RosaLuxemburg

TheMassStrike,thePoliticalPartyandtheTradeUnions

(1906)

Writtenandfirstpublished:1906.Source: The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions by RosaLuxemburg.Publisher:MarxistEducationalSocietyofDetroit,1925.Translated:PatrickLavin.OnlineVersion:RosaLuxemburgInternetArchive(marxists.org)1999.Transcription/Markup:A.Lehrer.EbookConversion:DaveAllinson,2015.

Availableonlineat:https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm

–2–

Contents

I.TheRussianRevolution,AnarchismandtheGeneralStrike

II.TheMassStrike,AHistoricalandNotanArtificialProduct

III.DevelopmentoftheMassStrikeMovementinRussia

IV.TheInteractionofthePoliticalandtheEconomicStruggle

V.LessonsoftheWorking-ClassMovementinRussiaApplicabletoGermany

VI.Co-operationofOrganisedandUnorganisedWorkersNecessaryforVictory

VII.TheRoleoftheMassStrikeintheRevolution

VIII.NeedforUnitedActionofTradeUnionsandSocialDemocracy

–3–

I. The Russian Revolution, Anarchism and theGeneralStrike

Almostallworksandpronouncementsofinternationalsocialismonthesubjectofthemassstrike date from the time before the Russian Revolution [of 1905], the first historicalexperienceonaverylargescalewiththemeansofstruggle.Itisthereforeevidentthattheyare,forthemostpart,out-of-date.TheirstandpointisessentiallythatofEngelswhoin1873wrote as follows in his criticism of the revolutionary blundering of the Bakuninists inSpain:

“Thegeneralstrike,intheBakuninists’program,istheleverwhichwillbeused for introducing the social revolution.One finemorning all theworkersineveryindustryinacountry,orperhapsineverycountry,willceasework,andtherebycompeltherulingclasseithertosubmitinaboutfourweeks,ortolaunchanattackontheworkerssothat thelatterwillhave the right to defend themselves, and may use the opportunity tooverthrowtheoldsociety.Theproposalisbynomeansnew:FrenchandBelgiansocialistshaveparadeditcontinuallysince1848,butforallthatis of English origin. During the rapid and powerful development ofChartismamongtheEnglishworkersthatfollowedthecrisisof1837,the‘holymonth’–asuspensionofworkonanationalscale–waspreachedasearlyas1839,andwasreceivedwithsuchfavourthatinJuly1842thefactoryworkersofthenorthofEnglandattemptedtocarryitout.Andatthe Congress of the Alliancists at Geneva on September 1, 1873, thegeneralstrikeplayedagreatpart,butitwasadmittedonallsidestocarryitoutitwasnecessarytohaveaperfectorganisationoftheworking-classand a fullwar chest.And that is the crux of the question.On the onehand,thegovernments,especiallyiftheyareencouragedbytheworkers’abstention from political action, will never allow the funds of theworkerstobecomelargeenough,andontheotherhand,politicaleventsandtheencroachmentsoftherulingclasswillbringabouttheliberationoftheworkerslongbeforetheproletariatgetsthelengthofformingthisidealorganisationand thiscolossal reserve fund.But if theyhad these,

–4–

theywouldnotneedtomakeuseof theroundaboutwayof thegeneralstrikeinordertoattaintheirobject.”

Herewehavethereasoningthatwascharacteristicoftheattitudeofinternationalsocialdemocracy towards themass strike in the followingdecades. It isbasedon theanarchisttheory of the general strike – that is, the theory of the general strike as a means ofinauguratingthesocialrevolution,incontradistinctiontothedailypoliticalstruggleoftheworking-class–andexhaustsitselfinthefollowingsimpledilemma:eithertheproletariatasawholearenotyet inpossessionof thepowerfulorganisationand financial resourcesrequired, inwhich case they cannot carry through the general strike; or they are alreadysufficiently well organised, in which case they do not need the general strike. Thisreasoningissosimpleandatfirstglancesoirrefutablethat,foraquarterofacentury,ithasrenderedexcellentservicetothemodernlabourmovementasalogicalweaponagainsttheanarchistphantomandasameansofcarryingouttheideaofpoliticalstruggletothewidestcirclesoftheworkers.Theenormousstridestakenbythelabourmovementinallcapitalistcountriesduringthelasttwenty-fiveyearsarethemostconvincingevidenceofthevalueofthetacticsofpoliticalstruggle,whichwereinsisteduponbyMarxandEngelsinoppositionto Bakuninism; and German social democracy, in its position of vanguard of the entireinternational labourmovement isnot in the least thedirectproductof the consistent andenergeticapplicationofthesetactics.

The[1905]RussianRevolutionhasnoweffectedaradicalrevisionoftheabovepieceof reasoning. For the first time in the history of the class struggle it has achieved agrandioserealisationoftheideaofthemassstrikeand–asweshalldiscusslater–hasevenmatured the general strike and thereby opened a new epoch in the development of thelabour movement. It does not, of course, follow from this that the tactics of politicalstrugglerecommendedbyMarxandEngelswerefalseorthatcriticismappliedbythemtoanarchismwasincorrect.Onthecontrary,itisthesametrainofideas,thesamemethod,theEngels-Marxiantactics,whichlayatthefoundationofthepreviouspracticeoftheGermansocialdemocracy,whichnowintheRussianRevolutionareproducingnewfactorsandnewconditions in the class struggle. The Russian Revolution, which is the first historicalexperiment on themodel of the class strike, notmerely does not afford a vindication ofanarchism,butactuallymeansthehistoricalliquidationofanarchism.Thesorryexistenceto which this mental tendency was condemned in recent decades by the powerfuldevelopmentofsocialdemocracyinGermanymay,toacertainextent,beexplainedbytheexclusivedominationandlongdurationoftheparliamentaryperiod.Atendencypatterned

–5–

entirelyuponthe“firstblow”and“directaction,”a tendency“revolutionary”in themostnaked pitchfork sense, can only temporarily languish in the calmof parliamentarian dayand,onareturnoftheperiodofdirectopenstruggle,cancometolifeagainandunfolditsinherentstrength.

Russia, in particular, appeared to have become the experimental field for the heroicdeedsofanarchism.Acountryinwhichtheproletariathadabsolutelynopoliticalrightsandextremely weak organisations, a many-coloured complex of various sections of thepopulation,achaosofconflictinginterests,alowstandardofeducationamongstthemassesofthepeople,extremebrutalityintheuseofviolenceonthepartoftheprevailingregime–all this seemedas if created to raiseanarchism toa sudden ifperhaps short-livedpower.And finally, Russia was the historical birthplace of anarchism. But the fatherland ofBakunin was to become the burial-place of his teachings. Not only did and do theanarchistsinRussianotstandattheheadofthemassstrikemovement;notonlydoesthewhole political leadership of revolutionary action and also of the mass strike lie in thehands of the social democratic organisations, which are bitterly opposed as “bourgeoisparties”byRussiananarchists,orpartlyinthehandsofsuchsocialistorganisationsasaremoreorlessinfluencedbythesocialdemocracyandmoreorlessapproximatetoit–suchastheterroristparty,the“socialistrevolutionaries”–buttheanarchistssimplydonotexistasaseriouspoliticaltendencyintheRussianRevolution.OnlyinasmallLithuaniantownwithparticularlydifficultconditions–aconfusedmedleyofdifferentnationalitiesamongthe workers, an extremely scattered condition of small-scale industry, a very severelyoppressed proletariat – in Bialystok, there is, amongst the seven or eight differentrevolutionary groups a handful of half-grown “anarchists” who promote confusion andbewildermentamongst theworkers to thebestof theirability;and lastly inMoscow,andperhaps in twoor threeother towns,ahandfulofpeopleof thiskidneymake themselvesnoticeable.

Butapartfromthesefew“revolutionary”groups,whatistheactualroleofanarchismintheRussianRevolution?Ithasbecomethesignofthecommonthiefandplunderer;alargeproportionoftheinnumerabletheftsandactsofplunderofprivatepersonsarecarriedoutunder the name of “anarchist-communism” – acts which rise up like a troubled waveagainst the revolution in every period of depression and in every period of temporarydefensive. Anarchism has become in the Russian Revolution, not the theory of thestruggling proletariat, but the ideological signboard of the counter-revolutionarylumpenproletariat,who,likeaschoolofsharks,swarminthewakeofthebattleshipofthe

–6–

revolution.Andtherewiththehistoricalcareerofanarchismiswell-nighended.Ontheotherhand,themassstrikeinRussiahasbeenrealisednotasmeansofevading

the political struggle of the working-class, and especially of parliamentarism, not as ameansofjumpingsuddenlyintothesocialrevolutionbymeansofatheatricalcoup,butasameans,firstly,ofcreatingfortheproletariattheconditionsofthedailypoliticalstruggleand especially of parliamentarism. The revolutionary struggle in Russia, in which massstrikes are themost important weapon, is, by theworking people, and above all by theproletariat, conducted for those political rights and conditions whose necessity andimportanceinthestrugglefortheemancipationoftheworking-classMarxandEngelsfirstpointed out, and in opposition to anarchism fought for with all their might in theInternational. Thus has historical dialectics, the rock on which the whole teaching ofMarxiansocialismrests,broughtitaboutthattodayanarchism,withwhichtheideaofthemass strike is indissolubly associated, has itself come to be opposed to the mass strikewhich was combated as the opposite of the political activity of the proletariat, appearstoday as themost powerfulweapon of the struggle for political rights. If, therefore, theRussian Revolution makes imperative a fundamental revision of the old standpoint ofMarxism on the question of the mass strike, it is once again Marxism whose generalmethodandpointsofviewhave thereby, innew form, carriedoff theprize.TheMoor’sbelovedcandieonlybythehandoftheMoor.

–7–

II. The Mass Strike, A Historical and Not anArtificialProduct

The first revisionof thequestionof themassstrikewhich results fromtheexperienceofRussia relates to thegeneral conceptionof theproblem.Till thepresent time thezealousadvocates of an “attempt with the mass strike” in Germany of the stamp of Bernstein,Eisner,etc.,andalsothestrongestopponentsofsuchanattemptasrepresentedinthetrade-union campby, for example,Bombelburg, standwhen all is said anddone, on the sameconception, and that is the anarchist one. The apparent polar opposites do notmutuallyexcludeeachotherbut,asalways,condition,andatthesametime,supplementeachother.Fortheanarchistmodeofthoughtisdirectspeculationonthe“greatKladderadatsch,“onthesocial revolutionmerelyasanexternaland inessentialcharacteristic.According to it,what isessential is thewholeabstract,unhistoricalviewof themassstrikeandofall theconditionsoftheproletarianstrugglegenerally.

For the anarchist there exist only two things as material suppositions of his“revolutionary” speculations – first, imagination, and second goodwill and courage torescuehumanityfromtheexistingcapitalistvaleoftears.Thisfancifulmodeofreasoningsixty years ago gave the result that the mass strike was the shortest, surest and easiestmeansofspringingintothebettersocialfuture.Thesamemodeofreasoningrecentlygavetheresultthatthetrade-unionstrugglewastheonlyreal“directactionofthemasses”andalsotheonlyrealrevolutionarystruggle–which,asiswellknown,isthelatestnotionoftheFrenchandItalian“syndicalists.”Thefatalthingforanarchismhasalwaysbeenthatthemethodsofstruggleimprovisedintheairwerenotonlyareckoningwithouttheirhost,thatis, they were purely utopian, but that they, while not reckoning in the least with thedespisedevilreality,unexpectedlybecameinthisevilreality,practicalhelpstothereaction,wherepreviouslytheyhadonlybeen,forthemostpart,revolutionaryspeculations.

Onthesamegroundofabstract,unhistoricalmethodsofobservationstandthosetodaywhowould, inthemannerofaboardofdirectors,put themassstrikeinGermanyonthecalendar on an appointed day, and those who, like the participants in the trade-unioncongressatCologne,wouldbyaprohibitionof“propaganda”eliminatetheproblemofthemass strike from the face of the earth. Both tendencies proceed on the common purelyanarchisticassumption that themassstrike isapurely technicalmeansofstrugglewhich

–8–

canbe“decided”attheirpleasureandstrictlyaccordingtoconscience,or“forbidden”–akindofpocket-knifewhichcanbekeptinthepocketclasped“readyforanyemergency,”andaccordingtothedecision,canbeunclaspedandused.Theopponentsofthemassstrikedo indeed claim for themselves the merit of taking into consideration the historicalgroundworkandthematerialconditionsofthepresentconditionsinGermanyinoppositionto the “revolutionary romanticists”whohover in the air, anddo not at anypoint reckonwiththehardrealitiesandthepossibilitiesandimpossibilities.“Factsandfigures;figuresandfacts!”theycry,likeMr.GradgrindinDickens’HardTimes.

Whatthetrade-unionopponentofthemassstrikeunderstandsbythe“historicalbasis”and“materialconditions”istwothings–ontheonehandtheweaknessoftheproletariat,and on the other hand, the strength of Prussian-German militarism. The inadequateorganisationof theworkers and the imposingPrussian bayonet – these are the facts andfiguresuponwhichthesetrade-unionleadersbasetheirpracticalpolicyinthegivencase.Nowitisquitetruethatthetrade-unioncashboxandthePrussianbayonetarematerialandvery historical phenomena, but the conception based upon them is not historicalmaterialisminMarx’ssensebutapolicemanlikematerialismin thesenseofPuttkammer.Therepresentativesofthecapitalistpolicestatereckononmuch,andindeed,exclusively,with the occasional real power of the organised proletariat as well as with the materialmightofthebayonet,andfromthecomparativeexampleofthesetworowsoffiguresthecomfortingconclusionisalwaysdrawnthattherevolutionarylabourmovementisproducedby individual demagogues and agitators; and that therefore there is in the prisons andbayonetsanadequatemeansofsubduingtheunpleasant“passingphenomena.”

The class-conscious German workers have at last grasped the humour of thepolicemanlike theory that the whole modern labour movement is an artificial, arbitraryproductofahandfulofconscienceless“demagoguesandagitators.”

It is exactly the same conception, however, that finds expressionwhen two or threeworthy comrades unite in a voluntary column of night-watchmen in order to warn theGerman working-class against the dangerous agitation of a few “revolutionaryromanticists”andtheir“propagandaofthemassstrike”;or,whenontheotherside,anoisyindignationcampaignisengineeredbythosewho,bymeansof“confidential”agreementsbetweentheexecutiveofthepartyandthegeneralcommissionofthetradeunions,believetheycanpreventtheoutbreakofthemassstrikeinGermany.

If it dependedon the inflammatory “propaganda”of revolutionary romanticists or onconfidentialorpublicdecisionsofthepartydirection,thenweshouldnotevenyethavehad

–9–

in Russia a single seriousmass strike. In no country in theworld – as I pointed out inMarch1905intheSächsischeArbeiterzeitung–wasthemassstrikesolittle“propagated”oreven“discussed”asinRussia.AndtheisolatedexamplesofdecisionsandagreementsoftheRussianpartyexecutivewhich reallysought toproclaim themassstrikeof theirownaccord–as,forexample,thelastattemptinAugustofthisyearafterthedissolutionoftheDuma–arealmostvalueless.

If, therefore, theRussianRevolutionteachesusanything, it teachesaboveall that themassstrikeisnotartificially“made,”not“decided”atrandom,not“propagated,”butthatitisahistoricalphenomenonwhich,atagivenmoment,resultsfromsocialconditionswithhistorical inevitability. It is not, therefore, by abstract speculations on the possibility orimpossibility,theutilityortheinjuriousnessofthemassstrike,butonlybyanexaminationof those factors and social conditions out ofwhich themass strike grows in the presentphaseof theclass struggle– inotherwords, it isnotbysubjectivecriticism of themassstrike from the standpointofwhat isdesirable,butonlybyobjectiveinvestigation of thesources of themass strike from the standpoint ofwhat is historically inevitable, that theproblemcanbegraspedorevendiscussed.

Intheunrealsphereofabstractlogicalanalysisitcanbeshownwithexactlythesameforceoneitherside that themassstrike isabsolutely impossibleandsure tobedefeated,andthatitispossibleandthatitstriumphcannotbequestioned.Andthereforethevalueoftheevidenceledoneachsideisexactlythesame–andthatisnil.Therefore,thefearofthe“propagation” of the mass strike, which has even led to formal anathamas against thepersons alleged tobeguiltyof this crime, is solely theproductof thedroll confusionofpersons. It is just as impossible to “propagate” the mass strike as an abstract means ofstruggle as it is to propagate the “revolution.” “Revolution” like “mass strike” signifiesnothingbutanexternalformoftheclassstruggle,whichcanhavesenseandmeaningonlyinconnectionwithdefinitepoliticalsituations.

Ifanyoneweretoundertaketomakethemassstrikegenerally,asaformofproletarianaction, theobject ofmethodological agitation, and togohouse-to-house canvassingwiththis “idea” in order to gradually win the working-class to it, it would be as idle andprofitlessandabsurdanoccupationasitwouldbetoseektomaketheideaoftherevolutionorofthefightatthebarricadestheobjectofaspecialagitation.ThemassstrikehasnowbecomethecentreofthelivelyinterestoftheGermanandtheinternationalworking-classbecauseitisanewformofstruggle,andassuchisthesuresymptomofathoroughgoinginternalrevolutionintherelationsoftheclassesandintheconditionsoftheclassstruggle.

–10–

Itisatestimonytothesoundrevolutionaryinstinctandtothequickintelligenceofthemassof the German proletariat that, in spite of the obstinate resistance of their trade-unionleaders,theyareapplyingthemselvestothisnewproblemwithsuchkeeninterest.

Butitdoesnotmeetthecase,inthepresenceofthisinterestandofthisfine,intellectualthirstanddesireforrevolutionarydeedsonthepartoftheworkers,totreatthemtoabstractmental gymnastics on the possibility or impossibility of themass strike; they should beenlightenedonthedevelopmentoftheRussianRevolution,theinternationalsignificanceofthatrevolution,thesharpeningofclassantagonismsinWesternEurope,thewiderpoliticalperspectivesof theclassstruggleinGermany,andtheroleandthetasksof themassesinthecomingstruggles.Onlyin thisformwill thediscussiononthemassstrike leadto thewidening of the intellectual horizon of the proletariat, to the sharpening of theirway ofthinking,andtothesteelingoftheirenergy.

Viewedfromthisstandpointhowever,thecriminalproceedingsdesiredbytheenemiesof “revolutionary romanticism” appear in all their absurdity, because, in treating of theproblem, one does not adhere strictly to the text of the Jena resolution. The “practicalpoliticians”agreetothisresolutionifneedbe,becausetheycouplethemassstrikechieflywiththefateofuniversalsuffrage,fromwhichitfollowsthattheycanbelieveintwothings– first, that themass strike is of a purely defensive character, and second, that themassstrike is even subordinate to parliamentarism, that is, has been turned into a mereappendageofparliamentarism.ButtherealkerneloftheJenaresolutioninthisconnectionisthatinthepresentpositionofGermanyanattemptonthepartoftheprevailingreactionontheparliamentaryvotewould inallprobabilitybe themomentfor the introductionof,andthesignalfor,aperiodofstormypoliticalstrugglesinwhichthemassstrikeasameansofstruggleinGermanymightwellcomeintouseforthefirsttime.

Buttoseektonarrowandtoartificiallysmotherthesocialimportance,andtolimitthehistoricalscope,ofthemassstrikeasaphenomenonandasaproblemoftheclassstrugglebythewordingofacongressresolutionisanundertakingwhichforshort-sightednesscanonlybecomparedwith thevetoondiscussionof the trade-unioncongressatCologne. IntheresolutionoftheJenaCongress,Germansocialdemocracyhasofficiallytakennoticeofthe fundamental change which the Russian Revolution [of 1905] has effected in theinternationalconditionsoftheproletarianclassstruggle,andhasannounceditscapacityforrevolutionarydevelopmentanditspowerofadaptabilitytothenewdemandsofthecomingphaseoftheclassstruggle.ThereinliesthesignificanceoftheJenaresolution.AsforthepeacefulapplicationofthemassstrikeinGermany,historywilldecidethatasitdecidedit

–11–

inRussia–history inwhichGermansocialdemocracywith itsdecisions is, it is true,animportantfactor,but,atthesametime,onlyonefactoramongstmany.

–12–

III. Development of theMass StrikeMovement inRussia

Themassstrike,asitappearsforthemostpartinthediscussioninGermany,isaveryclearand simply thought out, sharply sketched isolated phenomenon. It is the political massstrike exclusively that is spoken of.What ismeant by it is a single grand rising of theindustrialproletariat springing fromsomepoliticalmotiveof thehighest importance,andundertaken on the basis of an opportune and mutual understanding on the part of thecontrollingauthoritiesofthenewpartyandofthetradeunions,andcarriedthroughinthespiritofpartydisciplineandinperfectorder,andinstillmoreperfectorderbroughttothedirecting committees as a signal given at the proper time, by which committees theregulationofsupport,thecost,thesacrifice–inaword,thewholematerialbalanceofthemassstrike–isexactlydeterminedinadvance.

