1905 Russian revolution - Christina Cherry

ENGLISH

On the

First Russian Revolution 1905-1907

NEW BOOK .

PUBLISHER:

Comintern (SH)

published on the 21st of January, 2015

Collection of works

– arranged by Wolfgang Eggers –

on occasion of the 110th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" – 22nd (9th) of January, 1905

and on occasion of the 91st Day of Death of Lenin

The Eve of Bloody Sunday

In our account of the movement’s progress we stopped at the point at which, on the initiative of Gapon, the procession of the working-class masses to the Winter Palace to present a “petition” to the tsar for convening a Constituent Assembly was set for Sunday, January 9. By Saturday, the 8th, the strike in St. Petersburg had become a general strike. Even official reports placed the number of strikers at 100-150 thousand. Russia had never yet witnessed such a gigantic outbreak of the class struggle. The whole industrial, business, and public life of the great center with its population of one and a half million was paralyzed. The proletariat showed by deeds that modern civilization owes its existence to it and to it alone, that its labor creates wealth and luxury and that upon it rests our whole “culture”. The city found itself without newspapers, without lighting, and without water. And the general strike bore a clearly defined political character; it was a direct prelude to the revolutionary events.

An eyewitness thus describes the eve of the historic day in a letter addressed to us:

“Beginning with January 7 the strike in St. Petersburg became a general strike. Not only all the big factories and mills, but many workshops came to a standstill. Today, January 8, not a single newspaper, except for Praviteistvenny Vestnik [2] and Vedomosti S. Peterburgskovo Gradonachalstva, [1] has appeared. The leadership of the movement is still in the hands of the Zubatovists. We are witnessing an unprecedented scene in St. Petersburg, and the suspense makes one’s heart contract with fear as to whether the Social-Democratic organization will be able to take the movement into its own hands, at least after a while. The situation is extremely grave. Throughout these past days mass meetings of workers are daily taking place in all city districts at the headquarters of the ’Association of Russian Workers’. The surrounding streets are filled with thousands of workers. From time to time the Social Democrats make speeches and distribute leaflets. They are received on the whole sympathetically, although the Zubatovists try to set up an opposition. When the autocracy is mentioned, the Zubatov people shout: ‘We don’t care about that, the autocracy doesn’t stand in our way!’ On the other hand, the speeches which the Zubatovists make at the ‘Association’ headquarters contain all the Social-Democratic demands, beginning with the eight-hour day and ending with the convocation of a Constituent Assembly on the basis of equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. Only the Zubatovists assert that the granting of these demands implies, not the overthrow of the autocracy, but the bringing of the people closer to the tsar and the elimination of the bureaucracy, which stands between the tsar and the people.

“The Social-Democrats address meetings, too, in the headquarters of the Association, and their speeches are listened to sympathetically; but the initiative in practical proposals comes from the Zubatovists. Despite the objections of the Social Democrats, these proposals are adopted. They boil down to the following: on Sunday, January 9, the workers are to go to the Winter Palace and, through the priest Georgi Gapon, hand the tsar a petition listing all the demands of the workers and ending with the words, ‘Give us all this or we must die ‘. Those who direct the meetings add: ’If the tsar refuses, then our hands will be untied; for it means that he is our enemy, and then we will come out against him and unfurl the red banner. If our blood is shed, it will be upon his head. ’The petition is being adopted everywhere. The workers swear that they will come out into the square on Sunday ’with their wives and children’. Today the petition is going to be signed by districts, and at 2 o’clock all are to assemble at the ’People’s House’ for the final meeting.

“All this is taking place with the full connivance of the police, who have been everywhere withdrawn, although some buildings have mounted gendarmes hidden in the yards.

“Today the streets are placarded with notices from the City Administrator banning meetings and threatening the use of armed force. The workers tear them off. Troops are being drawn up into the city from the environs. The tramway employees (conductors and drivers) have been forced to go to work by Cossacks with drawn sabers. ”

[1] St. Petersburg City Administration News. — Ed.

[2] Praviteistoenny Vestnik (Government Herald) —a newspaper, official organ of the tsarist government; published in St. Petersburg between 1869 and 1917.

In the spring of 1905, Lenin wrote a brief commentary on the unfolding 1905 Revolution in Russia:

Events of the greatest historical importance are developing in Russia. The proletariat has risen against tsarism. The proletariat was driven to revolt by the government. There can hardly be any doubt now that the government deliberately allowed the strike movement to develop and a wide demonstration to be started more or less without hindrance in order to bring matters to a point where military force could be used. Its maneuver was successful. Thousands of killed and wounded – such is the toll of Bloody Sunday, January 9th, in St. Petersburg. The army defeated unarmed workers, women, and children. The army vanquished the enemy by shooting prostrate workers. “We have taught them a good lesson!” The tsar’s henchmen and their European flunkeys from among the conservative bourgeoisie say with consummate cynicism.

Yes, it was a great lesson, one which the Russian proletariat will not forget. The most uneducated, backward sections of the working class, who naïvely trusted the tsar and sincerely wished to put peacefully before “the tsar himself” the petition of a tormented people, were all taught a lesson by the troops led by the tsar or his uncle , the Grand Duke Vladimir. The working class has received a momentous lesson in civil war; the revolutionary education of the proletariat made more progress in one day than it could have made in months and years of drab, humdrum, wretched existence.

The slogan of the heroic St. Petersburg proletariat, "Death or freedom!" Is reverberating throughout Russia. Events are developing with astonishing rapidity. The general strike in St. Petersburg is spreading. All industrial, public, and political activities are paralyzed. On Monday, January 10th still more violent clashes occurred between the workers and the military. Contrary to the mendacious government reports, blood is flowing in many parts of the capital. The workers of Kolpino are rising. The proletariat is arming itself and the people. The workers are said to have seized the Sestroretsk Arsenal. They are providing themselves with revolvers, forging their tools into weapons, and procuring bombs for a desperate bid for freedom.

The general strike is spreading to the provinces. Ten thousand have already ceased work in Moscow, and a general strike has been called there for tomorrow (Thursday, January 13). An uprising has broken out in Riga. The workers are demonstrating in Lodz, an uprising is being prepared in Warsaw, proletarian demonstrations are taking place in Helsingfors. Unrest is growing among the workers and the strike is spreading in Baku, Odessa, Kiev, Kharkov, Kovno, and Vilna. In Sevastopol, the naval stores and arsenals are ablaze, and the troops refuse to shoot at the mutineers. Strikes in Revel and in Saratov. Workers and reservists clash with the troops in Radom.

The revolution is spreading. The government is beginning to lose its head. From the policy of bloody repression it is attempting to change over to economic concessions and to save itself by throwing a sop to the workers or promising the nine-hour day. But the lesson of Bloody Sunday cannot be forgotten. The demand of the insurgent St. Petersburg workers – the immediate convocation of a Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot – must become the demand of all the striking workers. Immediate overthrow of the government – this was the slogan with which even the St. Petersburg workers who had believed in the tsar answered the massacre of January 9th. They answered through their leader, the priest Georgi Gapon, who declared after that bloody day: “We no longer have a tsar. A river of blood divides the tsar from the people. Long live the fight for freedom! ”

Long live the revolutionary proletariat! say we.

– See more at: http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/lenin-unfolding-1905-revolution-1905/#sthash.uXPVLbEh.dpuf

Long live the revolutionary proletariat! say we.

Vperyod, No. 4, January 31 (18), 1905

January 22, 1917

History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) – Short Course

CHAPTER III (1904-1907)

THE MENSHEVIKS AND THE BOLSHEVIKS IN THE PERIOD OF THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAS AND

February 15, 1905

Works, Vol. 1, November 1901 – April 1907

Great hopes and great disappointment! Instead of national enmity — mutual love and confidence! Instead of a fratricidal pogrom — a huge demonstration against tsarism, the culprit in the pogroms! The hopes of the tsarist government have collapsed: the attempt to incite the different nationalities in Tbilisi against one another has failed! . . .

The tsarist government has long been trying to incite the proletarians against one another, has long been trying to break up the general proletarian movement. That is why it organized the pogroms in Gomel, Kishinev and other places. It provoked a fratricidal war in Baku with the same object. At last, the gaze of the tsarist government rested on Tbilisi. Here, in the middle of the Caucasus, it intended to enact a bloody tragedy and then to carry it to the provinces! No small matter: to incite the nationalities of the Caucasus against one another and to drown the Caucasian proletariat in its own blood! The tsarist government rubbed its hands with glee. It even distributed a leaflet calling for a massacre of Armenians! And it hoped for success. But suddenly, on February 13, as if to spite the tsarist government, a crowd numbering many thousands of Armenians, Georgians, Tatars, and Russians assembles in the enclosure of the Vanque Cathedral and takes a vow of mutual support "in the struggle against the devil who is sowing strife among us." Complete unanimity. Speeches are delivered calling for "unity." The masses applaud the speakers. Our leaflets are distributed (3,000 copies). The masses eagerly take them. The temper of the masses rises. In defiance of the government they decide to assemble again next day in the enclosure of the same cathedral in order once again to "vow to love one another."

February 14. The entire cathedral enclosure and the adjacent streets are packed with people. Our leaflets are distributed and read quite openly. The crowds split up into groups and discuss the contents of the leaflets. Speeches are delivered. The temper of the masses rises. They decide to march in demonstration past the Zion Cathedral and the Mosque, to "vow to love one another," to halt at the Persian Cemetery to take the vow once again and then disperse. The masses put their decision into execution. On the way, near the Mosque and in the Persian Cemetery, speeches are delivered and our leaflets are distributed (on this day 12,000 were distributed). The temper of the masses rises higher and higher. Pent-up revolutionary energy breaks through to the surface. The masses decide to march in demonstration through Palace Street and Golovinsky Prospect and only then to disperse. Our committee takes advantage of the situation and immediately organizes a small leading core. This core, headed by an advanced worker, takes the central position — and an improvised red flag flutters right in front of the Palace. The banner-bearer, carried shoulder high by demonstrators, delivers an emphatically political speech during which he first of all asks the comrades not to be dismayed by the absence of a Social-Democratic appeal on the flag. "No, no," answer the demonstrators, "it is inscribed in our hearts!" He then goes on to explain the significance of the Red Flag, criticizes the preceding speakers from the Social-Democratic viewpoint, exposes the half-heartedness of their speeches, urges the necessity of abolishing tsarism and capitalism, and calls upon the demonstrators to fight under the Red Flag of Social-Democracy. "Long live the Red Flag!" the masses shout in response. The demonstrators proceed towards the Vanque Cathedral. On the way they halt three times to listen to the banner bearer. The latter again calls upon the demonstrators to fight against tsarism and urges them to take a vow to rise in revolt as unanimously as they are demonstrating now. "We swear!" the masses shout in response. The demonstrators then reach the Vanque Cathedral and after a minor skirmish with Cossacks, disperse.

Find what the "demonstration of eight thousand Tbilisi citizens."

That is how the citizens of Tbilisi retaliated to the hypocritical policy of the tsarist government. That is how they took revenge on the despicable government for the blood of the citizens of Baku. Glory and honor to the citizens of Tbilisi!

In face of the thousands of Tbilisi citizens who assembled under the Red Flag and several times pronounced sentence of death on the tsarist government, the despicable flunkeys of the despicable government were compelled to retreat. They called off the pogrom.

But does that mean, citizens, that the tsarist government will not try to organize pogroms in future? Far from it! As long as it continues to exist, and the more the ground slips from under its feet, the more often will it resort to pogroms. The only way to eradicate pogroms is to abolish the tsarist autocracy.

You cherish your own lives and the lives of your dear ones, do you not? You love your friends and kinsmen and you want to abolish pogroms, do you not? Know then, citizens, that pogroms and the bloodshed that accompanies them will be abolished only when tsarism is abolished!

First of all you must strive to overthrow the tsarist autocracy!

You want to abolish Alles national enmity, do you not? You are striving for the complete solidarity of peoples, are you not? Know then, citizens, that all national strife will be abolished only when inequality and capitalism are abolished!

The ultimate aim of your striving must be — the triumph of socialism!

But who-will sweep the disgusting tsarist regime from the face of the earth, who will rid you of pogroms? —The proletariat, led by Social-Democracy.

And who will destroy the capitalist system, who will establish international solidarity on earth? —The proletariat, led by Social-Democracy.

The proletariat, and only the proletariat, will win freedom and peace for you.

Therefore, unite around the proletariat and rally under the flag of Social-Democracy!

Rally Under the Red Flag, Citizens!

Down With the Tsarist Autocracy!

Long Live the Democratic Republic!

Down With Capitalism!

Long Live Socialism!

Long Live the Red Flag!

ARMED INSURRECTION AND OUR TACTICS

July 15, 1905

The Provisional Revolutionary Government and Social-Democracy

August 15, 1905

". . . The insurrectionary career once entered upon, act with the greatest determination, and on the offensive.

The defensive is the death of every armed rising. , , , Surprise your antagonists while their forces are scattering, prepare new successes, however small, but daily keep up the moral ascendant which the first successful rising has given to you; rally thus those vacillating elements to your s >

October 15, 1905

Dark clouds are gathering over us. The decrepit autocracy is raising its head and arming itself with "fire and sword." Reaction is on the march! Let no one talk to us about the tsar’s "reforms," the object of which is to strengthen the despicable autocracy: the "reforms" are a screen for the bullets and whips to which the brutal tsarist government is so generously treating us.

There was a time when the government refrained from shedding blood within the country. At that time it was waging was against the "external enemy," and it needed "internal tranquility." That is why it showed a certain amount of "leniency" towards the "internal enemy" and turned a "blind eye" on the movement that was flaring up

Now times are different. Frightened by the specter of revolution, the tsarist government hastened to conclude peace with the "external enemy," with Japan, in order to muster its forces and "thoroughly" settle accounts with the "internal enemy." And so reaction set in. The government had already revealed its "plans" before that, in Moskovskiye Vedomosti. It . . . "what obliged to wage two parallel wars . . ." wrote that reactionary newspaper—"an external war and an internal war. If it waged neither of them with sufficient energy. , , it may be explained partly by the fact that one was hindered the other. , , , If the was in the Far East now terminates . . ." the government ". . . will, at last, have its hands free victoriously to terminate the internal war too. , , without any negotiations to crush" . . . "the internal enemies.". . . "With the termination of the war, Russia (read: the government) will concentrate all her attention on her internal life and, mainly, on quelling sedition" (lake Moskovskiye Vedomosti, August 18).

Such were the "plans" of the tsarist government in concluding peace with Japan.

Then, when peace was concluded, it announced these "plans" once again through the mouth of its minister: "We shall drown the extremist parties in Russia in blood," said the minister. Through its viceroys and governor-generals it is already putting the above-mentioned "plans" into execution: it is not for nothing that it has transformed Russia into a military camp, it is not for nothing that it has inundated the centers of the movement with Cossacks and troops and has turned machine guns against the proletariat one would think that the government is setting out to conquer boundless Russia a second time!

As you see, the government is proclaiming war on the revolution and is directing its first blows against its advanced detachment — the proletariat. That is how its threats against the "extremist parties" are to be interpreted. It will not, of course, "neglect" the peasantry and will generously treat it to whips and bullets if it proves to be "unwise enough" to demand a human existence; but meanwhile the government is trying to deceive it: it is promising it land and inviting it into the Duma, painting pictures of "all sorts of liberties" in the future.

As regards the "gentry," the government will, of course, treat it "more delicately," and will try to enter into an alliance with it: that is exactly what the State Duma exists for. Needless to say, Messieurs the liberal bourgeoisie will not reject "agreement." As far back as August 5 they stated through the mouth of their leader that they were enthusiastic over the tsar’s reforms: ". . . All efforts must be exerted to prevent Russia. , , from following the revolutionary path pursued by France" (lake Russkiye Vedomosti of August 5, article by Vinogradov). Needless to say, the sly liberals would rather betray the revolution than Nicholas II. This was sufficiently proved by their last congress. . . .

In short, the tsarist government is exerting all efforts to crush the people’s revolution.

Bullets for the proletariat, false promises for the peasantry and "rights" for the big bourgeoisie — such are the weapons with which the reaction is arming.

Either the defeat of the revolution or death – such is the autocracy’s slogan today.

On the other hand, the forces of the revolution are on the alert too, and are continuing their great work. The crisis which has been intensified by the war together with the political strikes which are breaking out with growing frequency, have stirred up the proletariat of the whole of Russia and have brought it face to face with the tsarist autocracy. Martial law, far from intimidating the proletariat, has, on the contrary, merely poured oil on the flames, and has still further worsened the situation. No one who hears the countless cries of proletarians: "Down with the tsarist government, down with the tsarist Duma!", no one who has felt the pulse of the working class, can doubt that the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, the leader of the revolution, will rise higher and higher. As regards the peasantry – the war mobilization which wrecked their homes by depriving their families of their best bread-winners, roused them against the present regime. If we also bear in mind that to this has been added the famine which has afflicted twenty-six gubernias, it will not be difficult to guess what path the long-suffering peasantry must take. And lastly, the troops, too, are beginning to murmur and this murmur is daily becoming more menacing for the autocracy. The Cossacks — the prop of the autocracy — are beginning to evoke the hatred of the troops: recently the troops in Novaya Alexandria wiped out three hundred Cossacks. The number of facts like these is steadily growing. . . .

In short, life is preparing another revolutionary wave, which is gradually rising and sweeping against the reaction. The recent events in Moscow and St. Petersburg are harbingers of this wave.

What should be our attitude towards all these events? What should we Social Democrats do?

To listen to the Menshevik Martov, we ought to elect this very day a Constituent Assembly to uproot the foundations of the tsarist autocracy forever. In his opinion, illegal elections ought to be held simultaneously with the legal elections to the Duma. Electoral committees should be set up to call upon "the people to elect their representatives by means of universal suffrage. At a certain moment these representatives should gather in a certain town and proclaim themselves a constituent assembly. . . ." This is how "the liquidation of the autocracy should take place." In other words, we can conduct a general election all over Russia in spite of the fact that the autocracy still lives! "Illegal" representatives of the people can proclaim themselves a constituent assembly and establish a democratic republic in spite of the fact that the autocracy is running riot! It appears that neither arms, nor an uprising, nor a provisional government is needed — the democratic republic will come of its own accord; all that is needed is that the "illegal" representatives should call themselves a constituent assembly! Good Martov has forgotten only one thing, that one fine day his fairyland "Constituent assembly" will find itself in the Fortress of Peter and Paul! Martov in Geneva fails to understand that the practical workers in Russia have no time to play at bourgeois spillikins.

