V. I.

Lenin

Metalworkers’ Strikes in 1912

The Association of Factory Owners in the Moscow Industrial
Area has this year published (Moscow, 1913, P. P. Ryabushinsky’s Press)
something in the nature of a report on its activities for 1912. Perhaps the
most interesting part of the report is that giving data on the strike
movement in various parts of Russia.

I

The total number of strikers in Russia is estimated by the Association
of Moscow Factory Owners as 96,750 in 1911 and 211,595 in 1912. These
figures are for economic strikes only . The Association estimates
political strikes as affecting 850,000 workers in 1912, 8,000 in 1911 and
4,000 in 1910.

Note that “for convenient comparison with official information”,
which does not cover enterprises not under the Factory Inspectorate, the
Association of Moscow magnates has omitted the 6,000 Lena strikers. It goes
without saying that we still have no guarantee that such a comparison has
been done correctly—the factory owners decided to copy the bad aspects of
our official statistics and not worry about the completeness of their data
or even about the accuracy of those who compiled them. The summary table of
the number of strikers (page 23 of the report), for instance, is
astonishingly full of crude errors, which we have endeavoured to correct in
giving the totals quoted above. That table assessed the metalworkers
participating in strikes in the Kingdom of Poland for the whole of
1912 as 2,390, and on page 56 we are told that for seven months of
1912

a total of 3,790 metalworkers took part in strikes in the Kingdom of
Poland!

One cannot help wishing that our Kit Kityches would hire writers able
to count or would send their statistics to workers’ trade unions to be
checked and corrected.

Let us see what role the metalworkers played in the economic strike
movement of 1912 according to the factory owners’ statistics.

These data distribute the total number of strikers, 211,595, as
follows: metalworkers, 78,195; textile workers, 89,540; workers of all
other branches of industry, 43,860. Since there are far fewer metalworkers
than textile workers in Russia, these figures show immediately that in 1912
the metalworkers conducted a most stubborn and persistent strike
struggle as compared with workers in other branches of industry. To give
this conclusion clearer expression, let us compare the total number of
workers in Russia with the number of strikers in 1912.

| | Total number of workers in Russia according to statistics | Number of strikers in 1912 (according
to the factory owners’ data) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1908 (including miners) | 1910 (excluding miners) |
| Metalworkers . . . . . . . . | 529,274 | 280,194 | 78,195 |
| Textile workers . . . . . . . | 823,401 | 840,520 | 89,540 |
| Others . . . . . . . . . . . | 901,112 | 831,241 | 43,860 |
| Totals . . . . . . . | 2,253,787 | 1,951,955 | 211,595 |

These data show dearly that the metalworkers hold first place for the
vigorous nature of their strike struggle; the second place is held by the
textile workers, and the workers in other branches of industry take last
place.

If the “other” workers had been as energetic in striking as the
metalworkers, the number of strikers would have been increased by some
90,000.

There is no doubt that the relatively more favourable market conditions
in 1912 facilitated the strike struggle of the metalworkers, but, although
the metalworkers outdid everyone else in persistence, the “others”, as we
shall see later, fared best of all as far as success of the
economic strikes was concerned.

II

The persistence of the strike struggle is determined, among other
things, by the average duration of the strikes. This average is obtained by
dividing the total number of days lost through strikes by the number of
strikers.

Here are the figures given by the Association of Factory Owners:

| | Average duration of strike |
| --- | --- |
| 1895-1904 . . . . . . . . | 4.8 days |
| 1909 . . . . . . . . . . | 6.5 ” |
| 1911 . . . . . . . . . . | 8.2 ” |
| 1912 . . . . . . . . . . | 13.4 ” | “ It turns out that the resistance of the workers,” says the report,
“was almost twice as great in 1912 as that of 1911.” To this we must add
that if we take the last seven months of 1912 (and, indeed, only for this
period are the data in the report under review reasonably well processed),
we get an average of 16 days as the length of a strike.

It therefore follows that the stubbornness of the workers in the strike
struggle is undoubtedly increasing and is becoming greater as time goes on.

The duration of the strikes in the different branches of industry was
as follows:

| | 1911 | 1912 | The last seven months of 1912 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Metalworkers . . . . . . . . | 10.0 days | 14.2 days | 18.8 days |
| Textile workers . . . . . . . | 9.2 ” | 11.9 ” | 14.0 ” |
| Others . . . . . . . . . . . | 5.0 ” | 15.6 ” | 16.8 ” |
| All industries . . . | 8.2 ” | 13.4 ” | 16.0 ” |

From this we see that as far as concerns the duration of strikes,
metalworkers held first place in 1911 and in the second half of 1912; it
was only in the first half of 1912 that the “others” took first place and
the metalworkers found themselves in the second place. Throughout the whole
of the period under review the textile workers have been in the second
place as far as the duration of their strikes is concerned.