Now,whenwecomparethistheoreticalschemewiththerealmassstrike,asitappearedin Russia five years ago,we are compelled to say that this representation,which in theGermandiscussionoccupiesthecentralposition,hardlycorrespondstoasingleoneofthemanymass strikes that have taken place, and on the other hand that themass strike inRussiadisplayssuchamultiplicityof themostvariedformsofactionthat it isaltogetherimpossible to speak of “the” mass strike, of an abstract schematic mass strike. All thefactors of themass strike, aswell as its character, are not only different in the differenttownsanddistrictsofthecountry,butitsgeneralcharacterhasoftenchangedinthecourseof the revolution.Themass strikehaspassed throughadefinitehistory inRussia,and ispassingstill further through it.Who, therefore, speaksof themassstrike inRussiamust,aboveallthings,keepitshistorybeforehiseyes.

Thepresentofficialperiod,sotospeak,oftheRussianRevolutionisjustlydatedfromthe rising of the proletariat on January 22, 1905, when the demonstration of 200,000workersendedinafrightfulbloodbathbeforetheczar’spalace.ThebloodymassacreinSt.Petersburgwas,asiswellknown,thesignalfortheoutbreakofthefirstgiganticseriesofmassstrikeswhichspreadoverthewholeofRussiawithinafewdaysandwhichcarriedthecall to action of the revolution from St. Petersburg to every corner of the empire andamongstthewidestsectionsoftheproletariat.ButtheSt.PetersburgrisingofJanuary22wasonly thecriticalmomentofamassstrike,which theproletariatof theczaristcapital

–13–

hadpreviouslyentereduponinJanuary1905.TheJanuarymassstrikewaswithoutdoubtcarried through under the immediate influence of the gigantic general strike, which inDecember1904brokeoutintheCaucasus,inBaku,andforalongtimekeptthewholeofRussiainsuspense.TheeventsofDecemberinBakuwereontheirpartonlythelastandpowerfulramificationofthosetremendousmassstrikeswhich,likeaperiodicearthquake,shookthewholeofsouthRussia,andwhoseprologuewasthemassstrikeinBatumintheCaucasusinMarch1902.

This first mass strike movement in the continuous series of present revolutionaryeruptionsisfinallyseparatedbyfiveorsixyearsfromthegreatgeneralstrikeofthetextileworkersinSt.Petersburgin1896and1897,andifthismovementisapparentlyseparatedfrom the present revolution by a few years of apparent stagnation and strong reaction,everyone who knows the inner political development of the Russian proletariat to theirpresentstageofclassconsciousnessandrevolutionaryenergywillrealisethatthehistoryofthepresentperiodofthemassstrugglesbeginswiththosegeneralstrikesinSt.Petersburg.They are therefore important for the problems of the mass strike because they alreadycontain,inthegerm,alltheprincipalfactorsoflatermassstrikes.

Again, theSt.Petersburggeneral strikeof1896appearsasapurelyeconomicpartialwage struggle. Its causes were the intolerable working conditions of the spinners andweavers inSt.Petersburg;aworkingdayof thirteen, fourteenor fifteenhours,miserablepiecework rates, and a whole series of contemptible chicaneries on the part of theemployers. Theworkers, however, patiently endured this condition of things, for a longtimetillanapparentlytrivialcircumstancefilledthecuptooverflowing.Thecoronationofthepresentczar,NicholasII,whichhadbeenpostponedfortwoyearsthroughfearoftherevolutionaries, was celebrated in May 1896, and on that occasion the St. Petersburgemployers displayed their patriotic zeal by giving their workers three days compulsoryholidays, for which, curious to relate, they did not desire to pay their employees. Theworkersangeredbythisbegantomove.AfteraconferenceofaboutthreehundredoftheintelligentworkersintheEkaterinhofGardenastrikewasdecidedupon,andthefollowingdemandswere formulated: first,paymentofwagesfor thecoronationholidays;second,aworkingdayoftenhours;third,increasedratesforpiecework.ThishappenedonMay24.Inaweekeveryweavingandspinningestablishmentwasatastandstilland40,000workerswere in thegeneral strike.Today, thisevent,measuredby thegiganticmassstrikeof therevolution,mayappearalittlething.InthepoliticalpolarrigidityoftheRussiaofthattimeageneralstrikewassomethingunheardof;itwasevenacompleterevolutioninlittle.There

–14–

began,ofcourse, themostbrutalpersecution.Aboutone thousandworkerswerearrestedandthegeneralstrikewassuppressed.

Here,already,weseeallthefundamentalcharacteristicsofthelatermassstrikes.Thenext occasion of the movement was wholly accidental, even unimportant, its outbreakelementary;butinthesuccessofthemovementthefruitsoftheagitation,extendingoverseveralyears,ofthesocialdemocracywereseenandinthecourseofthegeneralstrikethesocialdemocraticagitatorsstoodattheheadofthemovement,directedit,andusedittostiruprevolutionaryagitation.Further,thestrikewasoutwardlyamereeconomicstruggleforwages,buttheattitudeofthegovernmentandtheagitationofthesocialdemocracymadeitapoliticalphenomenonofthefirstrank.Andlastly,thestrikewassuppressed;theworkerssuffered a “defeat.” But in January of the following year the textile workers of St.Petersburg repeated the general strike once more and achieved this time a remarkablesuccess: the legal introductionofaworkingdayofelevenhours throughout thewholeofRussia. What was nevertheless a much more important result was this: since the firstgeneralstrikeof1896whichwasentereduponwithoutatraceoforganisationorofstrikefunds, an intensive trade-union fight began in Russia proper which spread from St.Petersburg to the other parts of the country and opened up entirely new vistas to socialdemocraticagitationandorganisation,andbywhichtotheapparentlydeath-likepeaceofthefollowingperiod,therevolutionwaspreparedforbyundergroundwork.

TheoutbreakoftheCaucasianstrikeinMarch1902wasapparentlyasaccidentalandasmuchduetopureeconomicpartialcauses(althoughproducedbyquiteotherfactors)asthatof 1896. It was connected with the serious industrial and commercial crisis which, inRussia,was theprecursorof the Japanesewarandwhich, togetherwith it,was themostpowerful factor of the nascent revolutionary ferment. The crisis produced an enormousmassofunemploymentwhichnourishedtheagitationamongsttheproletarianmasses,andtherefore the government, to restore tranquillity amongst the workers, undertook totransport the “superfluous hands” in batches to their respective homedistricts.One suchmeasure,whichwas to affect about four hundred petroleumworkers called forth amassprotestinBatum,whichledtodemonstrations,arrests,amassacre,andfinallytoapoliticaltrial in which the purely economic and partial affair suddenly became a political andrevolutionary event. The reverberation of thewholly “fruitless” expiring and suppressedstrike inBatumwas a series of revolutionarymass demonstrations ofworkers inNizhniNovgorod,Saratov,andother towns,andthereforeamightysurgeforwardof thegeneralwaveoftherevolutionarymovement.

–15–

AlreadyinNovember1902thefirstgenuinerevolutionaryechofollowedintheshapeofageneralstrikeatRostov-on-Don.DisputesabouttheratesofpayintheworkshopsoftheVladicaucasusRailwaygavetheimpetustothismovement.ThemanagementsoughttoreducewagesandthereforetheDoncommitteeofsocialdemocracyissuedaproclamationwithasummons tostrikefor thefollowingdemands:anine-hourday, increase inwages,abolition of fines, dismissal of obnoxious engineers, etc. Entire railway workshopsparticipated in the strike. Presently all other industries joined in and suddenly anunprecedentedstateofaffairsprevailedinRostov:everyindustrialworkwasatastandstill,andeverydaymonstermeetingsof fifteen to twenty thousandwereheld in theopenair,sometimes surrounded by a cordon of Cossacks, at which for the first time socialdemocratic popular speakers appeared publicly, inflammatory speeches on socialism andpoliticalfreedomweredeliveredandreceivedwithimmenseenthusiasm,andrevolutionaryappealswere distributed by tens of thousands of copies. In themidst of rigid absolutistRussiatheproletariatofRostovwonforthefirsttimetherightofassemblyandfreedomofspeechbystorm.Itgoeswithoutsayingthattherewasamassacrehere.ThedisputesoverwagesintheVladicaucasusRailwayworkshopsgrewinafewdaysintoapoliticalgeneralstrike and a revolutionary street battle.As an echo to this there followed immediately ageneralstrikeatthestationofTichoretzkaiaonthesamerailway.Herealsoamassacretookplaceandalsoa trial, and thusevenTichoretzkaiahas taken itsplace in the indissolublechainofthefactorsoftherevolution.

Thespringof1903gavetheanswertothedefeatedstrikesinRostovandTichoretzkaia;the whole of South Russia in May, June and July was aflame. Baku, Tiflis, Batum,Elisavetgrad, Odessa, Kiev, Nikolaev and Ekaterinoslav were in a general strike in theliteral meaning of those words. But here again the movement did not arise on anypreconceivedplanfromoneanother;itflowedtogetherfromindividualpointsineachonefrom different causes and in a different form. The beginningwasmade by Bakuwhereseveral partial wage struggles in individual factories and departments culminated in ageneral strike. InTiflis, the strikewasbegunby2000commercial employeeswhohadaworkingdayfromsixo’clockinthemorningtoelevenatnight.OnthefourthofJulytheyall left their shopsandmadeacircuitof the town todemand from theproprietorsof theshopsthattheyclosetheirpremises.Thevictorywascomplete;thecommercialemployeeswonaworkingdayfromeightinthemorningtoeightintheevening,andallthefactories,workshopsandoffices,etc,immediatelyjoinedthem.Thenewspapersdidnotappear,andtramwaytrafficcouldnotbecarriedonundermilitaryprotection.

–16–

In Elisavetgrad on July 4 a strike began in all the factories with purely economicdemands.Theseweremostlyconceded,andthestrikeendedonthefourteenth.Twoweekslaterhoweveritbrokeoutagain.Thebakers this timegavethewordandthebricklayers,thejoiners,thedyers,themill-workers,andfinallyallfactoryworkersjoinedthem.

InOdessathemovementbeganwithawagestruggleinthecourseofwhichthe“legal”workers’union,foundedbygovernmentagentsaccordingtotheprogrammeofthefamousgendarmeZubatov,wasdeveloped.Historical dialectics had again seized theoccasion toplayoneifitsmaliciouslittlepranks.Theeconomicstrugglesoftheearlierperiod(amongstthemthegreatSt.Petersburggeneralstrikeof1896)hadmisledRussiansocialdemocracyintoexaggerating the importanceofso-calledeconomics,and in thisway thegroundhadbeenpreparedamongsttheworkersforthedemagogicactivitiesofZubatov.Afteratime,however,thegreatrevolutionarystreamturnedroundthelittleshipwiththefalseflagandcompelled it to ride right at the head of the revolutionary proletarian flotilla. TheZubatovianunionsgave the signal for thegreatgeneral strike inOdessa in the springof1904,asfor thegeneralstrikeinSt.PetersburginJanuary1905.TheworkersofOdessa,who were not to be deceived by the appearance of friendliness on the part of thegovernment for theworkers, andof its sympathywithpurelyeconomic strikes, suddenlydemandedproofbyexample,andcompelledtheZubatovian“workersunion”inafactorytodeclareastrikeforverymoderatedemands.Theywereimmediatelythrownonthestreets,andwhen they demanded the protection of the authoritieswhichwas promised thembytheirleader,thegentlemanvanishedandlefttheworkersinthewildestexcitement.

The social democrats at once placed themselves at the headof affairs, and the strikemovementextendedtootherfactories.OnthefirstdayofJuly2,500dockersstruckworkforanincreaseofwagesfromeightykopeckstotworubles,andtheshorteningoftheworkdaybyhalf-an-hour.OnthesixteenthdayofJulytheseamenjoinedthemovement.Onthethirteenth day the tramway staff began a strike. Then a meeting took place of all thestrikers,sevenoreightthousandmen;theyformedaprocessionwhichwentfromfactorytofactory,growinglikeanavalanche,andpresentlyacrowdoffortytofiftythousandbetookthemselvestothedocksinordertobringallworktheretoastandstill.Ageneralstrikesoonreignedthroughoutthewholecity.

InKiev,astrikebeganintherailwayworkshopsonJuly21st.Here,also,theimmediatecause was miserable conditions of labour, and wage demands were presented. On thefollowingdaythefoundrymenfollowedtheexample.OnJuly23rd,anincidentoccurredwhich gave the signal for the general strike. During the night two delegates of the

–17–

railwaymenwerearrested.Thestrikersimmediatelydemandedtheirrelease,andasthiswasnot conceded, they decided not to allow trains to leave the town. At the station all thestrikers with their wives and families sat down on the railway track – a sea of humanbeings.Theywerethreatenedwithriflesalvoes.Theworkersbaredtheirbreastsandcried,“Shoot!”Asalvowasfiredintothedefencelessseatedcrowd,andthirty tofortycorpses,amongstthemwomenandchildren,remainedontheground.OnthisbecomingknownthewholetownofKievwentonstrikeonthesameday.Thecorpsesofthemurderedworkerswere raisedonhighby the crowdand carried round in amassdemonstration.Meetings,speeches, arrests, isolated street fights – Kiev was in the midst of the revolution. Themovementwassoonatanend.Buttheprintershadwonashorteningoftheworkingdaybyone hour and a wage increase of one rouble; in a yeast factory the eight-hour day wasintroduced;therailwayworkshopswereclosedbyorderoftheministry;otherdepartmentscontinuedpartialstrikesfortheirdemands.

InNikolaev, thegeneralstrikebrokeoutundertheimmediateinfluenceofnewsfromOdessa, Baku, Batum and Tiflis, in spite of the opposition of the social democraticcommitteewhowantedtopostponetheoutbreakofthemovementtillthetimecamewhenthemilitaryshouldhave left the townformanoeuvres.Themasses refused toholdback;one factory made a beginning, the strikes went from one workshop to another, theresistanceofthemilitaryonlypouredoilonthefire.Massprocessionswithrevolutionarysongswereformedinwhichallworkers,employees,tramwaysofficials,menandwomentookpart.Thecessationofworkwascomplete. InEkaterinoslav, thebakerscameoutonstrikeonAugust5,onthesevenththemenintherailwayworkshops,andthenalltheotherfactoriesonAugust8.Tramwaytrafficstopped,andthenewspapersdidnotappear.

Thus, the colossal general strike in south Russia came into being in the summer of1903. By many small channels of partial economic struggles and little “accidental”occurrences it flowed rapidly toa raging sea, andchanged theentire southof theczaristempireforsomeweeksintoabizarrerevolutionaryworkers’republic.“Brotherlyembraces,criesofdelightandofenthusiasm,songsoffreedom,merrylaughter,humourandjoywereseenandheardinthecrowdofmanythousandsofpersonswhichsurgedthroughthetownfrommorning till evening.Themoodwas exalted; one could almost believe that a new,better life was beginning on the earth. Amost solemn and at the same time an idyllic,moving spectacle.” ... So wrote at the time the correspondent of the LiberalOsvoboshdenyeofPeterStruve.

Theyear1904broughtwithitwar,andforatime,anintervalofquietinthemassstrike

–18–

movement.At first a troubledwaveof “patriotic” demonstrations arrangedby thepoliceauthoritiesspreadoverthecountry.The“liberal”bourgeoissocietywasforthetimebeingstrucktothegroundbytheczaristofficialchauvinism.Butsoonthesocialdemocratstookpossession of the arena; revolutionary workers’ demonstrations were opposed to thedemonstrations of the patriotic lumpenproletariat, which were organised under policepatronage.Atlast,theshamefuldefeatsoftheczaristarmywoketheliberalsocietyfromitslethargy; thenbegan theeraofdemocraticcongresses,banquets, speeches,addressesandmanifestos.Absolutism,temporarilysuppressedthroughthedisgraceofthewar,gavefullscope to these gentlemen, and by and by they saw everything in rosy colours. For sixmonthsbourgeoisliberalismoccupiedthecentreofthestageandtheproletariatremainedinthe shadows. But after a long depression, absolutism again roused itself, the camarillagathered all its strength and by a single, powerful movement of the Cossack’s heel thewholeliberalmovementwasdrivenintoacorner.Banquets,speeches,andcongresseswereprohibitedoutofhandas“intolerablepresumption,”andliberalismsuddenlyfounditselfattheendofitstether.

But exactly at the pointwhere liberalismwas exhausted, the actionof the proletariatbegan.InDecember1904thegreatgeneralstrikeduetounemploymentbrokeoutinBaku;theworking-classwasagainonthefieldofbattle.Asspeechwasforbiddenandrenderedimpossible, action began. InBaku for someweeks in themidst of the general strike thesocial democrats ruled as absolute masters of the situation; and the peculiar events ofDecemberintheCaucasuswouldhavecausedanimmediatesensationiftheyhadnotbeensoquicklyputintheshadebytherisingtideoftherevolution.ThefantasticconfusednewsofthegeneralstrikeinBakuhadnotreachedallpartsoftheczaristempirewheninJanuary1905;themassstrikeinSt.Petersburgbrokeout.

Herealso,asiswellknown,theimmediatecausewastrivial.TwomenemployedatthePutilov works were discharged on account of their membership in the legal Zubatovianunion. This measure called forth a solidarity strike on January 16 of the whole of the12,000employed in thisworks.Thesocialdemocratsseized theoccasionof thestrike tobegin a lively agitation for the extension of the demands and set forth demands for theeight-hour day, the right of combination, freedom of speech and of the press, etc. Theunrest among the Putilov workers communicated itself quickly to the remainder of theproletariat,andinafewdays140,000workerswereonstrike.Jointconferencesandstormydiscussionsledtotheworkingoutofthatproletariancharterofbourgeoisfreedomwiththeeight-hour day at its headwithwhich, on January 22nd, 200,000workers led by Father

–19–

Gapon,marchedtotheczar’spalace.TheconflictofthetwoPutilovworkerswhohadbeensubjected todisciplinarypunishmenthadchangedwithinaweek into theprologueof themostviolentrevolutioninmoderntimes.

The events that followed upon this are well known, the bloodbath in St. PetersburgcalledforthgiganticmassstrikesandgeneralstrikeinthemonthofJanuary,andFebruaryinalltheindustrialcentresandtownsinRussia,Poland,Lithuania,theBalticProvinces,theCaucasus,Siberia,fromnorthtosouthandeasttowest.Oncloserinspection,however,itcanbeseen that themassstrikewasappearing inother forms than thoseof thepreviousperiod. Everywhere at that time the social democratic organisations went before withappeals; everywhere was revolutionary solidarity with the St. Petersburg proletariatexpresslystatedasthecauseandaimofthegeneralstrike;everywhere,at thesametime,thereweredemonstrations,speeches,conflictswiththemilitary.

But even here there was no predetermined plan, no organised action, because theappealsofthepartiescouldscarcelykeeppacewiththespontaneousrisingsofthemasses;the leadershadscarcely time to formulate thewatchwordsof theonrushingcrowdof theproletariat. Further, the earlier mass and general strikes had originated from individualcoalescingwagestruggleswhich, inthegeneral temperof therevolutionarysituationandunder the influence of the social democratic agitation, rapidly became politicaldemonstrations;theeconomicfactorandthescatteredconditionoftradeunionismwerethestartingpoint;all-embracingclassactionandpoliticaldirectiontheresult.Themovementwasnowreversed.

ThegeneralstrikesofJanuaryandFebruarybrokeoutasunifiedrevolutionaryactionstobeginwithunderthedirectionofthesocialdemocrats;butthisactionsoonfellintoanunendingseriesoflocal,partial,economicstrikesinseparatedistricts,towns,departmentsand factories. Throughout the whole of the spring of 1905 and into the middle of thesummer there fermented throughout the whole of the immense empire an uninterruptedeconomicstrikeofalmosttheentireproletariatagainstcapital–astrugglewhichcaught,onthe one hand, all the petty bourgeois and liberal professions, commercial employees,technicians,actorsandmembersofartisticprofessions–andontheotherhand,penetratedto the domestic servants, the minor police officials and even to the stratum of thelumpenproletariat, and simultaneously surged from the towns to the countrydistricts andevenknockedattheirongatesofthemilitarybarracks.

Thisisagigantic,many-colouredpictureofageneralarrangementoflabourandcapitalwhichreflectsallthecomplexityofsocialorganisationandofthepoliticalconsciousnessof

–20–

everysectionandofeverydistrict;and thewhole longscale runs fromtheregular trade-union struggle of a picked and tested troop of the proletariat drawn from large-scaleindustry, to the formless protest of a handful of rural proletarians, and to the first slightstirringsofanagitatedmilitarygarrison,fromthewell-educatedandelegantrevoltincuffsandwhitecollarsinthecountinghouseofabanktotheshy-boldmurmuringsofaclumsymeetingofdissatisfiedpolicemeninasmoke-grimeddarkanddirtyguardroom.

