The newspaper “Luch” repeatedly took a stance against mass strikes in a series of articles.

Of course, we cannot here counter “Luch” with the sharpness it deserves.

Let us confine ourselves to a few purely theoretical remarks concerning the nature of “Luch’s” advocacy. Diligently citing examples from Western countries and endlessly reiterating such terms as “anarcho-syndicalism” and the like, the writers of “Luch” nonetheless revealed a profound lack of understanding regarding the historically unique character of strikes in Russia during 1912.

Nowhere in Europe have strikes in the 20th century—nor do they now, nor could they ever—attained the significance they held, and continue to hold, in the epoch we are currently experiencing in Russia. Why is this so?

Because throughout Europe, the period of profound democratic transformations has long since been brought to an absolute conclusion; whereas in Russia, precisely those transformations—understood in the historical sense of the term—are still very much on the agenda.

From this arises the genuinely popular, nationwide character of economic strikes in Russia—and even more so of non‑economic strikes. European strikes, by contrast, lack this broadly popular character (from the standpoint of the country’s democratic transformation), for they herald entirely different kinds of change. Furthermore, the relationship between strikes in Russia and the plight of small agricultural producers—namely, the peasantry—is once again utterly unlike the situation in Western countries.

When we take all of this into account, we come to understand that “Luch’s” advocacy actually obscures the truly popular, democratic significance of both economic and non‑economic strikes in Russia during 1912. The proletariat’s emergence as the hegemon—indeed, as the leader—contrary to the anti‑democratic tendencies of the liberals—that is the most important and historically distinctive feature of our strikes. And it is precisely this aspect which the writers of “Luch,” from their liquidationist perspective, fail to grasp—and indeed, are incapable of grasping.

Of course, we are not at all concerned here with assessing the advisability of any particular strike. Nor are we arguing that strikes must always be prepared with the utmost care, or that, in some cases, a strike should even be replaced by a concerted, unified action. What we are discussing is the liquidators’ fundamental misunderstanding of the true significance of strikes as a whole—a misunderstanding that renders the slogans of “freedom of coalitions” or “an open party” ill‑suited, wholly incongruous with the actual state of affairs.

It is not isolated incidents but the overall character of the movement that the liquidators view with skepticism, while Marxists and conscious workers see as a source of strength. This is why the workers have rightly been—and continue to be—outraged by “Luch’s” advocacy.

“Pravda,” No. 27, February 2, 1913. Signed: I.

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Pravda.”