|
Lecture on the 1905 Revolution[6] Published: First published in Pravda
No. 18, January 22, 1925. Written in German before January 9
(22), 1917. Signed: N. Lenin. My young friends and comrades, Today is the twelfth anniversary of “Bloody Sunday”, which is rightly regarded as the beginning of the Russian revolution. Thousands of workers—not Social-Democrats, but loyal God-fearing subjects—led by the priest Gapon, streamed from all parts of the capital to its centre, to the square in front of the Winter Palace, to submit a petition to the tsar. The workers carried icons. In a letter to the tsar, their then leader, Gapon, had guaranteed his personal safety and asked him to appear before the people. Troops were called out. Uhlans and Cossacks attacked the crowd with drawn swords. They fired on the unarmed workers, who on their bended knees implored the Cossacks to allow them to go to the tsar. Over one thousand were killed and over two thousand wounded on that day, according to police reports. The indignation of the workers was indescribable. Such is the general picture of January 22, 1905—“Bloody Sunday”. That you may understand more clearly the historic significance of this event, I shall quote a few passages from the workers’ petition. It begins with the following words: “We workers, inhabitants of The petition contains the following demands: amnesty, civil liberties, fair wages, gradual transfer of the land to the people, convocation of a constituent assembly on the basis of universal and equal suffrage. It ends with the following words: “Sire, do not refuse aid to Thy people! Demolish the wall
that separates Thee from Thy people. Order and promise that our requests will
be granted, and Thou wilt make Reading it now, this petition of uneducated, illiterate
workers, led by a patriarchal priest, creates a strange impression.
Involuntarily one compares this naïve petition with the present peace
resolutions of the social-pacifists, the would-be socialists who in reality
are bourgeois phrase-mongers. The unenlightened workers of pre-revolutionary Nevertheless, there is a great difference between the
two—the present-day social-pacifists are, to a large extent, hypocrites, who
strive by gentle admonitions to divert the people from the revolutionary
struggle, whereas the uneducated workers in pre-revolutionary It is in this awakening of tremendous masses of the people to political consciousness and revolutionary struggle that the historic significance of January 22, 1905 lies.
“There is not yet a revolutionary
people in Prior to January 22 (or January 9, old style),
1905, the revolutionary party of Within a few months, however, the picture changed
completely. The hundreds of revolutionary Social-Democrats “suddenly” grew
into thousands; the thousands became the leaders of between two arid three
million proletarians. The proletarian struggle produced widespread ferment,
often revolutionary movements among the peasant masses, fifty to a hundred
million strong; the peasant movement had its reverberations in the army and
led to soldiers’ revolts, to armed clashes between one section of the army
and another. In this manner a colossal country, with a population of
130,000,000, went into the revolution; in this way, dormant It is necessary to study this transformation, understand why it was possible, its methods and ways, so to speak. The principal factor in this transformation was the mass strike. The peculiarity of the Russian revolution is that it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution in its social content, but a proletarian revolution in its methods of struggle. It was a bourgeois-democratic revolution since its immediate aim, which it could achieve directly and with its own forces, was a democratic republic, the eight-hour day and confiscation of the immense estates of the nobility—all the measures the French bourgeois revolution in 1792–93 had almost completely achieved. At the same time, the Russian revolution was also a proletarian revolution, not only in the sense that the proletariat was the leading force, the vanguard of the movement, but also in the sense that a specifically proletarian weapon of struggle—the strike—was the principal means of bringing the masses into motion and the most characteristic phenomenon in the wave-like rise of decisive events. The Russian revolution was the first, though certainly not the last, great revolution in history in which the mass political strike played an extraordinarily important part. It may even be said that the events of the Russian revolution and the sequence of its political forms cannot be understood without a study of the strike statistics to disclose the basis of these events and this sequence of forms. I know perfectly well that dry statistics are hardly suit
able in a lecture and are likely to bore the hearer. Nevertheless, I cannot
refrain from quoting a few figures, in order that you may be able to
appreciate the real objective basis of the whole movement. The average annual
number of strikers in In no capitalist country in the world, not even in the
most advanced countries like But it does show how great the dormant energy of the proletariat can be. It shows that in a revolutionary epoch—I say this without the slightest exaggeration, on the basis of the most accurate data of Russian history—the proletariat can generate fighting energy a hundred times greater than in ordinary, peaceful times. It shows that up to 1905 mankind did not yet know what a great, what a tremendous exertion of effort the proletariat is, and will be, capable of in a fight for really great aims, and one waged in a really revolutionary manner! The history of the Russian revolution shows that it was the vanguard, the finest elements of the wage-workers, that fought with the greatest tenacity and the greatest devotion. The larger the mills and factories involved, the more stubborn were the strikes, and the more often did they recur during the year. The bigger the city, the more important was the part the proletariat played in the struggle. Three big cities, St. Petersburg, Riga and Warsaw, which have the largest and most class-conscious working-class element, show an immeasurably greater number of strikers, in relation to all workers, than any other city, and, of course, much greater than the rural districts.[1] In A distinctive feature was the manner in which economic
strikes were interwoven with political strikes during the revolution. There can be no doubt that only this
very close link-up of the two forms of strike gave the movement its great
power. The broad masses of the exploited could not have been drawn into the
