V. I.

Lenin

It has long since been pointed out, and recognised by all, that the
year 1912 was an outstanding landmark in the development of the strike
movement. But not all have realised and taken proper account of it.

Let us take the data on political strikes in the first eleven months of
the year. The result is as follows:

| 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . | 1,052,000 |
| --- | --- |
| 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . | 642,000 |
| 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . | 540,000 |
| . . . . . . | . . . . |
| 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . | about 900,000 |

The number of political strikers in the first nine months was 700,000,
according to the most conservative estimates. Strikes in connection with
clearing up the matter of the delegates in

St. Petersburg [2] involved up to 50,000 persons; the strike in protest
against the Sevastopol executions and the strike on November 15, the day
when the Duma opened, involved 188,000 persons, according to the Moscow
Manufacturers ’ Society . These data are for the period
before November 20. Obviously, 900,000 is a minimum figure. Even
subtracting 100,000 that are hardly comparable with 1905–07 (factories
outside the province of the factory inspectorate), we get 800,000.

In any case, the movement definitely surpassed that in 1906 and 1907,
and fell but slightly short of that in 1905!

What does this mean?

The national scale of the movement at present is, of course, much
smaller than in 1905. Consequently, the beginning of the
revolutionary upswing is incomparably higher today than it was before the first
revolution. Consequently, the coming second revolution even now reveals a
much greater store of revolutionary energy in the proletariat. The
proletariat has grown in numbers—by a minimum of 20 per cent. Its
concentration has increased. The purely proletarian mainstay of the
movement has become stronger due to accelerated dissociation from the
land. The size of the proletarian and semi-proletarian population in
“domestic” industry, handicrafts and agriculture has grown to an enormous
extent defying calculation.

Lastly, there has been an increase in the political consciousness,
experience and determination of the foremost democratic class. This is
admitted by all, but not all can bring themselves to think out all the
implications. Not all can bring themselves to face the truth and admit that
we are witnessing revolutionary mass strikes, the beginning of a
revolutionary upsurge.

This is indicated first and foremost by the fundamental and most
objective fact, one least of all permitting of subjective interpretation,
namely, the scope of the movement. In no country of the world would it be
possible, unless there were a revolutionary social situation, to rouse
hundreds of thousands of workers to political action for the most varied
reasons several times a year. But in our country this rise is taking place
spontaneously, because tens of millions of the semi-proletarian and peasant
population are passing on, if one can use this expression, to their
vanguard a sentiment of concentrated indignation, which is surging up and
overflowing.

The Russian workers’ revolutionary strike in 1912 was national in the
fullest sense of the term. For what should be understood by a national
movement is not at all one with which—in the conditions of a
bourgeois-democratic revolution—the whole bourgeoisie, or at least the
liberal bourgeoisie, is in agreement. Only opportunists hold that view. On
the contrary, a national movement is one which expresses the objective
needs of the whole country, and aims its heaviest blows at the central
forces of the enemy opposing the country’s development. A national movement
is one which has the sympathy of the vast majority of the population.

Such precisely is the workers’ political movement this year, a movement
which has the sympathy of all working and exploited people, of all
democrats, however weak, downtrodden, disunited and helpless they may
be. The more definite demarcation between liberalism and democracy
(achieved not without a struggle against those who aspired to “wrest the
Duma from the hands of the reactionaries”) is a tremendous advantage of
the new movement, If the revolution is to succeed, it must know as exactly
as possible with whom it can go into battle, which of its allies is
unreliable and who is its real enemy.

That is why the direct actions of the liberals (Cadets) against the new
revolution are so very significant. And that is why the slogan of a
republic, which clears the minds of all democrats willing to fight from the
monarchist (as well as “constitutional”) illusions which sapped so much
the strength of the onslaught in 1905, is of the most exceptional
importance (by comparison with Europe) in Russia just now. Of historic
importance in the process of growth of the new revolution in Russia are two
factors:
firstly, the April and May strikes during which the St. Petersburg
workers—in spite of the arrest of their leading organisation, the
St. Petersburg Committee—put forward the slogan of a republic, an
eight-hour working day, and confiscation of the landed estates. Secondly,
the November strikes and demonstrations (see letters from Riga and
Moscow [3] the same thing happened in St. Petersburg, hut the arrests
swept away our correspondents). The slogans of those demonstrations were
not only “Down with the death penalty! Down with war!”, but also “Long
live the revolutionary working class and the revolutionary army!”