No, we want to do something else.

Dark reaction is mustering sinister forces and is doing its utmost to unite them – our task is to unite the Social-Democratic forces and to weld them more closely.

Dark reaction is convening the Duma; it wants to gain new allies and to enlarge the army of the counter-revolution — our task is to proclaim an active boycott of the Duma, to expose its counter-revolutionary face to the whole world and to multiply the ranks of the supporters of the revolution.

Dark reaction has launched a deadly attack against the revolution; it wants to cause confusion in our ranks and to dig the grave of the people’s revolution — our task is to close our ranks, to launch a country-wide simultaneous attack against the tsarist autocracy and wipe out the memory of it forever.

Not Martov’s house of cards, but a general uprising— that is what we need.

The salvation of the people lies in the victorious uprising of the people themselves.

Either the victory of the revolution or death—such should be our revolutionary slogan today.

October 1905

The mighty giant — the proletariat of all Russia – is stirring again. , , , Russia is in the throes of a broad, country-wide strike movement. All over the boundless expanse of Russia life has come to a standstill as if by the wave of a magic wand. In St. Petersburg alone and on its railways, over a million workers have gone on strike. Moscow — the old, tranquil, sluggish capital, faithful to the Romanovs — is completely enveloped in a revolutionary conflagration. Kharkov, Kiev, Yekate-rinoslav and other cultural and industrial centers, the whole of central and south Russia, the whole of Poland and, lastly, the whole of the Caucasus, have come to a standstill and are threateningly looking the autocracy straight-in the face.

What is going to happen? The whole of Russia is waiting with bated breath for an answer to this question. The proletariat is hurling a challenge at the accursed two-headed monster. Will this challenge be followed by a real clash, will the strike develop into an open, armed uprising, or will it, like previous strikes, end “peacefully” and “subside”?

Citizens! Whatever the answer to this question may be, in whichever way the present strike ends, one thing must be clear and beyond doubt to all: we are on the eve of an all-Russian, nation-wide uprising — and I he hour of this uprising is near. The general political strike now raging — of dimensions unprecedented and unexampled not only in the history of Russia but in the history of the whole world — may, perhaps, end today without developing into a nation-wide uprising, but tomorrow it will shake the country again with even greater force and develop into that mighty armed uprising which must settle the age-long contest between the Russian people and the tsarist autocracy and smash the head of this despicable monster.

A nation-wide armed uprising — that is the fateful climax to which all the events that have recently taken place in the political and social life of our country are leading with historical inevitability! A nation-wide armed uprising — such is the great task that today confronts the proletariat of Russia and is imperatively demanding execution!

Citizens! It is in the interests of all of you, except the handful of financial and landed aristocrats, to join in the rallying cry of the proletariat and to strive jointly with it to bring about this all-saving, nation-wide uprising.

The criminal tsarist autocracy has brought our country to the brink of doom. The ruination of a hundred million Russian peasants, the downtrodden and distressed condition of the working class, the excessive national debt and burdensome taxes, the lack of rights of the entire population, the endless tyranny and violence that reign in all spheres of life, and lastly, the utter insecurity of the lives and property of the citizens – such is the frightful picture that Russia presents today. This cannot go on much longer! The autocracy, which has caused all these grim horrors, must be destroyed! And it will be destroyed! The autocracy realizes this, and the more it realizes it the more grim these horrors become, the more frightful becomes the hellish dance which it is whipping up around itself. In addition to the hundreds and thousands of peaceful citizens —workers whom it has killed in the streets of towns, in addition to the tens of thousands of workers and intellectuals, the best sons of the people, whom it has sent to languish in prison and in exile, in addition to the incessant murders and violence perpetrated by the tsar’s bashi-bazouks in the countryside, among the peasantry all over Russia – and finally, the autocracy has invented new horrors. It has begun to sow enmity and hatred among the people themselves and to incite different strata of the population and whole nationalities against each other. It has armed and unleashed Russian hooligans against the Russian workers and intellectuals, the unenlightened and starving masses of Russians and Moldavians in Bessarabia against the Jews, and lastly, the ignorant and fanatical Tatar masses against the Armenians. With the assistance of Tatars it has demolished one of the revolutionary centers of Russia and the most revolutionary center of the Cau-casus — Baku — and has frightened the whole of the Armenian province away from the revolution. It has converted the entire Caucasus with its numerous tribes into a military camp where the population anticipates attack at any moment not only by the autocracy, but also by neighboring tribes, the unfortunate victims of the autocracy. This cannot go on any longer! And only revolution can put a stop to it!

It would be strange and ridiculous to expect the autocracy, which created all these hellish horrors, to be willing, or able, to stop them. No reform, no patching of the autocracy — such as a State Duma, Zemstvos, and so forth, to which the liberal party wishes to limit itself — can put a stop to these horrors. On the contrary, every attempt in this direction, and every resistance to the revolutionary impulses of the proletariat, will only serve to intensify these horrors.

Citizens! The proletariat, the most revolutionary class in our society, the class which has up to now borne the brunt of the struggle against the autocracy, and which will remain to the end its most determined and unrelenting enemy, is preparing for open, armed action. And it calls upon you, all classes of society, for assistance and support. Arm yourselves and help it to arm, and prepare for the decisive battle.

Citizens! The hour of the uprising is near! We must meet it fully armed! Only if we do that, only by means of a general, country-wide and simultaneous armed uprising will we be able to vanquish our despicable foe — the accursed tsarist autocracy — and on its ruins erect the free democratic republic that we need.

Down With the Autocracy!

Long Live the General Armed Uprising!

Long Live the Democratic Republic!

Long Live the Fighting Proletariat of Russia!

October 19, 1905

The thunder of revolution is roaring! The revolutionary people of Russia have risen and have surrounded the tsarist government in order to storm it! Red flags are flying, barricades are being erected, the people are taking to arms and are storming government offices. Again the call of the brave is heard; life, which had subsided, is seething again. The ship of the revolution has hoisted sail and is speeding towards freedom. That ship is being steered by the Russian proletariat.

What do the proletarians of Russia want? Whither are they steering?

Let us overthrow the tsarist Duma and set up a popular Constituent Assembly — this is what the proletarians of Russia are saying today. The proletariat will not demand petty concessions from the government, it will not call for the repeal of "martial law" and "floggings" in some towns and villages. The proletariat will not stoop to such trifles. Whoever demands concessions from the government does not believe that the government will perish — but the proletariat confidently believes that it will. Whoever expects "favors" from the government has no confidence in the might of the revolution — but the proletariat is inspired with this confidence.

No! The proletariat will not dissipate its energy in making senseless demands. It presents only one demand to the tsarist autocracy: Down with it! Death to it! And so, over the vast expanse of Russia the revolutionary cry of the workers rings out more and more boldly: Down with the State Duma! Long live a popular Constituent Assembly! This is the goal towards which the proletariat of Russia is striving today.

The tsar will not grant a popular Constituent Assembly, the tsar will not abolish his own autocracy — that he will not do! The curtailed "constitution" which he is "granting" is a temporary concession, the tsar’s hypocritical promise and nothing more! It goes without saying that we shall take advantage of this concession, we shall not refuse to wrest from the crow a nut with which to smash its head. But the fact remains that the people can place no trust in the tsar’s promises — they must trust only themselves; they must rely only on their own strength: the liberation of the people must be brought about by the people themselves. Only on the bones of the oppressors can the people’s freedom be erected, only with the blood of the oppressors can the soil be fertilized for the sovereignty of the people! Only when the armed people come out headed by the proletariat and raise the banner of a general uprising can the tsarist government, which rests on bayonets, be overthrown. Not empty phrases, not senseless "self-arming," but real arming and an armed uprising— that is what the proletarians of the whole of Russia are steering towards today.

A victorious uprising will lead to the defeat of the government. But vanquished governments have often risen to their feet again. It may rise to its feet again in our country. On the morrow of the uprising, the dark forces which lay low during the uprising will creep out of their lairs and try to put the government on its feet again. That is how vanquished governments rise from the dead. The people must curb these dark forces without fail, they must make them bite the dust. But to do this the victorious people must, on the very morrow of the uprising, arm to a man, young and old, form themselves into a revolutionary army, and be ever ready to protect their hard-won rights by force of arms.

Only when the victorious people have formed themselves into a revolutionary army will they be able finally to crush the dark forces which go into hiding. Only a revolutionary army can lend force to the actions of a provisional government, only a provisional government can convoke a popular Constituent Assembly which must establish a democratic republic. A revolutionary army and a revolutionary provisional government — this is the goal towards which the proletarians of Russia are striving today.

Such is the path that the Russian revolution has taken. This path leads to the sovereignty of the people, and the proletariat calls upon all the friends of the people to march along this path.

The tsarist autocracy is barring the road of the people’s revolution, it wants with the aid of the manifesto it issued yesterday to check this great movement — clearly, the waves of the revolution will engulf the tsarist autocracy and sweep it away. . . .

Contempt and hatred for all those who fail to take the path of the proletariat – they are despicably betraying the revolution! Shame upon those who, having taken this path in fact, say something else in words— they cravenly fear the truth!

We do not fear the truth, we do not fear revolution! Let the thunder roar still louder, let the storm rage more fiercely! The hour of victory is near!

Let us then enthusiastically proclaim the slogans of the proletariat of Russia:

Down With the State Duma!

Long Live the Armed Uprising!

Long Live the Revolutionary Army!

Long Live the Provisional Revolutionary Government!

Long Live the Popular Constituent Assembly!

Long Live the Democratic Republic!

Long Live the proletariat!

The Great Russian Revolution has started! We have already passed through the first stormy act of this revolution, an act whose formal close was the Manifesto of October 17. The autocratic tsar "by the grace of God" bowed his "crowned head" to the revolutionary people and promised them "the unshakable foundations of civil liberty." . . .

But this was only the first act. It was only the beginning of the end. We are on the threshold of great events that will be worthy of the Great Russian Revolution. These events are advancing upon us with the inexorable rigor of history, with iron necessity. The tsar and the people, the autocracy of the tsar and the sovereignty of the people — are two antagonistic, diametrically opposed principles. The defeat of one and the victory of the other can come about only as the result of a decisive clash between the two, as the result of a desperate, life-and-death struggle. This struggle has not yet taken place. It still lies ahead. And the mighty Titan of the Russian revolution — the all-Russian proletariat — is preparing for it with might and main.

The liberal bourgeoisie is trying to avert this fateful clash. It is of the opinion that the time has come to put a stop to "anarchy" and to start peaceful, "constructive" work, the work of "state building." It is right, This bourgeoisie is satisfied with what the proletariat has already torn from tsarism by its first revolutionary action. It can now confidently conclude an alliance — on advantageous terms — with the tsarist government and by combined efforts attack the common enemy, attack its "gravedigger"—The revolutionary proletariat. Bourgeois freedom, freedom to exploit, is already ensured, and the bourgeoisie is quite satisfied. Never having been revolutionary, the Russian bourgeoisie is already openly going over to the side of reaction. A good riddance! We shall not grieve very much over this. The fate of the revolution was never in the hands of liberalism. The course and the outcome of the Russian revolution will be determined entirely by the conduct of the revolutionary proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry.

Led by Social-Democracy, the revolutionary urban proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry which is following it, will, in spite of all the machinations of the liberals, staunchly continue their struggle until they achieve the complete overthrow of the autocracy and erect a free democratic republic on its ruins.

Such is the immediate political task of the socialist proletariat, such is its aim in the present revolution; and, backed by the peasantry, it will achieve its aim at all costs.

It also clearly and definitely mapped the road which must lead it to a democratic republic.

1) The decisive, desperate clash to which we referred above, 2) a revolutionary army organized in the course of this "clash," 3) the democratic dictatorship

of the proletariat and peasantry in the shape of a provisional revolutionary government, which will spring up as a result of the victorious "clash," 4) a Constituent Assembly convened by that government on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage — such are the stages through which the Great Russian Revolution must pass before it arrives at the desired goal

No threats on the part of the government, no high-sounding tsarist manifestoes, no provisional governments of the type of the Witte government which the autocracy set up to save itself, no State Duma convened by the tsarist government, even if on the basis of universal, etc., suffrage — can turn the proletariat from the only true revolutionary path which must lead it to the democratic republic.

Will the proletariat have strength enough to reach the end of this path, will it have strength enough to emerge with honor from the gigantic, bloody struggle which awaits it on this path?

That is what the proletariat itself thinks, and it is boldly and resolutely preparing for battle.

You probably remember January 9 of last year. , , , That was the day on which the St. Petersburg proletariat came face to face with the tsarist government and, without wishing to do so, clashed with it. Yes, without wishing to do so, for the proletariat went peacefully to the tsar for "bread and justice," but was met as an enemy, with a hail of bullets. It had placed its hopes in portraits of the tsar and in church banners, but both portraits and banners were torn into shreds and thrown into its face, thus providing glaring proof that arms must be countered only by arms. And it took to arms wherever they were available — it took to arms in order to meet the enemy as an enemy and to wreak vengeance on him. But, leaving thousands of victims on the battle-field and sustaining heavy losses, the proletariat retreated, with anger burning in its breast. . . .

This is what January 9 of last year reminds us of.

Today, when the proletariat of Russia is commemorating January 9, it is not out of place to ask: Why did the St. Petersburg proletariat retreat after the clash last year, and in what way does that clash differ from the general clash that took place in December?

First of all it retreated because then it lacked that minimum of revolutionary consciousness that is absolutely essential if an uprising is to be victorious. Can the proletariat that goes with prayer and hope to a bloody tsar who has based his entire existence on the oppression of the people, can the proletariat which trustfully goes to its sworn enemy to beg "a crumb of charity"—Can such people really gain the upper hand in street fighting? . . .

True, later on, after a little time had passed, rifle volleys opened the eyes of the deceived proletariat and revealed the vile features of the autocracy; true, after that the proletariat began to exclaim angrily: "The tsar gave it to us — we’ll now give it to him!" But what is the use of that when you are unarmed? What can you do with bare hands in street fighting, even if you are enlightened? For does not an enemy bullet pierce an enlightened head as easily as an unenlightened one?

Yes, lack of arms — that was the second reason for the retreat of the St. Petersburg proletariat.

But what could St. Petersburg have done alone even if it had possessed arms? When blood was flowing in St. Petersburg and barricades were being erected, nobody raised a finger in other towns — that is why the government was able to bring in troops from other places and flood the streets with blood. It was only afterwards, when the St. Petersburg proletariat had buried its fallen comrades and had returned to its everyday occupations —only then was the cry of workers on strike heard in different towns: "Greetings to the St. Petersburg heroes!" But of what use were these belated greetings to anybody? That is why the government did not take these sporadic and unorganized actions seriously; the proletariat was split up in separate groups, so the government was able to scatter it without much effort.

Hence, the third reason for the retreat of the St. Petersburg proletariat was the absence of an organized general uprising, the unorganized action of the proletariat.

But who was there to organize a general uprising? The people as a whole could not undertake this task, and the vanguard of the proletariat — the proletarian party — was itself unorganized, for it was torn by internal disagreements. The internal war, the split in the party, weakened it more and more every day. It is not surprising that the young party, split into two parts, was unable to undertake the task of organizing a general uprising.

Hence, the fourth reason for the proletariat’s retreat was the absence of a single and united party.

And lastly, if the peasantry and the troops failed to join the uprising and infuse fresh strength into it, it was because they could not see any exceptional strength in the feeble and short-lived uprising, and, as is common knowledge, nobody joins the feeble.

That is why the heroic proletariat of St. Petersburg retreated in January last year.

Time passed. Roused by the crisis and lack of rights, the proletariat prepared for another clash. Those who thought that the losses sustained on January 9 would crush the fighting spirit of the proletariat were mis-taken — on the contrary, it prepared for the "load" clash with greater ardor and devotion, it fought the troops and Cossacks with greater courage and determination, The revolt of the sailors in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, the revolt of the workers in Odessa, Lodz and other towns, and the continuous clashes between the peasants and the police clearly revealed how unquenchable was the revolutionary fire burning in the breasts of the people.

The proletariat has recently been acquiring with amazing rapidity the revolutionary consciousness it lacked on January 9. It is said that ten years of propaganda could not have brought about such an increase in the proletariat’s class consciousness as these days of uprising have done. That is so, nor could it be otherwise, for the process of class conflicts is a great school in which the revolutionary consciousness of the people grows hour by hour.

A general armed uprising, which at first was preached only by a small group of the proletariat, an armed uprising, about which some comrades were even doubtful, gradually won the sympathy of the proletariat— and it feverishly organized Red detachments, procured arms, etc The October general strike clearly demonstrated the feasibility of simultaneous action by the proletariat. This, in its turn, proved the feasibility of an organized uprising — and the proletariat resolutely took this path.

All that was needed was a united party, a single and indivisible Social-Democratic Party to direct the organization of the general uprising, to co-ordinate the preparations for the revolution that were going on separately in different towns, and to take the initiative in the assault. That was all the more necessary because life itself was preparing the ground or a new upsurge— day by day, the crisis in the towns, starvation in the countryside, and other factors of a similar nature were making another revolutionary upheaval inevitable. The trouble was that such a party was then only in the process of formation; enfeebled by the split, the party was only just recovering and beginning to unite its ranks.

It was precisely at that moment that the proletariat of Russia entered into the second clash, the glorious December clash.

Let us now discuss this clash.

In discussing the January clash we said that it lacked revolutionary consciousness; as regards the December clash we must say that this consciousness existed. Eleven months of revolutionary storm had sufficiently opened the eyes of the militant proletariat of Russia, and the slogans: Down with the autocracy! Long live the democratic republic! became the slogans of the day, the slogans of the masses. This time you saw no church banners, no icons, no portraits of the tsar — instead, red flags fluttered and portraits of Marx and Engels were carried. This time you heard no singing of psalms or of "God Save the Tsar"—Instead, the strains of the Marseillaise and the Varshavyanka deafened the tyrants.

