V. I.

Lenin
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL STRIKES

Published in Nevskaya Zvezda,

No. 10, May 31, 1912
Signed: Iv. Petrov

Published according to
the newspaper text verified with
the text in the symposium
Marxism and Liquidationism,
Part II, St. Petersburg, 1914

From V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition,

Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1968
First printing 1963
Second printing 1968

Vol. 18, pp. 83-90.

Translated from the Russian by Stepan Apresyan
Edited by Clemens Dutt
Prepared for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo,
djr@marx2mao.org (May 2002)

page 83

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL STRIKES

Ever since 1905 the official strike statistics kept by the Ministry of Commerce
and Industry have subdivided strikes into economic and political. This
subdivision was necessitated by reality, which has evolved distinctive forms of
the strike movement. The combination of economic and political strike is one of
the main features of these forms. And now that there is a revival of the strike
movement, it is in the interest of a scientific analysis, of an intelligent attitude to

events, that the workers should look closely into this distinctive feature of the
strike movement in Russia.
To begin with, we shall cite several basic figures taken from the government
strike statistics. For three years, 1905-07, the strike movement in Russia kept at
a height unprecedented in the world. Government statistics cover only factories,
so that mining, railways, building and numerous other branches of wage-labour
are left out. But even in factories alone, the number of strikers was 2,863,000, or
a little less than 3 million, in 1905, 1,108,000 in 1906, and 740,000 in 1907. In
the fifteen years from 1894 to 1908, during which strike statistics began to be
systematically studied in Europe, the greatest number of strikers for one year -60,000 -- was registered in America.
Consequently, the Russian workers were the first in the world to develop the
strike struggle on the mass scale that we witnessed in 1905-07. Now it is the
British workers who have lent a new great impetus to the strike movement with
regard to economic strikes. The Russian workers owe their leading role, not to
greater strength, better organisation or higher development compared with the
workers in Western Europe, but to the fact that so far Europe has not
page 84

gone through great national crises with the proletarian masses taking an
independent part in them. When such crises do set in, mass strikes in Europe will
be even more powerful than they were in Russia in 1905.
What was the ratio of economic to political strikes in that period? Government
statistics give the following answer:
Number of strikers (thousands)
1905

1906

1907

Economic strikes
Political strikes

1,439
1,424

458
650

200
540

Total . . . . . . .

2,863

1,108

740

This shows the close and inseparable connection between the two kinds of
strike. When the movement was at its highest (1905), the economic basis of the
struggle was the broadest; in that year the political strike rested on the firm and
solid basis of economic strikes. The number of economic strikers was greater
than that of political strikers.
We see that as the movement declined, in 1906 and 1907, the economic basis
contracted: the number of economic strikers dropped to 0.4 of the total number
of strikers in 1906 and to 0.3 in 1907. Consequently, the economic and the

political strike support each other, each being a source of strength for the other.
Unless these forms of strike are closely interlinked, a really wide mass
movement -- moreover, a movement of national significance -- is impossible.
When the movement is in its early stage, the economic strike often has the effect
of awakening and stirring up the backward, of making the movement a general
one, of raising it to a higher plane.
In the first quarter of 1905, for instance, economic strikes noticeably
predominated over political strikes, the number of strikers being 604,000 in the
former case and only 206,000 in the latter. In the last quarter of 1905, however,
the ratio was reversed: 430,000 workers took part in economic strikes, and
847,000 in political strikes. This means that in the early stage of the movement
many workers put the economic struggle first, while at the height of the
movement it was the
page 85

other way round. But all the time there was a connection between the economic
and the political strike. Without such a connection, we repeat, it is impossible to
have a really great movement, one that achieves great aims.
In a political strike, the working class comes forward as the advanced class of
the whole people. In such cases, the proletariat plays not merely the role of one
of the classes of bourgeois society, but the role of guide, vanguard, leader. The
political ideas manifested in the movement involve the whole people, i.e., they
concern the basic, most profound conditions of the political life of the whole
country. This character of the political strike, as has been noted by all scientific
investigators of the period 1905-07, brought into the movement all the classes,
and particularly, of course, the widest, most numerous and most democratic
sections of the population, the peasantry, and so forth.
On the other hand, the mass of the working people will never agree to
conceive of a general "progress" of the country without economic demands,
without an immediate and direct improvement in their condition. The masses are
drawn into the movement, participate vigorously in it, value it highly and
display heroism, self-sacrifice, perseverance and devotion to the great cause only
if it makes for improving the economic condition of those who work. Nor can it
be otherwise, for the living conditions of the workers in "ordinary" times are
incredibly hard. As it strives to improve its living conditions, the working class
also progresses morally, intellectually and politically, becomes more capable of
achieving its great emancipatory aims.
The strike statistics published by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry fully
bear out this tremendous significance of the economic struggle of the workers in
the period of a general revival. The stronger the onslaught of the workers, the
greater their achievements in improving their standard of living. The "sympathy
of society" and better conditions of life are both results of a high degree of
development of the struggle. Whereas the liberals (and the liquidators) tell the
workers: "You are strong when you have the sympathy of 'society'", the Marxist