In the streets of St. Petersburg, Riga and Moscow, the proletariat held
out its hand to those foremost fighters of the muzhik armed forces who had
risen heroically against the monarchy.

*     * *
The liberal bourgeoisie is against a new revolution, against
revolutionary mass strikes. But the liberals are by no means opposed to
political strikes in general, that is, if these are only evidence of a “revival” and support merely the liberal
slogan of constitutional reform. And objectively, irrespective of their
“good” intentions, our liquidators are mere servants of the
counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie; they marked both historic moments of the
upswing by “pronouncements” against revolutionary strikes!! In Nevsky Golos No. 1, on May 20, 1912, the unforgettable and incomparable
V. Yezhov rebelled against “complicating” economic strikes by political
strikes and vice versa, against their “harmful lumping together”
(cf. Sotsial-Demokrat No. 27,

p. 4) [1]

In November 1912 the liquidationist Luch , too, was up in arms
against strikes. Afterwards it tried to put inattentive people “on a false
scent” by referring to the fact that the Social-Democratic group, too, was
against the November 15 strike. But anyone who looks at all into the
meaning of the event will easily see through Luch’s trickery.

Yes, both the Social-Democratic group and the St. Petersburg Committee
found the November 15 strike inopportune. They sounded a warning against
that particular strike on that particular day. It was the duty of the
working-class press to report this. And Luch and Pravda
did.

But Luch did something besides.

After the event of November 15 (when the most zealous in striking was
the very same Vyborg District which until then had been most of all linked
with the Mensheviks), and after the movement had grown to the dimensions of
a demonstration, the sagacious Luch carried articles (an editorial
and, following the editorial of November 17, a feuilleton on
November 21) crying out against the “dangerous frittering away of
forces”, declaring that “if strikes are used frequently, people will stop
sympathising with them”, advancing the slogan “Let us seek a different
path” and “Nothing is to be gained by outbreaks” ( !?! ), and
howling against “playing at strikes”.

That is the kind of “philosophy”, advocated by you liquidator
gentlemen, and long familiar to the St. Petersburg workers, both from
Nevsky Golos and from speeches by members of your “initiating
group”, that has gained you the legitimate hatred and contempt of the St. Petersburg workers. A
particular strike may be unfortunate or take place at an unfortunate
moment. But only liberals and counter-revolutionaries are free to describe
as “playing at strikes” one of the world’s greatest movements, which
brought into action almost a million proletarians!

Frequent strikes are apt to exhaust the workers. It may well he,
therefore, that we shall have to call for shorter strikes and for
demonstrations that have been better prepared. But the event of November 15
was remarkable precisely as a new step forward in the demonstration
movement!

Instead of honestly admitting your mistake (for you were plainly
mistaken as to the significance of November 15), you liquidators began to
talk, like the most brazen liberals, about the “political illiteracy” of
the revolutionary appeal, you who are repeating the ABC of liberal
politics!

Let the workers judge the worth of the liquidators’ smooth-spoken talk
about their “unity” with the Party when it happens that, at the time of
the rise and development of revolutionary strikes and demonstrations, the
liquidators launch a struggle against them, using the legal press to revile
illegal appeals!!

*     * *
However, there is a more profound reason for the liquidators’ campaign
against strikes. The liquidators are slaves of the liberals. And the
liberals have really begun to feel ill at ease because of the stubborn
character of revolutionary strikes. The “Progressist” factory owner has
begun to grumble and even to rage. The Milyukovs now fear lest their
“ bloc ” with Rodzyanko should be disturbed.