Thus, in respect to revolutionary consciousness, the December clash differed radically from the January clash.

In the January clash there was a lack of arms, the people went into battle unarmed. The December clash marked a step forward, all the fighters now rushed for arms, with revolvers, rifles, bombs and in some places even machine guns in their hands. Procure arms by force of arms — this became the slogan of the day. Everybody sought arms, everybody felt the need for arms, the only sad thing about it was that very few arms were procurable, and only an inconsiderable number of proletarians could come out armed.

The January uprising was utterly sporadic and unorganized; in it everybody acted haphazard. In this respect, too, the December uprising marked a step forward. The St. Petersburg and Moscow Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, and the "majority" and "minority" centers "took measures" as far as possible to make the revolutionary action simultaneous. They called upon the proletariat of Russia to launch a simultaneous offensive. Nothing of the kind was done during the January uprising. But that call had not been preceded by prolonged and persevering Party activity in preparation for the uprising, and so the call remained a call, and the action turned out to be sporadic and unorganized. There exists only the desire for a simultaneous and organized uprising.

The January uprising was "led" mainly by the gapons. In this respect the December uprising had the advantage in that the Social Democrats were at the head of it. The sad thing, however, was that the latter were split into separate groups, that they did not constitute a single united party, and, therefore, could not coordinate their activities. Once again the uprising found the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party unprepared and divided. . . .

The January clash had no plan, it was not guided by any definite policy, the question whether to take the offensive or defensive did not confront it. The December clash merely had the advantage that it clearly raised this question, but it did so only in the course of the struggle, not at the very beginning. As regards the answer to this question, the December uprising revealed the same weakness as the January one. Had the Moscow revolutionaries adhered to the policy of offensive from the very beginning, had they at the very beginning attacked, say, the Nikolayevsky Railway Station and captured it, the uprising would, of course, have lasted longer and would have taken a more desirable turn. Or had the Lettish revolutionaries, for example, resolutely pursued a policy of offensive and had not wavered, then they undoubtedly would first of all have captured batteries of artillery, thereby depriving the authorities of all support; for the authorities had at first allowed the revolutionaries to capture towns, but later they passed to the offensive and with the aid of artillery recaptured the places they had lost. The same must be said about other towns. Marx was right when he said: In an uprising only audacity conquers, and only those who adhere to the policy of offensive can be audacious to the end.

This was the cause of the proletariat’s retreat in the middle of December.

If the overwhelming mass of the peasantry and troops failed to join in the December clash, if that clash even roused dissatisfaction among certain "democratic" circles — it was because it lacked that strength and durability which are so necessary for the uprising to spread and be victorious.

From what has been said it is clear what we, the Russian Social Democrats, must do today.

Firstly, our task is to complete what we have begun— to form a single and individual party. The all-Russian conferences of the "majority" and the "minority" have already drawn up the organizational principles of unification. Lenin’s formula defining membership of the Party, and democratic centralism, have been accepted. The respective centers that direct ideological and practical activities have already merged, and the merging of the local organizations is already almost completed. All that is needed is a Unity Congress that will officially endorse the unification that has actually taken place and thereby give us a single and indivisible Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. Our task is to facilitate the execution of this task, which is so precious to us, and to make careful preparations for the Unity Congress, which, as is known, should open in the very near future.

Secondly, our task is to help the Party to organize the armed uprising, actively to intervene in this sacred cause and to work tirelessly for it. Our task is to multiply the Red detachments, to train and weld them together; our task is to procure arms by force of arms, to reconnoitre the disposition of government institutions, calculate the enemy’s forces, study his strong and weak sides, and draw up a plan for the uprising accordingly. Our task is to conduct systematic agitation in favor of an uprising in the army and in the villages, especially in those villages that are situated close to towns, to arm the reliable elements in them, etc., etc. . . .

Thirdly, our task is to cast away all hesitation, to condemn all indefiniteness, and resolutely to pursue a policy of offensive. . . .

In short, a united party, an uprising organized by the Party, and a policy of offensive – this is what we need today to achieve the victory of the uprising.

And the more famine in the countryside and the industrial crisis in the towns become intensified and grow, the more acute and imperative does this task become.

Some people, it appears, are beset with doubts about the correctness of this elementary truth, and they ask in a spirit of despair: What can the Party, even if it is united, do if it fails to rally the proletariat around itself? The proletariat, they say, is routed, it has lost hope and is not in the mood to take the initiative; we must, they say, now expect salvation to come from the countryside; the initiative must come from there, etc. One cannot help saying that the comrades who argue in this way are profoundly mistaken. The proletariat is by no means routed, for the rout of the proletariat means its death; on the contrary, it is as much alive as it was before and is gaining strength every day. It has merely retreated in order, after mustering its forces, to enter the final clash with the tsarist government.

When, on December 15, the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies of Moscow — the very Moscow which in fact led the December uprising — publicly announced: We are temporarily suspending the struggle in order to make serious preparations to raise the banner of an uprising again— it expressed the cherished thoughts of the entire Russian proletariat.

And if some comrades nevertheless deny facts, if they no longer place their hopes in the proletariat and now clutch at the rural bourgeoisie — the question is:

With whom are we dealing, with Socialist-Revolutionaries or Social-Democrats? For no Social-Democrat will doubt the truth that the actual (and not only ideological) leader of the rural population is the urban proletariat.

At one time we were assured that the autocracy was crushed after October 17, but we did not believe it, because the rout of the autocracy means its death; but far from being dead, it mustered fresh forces for another attack. We said that the autocracy had only retreated. It turned out that we were right. . . .

No, comrades! The proletariat of Russia is not defeated, it has only retreated and is now preparing for fresh glorious battles. The proletariat of Russia will not lower its blood-stained banner; it will yield the leadership of the uprising to no one; it will be the only worthy leader of the Russian revolution.

STALIN: Two Clashes – (Concerning January 9) – January 7, 1906

Present-day society is extremely complex! It is a motley patchwork of classes and groups – the big, middle and petty bourgeoisie; the big, middle and petty feudal landlords; journeymen, unskilled laborers and skilled factory workers; the higher, middle and lower clergy; the higher, middle and minor bureaucracy; a heterogeneous intelligentsia, and other groups of a similar kind. Such is the motley picture our society presents!

But it is also obvious that the further society develops the more clearly two main trends stand out in this complexity, and the more sharply this complex society divides up into two opposite camps – the capitalist camp and the proletarian camp. The January economic strikes (1905) clearly showed that Russia is indeed divided into two camps. The November strikes in St. Petersburg (1905) and the June-July strikes all over Russia (1906), brought the leaders of the two camps into collision and thereby fully exposed the present-day class antagonisms. Since then the capitalist camp has been wide awake. In that camp feverish and ceaseless preparation is going on; local associations of capitalists are beingformed, the local associations combine to form regional associations and the regional associations combine in all-Russian associations; funds and newspapers are being started, and all-Russian congresses and conferences of capitalists are being convened. . . .

Thus, the capitalists are organizing in a separate class with the object of curbing the proletariat.

On the other hand, the proletarian camp is wide awake too. Here, too, feverish preparations for the impending struggle are being made. In spite of persecution by the reaction, here, too, local trade unions are being formed, the local unions combine to form regional unions, trade union funds are being started, the trade union press is growing, and all-Russian congresses and conferences of workers’ unions are being held. . . .

It is evident that the proletarians are also organizing in a separate class with the object of curbing exploitation.

There was a time when "peace and quiet" reigned in society. At that time there was no sign of these classes and their class organizations. A struggle went on at that time too, of course, but that struggle bore a local and not a general class character; the capitalists had no associations of their own, and each capitalist was obliged to deal with "his" workers by himself. Nor did the workers have any unions and, consequently, the workers in each factory were obliged to rely only on their own strength. True, local Social-Democratic organizations led the workers’ economic struggle, but everybody will agree that this leadership was weak and casual; the Social-Democratic organizations could scarcely cope with their own Party affairs.

The January economic strikes, however, marked a turning point. The capitalists got busy and began to organize local associations. The capitalist associations in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw, Riga and other towns were brought into being by the January strikes. As regards the capitalists in the oil, manganese, coal and sugar industries, they converted their old, "peaceful" associations into "fighting" associations, and began to fortify their positions. But the capitalists were not content with this. They decided to form an all-Russian association, and so, in March 1905, on the initiative of Morozov, they gathered at a general congress in Moscow. That was the first all-Russian congress of capitalists. Here they concluded an agreement, by which they pledged themselves not to make any concessions to the workers without previous arrangement among themselves and, in "extreme" cases – to declare a lockout. That was the starting point of a fierce struggle between the capitalists and the proletarians. It marked the opening of a series of big lockouts in Russia. To conduct a big struggle a strong association is needed, and so the capitalists decided to meet once again to form a still more closely-knit association. Thus, three months after the first congress (in July 1905), the second all-Russian congress of capitalists was convened in Moscow. Here they reaffirmed the resolutions of the first congress, reaffirmed the necessity of lockouts, and elected a committee to draft the rules and to arrange for the convocation of another congress. Meanwhile, the resolutions of the congresses were put into effect. Facts have shown that the capitalists are carrying out these resolutions to the letter. If you recall the lockouts the capitalists declared in Riga, Warsaw, Odessa, Moscow, and other large cities; if you recall the November days in St. Petersburg, when 72 capitalists threatened 200,000 St. Petersburg workers with a cruel lockout, then you will easily understand what a mighty force the all-Russian association of capitalists represents, and how punctiliously they are carrying out the decisions of their association. Then, after the second congress, the capitalists arranged another congress (in January 1906), and finally, in April this year, the all-Russian inaugural congress of the capitalists took place, at which uniform rules were adopted and a Central Bureau was elected , As the newspapers report, these rules have already been sanctioned by the government.

Thus, there can be no doubt that the Russian big bourgeoisie has already organized in a separate class, that it has its own local, regional and central organizations, and can rouse the capitalists of the whole of Russia in conformity with a single plan.

To reduce wages, lengthen the working day, weaken the proletariat and smash its organizations – such are the objects of the general association of capitalists.

Meanwhile, the workers’ trade union movement has been growing and developing. Here, too, the influence of the January economic strikes (1905) made itself felt. The movement assumed a mass character; its needs grew wider and, in the course of time, it became evident that the Social-Democratic organizations could not conduct both Party and trade union affairs. Something in the nature of a division of labor between the Party and the trade unions was needed. Party affairs had to be directed by the Party organizations, and trade union affairs by trade unions. And so the organization of trade unions began. Trade unions were formed all over the country – in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Odessa, Riga, Kharkov and Tiflis. True, the reactionaries placed obstacles in the way, but in spite of that the needs of the movement gained the upper hand and the unions grew in number. Soon the appearance of local unions was followed by the appearance of regional unions and, finally, things reached the stage when, in September last year, an all-Russian conference of trade unions was convened. That was the first conference of workers’ unions. The upshot of that conference was, among other things, that it drew together the unions in the different towns and finally elected a Central Bureau to prepare for the convocation of a general congress of trade unions. The October days arrived – and the trade unions became twice as strong as they were before. Local and, finally, regional unions grew day by day. True, the "December defeat" appreciably checked the rate of formation of trade unions, but later the trade union movement recovered and things went so well that in February of this year the second conference of trade unions was called, and it was more widely and fully representative than the first conference. The conference recognized the necessity of forming local, regional and all-Russian centers, elected an "organizing commission" to make arrangements for the forthcoming all-Russian congress, and passed appropriate resolutions on current questions affecting the trade union movement.

Thus, there can be no doubt that, notwithstanding the reaction that is raging, the proletariat is also organizing in a separate class, is steadily strengthening its local, regional and central trade union organizations, and is also steadily striving to unite its innumerable fellow- workers against the capitalists.

To secure higher wages, a shorter working day, better conditions of labor, to curb exploitation and to thwart the capitalist associations – such are the objects of the workers’ trade unions.

Thus, present-day society is splitting up into two big camps; each camp is organizing in a separate class; the class struggle that has flared up between them is expanding and growing more intense every day, and all other groups are gathering around these two camps.

Marx said that every class struggle is a political struggle. This means that, if the proletarians and capitalists are waging an economic struggle against each other today, they will be compelled to wage a political struggle tomorrow and thus protect their respective class interests in a struggle that bears two forms. The capitalists have their particular business interests. And it is to protect these interests that their economic organizations exist. But in addition to their particular business interests, they also have common class interests, namely, to strengthen capitalism. And it is to protect these common interests that they must wage a political struggle and need a political party. The Russian capitalists solved this problem very easily: they realized that the only party which "straightforwardly and fearlessly" championed their interests was the Octobrist party, and they therefore resolved to rally around that party and to accept its ideological leadership. Since then the capitalists have been waging their political struggle under the ideological leadership of this party; with its aid they exert influence on the present government (which suppresses the workers’ unions but hastens to sanction the formation of capitalist associations), they secure the election of its candidates to the Duma, etc., etc.

Thus, economic struggle with the aid of associations, and general political struggle under the ideological leadership of the Octobrist Party – that is the form the class struggle waged by the big bourgeoisie is assuming today.

On the other hand, similar phenomena are also observed in the proletarian class movement today. To protect the trade interests of the proletarians trade unions are being formed, and these fight for higher wages, a shorter working day, etc. But in addition to trade interests, the proletarians have also common class interests, namely, the socialist revolution and the establishment of socialism. It is impossible, however, to achieve the socialist revolution until the proletariat conquers political power as a united and indivisible class. That is why the proletariat must wage the political struggle, and why it needs a political party that will act as the ideological leader of its political movement. Most of the workers’ unions are, of course, non-party and neutral; but this merely means that they are independent of the party only in financial and organizational matters, i.e., they have their own separate funds, their own leading bodies, call their own congresses and, officially, are not bound by the decisions of political parties. As regards the ideological dependence of the trade unions upon any given political party, such dependence must undoubtedly exist and cannot help existing, because, apart from everything else, members of different parties belong to the unions and inevitably carry their political convictions into them. Clearly, if the proletariat cannot dispense with the political struggle, it cannot dispense with the ideological leadership of some political party. More than that. It must itself seek a party which will worthily lead its unions to the "promised land," to socialism. But here the proletariat must be on the alert and act with circumspection. It must carefully examine the ideological stock-in-trade of the political parties and freely accept the ideological leadership of the party that will courageously and consistently champion its class interests, hold aloft the Red Flag of the proletariat, and boldly lead it to political power , to the socialist revolution.

Until now this role has been carried out by the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party and, consequently, it is the task of the trade unions to accept its ideological leadership.

It is common knowledge that they actually do so.

Thus, economic clashes with the aid of trade unions, political attacks under the ideological leadership of Social-Democracy – that is the form the class struggle of the proletariat has assumed today.

There can be no doubt that the class struggle will flare up with increasing vigor. The task of the proletariat is to introduce the system and the spirit of organization into its struggle. To accomplish this, it is necessary to strengthen the unions and to unite them, and in this the all-Russian congress of trade unions can render a great service. Not a "non-party workers’ congress," but a congress of workers’ trade unions is what we need today in order that the proletariat shall be organized in a united and indivisible class. At the same time, the proletariat must exert every effort to strengthen and fortify the party which will act as the ideological and political leader of its class struggle.

STALIN: Akhali Droyeba (New Times), No. 1, November 14, 1906

"Either the hegemony of the proletariat, or the hegemony of the democratic bourgeoisie — that is how the question stands in the Party, that is where we differ." (STALIN)

To all the Working Men and
Working Women of Russia! [1]

Works, Vol. 2, 1907-1913

We are again about to commemorate January 9 – the day that was sealed with the blood of hundreds of our fellow-workers who, on January 9, 1905, were shot down by tsar Nicholas Romanov because they had come to him, peaceful and unarmed, to petition for better conditions of life.

Eight years have elapsed since then. Eight long years, during which, except for a brief flash of freedom, our country has been harrowed and tortured by the tsar and the landlords!

And today, as in the past, workers in Russia are being shot down for peacefully going on strike — as was the case on the Lena. And today, as in the past, millions and millions of peasants are being reduced to starvation — as was the case in 1911. And today, as in the past, the finest sons of the people are being tortured and tormented in the tsar’s prisons and being driven to wholesale suicide— as was the case recently in Kutomar, Algachi, 2 and elsewhere. And today, as in the past, the tsar’s courts-martial sentence sailors and soldiers to be shot for demanding land for the peasants and freedom for all the people — as was the case recently with the seventeen sailors of the Black Sea Fleet. 3 That is the way Nicholas Romanov, Autocrat of All the Russias by the grace of the landlords, is exercising the power bestowed on him "by God" and blessed by the surpliced villains of the Synod and by the Black Hundreds — the Purishkeviches and Khvostovs.

Russia is still being strangled by the Romanov monarchy, which is preparing this year to celebrate the 300th anniversary of its bloody rule over our country.

But Russia is no longer the downtrodden and submissive Russia which suffered in silence under the yoke of the Romanovs for so many years. And above all, our Russian working class, now marching at the head of all the fighters for freedom, is not what it was. We shall commemorate January 9, 1913, not as crushed and downtrodden slaves, but with heads erect — a united army of fighters, who feel, who know, that the people’s Russia is waking up again, that the ice of the counter-revolution has been broken, that the river of the people’s movement has begun to flow again, and that "behind us fresh warriors march in serried ranks." . . .

Eight years! How little lived, how much endured. , , , In this period we have seen three State Dumas. The first two, in which the liberals had the majority, but in which the voices of the workers and peasants were loudly heard, the tsar dispersed in obedience to the will of the Black-Hundred landlords. The Third Duma was a Black-Hundred Duma, and for five years it co-operated with the tsarist gang in still further enslaving and oppressing the peasants, the workers — the whole of people’s Russia.

