscow by workers in individual trades, such as printers
and tobacco workers. These first Soviets were already marked by a trend towards
functions wider than those of strike committees, so that when the October strike
broke out and a Soviet was formed in St. Petersburg they gave an impetus to the
appearance of Soviets in other parts of the country. Shortly before the
December insurrection in Moscow, the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ Deputies came
into being, the example being followed in Kiev, Kharkov, Rostov-on-Don, Odessa,
Nikolayev, Ekaterinoslav, Vladikavkaz, Revel, Novoros siisk, Saratov, Chita,
Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Baku, and elsewhere.

Indefiance of all the institutions of the tsar’s government, the Soviets issued
their own decrees, orders and instructions, and on their own authority they
introduced the eight-hour working day and instituted democratic liberties.

The Bolsheviks everywhere entered the Soviets, and wherever they succeeded in
gaining dominant influence the Soviets became militant centres for the
mobilisation of revolutionary forces, where preparations for an insurrection
were made and carried out. Thus, the Moscow Soviet was the headquarters of the
December insur rection, and in Krasnoyarsk and Novorossiisk the Soviets took
over power. The St. Petersburg Soviet “was weakest as an organ of the new
power” (Lenin). Leadership in that Soviet was seized by the Mensheviks, so
that it could not perform its main task—become the organ of an armed
uprising and of the struggle for the overthrow of the autocracy.

Lenin,who developed the theory of the Soviets, regarded them as a mass
political organisation of the working class, as organs of insurrection, and
embryos of a new revolutionary system of rule.

The Bolsheviks differed sharply from the Mensheviks on the question of the role
and significance of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. The Mensheviks
belittled the role of the Soviets, reducing them merely to organs of local
self-government. In their practical activities, the Mensheviks limited the
functions of the Soviets to the defence of the workers’ economic
interests.

The Soviets of 1905, one of the greatest historic gains of the working class,
were the prototype of Soviet power as established in 1917.

Onthe Soviets of Workers’ Deputies see the following articles by Lenin:
“Our Tasks and the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies”; “Resolution
of the Executive Committee of the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies on
Measures for Counteracting the Lockout, Adopted on November 14 (27), 1905”;
“The Provocation that Failed”; “The Dying Autocracy and New
Organs of Popular Rule”; “Socialism and Anarchism”; “The
Socialist Party and Non-Party Revolutionism”; “The Victory of the
Cadets and the Tasks of the
Workers’ Party”, etc.