According to the theory of the lovers of “orderly and well-disciplined” struggles,according to plan and scheme, according to those especiallywho always ought to knowbetter fromafar“how it shouldhavebeendone,” thedecayof thegreatpoliticalgeneralstrikeofJanuary1905intoanumberofeconomicstruggleswasprobably“agreatmistake”which crippled that action and changed it into a “straw fire.” But social democracy inRussia,whichhadtakenpartintherevolutionbuthadnot“made”it,andwhichhadeventolearnitslawfromitscourseitself,wasatthefirstglanceputoutofcountenanceforatimeby theapparently fruitlessebbof thestorm-floodof thegeneral strike.History,however,whichhadmadethat“greatmistake,”therebyaccomplished,heedlessofthereasoningsofitsofficiousschoolmaster,agiganticworkfortherevolutionwhichwasasinevitableasitwas,initsconsequences,incalculable.

Thesuddengeneral risingof theproletariat inJanuaryunder thepowerful impetusoftheSt.Petersburgeventswasoutwardlyapoliticalactof therevolutionarydeclarationofwar on absolutism. But this first general direct action reacted inwardly all the morepowerfullyas it for thefirst timeawokeclassfeelingandclass-consciousness inmillionsuponmillions as if by an electric shock.And this awakening of class feeling expresseditself forthwith in the circumstances that theproletarianmass, countedbymillions,quitesuddenly and sharply came to realise how intolerable was that social and economicexistence which they had patiently endured for decades in the chains of capitalism.Thereupon,therebeganaspontaneousgeneralshakingofandtuggingatthesechains.Allthe innumerable sufferings of themodern proletariat reminded them of the old bleedingwounds.Herewastheeight-hourdayfoughtfor,therepiece-workwasresisted,herewerebrutal foremen“drivenoff” inasackonahandcar,atanotherplace infamoussystemsoffineswerefoughtagainst,everywherebetterwageswerestrivenforandhereandtheretheabolitionofhomework.Backward,degradedoccupations in large towns,smallprovincialtowns, which had hitherto dreamed in an idyllic sleep, the village with its legacy fromfeudalism–all these,suddenlyawakenedby theJanuary lightning,bethought themselvesoftheirrightsandnowsoughtfeverishlytomakeupfortheirpreviousneglect.

–21–

Here,theeconomicstrugglewasnotreallyadecay,adissipationofaction,butmerelychange of front, a sudden and natural alteration of the first general engagement withabsolutism, in a general reckoning with capital, which in keeping with its characterassumed the form of individual, scattered wage struggles. Political class action was notbrokeninJanuarybythedecayofthegeneralstrikeintoeconomicstrikes,butthereverse,afterthepossiblecontentofpoliticalactioninthegivensituationandatthegivenstageoftherevolutionwasexhausted,itbroke,orratherchanged,intoeconomicaction.

In point of fact,whatmore could the general strike in January have achieved?Onlycompletethoughtlessnesscouldexpectthatabsolutismcouldbedestroyedatoneblowbyasingle“long-drawn”generalstrikeafter theanarchistplan.AbsolutisminRussiamustbeoverthrown by the proletariat. But in order to be able to overthrow it, the proletariatrequiresahighdegreeofpoliticaleducation,ofclass-consciousnessandorganisation.Allthese conditions cannot be fulfilled by pamphlets and leaflets, but only by the livingpolitical school, by the fight and in the fight, in the continuous courseof the revolution.Further,absolutismcannotbeoverthrownatanydesiredmoment inwhichonlyadequate“exertion” and “endurance” is necessary. The fall of absolutism is merely the outerexpressionoftheinnersocialandclassdevelopmentofRussiansociety.

Beforeabsolutismcan,andsofarthatitmay,beoverthrown,thebourgeoisRussiainitsinterior,initsmodernclassdivisions,mustbeformed.Thatrequiresthedrawingtogetherof the various social layers and interests, besides the education of the proletarianrevolutionaryparties,andnotlessoftheliberal,radicalpettybourgeois,conservativeandreactionary parties; it requires self-consciousness, self-knowledge and the class-consciousness not merely of the layers of the people, but also of the layers of thebourgeoisie. But this also can be achieved and come to fruition in no way but in thestruggle, in the process of revolution itself, through the actual school of experience, incollisionwiththeproletariataswellaswithoneanother,inincessantmutualfriction.Thisclassdivisionandclassmaturityofbourgeoissociety,aswellas itsactioninthestruggleagainstabsolutism,isontheonehand,hamperedandmadedifficultbythepeculiarleadingroleof theproletariat and,on theotherhand, is spurredonandaccelerated.Thevariousundercurrentsofthesocialprocessoftherevolutioncrossoneanother,checkoneanother,and increase the internal contradictions of the revolution, but in the end accelerate andtherebyrenderstillmoreviolentitseruptions.

Thisapparentlysimpleandpurelymechanicalproblemmaythereforebestatedthus:theoverthrowof absolutism is a long, continuous social process, and its solutiondemands a

–22–

completeunderminingofthesoilofsociety;theuppermostpartbeplacedlowestandthelowermost part highest, the apparent “order” must be changed to a chaos, and theapparently“anarchistic”chaosmustbechanged intoaneworder.Nowin thisprocessofthesocial transformationofoldRussia,notonlytheJanuarylightningofthefirstgeneralstrike, but also the spring and summer thunderstorms that followed it, played anindispensablepart.Theembitteredgeneralrelationsofwagelabourandcapitalcontributedinequalmeasuretothedrawingtogetherofthevariouslayersofthepeopleandthoseofthebourgeoisie, to the class-consciousness of the revolutionary proletariat and to that of theliberalandconservativebourgeoisie.Andjustastheurbanwagestrugglecontributedtotheformationof a strongmonarchist industrial party inMoscow, so the conflagrationof theviolentruralrisinginLivonialedtotherapidliquidationofthefamousaristocratic-agrarianzemstvoliberalism.

Butatthesametime,theperiodoftheeconomicstrugglesofthespringandsummerof1905 made it possible for the urban proletariat, by means of active social democraticagitation and direction, to assimilate later all the lessons of the January prologue and tograsp clearly all the further tasks of the revolution. There was connected with this too,anothercircumstanceofanenduringsocialcharacter:ageneralraisingofthestandardoflifeoftheproletariat,economic,socialandintellectual.

The January strikes of 1905 ended victoriously almost throughout. As proof of thissomedatafromtheenormous,andstillforthemostpart,inaccessiblemassofmaterialmaybe cited here relating to a few of themost important strikes carried through inWarsawalonebythesocialdemocratsofPolandandLithuania.InthegreatfactoriesofthemetalindustryofWarsaw:LilposLtd.;RanandLowenstein;RudzkiandCo.;Borman,SchwedeandCo.;Handtke,GerlachandPulst;GeislerBros.;Eberherd,WolskiandCo.;KonradandYanruszkiewicz Ltd.; Weber and Daehu; Ewizdzinski and Co.; Wolonski Wire Works;GostynskiandCo.,Ltd.;RrunandSon;FrageNorblin;Werner;Buch;KennebergBros.;Labour; Dittunar Lamp Factory; Serkowski; Weszk – twenty-two factories in all, theworkerswonafterastrikeoffourtofiveweeks(fromJanuary24–26)anine-hourday,a25per cent increase of wages and obtained various smaller concessions. In the largeworkshops of the timber industry of Warsaw, namely Karmanski, Damieki, Gromel,Szerbinskik, Twemerowski, Horn, Devensee, Tworkowski, Daab and Martens – twelveworkshopsinall–thestrikeshadwonbythetwenty-thirdofFebruarythenine-hourday,whichtheyalsowon,togetherwithanincreaseinwages,afterafurtherstrikeofaweek.

The entire bricklaying industry began a strike on February 27 and demanded, in

–23–

conformitywiththewatchwordofsocialdemocracy,theeight-hourday;theywontheten-hourdayonMarch11togetherwithanincreaseofwagesforallcategories,regularweeklypaymentofwages,etc.Thepainters, thecartwrights, thesaddlersand thesmithsallwontheeight-hourdaywithoutdecreaseofwages.

The telephone workshops struck for ten days and won the eight-hour day and anincreaseofwagesof10to15percent.Thelargelinen-weavingestablishmentofHielleandDietrich (10,000 workers) after a strike lasting nine weeks, obtained a decrease of theworkingdaybyonehourandawage increaseof5 to10percent.Andsimilar results inendlessvariationwere tobeseen in theolderbranchesof industry inWarsaw,Lodz,andSosnovitz.

InRussiapropertheeight-hourdaywaswoninDecember1904byafewcategoriesofoilworkers inBaku; inMay 1905 by the sugarworkers of theKiev district; in January1905all theprintingworks inSamara (whereat the same timean increaseofpieceworkrateswasobtainedandfineswereabolished);inFebruaryinthefactoryinwhichmedicalinstruments for the army are manufactured, in a furniture factory and in the cartridgefactory in St. Petersburg. Further, the eight-hour day was introduced in the mines atVladiviostock, in March in the government mechanical workshops dealing withgovernmentstockandinMayamongtheemployeesoftheTifliselectrictownrailway.Inthesamemonthaworkingdayofeight-and-a-halfhourswasintroducedinthelargecotton-weavingfactoryofMarosov(andatthesametimetheabolitionofnightworkandawageincrease of 8 per cent were won); in June an eight-hour day in a few oil works in St.PetersburgandMoscow;inJulyaworkingdayofeight-and-a-halfhoursamongthesmithsat theSt.Petersburgdocks;andinNovemberinall theprivateprintingestablishmentsofthe town of Orel (and at the same time an increase of time rates of 20 per cent andpieceworkratesof100percent,aswellasthesettingupofaconciliationboardonwhichworkersandemployerswereequallyrepresented.)

The nine-hour day in all the railwayworkshops (in February), inmany government,militaryandnavalworkshops,inmostofthefactoriesofthetownofBerdiansk,inalltheprintingworksofthetownsofPoltavaandMunsk;nine-and-a-halfhoursintheshipyards,mechanicalworkshopsandfoundriesinthetownofNikolaev,inJune,afterageneralstrikeofwaitersinWarsaw,inmanyrestaurantsandcafes(andatthesametimeawageincreaseof20to40percent,withatwo-weekholidayintheyear).

The ten-hour day in almost all the factories of the towns of Lodz, Sosnovitz, Riga,Kovno,Oval,Dorfat,Minsk,Kharkov,inthebakeriesofOdessa,amongthemechanicsin

–24–

Kishinev,atafewsmeltingworksinSt.Petersburg,inthematchfactoriesofKovno(withanincreaseofwagesof10percent),inallthegovernmentmarineworkshops,andamongstallthedockers.

Thewage increaseswere, ingeneral, smaller than theshorteningofhoursbutalwaysmoresignificant:inWarsawinthemiddleofMarch1905ageneralincreaseofwagesof15per cent was fixed by the municipal factories department; in the centre of the textileindustry, IvanovoVosnesensk, thewage increaseamounted to7 to15percent, inKovnotheincreaseaffected73percentoftheworkers.AfixedminimumwagewasintroducedinsomeofthebakeriesinOdessa,intheNevashipbuildingyardsinSt.Petersburg,etc.

Itgoeswithoutsayingthattheseconcessionswerewithdrawnagain,nowhereandnowthere. This however was only the cause of renewed strife and led to still more bitterstrugglesforrevenge,andthusthestrikeperiodofthespringof1905hasofitselfbecomethe prologue to an endless series of ever-spreading and interlacing economic struggleswhich have lasted to the present day. In the period of the outward stagnation of therevolution,whenthetelegraphcarriednosensationalnewsfromtheRussiantheatreofwarto the outside world, and when the west European laid aside his newspaper indisappointmentwiththeremarkthere“wasnothingdoing”inRussia,thegreatundergroundworkof the revolutionwas in realitybeingcarriedonwithoutcessation,day-by-dayandhour-by-hour, in theveryheart of the empire.The incessant intensive economic struggleeffected,byrapidandabbreviatedmethods, the transitionofcapitalismfromthestageofprimitive accumulation, of patriarchal unmethodical methods of working, to a highlymodern,civilisedone.

AtthepresenttimetheactualworkingdayinRussianindustryleavesbehind,notonlytheRussianfactorylegislation(thatisthelegalworkingdayofelevenhours)buteventheactual conditions ofGermany. Inmost departments of large-scale industry inRussia theten-hour day prevails, which in Germany is declared in social legislation to be anunattainable goal. And what is more, that longed-for “industrial constitutionalism,” forwhichthereissomuchenthusiasminGermany,andforthesakeofwhichtheadvocatesofopportunist tactics would keep ever keen wind from the stagnant waters of their all-suffering parliamentarism, has already been born, together with political“constitutionalism,” in themidstof therevolutionarystorm,fromtherevolution itself! Inactualfactitisnotmerelyageneralraisingofthestandardoflife,ortheculturalleveloftheworking-classthathastakenplace.Thematerialstandardoflifeasapermanentstageofwell-being has no place in the revolution. Full of contradictions and contrasts it brings

–25–

simultaneously surprising economic victories and themost brutal acts of revenge on thepartofthecapitalists;todaytheeight-hourdayandtomorrowwholesalelockoutsandactualstarvationforthemillions.

Themostprecious, lasting, thing in the rapid ebband flowof thewave is itsmentalsediment: the intellectual, cultural growth of the proletariat, which proceeds by fits andstarts,andwhichoffersaninviolableguaranteeoftheirfurtherirresistibleprogressintheeconomicasinthepoliticalstruggle.Andnotonlythat.Eventherelationsoftheworkertothe employer are turned round; since the January general strike and the strikes of 1905which followedupon it, theprincipleof thecapitalist “masteryof thehouse” isde factoabolished. In the larger factories of all important industrial centres the establishment ofworkers’ committees has, as if by itself, taken place, with which alone the employernegotiatesandwhichdecidealldisputes.

And finally another thing, the apparently “chaotic” strikes and the “disorganised”revolutionary action after the Januarygeneral strike are becoming the startingpoint of afeverishworkoforganisation.DameHistory,fromafar,smilinglyhoaxesthebureaucraticlayfigureswhokeepgrimwatchatthegateoverthefateoftheGermantradeunions.Thefirm organisations which, as the indispensable hypothesis for an eventual Germanmassstrike,shouldbefortifiedlikeanimpregnablecitadel–theseorganisationsareinRussia,onthe contrary, alreadyborn from themass strike.Andwhile the guardians of theGermantrade unions for the most part fear that the organisations will fall in pieces in arevolutionary whirlwind like rare porcelain, the Russian revolution shows us the exactoppositepicture; fromthewhirlwindand thestorm,outof the fireandglowof themassstrikeandthestreetfightingriseagain,likeVenusfromthefoam,fresh,young,powerful,buoyanttradeunions.

Here again a little example, which, however, is typical of the whole empire. At thesecond conference of theRussian trade unionswhich took place at the end of February1906inSt.Petersburg,therepresentativeofthePetersburgtradeunions,inhisreportonthedevelopmentoftrade-unionorganisations,oftheczaristcapitalsaid:

“January 22, 1905, which washed away the Gapon union, was a turning point. Theworkers in large numbers have learned by experience to appreciate and understand theimportanceoforganisation, and thatonly they themselvescancreate theseorganisations.Thefirsttradeunion–thatoftheprinters–originatedindirectconnectionwiththeJanuarymovement.Thecommissionappointed toworkout the tariffs framed thestatutes,andonJuly19theunionbeganitsexistence.Justaboutthistimetheunionofoffice-workersand

–26–

bookkeeperswascalledintoexistence.”“In addition to those organisations, which extend almost openly, there arose from

January toOctober1905semi-legaland illegal tradeunions.To the formerbelonged, forexample,theunionofchemists’assistantsandcommercialemployees.Amongsttheillegalunions special attention must be drawn to the watchmakers’ union, whose first secretsession was held on April 24th. All attempts to convene a general open meeting wereshattered on the obstinate resistance of the police and the employers in the form of theChamberofCommerce.Thismischancehasnotpreventedtheexistenceoftheunion.Thetailorsandtailoressesunionwasfoundedin1905atameetinginawoodatwhichseventytailorswerepresent.Afterthequestionofformingtheunionwasdiscussedacommissionwasappointedwhichwasentrustedwiththetaskofworkingoutthestatutes.Allattemptsofthecommissiontoobtainalegalexistencefortheunionwereunsuccessful.Itsactivitieswereconfinedtoagitationandtheenrollingofnewmembersintheindividualworkshops.Asimilarfatewasinstorefortheshoemakers’union.InJuly,asecretnightmeetingwasconvenedinawoodnearthecity.Over100shoemakersattended;areportwasreadontheimportanceof tradeunionism,on itshistory inWesternEuropeandits tasks inRussia. Itwasthendecidedtoformatradeunion;acommissionoftwelvewasappointedtoworkoutthestatutesandcallageneralmeetingofshoemakers.Thestatutesweredrawnup,butinthemeantimeithadnotbeenfoundpossibletoprintthemnorhadthegeneralmeetingbeenconvened.”

These were the first difficult beginnings. Then came the October days, the secondgeneralstrike,theczar’smanifestoofOctober30andthebrief“constitutionperiod.”Theworkersthrewthemselveswithfieryzealintothewavesofpoliticalfreedominordertouseit forthwith for thepurposeof theworkoforganisation.Besidesdailypoliticalmeetings,debates and the formationof clubs, thedevelopment of tradeunionismwas immediatelytakeninhand.InOctoberandNovemberfortynewtradeunionsappearedinSt.Petersburg.Presentlya“centralbureau,”thatis,atrade-unioncouncil,wasestablished,varioustrade-unionpapersappeared,andsinceNovemberacentralorganhasalsobeenpublished,TheTradeUnion.

WhatwasreportedaboveconcerningPetersburgwasalsotrueonthewholeofMoscowandOdessa,KievandNikolaev,SaratovandVoronezh,SamaraandNizhniNovgorod,andall the larger townsofRussia,and toastillhigherdegree inPoland.The tradeunionsofdifferent towns seek contactwith one another and conferences are held. The end of the“constitutionperiod,”andthereturntoreactioninDecember1905putastopforthetime

–27–

beingtotheopenwidespreadactivityofthetradeunions,butdidnot,however,altogetherextinguish them.They operate as organisations in secret and occasionally carry on quiteopenwage struggles.Apeculiarmixtureof the legal and illegal conditionof trade-unionlifeisbeingbuiltup,correspondingtothehighlycontradictoryrevolutionarysituation.

Butinthemidstofthestruggletheworkoforganisationisbeingmorewidelyextended,inathoroughgoing,nottosaypedanticfashion.Thetrade-unionsofthesocialdemocracyof Poland and Lithuania, for example, which at the last congress (in July 1906) wererepresentedby five delegates fromamembershipof 10,000 are furnishedwith the usualstatutes, printed membership cards, adhesive stamps, etc. And the same bankers andshoemakers, engineers andprintersofWarsawandLodzwho in June1905 stoodon thebarricadesandinDecemberonlyawaitedthewordfromPetersburgtobeginstreetfighting,findtimeandareeager,betweenonemassstrikeandanother,betweenprisonandlockout,andundertheconditionsofasiege,togointotheirtrade-unionstatutesanddiscussthemearnestly.Thesebarricadefightersofyesterdayandtomorrowhaveindeedmorethanonceatmeetingsseverelyreprimandedtheirleadersandthreatenedthemwithwithdrawalfromthepartybecausetheunluckytrade-unionmembershipcardscouldnotbeprintedquicklyenough – in secret printingworks under incessant police persecution. This zeal and thisearnestnesscontinue to thisday.Forexample, in thefirst twoweeksofJuly1906fifteennew trade unions appeared in Ekaterinoslav, six in Kostroma, several in Kiev, Poltava,Smolensk,Cherkassy,Proskurvo,downtothemostinsignificantprovincialtowns.

In the session of the Moscow trade-union council of June 4 this year, after theacceptanceofthereportsofindividualtrade-uniondelegates,itwasdecided“thatthetrade-unionsshoulddisciplinetheirmembersandrestrainfromstreetriotingbecausethetimeisnotconsideredopportuneforthemassstrike.Inthefaceofpossibleprovocationonthepartofthegovernment,careshouldbetakenthatthemassesdonotstreamoutinthestreets.”Finally, the council decided that if at any timeone trade-unionbegan a strike the othersshould hold back from any wages movement.Most of the economic struggles are nowdirectedbythetrade-unions.