During these years of dark counter-revolution it was the working class that had to drain the bitterest cup. Since 1907, when the forces of the old order succeeded in temporarily crushing the revolutionary mass movement, the workers have been groaning under a double yoke. On them above all the tsarist gang took ruthless vengeance. And it is against them that the onslaught of the capitalist offensive was directed. Taking advantage of the political reaction, the factory and mill owners step by step robbed the workers of all the gains they had won with so much effort and sacrifice. By means of lockouts, and protected by the gendarmerie and the police, the employers lengthened the working day, cut wages and restored the old system in the factories and mills.

Clenching their teeth, the workers remained silent. In 1908 and 1909 the Black Hundreds’ intoxication with their triumph reached its peak and the labor movement reached its lowest ebb. But already in the summer of 1910 a revival of workers’ strikes began, and the end of 1911 brought with it the active protest of tens of thousands of workers against the retention in penal servitude of the Social-Democratic deputies of the Second Duma, who had been sentenced on false charges. 4

The mass movement of the workers ended with the strike of November 22, 1907, against the sentences of penal servitude on the Social-Democratic deputies of the Second Duma; and the mass movement of the workers revived at the end of 1911, again in connection with the fate of the Social-Democratic deputies of the Second Duma, those front-rank fighters, those working-class heroes, whose work is now being continued by the workers’ deputies in the Fourth Duma.

The revival of the political struggle is accompanied by the revival of the workers’ economic struggle. The political strike fosters the economic strike and vice versa. Wave follows wave, and the workers’ movement is surging forward in a mighty flood against the strongholds of the tsarist monarchy and of the autocracy of capital. More and more sections of the workers are awakening to new life. Larger and larger masses are being drawn into the new struggle. The strikes in connection with the Lena shooting, the May Day strikes, the strikes in protest against the disfranchisement of the workers, and the protest strike against the execution of the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet involved about a million participants. Those were revolutionary strikes, strikes which inscribed on their banners the slogan: "Down with the Romanov monarchy, down with the whole of the old and decaying landlord regime which is strangling Russia!"

The workers’ revolutionary movement is expanding and growing. The working class is beginning to rouse other sections of the population for the new struggle. All honest men and women, all those who are pressing forward towards a better life, are beginning to protest against the violence of the hounds of tsarism. Even the bourgeoisie is grumbling, even it is displeased with the complete and undivided rule of the Purishkeviches.

The June the Third regime has pacified nobody. All the years of counter-revolution have shown that there can be no free life in Russia so long as the Romanov monarchy and landlord rule remain intact.

A new revolution is maturing, in which the working class will again play the honorable role of leader of the entire army of emancipation.

On the banner of the working class are still inscribed the three old demands for which so much sacrifice has been made and so much blood has been shed.

An eight-hour day — for the workers!

All the landlords’, tsar’s and monasterial lands with out compensation — for the peasants!

A democratic republic — for the whole people!

It is around these demands that the fight in Russia has raged and is raging today. They were advanced by the workers during the recent Lena strikes. They will be advanced also by the working class on January 9.

In 1912, the workers in St. Petersburg, Riga and Nikolayev tried to commemorate January 9 by strikes and demonstrations. In 1913, we shall commemorate January 9 in this way everywhere – all over Russia. On January 9, 1905, the first Russian revolution was born in the blood of the workers. Let the beginning of 1913 serve as the threshold of the second revolution in Russia. The house of Romanov, in preparing to celebrate its 300th anniversary in 1913, contemplates remaining on the back of Russia for a long time to come. Let us, then, on January 9, 1913, say to this gang:

Enough! Down with the Romanov monarchy! Long live the democratic republic!

Comrades! Let not January 9, 1913, pass unobserved anywhere where Russian workers are living and fighting.

With meetings, resolutions, mass rallies and where possible with

a one-day strike and demonstrations

let us everywhere commemorate this day.

Let us on this day remember the heroes who fell in the struggle! We shall pay the highest tribute to their memory if, on that day, our old demands ring out all over Russia:

A Democratic Republic!

Confiscation of the Landlords’ Land!

On eight-hour working day!

The Central Committee of the Russian
al-Democratic Labor Party

Comrades !
Prepare to protest on January 9.

Published in leaflet form
at the end of December 1912
and beginning of January 1913

1. The leaflet "To All the Working Men and Working Women of Russia!" concerning the eighth anniversary of "Bloody Sunday," January 9, 1905, was written by J.V. Stalin in December 1912. Urging the necessity of issuing such a leaflet, V. I. Lenin wrote from Cracow to J.V. Stalin in St. Petersburg on November 23 (December 6), 1912, as follows: "Dear friend, in connection with January 9, it is extremely important to think the matter over and prepare for it beforehand. A leaflet must be ready in advance calling for meetings, a one-day strike and demonstrations (these must be arranged on the spot, it is easier to judge on the spot). , , , The slogans proclaimed in the leaflet must be the three main revolutionary slogans (a republic, the eight-hour day and the confiscation of the land of the landlords) with special emphasis on the tercentenary of the ‘shameful’ Romanov dynasty. If you are not fully and absolutely certain of being able to have such a leaflet done in St. Petersburg it will have to be done in good time here and sent on" (see V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 18, p. 401).

2. In August-October 1912 among the political prisoners confined in the Kutomar and Algachi hard-labor prisons (Nerchinsk penal servitude area in the Trans-Baikal) mass hunger strikes and suicides took place in protest against the brutality of the prison administration. This called forth workers’ protest strikes and student meetings in St. Petersburg, Moscow and Warsaw.

3. In October 1912, 142 sailors of the Black Sea Fleet were tried before a naval court-martial in Sevastopol on the charge of organizing a mutiny in the fleet. Seventeen of the accused were sentenced to death, 106 were sentenced to penal servitude, and 19 were acquitted. In Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kharkov, Nikolayev, Riga and other towns, mass strikes and demonstrations were held in protest against these sentences.

4. At the end of 1911 new documents appeared in the press exposing the government’s frame-up against the Social-Democratic deputies in the Second Duma. It transpired that the evidence brought against them had been entirely fabricated by the secret police in St. Petersburg. In the middle of November 1911, the Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma moved an interpellation calling for a revision of the case of the Social-Democratic deputies in the Second Duma. The Duma rejected the interpellation. As a result mass meetings of many thousands took place in St. Petersburg, Riga, Warsaw and other towns, at which resolutions were passed demanding the release of the convicted deputies.

II
Historic turns in the Development of Russia

1) The turn in 1904-05 (the Russo-Japanese was revealed the utter instability of the autocracy on the one hand, and the might of the proletarian and peasant movement, on the other) and Lenin’s facebook Two tactics as the strategic plan of the Marxists corresponding to this turn. A turn towards the bourgeois-democratic revolution (this was the essence of the turn). Not a bourgeois-liberal deal with tsarism under the hegemony of the Cadets, but a bourgeois-democratic revolution under the hegemony of the proletariat. (This was the essence of the strategic plan.) This plan took as its starting point that the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia would give an impetus to the socialist movement in the West, would unleash revolution there and help Russia to pass from the bourgeois to the socialist revolution (see also Minutes of the Third Party Congress, Lenin’s speeches at the congress, and also his analysis of the concept of dictatorship both at the congress and in the pamphlet The Victory of the Cadets ). A calculation of the contending forces, internal and international, and, in general, an analysis of the economics and politics of the period of the turn are essential. The February Revolution marked the culmination of this period by carrying out at least two-thirds of the strategic plan outlined in Two Tactics.

III
Questions

1) The role of the autocracy before and after the Russo-Japanese was. The Russo-Japanese was exposed to the utter rottenness and weakness of the Russian autocracy. The successful general political strike in October 1905 made this weakness absolutely clear (a colossus with feet of clay). Further, 1905 not only exposed the weakness of the autocracy, the feebleness of the liberal bourgeoisie and the might of the Russian proletariat, but also refuted the formerly current opinion that the Russian autocracy was the gendarme of Europe, that it was strong enough to be the gendarme of Europe. The facts showed that the Russian autocracy was unable to cope even with its own working class, without the aid of European capital. The Russian autocracy was, indeed, able to be the gendarme of Europe as long as the working class of Russia was dormant and as long as the Russian peasantry was quiescent, continuing to have faith in the Little Father, the tsar; but 1905, and above all the shooting on January 9, 1905, roused the Russian proletariat; and the agrarian movement in the same year undermined the muzhik’s faith in the tsar. The center of gravity of European counterrevolution shifted from the Russian landlords to the Anglo-French bankers and imperialists. The German Social-Democrats who tried to justify their betrayal of the proletariat in 1914 on the plea that the war was a progressive war against the Russian autocracy as the gendarme of Europe were actually making play with a shadow of the past, and playing dishonestly, of course, for the real gendarmes of Europe, who had sufficient forces and funds at their command to be gendarmes, were not in Petrograd, but in Berlin, Paris and London.

It now became clear to everybody that Europe was introducing into Russia not only socialism, but also counter-revolution in the shape of loans to the tsar, etc., whereas, in addition to political emigres, Russia was introducing revolution into Europe. (At all events, in 1905 Russia introduced the general strike into Europe as a weapon in the proletarian struggle.)

2) "Ripeness of the fruit." How is it possible to determine when the moment for revolutionary upheavals has arrived?

When is it possible to say that the "fruit is ripe," that the period of preparation has ended and that action can begin?

– a) When the revolutionary temper of the masses is brimming over and our action slogans and directives lay behind the movement of the masses (see Lenin’s "For Going Into the Duma," the period before October 1905), when we restrain the masses with difficulty and not always successfully, for example, the Putilov workers and machine-gunners at the time of the July demonstrations in 1917 (see Lenin’s facebook "Left-Wing" Communism. );

– b) When uncertainty and confusion, decay and disintegration in the enemy’s camp have reached a climax; when the number of deserters and renegades from the enemy’s camp grows by leaps and bounds; when the so-called neutral elements, the vast mass of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, are beginning definitely to turn away from the enemy (from the autocracy or the bourgeoisie) and are seeking an alliance with the proletariat; when, as a result of all this, the enemy’s organs of administration, together with the organs of suppression, cease to function, become paralyzed and useless, etc., thus leaving the road open for the proletariat to exercise its right to seize power;

c) When both these factors (points a and b) coincide in time, which, actually, is what usually happens. Some people think that it is enough to note the objective process of extinction of the class in power in order to launch the attack. But that is wrong. In addition to this, the subjective conditions necessary for a successful attack must have been prepared. It is precisely the task of strategy and tactics skilfully and opportunely to make the preparation of the subjective conditions for attacks fit in with the objective processes of the extinction of the power of the ruling class.

March 14, 1923

The First Historic Turn and the Course Towards the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution in Russia

This turn began at the beginning of the present century, in the period of the Russo-Japanese war, when the defeat of the tsar’s armies and the tremendous political strikes of the Russian workers stirred up all classes of the population and pushed them into the arena of the political struggle. This turn came to an end in the days of the February Revolution in 1917.

During this period two strategic plans were at issue in our Party: the plan of the Mensheviks (Plekhanov-Martov, 1905), and the plan of the Bolsheviks (Comrade Lenin, 1905).

The Menshevik strategy planned the main blow at tsarism along the line of a coalition between the liberal bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Proceeding from the fact that at that time the revolution was viewed as a bourgeois revolution, this plan assigned the hegemony (leadership) of the movement to the liberal bourgeoisie and doomed the proletariat to the role of "extreme left opposition," to the role of "prompt" to the bourgeoisie, while the peasantry, one of the major revolutionary forces, was entirely, or almost entirely, left out of account. It is easy to understand that since this plan left out of account the millions of peasants in a country like Russia it was hopelessly utopian, and since it placed the fate of the revolution in the hands of the liberal bourgeoisie (the hegemony of the bourgeoisie) it was reactionary, for the liberal bourgeoisie was not interested in achieving the complete victory of the re

The Bolshevik strategy (see Comrade Lenin’s facebook Two tactics) planned the revolution’s main blow at tsarism along the line of a coalition between the proletariat and the peasantry, while the liberal bourgeoisie was to be neutralized. Proceeding from the fact that the liberal bourgeoisie was not interested in the complete victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that it preferred a deal with tsarism at the expense of the workers and peasants to the victory of the revolution, this plan assigned the hegemony of the revolutionary movement to the proletariat as the only completely revolutionary class in Russia. This plan was remarkable not only because it took into account correctly the driving forces of the revolution, but also because it contained in embryo the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat (the hegemony of the proletariat), because it brilliantly foresaw the next, higher phase of the revolution in Russia and facilitated the transition to it.

The subsequent development of the revolution right up to February 1917 fully confirmed the correctness of this strategic plan.

One of the reasons for the defeat of the 1848 Revolution in France was that it failed to evoke a sympathetic response among the French peasantry. One of the reasons for the fall of the Paris Commune was that it encountered the opposition of the m >The same must be said of the Russian revolution of 1905 .

Kanatchikov

"Bloody Sunday"

January 9, 1905

LENIN ON POTEMKIN

The proposition: "we are as yet unable to launch an uprising" is wrong. The Potemkin events have proved rather that we are unable to prevent premature outbreaks of the uprising that is being prepared. The Potemkin sailors were less prepared than those on other ships, and the sweep of the uprising was less than it might have been. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? First, that the task of preparing an uprising should include that of preventing premature outbreaks of an uprising that is being or has almost been prepared. Secondly, that the uprising now developing spontaneously is outstripping the purposeful and planned work we are doing to prepare it. We are unable now to restrain the insurrectionary outbreaks which occur here and there sporadically, disconnectedly, and spontaneously. So much the more are we in duty bound to speed up dissemination and explanation of all the political tasks and political requisites of a successful uprising. All the more ill-advised, therefore, are suggestions that an end be put to the disputes about the “terrible problem” of a provisional government.

"The Theory of Spontaneous Generation"

Proletary, No. September 16, 14 (1), 1905.

Lenin Collected Works, Volume 9, pages 246-251.

Eternal glory to The Potemkin.

Eisenstein – V >

Heroic Presnya .1905

(V > Historical and Memorial Museum " Presnya". )

The first revolution of 1905

Bloody Sunday January 9, 1905

in German language

WOLFGANG EGGERS

The teachings of the uprising in Russia in 1905

written on March 6, 2005

Excerpt from the textbook

world-proletarian military science

(Excerpt of excerpt)

One must speak seriously about the question of the uprising, without liberal giggles, as Lenin once said.

" Avoiding open treatment of the issue of insurrection – this has always been the aim of our opportunists. " (Lenin, volume 11, page 147).

The riot

Marxism-Leninism methodically examines the question of the insurrection with the help of dialectical and historical materialism. He analyzes the conditions of the real insurrection, how it was conducted and how it is conducted. Who tackles the uprising and who does it? The Marxist-Leninist method requires determining which interests of which classes require the overthrow, which material conditions provoke the revolutionary uprising, which connections and relationships exist between the "to be downed" and the "downed". One must not forget the ABC of Marxism-Leninism and first of all, on the basis of the revolutionary movement that actually exists, one must try to determine which classes through the course of the revolutionary movement itself, often independently of its “consciousness” are forced, to overthrow the power institutions that stand in their way. The history of the uprisings in all countries of the world contains enough examples of how the institutions of power were overthrown there, and which, in general, helps us to think about the world revolutionary, complete overthrow of the central power of world imperialism and to draw the right conclusions and lessons. Marxist-Leninist military science is concerned with the military laws of international uprisings.

Lenin taught: It is unworthy of a workers’ party to play with the insurgency ”; “Calling for an uprising without seriously preparing for it militarily, without believing in it, would be an unworthy game with the uprising” (Lenin, Volume 10, pages 134 and 135).

" Early attempts at uprising would be the pinnacle of unreason. The proletarian avant-garde must understand that the basic requirements for a long-term – i.e. victorious – armed uprising in Russia are the support of the working class through the democratic peasantry and the active participation of the army. (.) Without an illegal party, this work cannot be carried out and there is no point in talking about it. (.) The growth of the mass strikes, the inclusion of other classes in the struggle, the state of the organizations, the mood of the masses – all of this will show itself of the moment when all forces are united in the unanimous, determined, offensive, unreservedly bold advance of the Revolution against the tsar monarchy will have to unite. Without a victorious revolution, there will be no freedom in Russia. Without the fall of the tsarist monarchy due to the uprising of the proletariat and the peasantry, there will be no victorious revolution in Russia ” (Lenin, Volume 18, pages 98/99).

" Revolt – that’s a very big one word. The uprising is an extremely serious one. The more complicated the social order, the higher the organization of state power and the more perfect military technology, the more inadmissible it is to recklessly issue such a slogan. And we have said more than once that the revolutionary Social Democrats have been preparing the slogan for a long time, but have only issued it as a direct call when there could be no doubt about the seriousness, breadth and depth of the revolutionary movement, no doubt that things are literally driving their decision. You have to be careful with big words. The difficulties in turning them into great deeds are colossal. But for that very reason it would be unforgivable to ignore the difficulties with phrases (.) ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 366). " This slogan must not be issued until the general conditions of the overthrow have ripened, as long as the excitement and willingness of the masses to act have not become clear and as long as the external circumstances have not led to an obvious crisis. But once such a slogan has been put in place, it would be downright disgraceful to shrink from it again and to deal with the moral strength, with one of the conditions that prepare the ground for the uprising, with one of the `possible transitions` [Lenin means that here peaceful, opportunistic Transitions – Editor’s Note] usw.usf. to be satisfied. No, once the dice have been cast, you have to put aside all excuses, so you have to explain directly and openly to the broadest masses what the practical conditions of the successful overthrow are now ” (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 367-368).

