From V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1961
ANOTHER MASSACRE
It seems that we are now passing through a period in which our
working-class movement is once more about to engage with irresistible force
in the sharp conflicts that terrify the government and the propertied
classes and bring joy and encouragement to socialists. Yes, we rejoice in
these conflicts and are encouraged by them, notwithstanding the tremendous
number of victims claimed by military reprisals, because the working class
is proving by its resistance that it is not reconciled to its position, that
it refuses to remain in slavery or to submit meekly to violence and tyranny.
Even with the most peaceful course of events, the present system always and
inevitably exacts countless sacrifices from the working class. Thousands and
tens of thousands of men and women, who toil all their lives to create
wealth for others, perish from starvation and constant malnutrition, die
prematurely from diseases caused by horrible working conditions, by wretched
housing and overwork. He is a hundred times a hero who prefers to die
fighting in open struggle against the defenders and protectors of this
infamous system rather than die the lingering death of a crushed,
broken-down, and submissive nag. We do not by any means want to imply that
scuffling with the police is the best form of struggle. On the contrary, we
have always told the workers that it is in their interests to carry on the
struggle in a more calm and restrained manner, and to try to make use of all
discontent for support to the organised struggle of the revolutionary party.
But the principal source that sustains revolutionary Social-Democracy is the
spirit of protest among the working class which, in view of the violence and
oppression surrounding the workers, is bound to manifest itself from time to
time in the form
page 26
of desperate outbursts. These outbursts arouse to conscious life the
widest sections of the workers, oppressed by poverty and ignorance, and
stimulate in them a noble hatred for the oppressors and enemies of liberty.
That is why the news of massacres such as that which took place at the
Obukhov Works on May 7, makes us exclaim: "The workers' revolt has been
suppressed; long live the revolt of the workers!"
There was a time, and not very long ago at that, when workers'
revolts were a rare exception, called forth only by some special
circumstances. Now things have changed. A few years ago industry was
flourishing, trade was brisk, and the demand for workers was great.
Nevertheless, the workers organised a number of strikes to improve their
working conditions; they realised that they must not let the moment slip by,
that they must take advantage of the time when the employers were making
particularly high profits and it would be easier to win concessions from
them. The boom, however, has given way to a crisis. The manufacturers cannot
sell their goods, profits have declined, bankruptcies have increased,
factories are cutting production, and workers are being discharged and
turned into the streets in masses without a crust of bread. The workers now
have to fight desperately, not to improve their conditions, but to maintain
the old standards and to reduce the losses the employers impose on them. And
so the working-class movement develops in depth and extent: at first,
struggle in exceptional and isolated cases; then, unceasing and stubborn
battles during industrial prosperity and the trade boom; finally, similar
unceasing and stubborn struggle in the period of crisis. We may now say that
the working-class movement has become a permanent feature of our life and
that it will grow whatever the conditions.
The change-over from boom to crisis will not only teach our workers
that united struggle is a permanent necessity, it will also destroy the
harmful illusions that began to take shape at the time of industrial
prosperity. By means of strikes, the workers were able in some places to
force concessions from the employers with comparative ease, and this
"economic" struggle assumed an exaggerated significance; it was forgotten
that trade unions and strikes can, at best, only win slightly better terms
for the sale of labour-power as a commodity. Trade unions and strikes cannot
help in
page 27
times of crisis when there is no demand for this "commodity", they cannot
change the conditions which convert labour-power into a commodity and which
doom the masses of working people to dire need and unemployment. To change
these conditions, a revolutionary struggle against the whole existing social
and political system is necessary; the industrial crisis will convince very
many workers of the justice of this statement.
Let us return to the massacre of May 7. We give below available
information on the May strikes and manifestations of unrest among the St.
Petersburg workers.[8] We shall also examine the
police report of the massacre. Lately we have learned to understand the
significance of government (and police) reports of strikes, demonstrations,
and clashes with the troops; we have gathered sufficient material to judge
the reliability of these reports -- the smoke of police false hoods may
sometimes give a clue to the fire of popular indignation.
"On May 7," says the of ficial report, "about two hundred workers
employed in various departments of the Obukhov Steel Works in the village of
Alexandrovskoye on the Schlusselburg Highway stopped work after the dinner
break, and in the course of their interview with Lieutenant Colonel Ivanov,
assistant to the director of the works, put forward a number of groundless
demands."