ThusthegreateconomicstrugglewhichproceededfromtheJanuarygeneralstrike,andwhichhasnotceasedtothepresentday,hasformedabroadbackgroundoftherevolutionfrom which, in ceaseless reciprocal action with the political agitation and the externaleventsoftherevolution,thereeverarisehereandtherenowisolatedexplosions,andnowgreatsectionsoftheproletariat.Thusthereflameupagainstthisbackgroundthefollowingevents one after the other; at the May Day demonstration there was an unprecedented,

–28–

absolute general strike in Warsaw which ended in a bloody encounter between thedefencelesscrowdandthesoldiers.AtLodzinJuneamassouting,whichwasscatteredbythesoldiers,ledtoademonstrationof100,000workersatthefuneralofsomeofthevictimsofthebrutalsoldieryandtoarenewedencounterwiththemilitary,andfinally,onJune23,24and25,passedintothefirstbarricadefightintheczaristempire.SimilarlyinJunethefirstgreat revoltof the sailorsof theBlackSeaFleet exploded in theharbourofOdessafromatriflingincidentonboardthearmouredvesselPotemkinwhichreactedimmediatelyonOdessaandNikolaevintheformofaviolentmassstrike.Asafurtherechofollowedthemassstrikeandthesailors’revoltsinKronstadt,LibauandVladivostok.

InthemonthofOctoberthegrandioseexperimentofSt.Petersburgwasmadewiththeintroduction of the eight-hour day. The general council of workers delegates decided toachievetheeight-hourdayinarevolutionarymanner.Thatmeansthatontheappointeddayall theworkers of Petersburg should inform their employers that they are notwilling toworkmorethaneighthoursaday,andshouldleavetheirplacesofworkattheendofeighthours.Theideawastheoccasionof livelyagitation,wasacceptedbytheproletariatwithenthusiasmand carriedout, but verygreat sacrificeswere not thereby avoided.Thus forexample,theeight-hourdaymeantanenormousfallinwagesforthetextileworkerswhohadhithertoworkedelevenhoursandthatonasystemofpiecework.This,however,theywillingly accepted. Within a week the eight-hour day prevailed in every factory andworkshopinPetersburg,andthejoyof theworkersknewnobounds.Soon,however, theemployers,stupefiedatfirst,preparedtheirdefences;everywheretheythreatenedtoclosetheir factories. Someof theworkers consented to negotiate andobtainedhere aworkingday of ten hours and there one of nine hours. The elite of the Petersburg proletariat,however, the workers in the large government engineering establishments, remainedunshaken,andalockoutensuedwhichthrewfromforty-fivetofiftythousandmenonthestreets for amonth.At the settlement the eight-hour daymovementwas carried into thegeneralstrikeofDecemberwhichthegreatlockouthadhamperedtoagreatextent.

Meanwhile, however, the second tremendous general strike throughout the wholeempire follows inOctober as a reply to the project of theBulyginDuma– the strike towhich the railwaymen gave the summons. This second great action of the proletariatalready bears a character essentially different from that of the first one in January. Theelementofpoliticalconsciousnessalreadyplaysamuchbiggerrole.Herealso,tobesure,the immediate occasion for the outbreak of the mass strike was a subordinate andapparentlyaccidentalthing:theconflictoftherailwaymenwiththemanagementoverthe

–29–

pensionfund.Butthegeneralrisingoftheindustrialproletariatwhichfolloweduponitwasconductedinaccordancewithclearpoliticalideas.TheprologueoftheJanuarystrikewasaprocessiontotheczartoaskforpoliticalfreedom:thewatchwordoftheOctoberstrikeranawaywiththeconstitutionalcomedyofczarism!

And thanks to the immediate successof thegeneral strike, to the czar’smanifestoofOctober 30, the movement does not flow back on itself, as in January but rushes overoutwardly in the eager activity of newly acquired political freedom. Demonstrations,meetings,ayoungpress,publicdiscussionsandbloodymassacresastheendofthestory,and thereupon newmass strikes and demonstrations – such is the stormy picture of theNovember andDecember days. InNovember, at the instance of the social democrats inPetersburgthefirstdemonstrativemassstrikeisarrangedasaprotestdemonstrationagainstthebloodydeedsandproclamationofastateofsiegeinPolandandLivonia.

The fermentation after the brief constitutional period and the gruesome awakeningfinally leads inDecember to theoutbreakof the thirdgeneralmassstrike throughout theempire.Thistimeitscourseanditsoutcomearealtogetherdifferentfromthoseinthetwoearliercases.PoliticalactiondoesnotchangeintoeconomicactionasinJanuary,butitnolongerachievesarapidvictoryasinOctober.Theattemptsoftheczaristcamarillawithrealpoliticalfreedomarenolongermade,andrevolutionaryactiontherewith,forthefirsttime,and along its whole length, knocked against the strongwall of the physical violence ofabsolutism.Bythelogicalinternaldevelopmentofprogressiveexperiencethemassstrikethis time changes into an open insurrection, to armed barricades, and street fighting inMoscow.TheDecemberdaysinMoscowclosethefirsteventfulyearoftherevolutionasthehighestpointintheascendinglineofpoliticalactionandofthemassstrikemovement.

TheMoscoweventsshowatypicalpictureofthelogicaldevelopmentandatthesametimeofthefutureoftherevolutionarymovementonthewhole:theirinevitablecloseinageneral open insurrection, which again on its part cannot come in any other way thanthrough the school of a series of preparatory partial insurrections, which end in partialoutward“defeats”and,consideredindividually,mayappeartobe“premature.”

The year 1906 brings the elections to the Duma and the Duma incidents. Theproletariat, from a strong revolutionary instinct and clear knowledge of the situation,boycotts the whole czarist constitutional farce, and liberalism again occupies the centrestage for a fewmonths. The situation of 1904 appears to have come again, a period ofspeechesinsteadofacts,andtheproletariatforatimewalkintheshadowinordertodevotethemselvesthemorediligentlytothetrade-unionstruggleandtheworkoftheorganisation.

–30–

Themassstrikesarenolongerspokenof,whiletheclatteringrocketsofliberalrhetoricarefiredoffdayafterday.Atlast,theironcurtainistorndown,theactorsaredispersed,andnothing remains of the liberal rockets but smoke and vapour.An attempt of theCentralCommitteeoftheRussiansocialdemocracytocallforthamassstrike,asademonstrationfortheDumaandthereopeningoftheperiodofliberalspeechmaking,fallsabsolutelyflat.Theroleofthepoliticalmassstrikealoneisexhausted,but,atthesametime,thetransitionofthemassstrikeintoageneralpopularrisingisnotyetaccomplished.Theliberalepisodeis past, the proletarian episode is not yet begun. The stage remains empty for the timebeing.

–31–

IV. The Interaction of the Political and theEconomicStruggle

WehaveattemptedintheforegoingtosketchthehistoryofthemassstrikeinRussiainafew strokes. Even a fleeting glance at this history shows us a picture which in nowayresemblesthatusuallyformedbydiscussionsinGermanyonthemassstrike.Insteadoftherigidandhollowschemeofanaridpoliticalactioncarriedoutbythedecisionofthehighestcommitteesandfurnishedwithaplanandpanorama,weseeabitofpulsatinglifeoffleshandblood,whichcannotbecutoutof the large frameof the revolutionbut isconnectedwithallpartsoftherevolutionbyathousandveins.

The mass strike, as the Russian Revolution shows it to us, is such a changeablephenomenonthatitreflectsallthephasesofthepoliticalandeconomicstruggle,allstagesand factors of the revolution. Its adaptability, its efficiency, the factors of its origin areconstantlychanging.Itsuddenlyopensnewandwideperspectivesoftherevolutionwhenitappearstohavealreadyarrivedinanarrowpassandwhereitisimpossibleforanyonetoreckonuponitwithanydegreeofcertainty.Itflowsnowlikeabroadbillowoverthewholekingdom,andnowdividesintoagiganticnetworkofnarrowstreams;nowitbubblesforthfrom under the ground like a fresh spring and now is completely lost under the earth.Political and economic strikes,mass strikes andpartial strikes, demonstrative strikes andfighting strikes, general strikes of individual branches of industry and general strikes inindividual towns, peaceful wage struggles and street massacres, barricade fighting – allthese run throughoneanother, run sideby side, crossoneanother, flow inandoveroneanother–itisaceaselesslymoving,changingseaofphenomena.Andthelawofmotionofthesephenomenaisclear:itdoesnotlieinthemassstrikeitselfnorinitstechnicaldetails,butinthepoliticalandsocialproportionsoftheforcesoftherevolution.

The mass strike is merely the form of the revolutionary struggle and everydisarrangementoftherelationsofthecontendingpowers,inpartydevelopmentandinclassdivision,inthepositionofcounter-revolution–allthisimmediatelyinfluencestheactionofthe strike in a thousand invisible and scarcely controllableways. But strike action itselfdoesnotceaseforasinglemoment.Itmerelyaltersitsforms,itsdimensions,itseffect.Itisthelivingpulse-beatoftherevolutionandatthesametimeitsmostpowerfuldrivingwheel.Inaword,themassstrike,asshowntousintheRussianRevolution,isnotacraftymethod

–32–

discovered by subtle reasoning for the purpose ofmaking the proletarian strugglemoreeffective,but themethodofmotionof theproletarianmass, the phenomenal formof theproletarianstruggleintherevolution.

Somegeneralaspectsmaynowbeexaminedwhichmayassistusinformingacorrectestimateoftheproblemofthemassstrike:

1.Itisabsurdtothinkofthemassstrikeasoneact,oneisolatedaction.Themassstrikeisrathertheindication,therallyingidea,ofawholeperiodoftheclassstrugglelastingforyears,perhapsfordecades.OftheinnumerableandhighlyvariedmassstrikeswhichhavetakenplaceinRussiaduringthelastfouryears,theschemeofthemassstrikewasapurelypoliticalmovement,begunandendedafteracutanddriedplan,ashortsingleactofonevarietyonly and, at that, a subordinatevariety–puredemonstration strike. In thewholecourseofthefive-yearperiodweseeinRussiaonlyafewdemonstrationstrikes,whichbeitnoted,weregenerallyconfinedtosingletowns.ThustheannualMayDaygeneralstrikeinWarsawandLodzinRussiaproperonthefirstofMayhasnotyetbeencelebratedtoanyappreciableextentbyabstentionfromwork; themassstrike inWarsawonSeptember11,1905,asamemorialserviceinhonouroftheexecutedMartinKasprzak;thatofNovember1905inPetersburgasprotestdemonstrationsagainstthedeclarationofthestateofsiegeinPoland and Livonia; that of January 22, 1906 in Warsaw, Lodz, Czentochon and inDombrowa coal basin, as well as, in part, those in a few Russian towns as anniversarycelebrationsofthePetersburgbloodbath;inaddition,inJuly1906ageneralstrikeinTiflisasdemonstrationof sympathywithsoldiers sentencedbycourt-martialonaccountof themilitary revolt; and finally from the same cause, in September 1906, during thedeliberationsofthecourt-martialinReval.Alltheabovegreatandpartialmassstrikesandgeneral strikes were not demonstration strikes but fighting strikes, and as such theyoriginated, for themost part, spontaneously, in every case from specific local accidentalcauses,withoutplanordesign,andgrewwithelementalpowerintogreatmovements,andthentheydidnotbeginan“orderlyretreat,”butturnednowintoeconomicstruggles,nowintostreetfighting,andnowcollapsedofthemselves.

Inthisgeneralpicturethepurelypoliticaldemonstrationstrikeplaysquiteasubordinaterole – isolated small points in the midst of a mighty expanse. Thereby, temporarilyconsidered,thefollowingcharacteristicdisclosesitself:thedemonstrationstrikeswhich,incontradistinction to the fighting strikes, exhibit the greatest mass of party discipline,consciousdirectionandpoliticalthought,andthereforemustappearasthehighestandmostmature formof themass strike, play in reality the greatest part in thebeginnings of the

–33–

movement.Thus,forexample,theabsolutecessationofworkonMay1,1905,inWarsaw,as the first instance of a decision of the social democrats carried throughout in such anastonishingfashion,wasanexperienceofgreatimportancefortheproletarianmovementinPoland.InthesamewaythesympatheticstrikeofthesameyearinPetersburgmadeagreatimpressionasthefirstexperimentofconscioussystematicmassactioninRussia.Similarlythe“trialmassstrike”oftheHamburgcomradesonJanuary17,1906,willplayaprominentpart inthehistoryof thefutureGermanmassstrikeasthefirstvigorousattemptwiththemuch disputedweapon, and also a very successful and convincingly striking test of thefightingtemperandthelustforbattleoftheHamburgworkingclass.Andjustassurelywilltheperiodof themassstrikeinGermany,whenithasoncebeguninrealearnest, leadofitselftoareal,generalcessationofworkonMayfirst.TheMayDayfestivalmaynaturallyberaisedtoapositionofhonourasthefirstgreatdemonstrationundertheaegisofthemassstruggle.Inthissensethe“lamehorse,”astheMayDayfestivalwastermedatthetrade-unioncongressatCologne,hasstillagreatfuturebeforeitandanimportantparttoplay,intheproletarianclassstruggleinGermany.

Butwiththedevelopmentoftheearnestrevolutionarystruggletheimportanceofsuchdemonstrationsdiminishesrapidly.Itispreciselythosefactorswhichobjectivelyfacilitatetherealisationofthedemonstrationstrikeafterapreconceivedplanandattheparty’swordof command – namely, the growth of political consciousness and the training of theproletariat–makethiskindofmassstrikeimpossible;todaytheproletariatinRussia,themost capable vanguard of the masses, does not want to know about mass strikes; theworkersarenolongerinamoodforjestingandwillnowthinkonlyofaseriousstrugglewith all its consequences.Andwhen, in the first greatmass strike in January 1905, thedemonstrativeelement,notindeedinanintentional,butmoreinaninstinctive,spontaneousform,stillplayedagreatpart,ontheotherhand,theattemptoftheCentralCommitteeofthe Russian social democrats to call amass strike inAugust as a demonstration for thedissolvedDumawas shattered by, among other things, the positive disinclination of theeducatedproletariattoengageinweakhalf-actionsandmeredemonstrations.

2.When,however,wehaveinviewthelessimportantstrikeofthedemonstrativekind,insteadofthefightingstrikeasitrepresentsinRussiatodaytheactualvehicleofproletarianaction,weseestillmoreclearlythatitisimpossibletoseparatetheeconomicfactorsfromone another.Here also the reality deviates from the theoretical scheme, and the pedanticrepresentation inwhich thepurepoliticalmass strike is logicallyderived from the trade-union general strike as the ripest and highest stage, but at the same time is kept distinct

–34–

from it, is shown tobeabsolutely false.This isexpressednotmerely in the fact that themassstrikefromthatfirstgreatwagestruggleofthePetersburgtextileworkersin1896–97to the lastgreatmass strike inDecember1905,passed imperceptibly from theeconomicfieldtothepolitical,sothatitisalmostimpossibletodrawadividinglinebetweenthem.

Again, everyoneof thegreatmass strikes repeats, so to speak,on a small scale, theentirehistoryoftheRussianmassstrike,andbeginswithapureeconomic,oratallevents,apartialtrade-unionconflict,andrunsthroughallthestagestothepoliticaldemonstration.ThegreatthunderstormofmassstrikesinSouthRussiain1902and1903originated,aswehave seen, in Baku from a conflict arising from the disciplinary punishment of theunemployed,inRostovfromdisputesaboutwagesintherailwayworkshops,inTiflisfromastruggleofthecommercialemployeesforreductionofworkinghours,inOdessafromawagedisputeinasinglesmallfactory.TheJanuarymassstrikeof1905developedfromaninternalconflict in thePutilovworks, theOctober strike from thestruggleof the railwayworkersforapensionfund,andfinallytheDecemberstrikefromthestruggleofthepostalandtelegraphemployeesfortherightofcombination.Theprogressofthemovementonthewholeisnotexpressedinthecircumstancesthattheeconomicinitialstageisomitted,butmuchmoreintherapiditywithwhichallthestagestothepoliticaldemonstrationarerunthroughandintheextremityofthepointtowhichthestrikemovesforward.

But themovementon thewholedoesnotproceed from theeconomic to thepoliticalstruggle, nor even the reverse. Every great politicalmass action, after it has attained itspoliticalhighestpoint,breaksupintoamassofeconomicstrikes.Andthatappliesnotonlytoeachofthegreatmassstrikes,butalsototherevolutionasawhole.Withthespreading,clarifyingandinvolutionofthepoliticalstruggle,theeconomicstrugglenotonlydoesnotrecede,but extends, organises andbecomes involved in equalmeasure.Between the twothereisthemostcompletereciprocalaction.

Everynewonsetandeveryfreshvictoryofthepoliticalstruggleistransformedintoapowerful impetus for the economic struggle, extending at the same time its externalpossibilitiesandintensifyingtheinnerurgeoftheworkerstobettertheirpositionandtheirdesire to struggle. After every foaming wave of political action a fructifying depositremains behind from which a thousand stalks of economic struggle shoot forth. Andconversely. The workers’ condition of ceaseless economic struggle with the capitalistskeeps their fighting energy alive in every political interval; it forms, so to speak, thepermanentfreshreservoirofthestrengthoftheproletarianclasses,fromwhichthepoliticalfight ever renews its strength, and at the same time leads the indefatigable economic

–35–

sappersoftheproletariatatalltimes,nowhereandnowthere,toisolatedsharpconflicts,outofwhichpublicconflictsonalargescaleunexpectedlyexplode.

Inaword:theeconomicstruggleisthetransmitterfromonepoliticalcentretoanother;thepoliticalstruggleistheperiodicfertilisationofthesoilfortheeconomicstruggle.Causeandeffectherecontinuallychangeplaces;andthustheeconomicandthepoliticalfactorintheperiodofthemassstrike,nowwidelyremoved,completelyseparatedorevenmutuallyexclusive,asthetheoreticalplanwouldhavethem,merelyformthetwointerlacingsidesoftheproletarianclassstruggleinRussia.Andtheirunity ispreciselythemassstrike.Ifthesophisticatedtheoryproposestomakeacleverlogicaldissectionofthemassstrikeforthepurposeofgettingatthe“purelypoliticalmassstrike,”itwillbythisdissection,aswithanyother,notperceivethephenomenoninitslivingessence,butwillkillitaltogether.

3. Finally, the events inRussia show us that themass strike is inseparable from therevolution.ThehistoryoftheRussianmassstrikeisthehistoryoftheRussianRevolution.When,tobesure,therepresentativesofourGermanopportunismhearof“revolution,”theyimmediately think of bloodshed, street fighting or powder and shot, and the logicalconclusionthereofis:themassstrikeleadsinevitablytotherevolution,thereforewedarenothave it. Inactual factwesee inRussia that almosteverymass strike in the long runleads toanencounterwith thearmedguardiansofczaristorder,and therein theso-calledpoliticalstrikesexactlyresemblethelargereconomicstruggle.Therevolution,however,issomething other and something more than bloodshed. In contradiction to the policeinterpretation, which views the revolution exclusively from the standpoint of streetdisturbances and rioting, that is, from the standpoint of “disorder,” the interpretation ofscientific socialism sees in the revolution above all a thorough-going internal reversal ofsocial class relations. And from this standpoint an altogether different connection existsbetween revolution and mass strike in Russia from that contained in the commonplaceconceptionthatthemassstrikegenerallyendsinbloodshed.

Wehave seen above the innermechanismof theRussianmass strikewhich dependsupon the ceaseless reciprocal action of the political and economic struggles. But thisreciprocalactionisconditionedduringtherevolutionaryperiod.Onlyinthesultryairoftheperiodof revolutioncananypartial littleconflictbetween labourandcapitalgrow intoageneralexplosion.InGermanythemostviolent,mostbrutalcollisionsbetweentheworkersand employers takeplace every year and everydaywithout the struggle overleaping theboundsoftheindividualdepartmentsorindividual townsconcerned,oreventhoseoftheindividualfactories.PunishmentoforganisedworkersinPetersburgandunemploymentas

–36–

inBaku,wagestrugglesasinOdessa,strugglesfortherightofcombinationasinMoscoware the order of the day in Germany. No single one of these cases however changessuddenly into a common class action. And when they grow into isolated mass strikes,whichhavewithoutquestionapoliticalcolouring,theydonotbringaboutageneralstorm.The general strike of Dutch railwaymen, which died away in spite of the warmestsympathy,inthemidstofthecompleteimpassivityoftheproletariatofthecountry,affordsastrikingproofofthis.