tells the workers something different, namely: "You have the sympathy of
'society' when you are strong." What we mean by society in this case is all
page 86

the various democratic sections of the population, the petty bourgeoisie, the
peasants, and the intellectuals, who are in close touch with the life of the
workers, office employees, etc.
The strike movement was strongest in 1905. And what was the result? We see
that in that year the workers achieved the greatest improvements in their
condition. Government statistics show that in 1905 only 29 out of every 100
strikers stopped their fight without having gained anything, i.e., were completely
defeated. In the previous ten years (1895-1904), as many as 52 strikers out of
100 stopped fighting without having gained anything! It follows that the large
scale of the struggle contributed immensely to its success, almost doubling it.
When the movement began to decline, the success of the struggle began to
diminish accordingly. In 1906, 33 strikers out of 100 stopped fighting without
having gained anything, or having been defeated, to be exact; in 1907 the figure
was 58, and in 1908, as high as 69 out of 100!!
Thus the scientific statistical data over a number of years fully confirm the
personal experience and observations of every class-conscious worker as regards
the necessity of combining the economic and the political strike, and the
inevitability of this combination in a really broad movement of the whole
people.
The present strike wave likewise fully confirms this conclusion. In 1911 the
number of strikers was double that in 1910 (100,000 against 50,000), but even
so their number was extremely small; purely economic strikes remained a
relatively "narrow" cause, they did not assume national significance. On the
other hand, today it is obvious to one and all that the strike movement following
the well-known events of last April had precisely this significance.[63]
It is therefore highly important to rebuff from the outset the attempts of the
liberals and liberal labour politicians (liquidators) to distort the character of the
movement. Mr. Severyanin, a liberal, contributed to Russkiye Vedomosti [64] an
article against "admixing" economic or "any other [aha!] demands" to the May
Day strike, and the Cadet Rech sympathetically reprinted in the main passages of
the article.
"More often than not" writes the liberal gentleman, "it is unreasonable to link such strikes with
May Day. . . . Indeed, it would be

page 87

rather strange to do so: we are celebrating the international workers' holiday, and we use the
occasion to demand a ten per cent rise for calico of such-and-such grades." (Rech No. 132.)

What is quite clear to the workers seems "strange" to the liberal. Only the
defenders of the bourgeoisie and its excessive profits can sneer at the demand
for a "rise". But the workers know that it is the widespread character of the
demand for a rise, it is the comprehensive character of a strike, that has the
greatest power to attract a multitude of new participants, to ensure the strength
of the onslaught and the sympathy of society, and to guarantee both the success
of the workers and the national significance of their movement. That is why it is
necessary to fight with determination against the liberal distortion preached by
Mr. Severyanin, Russkiye Vedomosti and Rech, and to warn the workers in every
way against this kind of sorry advisers.
Mr. V. Yezhov, a liquidator, writing in the very first issue of the liquidationist
Nevsky Golos,[65] offers a similar purely liberal distortion, although he
approaches the question from a somewhat different angle. He dwells in
particular on the strikes provoked by the May Day fines. Correctly pointing out
that the workers are not sufficiently organised, the author draws from his correct
statement conclusions that are quite wrong and most harmful to the workers. Mr.
Yezhov sees a lack of organisation in the fact that while in one factory the
workers struck merely in protest, in another they added economic demands, etc.
Actually, however, this variety of forms of strike does not in itself indicate any
lack of organisation at all; it is ridiculous to imagine that organisation
necessarily means uniformity! Lack of organisation is not at all to be found
where Mr. Yezhov looks for it.
But his conclusion is still worse:
"Owing to this [i.e., owing to the variety of the strikes and to the different forms of the
combination of economics and politics], the principle involved in the protest (after all, it was not
over a few kopeks that the strike was called) became obscured in a considerable number of
cases, being complicated by economic demands. . . ."