Lenin defines the uprising (among others) as " the most energetic, the most uniform and the most appropriate ‘response’ of the whole people to the government ” (Lenin, Volume 5, page 537) . "At the moment of the greatest headlessness of the government, at the moment of the greatest excitement of the people" (Lenin, volume 8, page 11). Lenin described the armed uprising " as the highest form of struggle achieved by the movement " (Lenin, Volume 10, page 135). Lenin defined the forms of the uprising as special forms of the revolution (see Lenin, Volume 11, page 342). Furthermore: " Uprising is civil war, but war requires an army ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 214). " The slogan of the insurrection means that the question is decided by material force (.) Only military force ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 367). But what are the forces that together form the revolutionary army? Lenin listed what the people’s military forces consisted of in 1905:

" 1. from the armed proletariat and the armed peasantry, 2. from the organized advance teams of the representatives of these classes, 3. from the troops that are ready to take the side of the people. All of this makes up the revolutionary army ” (Lenin, Volume 9, page 365). So here we have the classic Marxist-Leninist definition of the composition of the revolutionary army: hammer, sickle and rifle. And the Marxist-Leninist parties, the Communist International, can still be led by this today, as expressed in all important documents and repeated hundreds of times: We cannot and should not give up hope that the three individual torrents of uprisings – workers, peasants and the military – can finally be merged into a single victorious uprising ” (Lenin, Volume 10, page 106).

" The uprising pounds on the gates when the revolution has already matured, when the offensive has started at full steam and when the reserves are drawn to the avant-garde is the decisive condition for success (Stalin, Volume 6, page 138). The insurrection appears at a high level in the evolution of the revolution when the strength of the revolutionary forces has reached such a high point that they are violently discharged have to . All previous forms of struggle, such as the growing number and size of mass demonstrations at ever shorter intervals and ultimately increasing their immediate successions, economic and political mass strikes, exceeding legality, clashes with the counter-revolution across the country (concentration on the climax, gathering of forces, without letting the provocation of the counter-revolution wreak havoc beforehand, establishing partial insurrections, the formation of an insurgent center, insurrection growing in depth and breadth; individual outbreaks add up to the image of a blazing conflagration!), general strike, etc., etc. culminate, heat up, merge into one another, in order to pass directly into their highest state of aggregation of the revolution, into the armed popular uprising, and thus to turn suddenly into a qualitatively new one, at the peak of the class struggle, of a force that has never existed Pay more attention only to shaking off the yoke that has become unbearable, to the liberation movement from the old shackles of wage slavery and mass misery, into a force that is automatically placed on the agenda at the same time: the new revolutionary power of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whether this power will win or fall again is another question that depends on many conditions. What will be decisive in any case is how the proletariat organizes its power, on what it bases itself, how it strengthens its power, and to what extent it can allow itself a respite to reactivate its enormously spent powers and how far, on the other hand, the opponent succeeds or fails to put down the insurrection by collecting and concentrating his powers and reserves. In such dramatic situations, the fate of world history hangs for a fraction of a second, so to speak, like a little tip on the scales.

" Nobody can absolutely guarantee that he [Lenin means the unprepared, spontaneous, fragmented uprising – author’s note] until the comprehensive and unified armed popular uprising, because that depends both on the state of the revolutionary forces (which can only be measured in battle itself) and on the attitude of the government and the bourgeoisie, as well as a number of other circumstances that are not can be calculated exactly " (Lenin, Volume 9, page 57) . And Lenin also emphasized, “ that the revolutionary moment differs from the usual, everyday, preparatory historical periods precisely in that the mood, the excitement, the conviction of the masses in the action have to appear and actually appear. Vulgar revolutionaryism does not understand that the word is an act too; this principle is undeniable in its application to history at all or to those epochs of history when there is no overt political action by the masses that cannot be replaced or artificially induced by a coup. The revolutionaries of night politics do not understand that at a time when the revolutionary moment has dawned, when the old `superstructure` cracks in all joints, the open political action of the classes and masses creating a new superstructure has become a fact is because the civil war has started – that it is then a strangeness to life, rigor of death, reasoning or betrayal of the revolution and desertion if you look like in the old days limited to the `word` without the direct Slogan of the transition to `act` (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 58-59).

" The dialectical process of development really produces elements of the new society in the bosom of capitalism, both material and spiritual elements ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 370). Likewise, conversely, socialist society in its womb produces elements of the old society, capitalist-revisionist elements, both material and spiritual elements. Today we Marxist-Leninists have to understand how to distinguish the pieces from the whole Whole and not put the piece as a solution. That’s also the way it is on socialism in a country

The historical moment of the extreme aggravation the struggle of certain classes as requirement of the uprising. Of particular note is the character of the armed insurrection as a special kind of massesmovement, as a special kind of proletarian classesstruggle. The role of the individual classes, the dependence of the movement in the troops on the social balance of power, the inseparability of the political side of the uprising from its military, the importance of broad organizations of the masses as a prerequisite for a provisional revolutionary government from the Rebellion will emerge immediately. In the from III. Party convention of the SDAPR resolution says: " d) Organize armed resistance to the actions of the Black Hundreds and all government-led reactionary elements in general ” (Quoted from Lenin, Volume 9, page 23). As soon as the first fighting of an uprising begins, the lack of military organizations becomes more and more palpable, sins of handicraft and poor systematic preparation of these fighting are punished cruelly by the counter-revolution – after a very short time of a surprise effect. " As long as the forces for the armed uprising and its victory are not sufficient, it is ridiculous to speak of a revolutionary self-government of the people. This is not the prologue, but the epilogue of the uprising " (Lenin, Volume 9, page 191). " If the insurrection is possible and necessary, it means that the government `put the bayonet on the agenda` , opened the civil war and led the siege to the field as an anti-criticism of democratic criticism ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 269). " Only to the extent that the insurrection will be victorious and its victory a decisive defeat for the enemy – only to the extent that the assembly of the people’s representatives will not only be elected on paper by the whole people and will not only be costly in words ” (Lenin, Volume 9, page 465).

The uprising creates a direct comparison of the mobilized revolution with the mobilized counterrevolution, and after the uprising there will be >

The experiences of defeats in the hundreds of workers ‘uprisings have not been made for nothing, and the workers’ blood has not flowed for nothing:

The lessons of the 1905 uprising in Russia

Lenin summarized these lessons in his article “ The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising ” together. (to be read in volume 11, page 157 – 165). This article is highly recommended as an important training text. At the moment we are restricting ourselves to short quotations and excerpts from Lenin’s text:

" The main forms of the December movement in Moscow were the peaceful strike and the demonstration. The vast majority of the working masses actively participated only in these forms of struggle. And yet the December December campaign in Moscow has clearly shown that the general strike has survived as an independent and main form of struggle, that the movement with elemental, irresistible violence breaks through this narrow framework and that a higher form of struggle gives birth to the insurrection.

When the revolutionary parties and trade unions in Moscow proclaimed the strike, they all recognized, even felt, that it was inevitable that the uprising would change. On December 6, the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies decided to “ seek the transition of the strike to the armed uprising ”. In reality, however, no organization was prepared for this, even the Kolitionsrat of the combat groups spoke (on December 9th!) from the uprising as something far away, and no doubt the street fight broke out over his head and went without his participation. The organizations stayed behind the growth and momentum of the movement back.

The strike grew into the uprising, especially under the pressure of the objective conditions as they had been after October. It was no longer possible to surprise the government with a general strike, it had already organized the counterrevolution, which was equipped for military action.

From strikes and demonstrations to individual barricades, from individual barricades to mass erection of barricades and street fighting with the troops.

The movement was raised to a higher level by the political mass strike. She forced the reaction in her resistance to the last to go, and thereby brought with great strides the moment when the revolution in the use of the means of aggression will also go to the very end. The reaction can not further go as far as the artillery bombardment of barricades, houses and the crowd on the streets. The revolution can go even further than the struggle of the Moscow combat groups, it can go much, much wider, in depth. And the revolution has progressed well since December. The basis of the revolutionary crisis has become immeasurably wider – the edge of your weapon must now be much sharper.

The proletariat felt the change in the objective conditions of the struggle, which required the transition from strike to insurrection, earlier than its leaders. As always, practice preceded theory. The peaceful strike and demonstrations suddenly ceased to be enough for the workers; they asked: what next? – and called for a more active approach. The instruction to build barricades arrived in the districts with a huge delay, at a time when barricades were already being built in the center. The workers went to work en masse, but were not satisfied with that either, asked: What next? – and called for a more active approach. In December, we, the leaders of the social democratic proletariat, were like the military leader, who had set up his regiments so nonsensically that the majority of his troops did not take an active part in the battle. The working masses searched in vain for instructions for active mass actions.

To deny the masses the need for a bitter, bloody, devastating war as the immediate task of the forthcoming action means deceiving themselves and the people. This is the first lesson of the December events

The second lesson concerns the character of the uprising, the way it was carried out, the conditions for the transition of troops to the side of the people [all underlined by the author].

It goes without saying that there can be no talk of a serious fight unless the revolution has become a mass movement and has not also affected the troops. Of course, work among the troops is necessary. But this transition of the troops should not be imagined as a simple, one-off act that is the result of conviction on the one hand and awareness on the other. The Moscow Uprising shows us clearly how stencil-like and unfamiliar this view is. In practice, the swaying of the troops, which inevitably entails any real popular movement, leads to an intensification of the revolutionary struggle in the truest sense of the word Battle for the army. The Moscow Uprising shows us the picture of an extremely bitter, desperate struggle of the reaction and the revolution for the army. Dubassov himself said that only 5,000 of the 15,000 Moscow troops were reliable. The government tried to restrain those who wavered by the most varied and desperate means: they were tried to be persuaded, flattered, bribed by distributing clocks, money, etc., they did not save on schnapps, they tried to defraud, intimidate them, blocked them into the barracks, disarmed them, with the help of betrayal and violence picked out soldiers who were considered to be particularly unreliable. And you have to have the courage to openly and frankly admit that we have lagged behind the government in this regard. We did not understand how to use the forces that we had for the same active, bold, initiative and offensive fight for the fluctuating army that the government started and brought to an end. We have started with the mental `processing` of the troops and will continue to operate them even more insistently. But we will be sad pedants if we forget that a physical battle for the troops is also necessary at the moment of the uprising. (.) Malachow had the soldiers surrounded by dragoons, but we did not surround the Malachows with bombers. We could and should have done that.

December vividly confirmed another profound sentence by Marx, forgotten by the opportunists, namely that the uprising is an art and that the main rule of this art is that which was carried out with daring boldness and great determination offensive is. We have not sufficiently embraced this truth. We have not learned this art, this rule of offensive enough at all costs, and we have not taught the masses enough. We must now make up for what we have missed. It is not enough to group people according to their relationship to political slogans, moreover it is necessary to group them according to their attitude to the armed uprising. Anyone who is against him, who is not preparing for him, must be ruthlessly deleted from the number of supporters of the revolution and counted among their opponents, traitors or cowards, because the day is approaching on which the course of events that Situation of the fight will force us to separate enemies and friends according to this characteristic. We do not have to propagate passivity, not simply ‘waiting’ for the troops to ‘pass over’ – no, we have to stir the drum and announce far and wide that it is necessary to boldly and with a weapon in hand to attack it it is necessary to annihilate the military leaders and to wage the most vigorous struggle for the swaying troops.

The third great lesson that Moscow has given us concerns tactics and the organization of forces for the uprising. Military tactics depend on the level of military technology [underlined by the author] – Engels has this fact [Anti-Dühring for example – author’s note] repeatedly explained and hammered into the Marxist. Military technology is different now than it was in the mid-19th century. To act against the artillery in droves and to revolt the barricades with revolvers >[emphasized by the author] . The organization that was dictated by such a tactic was the easily mobile and extremely small department: groups of ten, groups of three, even groups of two.

Moscow produced this tactic, but it was far from developing it enough, and it was far from being the tactic of the masses. There were few combat groups, the slogan of daring assaults was not carried into the masses of the workers and was not realized by them, the guerrilla divisions were all too similar in character, their weapons and their method of combat inadequate, their skills in leading the masses poorly trained. We must make up for all of this and will do so by evaluating the teachings of the Moscow Uprising, by spreading these teachings among the masses, and by awakening the creative power of the masses themselves to further develop these teachings. The partisan war, the mass terror that is now practically practiced all over Russia after December, will undoubtedly help to teach the masses to use the right tactics at the moment of the uprising. Social democracy must approve of this mass terror and make it part of its tactics, of course it must organize and control it, subordinate it to the interests and conditions of the labor movement and the general revolutionary struggle, and without consideration remove and eradicate the “ lump-proletarian ” distortions of this guerrilla warfare with which they Muscovites in the days of the uprising and the Latvians in the days of the much-mentioned Latvian republics so magnificently and ruthlessly cleaned up.

Recently, military technology has made new advances. The Japanese war introduced the grenade. The rifle factories threw the quick-charging rifle onto the market. Both have already been used successfully in the Russian Revolution, but far from enough. We can and must take advantage of technical improvements, we have to teach the workers’ departments how to mass-produce bombs, we have to help them and our combat groups to get supplies of explosives, detonators and self-loading rifles. When the masses of workers take part in the uprising in the city, when the masses pounce on the enemy, when the struggle for the troops, which fluctuate even more after the Duma, Sveaborg and Kronstadt, is waged with determination and skill and the participation of the village is secured in the common struggle, then we will win the next armed uprising that will sweep across Russia! "

So much for the lessons from the Moscow uprising. Long before this, resolutions from III. Party conference of the SDAPR. In the resolution of III. Party conventions of the SDAPR say, for example, about the uprising:

" Considering,

1. that the proletariat, which in its position represents the most advanced and only consequently revolutionary class, is called to realize leadership in the general democratic revolutionary movement of Russia;

2. that this movement has already led to the need for an armed uprising;

3. That the proletariat will inevitably participate in this uprising most vigorously and that this participation will decide the fate of the revolution in Russia;

4. that the proletariat can only achieve leadership in this revolution if it is united in a unified and independent political force under the banner of the Social Democratic Labor Party, which leads its struggle not only ideologically but also practically;

5. that only the implementation of this leadership can guarantee the proletariat the most favorable conditions for the struggle for socialism against the possessing classes of bourgeois-democratic Russia-

recognizes the III. Party Congress of the SDAPR states that the task of organizing the proletariat to fight self-rule directly by means of the armed insurrection is one of the most important and cannot be delayed tasks of the party at the present revolutionary time. The party conference therefore mandates all party organizations:

a) to make the proletariat through propaganda and agitation clear not only the political meaning, but also the practical-organizational side of the upcoming uprising;

b) to explain in this propaganda and agitation the role of the mass political strikes, which can be of great importance at the beginning and in the course of the uprising;

c) to take the most vigorous measures to arm the proletariat and to draw up a plan for the armed uprising and to direct the uprising and, if necessary, to form special groups of party officials for this purpose ” (quoted by Lenin in volume 9, pages 61-62).

" If one has to prepare for the uprising, this preparation necessarily includes the dissemination and explanation of the slogans: armed popular uprising, revolutionary army, provisional revolutionary government. We have to study the new methods of fighting, their conditions, their forms, their dangers, their practical implementation, etc., as well as educate the masses about them. ” (Lenin, Volume 9, page 245).

" The thesis ‘We are temporarily unable to provoke the uprising’ is wrong. The events on the `Potjomkin` have rather shown that we are unable to prevent premature outbreaks of the uprising in preparation. The Pozjomlin sailors were less prepared than the sailors of other ships, and the uprising was therefore less extensive than it could have been. What follows from this? That it is part of the task of preparing an insurgency to prevent premature outbreaks of an insurrection that is being prepared or is almost being prepared. That the elementally growing insurrection is our conscious and planned work of its preparation outdated " (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 245-246).

" Theoretical discussions about the necessity of the insurrection can and must be held, tactical resolutions on this question should be carefully thought out and worked out, but with all this it should not be forgotten that the elementary course of events is breaking out powerfully without any consideration of wisdom. It should not be forgotten that the development of all those great contradictions that have accumulated in Russian life for centuries takes place with relentless violence, that it brings the masses onto the scene and throws the dead, lifeless lessons from peaceful progress onto the rubbish pile ( .) "Dead doctrines always lag behind the stormy tide of the revolution, which expresses the basic requirements of life, the deepest interests of the masses (.) A bad revolution was brilliantly corrected by a good revolution “(Lenin, Volume 9, page 196). " Those who support the uprising will have the proletariat ‘strike together’, even if ‘march separately’; we will relentlessly fight anyone who is against the uprising ” (Lenin, Volume 10, page 136).

Lenin described the draft of a plan for the armed uprising and what the direction of the struggle should look like very clearly – far from being content with the resolutions of the party congress. Lenin frankly wrote "as a consultant" to the Battle Committee of the St. Petersburg Committee on October 16, 1905:

" All of these schemes, all of these plans of the organization of the battle committee make the impression of paperwork formula – I apologize for my openness (.) I see with horror, truly with horror that one already more than half a year speaks of bombs and has never made a single one! (.) Goes to youth. founds immediately Combat groups, everywhere and everywhere, both among the students and especially among the workers etc. etc. Troops from 3 to 10, up to 30 etc. men should form immediately. They should arm themselves immediately, as well as anyone can, with revolvers, knives, petroleum-soaked rags to set fire, etc. These combat departments should immediately choose leaders and, if possible, contact the combat committee of the Petersburg Committee put in touch . Requests no formalities, for heaven’s sake whistles on all schemes, in God’s sake sends all `functions, rights and privileges` to the devil. Does not insist on joining the SDAPR – that would be an absurd demand for the armed uprising. Do not refuse to connect to any circle, even if it consists of only three people, on the condition that it is unsuspicious and ready to fight the Tsarist troops in relation to the police. Should the groups who wish to join the SDAPR or join the SDAPR connect , that would be excellent; but I would definitely consider it a handler to do that demand . The role of the combat committee in the Petersburg Committee should be to assign these departments to the revolutionary army help , to serve as their liaison office, etc. Each department will become yours services gladly accept, but if you in such a thing arrives with schemes and speeches on the ‘rights’ of the battle committee, you will destroy the whole thing, believe me, destroy it irrevocably! Here you have to work through broad propaganda. Should 5 – 10 people in a week hundreds of workers ‘and students’ circles, penetrate wherever possible, and propose a clear, short, direct and simple plan everywhere: immediately form a combat department, arm yourself as best you can, work with all your might, we will help you as much as possible, but don’t expect anything from us , works itself.