Liquidationist policy serves to subject the workers to the
liberals. Marxist policy raises the workers to the role of leaders of the
peasantry . One cannot speak of this legally, liquidator gentlemen,
but one must think of it and tell about it to those who want to be
revolutionary Social-Democrats.

In free, constitutional Europe, political strikes for the time being
(so long as the socialist revolution has not yet begun) serve the struggle for individual reforms. In slave, Asiatic,
tsarist Russia, which is drawing near her next bourgeois-democratic revolution, political strikes are the only
serious means of stirring up the peasantry and the better part of the
peasant army, of shaking them up and rousing them to a revolutionary
struggle! The time is past—fortunately for Russia—when there was no one
to “go among the people” but heroic solitary Narodniks. The time is
passing when solitary terrorists could speak of “rousing” the people by
terrorism. Russia has left those sad times behind. In 1905 the
revolutionary proletariat found for itself a different way “to go among
the people”, and a different means of drawing the masses into the
movement.

That means is revolutionary strikes, stubborn strikes shifting from
place to place, from one part of the country to another, recurrent strikes,
strikes which rouse the back ward to a new life of struggle for economic
improvements, strikes which brand and lash every salient act of violence or
tyranny, every crime of tsarism, strike-demonstrations which unfurl the red
banner in the streets of the capital cities and bring revolutionary
speeches and revolutionary slogans to the crowd , to the mass of
the people.

Such strikes cannot be called forth artificially, but neither can they
be stopped once they have begun to involve hundreds and hundreds of
thousands.

Let the liberal, who is moved by being given a seat beside Rodzyanko
“himself”, tell the workers: “Brothers, no more outbreaks, seek a
different path, take up the peaceful trade union movement, prepare
yourselves earnestly for an open European party, don’t incite the muzhik to
rebel lion, don’t waste your energy on strikes or ‘we’ shall stop
sympathising with you!”

The workers will know how to assess such talk, and will see through it
even in the garb of the “near-Marxist” expressions of any of the
Luch writers.

The workers will concentrate on deliberately supporting,
strengthening, developing and consolidating the spontaneously growing
revolutionary strike to prepare the peas ants and the armed forces for a
rising. If strikes exhaust the workers, they should be carried out
intermittently, enabling some of the forces to rest while the forces that are rested or “fresh” are roused to take up the struggle. Shorter strikes
should be called. Occasionally strikes should be replaced by
demonstrations. But the important thing is that strikes, meetings and
demonstrations should take place continuously, that the whole peasantry and
the armed forces should know of the workers’ stubborn fight, and that the
countryside—even the most out-of-the-way corners of it—should see that
there is unrest in the towns, that “ their ” people have risen in
revolt, that they are waging a life-and-death struggle, that they are
fighting for a better life, for higher pay, for an end to the outrages and
tyranny of the authorities, for the transfer of the landed estates to the
peasants, for the overthrow of the tsar’s landlord monarchy, for a
republic. It is essential that the smouldering resentment and subdued
murmurings of the countryside should, along with the indignation in the
barracks, find a centre of attraction in the workers’ revolutionary
strikes. We must work on this indefatigably, and we shall live to see the
day when the proletariat, jointly with the peasantry and the armed forces,
brings down the landlords and overthrows the tsarist monarchy by a people’s
uprising.

P.S. Luch is making progress: after the unsophisticated
V. A. (No. 56) comes the diplomatic
F. D. [4] (No. 65). But for all his “diplomacy”, the meaning of F.D.’s
statements is the same—he is against revolutionary strikes! We
are faced with an out-and-out liberal to whom it never occurs that
strikes awaken the peasants and lead them to insurrection, that strikes
develop revolutionary agitation among the masses and awaken the
armed forces, and that it is necessary to pass from strikes (insofar as
they are exhausting) to street demonstrations, etch

F.D.’s . vulgar liberal phrases about the “struggle for the right to organise” as the “immediate task”—a
constitutional reform “on the order of the day” under Treshchenko!—is
the sole cover for Luch’s fight against revolutionary strikes. It
is not enough, liquidator gentlemen!