revolutionary movement had they not been given daily examples of how the
wage-workers in the various industries were forcing the capitalists to grant
immediate, direct improvements in their conditions. This struggle imbued the
masses of the Russian people with a new spirit. Only then did the old
serf-ridden, sluggish, patriarchal, pious and obedient When the bourgeois gentry and their uncritical echoers, the social-reformists, talk priggishly about the “education” of the masses, they usually mean something schoolmasterly, pedantic, something that demoralises the masses and instils in them bourgeois prejudices. The real education of the masses can never be separated from their independent political, and especially revolutionary, struggle. Only struggle educates the exploited class. Only struggle discloses to it the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will. That is why even reactionaries had to admit that the year 1905, the year of struggle, the “mad year”, definitely buried patriarchal Russia. Let us examine more closely the relation, in the 1905 strike struggles, between the metalworkers and the textile workers. The metalworkers are the best paid, the most class-conscious and best educated proletarians: the textile workers, who in 1905 were two and a half times more numerous than the metalworkers, are the most backward and the worst paid body of workers in Russia, and in very many cases have not yet definitely severed connections with their peasant kinsmen in the village. This brings us to a very important circumstance. Throughout the whole of 1905, the metalworkers
strikes show a preponderance of political over economic strikes, though this
preponderance was far greater toward the end of the year than at the
beginning. Among the textile workers, on the other hand, we observe an
overwhelming preponderance of economic strikes at the beginning of 1905, and
it is only at the end of the year that we get a
preponderance of political strikes. From this it follows quite obviously that
the economic struggle, the struggle for immediate and direct improvement of
conditions, is alone capable of rousing the most backward strata of the
exploited masses, gives them a real education and transforms them—during a
revolutionary period—into an army of political fighters within the space of a
few months. Of course, for this to happen, it was necessary for the vanguard of the workers not to regard the class struggle as a struggle in the interests of a thin upper stratum—a conception the reformists all too often try to instil—but for the proletariat to come forward as the real vanguard of the majority of the exploited and draw that majority into the struggle, as was the case in Russia in 1905, and as must be, and certainly will be, the case in the impending proletarian revolution in Europe.[2] The beginning of 1905 brought the first great wave of
strikes that swept the entire country. As early as the spring of that year we
see the rise of the first big, not only economic, but also political peasant
movement in That was achieved only by the revolutionary struggle of
the proletariat. Only the waves of mass strikes that swept over the whole
country, strikes connected with the severe lessons of the imperialist
Russo-Japanese War, roused the broad masses of peasants from their lethargy.
The word “striker” acquired an entirely new meaning among the peasants: it
signified a rebel, a revolutionary, a term previously expressed by the word
“student”. But the “student” belonged to the middle class, to the “learned”,
to the “gentry”, and was therefore alien to the people. The “striker”, on the
other hand, was of the people; he belonged to the exploited class. Deported
from The peasants would gather in groups to discuss their conditions, and gradually they were drawn into the struggle. Large crowds attacked the big estates, set fire to the manor-houses and appropriated supplies, seized grain and other foodstuffs, killed policemen and demanded transfer to the people of the huge estates. In the spring of 1905, the peasant movement was only just beginning, involving only a minority, approximately one-seventh, of the uyezds. But the combination of the proletarian mass strikes in the cities with the peasant movement in the rural areas was sufficient to shake the “firmest” and last prop of tsarism. I refer to the army. There began a series of mutinies in the navy and
the army. During the revolution, every fresh wave of strikes and of the
peasant movement was accompanied by mutinies in all parts of Permit me to relate in detail one small episode of the “Gatherings of revolutionary workers and sailors were being organised more and more frequently. Since servicemen were not allowed to attend workers’ meetings, large crowds of workers came to military meetings. They came in thousands. The idea of joint action found a lively response. Delegates were elected from the companies where political understanding among the men was higher. “The military authorities thereupon decided to take action. Some of the officers tried to deliver ‘patriotic’ speeches at the meetings but failed dismally: the sailors, who were accustomed to debating, put their officers to shameful flight. In view of this, it was decided to prohibit meetings altogether. On the morning of November 24, 1905, a company of sailors, in full combat kit, was posted at the gates of the naval bar racks. Rear-Admiral Pisarevsky gave the order in a loud voice: ‘No one is to leave the barracks! Shoot anyone who disobeys!’ A sailor named Petrov, of the company that had been given that order, stepped forth from the ranks, loaded his rifle in the view of all, and with one shot killed Captain Stein of the Belostok Regiment, and with another wounded Rear-Admiral Pisarevsky. ‘Arrest him!’ one of the officers shouted. No one budged. Petrov threw down his rifle, exclaiming: ‘Why don’t you move? Take me!’ He was arrested. The sailors, who rushed from every side, angrily demanded his release, declaring that they vouched for him. Excitement ran high. “‘Petrov, the shot was an accident, wasn’t it?’ asked one of the officers, trying to find a way out of the situation. “‘What do you mean, an accident? I stepped forward, loaded and took aim. Is that an accident?’ “‘They demand your release....’ “And Petrov was released. The sailors, however, were not content with that; all officers on duty were arrested, disarmed, and locked up at headquarters.... Sailor delegates, about forty in number, conferred the whole night. The decision was to release the officers, but not to permit them to enter the barracks again.”