The focus of such a thing is on the initiative of the mass of small circles. You can do anything. Without them, your whole battle committee is nothing. I tend to measure the labor productivity of the Combat Committee by the number of such departments with which it is connected. If the battle committee does not have at least 200-300 departments in Petersburg in a month or two, then it is a dead battle committee. Then you have to bury him. Those who do not get hundreds of combat departments up and running in the current heat of heat are outside of life. The propagandists are said to be in every department short and give simple bomb recipes and a basic explanation of the whole type of work, but then leave the whole job to her own. The departments should right now, immediately begin their military training with practical combat operations. Some will immediately kill a spy or blow up a police station, others will raid a bank to confiscate funds for the uprising, others will organize an exercise or map sketches, etc. In any case, you have to be in practice right from the start learn, must not be afraid of these experimental robberies. You can of course degenerate into the extreme, but this is a danger of tomorrow, but the danger of today lies in our indolence, our doctrinism, the learned clumsiness and senile fear of the initiative. Every department should learn independently, be it by beating up police officers: the dozens of victims are amply balanced by the hundreds of experienced fighters who will lead hundreds of thousands into battle tomorrow " (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 342-344).

Lenin worked out the tasks of the departments to be created in the revolutionary army down to the last detail:

" 1. Independent military actions.

2. Managing the crowd.

The departments can be of any size, from two to three men. The departments must arm themselves, everyone with what they can (rifle, revolver, bomb, knife, brass knuckle, club, cloth soaked in petroleum to start a fire, ropes or rope ladders, shovels for the construction of barricades, explosive cartridges, barbed wire, nails etc. etc.). Under no circumstances should one expect help from another side, from above or from outside, but must procure everything yourself.

If possible, the departments must be made up of people who live close to each other or who meet frequently, regularly, at certain hours (ideally both, because the regular meetings can be interrupted by the uprising). Your job is to set it up so that it can come together in critical moments, in the most unforeseen situations. Each department must therefore determine in advance ways and means to ensure a common approach: signs on the windows, etc., to make it easier to find each other; arranged calls or whistles to recognize the comrade in the crowd; agreed signs in the event of a nightly meeting, etc. etc. Every energetic man can work with two or three comrades to develop a whole series of such rules and methods, which must be put together, memorized and practiced. It should not be forgotten that the events will come as a surprise with 99 percent probability and that it will be necessary to come together under extremely difficult circumstances.

Even unarmed departments can play a very important role in: 1. leading the crowd; 2. if possible, attack and disarm a policeman or a Cossack who happened to be separated from his comrades (a case in Moscow) etc. 3. Rescue arrested or wounded when police forces are weak; 4. Climb to the roofs of houses, upper floors, etc. and throw stones at the troops, pour boiling water on them, etc. An organized, closed and vigorous department is a tremendous force. Under no circumstances may a department be refused or postponed on the pretext of a lack of weapons.

The departments must distribute the functions in advance, if possible, and sometimes choose the leader, the department leader, in advance. It would of course be unreasonable to fall into a gimmick with rank badges, but one must not forget the colossal importance of a uniform leadership, a quick and decisive approach. Determination and bold attack are three quarters of success (underlined by the author) .

Immediately after their education, i.e. now, the departments have to work on a wide range of tasks, and not just theoretical ones, but definitely practical ones too. Theoretical work includes the study of war sciences, dealing with military issues, presentations on military issues, discussions with the military (with officers, non-commissioned officers etc., etc., not least with former soldiers from the workforce); reading, discussing and processing illegal brochures and newspaper articles about street fighting etc. etc..

We repeat, the practical work must begin immediately. They fall into preparatory and military operations. Preparatory work includes the procurement of all types of weapons and ammunition, the selection of conveniently located apartments for street fighting (suitable for fighting from above, storing bombs, stones, etc., or acids for watering the police, etc., etc.) ., as well as for the headquarters, for the intelligence service, as a refuge for the persecuted, accommodation for the wounded, etc., etc.). The preparatory work also includes timely clarification and exploration: procurement of plans for prisons, police stations, ministries, etc., scouting of the division of labor in state institutions, banks, etc., and their guarding; Establishing relationships that can be useful (with police, bank, court, prison, post, and telegraph officers, etc.), finding weapons stores from all of the city’s gun stores, etc. There is a lot of work here, where everyone can bring the greatest benefit, even those who are completely unfit for street fighting, even physically very weak people, women, young people, old people and others You have to strive to unite everyone in the departments that take part in the uprising want, because there is no People and can not give anyone who would not bring the greatest benefit if he wants to work, even if he has no weapons, even if he is personally unsuitable for combat.

Then the departments of the revolutionary army must in no way limit themselves to preparatory work, they must also start military actions as soon as possible in order to:

1. to exercise their fighting strength; 2. Explore the enemy’s weak spots; 3. to teach the enemy partial defeats; 4. to release prisoners; 5. to conquer weapons; 6. To win funds for the uprising (to confiscate government funds) etc. etc. The departments can and must immediately seize every opportunity for living work, they must not postpone it until the general uprising, because one does not stand before in the fire, that’s not how you get fit for an uprising [underlined by the author].

Certainly every exaggeration is evil; taken to extremes, everything good and useful can become bad and harmful, in fact it must, if a certain limit is exceeded. Undisciplined, unprepared acts of terrorism, carried to extremes, can only fragment and waste the forces. That is correct and of course it should not be forgotten. But on the other hand, one should not forget that the slogan of the uprising is now already spent is that the uprising is already began Has. Starting to attack when the circumstances are favorable is not only the right, but also the direct duty of every revolutionary [underlined by the author] . Killing spies, police officers and gendarmes, blowing up police stations, liberating detainees, confiscating government funds for the needs of the uprising – such actions are already being taken wherever the uprising is spreading, in Poland and the Caucasus, and every department of the revolutionary army must be ready for such actions at any moment. Every department must remember that they are unforgivable inaction, guilty of passivity if it does not already take advantage of the opportunity for an action today – and Such guilt is the greatest crime of a revolutionary in the period of the uprising, the greatest disgrace for anyone who strives for freedom not only in words but in fact [underlined by the author].

The following can be said about the composition of these departments: experience will teach the most appropriate number of members and the distribution of their functions. You have to start to acquire these experiences yourself without waiting for instructions from outside. Of course, you should ask the local revolutionary organization to send a military-trained revolutionary for lectures, discussions, and advice, but if you don’t find one, you have to be able to handle everything yourself.

As far as party groups are concerned, the members of a party will of course prefer to join together in the same departments. But you shouldn’t necessarily deny members of other parties to join a department. It is precisely here that we have to realize the union, the practical understanding (of course without any fusion of the parties) of the socialist proletariat with revolutionary democracy. If you want to fight for freedom and prove your willingness through the deed, you can count among the revolutionary Democrats, with whom you have to work together to prepare for the uprising (of course, only if there is a lot to the person or the group Trust is present). All other `democrats` must be rejected as quasi-democrats, as liberal talkers, because it would be unforgivable for revolutionaries to rely on them and criminal to trust them [underlined by the author] .

It is, of course, desirable for the departments to unite with each other and it is extremely useful to develop forms and conditions for the joint work. But you shouldn’t go to the extreme in the process of inventing complicated plans, general schemes, etc. and demolishing the living thing with pedantic tinkering. The circumstances surrounding the uprising will inevitably be such that the unorganized elements are a thousand times more numerous than the organized ones; it will not be avoided >[underlined by the author] .

An excellent military exercise For the soldiers of the revolutionary army, in which they receive their baptism of fire and through which they bring tremendous benefits to the revolution, is the struggle against the Black Hundreds. The departments of the revolutionary army must immediately determine by whom, where and how the Black Hundreds are organized, and must not limit themselves to agitation alone (this is useful, but it is not enough), but must also use force of arms that suppress the Black Hundreds, kill them, blow up their headquarters, etc., etc. " (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 423-427; written in late October 1905).

There can be no doubt here that the day is coming when we have to move on, the revolutionary armies in departments of the international world army to transform. The armed insurrection will not affect the whole world in the not too distant future, not just as a single process, but repetitively and increasingly widening in breadth and depth – and it is important to prepare now !!

Lenin not only demonstrated the necessity of the uprising and not only called for the uprising, but also called for the "immediate organization of a revolutionary army (.). Only the boldest, broadest organization of such an army can be the prologue to the uprising ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 180). The revolutionary government described Lenin as "Organ of insurrection " (Lenin, volume 9, page 202). Lenin considered the revolutionary state power to be "one of the largest and tallest `Mittel` , to realize the political upheaval " (Lenin, Volume 9, page 245).

However, two institutions were necessary for Lenin to succeed: “The revolutionary army and the revolutionary government are two sides of the same coin. There are two institutions that are equally necessary for the uprising to succeed and to anchor its achievements. There are two slogans that must be set up and explained because they are the only consistent, revolutionary slogans ” (Lenin, Volume 8, page 571). The revolutionary government must mobilize the `people` and their revolutionary activity to organize“(Lenin, ibid., Page 570). "To speak of the `victory` of the popular uprising, of the establishment of a provisional government and not to point out the connection of these` steps` and acts with the struggle of the republic – that is, to write a resolution, not to lead the struggle of the proletariat, but behind it jostling proletarian movement " (Lenin, Volume 9, page 24) Therefore the Marxist formula: No revolutionary government without the participation of an uprising and no uprising without the participation of a revolutionary government – otherwise the insurgent people cannot be victorious – that is the Marxist-Leninist formula of the armed insurrection and the insurgent government as its organ.

" Of course, the real backing of such a government can only be the armed uprising. But the planned government will be nothing else than that organ of this growing up and growing uprising. The formation of a revolutionary government was practically impossible until the uprising had reached dimensions that were visible to everyone, so to speak, to everyone. Right now, however, it is necessary to summarize this uprising politically, to organize it, to give it a clear program and all the departments of the revolutionary army, which are already growing in number and increasing rapidly, to support and leverage this new, really free and really popular one To make government (citizen! (.) Stops the payment of all taxes and duties, directs all efforts to organize and arm a free people’s army (.) Who is not for the revolution is against the revolution. Who is not a revolutionary who is a Black Hundred (.) This is how I imagine the development of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies into a provisional revolutionary government ” (Lenin, volume 10, pages 10 and 12). So how is the collapsed reactionary government replaced by a revolutionary government? " The organ of popular power, which temporarily takes over the duties of the collapsed government, is called in plain and simple Russian provisional revolutionary government. Such a government must be provisional because its powers expire as soon as a constituent assembly elected by the people meets. Such a government must be revolutionary because it will replace the collapsed government based on the revolution. This change cannot be done in any other way than by revolutionary means ” (Lenin, volume 10, page 53). " The provisional revolutionary government is the organ of the insurrection, which unites all insurgents and politically leads the insurrection ” (Lenin, Volume 10, page 54).

The height and decline of the Russian uprising of 1905

Lenin assessed the events in Moscow, compared them with the other previous uprisings, and assessed their further development process positively despite defeats:

" However sparse the news may be, it does allow one to conclude that the outbreak of the Moscow uprising is not a higher level of movement than the other uprisings. Well-prepared and well-armed revolutionary combat units did not go into action, and at least some of the troops did not take the side of the people, nor did the “ new ” types of armament, the bombs (which occurred on September 26 [9th October] had terrified the Cossacks and soldiers in Tbilisi) were not used extensively. But if even one of these conditions was missing, neither the arming of a large number of workers nor the victory of the uprising could be expected. The importance of the Moscow events, as we have already seen, is different: a large center has been baptized by fire, a huge industrial area has been involved in the serious struggle. The growth of the uprising in Russia, of course, is not in a steady and straightforward upswing and cannot be so. On January 9, the dominant feature in Petersburg was the rapid and unanimous movement of gigantic masses, who were unarmed and did not go into battle, but received a great martial theory. In Poland and the Caucasus, the movement is characterized by enormous persistence and a relatively more frequent use of weapons and bombs by the population. In Odessa, the special feature was the transfer of part of the troops to the insurgents. In all cases and always the movement was essentially proletarian and inextricably linked to the mass strike. In Moscow the movement was the same as in a number of other, less large industrial centers. The question naturally arises before us: will the revolutionary movement stand still at this stage of development that has already been reached, become “familiar” and familiar, or will it rise to a higher level? If one can venture into the field of assessing events as complex and confusing as the events of the Russian Revolution, we inevitably come to the far greater probability of the second answer to this question. Certainly, the given form of combat, if one may say so, had already been learned – guerrilla warfare, incessant strikes, exhaustion of the forces of the enemy through raids and street fights, sometimes at one end, sometimes at the other end of the country – this type of fight also resulted and gives the most serious results. No state can endure this persistent struggle, which will paralyze industrial life, bring complete demoralization into the bureaucracy and the army, and sow dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in all populations. The absolutist government is all the less able to endure such a struggle. We can be absolutely convinced that the persistent continuation of the struggle, even if it persists in the forms already created by the labor movement, will inevitably lead to the breakdown of tsarism.

However, it is highly unlikely that the revolutionary movement in Russia today will remain at the level it has already reached. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that this is only one of the first stages of the struggle. All the consequences of the disgraceful and pernicious war have by no means yet had an impact on the people. The economic crisis in the cities and the famine in the country increase the bitterness tremendously. According to all information, the Manchurian army is extremely revolutionary and the government is afraid to call it back; but it is impossible not to call this army back, because otherwise new and more serious uprisings are threatened. Political agitation among workers and the peasantry in Russia has never been as extensive, as planned and as profound as it is now. The comedy of the Reichsduma will inevitably bring new defeats to the government and create new bitterness in the population. The insurrection has grown enormously before our eyes in just under ten months, and it is neither a fantasy nor a pious wish, but a direct and unconditional conclusion from the facts of the mass struggle, if it is found that the insurrection will soon change to a new, will rise to a level where the fighting departments of the revolutionaries or mutinous troops will come to the aid of the crowd, where they will help the masses to obtain weapons, where they will join the ranks of the “ tsarist ” (still tsarist, because by no means completely tsarist) troops the greatest fluctuations are carried in, where the insurrection becomes serious victory before which tsarism can no longer recover.

The tsarist troops won the workers’ victory in Moscow. But this victory did not invalidate the defeated, but only welded them closer together, deepened their hatred and brought them closer to the practical tasks of serious struggle. The troops are only now beginning to recognize, not only based on the laws, but also from their own experience that they are now being mobilized solely to fight the “ internal ” enemy. The war with Japan has ended. But mobilization continues, mobilization against the revolution. We fear one such Mobilization not, we are not in line to greet them, because the greater the number of soldiers who are called up to systematically fight the people, the faster the political and revolutionary reconnaissance of these soldiers will proceed. By mobilizing new troops to war against the revolution, tsarism pushed the decisions >Lenin admitted in the course of the revolutionary events:But this movement was still extremely subconscious in a revolutionary relationship and completely helpless in terms of armament and military readiness ” (Lenin, Volume 9, page 351). "The Moscow events showed the real grouping of social forces: the liberals ran from the government to the radicals to talk them out of the revolutionary struggle. The radicals fought in the ranks of the proletariat. Let’s not forget this teaching ” (ibid., page 353). "On the whole, the movement in Moscow is not up to one point >Lenin clearly assessed the government’s tactics in the state of relative balance of fighting forces:It is undoubtedly a wash and a rearguard retreat. And that’s a very correct tactic from the standpoint of the interests of autocracy. It would be a big mistake, a fatal illusion, if the revolutionaries forgot that the government could back away for a long, very long time without giving up the essentials ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 378). "The self-rule has no more the power to act openly against the revolution. The revolution has not yet the power to escape the enemy >and the thumbscrews are loosened a little, valves are opened a little so that the people’s outrage can escape again safely and the balance of power can be maintained. "Negotiating with the insurgent people, withdrawing the troops – this is the beginning of the end. This shows better than any reason that the military leaders felt extremely insecure. This shows that the discontent among the troops had reached a truly alarming level. Soldiers who refused to shoot were arrested in Kiev. There have been similar cases in Poland. In Odessa the infantry was held back in the barracks because they were afraid to lead them onto the street. Open fermentation in the fleet began in Petersburg, and the Guard was said to be completely unreliable. And as far as the Black Sea fleet is concerned, so far it has not really been possible to find out the truth. Already on October 17, telegrams announced that the rumor persisted about a new outrage in this fleet that all telegrams would be intercepted by the authorities, which use all means to prevent the spreading of news about the events. If you line up all this fragmentary news, you inevitably come to the conclusion that the situation of self-rule was desperate even from a purely military point of view. Although individual uprisings were still suppressed, the troops still took barricades here and there, but these individual clashes only sparked the Le > The uprising of the sailors and soldiers in Kronstadt began on October 26 (November 8), 1905. The insurgents made the demands: convocation of a constitutional assembly based on general elections, establishment of a democratic republic, freedom of speech, coalition and assembly, improvement of Location of the sailors and soldiers. The uprising was put down on October 28 (November 10). "The Kronstadt example shows (.), She likes [the government – author’s note] now shoot hundreds of sailors who have once again raised the red flag – this flag will fly even higher because it is the banner of all working and exploited people around the world“[Emphasized by the author] , (Lenin, volume 9, page 467). At the end of November 1905, Lenin wrote:

" The armed uprising in Kiev appears to be taking another step forward, the step to fuse the revolutionary army with the revolutionary workers and students. At any rate, this is evidenced by a report by the `Rus` about a sixteen-thousand meeting in the Kiev Polyclinic under the protection of a pioneering battalion of insurgent soldiers“ (Lenin, Volume 10, page 52).

" We can rightly triumph. The Tsar’s concession is indeed a great victory for the revolution, but this victory is far from deciding the fate of the whole cause of freedom. The tsar is far from surrendering. The self-rule has by no means ceased to exist. It has only retreated and left the battlefield to the enemy, it has retreated in an extremely serious battle, but it is far from defeated, it is still gathering its strength, and the revolutionary people still have many serious combat tasks to solve to lead the revolution to real and full victory ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 430). " But the balance of power in no way precludes the struggle, on the contrary, it makes it even sharper. The government’s withdrawal simply means, as we said, that it is taking a new, more favorable position from its point of view. ” (Lenin, Volume 9, page 450). " I grant everything except power – explains tsarism. Everything is a delusion, except for power – the revolutionary people replies ” (Lenin, volume 9, page 452). " Anyone who fights for the freedom of the people without fighting for the full power of the people in the state is either inconsistent or insincere ” (Lenin, Volume 10, page 388).