If the workers stopped work without giving two weeks' notice
(assuming the stoppage was not due to lawless acts all too frequently
committed by the employers), even according to Russian law (which of late
has been systematically enlarged and sharpened against the workers), they
have merely committed a common offence for which they are liable to
prosecution in a magistrate's court. But the Russian Government is making
itself more and more ridiculous by its severity. On the one hand, laws are
passed designating new crimes (e.g., wilful refusal to work or participation
in a mob that damages property or resists armed force), penalties for
striking are increased, etc., while on the other, the physical and political
possibility of applying these laws and imposing corresponding penalties is
disappearing. It is physically impossible to prosecute thousands and tens of
thousands of men for refusing to work, for striking, or for
page 28
"mobs". It is politically impossible to try each case of this sort, for
no matter how the judges are selected and no matter how publicity is
emasculated, there still remains at least the shadow of a trial, naturally a
"trial" of the government and not of the workers. Thus, criminal laws passed
for the definite purpose of facilitating the government's political
struggle against the proletariat (and at the same time of concealing the
political character of the struggle by "state" arguments about "public
order", etc.) are steadily forced into the background by direct
political struggle and open street clashes. "Justice" throws off the mask of
majesty and impartiality, and takes to flight, leaving the field to the
police, the gendarmes, and the Cossacks, who are greeted with stones.
Let us take the government's reference to the "demands" of the
workers. From a legal standpoint stoppage of work is a misdemeanour,
irrespective of the workers' demands. But the government has lost its chance
of basing itself on the law it recently issued, and it tries to justify its
reprisals carried out with "the means at its disposal" by declaring the
workers' demands to be without basis. Who were the judges in this affair?
Lieutenant-Colonel Ivanov, assistant to the director of the works, the very
authority against whom the workers were complaining! It is not surprising,
therefore, that the workers reply to such explanations by the powers that be
with a hail of stones.
And so, when the workers poured into the street and held up horse
trams a real battle began. Apparently the workers fought with all their
might, for, although armed only with stones, they managed twice to
beat off the attacks by police, gendarmes, mounted guards, and the armed
factory guard.* It is true, if police reports are to be believed, "several
shots" were fired from the crowd, but no one was injured by them. Stones,
however, fell "like hail ", and the workers not only
* Note
this! The government communication states that "the armed factory guard"
"were already standing by in the factory yard", whereas the gendarmes,
mounted guards, and the city police were called out later. Since when, and
why, was an armed guard maintained in readiness in the factory yard?
Since the First of May? Did they expect a workers' demonstration? That we do
not know; but it is clear that the government is deliberately concealing
facts that would explain the mounting discontent and indignation of the
workers.
page 29
put up a stubborn resistance, they displayed resourcefulness and ability
in adapting themselves immediately to the situation and in selecting the
best form of struggle. They occupied the neighbouring courtyards and from
over the fences poured a hail of stones on-the tsar's bashi-bazouks, so
that even after three volleys had been fired, killing one man (only
one?) and wounding eight (?) (one of whom died the following day), even
after this, although the crowd had fled, the fight still continued and some
companies of the Omsk Infantry Regiment had to be called out to "clear the
workers out of the neighbouring courtyards".
The government emerged victorious, but such victories will bring
nearer its ultimate defeat. Every clash with the people will increase the
number of indignant workers who are ready to fight, and will bring into the
foreground more experienced, better armed, and bolder leaders. We have
already discussed the plan of action these leaders should follow. We have
repeatedly pointed to the imperative necessity for a sound revolutionary
organisation. But in connection with the events of May 7, we must not lose
sight of the following:
Much has been said recently about the impossibility and the
hopelessness of street fighting against modern troops. Particularly
insistent on this have been the wise "Critics" who have dragged out the old
lumber of bourgeois science in the guise of new, impartial, scientific
conclusions, and have distorted Engels' words that refer, with
reservations, only to a temporary tactic of the German Social-Democrats.[9]
But we see from the example of even this one clash how absurd these
arguments are. Street fighting is possible; it is not the position of the
fighters, but the position of the government that is hopeless if it has to
deal with larger numbers than those employed in a single factory. In the May
7 fighting the workers had nothing but stones, and, of course, the mere
prohibition of the city mayor will not prevent them from securing other
weapons next time. The workers were unprepared and numbered only three and a
half thousand; nevertheless, they repelled the attack of several hundred
mounted guards, gendarmes, city police, and infantry. Did the
police find it easy to storm the one house, No. 63, Schlusselburg
Highway?[10] Ask yourselves -- will it be easy to
page 30
"clear the workers " out of whole blocks, not merely out of one or
two courtyards, in the St. Petersburg working-class districts? When the time
of decisive battle comes, will it not be necessary to "clear
" the houses and courtyards of the capital, not only of workers, but of
all who have not forgotten the infamous massacre of March 4,[11]
who have not become reconciled to the police government, but are only
terrified by it and not yet confident of their own strength?
Comrades! Do your best to collect the names of those killed and
wounded on May 7. Let all workers in the capital honour their memory and
prepare for a new and decisive struggle against the police government for
the people's liberty!