III

The factory owners assess the general outcome of the strikes by a
computation of “losses to industry” from strikes. Our capitalists do not wish to compute what the working class has gained,
through strikes! Here is a summary of the factory owners’ statistics:

| Branches of industry | Direct losses to industry from strikes (economic) | Loss of workers’ wages | Loss to country in underproduc- tion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (thousand rubles) |
| Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . | 558 | 1,145 | 4,959 |
| Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . | 479 | 807 | 6,010 |
| Others . . . . . . . . . . . . | 328 | 529 | 3,818 |
| Totals for 1912 . . . . . | 1,365 | 2,481 | 14,787 |
| ” ” 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . | 402 | 716 | 4,563 |

We see from this table that in 1912 the capitalists’ losses were
three times greater than in 1911.

Representatives of bourgeois political economy will object—but, they
will say, did not the “country” lose three times as much and were not the
workers’ wage losses three times as much, and are not the workers’ losses
in wages of more significance than the factory owners’ losses?

According to factory owners’ statistics, and bourgeois logic, too,
these foolish workers are only doing themselves harm with their strikes,
and the solicitous authorities and capitalist benefactors who persecute
them for striking are only acting in the interests of the workers....

The same factory owners tell us that they have succeeded in assessing
the results of the 1911 strikes in respect of 96,730 strikers.

In the strike struggle 47,369 workers (49 per cent) were
defeated and 49,361 (51 per cent) achieved the complete or partial
satisfaction of their demands, i.e., were successful.

This is the result of strikes that factory owners’ statistics and
bourgeois economy prefer not to take into account! And, indeed, it cannot
be reckoned in rubles; for apart from the workers’ direct gain in increased
wages

when a strike is successful, there is still another “gain”. The entire
working class, and, therefore, the entire country (the country of
the working masses and not of the bourgeois minority) gains from the
resistance offered by striking workers to the exploiters. Without that
resistance the workers would have become downright paupers, crushed by the
high cost of living; without that resistance they would be transformed from
human beings into the hopeless slaves of capital.

According to the factory owners’ statistics, strikes were less
successful in the second half of 1912; 52 per cent of the workers on strike
suffered defeat , only 36 per cent were successful , and
for 11 per cent the outcome was not determined. At this point we must make
a more thorough examination of the role of striking metalworkers in Russia
in general and in the various districts in particular.

IV

The Association of Moscow Factory Owners provides fairly well processed
information on strikes, as we have said, only for the last seven months of
1912. The information covers five areas of Russia—the Moscow,
St. Petersburg, Baltic and Southern areas, and the Kingdom of Poland.

The metalworkers striking during these months are distributed by areas
as follows:

| Area | Number of strikers in the last seven months of 1912 |
| --- | --- |
| Total | Metalworkers |
| Moscow . . . . . . . . . | 48,140 | 3,760 |
| St. Petersburg . . . . . | 35,390 | 15,160 |
| Baltic . . . . . . . . . | 13,210 | 1,160 |
| Southern . . . . . . . . | 22,195 | 16,605 |
| Kingdom of Poland . . . . | 12,690 | 3,790 |
| Totals . . . . . . . . | 131,625 | 40,475 |

In the Southern area, therefore, metalworkers predominate among the
total number of strikers, In the St. Petersburg area they constitute a very significant section of the strikers (over 40
per cent) and are second only to the textile workers (16,770 strikers in
the St. Petersburg area). In the Moscow, Baltic and Polish areas, the
metalworkers were but a small minority among the strikers.

By comparing the first five months of 1912 with the last seven months
we get:

| | Number of strikers: |
| --- | --- |
| First 5 months | Last 7 months |
| 1912 |
| Metalworkers . . . . | 37,720 | 40,475 |
| Textile workers . . . | 22,950 | 60,590 |
| Others . . . . . . . . | 19,300 | 24,560 |
| Totals . . . . . | 79,970 | 131,625 |

In the second half of the year the vigour with which the metalworkers
engaged in strikes was somewhat less—the strike movement greatly
increased among the textile workers while that of workers in other branches
of Industry remained at approximately the same level.

V

To assess the outcome of strikes the Moscow Association of Factory
Owners divides strikers into three groups—those defeated, those
successful (whose demands were wholly or partially acceded to) and those
whose strikes ended without definite results.