Andconversely,onlyintheperiodofrevolution,whenthesocialfoundationsandthewallsoftheclasssocietyareshakenandsubjectedtoaconstantprocessofdisarrangement,anypoliticalclassactionoftheproletariatcanarousefromtheirpassiveconditioninafewhourswholesectionsoftheworkingclasswhohavehithertoremainedunaffected,andthisis immediately and naturally expressed in a stormy economic struggle. The worker,suddenlyarousedtoactivitybytheelectricshockofpoliticalaction,immediatelyseizestheweaponlyingnearesthishandforthefightagainsthisconditionofeconomicslavery:thestormy gesture of the political struggle causes him to feelwith unexpected intensity theweightandthepressureofhiseconomicchains.Andwhile,forexample,themostviolentpoliticalstruggleinGermany–theelectoralstruggleortheparliamentarystruggleonthecustoms tariff–exercisedascarcelyperceptibledirect influenceupon thecourseand theintensity of the wage struggles being conducted at the same time in Germany, everypoliticalactionoftheproletariatinRussiaimmediatelyexpressesitselfintheextensionoftheareaandthedeepeningoftheintensityoftheeconomicstruggle.

Therevolutionthusfirstcreatesthesocialconditionsinwhichthissuddenchangeoftheeconomic struggle into the political and of the political struggle into the economic ispossible,achangewhichfindsitsexpressioninthemassstrike.Andifthevulgarschemesees the connection betweenmass strike and revolution only in bloody street encounterswith which the mass strikes conclude, a somewhat deeper look into the Russian eventsshows an exactly opposite connection: in reality the mass strike does not produce therevolutionbuttherevolutionproducesthemassstrike.

4.Itissufficientinordertocomprehendtheforegoingtoobtainanexplanationofthequestionoftheconsciousdirectionandinitiativeinthemassstrike.Ifthemassstrikeisnotanisolatedactbutawholeperiodoftheclassstruggle,andifthisperiodisidenticalwithaperiodofrevolution,itisclearthatthemassstrikecannotbecalledatwill,evenwhenthedecisiontodosomaycomefromthehighestcommitteeofthestrongestsocialdemocraticparty. As long as the social democracy has not the power to stage and countermand

–37–

revolutionsaccordingtoitsfancy,eventhegreatestenthusiasmandimpatienceofthesocialdemocratictroopswillnotsufficetocallintobeingarealperiodofmassstrikeasaliving,powerfulmovementofthepeople.Onthebasisofadecisionofthepartyleadershipandofpartydiscipline,asingleshortdemonstrationmaywellbearrangedsimilartotheSwedishmassstrike,ortothelatestAustrianstrike,oreventotheHamburgmassstrikeofJanuary17. These demonstrations, however, differ from an actual period of revolutionary massstrikesinexactlythesamewaythatthewell-knowndemonstrationsinforeignportsduringaperiodofstraineddiplomaticrelationsdifferfromanavalwar.Amassstrikebornofpuredisciplineandenthusiasmwill,atbest,merelyplaytheroleofanepisode,ofasymptomofthefightingmoodoftheworkingclassuponwhich,however,theconditionsofapeacefulperiodarereflected.

Of course, even during the revolution,mass strikes do not exactly fall from heaven.Theymustbebroughtabout in somewayoranotherby theworkers.The resolutionanddetermination of the workers also play a part and indeed the initiative and the widerdirection naturally fall to the share of the organised andmost enlightened kernel of theproletariat.Butthescopeofthisinitiativeandthisdirection,forthemostpart,isconfinedto application to individual acts, to individual strikes, when the revolutionary period isalready begun, and indeed, inmost cases, is confinedwithin the boundaries of a singletown.Thus, forexample, aswehave seen, the socialdemocratshavealready,on severaloccasions,successfully issuedadirectsummonsforamassstrikeinBaku, inWarsaw, inLodz,and inPetersburg.But this succeedsmuch less frequentlywhenapplied togeneralmovementsofthewholeproletariat.

Further, therearequitedefinite limitsset to initiativeandconsciousdirection.Duringtherevolutionitisextremelydifficultforanydirectingorganoftheproletarianmovementtoforeseeand tocalculatewhichoccasionsandfactorscan lead toexplosionsandwhichcannot.Herealsoinitiativeanddirectiondonotconsistinissuingcommandsaccordingtoone’sinclinations,butinthemostadroitadaptabilitytothegivensituation,andtheclosestpossiblecontactwiththemoodofthemasses.Theelementofspontaneity,aswehaveseen,playsagreatpartinallRussianmassstrikeswithoutexception,beitasadrivingforceorasarestraininginfluence.ThisdoesnotoccurinRussia,however,becausesocialdemocracyis still youngorweak, but because in every individual act of the struggle so verymanyimportanteconomic,politicalandsocial,generalandlocal,materialandpsychical,factorsreactupononeanotherinsuchawaythatnosingleactcanbearrangedandresolvedasifitwere amathematical problem.The revolution, evenwhen the proletariat,with the social

–38–

democratsattheirhead,appearintheleadingrole,isnotamanoeuvreoftheproletariatintheopenfield,butafightinthemidstoftheincessantcrashing,displacingandcrumblingofthesocialfoundation.Inshort,inthemassstrikesinRussiatheelementofspontaneityplays suchapredominantpart, notbecause theRussianproletariat are “uneducated,”butbecauserevolutionsdonotallowanyonetoplaytheschoolmasterwiththem.

Ontheotherhand,weseeinRussiathatthesamerevolutionwhichrenderedthesocialdemocrats’commandofthemassstrikesodifficult,andwhichstrucktheconductor’sbatonfrom, or pressed into, their hand at all times in such a comical fashion –we see that itresolvedofitselfallthosedifficultiesofthemassstrikewhich,inthetheoreticalschemeofGermandiscussionareregardedasthechiefconcernofthe“directingbody”:thequestionof“provisioning,”“discoveryofcost,”and“sacrifice.”Itgoeswithoutsayingthatitdoesnotresolvetheminthewaythattheywouldberesolvedinaquietconfidentialdiscussionbetween the higher directing committees of the labour movement, the members sittingpencilinhand.The“regulation”ofallthesequestionsconsistsinthecircumstancethattherevolutionbringssuchanenormousmassofpeopleuponthestagethatanycomputationorregulationofthecostofthemovementsuchascanbeeffectedinacivilprocess,appearstobeanaltogetherhopelessundertaking.

TheleadingorganisationsinRussiacertainlyattempttosupportthedirectvictimstothebest of their ability. Thus, for example, the brave victims of the gigantic lockout in St.Petersburg,whichfollowedupontheeight-hourdaycampaign,weresupportedforweeks.Butallthesemeasuresare,intheenormousbalanceoftherevolution,butasadropintheocean. At the moment that a real, earnest period of mass strikes begins, all these“calculations”of“cost”becomemerelyprojectsforexhausting theoceanwitha tumbler.Anditisaveritableoceanoffrightfulprivationsandsufferingswhichisbroughtbyeveryrevolutiontotheproletarianmasses.Andthesolutionwhicharevolutionaryperiodmakesofthisapparentlyinvincibledifficultyconsistsinthecircumstancesthatsuchanimmensevolumeofmass idealism is simultaneously released that themasses are insensible to thebitterestsufferings.WiththepsychologyofatradeunionistwhowillnotstayoffhisworkonMayDayunlessheisassuredinadvanceofadefiniteamountofsupportintheeventofhisbeingvictimised,neitherrevolutionnormassstrikecanbemade.Butinthestormoftherevolutionary period even the proletarian is transformed from a provident pater familasdemanding support, into a “revolutionary romanticist,” forwhomeven the highest good,lifeitself,tosaynothingofmaterialwell-being,possessesbutlittleincomparisonwiththeidealsofthestruggle.

–39–

If,however, thedirectionof themass strike in the senseofcommandover itsorigin,andinthesenseofthecalculatingandreckoningofthecost,isamatteroftherevolutionaryperioditself,thedirectingofthemassstrikebecomes,inanaltogetherdifferentsense,thedutyofsocialdemocracyand its leadingorgans. Insteadofpuzzling theirheadswith thetechnicalside,withthemechanism,ofthemassstrike,thesocialdemocratsarecalledupontoassumepoliticalleadershipinthemidstoftherevolutionaryperiod.

To give the cue for, and the direction to, the fight; to so regulate the tactics of thepolitical struggle in its every phase and at its every moment that the entire sum of theavailablepoweroftheproletariatwhichisalreadyreleasedandactive,willfindexpressionin thebattlearrayof theparty; tosee that the tacticsof thesocialdemocratsaredecidedaccording to their resoluteness and acuteness and that they never fall below the leveldemanded by the actual relations of forces, but rather rise above it – that is the mostimportanttaskofthedirectingbodyinaperiodofmassstrikes.Andthisdirectionchangesof itself, to a certain extent, into technical direction. A consistent, resolute, progressivetacticonthepartofthesocialdemocratsproducesinthemassesafeelingofsecurity,self-confidenceanddesireforstruggle;avacillatingweaktactic,basedonanunderestimationoftheproletariat,hasacripplingandconfusingeffectuponthemasses.Inthefirstcasemassstrikes break out “of themselves” and “opportunely”; in the second case they remainineffectiveamidstdirectsummonsesofthedirectingbodytomassstrikes.AndofboththeRussianRevolutionaffordsstrikingexamples.

–40–

V. Lessons of the Working-Class Movement inRussiaApplicabletoGermany

Let us now see how far all these lessons which can be learned from the Russian massstrikesareapplicabletoGermany.Thesocialandpoliticalconditions,thehistoryandstatusofthelabourmovementarewidelydifferentinGermanyandRussia.AtfirstsighttheinnerlawoftheRussianmassstrikesassketchedabovemayappeartobesolelytheproductofspecifically Russian conditions which need not be taken into account by the Germanproletariat.BetweenthepoliticalandeconomicstruggleintheRussianRevolutionthereisaveryclose internalconnection; theirunitybecomesanactualfact in theperiodofmassstrikes.ButisnotthatsimplyaresultofRussianabsolutism?Inastateinwhicheveryformand expression of the labour movement is forbidden, in which the simplest strike is apolitical crime, it must logically follow that every economic struggle will become apoliticalone.

Further,when,contrariwise,thefirstoutbreakofthepoliticalrevolutionhasdrawnafteritageneralreckoningoftheRussianworkingclasswiththeemployers,thatislikewiseasimple result of the circumstances that the Russian worker has hitherto had a very lowstandard of life, and has never yet engaged in a single economic struggle for animprovement of his condition. The proletariat in Russia has first, to a certain extent, towork their way out of these miserable conditions, and what wonder that they eagerlyavailedthemselves,withtheeagernessofyouth,ofthefirstmeanstothatendassoonastherevolutionbroughtthefirstfreshbreezeintotheheavyairofabsolutism?

Andfinally,thestormyrevolutionarycourseoftheRussianmassstrikesaswellastheirpreponderant spontaneous, elementary character is explained on the one hand by thepolitical backwardness of Russia, by the necessity of first overthrowing the orientaldespotism, and on the other hand, by the want of organisation and of discipline of theRussianproletariat.Inacountryinwhichtheworking-classhashadthirtyyearsexperienceofpoliticallife,astrongsocialdemocraticpartyofthreemillionmembersandaquarterofamillionpickedtroopsorganisedintradeunions,neitherthepoliticalstrugglenorthemassstrikecanpossiblyassumethesamestormyandelementalcharacterasinasemi-barbarousstatewhichhasjustmadetheleapfromtheMiddleAgesintothemodernbourgeoisorder.Thisisthecurrentconceptionamongstthosewhowouldreadthestageofmaturityofthe

–41–

socialconditionsofacountryfromthetextofthewrittenlaws.Letusexamine thequestions in theirorder.Tobeginwith it isgoing thewrongway

about thematter to date thebeginningof the economic struggle inRussia only from theoutbreak of the revolution. As amatter of fact, the strikes andwage disputes in Russiaproperwereincreasinglytheorderofthedaysincetheninetiesofthelastcentury,andinRussian Poland even since the eighties, and had eventually won civic rights for theworkers. Of course, they were frequently followed by brutal police measures, butneverthelesstheyweredailyphenomena.Forexample,inbothWarsawandLodzasearlyas 1891, therewas a considerable strike fund, and the enthusiasm for trade unionism intheseyearshadevencreated that“economic” illusion inPoland forashort timewhichafewyearslaterprevailedinPetersburgandtherestofRussia.

Inthesamewaythereisagreatdealofexaggerationinthenotionthattheproletarianintheczaristempirehadthestandardoflifeofapauperbeforetherevolution.Thelayeroftheworkersinlargeindustriesinthegreattownswhohadbeenthemostactiveandjealousintheeconomicasinthepoliticalstruggleare,asregardsthematerialconditionsoflife,onascarcely lowerplanethanthecorrespondinglayerof theGermanproletariat,andinsomeoccupationsashighwagesaretobemetwithinRussiaasinGermany,andhereandthere,evenhigher.Andasregardsthelengthoftheworkingday,thedifferenceinthelarge-scaleindustriesinthetwocountriesishereandthere,insignificant.ThenotionofthepresumedmaterialandculturalconditionofhelotryoftheRussianworking-classissimilarlywithoutjustificationinfact.Thisnotioniscontradicted,asalittlereflectionwillshow,bythefactsof the revolution itself and theprominentpart thatwasplayed thereinby theproletariat.With paupers no revolution of this political maturity and cleverness of thought can bemade,andtheindustrialworkersofSt.PetersburgandWarsaw,MoscowandOdessa,whostandintheforefrontofthestruggle,areculturallyandmentallymuchnearertothewestEuropean type than is imagined by those who regard bourgeois parliamentarism andmethodicaltrade-unionpracticeastheindispensable,oreventheonly,schoolofcultureforthe proletariat. The modern large capitalist development of Russia and the intellectualinfluenceofsocialdemocracyexertedforadecade-and-a-half,whichhasencouragedanddirected the economic struggle, have accomplished an important piece of cultural workwithouttheoutwardguaranteesofthebourgeoislegalorder.

Thecontrast,however,growslesswhen,ontheotherhand,welookalittlefurtherintotheactualstandardoflifeintheGermanworking-class.ThegreatpoliticalmassstrikesinRussiahave, from the first, aroused thewidest layersof theproletariat and thrown them

–42–

into a feverish economic struggle. But are there not in Germany whole unenlightenedsections amongst the workers to which the warm light of the trade unions has hithertoscarcelypenetrated,wholelayerswhichuptothepresenthaveneverattempted,orvainlyattempted,toraisethemselvesoutoftheirsocialhelotrybymeansofdailywagestruggles?

Letusconsiderthepovertyoftheminers.Alreadyinthequietworkingday,inthecoldatmosphereof theparliamentarymonotonyofGermany– as also inother countries, andeven in theElDoradoof trade unionism,GreatBritain – thewage struggle of themineworkershardlyeverexpressesitselfinanyotherwaythanbyviolenteruptionsfromtime-to-timeinmassstrikesoftypical,elementalcharacter.Thisonlyshowsthattheantagonismbetweenlabourandcapital is toosharpandviolent toallowofitscrumblingawayintheformofquietsystematic,partial trade-unionstruggles.Themiseryof theminers,with itseruptivesoilwhichevenin“normal”timesisastormcentreofthegreatestviolence,mustimmediately explode, in a violent economic socialist struggle, with every great politicalmass action of the working class, with every violent sudden jerk which disturbs themomentaryequilibriumofeverydaysociallife.

Letustakefurther, thecaseof thepovertyof thetextileworkers.Herealso thebitter,and for the most part fruitless, outbreaks of the wage struggle which raged throughVogtland every few years, give but a faint idea of the vehemence with which the greatagglomerate mass of helots of trustified textile capital must explode during a politicalconvulsion,duringapowerful,daringmassactionoftheGermanproletariat.Again,letustakethepovertyofthehome-workers,oftheready-madeclothingworkers,oftheelectricityworkers,veritablestormcentresinwhichviolentstruggleswillbethemorecertaintobreakout with every political atmospheric disturbance in Germany, the less frequently theproletariattakeupthestruggleintranquiltimes;andthemoreunsuccessfullytheyfightatanytime,themorebrutallywillcapitalcomplythemtoreturn,gnashingtheirteeth,totheyokeofslavery.

Now,however,wholegreatcategoriesoftheproletariathavetobetakenintoaccountwhich,inthe“normal”courseofthingsinGermany,cannotpossiblytakepartinapeacefuleconomic struggle for the improvement of their condition and cannot possibly availthemselves of the right of combination. First and foremost we give the example of theglaring poverty of the railway and the postal employees. For these government workersthere exist Russian conditions in the midst of the parliamentary constitutional state ofGermany, that is to say, Russian conditions as they existed only before the revolution,duringtheuntroubledsplendourofabsolutism.AlreadyinthegreatOctoberstrikeof1905

–43–

the Russian railwaymen in the then formally absolutist Russia, were, as regards theeconomicandsocialfreedomoftheirmovement,headandshouldersabovetheGermans.TheRussian railway and postal employeeswon the de facto right of combination in thestorm, and if momentarily trial upon trial and victimisation were the rule, they werepowerlesstoaffecttheinnerunityofworkers.

However, it would be an altogether false psychological reckoning if one were toassume,with theGermanreaction, that theslavishobedienceof theGermanrailwayandpostal employeeswill last forever, that it is a rockwhichnothing canwear away.WheneventheGermantrade-unionleadershavebecomeaccustomedtotheexistingconditionstosuchanextentthatthey,untroubledbyanindifferencealmostwithoutparallelinthewholeofEurope,cansurveywithcompletesatisfactiontheresultsofthetrade-unionstruggleinGermany, then thedeep-seated, long-suppressed resentmentof theuniformedstate slaveswill inevitably find vent with a general rising of the industrial workers And when theindustrialvanguardoftheproletariat,bymeansofmassstrikes,graspatnewpoliticalrightsorattempttodefendexistingones,thegreatarmyofrailwayandpostalemployeesmustofnecessitybethinkthemselvesoftheirownspecialdisgrace,andatlastrousethemselvesfortheirliberationfromtheextrashareofRussianabsolutismwhichisspeciallyreservedfortheminGermany.

The pedantic conceptionwhichwould unfold great popularmovements according toplanandreciperegardstheacquisitionoftherightofcombinationfortherailwayworkersasnecessarybeforeanyonewill“daretothink”ofamassstrikeinGermany.Theactualandnaturalcourseofeventscanonlybetheoppositeofthis:onlyfromaspontaneouspowerfulmassstrikeactioncantherightofcombinationfortheGermanrailwayworkers,aswellasfor the postal employees, actually be born. And the problems which in the existingconditionsofGermanyare insolublewillsuddenlyfind theirsolutionunder the influenceandthepressureofauniversalpoliticalmassactionoftheproletariat.

And finally, the greatest andmost important: the poverty of the landworkers. If theBritish trade-unions are composed exclusively of industrial workers, that is quiteunderstandableinviewofthespecialcharacteroftheBritishnationaleconomy,andoftheunimportant part that agriculture plays, on thewhole, in the economic life ofBritain. InGermany, a trade-union organisation, be it ever sowell constructed, if it comprises onlyindustrialworkers,andisinaccessibletothegreatarmyoflandworkers,willgiveonlyaweak, partial picture of the conditions of the proletariat. But again it would be a fatalillusiontothinkthatconditionsinthecountryareunalterableandimmovableandthatthe

–44–

indefatigableeducationalworkofthesocialdemocracy,andstillmore,thewholeinternalclass politics of Germany, does not continually undermine the outward passivity of theagriculturalworkersandthatanygreatgeneralclassactionof theGermanproletariat, forwhateverobjectundertaken,maynotalsodrawtheruralproletariatintotheconflict.

Similarly, the picture of the alleged economic superiority of the German over theRussian proletariat is considerably altered when we look away from the tables of theindustriesanddepartmentsorganised in trade-unionsandbestowa lookupon thosegreatgroups of the proletariat who are altogether outside the trade-union struggle, or whosespecialeconomicconditiondoesnotallowoftheirbeingforcedintothenarrowframeworkofthedailyguerrillawarfareofthetrade-unions.Weseethereoneimportantsphereafteranother, inwhich thesharpeningofantagonismshasreached theextremepoint, inwhichinflammablematerialinabundanceisheapedup,inwhichthereisagreatdealof“Russianabsolutism” in its most naked form, and in which economically the most elementaryreckoningswithcapitalhavefirsttobemade.

Inageneralpoliticalmassstrikeoftheproletariat,then,alltheseoutstandingaccountswould inevitably be presented to the prevailing system. An artificially arrangeddemonstrationoftheurbanproletariat,takingplaceonce,ameremassstrikeactionarisingoutofdiscipline,anddirectedbytheconductor’sbatonofapartyexecutive,couldthereforeleave the broadmasses of the people cold and indifferent. But a powerful and recklessfightingactionof the industrial proletariat, bornof a revolutionary situation,must surelyreact upon the deeper-lying layers, and ultimately draw all those into a stormy generaleconomicstrugglewho,innormaltimes,standasidefromthedailytrade-unionfight.