If the class opponents are equal in strength, the balance of power is balanced, then the victory will be all the more difficult to achieve, then there is a particularly high probability that the fight will drag on, that the effort and losses on both sides can increase extraordinarily that it depends on the mobilization of the reserves, the perseverance in a positional or siege war and many other factors, that the fronts are becoming more complicated and tougher, that it is expanding and that the decision to wait for a defeat is waiting for its strength finally first are exhausted. In stalemate situations, often only the better can warfare decide on victory or loss.

As long as power is in the hands of the class enemy, he can try to keep this balance on the balance of the antagonistic class forces that are at war wait and gathering his counter-revolutionary powers, he has time to regain control of his headlessness more its strength is sufficient, however Not. The forces of the counter-revolution at a certain point are no longer sufficient to stop and bring down the revolution. On the side of the revolution, however, the forces at that point are not yet sufficient for a victory to be won >" If we do not go up a level, if we do not cope with the task of self-assault, if we do not break the forces of tsarism, if we do not destroy its real power, then the revolution will be half-beating, then the bourgeoisie lead the workers "(Lenin, Volume 9, page 416) and that happened:" The conspiracy is there. It was decided to fight the strike by mass layoffs of workers (.) They want to provoke the Petersburg proletariat, exhausted by the previous struggle, to a new battle under the most unfavorable conditions. " (Lenin, volume 10, page 37); " The Black Hundreds started to rage. (.) There is white terror. (.) The counter-revolution is raging. (.) from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea – the same picture everywhere (..) acts of revenge and `revenge`“ (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 453/454). " At such a time, it is more important than ever to focus all efforts on uniting the Army of the Revolution throughout Russia, it is important to spare the forces, to take advantage of the freedoms that have been won by hundreds of agitators and organizations and to prepare for new decisive battles " (Lenin, Volume 10, pages 37/38), so that the counter-revolutionary provocation of the proletariat, which was exhausted by the uprising and in need of regeneration, failed.

This above-mentioned relative balance of forces will one day inevitably appear on a global scale, if we have to draw the right conclusions from the tactics of 1905 – and the world revolutionary tidal wave will apparently subside to swell again – the international counterrevolution will be merciless and that Victims of the acts of revenge are numerous, but with every `revenge` against the world revolution, the international counterrevolution is further broken down and the power of the world bourgeoisie fades inexorably. But today, after two world wars, in the midst of the permanent wars in the "period of peace" between the world wars, the world revolutionaries must not be under the illusion that the world bourgeoisie and their governments no longer find enough space to retreat on earth, that the system of world capitalism is not going to survive for quite a while, that the world power of imperialism essentially remains for a certain period of time, and that the world proletariat at the top of the peoples still has to fight some international battles, especially against such forces in the own Ranks that gave world imperialism these retreat and regeneration spaces for the next world war enable, by betraying the world proletariat, betraying the revolutionary peoples. If the enemy tries to retreat, you have to pursue them – don’t give them a break. If the enemy withdraws from the battlefield, that’s only half the battle. The easier the opponent can retreat, the faster and stronger he will return to the battlefield – only better prepared and equipped, our victory will not be easier to fight for if we are not even better prepared and more equipped for our part the revolution in the world again and again again to kindle. The III. Party conference of the SDAPR was one of the first initiatives for the inflammation of Europe, for the development of the world revolution:

" The III. The SDAPR party conference decided in May 1905 `to organize the proletariat for the immediate fight against self-rule by means of the armed uprising`. (.) For the first time in world history, the level of development and the strength of the revolutionary struggle was so high that the armed insurrection appeared in connection with the mass strike, this specific proletarian weapon. It is clear that this experience is of paramount importance for ALL proletarian revolutions. (.) The mass strikes and armed uprisings put the question of revolutionary power and dictatorship on the agenda by themselves, because these methods of struggle inevitably led – at first on a local scale – to the old authorities being chased away, the proletariat to seize power and the revolutionary classes, to expel the landlords, sometimes to occupy factories, etc. etc. The revolutionary mass struggle of that time created such unprecedented organizations as soviets of workers ‘deputies, then also soviets of soldiers’ deputies, peasant committees etc. The main questions (Soviet power and dictatorship of the proletariat), which are now the focus of attention of class-conscious workers around the world, were thus practically put at the end of 1905 ” (Lenin, Volume 31, pages 333-334, “History on the question of dictatorship), German edition).

" The events have taught everyone, even people who are completely removed from Marxism, to begin the era of the revolution on January 9, 1905, i.e. with the first deliberately political movement of masses , that of a certain great belong " (Lenin, volume 13, page 107). " The `coalition of the proletariat and the peasantry`, in a bourgeois revolution wins , is nothing more than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry (.). With us is the victory of the bourgeois revolution as the victory of the bourgeoisie impossible" (Lenin, volume 15, pages 45 and 46).

It is thanks to the history of the world that Bolshevism developed from the first step in the revolution of 1905 a strategy and tactic of struggle that corresponded to the conditions of the new epoch and raised the working class to consciously recognize the historical tasks before it. Lenin noted the uprising as an internationalist task in 1905: Inflame Europe! " (Lenin, volume 9, page 202). " The proletariat will no longer rise only with the means of a peaceful strike, but with a weapon in hand for both Russia and Poland’s freedom ” (Lenin, volume 10, page 9). And Stalin also assessed the proletarian uprising, the revolutionary uprising of soldiers and sailors as an internationalist, world revolutionary action: " The uprising of the German fleet is the highest expression of the unfolding world socialist revolution across Europe ”(Stalin story of the KpdSU).

Lenin described Europe in 1905 as "Reserve of the Russian Revolution. The times are gone when the peoples and states could live separately from each other. Take a look around: Europe is already on the move. His bourgeoisie is dismayed and ready to give up millions and billions just to stop the conflagration in Russia. The rulers of the European military powers are considering military support from the Tsar. Wilhelm has already sent several cruisers and two torpedo boat divisions to establish a direct connection between the German Soldateska and Peterhof. The European counter-revolution reaches out to the Russian counter-revolution. Try it, try it, Citizens of Hohenzollern! We too have a European reserve for the Russian Revolution, international revolutionary social democracy. The workers of the whole world greet the victory of the Russian workers with fervent enthusiasm, and in the awareness of the close connection between the departments of the international army of socialism, they too are preparing for the great and decisive > This is a significant and excellent view of Lenin, on which all world proletarian military science is based more than ever, on which the need for the creation of a proletarian revolutionary world army rests! And finally, the reserves of socialist revolutions in the individual countries will turn into reserves of the proletarian socialist world revolution. Lenin always warned us never to forget that the full victory of the revolution in one country on the alliance of the revolutionary proletariat of this or that country with the socialist workers all Countries and is closely linked to them, and vice versa, that the full victory of the world revolution is based on the victorious revolutions in the individual countries and is closely linked to them.

Lenin subjected countless uprisings to a materialistic – historical analysis, compared them with each other and worked out their differences, in particular he examined the respective concrete causes and history of uprisings, generalized the experiences, the reasons for victory and defeat and drew from them for the concrete preparation, implementation and leadership of insurrections, gave tactical directives of practical organizational character both in the event of victory as well as in the event of defeat of the uprising, i.e. for an orderly retreat – and Lenin proved to be the best student of Marx and Engels. From the individual struggles and outbreaks, the people learn what revolution is – and Lenin’s excellent thing was not to be left behind the tasks of the hour, but always to be able to show the next, higher level of struggle, the experiences and lessons of the past and to exploit the present and to urge the workers and peasants more and more emphatically and insistently to storm forward and ever further until the complete victory of the people. And Lenin went even further: he also focused on the revolutions in Western Europe and established the necessary links between the Russian uprising and international social democracy to prevent the European bourgeoisie from forcing the European people to " to play the role of the executioner of Russian freedom " (Lenin, Volume 8, page 558).

Thus, on a European scale, Lenin condemned that the Russian counter-revolution tried to cross national borders and therefore meant for Lenin "any deviation from the [ internationalist – author’s note] Giving up the uprising (.), Every evasion of the need to participate in the uprising [ + every evasion of the need to yourself against fighting to actively participate in the uprising from the outside – precisely in the Leninian sense of proletarian internationalism – author’s note] , a surrender to the bourgeoisie, a transformation of the proletariat into its satellites. The proletariat has never given up arms anywhere in the world when a serious struggle has broken out; it has never once withdrawn from the cursed legacy of oppression and exploitation without measuring its strength against the enemy ” (Lenin, Volume 9, pages 255-56). "To speak of the uprising, of its strength, of the natural transition to it and not to say anything about the revolutionary army is nonsense and confusion, and the more mobilized the counterrevolutionary army is, the more it is mobilized. " (Lenin, Volume 9, page 365). Today to speak of world revolution, of its power to speak of the natural transition to it, without anything about the revolutionary world To say army is in Lenin’s words as well Nonsense and confusion, and the more mobilized the better international counter-revolutionary army is !! And that is undoubtedly the case as you see on a daily basis or not? Of the world revolutionaries, the revolutionary world army is only ignored by those who hopelessly trot along in the trail of the revisionists. The indispensability of the revolutionary world army is the only right one Marxist-Leninist Path; everyone path without she is revisionist ! The success of the world revolution depends on 1. on the world revolutionary agitation and organization, on the moral Force and 2nd of the material Kraft, the revolutionary world army, whereby the first condition has long been recognized, but the second is far from being recognized, yes one can say that it actually and actually only recognized was developed by the Comintern / ML and in particular through this textbook and. that decisive battles in the future are still required until they are fully (practically) recognized. But the revolutionary world army becomes there can be no doubt about it, and no one will be able to ignore or prevent it!

Lenin aptly illustrated the attitude of the Menshevik opportunists at the time ("new Isocrats") to the uprising, (- * and today we also speak of the revisionists as "fire extinguishers of the revolution" -) by using the following comparison:

" Instead of stoking the fire by smashing the windows and allowing access to the fresh breeze of the workers’ uprising, in the sweat of their faces they struggle to invent toy bellows and the revolutionary glow of the Oswobos minds ["Liberation Covenant" 1902-1905; Organization of the liberal bourgeoisie under the leadership of P. B. Struve; Core of the liberal-monarchist cadet party, which later became a representative of the imperialist bourgeoisie – note by the author] to blow by making foolish demands and conditions for them (.) You can only exert real and unimagined pressure through the uprising. Once the civil war spreads across the country, military violence, open battle, and all other attempts to exert pressure are hollow and pitiful phrases. " (Lenin, Volume 9, page 254). [And there is no need to point out again that this also applies to the uprisings in all countries, to the international civil war, to the open international battlefield, which Lenin has repeatedly spoken of].

Preventive fire fighting of riots is the most effective for the bourgeoisie. If she still cannot prevent an uprising from breaking out, she first fights the center of the source of the fire. If she fights the fire where it feeds, she turns against the "ringleaders", "rioters" and "arsonists" who stir up the fire , it fights the organization of the insurgents. If the sources of fire occur one after the other in independent locations, one after the other can also be extinguished before all partial fires are combined and combined; individually the outbreaks are powerless, the counter-revolution also knows that, so it tries to cut paths. But once the fire has spread to an unstoppable fire storm, it will be increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible to fight the insurrection with the "fire brigade", and then you mingle with the people to defraud them and " below "or from" inside "to calm the heated minds and regain power. Uprisings are not the same as uprisings, so you have to know exactly which one to stir up [not to be confused with artificial Stoke!) And which one to stop. The bourgeoisie also history learned that they can use self-provoked uprisings to fight the uprisings that are actually threatening and dangerous for them, that they can be pre-empted, just as the fire brigade starts certain fires, kindles counter-fires to curb or prevent the spread of the actual fire: in short, the To strike uprising with the weapon of the "uprising". 1. Avoid anything to provoke an uprising; Conflict avoidance strategies 2. Do everything possible to provoke the uprising, to wipe out the concentration and centralization of the insurgent forces before the decision-making battle and to penetrate the organization with saboteurs and provocateurs – the counterrevolution as "l` agent provocateur". 3. Relentless hunt for the defeated insurgents – revenge campaign; "Teaching"; then again until the next uprising 1 .; 2 .; 3 .; usw.usf.

If the entire population has become an "internal risk", the police and army are on their own quickly at the end of their "Latin". The government is stuck in pursuit of revolutionary agitators, so the bourgeoisie sends its own counteragitators to the people and incites the media against them. The government can no longer be content with suppressing revolutionary organizations, so it organizes its counter-revolutionary associations itself. The uprising not only forces the government to tremble, but to instigate counterrevolution, and so the counterrevolution organizes its own uprisings, unleashing the civil war. For fear of the revolution, the government itself is using the weapons of the revolution: organization, propaganda and agitation. With this double-edged sword, with which the government stages spectacles of outrage, it masks its fascism / social fascism, it directs its state terror "legally" against the insurgent people. As is well known, oppression creates the struggle against oppression, and the struggle against oppression in turn produces counter-oppression – without revolution no counter-revolution, without armed counter-revolution no armed revolutionary struggle etc. Now there have been a number of examples in history where the counter-revolution of all Art of insurrection to forestall and strangle the revolution before it breaks out. All of this must always be projected onto the international screen, because the world bourgeoisie has long since gone over to its more or less coordinated international fire fighting, and it is very likely that it will further increase its efforts in this area – to the extent that the revolutionary fires do internationalize.

" The path of the Russian Revolution is difficult and arduous. Every upswing, every partial success is followed by defeat, bloodshed follows, wild excesses of self-rule against the freedom fighters follow. But after each `defeat` the movement becomes wider, the struggle more extensive, the mass of classes and groups of the people, which are drawn into the struggle and participate in it, become ever greater. Every rush of revolution, every step forward in the organization of the controversial democracy is followed by an angry rush of reaction, a step forward in the organization of the Black Hundred elements in the people, each time the brazen nature of the counterrevolution grows, desperately fighting for its existence. But the forces of reaction are inexorably waning despite all their efforts. An increasing number of workers, peasants and soldiers, who were still indifferent yesterday or were in the camp of the Black Hundred, are on the side of the revolution. Illusion after illusion is being destroyed, the prejudices are falling that made the Russian people a trusting, patient, faithful, devoted, enduring and forgiving people. Autonomy has suffered numerous wounds, but it is not yet dead. It is bandaged from head to toe in bandages and bandages, but it is still upright, still alive, yes, the more it bleeds, the more angry it blows " (Lenin, Volume 11, page 122).

With provoked uprisings, the bourgeoisie had already tried out the effects of a small “bloodletting” in the 19th century. To the bloody, depressed workers’ uprising in June 1848 said Engels:

" It was the first time that the bourgeoisie showed the insane cruelty to which revenge is instigated as soon as the proletariat dares to appear to it as a distinctive class with its own interests and demands. And yet 1848 was still a child’s play against her raging in 1871 " (Engels, MEW, volume 22, page 190).

Lenin compared The lessons learned from the French upheaval of bourgeois democracy in 1789 with the uprisings in Germany in 1848 and 1849 and found that they were in France realized was, but in Germany unfinished remained. These peculiarities were not unknown to the bourgeoisie either. Lenin therefore criticized precisely those bourgeois writers who preferred the German way to the French way only because they were easier to contain by the counter-revolution. "In the years 1848 and 1849 there were a whole series of uprisings and even provisional revolutionary governments in Germany. But none of these uprisings was completely victorious. The most successful uprising, the Berlin Uprising of March 18, 1848, did not end with the overthrow of the royal power, but with concessions of the king who remained in power, who recovered very quickly from the partial defeat and was able to withdraw all these concessions. The learned historian of the bourgeoisie is not afraid of the popular uprisings. He fears the victory of the people. He is not afraid that the people of the reaction, the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy they hate, could give a little memo. He fears the fall of reactionary power by the people. He hates self-rule and wholeheartedly wishes her fall, Russia downfall but he does not expect the preservation of self-rule, not the poisoning of the people’s organism by the slow decay of the parasite of the monarchist government, which has not been killed, but instead of full victory of the people“(Lenin, Volume 9, page 237).

The counter-revolution has already provoked some insurrection and some working class has this provocation Not w > " Proletarian blood is too precious to be spilled without need and without hope of victory ” (Lenin, volume 10, page 439). The riots provoked by the secret service have only spilled the blood of the workers to plunge them even more into misery and to help the anti-worker government even more firmly in the saddle. But these insurgent workers went through a tough school where they were steeled and disillusioned. It is these insurgent workers who will most disciplinedly resist future provocations. The elimination of the disillusionment that a provoked uprising has left the workers is the first prerequisite for the victory of any renewed uprising that relies solely on the independence and strength of the insurgents, who do not abuse themselves and do not reinstate themselves let enemy water maneuver, even if it is painted with red camouflage.

" We revolutionary social democrats see that in the attempts at insurrection Beginning of the mass uprising , a failed, premature, incorrect start, but we know that masses the successful uprising only based on the experience of unsuccessful uprisings learn (.) The worst intimidated workers and peasants by the barracks have began , to rise – we say. This leads to the clear and direct conclusion: you have to explain to them what goals and how successful Preparing for an uprising.

The Liberals judge differently: The soldiers become `desperate Outbursts of protest are “ driven ”, they say. For the liberals, the insurgent soldier is not the subject of the revolution, not the first harbinger of the rising masses, but one object the government arbitrariness (‘one drives him to despair’), which serves to demonstrate this arbitrariness. See how bad our government is that it’s taking the soldiers Desperation drives and then calm them down with the bullet – says the liberal. (Conclusion: You see, if we were liberals in power, there would be no soldier riots with us.)

See how the revolutionary energy ripens in the womb of the broad masses – says the Social Democrat – when even the soldiers and sailors, who are weighed down by the barrack drill, begin to rise and learn how to make a successful uprising bad by rebellion " (Lenin, volume 18, page 374; 1912).

Every uprising that ends in defeat prepares the next uprising, creates the conditions necessary for a successful outcome of the next uprising, leaves unsolved problems >

When will the tactical slogan of the uprising be removed from the agenda again??