This small incident clearly shows you how events developed in most of the mutinies. The revolutionary ferment among the people could not but spread to the armed forces. It is indicative that the leaders of the movement came from those elements in the army and the navy who had been recruited mainly from among the industrial workers and of whom more technical training was required, for instance, the sappers. The broad masses, however, were still too naïve, their mood was too passive, too good-natured, too Christian. They flared up rather quickly; any instance of injustice, excessively harsh treatment by the officers, bad food, etc., could lead to revolt. But what they lacked was persistence, a clear perception of aim, a clear understanding that only the most vigorous continuation of the armed struggle, only a victory over all the military and civil authorities, only the overthrow of the government and the seizure of power throughout the country could guarantee the success of the revolution. The broad masses of sailors and soldiers were easily roused to revolt. But with equal light-heartedness they foolishly released arrested officers. They allowed the officers to pacify them by promises and persuasion: in this way the officers gained precious time, brought in reinforcements, broke the strength of the rebels, and then followed the most brutal suppression of the movement and the execution of its leaders. A comparison of these 1905 mutinies with the Decembrist
uprising of 1825 is particularly interesting. In 1825 the leaders of the
political movement were almost exclusively officers, and officers drawn from
the nobility. They had become infected, through contact, with the democratic
ideas of The history of 1905 presents a totally different picture.
With few exceptions, the mood of the officers was either
bourgeois-liberal, reformist, or frankly counter-revolutionary. The
workers and peasants in military uniform were the soul of the mutinies. The
movement spread to all sections of the people, and for the first time in I might remark, incidentally, that these two shortcomings will—more slowly, perhaps, than we would like, but surely—be eliminated not only by the general development of capitalism, but also by the present war...[3] At any rate, the history of the Russian revolution, like the history of the Paris Commune of 1871, teaches us the incontrovertible lesson that militarism can never and under no circumstances be defeated and destroyed, except by a victorious struggle of one section of the national army against the other section. It is not sufficient simply to denounce, revile and “repudiate” militarism, to criticise and prove that it is harmful; it is foolish peacefully to refuse to perform military service. The task is to keep the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat tense and train its best elements, not only in a general way, hut concretely, so that when popular ferment reaches the highest pitch, they will put themselves at the head of the revolutionary army. The day-to-day experience of any capitalist country teaches us the same lesson. Every “minor” crisis that such a country experiences discloses to us in miniature the elements, the rudiments, of the battles that will inevitably take place on a large scale during a big crisis. What else, for instance, is a strike if not a minor crisis of capitalist society? Was not the Prussian Minister for Internal Affairs, Herr von Puttkammer, right when he coined the famous phrase: “In every strike there lurks the hydra of revolution”? Does not the calling out of troops during strikes in all, even the most peaceful, the most “democratic”—save the mark—capitalist countries show how things will shape out in a really big crisis? But to return to the history of the Russian revolution. I have tried to show you how the workers’ strikes stirred up the whole country and the broadest, most backward strata of the exploited, how the peasant movement began, and how it was accompanied by mutiny in the armed forces. The movement reached its zenith in the autumn of 1905. On
August 19 (6), the tsar issued a manifesto on the introduction of
popular representation. The so-called Bulygin Duma was to be created on the basis of a suffrage
embracing a ridiculously small number of voters, and this peculiar
“parliament” was to have no legislative powers whatever, only advisory,
consultative powers! The bourgeoisie, the liberals, the opportunists were ready to grasp with both hands this “gift” of the frightened tsar. Like all reformists, our reformists of 1905 could not understand that historic situations arise when reforms, and particularly promises of reforms, pursue only one aim: to allay the unrest of the people, force the revolutionary class to cease, or at least slacken, its struggle. The Russian revolutionary Social-Democracy was well aware
of the real nature of this grant of an illusory constitution in August 1905.