This is one of the most interesting of all questions of strike
statistics. The millionaires’ association has handled the question badly;
for example, there are no data on offensive strikes (when the workers
demand an improvement in their living and working conditions) and
defensive strikes (when workers resist changes introduced by the
capitalists worsening living and working conditions). Nor is there
any detailed information on the causes of strikes (such information is
given even in our official statistics), etc.

The way the Association of Moscow Factory Owners have handled what
information they do give is, furthermore, extremely unsatisfactory. There
are even obvious cases of out-and-out distortion of figures; in the Moscow
area, for instance, the number of metalworkers successful in strikes is
assessed at 40 (with 3,420 defeated and 300 with undetermined results).

But in the letterpress of the report, page 35, we find that at the
beginning of July 1912, there was a strike of workers in a number of art
metalware workshops involving more than 1,200 workers in
15 enterprises. It was an offensive strike—the workers demanded a
nine-hour day with a seven-hour day on the eve of holidays, as well as
higher wages and better sanitary conditions. The owners of the workshops
tried to organise resistance and decided unanimously not to make
concessions and not to accept orders from the shops on strike. The workers
had apparently chosen a favourable moment—it was the height of the
building season, “it was hard to find unengaged workers. By the end of July the owners of the majority of work shops made concessions ”.

This is what the report says! And in the statistical table the number
of metalworkers winning strikes is shown as 40 ( forty !). One
begins to wonder whether the factory owners’ statisticians were not only
too willing “to forget” the victories of the workers. Did they
not strive—unwittingly, of course—to please the Kit Kityches by
understating the number of victorious workers?

In any case, organised, class-conscious workers must approach the
factory owners’ statistics with caution and scepticism and must persist in
their attempts to compile their own , workers’ strike statistics.

The overall figures on the outcome of strikes given by the factory
owners are:

| Number of strikers | Metal- workers | Textile workers | Others | Totals |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Defeated . . . . . . . . | 19,990 | 43,085 | 7,150 | 70,225 |
| Successful . . . . . . . | 17,860 | 20,285 | 9,520 | 47,665 |
| Outcome unknown . . . | 2,625 | 3,220 | 7,890 | 13,735 |
| Totals . . . . . . | 40,475 | 66,590 | 24,560 | 131,625 |

We see from this that the most successful of all were workers in
other branches of industry—more workers won their strikes than
lost them. Second place is held by the metalworkers; the number of
successful strikers is nevertheless very considerable—over 40 per cent of
the total. The textile workers had the worst results—their losses were
more than twice as great as their gains.

VI

Taking them by and large, the results of the strike struggle in 1912
were not bad, although they were not so good as those of 1911. To make it
easier to compare the data for different years let us divide the number of
strikers, the outcome of whose strikes is unknown, equally between the
successful and unsuccessful strikers. In this way we obtain for the last
seven months of 1912, a total of 77,000 unsuccessful (i.e., 58.4 per cent)
and 55,000 successful (i.e., 41.6 per cent) strikers out of 132,000.

It cannot be guaranteed that these figures are identical in kind with
those of official statistics for previous years. We shall, however, quote
these figures so that workers will be able to judge the general
outcome of strikes in Russia in the best and worst years of the
working-class movement.

| | Number of strikers (thousands) |
| --- | --- |
| Suc- cessful | % | Unsuc- cessful | % | Totals |
| 1895–1904 (total for ten years) | 159 | 37.5 | 265 | 62.5 | 424 |
| 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 705 | 48.9 | 734 | 51.1 | 1,439 |
| 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 233 | 50.9 | 225 | 49.1 | 458 |
| 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 59 | 29.5 | 141 | 70.5 | 200 |
| 1908 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1909 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 49 | 51.0 | 47 | 49.0 | 96 |
| 1912 (seven months) . . . . . . . | 55 | 41.6 | 77 | 58.4 | 132 |

Thus, the results of the strikes in the second half of 1912 were
not so good as those of 1905, 1906, and 1911 but better
than those of 1895–1004 and better than those of 1907. We must
repeat that the figures at our disposal for the various years are probably not fully comparable, but they can give some
idea of the situation.

Let it be noted that according to British strike statistics for the ten
years 1900–09 the average annual percentage of workers winning strikes was
26.8, defeated 31.7, and ending their strikes in a compromise 41.3. If the
last figure is divided equally between successful and unsuccessful strikers
we get: successful , 47.5 per cent, unsuccessful , 52.3
per cent. Strikes in Russia in 1905 and 1906, and again in 1911, were more
successful than the average British strikes despite the tremendous
advantages possessed by the British workers in respect of organisation and
political liberty.

VII

It is rather interesting to compare the results of metalworkers’
strikes in different parts of Russia.