The question of when the insurgent proletarian forces are "exhausted", when the slogan of the insurrection must be put down, is an extremely important and serious question, which the party has to answer clearly. The timing of the withdrawal of the armed uprising slogan is at least as important as the timing of its issuance – sometimes even more important, which – experience has shown – is often misjudged or underestimated. That is why Lenin dealt intensively with this question and did not leave it to chance, not to spontaneous movement, but approached this question scientifically economic analysis, by Determination of the political aspirations of the different classes, by Examining the importance of >" we will explain all the speeches about the uprising for phrase thrashing ” (Lenin, volume 11, page 349). Lenin insisted " that it is our duty to convert the spontaneous insurrection into a scheduled insurrection by working hard and persistently over long months or maybe years on this transformation, but not to renounce the insurrection as all sorts of Judasses do ” (ibid., page 350).

Only because of a temporarily resigned, depressed mood, because of a breather, one should not remove the armed uprising from the agenda. " Only when Marx saw the inevitable ‘exhaustion’ of the ‘real revolution’ – only then did he change his view. And after changing his mind, he openly called for the tactics to be fundamentally changed and the preparations for the uprising to be stopped entirely. ” (Lenin, volume 10, page 129). " The external similarity of the December defeat of the workers in Moscow to the June defeat of the workers in Paris (1848) is beyond doubt. Here and there, the armed workers’ uprising was’ provoked ‘by the government before the working class was sufficiently organized. Here and there the reaction won despite the heroic resistance of the workers. " (Lenin, volume 10, pages 130-131). Lenin supported the conclusions that the then revolutionary Kautsky drew from a comparison of the Russian and French uprisings:

" Kautsky sees four fundamental differences between the Parisian defeat (1848) and the Moscow defeat (1905) of the proletariat.

First, the Paris defeat was the defeat of all of France. Nothing like it can be said of Moscow. The workers from Petersburg, Kiev, Odessa, Warsaw and Lodz are still there. Although exhausted from the terribly difficult struggle that has been going on for a full year, they are not discouraged and only gather strength to start the struggle for freedom anew.

Second, an even more significant difference is that in 1848 the peasants in France were on the side of the reaction, while in Russia in 1905 they were on the side of the revolution. Peasant uprisings blaze. Whole armies are called upon to suppress them. These armies devastate the country like only Germany was devastated in the Thirty Years’ War. The military executions may intimidate the farmers for a while, but they only increase their misery and make their situation even more hopeless. Similar to the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War, they will inevitably generate new masses of people who are obliged to declare war on the existing order, who will not let the country rest and are ready to join any uprising.

The third, extremely important difference is as follows: The 1848 revolution was prepared by the crisis and famine of 1847. The response was based on the end of the crisis and the boom in industry. `The current terror regiment in Russia, on the other hand, must lead to the intensification of the economic depressopn, which has been weighing on the countryside for years`. The famine of 1905 will only have a full impact in the coming months. The suppression of the revolution is a great civil war, a war against the whole people. This war is no less expensive than the foreign war, and it is no stranger. But destroyed their own country. A financial breakdown is imminent. And besides, Russia’s new trade agreements are threatening to shake as badly as they can cause a general economic world crisis. So the longer the reign of terror lasts, the more desperate the country’s economic situation becomes, and the greater the outrage against the curse-prone regime. `This is a situation, ‘says Katsky,` that makes any powerful uprising against tsarism irresistible. And this survey will not be missing. The proletariat of Russia will take care of that, which has already made so many wonderful tests of its heroism and selflessness.

The fourth difference pointed out by Kautsky is of particular interest to the Russian Marxists. With us, there is currently a toothless, basically purely cadet giggle about `Brownings` and` Combat Groups` in the swing. To say that the uprising is hopeless and there is no longer any point in preparing it, no one can muster the boldness and openness demonstrated by Marx. But we love to giggle at the military actions of the revolutionaries. We call ourselves Marxists, but before analyzing the military On the side of the uprising (which Marx and Engels have always attached great importance), we prefer to express ourselves by declaring with inimitable sublime doctrinarism: “ You shouldn’t have taken up arms ”. Kautsky does it differently. No matter how little information he initially had about the uprising, he is still trying to think into the military side of the question. He endeavors to appreciate the movement as a new form of struggle developed by the masses and not as our revolutionary Kuropatkins [prototype defeat strategist – note at Lenin] judge battles: what you are given, take it; if you get hit, run; and if you were beaten, well, you shouldn’t have taken up arms! " (Lenin, Volume 10, pages 131-132).

" The democratic revolution in Russia is in no way waning, on the contrary, it is heading for a new upswing and the current period of relative calm is not to be seen as a defeat for the revolutionary forces, but as a period of gathering revolutionary energy, the appropriation of all political experiences of those who have passed through Stages, the inclusion of new people in the movement and consequently the preparation of a new, even more powerful revolutionary onslaught ” (Lenin, volume 10, page 143). " We have to gather the experience of the uprisings in Moscow, the Donets Basin, Rostov and elsewhere, disseminate this experience, persistently and patiently prepare new combatants and use them in a series of combat actions by the partisan schools and steel. Perhaps the new outbreak will not happen in the spring, but it is approaching and, in all likelihood, is not too far away. He has to find us armed, militarily organized and capable of decisive attack actions ” (Lenin, volume 10, page 106). These were Lenin’s conclusions from the uprisings – even better Prepare for the upcoming riots! " Let us ensure that the new wave finds the Russian proletariat ready to fight again ” (Lenin, Volume 10, page 108).

" It is possible, and perhaps most likely, that as a result of growing excitement and following one of the inevitable sudden outbreaks, the new struggle will flare up as spontaneously and unexpectedly as the previous struggles. If that is the case, if such a course of development uls is inevitable, then we will not need to make a decision about the time of the action, then our whole task will be to demonstrate our agitation and our organizational work in all of the above Directions tenfold.

Perhaps, however, the events will require us, the leaders, to determine the timing of the action. If this is the case, we would advise that the action in the all-Russian context, the strike and the uprising, should be scheduled for the end of summer or the beginning of autumn, for the middle or end of August. It would be important to take advantage of the urban construction season and the end of summer field work. If it could, an understanding all to reach influential revolutionary organizations and associations about the time of the action, then the possibility would not be excluded to start the action at the scheduled time. It would be a huge advantage to start fighting all over Russia at the same time. In fact, it would probably have no fatal significance if the government were informed of the time of the strike, since it is not a conspiracy, not a military raid that must be carried out unexpectedly. It would probably have a particularly demoralizing effect on troops across Russia if they worried week by week that the struggle was inevitable >[also on an international scale !! – author’s note] . (.) Our task is to develop the broadest agitation for the all-Russian uprising, to explain the related political and organizational tasks, to exert all efforts, so that everyone has the Unverme >In the event that it is possible to postpone early partial uprisings, this should definitely be done. Otherwise, if it can no longer be influenced, then of course you have to support these partial uprisings to ensure that the partial uprising spreads to the general uprising. This is how Lenin approached the Sveaburg uprising (see Lenin, Volume 11, page 118).

In March 1906, Lenin was unwilling to remove the uprising from the agenda and opposed the Menshevik “resolution against the armed insurrection ”because it saw the revolution as a permanent process that, under the changing conditions, must be continued through new methods of struggle. Lenin was in favor of proclaiming the civil war and therefore set the slogan of the preparation, implementation and transition from defensive to offensive forms of fighting the armed uprising:

" 1. The armed uprising is currently not only a necessary means of struggling for freedom, but a de facto stage of the movement, a stage, the strength of growing up and the escalation of a new political crisis, the transition from defensive to offensive forms of the armed Initiates combat;

2. The general political strike in the current period of the movement is not so much as an independent weapon, but rather as one Aid for the uprising [emphasized by the author] consider; therefore, it is desirable to choose the timing of such a strike, the choice of location and the types of work to be carried out, the timing and conditions of the main form of the struggle, the armed uprising, subordinating [emphasized by the author] ;

3. In the party’s propaganda and agitation efforts, increased attention must be paid to studying the practical experience of the December uprising, criticizing its military side and drawing immediate lessons for the future;

4. An even more vigorous activity must be undertaken to increase the number of combat groups, improve their organization and supply of all kinds of weapons, the combat groups, as experience has taught, not only from members of the party, but also must be organized out of sympathizers or completely non-partisans;

5. It is necessary to strengthen the work in the troops, keeping in mind that fermentation in the troops alone is not enough for the success of the movement, but that direct communication with organized, revolutionary-democratic elements of the troops is required for the most decisive offensive actions against the government;

6. In view of the growing peasant movement, which may spark a real uprising in the near future, it is desirable that efforts are made to bring about a unified approach between the workers and the peasants and to organize possible joint and simultaneous combat actions. " (Lenin, Volume 10, page 145).

Lenin drew the lessons from the first Russian peasant uprising in 1902 as follows:

" The class-conscious workers will do their utmost to explain to the peasants why the first peasant uprising (1902) was put down and what must be done to ensure that the peasants and workers and not the Tsar servants win. The Bavarian uprising was put down because it was the uprising of an ignorant, unconscious mass, an uprising without any clear, specific political Claims, i.e. without the requirement that system of government to change. The peasant uprising was put down because he was not prepared was. The peasant uprising was put down because the proletarians of the villages were not yet allied with the proletarians of the cities. These are three causes of the first failure of the farmers. For a successful uprising, it is necessary that it is a conscious and prepared action, that it covers all of Russia and is carried out in association with the urban workers. (.) The peasant uprisings will cease to be emotional outbursts as soon as larger and larger masses of people understand this. " (Lenin, Volume 6, pages 423 and 424). " We must help the peasant uprising in every way, up to the confiscation of the lands, including – but not at all up to all kinds of middle class projects . We support the peasant movement insofar as it is revolutionary-democratic. We are preparing (immediately, immediately) to fight them as soon as they turn out to be reactionary, anti-proletarian. The whole point of Marxism lies in this double task, which can only be simplified by people who do not understand Marxism and flattened into a single and common task. " (Lenin, volume 9, page 231). " We will do our utmost to help the entire peasantry bring about the democratic revolution, in order to us, the party of the proletariat, the easier, to move as quickly as possible to a new and higher task, the socialist revolution. We promise after the victory of the present Peasant uprising no harmony, no equalization and no ‘socialization’, on the contrary, we ‘promise’ a new struggle, new inequality and a new revolution. (.) We are for the revolt of the peasantry. (.) Long live the revolt against self-rule in town and country! Long live revolutionary social democracy, the vanguard of all revolutionary democracy in the current revolution! " (ibid., Lenin, volume 9, pages 233 and 234).

Lenin emphasized that the alliance between the peasantry and the proletariat ruled the entire period of the Russian Revolution from 1905 to 1907:

" The October strike and the December uprising, like the local peasant uprisings and the uprisings of soldiers and sailors, were the “ alliance of forces ” between the proletariat and the peasantry. This alliance came about spontaneously, had no specific form and was often closed unconsciously. These forces were still quite disorganized, fragmented, lacking a really leading central leadership, etc., but the fact that the "alliance of forces" of the proletariat and the peasantry as the main forces which broke the old autocracy can no longer be disputed. " (Lenin, volume 15, page 332).

And in connection with the 1905 revolution, Lenin combined the goals of the general uprising with the demand that the “Expulsion of the landlords and taking possession of their lands. Without a doubt, the farmers have to make a decision >[underlined by the author] . Only pedants (or traitors) can particularly complain that the peasants always resort to such means. But there is no point in closing your eyes to the fact that the destruction of buildings and inventory is sometimes only a result of disorganization, the inability to take possession of the enemy To take possession and hold it instead of destroying it – or a result of it weakness, when the fighting man is against his opponent revenge, because he doesn’t have the strength to him scathingly to beat. Of course, in our agitation we have to make it clear to the farmers in every way that the relentless Fighting the enemy – until their property is destroyed – is completely legal and necessary, but on the other hand they show that, depending on the degree of organization, a much more reasonable and advantageous outcome is possible: the extermination of the enemy (the landlords and the officials, especially the police) and the transfer of all property into the possession of the people or into the possession of the peasants without any destruction (or with as little destruction as possible) of this property " (Lenin, volume 11, page 110). That the degree of organization in the international The highest standard must be that this is an even more difficult task and requires even greater demands and efforts, need not be justified in more detail.

What the soldiers riots of the years 1905/1906, he put their defeats in connection with the social composition of the soldiers: " Take the soldier uprisings of 1905/1906. According to their social origins, these fighters of our revolution came from the peasantry and the proletariat. The latter was the minority; That is why the movement within the army shows nowhere near the degree of unity on the whole of Russia, not that party consciousness that the proletariat showed, which became social democratic as if by magic. On the other hand, nothing is more erroneous than the view that the soldier uprisings failed because there were no leaders from the officer corps. On the contrary, the gigantic progress of the revolution since the time of the `Narodnaja Volja` was expressed precisely in the fact that the` Muschkote`, whose independence scared the liberal landlords and the liberal officer corps so much, took up arms against the authorities. The soldier was full of sympathy for the peasants’ cause; his eyes lit up as soon as a word fell from the floor. Command authority in the troops passed into the hands of the soldiers many times, but this force was almost never used resolutely; the soldiers swayed; a few days, sometimes a few hours after killing any hated supervisor, they released the others, started negotiations with the authorities, and then let themselves be shot, whipped with rods, pulled back into the yoke (.) " (Lenin, volume 15, page 203). Regarding the question of the social composition of Mao’s army for the liberation of China, a brief comment should be made here: based on the assessment given here by Lenin, the weaknesses in the development of the Chinese liberation struggle must also be determined by the social composition of the liberation army. Mao completely underestimated the leading role of the proletariat in the army, not only that, he even fought those in his own ranks who tried to correct it. But more about that later.

In March 1906, Lenin determined the tactical course of action of the provisional revolutionary government and the local organs of the revolutionary state power based on the experiences of the armed uprising, which he summarized as follows,

" 1. that the revolutionary movement against the absolutist government has so far taken the form of isolated local uprisings in the transition to armed struggle;

2. that in this struggle the elements (.) Faced the need to create organizations that were in fact the seeds of a new, revolutionary state power – Soviets of Workers’ Deputies (.);

3. That, in accordance with the initial, the nascent form of the uprising, its organs were isolated, coincidental, undecided in their actions and not based on an organized armed force of the revolution, which is why they were inevitably doomed when the counter-revolutionary army attacked ;

4. that only a provisional government as the organ of the victorious uprising is able to break any resistance to the reaction (.)

It does not matter whether the participation of social democracy in a provisional revolutionary government is possible in the broadest strata of the proletariat the idea that a constant pressure on the provisional government from the armed proletariat led by social democracy is necessary to secure, consolidate and expand the achievements of the revolution ” [emphasized by the author];

" With the expansion of the activity and sphere of influence of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, it must be pointed out that if such institutions are not based on a revolutionary army and do not overthrow government agencies (i.e. do not transform themselves into provisional revolutionary governments), they are inevitably doomed are convicted; therefore, the arming of the people and the strengthening of the military organizations of the proletariat must be seen as a main task of these institutions in every revolutionary situation.

Temporary combat agreements are only permissible and expedient at the given time with elements that recognize the armed insurgency as a weapon and actively support it ” (Lenin, volume 10, pages 147-148 – 149 – 150).

And Lenin also said why this condition was necessary:

" The sessions of the Reichsduma had begun – in true torrents the liberal-bourgeois speeches poured out of the peaceful, constitutional way – and at the same time those of agents the government organized raids on peaceful demonstrators, set fire to houses where people’s gatherings take place, and finally direct programs were used and strengthened more and more (.) One can see the old power, which has always made the laws itself and those with the last, the most desperate , most barbaric and bestial means fighting for their existence, not stopping by an appeal to legality! " (Lenin, volume 10, pages 514 and 515).

An appeal is particularly well received by the masses in the revolutionary phase. When this period subsides, a revolution phase begins, where a whole series of appeals have no longer resonated in the masses ( even though in June 1907 there were still military uprisings in Kiev and in the Black Sea fleet !!), then what Lenin says about the “Appeal in words " In 1907 said:If the struggle is underway, expanding, growing, coming from all sides, then a ‘proclamation’ is justified and necessary, then it is the duty of the revolutionary proletariat to issue the battle cry. But you cannot invent this fight, you cannot start it by a battle cry alone. And if a whole series of combat appeals, which we have tried on immediate occasions, have proven to be fruitless, we must naturally look for serious reasons for the ‘proclamation’ of a slogan that is meaningless, if not the conditions for the implementation of the combat appeals " (Lenin, volume 13, page 22).

" It is extremely important to be clear about the sentence that the experiences of all the countries in which the revolution has suffered confirm, namely that in the depressed mood of the opportunist and in the despair of the terrorist, one and the same psychological nature, one and the same specific one Class nature, e.g. B. of the petty bourgeoisie, is expressed " (Lenin, volume 15, page 145).

The teachings of the armed uprising of 1905, the teachings of the armed proletarian struggle, generally state that "everything that was wrested from the enemies, everything that is permanent in terms of achievement, wrested and held only to the extent [Is] , how the revolutionary struggle is strong and lively in all areas of proletarian work ” (Lenin, volume 17, page 112).

How did the 1905 uprising mature and what led to its defeat? Lenin gives a final short summary as follows:

" How the 1905 uprising matured?

First, mass strikes, demonstrations and rallies increased the clashes with the police and military.

Second, the mass strikes encouraged the peasantry to launch a series of individual, fragmented, half-crazy revolts.

Third, the mass strikes quickly spread to the army and navy, triggered clashes, economic clashes ("pea mutinies", etc.) and then riots.

Fourth, the counter-revolution began self the civil war with programs, ill-treatment by democrats isw.

The 1905 revolution did not end in defeat because it went “too far”, because the December uprising would have been “artificial”, as the liberal renegades believe, etc. On the contrary, the cause of the defeat is that the realization of its necessity in the revolutionary classes was not sufficiently prepared and had not gained a firm footing, that the uprising was not carried out unanimously, decisively, organized, at the same time, aggressively. " (Lenin, volume 18, page 96).