ButwhenwecomebacktotheorganisedvanguardoftheGermanindustrialproletariat,on the other hand, and keepbefore our eyes the objects of the economic strugglewhichhavebeenstrivenforbytheRussianworkingclass,wedonotatallfindthatthereisanytendency to lookdownupon the things of youth, as the oldestGerman trade-unions hadreasontodo.ThusthemostimportantgeneraldemandoftheRussianstrikessinceJanuary22 – the eight-hour day – is certainly not an unattainable platform for the Germanproletariat, but rather in most cases, a beautiful, remote ideal. This applies also to thestruggleforthe“masteryofthehousehold”platform,tothestrugglefortheintroductionofworkers’committeesintoallthefactories,fortheabolitionofpiece-work,fortheabolitionof homework in handicraft, for the complete observance of Sunday rest, and for therecognitionoftherightofcombination.Yes,oncloserinspectionalltheeconomicobjectsof struggle of the Russian proletariat are also for the German proletariat very real, and

–45–

touchaverysorespotinthelifeoftheworkers.Itthereforeinevitablyfollowsthatthepurepoliticalmassstrike,whichisoperatedwith

forpreference,is,inGermany,amerelifelesstheoreticalplan.Ifthemassstrikesresult,inanaturalwayfromastrongrevolutionaryferment,theywillequallynaturally,exactlyasinRussia, change into awhole period of elementary, economic struggles. The fears of thetrade-unionleaders,therefore,thatthestruggleforeconomicinterestsinaperiodofstormypoliticalstrife,inaperiodofmassstrikes,cansimplybepushedasideandsuppressedrestupon an utterly baseless, schoolboy conception of the course of events. A revolutionaryperiodinGermanywouldalsosoalterthecharacterofthetrade-unionstruggleanddevelopits potentialities to such an extent that the present guerrilla warfare of the trade-unionswould be child’s play in comparison. And on the other hand, from this elementaryeconomictempestofmassstrikes,thepoliticalstrugglewouldalwaysderivenewimpetusandfreshstrength.The reciprocalactionofeconomicandpolitical struggle,which is themain-spring of present-day strikes in Russia, and at the same time the regulatingmechanism of the revolutionary action of the proletariat, would also naturally result inGermanyfromtheconditionsthemselves.

–46–

VI. Co-operation of Organised and UnorganisedWorkersNecessaryforVictory

Inconnectionwiththis,thequestionoforganisationinrelationtotheproblemofthemassstrikeinGermanyassumesanessentiallydifferentaspect.

Theattitudeofmanytrade-unionleaderstothisquestionisgenerallysummedupintheassertion:“Wearenotyetstrongenoughtorisksuchahazardoustrialofstrengthasamassstrike.”Nowthispositionissofaruntenablethatitisaninsolubleproblemtodeterminethetime,inapeacefulfashionbycountingheads,whentheproletariatare“strongenough”forany struggle. Thirty years ago theGerman trade-unions had 50,000members. Thatwasobviouslyanumberwithwhichamassstrikeontheabovescalewasnottobethoughtof.Fifteen years later the trade-unions were four times as strong, and counted 237,000members. If, however, the present trade-union leaders had been asked at the time if theorganisation of the proletariat was then sufficiently ripe for a mass strike, they wouldassuredlyhaverepliedthatitwasstillfarfromitandthatthenumberofthoseorganisedintrade-unionswouldfirsthavetobecountedbymillions.

Todaythenumberoftrade-unionistsalreadyrunsintothesecondmillion,buttheviewsoftheleadersarestillexactlythesame,andmayverywellbethesametotheend.ThetacitassumptionisthattheentireworkingclassofGermany,downtothelastmanandthelastwoman,mustbe included in theorganisationbefore it “is strongenough” to risk amassaction, which then, according to the old formula, would probably be represented as“superfluous.”Thistheoryisneverthelessabsolutelyutopian,forthesimplereasonthatitsuffers froman internalcontradiction, that itgoes inaviciouscircle.Before theworkerscanengageinanydirectclassstruggletheymustallbeorganised.Thecircumstances,theconditions,ofcapitalistdevelopmentandofthebourgeoisstatemakeitimpossiblethat,inthenormalcourseofthings,withoutstormyclassstruggles,certainsections–andthesethegreatest,themostimportant,thelowestandthemostoppressedbycapital,andbythestate– can be organised at all. We see even in Britain, which has had a whole century ofindefatigabletrade-unioneffortwithoutany“disturbances”–exceptatthebeginningintheperiod of the Chartist movement – without any “romantic revolutionary” errors ortemptations,ithasnotbeenpossibletodomorethanorganiseaminorityofthebetter-paidsectionsoftheproletariat.

–47–

On the other hand the trade-unions, like all fighting organisations of the proletariat,cannotpermanentlymaintain themselves in anyotherway thanby struggle, and that notstrugglesofthesamekindasthewarbetweenthefrogsandthemiceinthestagnantwatersofthebourgeoisparliamentaryperiod,butstruggleinthetroubledrevolutionaryperiodsofthe mass strike. The rigid, mechanical-bureaucratic conception cannot conceive of thestruggle save as the product of organisation at a certain stage of its strength. On thecontrary,theliving,dialecticalexplanationmakestheorganisationariseasaproductofthestruggle.WehavealreadyseenagrandioseexampleofthisphenomenoninRussia,whereaproletariat almostwhollyunorganisedcreatedacomprehensivenetworkoforganisationalappendagesinayear-and-a-halfofstormyrevolutionarystruggle.

AnotherexampleofthiskindisfurnishedbythehistoryoftheGermanunions.Intheyear 1878 the number of trade-union members amounted to 50,000. According to thetheory of the present-day trade-union leaders this organisation, as stated above,was notnearly“strongenough”toenteruponaviolentpoliticalstruggle.TheGermantrade-unionshowever,weak as theywere at the time, did take up the struggle – namely the struggleagainst the anti-socialist law – and showed that theywere “strong enough,” not only toemergevictoriousfromthestruggle,buttoincreasetheirstrengthfive-fold:in1891,afterthe repeal of the anti-socialist laws, their membership was 277,659. It is true that themethodsbywhichthetrade-unionsconqueredinthestruggleagainsttheanti-socialistlawsdonotcorrespondtotheidealofapeaceful,bee-like,uninterruptedprocess:theywentfirstintothefightabsolutelyinruins,toriseagainonthenextwaveandtobebornanew.Butthis is precisely the specific method of growth corresponding to the proletarian classorganisations:tobetestedinthestruggleandtogoforthfromthestrugglewithincreasedstrength.

On a closer examination of German conditions and of the condition of the differentsections of theworking class, it is clear that the comingperiod of stormypoliticalmassstruggleswillnotbringthedreaded,threateningdownfalloftheGermantrade-unions,butonthecontrary,willopenuphithertounsuspectedprospectsoftheextensionoftheirsphereofpower–anextensionthatwillproceedrapidlybyleapsandbounds.Butthequestionhasstillanotheraspect.Theplanofundertakingmassstrikesasaseriouspoliticalclassactionwith organised workers only is absolutely hopeless. If the mass strike, or rather, massstrikes, and the mass struggle are to be successful they must become a real people’smovement, that is, the widest sections of the proletariat must be drawn into the fight.Alreadyin theparliamentaryformthemightof theproletarianclassstrugglerestsnoton

–48–

the small, organisedgroupbuton the surroundingperipheryof the revolutionary-mindedproletariat.Ifthesocialdemocratsweretoentertheelectoralbattlewiththeirfewhundredthousand organised members alone, they would condemn themselves to futility. Andalthoughitisthetendencyofsocialdemocracywhereverpossibletodrawthewholegreatarmyofitsvotersintothepartyorganisation,itsmassofvotersafterthirtyyearsexperienceofsocialdemocracyisnot increasedthroughthegrowthof thepartyorganisation,butonthe contrary, the new sections of the proletariat, won for the time being through theelectoral struggle, are the fertile soil for the subsequent seed of organisation. Here theorganisationdoesnotsupplythetroopsofthestruggle,butthestruggle,inanevergrowingdegree,suppliesrecruitsfortheorganisation.

Inamuchgreaterdegreedoesthisobviouslyapplytodirectpoliticalmassactionthanto the parliamentary struggle. If the social democrats, as the organised nucleus of theworkingclass,arethemostimportantvanguardoftheentirebodyoftheworkersandifthepolitical clarity, the strength, and the unity of the labour movement flow from thisorganisation,thenitisnotpermissibletovisualisetheclassmovementoftheproletariatasamovementoftheorganisedminority.Everyreal,greatclassstrugglemustrestuponthesupportandco-operationofthewidestmasses,andastrategyofclassstrugglewhichdoesnotreckonwiththisco-operation,whichisbasedupontheideaofthefinelystage-managedmarchoutofthesmall,well-trainedpartoftheproletariatisforedoomedtobeamiserablefiasco.

Massstrikesandpoliticalmassstrugglescannot,therefore,possiblybecarriedthroughin Germany by the organised workers alone, nor can they be appraised by regular“direction”fromthecentralcommitteeofaparty.Inthiscase,again–exactlyasinRussia– they depend not somuch upon “discipline” and “training” and upon themost carefulpossible regulation beforehand of the questions of support and cost, as upon a realrevolutionary,determinedclassaction,whichwillbeabletowinanddrawintothestrugglethewidestcirclesoftheunorganisedworkers,accordingtotheirmoodandtheirconditions.

Theoverestimateandthefalseestimateoftheroleoforganisationsintheclassstruggleoftheproletariatisgenerallyreinforcedbytheunderestimateoftheunorganisedproletarianmass and of their political maturity. In a revolutionary period, in the storm of greatunsettlingclassstruggles,thewholeeducationaleffectoftherapidcapitalistdevelopmentandofsocialdemocraticinfluencesfirstshowsitselfuponthewidestsectionsofthepeople,ofwhich, in peaceful times the tables of the organised, and even election statistics, giveonlyafaintidea.

–49–

WehaveseenthatinRussia,inabouttwoyearsagreatgeneralactionoftheproletariatcan forthwith arise from the smallest partial conflict of theworkerswith the employers,fromthemostinsignificantactofbrutalityofthegovernmentorgans.Everyone,ofcourse,sees and believes that, because in Russia “the revolution” is there. But what does thatmean?Itmeansthatclassfeeling,theclassinstinct,isaliveandveryactiveintheRussianproletariat, so that immediately they regard every partial question of any small group ofworkers as a general question, as a class affair, and quick as lightening they react to itsinfluenceasaunity.WhileinGermany,France,ItalyandHollandthemostviolenttrade-unionconflictscallforthhardlyanygeneralactionof theworkingclass–andwhentheydo,only theorganisedpartof theworkersmove– inRussia thesmallestdisputeraisesastorm.Thatmeansnothingelsehowever,thanthatatpresent–paradoxicalasitmaysound–theclassinstinctoftheyoungest,leasttrained,badlyeducatedandstillworseorganisedRussian proletariat is immeasurably stronger than that of the organised, trained andenlightenedworkingclassofGermanyorofanyotherwestEuropeancountry.Andthatisnottobereckonedaspecialvirtueofthe“young,unexhaustedEast”ascomparedwiththe“sluggishWest,”butissimplyaresultofdirectrevolutionarymassaction.

InthecaseoftheenlightenedGermanworkertheclassconsciousnessimplantedbythesocialdemocratsistheoreticalandlatent:intheperiodruledbybourgeoisparliamentarismitcannot,asarule,activelyparticipateinadirectmassaction;itistheidealsumofthefourhundredparallel actionsof the electoral sphereduring the election struggle, of themanypartialeconomicstrikesandthelike.Intherevolutionwhenthemassesthemselvesappearuponthepoliticalbattlefieldthisclass-consciousnessbecomespracticalandactive.AyearofrevolutionhasthereforegiventheRussianproletariatthat“training”whichthirtyyearsofparliamentaryandtrade-unionstrugglecannotartificiallygivetotheGermanproletariat.Ofcourse, this living,activeclass feelingof theproletariatwillconsiderablydiminish inintensity,orratherchangeintoaconcealedandlatentcondition,afterthecloseoftheperiodofrevolutionandtheerectionofabourgeois-parliamentaryconstitutionalstate.

Andjustassurely,ontheotherhand,willthelivingrevolutionaryclassfeeling,capableofaction,affectthewidestanddeepestlayersoftheproletariatinGermanyinaperiodofstrongpoliticalengagement,andthatthemorerapidlyandmoredeeply,moreenergeticallythe educational work of social democracy is carried on amongst them. This educationalwork and the provocative and revolutionising effect of the whole present policy ofGermanywillexpressitself inthecircumstancesthatall thosegroupswhichatpresentintheir apparent political stupidity remain insensitive to all the organising attempts of the

–50–

socialdemocratsandofthetradeunionswillsuddenlyfollowtheflagofsocialdemocracyinaserious revolutionaryperiod.Sixmonthsofa revolutionaryperiodwillcomplete thework of the training of these as yet unorganised masses which ten years of publicdemonstrationsanddistributionofleafletswouldbeunabletodo.AndwhenconditionsinGermany have reached the critical stage for such a period, the sectionswhich are todayunorganisedandbackwardwill,inthestruggle,provethemselvesthemostradical,themostimpetuouselement, andnotone thatwillhave tobedraggedalong. If it shouldcome tomassstrikes inGermany itwillalmostcertainlynotbe thebestorganisedworkers–andmostcertainlynottheprinters–whowilldevelopthegreatestcapacityforaction,buttheworstorganisedortotallyunorganised–theminers,thetextileworkers,andperhapseventhelandworkers.

In thiswaywe arrive at the sameconclusions inGermany in relation to thepeculiartasks of direction in relation to the role of social democracy in mass strikes, as in ouranalysisofeventsinRussia.Ifwenowleavethepedanticschemeofdemonstrativemassstrikesartificiallybroughtaboutbyorderofpartiesandtradeunions,andturntothelivingpicture of a peoples’movement arisingwith elementary energy, from the culmination ofclassantagonismsandthepoliticalsituation–amovementwhichpasses,politicallyaswellaseconomically,intomassstrugglesandmassstrikes–itbecomesobviousthatthetaskofsocialdemocracydoesnotconsistinthetechnicalpreparationanddirectionofmassstrikes,but,firstandforemost,inthepoliticalleadershipofthewholemovement.

The socialdemocrats are themost enlightened,most class-consciousvanguardof theproletariat.Theycannot anddarenotwait, in a fatalist fashion,with foldedarms for theadventofthe“revolutionarysituation,”towaitforthatwhichineveryspontaneouspeoples’movement, falls from the clouds.On the contrary, theymust now, as always, hasten thedevelopmentof thingsandendeavourtoaccelerateevents.This theycannotdo,however,bysuddenlyissuingthe“slogan”foramassstrikeatrandomatanyoddmoment,butfirstandforemost,bymakingcleartothewidestlayersoftheproletariattheinevitableadventofthis revolutionary period, the inner social factors making for it and the politicalconsequencesofit.Ifthewidestproletarianlayershouldbewonforapoliticalmassactionofthesocialdemocrats,andif,viceversa,thesocialdemocratsshouldseizeandmaintainthe real leadership of amassmovement – should they become, in apolitical sense, therulersofthewholemovement,thentheymust,withtheutmostclearness,consistencyandresoluteness, inform the German proletariat of their tactics and aims in the period ofcomingstruggle.

–51–

VII.TheRoleoftheMassStrikeintheRevolution

We have seen that the mass strike in Russia does not represent an artificial product ofpremeditated tactics on the part of the social democrats, but a natural historicalphenomenon on the basis of the present revolution. Nowwhat are the factors which inRussiahavebroughtforththisnewphenomenalformoftherevolution?

The Russian revolution has for first task the abolition of absolutism and theestablishment of a modern bourgeois-parliamentary constitutional state. It is exactly thesame in formas thatwhich confrontedGermany in theMarch1848Revolution, and theGreat French Revolution of the end of the eighteenth century. But the condition, thehistorical milieu, in which these formally analogous revolutions took place, arefundamentallydifferent fromthoseofpresent-dayRussia.Theessentialdifference is thatbetween thosebourgeois revolutions in theWest, and thecurrentbourgeois revolution inthe East, the whole cycle of capitalist development has run its course. And thisdevelopmenthadseizednotonlytheWestEuropeancountries,butalsoabsolutistRussia.Large-scale industry with all its consequences – modern class divisions, acute socialcontrasts,modernlifeinlargecitiesandthemodernproletariat–hasbecomeinRussiatheprevailingform,thatis,insocialdevelopmentthedecisiveformofproduction.

The remarkable, contradictory,historical situation results from this that thebourgeoisrevolution, inaccordancewith its formal taskswill, in thefirstplace,becarriedoutbyamodern class-conscious proletariat, and in an international milieu whose distinguishingcharacteristic is theruinofbourgeoisdemocracy.It isnot thebourgeoisie that isnowthedriving forceof revolutionas in theearlier revolutionsof theWest,while theproletarianmasses, swamped amidst a petty-bourgeois mass, simply furnish cannon-fodder for thebourgeoisie,buton thecontrary, it is theclass-consciousproletariat that is theactiveandleadingelement,whilethebigbourgeoisturnsouttobeeitheropenlyagainsttherevolutionor liberal moderates, and only the rural petit-bourgeoisie and the urban petit-bourgeoisintelligentsiaaredefinitivelyoppositionalandevenrevolutionaryminded.

The Russian proletariat, however, who are destined to play the leading part in thebourgeoisrevolution,enterthefightfreefromallillusionsofbourgeoisdemocracy,withastronglydevelopedconsciousnessoftheirownspecificclassinterests,andatatimewhenthe antagonism between capital and labour has reached its height. This contradictory

–52–

situation finds expression in the fact that in this formally bourgeois revolution, theantagonism of bourgeois society to absolutism is governed by the antagonism of theproletariat tobourgeois society, that the struggleof theproletariat tobourgeois society isdirected simultaneously and with equal energy against both absolutism and capitalistexploitation,andthattheprogrammeoftherevolutionarystruggleconcentrateswithequalemphasisonpoliticalfreedom,thewinningoftheeight-hourday,andahumanstandardofmaterialexistencefortheproletariat.Thistwo-foldcharacteroftheRussianRevolutionisexpressedinthatcloseunionoftheeconomicwiththepoliticalstruggleandintheirmutualinteraction which we have seen is a feature of the Russian events and which finds itsappropriateexpressioninthemassstrike.

Intheearlierbourgeoisrevolutionwhere,ontheonehand,thepoliticaltrainingandtheleadership of the revolutionary masses were undertaken by the bourgeois parties, andwhere,ontheotherhand,itwasmerelyaquestionofoverthrowingtheoldgovernment,thebriefbattleatthebarricadeswastheappropriateformoftherevolutionarystruggle.Todaytheworkingclassmusteducateitself,marshal itsforces,anddirect itself in thecourseofthe revolutionary struggle and thus the revolution is directed as much against capitalistexploitationasagainst theancienregime; somuch so that themass strikeappearsas thenatural means to recruit, organize and prepare the widest proletarian layers forrevolutionary struggle, as themeans toundermine andoverthrow theold statepower, aswellastocontainthecapitalistexploitation.Theurbanindustrialproletariatisnowthesoulof the revolution inRussia.But in order to carry through a direct political struggle as amass,theproletariatmustfirstbeassembledasamass,andforthispurposetheymustcomeout of the factory andworkshop,mine and foundry,must overcome the atomisation anddecaytowhichtheyarecondemnedunderthedailyyokeofcapitalism.

Themassstrikeisthefirstnatural,impulsiveformofeverygreatrevolutionarystruggleof the proletariat and themore highly developed the antagonism is between capital andlabour, the more effective and decisive must mass strikes become. The chief form ofpreviousbourgeoisrevolutions,thefightatthebarricades,theopenconflictwiththearmedpowerofthestate,isintherevolutiontodayonlytheculminatingpoint,onlyamomentonthe process of the proletarian mass struggle. And therewith in the new form of therevolution there is reached that civilising andmitigatingof the class strugglewhichwasprophesiedbytheopportunistsofGermansocialdemocracy–theBernsteins,Davids,etc.Itistruethatthesemensawthedesiredcivilisingandmitigatingoftheclassstruggleinthelightofpettybourgeoisdemocraticillusions–theybelievedthat theclassstrugglewould

–53–

shrinktoanexclusivelyparliamentarycontestandthatstreetfightingwouldsimplybedoneawaywith.Historyhasfound thesolution inadeeperandfiner fashion: in theadventofrevolutionary mass strikes, which, of course, in no way replaces brutal street fights orrenders them unnecessary, but which reduces them to a moment in the long period ofpolitical struggle, and which at the same time unites with the revolutionary period andenormousculturalworkinthemostexactsenseofthewords:thematerialandintellectualelevation of the whole working class through the “civilising” of the barbaric forms ofcapitalistexploitation.