The Moscow and St. Petersburg areas differ from all others in this
respect. The strikes of both metalworkers and all other workers were, in
general, relatively unsuccessful in the last seven months of 1912 in the
Moscow and St. Petersburg areas. The opposite is true of other areas.

Here are the figures for the Moscow and St. Petersburg areas.

| | Number of striking metal workers in the last seven months of 1912 |
| --- | --- |
| Moscow area | St. Petersburg area |
| Defeated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3,420 | 10,840 |
| Successful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 40 | 4,170 |
| Outcome unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . | 300 | 150 |
| Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3,760 | 15,160 |

The number of defeated is much greater than the number of successful
strikers. The same is true of the textile workers in both areas and of
“the others” in St. Petersburg. Only in the Moscow area did “the
others” show a greater number of successful (4,380) than unsuccessful
strikers (1,230).

Apparently there were certain general conditions in the Moscow and
St. Petersburg districts that were unfavourable to workers’ strikes in
nearly all branches of industry.

In the South, on the contrary, and in the Baltic and Polish districts,
the strikes of all workers in general, and of metalworkers in particular,
were successful.

| | Number of striking metalworkers in the last seven months of 1912 |
| --- | --- |
| South | Baltic area | Kingdom of Poland |
| Defeated . . . . . . . . . . . . | 4,390 | 440 | 900 |
| Successful . . . . . . . . . . . | 10,040 | 720 | 2,890 |
| Outcome unknown . . . . . . . . | 2,175 | — | — |
| Totals . . . . . . . . . | 16,605 | 1,160 | 3,790 |

The metalworkers had their greatest success in Poland; in general, the
economic conditions for a strike movement in that district turned out most
favourable for the workers. They were successful there in all
branches of industry (in the South “the others” suffered a defeat and in
the Baltic area the textile workers’ struggle ended in “a draw”—there
were 1,485 each successful and unsuccessful strikers). Even the textile
workers, who were, in general, most severely defeated throughout Russia in
the second half of 1912 (43,000 defeated and 20,000 successful) scored a
brilliant victory in the Kingdom of Poland—only 390 defeated as compared
with 8,060 successful.

In the West and South of Russia the workers attacked the capitalists
and scored big victories; in Moscow and St. Petersburg they also attacked
but in most cases their at tacks were warded off. Unfortunately, the data
we are analysing are too scanty to permit a comparison with 1911 and it is
impossible to draw a definite conclusion as to the causes of the
difference.

VIII

As we have seen, the metalworkers come first as far as the persistence
of their strikes is concerned and the textile workers are in the last
place. It is interesting to compare the persistence of the successful strikes of metalworkers with that of the
unsuccessful. Here are the figures:

| | Number of metalworker strikers | Number of days lost (thousands) | Average number of days lost per striker |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Defeated . . . . . . . . . | 19,990 | 230.7 | 11.5 |
| Successful . . . . . . . . | 17,860 | 387.3 | 21.7 |
| Outcome unknown . . . . . | 2,625 | 145.3 | 55.4 |
| Totals . . . . . . . . | 40,475 | 763.3 | 18.8 |

We see that the distinguishing feature of successful metalworkers’
strikes is that they were almost twice as persistent as the unsuccessful
strikes (21.7 days as compared with 11.5 days). Victory was not easily
achieved. Only by tremendous vigour and persistence was it possible to
break the resistance of the capitalists. The strikes whose outcome was not
clearly defined were apparently those in which the strength of the
“contestants” was more or less equal and the struggle was extraordinarily
stubborn; the average length of strikes leading to indefinite results was
55.4 days.

Be it noted that among “the other” workers we also observe greater
stubbornness in successful strikes and among textile workers we see the
opposite—the unsuccessful strikes of the latter were the most stubborn.

A comparison of the persistence of metalworkers’ strikes in the
different areas of Russia gives the following results:

| | Average length of strikes per striking metalworker |
| --- | --- |
| Moscow area | St. Petersburg area | Baltic area | South | Kingdom of Poland |
| Defeated . . . . . . . . . . | 11.5 | 12.1 | 5.9 | 12.0 | 5.2 |
| Successful . . . . . . . . . | 1.5 | 37.2 | 23.7 | 14.9 | 22.4 |
| Outcome unknown . . . . . . . | 12.0 | 261.3 | — | 47.1 | — |
| Totals . . . . . . . | 11.5 | 21.4 | 17.0 | 18.4 | 18.3 |

First place for duration of strikes among the metalworkers in general
is taken by the St. Petersburg area; next comes the South, then the Polish
and Baltic areas and, lastly, the Moscow area. With the exception of the Moscow area all other
successful strikes were more stubborn than the unsuccessful.