That is why, without a moment’s hesitation, it issued the slogans: “Down with
the advisory Duma! Boycott the Duma! Down with the tsarist government!
Continue the revolutionary struggle to overthrow it! Not the tsar, but a
provisional revolutionary government must convene History proved that the revolutionary Social-Democrats were right, for the Bulygin Duma was never convened. It was swept away by the revolutionary storm before it could be convened. And this storm forced the tsar to promulgate a new electoral law, which provided for a considerable increase in the number of voters, and to recognise the legislative character of the Duma.[4] October and December 1905 marked the highest point in the rising tide of the Russian revolution. All the well-springs of the people’s revolutionary strength flowed in a wider stream than ever before. The number of strikers—which in January 1905, as I have already told you, was 440,000—reached over half a million in October 1905 (in a single month!). To this number, which applies only to factory workers, must be added several hundred thousand railway workers, postal and telegraph employees, etc. The general railway strike stopped all rail traffic and paralysed the power of the government in the most effective manner. The doors of the universities were flung wide open, and the lecture halls, which in peace time were used solely to befuddle youthful minds with pedantic professorial wisdom and to turn the students into docile servants of the bourgeoisie and tsarism, now became the scene of public meetings at which thousands of workers, artisans and office workers openly and freely discussed political issues. Freedom of the press was won. The censorship was simply
ignored. No publisher dared send the obligatory censor copy to the
authorities, and the authorities did not dare take any measure against this.
For the first time in Russian history, revolutionary newspapers appeared
freely in The proletariat, marched at the
head of the movement. It set out to win the eight-hour day by revolutionary
action. “An Eight-Hour Day and Arms!” was the fighting slogan of the In the fire of battle, a peculiar mass organisation was formed, the famous Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, comprising delegates from all factories. In several cities these Soviets of Workers’ Deputies began more and more to play the part of a provisional revolutionary government, the part of organs and leaders of the uprising. Attempts were made to organise Soviets of Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Deputies and to combine them with the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. For a time several cities in The peasant movement in the autumn of 1905 reached still
greater dimensions. Over one-third of all the uyezds
were affected by the so-called “peasant disorders” and regular peasant
uprisings. The peasants burned down no less than
two thousand estates and distributed among themselves the food stocks of
which the predatory nobility had robbed the people. Unfortunately, this work was not thorough enough! Unfortunately, the peasants destroyed only one-fifteenth of the total number of landed estates, only one-fifteenth part of what they should have destroyed in order to wipe the shame of large feudal landownership from the face of the Russian earth. Unfortunately, the peasants were too scattered, too isolated from each other in their actions; they were not organised enough, not aggressive enough, and therein lies one of the fundamental reasons for the defeat of the revolution. A movement for national liberation flared up among the
oppressed peoples of The following instance will give the audience,
particularly the youth, an example of how at that
time the movement for national liberation in In December 1905, Polish children in hundreds of schools
burned all Russian books, pictures and portraits of the tsar, and attacked
and drove out the Russian teachers and their Russian schoolfellows, shouting:
“Get out! Go back to The higher the tide of the movement rose, the more
vigorously and decisively did the reaction arm itself to fight the
revolution. The Russian Revolution of 1905 confirmed the truth of what Karl Kautsky wrote in 1902 in his book Social Revolution
(he was still, incidentally, a revolutionary
Marxist and not, as at present, a champion of social-patriotism and
opportunism). This is what he wrote: “...The impending revolution ... will be less like a spontaneous uprising against the government and more like a protracted civil war.” That is how it was, and undoubtedly that is how it will be in the coming European revolution! Tsarism vented its hatred particularly upon the Jews. On the one hand, the Jews furnished a particularly high percentage (compared with the total Jewish population) of leaders of the revolutionary movement. And now, too, it should be noted to the credit of the Jews, they furnish a relatively high percentage of internationalists, compared with other nations. On the other hand, tsarism adroitly exploited the basest anti-Jewish prejudices of the most ignorant strata of the population in order to organise, if not to lead directly, pogroms—over 4,000 were killed and more than 10,000 mutilated in 100 towns. These atrocious massacres of peaceful Jews, their wives and children roused disgust throughout the civilised world. I have in mind, of course, the disgust of the truly democratic elements of the civilised world, and these are exclusively the socialist workers, the proletarians. Even in the freest, even in the republican countries of