ThemassstrikeisthusshowntobenotaspecificallyRussianproduct,springingfromabsolutism,butauniversalformoftheproletarianclassstruggleresultingfromthepresentstageofcapitalistdevelopmentandclassrelations.Fromthisstandpointthethreebourgeoisrevolutions – the Great French Revolution, the German Revolution of March, and thepresent Russian Revolution – form a continuous chain of development in which thefortunesandtheendofthecapitalistcenturyaretobeseen.IntheGreatFrenchRevolutionthestillwhollyunderdevelopedinternalcontradictionsofbourgeoissocietygavescopeforalongperiodofviolentstruggles,inwhichalltheantagonismswhichfirstgerminatedandripened in the heat of the revolution raged unhindered and unrestrained in a spirit ofrecklessradicalism.AcenturylatertherevolutionoftheGermanbourgeoisie,whichbrokeoutmidwayinthedevelopmentofcapitalism,wasalreadyhamperedonbothsidesbytheantagonismofinterestsandtheequilibriumofstrengthbetweencapitalandlabour,andwassmotheredinabourgeois-feudalcompromise,andshortenedtoamiserableepisodeendinginwords.

Another half century, and the present Russian Revolution stands at a point of thehistorical path which is already over the summit, which is on the other side of theculminatingpointofcapitalistsociety,atwhichthebourgeoisrevolutionscannotagainbesmothered by the antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, but, will, on thecontrary, expand into a new lengthy period of violent social struggles, at which thebalancingoftheaccountwithabsolutismappearsatrifleincomparisonwiththemanynewaccounts which the revolution itself opens up. The present revolution realises in theparticular affairs of absolutist Russia the general results of international capitalistdevelopment, and appears not so much as the last successor of the old bourgeoisrevolutionsastheforerunnerofthenewseriesofproletarianrevolutionsoftheWest.Themost backward country of all, just because it has been so unpardonably late with itsbourgeoisrevolution,showswaysandmethodsoffurtherclassstruggletotheproletariatof

–54–

Germanyandthemostadvancedcapitalistcountries.Accordinglyitappears,whenlookedatinthisway,tobeentirelywrongtoregardthe

RussianRevolutionas agrandiose spectacle, as something specifically “Russian,” andatbesttoadmiretheheroismofthefightingmen,thatis,asoutsideonlookersofthestruggle.ItismuchmoreimportantthattheGermanworkersshouldlearntolookupontheRussianRevolutionas theirownaffair,notmerelyasamatterof internationalsolidaritywith theRussianproletariat, but first and foremost, as achapterof theirown socialandpoliticalhistory.Thosetrade-unionleadersandparliamentarianswhoregardtheGermanproletariatas “too weak” and German conditions “as not ripe enough” for revolutionary massstruggles,haveobviouslynot the least idea that themeasureof thedegreeof ripenessofclassrelationsinGermanyandofthepoweroftheproletariatdoesnotlieinthestatisticsofGermantradeunionismorinelectionfigures,but–intheeventsoftheRussianRevolution.ExactlyastheripenessofFrenchclassantagonismsundertheJulymonarchyandtheJunebattleofPariswasreflectedintheGermanMarchRevolution,initscourseanditsfiasco,so today the ripeness ofGerman class antagonisms is reflected in the events and in thepower of the Russian Revolution. And while the bureaucrats of the German labourmovement rummage in their office drawers for information as to their strength andmaturity,theydonotseethatthatforwhichtheyseekislyingbeforetheireyesinagreathistoricalrevolution,because,historicallyconsidered,theRussianRevolutionisareflexofthe power and the maturity of the international, and therefore in the first place, of theGermanlabourmovement.

ItwouldthereforebeatoopitiableandgrotesquelyinsignificantresultoftheRussianRevolutioniftheGermanproletariatshouldmerelydrawfromitthelesson–asisdesiredbyComrades Frohme, Elm, and others – of using the extreme form of the struggle, themassstrike,andsoweakenthemselvesastobemerelyareserveforceintheeventofthewithdrawal of the parliamentary vote, and therefore a passive means of parliamentarydefensive.Whentheparliamentaryvoteistakenfromustherewewillresist.Thatisaself-evidentdecision.ButforthisitisnotnecessarytoadopttheheroicposeofaDantonaswasdone,forexample,byComradeElminJena;becausethedefenceofthemodestmeasureofparliamentaryrightalreadypossessedislessaHeaven-storminginnovation,forwhichthefrightful hecatombs of the Russian Revolution were first necessary as a means ofencouragement, than the simplest and first duty of every opposition party.But themeredefensivecanneverexhaustthepolicyoftheproletariat,inaperiodofrevolution.Andifitis,ontheonehand,difficulttopredictwithanydegreeofcertaintywhetherthedestruction

–55–

of universal suffrage would cause a situation in Germany which would call forth animmediatemassstrikeaction,soontheotherhand,itisabsolutelycertainthatwhenweinGermanyenterupontheperiodofstormymassactions,itwillbeimpossibleforthesocialdemocratstobasetheirtacticsuponamereparliamentarydefensive.

To fix beforehand the cause and themoment from and inwhich themass strikes inGermanywill break out is not in the power of social democracy, because it is not in itspowertobringabouthistoricalsituationsbyresolutionsatpartycongresses.Butwhatitcanand must do is to make clear the political tendencies, when they once appear, and toformulate them as resolute and consistent tactics. Man cannot keep historical events incheckwhilemakingrecipesforthem,buthecanseeinadvancetheirapparentcalculableconsequencesandarrangehismodeofactionaccordingly.

ThefirstthreateningpoliticaldangerwithwhichtheGermanproletariathaveconcernedthemselvesforanumberofyearsisacoupd’étatofthereactionwhichwillwrestfromthewidemassesofthepeopleofthemostimportantpoliticalright–universalsuffrage.Inspiteoftheimmenseimportanceofthispossibleevent,itis,aswehavealreadysaid,impossibletoassertwithcertaintythatanopenpopularmovementwouldimmediatelybreakoutafterthecoupd’état,becausetodayinnumerablecircumstancesandfactorshavetobetakenintoaccount.Butwhenweconsider thepresent extremeacutenessof conditions inGermany,andontheotherhand,themanifoldinternationalreactionsoftheRussianRevolutionandof the future rejuvenated Russia, it is clear that the collapse of German politics whichwouldensuefromtherepealofuniversalsuffragecouldnotalonecallahalttothestruggleforthisright.Thiscoupd’étatwouldratherdrawafterit,inalongerorshorterperiodandwithelementarypower,agreatgeneralpoliticalreckoningoftheinsurgentandawakenedmass of the people – a reckoning with bread usury, with artificially caused dearness ofmeat,withexpenditureonaboundlessmilitarismand“navalism,”with thecorruptionofcolonial policy, with the national disgrace of theKonigsberg trial, with the cessation ofsocial reform,with the discharging of railwayworkers, the postal officials and the landworkers,with the trickingandmockingof theminers,with the judgementofLobtauandthewholesystemofclassjustice,withthebrutallockoutsystem–inshort,withthewholethirty-year-old oppression of the combined dominion of Junkerdom and large trustifiedcapital.

Butifoncetheballissetrollingthensocialdemocracy,whetheritwillsitornot,cannever again bring it to a standstill. The opponents of themass strike are in the habit ofdenying that the lessons and examples of the Russian Revolution can be a criterion for

–56–

Germanybecause, in the firstplace, inRussia thegreat stepmust firstbe taken fromanOrientaldespotismtoamodernbourgeoislegalorder.Theformaldistancebetweentheoldandthenewpoliticalorderissaidtobeasufficientexplanationofthevehemenceandtheviolence of the revolution in Russia. InGermanywe have long had themost necessaryforms and guarantees of a constitutional state, from which it follows that such anelementaryragingofsocialantagonismsisimpossiblehere.

ThosewhospeculatethusforgetthatinGermanywhenitoncecomestotheoutbreakofopenpoliticalstruggles,eventhehistoricallydeterminedgoalwillbequitedifferentfromthatinRussiatoday.PreciselybecausethebourgeoislegalorderinGermanyhasexistedforalongtime,becausethereforeithashadtimetocompletelyexhaustitselfandtodrawtoanend,becausebourgeoisdemocracyandliberalismhavehadtimetodieout–becauseofthistherecannolongerbeanytalkofabourgeoisrevolutioninGermany.Andthereforeinaperiodofopenpoliticalpopularstruggles inGermany, the lasthistoricallynecessarygoalcanonlybethedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Thedistance,however,ofthistaskfromthepresentconditionsofGermany is stillgreater than thatof thebourgeois legalorder fromOriental despotism, and therefore, the task cannot be completed at one stroke, butmustsimilarlybeaccomplishedduringalongperiodofgiganticsocialstruggles.

Butistherenotagrosscontradictioninthepicturewehavedrawn?OntheonehanditmeansthatinaneventualfutureperiodofpoliticalmassactionthemostbackwardlayersoftheGermanproletariat–thelandworkers,therailwaymen,andthepostalslaves–willfirstofallwin the rightofcombination, and that theworst excrescencesofexploitationmustfirst be removedandon theotherhand, thepolitical taskof thisperiod is said tobe theconquestofpowerbytheproletariat!Ontheonehand,economic,trade-unionstrugglesforthemostimmediateinterests,forthematerialelevationoftheworkingclass;ontheotherhand the ultimate goal of social democracy!Certainly these are great contradictions, butthey are not contradictions due to our reasoning, but contradictions due to capitalistdevelopment.Itdoesnotproceedinabeautifulstraightlinebutinalightning-likezig-zag.Justasthevariouscapitalistcountriesrepresentthemostvariedstagesofdevelopment,sowithin each country the different layers of the sameworking class are represented. Buthistorydoesnotwaitpatiently till thebackwardcountries, and themost advanced layershave joined together so that the whole mass can move symmetrically forward like acompactcolumn.Itbringsthebestpreparedpartstoexplosionassoonasconditionsthereareripeforit,andtheninthestormoftherevolutionaryperiod,lostgroundisrecovered,unequalthingsareequalised,andthewholepaceofsocialprogresschangedatonestroketo

–57–

thedouble-quick.JustasintheRussianRevolutionallthegradesofdevelopmentandalltheinterestsof

the different layers of workers are united in the social democratic programme of therevolution,andtheinnumerablepartialstrugglesunitedinthegreatcommonclassactionoftheproletariat,sowill italsobe inGermanywhentheconditionsareripefor it.Andthetask of social democracy will then be to regulate its tactics, not by the most backwardphasesofdevelopmentbutbythemostadvanced.

–58–

VIII.Need forUnitedAction ofTradeUnions andSocialDemocracy

ThemostimportantdesideratumwhichistobehopedforfromtheGermanworkingclassin the period of great struggles which will come sooner or later is, after completeresoluteness and consistency of tactics, the utmost capacity for action, and therefore theutmost possible unity of the leading social democratic part of the proletarian masses.Meanwhilethefirstweakattemptsatthepreparationofgreatmassactionshavediscovereda serious drawback in this connection: the total separation and independence of the twoorganisationsofthelabourmovement,thesocialdemocracyandthetradeunions.

It is clear on a closer consideration of the mass strikes in Russia as well as of theconditionsinGermanyitself,thatanygreatmassaction,ifitisnotconfinedtoamereone-daydemonstration,butisintendedtobearealfightingaction,cannotpossiblybethoughtofasaso-calledpoliticalmassstrike.InsuchanactioninGermanythetrade-unionswouldbeimplicatedasmuchasthesocialdemocrats.Notbecausethetrade-unionleadersimaginethat the social democrats, in view of their smaller organisation, would have no otherresources than the co-operation of one and a quartermillion trade-unionists andwithoutthemwould be unable to do anything, but because of a muchmore deep-lyingmotive:becauseeverydirectmassactionoftheperiodofopenclassstruggleswouldbeatthesametimebothpoliticalandeconomic.IfinGermany,fromanycauseandatanytime,itshouldcometogreatpoliticalstruggles,tomassstrikes,thenatthattimeaneraofviolenttrade-unionstruggleswouldbegininGermany,andeventswouldnotstoptoinquirewhetherthetrade-union leaders had given their consent to themovement or not.Whether they standasideorendeavourtoresistthemovement,theresultoftheirattitudewillonlybethatthetrade-unionleaders,likethepartyleadersintheanalogouscase,willsimplybesweptasideby the rushofevents,and theeconomicand thepolitical strugglesof themasseswillbefoughtoutwithoutthem.

Asamatter-of-fact the separationof thepolitical, and the economic struggle and theindependence of each, is nothing but an artificial product of the parliamentarian period,even if historically determined. On the one hand in the peaceful, “normal” course ofbourgeoissociety,theeconomicstruggleissplitintoamultitudeofindividualstrugglesinevery undertaking and dissolved in every branch of production. On the other hand the

–59–

political struggle is not directed by the masses themselves in a direct action, but incorrespondencewith the form of the bourgeois state, in a representative fashion, by thepresence of legislative representation. As soon as a period of revolutionary strugglecommences,thatis,assoonasthemassesappearonthesceneofconflict,thebreakingupthe economic struggle intomanyparts, aswell as the indirect parliamentary formof thepolitical struggleceases; ina revolutionarymassaction thepolitical struggleceases; inarevolutionarymass action the political and economic struggle are one, and the artificialboundarybetweentradeunionandsocialdemocracyastwoseparate,whollyindependentformsofthelabourmovement,issimplysweptaway.Butwhatfindsconcreteexpressionintherevolutionarymassmovement findsexpressionalso in theparliamentaryperiodasanactualstateofaffairs.Therearenot twodifferentclassstrugglesof theworkingclass,aneconomicandapoliticalone,butonlyoneclassstruggle,whichaimsatoneandthesametimeatthelimitationofcapitalistexploitationwithinbourgeoissociety,andattheabolitionofexploitationtogetherwithbourgeoissocietyitself.

Whenthesetwosidesoftheclassstruggleareseparatedfromoneanotherfortechnicalreasonsintheparliamentaryperiod,theydonotformtwoparallelconcurrentactions,butmerelytwophases, twostagesofthestruggleforemancipationoftheworkingclass.Thetrade-unionstruggleembraces the immediate interests,and thesocialdemocraticstrugglethe future interests, of the labour movement. The communists, says the CommunistManifesto,represent,asagainstvariousgroupinterests,nationalorlocal,oftheproletariat,thecommoninterestsoftheproletariatasawhole,andinthevariousstagesofdevelopmentof the class struggle, they represent the interests of the whole movement, that is, theultimategoal–theliberationoftheproletariat.Thetradeunionsrepresentonlythegroupinterests and only one stage of development of the labourmovement. Social democracyrepresentstheworkingclassandthecauseofitsliberationasawhole.Therelationofthetradeunionstosocialdemocracyis thereforeapartof thewhole,andwhen,amongst thetrade-union leaders, the theoryof“equalauthority”of trade-unionsandsocialdemocracyfindssomuchfavour, it restsupona fundamentalmisconceptionof theessenceof trade-unionismitselfandofitsroleinthegeneralstruggleforfreedomoftheworkingclass.

Thistheoryoftheparallelactionofsocialdemocracyandthetrade-unionsandoftheir“equal authority” is nevertheless not altogetherwithout foundation, but has its historicalroots. It rests upon the illusion of the peaceful, “normal” period of bourgeois society, inwhich the political struggle of social democracy appears to be consumed in theparliamentarystruggle.Theparliamentarystruggle,however,thecounterpartofthetrade-

–60–

union struggle, is equally with it, a fight conducted exclusively on the basis of thebourgeoissocialorder.It isbyitsverynature,politicalreformwork,as thatof thetrade-unions is economic reform work. It represents political work for the present, as trade-unionsrepresenteconomicworkforthepresent.Itis,likethem,merelyaphase,astageofdevelopmentinthecompleteprocessoftheproletarianclassstrugglewhoseultimategoalis as far beyond the parliamentary struggle as it is beyond the trade-union struggle.Theparliamentarystruggleis,inrelationtosocialdemocraticpolicy,alsoapartofthewhole,exactly as trade-unionwork is.Social democracy today comprises theparliamentary andthetrade-unionstruggleinoneclassstruggleaimingattheabolitionofthebourgeoissocialorder.

The theoryof the “equal authority”of trade-unions and social democracy is likewisenotameretheoreticalmisunderstanding,notamerecaseofconfusionbutanexpressionofthewell-knowntendencyofthatopportunistwingofsocialdemocracywhichreducedthepoliticalstruggleof theworkingclass to theparliamentarycontest,anddesires tochangesocialdemocracyfromarevolutionaryproletarianpartyintoapetty-bourgeoisreformone.[1]Ifsocialdemocracyshouldacceptthetheoryofthe“equalauthority”ofthetrade-unions,it would thereby accept, indirectly and tacitly, that transformation which has long beenstrivenforbytherepresentativesoftheopportunisttendency.

InGermany,however,thereissuchashiftingofrelationswithinthelabourmovementas is impossible inanyothercountry.The theoreticalconception,according towhich thetrade-unionsaremerelyapartofsocialdemocracy,findsitsclassicexpressioninGermanyinfact,inactualpractice,andthatinthreedirections.First,theGermantrade-unionsareadirectproductofsocialdemocracy;itwassocialdemocracywhichcreatedthebeginningsofthepresenttrade-unionmovementinGermanyandwhichenabledittoattainsuchgreatdimensions,anditissocialdemocracywhichsuppliesittothisdaywithitsleadersandthemostactivepromotersofitsorganisation.

Second, theGerman trade-unionsareaproductof socialdemocracyalso in thesensethatsocialdemocraticteachingisthesouloftrade-unionpractice,asthetrade-unionsowetheirsuperiorityoverallbourgeoisanddenominationaltrade-unionstotheideaoftheclassstruggle; their practical success, their power, is a result of the circumstance that theirpractice is illuminated by the theory of scientific socialism and they are thereby raisedabovethelevelofanarrow-mindedsocialism.Thestrengthofthe“practicalpolicy”oftheGermantrade-unionsliesintheirinsightintothedeepersocialandeconomicconnectionsof the capitalist system; but they owe this insight entirely to the theory of scientific

–61–

socialismuponwhichtheirpracticeisbased.Viewedinthisway,anyattempttoemancipatethe trade-unions from the social democratic theory in favour of some other “trade-uniontheory”opposedtosocialdemocracy,is,fromthestandpointofthetrade-unionsthemselvesandoftheirfuture,nothingbutanattempttocommitsuicide.Theseparationoftrade-unionpracticefromthetheoryofscientificsocialismwouldmeantotheGermantrade-unionstheimmediate lossof all their superiorityover all kindsofbourgeois trade-unions, and theirfallfromtheirpresentheighttothelevelofunsteadygropingandmeredullempiricism.

Thirdlyandfinally,thetrade-unionsare,althoughtheirleadershavegraduallylostsightof the fact, even as regards their numerical strength, a direct product of the socialdemocraticmovementandthesocialdemocraticagitation.It is true that inmanydistrictstrade-unionagitationprecedessocialdemocraticagitation,andthateverywheretrade-unionworkprepares thewayforpartywork.Fromthepointofviewofeffect,partyandtrade-unionsassisteachothertothefullestextent.ButwhenthepictureoftheclassstruggleinGermanyislookedatasawholeanditsmoredeep-seatedassociations,theproportionsareconsiderably altered. Many trade-union leaders are in the habit of looking downtriumphantlyfromtheproudheightoftheirmembershipofoneandaquartermilliononthemiserableorganisedmembersoftheSocialDemocraticParty,notyethalfamillionstrong,and of recalling the time, ten or twelve years ago, when those in the ranks of socialdemocracywerepessimisticastotheprospectsoftrade-uniondevelopment.

They do see that between these two things – the large number of organised tradeunionistsand thesmallnumberoforganisedSocialDemocrats– thereexists inacertaindegree a direct causal connection. Thousands and thousands ofworkers do not join thepartyorganisationspreciselybecause they join the trade-unions.According to the theory,alltheworkersmustbedoublyorganised,mustattendtwokindsofmeetings,paydoublecontributions,readtwokindsofworkers’papers,etc.Butforthisitisnecessarytohaveahigherstandardof intelligenceandof that idealismwhich, fromapurefeelingofduty tothelabourmovement,ispreparedforthedailysacrificeoftimeandmoney,andfinally,ahigherstandardofthatpassionateinterestintheactuallifeofthepartywhichcanonlybeengendered by membership of the party organisation. All this is true of the mostenlightenedandintelligentminorityofsocialdemocraticworkersinthelargetowns,wherepartylifeisfullandattractiveandwheretheworkers’standardoflivingishigh.Amongstthewider sections of theworkingmasses in the large towns, however, aswell as in theprovinces,inthesmallerandthesmallesttownswherepoliticallifeisnotanindependentthingbutamerereflexofthecourseofeventsinthecapital,whereconsequently,partylife

–62–

ispoorandmonotonous,andwhere,finally,theeconomicstandardoflifeoftheworkersis,forthemostpart,miserable,itisverydifficulttosecurethedoubleformoforganisation.