Judging by the persistence of their strikes and also by the percentage
of workers participating in the strike struggle, the St. Petersburg
metalworkers play the role of vanguard to the metalworkers of all
Russia. And the metalworkers in general play the same role to the workers
of the other branches of industry.

IX

Extreme brevity is the distinguishing feature of the descriptions of
individual strikes in the report by the Moscow Association of Factory
Owners. We shall quote a few of these descriptions so that metalworkers may
see how the gentlemen who compile reports for factory owners
depict their struggle.

In the Moscow area the strike of 1,200 workers in art metalware
workshops is a remarkable case. We have already mentioned this.

The factory owners regard the strike at Siemens and Halske, lasting 14
weeks and ending on August 19, as one of the most stubborn in the
St. Petersburg area. The Factory Owners’ Association reports that 1,600
workers took part. The factory management did not agree to withdraw the
fine imposed for May Day but “in exchange expressed the wish to pay the
workers a Christmas bonus of three rubles. Then the factory management
agreed to include May Day in the list of holidays if the government did not
put any obstacles in the way” (page 38 of the report). “During the
strike,” we read in the report, “there were several cases of workers
attacking the newly employed with the help of whom work was partially
resumed.”

Most noteworthy of the metalworkers’ strikes in the South was that of
3,886 Nikolayev shipyard workers that caused the loss of more than 155,000
working days. The workers demanded the eight-hour day, a fifty per cent in
crease in wages, the annulment of fines and all overtime, and the
institution of elected shop stewards, etc. The strike lasted all the month of June. “At the end of June an agreement was reached
between the workers and the shipyard management under which all workers
returned to their places; the shipyard recognised the shop stewards, a
messroom was opened and wages were increased by 18 per cent.” There were
clashes between strikers and blacklegs.

The strike that broke out at a locomotive works in Kharkov in November
involving 2,000 workers was exceptionally stubborn. The works had urgent
government orders to fulfil and “suffered heavy losses on account of the
stoppage”.

Among the strikes in the Urals area, which were completely omitted from the Association of Factory Owners’ statistics, we must
make special mention of the strike at the Sysert factories. The workers won
a wage increase. “At the government munitions factory in Zlatoust the
strike was caused by the death of three workers from injuries inflicted by
machines. The strikers demanded the installation of safety devices and also
an increase in wages.”

X

Even a cursory glance at the scanty figures provided by the factory
owners’ statistics must reveal the following.

Strike statistics that are complete, accurate, intelligently processed
and published in good time have tremendous importance, both theoretical and
practical, for the workers. They provide valuable information that
illuminates every step of the great road the working class is travelling
towards its world-wide goals, and also the closer, current tasks of the
struggle.

In countries that are to some extent democratic and free, tolerable
government statistics are possible. This is out of the question in
Russia. Our government statistics are poor, they are absurdly split up
among “departments”, they are unreliable and their publication is
delayed. The factory owners’ statistics are little better and still less
complete, although sometimes they are published somewhat earlier than those
of the sleepy Russian civil servant.

The workers must consider producing their own , workers’ strike
statistics. The difficulties involved in compiling such statistics are, of course, exceedingly great in view of the persecution of
workers’ associations and the working-class press in Russia. It is
impossible to overcome these difficulties at once. Workers, however, are
not accustomed to showing fear of persecution or retreating in face of
difficulties.

Even partial strike statistics by workers, i.e., those that cover
separate areas, separate branches of industries and relatively short
periods, will be of great value. Such statistics will teach the workers how
to compile something fuller and better and will at times enable them to
compare the factory owners’ or civil servants’ picture with their own.

We therefore permit ourselves to conclude this analysis of factory
owners’ statistics with the wish that workers should, despite all the
obstacles, again and again attempt to compile their own, workers’ strike
statistics. Two or three class-conscious workers could compile an accurate
description of each strike, the time it begins and ends, the number of
participants (with distribution according to sex and age wherever
possible), the causes and the results of the strike. Such a description
should be sent in one copy to the headquarters of the workers’ association
concerned (trade union or other body, or the office of the trade union
newspaper); a second copy should be sent to the central workers’ newspaper;
lastly, a third copy should be sent to a working-class deputy of the State
Duma for his information.

Both factory owners’ and government statistics will always
contain not only gaps but also distortions. Even in the press that
sympathises with the workers we often come across monstrously false, absurd
appraisals of strikes as manifestations of “a craze”, etc., appraisals
permeated with the bourgeois spirit.

Only by getting down to business themselves will the workers—in time,
after stubborn work and persistent effort—be able to help towards a
better understanding of their own movement and thus ensure bigger successes
for that movement.