Western Europe, the bourgeoisie manages very well to combine its hypocritical
phrases about “Russian atrocities” with the most shameless financial
transactions, particularly with financial support of tsarism
and imperialist exploitation of The climax of the 1905 Revolution came in the December
uprising in The bourgeoisie likes to describe the To properly assess this piece of professorial wisdom of the cowardly bourgeoisie, one need only recall the strike statistics. In January 1905, only 123,000 were involved in purely political strikes, in October the figure was 330,000, and in December the maximum was reached—370,000 taking part in purely political strikes in a single month! Let us recall, too, the progress of the revolution, the peasant and soldier uprisings, and we shall see that the bourgeois “scientific” view of the December uprising is not only absurd. It is a subterfuge resorted to by the representatives of the cowardly bourgeoisie, which sees in the proletariat its most dangerous class enemy. In reality, the inexorable trend of the Russian revolution was towards an armed, decisive battle between the tsarist government and the vanguard of the class-conscious proletariat. I have already pointed out, in my previous remarks, wherein lay the weakness of the Russian revolution that led to its temporary defeat. The suppression of the December uprising marked the beginning of the ebb of the revolution. But in this period, too, extremely interesting moments are to be observed. Suffice it to recall that twice the foremost militant elements of the working class tried to check the retreat of the revolution and to prepare a new offensive. But my time has nearly expired, and I do not want to abuse the patience of my audience. I think, however, that I have outlined the most important aspects of the revolution—its class character, its driving forces and its methods of struggle—as fully as so big a subject can be dealt with in a brief lecture.[5] A few brief remarks concerning the world significance of the Russian revolution. Geographically, economically and historically, It achieved more than that. The Russian revolution
engendered a movement throughout the whole of In an indirect way, the Russian revolution influenced
also the countries of the West. One must not forget that news of the tsar’s
constitutional manifesto, on reaching
A telegram bearing the news was placed on the speaker’s
rostrum at the Congress of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party just as
Comrade Ellenbogen—at that time he was not yet a
social-patriot, but a comrade—was delivering his report on the political
strike. The discussion was immediately adjourned. “Our place is in the
streets!”—was the cry that resounded through the hall where the delegates of
the Austrian Social-Democracy were assembled. And the following days
witnessed the biggest street demonstrations in We very often meet West-Europeans who talk of the Russian revolution as if events, the course and methods of struggle in that backward country have very little resemblance to West-European patterns, and, therefore, can hardly have any practical significance. Nothing could be more erroneous. The forms and occasions for the impending battles in the coming European revolution will doubtlessly differ in many respects from the forms of the Russian revolution. Nevertheless, the Russian revolution—precisely because of
its proletarian character, in that particular sense of which I have spoken—is
the prologue to the coming European revolution. Undoubtedly, this
coming revolution can only be a proletarian revolution, and in an oven more
profound sense of the word: a proletarian, socialist revolution also in its
content. This coming revolution will show to an
even greater degree, on the one hand, that only stern battles, only civil
wars, can free humanity from the yoke of capital, and, on the other hand,
that only class-conscious proletarians can and will give leadership to the
vast majority of the exploited. We must not be deceived by the present grave-like
stillness in Just as in Russia in 1905, a popular uprising against the tsarist government began under the leadership of the proletariat with the aim of achieving a democratic republic, so, in Europe, the coming years, precisely because of this predatory war, will lead to popular uprisings under the leadership of the proletariat against the power of finance capital, against the big banks, against the capitalists; and these upheavals cannot end otherwise than with the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, with the victory of socialism. We of the older generation may not live to see the
decisive battles of this coming revolution. But I can, I believe, express the
confident hope that the youth which is working so splendidly in the socialist
movement of Notes [1] In the manuscript this paragraph is crossed out.—Ed. [2] In the manuscript the four preceding paragraphs are crossed
out.—Ed. [3] In the manuscript the three preceding paragraphs are crossed
out.—Ed. [4] In the manuscript the four preceding paragraphs are crossed
out.—Ed. [5] In the manuscript this sentence is crossed out.—Ed. [6] The Lecture on the l905 Revolution was delivered in
German on January 9 (22), 1917 at a meeting of young workers in the
Zurich People’s House. Lenin began working on the lecture in the closing days
of 1916. He referred to the lecture in a letter to V. A. Karpinsky dated December 7 (20), asking for
literature on the subject. |