For the social democratically-minded worker from the masses the question will besolved by his joining his trade-union. The immediate interests of his economic strugglewhichareconditionedbythenatureofthestruggleitselfcannotbeadvancedinanyotherway thanbymembershipof a trade-unionorganisation.The contributionwhichhepays,oftenamidstconsiderablesacrificeofhisstandardofliving,bringhimimmediate,visibleresults.His social democratic inclinations, however, enable him to participate in variouskindsofworkwithoutbelongingtoaspecialpartyorganisation;byvotingatparliamentaryelections,byattendanceatsocialdemocraticpublicmeetings,byfollowingthereportsofsocial democratic speeches in representatives bodies, and by reading the party press.Compare in this connection the number of social democratic electors or the number ofsubscriberstoVorwärtswiththenumberoforganisedpartymembersinBerlin!

Andwhatismostdecisive,thesocialdemocratically-mindedaverageworkerwho,asasimpleman,canhavenounderstandingoftheintricateandfineso-calledtwo-soultheory,feels that he is, even in the trade union, social democratically organised. Although thecentralcommitteesoftheunionshavenoofficialpartylabel,theworkmanfromthemassesin every city and town sees the head of his trade-union as themost active leader, thosecolleagueswhomheknowsalsoascomradesandsocialdemocrats inpublic life,nowasReichstag,Landstagorlocalrepresentatives,nowastrustedmenofthesocialdemocracy,membersofelectioncommittees,partyeditorsandsecretaries,ormerelyas speakersandagitators.Further,hehearsexpressed in theagitationalworkofhis trade-unionmuch thesameideas,pleasingandintelligibletohim,ofcapitalistexploitation,classrelations,etc.,asthosethathavecometohimfromsocialdemocraticagitation.Indeed,themostandbestlovedofthespeakersattrade-unionmeetingsarethosesamesocialdemocrats.

Thuseverythingcombines togive theaverageclass-consciousworker thefeeling thathe,inbeingorganisedinhistrade-union,isalsoamemberofhislabourpartyandissocialdemocraticallyorganised,and therein lies thepeculiar recruiting strengthof theGermantrade-unions. Not because of the appearance of neutrality, but because of the socialdemocratic reality of their being, have the central unions being enabled to attain theirpresentstrength.Thisissimplythroughtheco-existenceofthevariousunions–Catholic,Hirsch-Dunker,etc.–foundedbybourgeoispartiesbywhichitwassoughttoestablishthenecessityforthatpolitical“neutrality.”WhentheGermanworkerwhohasfullfreedomofchoicetoattachhimselftoaChristian,Catholic,EvangelicalorFree-thinkingtrade-union,

–63–

choosesnoneofthesebutthe“freetrade-union”instead,orleavesoneoftheformertojointhe latter, he does so only because he considers that the central unions are the avowedorganisationsofthemodernclassstruggle,or,whatisthesamethinginGermany,thattheyaresocialdemocratictrade-unions.

Inawordtheappearanceof“neutrality,”whichexistsinthemindsofmanytrade-unionleaders, does not exist for the mass of organised trade-unionists. And that is the goodfortuneofthetrade-unionmovement.Iftheappearanceof“neutrality”,thatalienationandseparationofthetrade-unionsfromsocialdemocracy,reallyandtrulybecomesarealityintheeyesof theproletarianmasses, thenthe trade-unionswouldimmediately loseall theiradvantages over competing bourgeois unions, and therewith their recruiting power, theirliving fire. This is conclusively proved by the facts which are generally known. Theappearance of party-political “neutrality” of the trade-unions could, as a means ofattraction,renderinestimableserviceinacountryinwhichsocialdemocracyitselfhasnocreditamongthemasses,inwhichtheodiumattachingaworkers’organisationinjuresitintheeyesofthemassesratherthanadvantagesit–where,inaword,thetrade-unionsmustfirstofallrecruittheirtroopsfromawhollyunenlightened,bourgeois-mindedmass.

Thebestexampleofsuchacountrywas,throughoutthewholeofthelastcentury,andistoacertainextenttoday,GreatBritain.InGermany,however,partyrelationsarealtogetherdifferent. Inacountry, inwhichsocialdemocracy is themostpowerfulpoliticalparty, inwhichitsrecruitingpowerisrepresentedbyanarmyofoverthreemillionproletarians,itisridiculous to speakof thedeterrent effectof social democracyandof thenecessity for afightingorganisationoftheworkerstoensurepoliticalneutrality.Themerecomparisonofthefiguresofsocialdemocraticvoterswiththefiguresofthetrade-unionorganisationsinGermanyissufficienttoprovetothemostsimple-mindedthatthetrade-unionsinGermanydonot, as inEngland,draw their troops from theunenlightenedbourgeois-mindedmass,butfromthemassofproletariansalreadyarousedbythesocialdemocracyandwonbyittothe idea of the class struggle. Many trade-union leaders indignantly reject the idea – arequisiteofthe“theoryofneutrality”–andregardthetrade-unionsasarecruitingschoolforsocialdemocracy.Thisapparentlyinsulting,butinreality,highlyflatteringpresumptionisinGermanyreducedtomerefancybythecircumstancethatthepositionsarereversed;itisthesocialdemocracywhichistherecruitingschoolforthetrade-unions.

Moreover,iftheorganisationalworkofthetrade-unionsisforthemostpartofaverydifficultandtroublesomekind,itis,withtheexceptionofafewcasesandsomedistricts,notmerelybecauseonthewhole,thesoilhasnotbeenpreparedbythesocialdemocratic

–64–

plough,but alsobecause the trade-union seed itself, and the soweraswell,must alsobe“red,”socialdemocraticbeforetheharvestcanprosper.Butwhenwecompareinthiswaythe figuresof trade-unionstrength,notwith thoseof thesocialdemocraticorganisations,but–whichistheonlycorrectway–withthoseofthemassofsocialdemocraticvoters,wecometoaconclusionwhichdiffersconsiderablyfromthecurrentviewofthematter.Thefactthencomestolightthatthe“freetrade-unions”actuallyrepresenttodaybutaminorityoftheclass-consciousworkersofGermany,thatevenwiththeironeandaquartermillionorganisedmemberstheyhavenotyetbeenabletodrawintotheirranksone-halfofthosealreadyarousedbysocialdemocracy.

The most important conclusion to be drawn from the facts above cited is that thecompleteunityofthetrade-unionandthesocialdemocraticmovements,whichisabsolutelynecessary for the coming mass struggles in Germany, is actually here, and that it isincorporatedinthewidemasswhichformsthebasisatonceofsocialdemocracyandtrade-unionism,andinwhoseconsciousnessbothpartsofthemovementaremingledinamentalunity.TheallegedantagonismbetweenSocialDemocracyand tradeunions shrinks toanantagonism between Social Democracy and a certain part of the trade-union officials,which is, however, at the same timean antagonismwithin the tradeunionsbetween thispartofthetrade-unionleadersandtheproletarianmassorganizedintradeunions.

The rapid growth of the trade-unionmovement inGermany in the course of the lastfifteenyears,especiallyintheperiodofgreateconomicprosperityfrom1895to1900hasbroughtwithitagreatindependenceofthetrade-unions,aspecialisingoftheirmethodsofstruggle, and finally the introduction of a regular trade-union officialdom. All thesephenomena are quite understandable and natural historical products of the growth of thetrade-unionsinthisfifteen-yearperiod,andoftheeconomicprosperityandpoliticalcalmof Germany. They are, although inseparable from certain drawbacks, without doubt ahistorically necessary evil. But the dialectics of development also brings with it thecircumstancethatthesenecessarymeansofpromotingtrade-uniongrowthbecome,onthecontrary, obstacles to this further development at a certain stageoforganisation and at acertaindegreeofripenessofconditions.

The specialisation of professional activity as trade-union leaders, as well as thenaturallyrestrictedhorizonwhich isboundupwithdisconnectedeconomicstruggles inapeacefulperiod,leadsonlytooeasily,amongsttrade-unionofficials,tobureaucratismandacertain narrowness of outlook. Both, however, express themselves in a whole series oftendencies whichmay be fateful in the highest degree for the future of the trade-union

–65–

movement.Thereisfirstofalltheovervaluationoftheorganisation,whichfromameanshasgraduallybeenchangedintoanendinitself,apreciousthing,towhichtheinterestsofthestrugglesshouldbesubordinated.Fromthisalsocomesthatopenlyadmittedneedforpeacewhich shrinks fromgreat risks andpresumeddangers to the stability of the trade-unions, and further, the overvaluation of the trade-union method of struggle itself, itsprospectsanditssuccesses.

The trade-union leaders, constantly absorbed in the economic guerrilla war whoseplausible task it is tomake theworkersplace thehighestvalueonthesmallesteconomicachievement,everyincreaseinwagesandshorteningoftheworkingday,graduallylosethepowerofseeingthelargerconnectionsandoftakingasurveyofthewholeposition.Onlyin this way can one explain why many trade-union leaders refer with the greatestsatisfaction to the achievements of the last fifteen years, instead of, on the contrary,emphasising theother sideof themedal; the simultaneousand immense reductionof theproletarianstandardoflifebylandusury,bythewholetaxandcustomspolicy,bylandlordrapacitywhichhas increasedhouserents tosuchanexorbitantextent, inshort,byall theobjectivetendenciesofbourgeoispolicywhichhavelargelyneutralisedtheadvantagesofthe fifteen years of trade-union struggle. From thewhole social democratic truthwhich,whileemphasisingtheimportanceof thepresentworkanditsabsolutenecessity,attachesthechiefimportancetothecriticismandthelimitstothiswork,thehalftrade-uniontruthistakenwhichemphasisesonlythepositivesideofthedailystruggle.

Andfinally,fromtheconcealmentoftheobjectivelimitsdrawnbythebourgeoissocialordertothetrade-unionstruggle,therearisesahostilitytoeverytheoreticalcriticismwhichreferstotheselimitsinconnectionwiththeultimateaimsofthelabourmovement.Fulsomeflatteryandboundlessoptimismareconsideredtobethedutyofevery“friendofthetrade-unionmovement.” But as the social democratic standpoint consists precisely in fightingagainst uncritical parliamentary optimism, a front is at last made against the socialdemocratictheory:mengropefora“newtrade-uniontheory,”thatis,atheorywhichwouldopen an illimitable vista of economic progress to the trade-union struggle within thecapitalistsystem,inoppositiontothesocialdemocraticdoctrine.Suchatheoryhasindeedexistedforsometime–thetheoryofProfessorSombartwhichwaspromulgatedwiththeexpressintentionofdrivingawedgebetweenthetrade-unionsandthesocialdemocracyinGermany,andofenticingthetrade-unionsovertothebourgeoisposition.

Incloseconnectionwiththesetheoreticaltendenciesisarevolutionintherelationsofleadersandrank-and-file.Inplaceofthedirectionbycolleaguesthroughlocalcommittees,

–66–

withtheiradmittedinadequacy,thereappearsthebusiness-likedirectionofthetrade-unionofficials. The initiative and the power ofmaking decisions thereby devolve upon trade-unionspecialists,so tospeak,andthemorepassivevirtueofdisciplineuponthemassofmembers.Thisdark sideofofficialdomalsoassuredlyconceals considerabledangers fortheparty,asfromthelatestinnovation,theinstitutionoflocalpartysecretaries,itcanquiteeasilyresult,ifthesocialdemocraticmassisnotcarefulthatthesesecretariatsmayremainmere organs for carrying out decisions and not be regarded in any way the appointedbearersoftheinitiativeandofthedirectionoflocalpartylife.Butbythenatureofthecase,bythecharacterofthepoliticalstruggle,therearenarrowboundsdrawntobureaucratisminsocialdemocracyasintrade-unionlife.

Butherethetechnicalspecialisingofwagestrugglesas,forexample,theconclusionofintricate tariff agreements and for the like, frequentlymeans that themass of organisedworkers are prohibited from taking a “survey of the whole industrial life,” and theirincapacityfortakingdecisionsistherebyestablished.Aconsequenceofthisconceptionisthe argumentwithwhich every theoretical criticism of the prospects and possibilities oftrade-unionpractice is tabooedandwhichalleges that it representsadanger to thepioustrade-unionsentimentofthemasses.Fromthis,apointofviewhasbeendeveloped,thatitisonlybyblind,child-likefaithintheefficacyofthetrade-unionstrugglethattheworkingmassescanbewonandheldfortheorganisation.Incontradistinctiontosocialdemocracywhich bases its influence on the unity of the masses amidst the contradictions of theexisting order and in the complicated character of its development, and on the criticalattitudeofthemassestoallfactorsandstagesoftheirownclassstruggle,theinfluenceandthepowerofthetrade-unionsarefoundedupontheupside-downtheoryoftheincapacityofthemassesforcriticismanddecision.“Thefaithofthepeoplemustbemaintained”–thatisthefundamentalprinciple,actinguponwhichmanytrade-unionofficialsstampasattemptsonthelifeofthismovement,allcriticismsoftheobjectiveinadequacyoftrade-unionism.

And finally, a result of all this specialisation and this bureaucratism amongst trade-unionofficialsisthegreatindependenceandthe“neutrality”ofthetrade-unionsinrelationtosocialdemocracy.Theextremeindependenceofthetrade-unionorganisationisanaturalresult of its growth, as a relationwhichhas grownout of the technical divisionofworkbetweenthepoliticalandthetrade-unionformsofstruggle.The“neutrality”oftheGermantrade-unions,onitspart,aroseasaproductofthereactionarytrade-unionlegislationofthePrusso-Germanpolicestate.Withtime,bothaspectsoftheirnaturehavealtered.Fromthecondition of political “neutrality” of the trade-unions imposed by the police, a theory of

–67–

theirvoluntaryneutralityhasbeenevolvedasanecessityfoundedupontheallegednatureofthetrade-unionstruggleitself.Andthetechnicalindependenceofthetrade-unionswhichshould restupon thedivisionofwork in theunified socialdemocraticclass struggle, theseparationofthetrade-unionsfromsocialdemocracy,fromitsviewsanditsleadership,hasbeenchangedintotheso-calledequalauthorityoftrade-unionsandsocialdemocracy.

The appearance of separation and equality of trade-unions and social democracy is,however, incorporated chiefly in the trade-union officials, and strengthened through themanagingapparatusofthetrade-unions.Outwardly,bytheco-existenceofacompletestaffof trade-union officials, of a wholly independent central committee, of numerousprofessionalpress,andfinallyofatrade-unioncongress,theillusioniscreatedofanexactparallelwiththemanagingapparatusofthesocialdemocracy,thepartyexecutive,thepartypressandthepartyconference.Thisillusionofequalitybetweensocialdemocracyandthetrade-union had led to, amongst other things, themonstrous spectacle that, in part, quiteanalogous agendas are discussed at social democratic conferences and trade-unioncongresses, and that on the same questions different, and even diametrically opposite,decisionsaretaken.Fromthenaturaldivisionofworkbetweenthepartyconference(whichrepresents the general interests and tasks of the labour movement), and the trade-unioncongress(whichdealswiththemuchnarrowersphereofsocialquestionsandinterests)theartificialdivisionhasbeenmadeofapretendedtrade-unionandasocialdemocraticoutlookinrelationtothesamegeneralquestionsandinterestsofthelabourmovement.

Thusthepeculiarpositionhasarisenthatthissametrade-unionmovementwhichbelow,inthewideproletarianmasses,isabsolutelyonewithsocialdemocracy,partsabruptlyfromitabove, in thesuper-structureofmanagement,andsets itselfupasan independentgreatpower. The German labour movement therefore assumes the peculiar form of a doublepyramidwhosebaseandbodyconsistofonesolidmassbutwhoseapexesarewideapart.

It is clear from this presentation of the case in what way alone in a natural andsuccessful manner that compact unity of the German labour movement can be attainedwhich, inviewof thecomingpoliticalclass strugglesandof thepeculiar interestsof thefurtherdevelopmentofthetrade-unions,isindispensablynecessary.Nothingcouldbemoreperverseormorehopeless than todesire toattain theunitydesiredbymeansofsporadicandperiodicalnegotiationsonindividualquestionsaffectingthelabourmovementbetweentheSocialDemocraticPartyleadershipandthetrade-unioncentralcommittees.Itisjustthehighestcirclesofbothformsofthelabourmovement,whichaswehaveseen,incorporatetheirseparationandself-sufficiency,whicharethemselves,therefore,thepromotersofthe

–68–

illusionofthe“equalauthority”andoftheparallelexistenceofsocialdemocracyandtrade-unionism.

Todesire theunityof these through theunionof theparty executive and thegeneralcommissionistodesiretobuildabridgeattheveryspotwherethedistanceisgreaterandthe crossing more difficult. Not above, amongst the heads of the leading directingorganisationsandintheirfederativealliance,butbelow,amongsttheorganisedproletarianmasses,liestheguaranteeoftherealunityofthelabourmovement.Intheconsciousnessofthemilliontrade-unionists,thepartyandthetradeunionsareactuallyone,theyrepresentindifferentformsthesocialdemocraticstrugglefortheemancipationoftheproletariat.Andthenecessityautomaticallyarisestherefromofremovinganycausesoffrictionwhichhavearisenbetweenthesocialdemocracyandapartofthetradeunions,ofadaptingtheirmutualrelation to the consciousness of the proletarian masses, that is, of re-joining the trade-unions to social democracy. The synthesis of the real development which led from theoriginal incorporation of the trade-unions to their separation from social democracywillthereby be expressed, and the way will be prepared for the coming period of greatproletarianmassstrugglesduringtheperiodofvigorousgrowth,ofbothtrade-unionsandsocialdemocracyandtheirreunion,intheinterestsofboth,willbecomeanecessity.

It is not, of course, a question of themerging of the trade-union organisation in theparty,butof the restorationof theunityof socialdemocracyand the trade-unionswhichcorrespondstotheactualrelationbetweenthelabourmovementasawholeanditspartialtrade-unionexpression.Sucha revolutionwill inevitablycall forthavigorousoppositionfrom a part of the trade-union leadership.But it is high time for theworkingmasses ofsocial democracy to learn how to express their capacity for decision and action, andtherewith todemonstrate their ripeness for that timeofgreat struggles andgreat tasks inwhichthey,themasses,willbetheactualchorusandthedirectingbodieswillmerelyactthe“speakingparts,”thatis,willonlybetheinterpretersofthewillofthemasses.

Thetrade-unionmovementisnotthatwhichisreflectedinthequiteunderstandablebutirrational illusion of a minority of the trade-union leaders, but that which lives in theconsciousnessofthemassofproletarianswhohavebeenwonfortheclassstruggle.Inthisconsciousnessthetrade-unionmovementispartofsocialdemocracy.“Andwhatitis,thatshoulditdaretoappear.”

–69–

Footnote

[1] As the existence of such a tendency within German social democracy is generallydenied,onemustbegratefulforthecandourwithwhichtheopportunisttrendhasrecentlyformulateditsrealaimsandwishes.AtapartymeetinginMayenceonSeptember10,1909,thefollowingresolution,proposedbyDr.David,wascarried.

“Whereas the Social Democratic Party interprets the term ‘revolution’not in the sense of violent overthrow, but in the peaceful sense ofdevelopment,thatis,thegradualrealisationofaneweconomicprinciple,the public party meeting at Mayence repudiates every kind ofrevolutionaryromance.”

“Themeetingseesintheconquestofpoliticalpowernothingbutthewinningoverofthemajorityofthepeopletotheideasanddemandsofthesocialdemocracy;aconquestwhichcannotbeachievedbymeansofviolence, but only by the revolutionising of the mind by means ofintellectual propaganda and practical reform work in all spheres ofpolitical,economicandsociallife.”

“Intheconvictionthatsocialdemocracyflourishesfarbetterwhenitemployslegalmeansthatwhenitreliesonillegalmeansandrevolution,themeeting repudiates ‘directmass action’ as a tactical principle, andholds fast to the principle of ‘parliamentary reform action,’ that is, itdesires that the party in the future as in the past, shall earnestlyendeavourtoachieveitsaimsbylegislationandgradualorganisationaldevelopment.”

“Theindispensableconditionforthisreformistmethodofstruggleisthat the possibility of participation of the dispossessed masses of thepeopleinthelegislationof theempireandof the individualstatesshallnot be lessened but increased to the fullest possible extent. For thisreason,themeetingdeclaresittobeanincontestablerightoftheworkingclass to withhold its labour for a longer or shorter period to ward offattacksonitslegalrightsandtogainfurtherrights,whenallothermeansfail.”

“But as the political mass strike can only be victoriously carriedthroughwhenkeptwithinstrictlylegallimitsandwhenthestrikersgive

–70–

no reasonable excuse to the authorities to resort to armed force, themeeting perceives the only necessary and real preparation for theexercise of this method of struggle in the further extension of thepolitical, trade-union and co-operative organisations. Because only inthiswaycan theconditionsbecreatedamongst thewidemassesof thepeoplewhichcanguaranteethesuccessfulprosecutionofamassstrike:consciousdisciplineandadequateeconomicsupport.”

–71–