This is a truly outrageous, thoroughly false and thoroughly liberal argument!

To think that the demand "for a few kopeks" is capable of "obscuring" the
principle involved in the
page 88

protest means sinking to the level of a Cadet. On the contrary, Mr. Yezhov, the
demand for "a few kopeks" deserves full recognition and not a sneer! On the
contrary, Mr. Yezhov, that demand, far from "obscuring" "the principle involved
in the protest", emphasises it! Firstly, the question of a higher standard of living
is also a question of principle, and a most important one; secondly, whoever
protests, not against one, but against two, three, etc., manifestations of
oppression, does not thereby weaken his protest but strengthens it.
Every worker will indignantly reject Mr. Yezhov's outrageous liberal
distortion of the matter.
In the case of Mr. Yezhov, it is by no means a slip of the pen. He goes on to
say even more outrageous things:

"Their own experience should have suggested to the workers that it was inadvisable to
complicate their protest by economic demands, just as it is inadvisable to complicate an ordinary
strike by a demand involving a principle."

This is untrue, a thousand times untrue! The Nevsky Golos has disgraced itself
by printing such stuff. What Mr. Yezhov thinks inadvisable is perfectly
advisable. Both each worker's own experience and the experience of a very large
number of Russian workers in the recent past testify to the reverse of what Mr.
Yezhov preaches.
Only liberals can object to "complicating" even the most "ordinary" strike by
"demands involving principles". That is the first point. Secondly, our liquidator
is sorely mistaken in measuring the present movement with the yardstick of an
"ordinary" strike.
And Mr. Yezhov is wasting his time in trying to cover up his liberal
contraband with someone else's flag, in confusing the question of combining the
economic and the political strike with the question of preparations for the one or
the other! Of course, it is most desirable to make preparations and to be
prepared, and to do this as thoroughly, concertedly, unitedly, intelligently and
firmly as possible. That is beyond dispute. But, contrary to what Mr. Yezhov
says, it is necessary to make preparations precisely for a combination of the two
kinds of strike.
"A period of economic strikes is ahead of us," writes Mr. Yezhov. "It would be an irreparable
mistake to allow them to become inter-

page 89

twined with political actions of the workers. Such combination would have a harmful effect on
both the economic and the political struggle of the workers."

One could hardly go to greater lengths! These words show in the clearest
possible way that the liquidator has sunk to the level of an ordinary liberal.
Every sentence contains an error! We must convert every sentence into its direct
opposite to get at the truth!
It is not true that a period of economic strikes is ahead of us. Quite the
reverse. What we have ahead of us is a period of something more than just
economic strikes. We are facing a period of political strikes. The facts, Mr.
Yezhov, are stronger than your liberal distortions; and if you could look at the
statistical cards dealing with strikes, which are filed in the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, you would see that even these government statistics
fully refute you.
It is not true that "intertwining" would be a mistake. Quite the reverse. It
would be an irreparable mistake if the workers failed to understand the great
singularity, the great significance, the great necessity, and the great fundamental
importance of precisely such "intertwining". Fortunately, however, the workers
understand this perfectly, and they brush aside with contempt the preaching of
liberal labour politicians.

Lastly, it is not true that such intertwining "would have a harmful effect" on
both forms. Quite the reverse. It benefits both. It strengthens both.
Mr. Yezhov lectures some "hotheads" whom he seems to have discovered.
Listen to this:
"It is necessary to give organisational form to the sentiments of the
workers. . . ." This is gospel truth! "It is necessary to increase propaganda for
trade unions, to recruit new members for them. . . ."
Quite true, but -- but, Mr. Yezhov, it is impermissible to reduce
"organisational form" to the trade unions alone. Remember this, Mr. Liquidator!
"This is all the more necessary since there are many hotheads among the workers nowadays
who are carried away by the mass movement and speak at meetings against unions, alleging
them to be useless and unnecessary."

page 90

This is a liberal slur on the workers. It is not "against unions" that the workers -- who have
been, and always will be, a thorn in the side of the liquidators -- have been coming out. No, the
workers have been coming out against the attempt to reduce the organisational form to "trade
unions" alone, an attempt which is so evident from Mr. Yezhov's preceding sentence.
The workers have been coming out, not "against unions", but against the liberal distortion of
the nature of the struggle they are waging, a distortion which pervades the whole of Mr. Yezhov's
article.
The Russian workers have become sufficiently mature politically to realise the great
significance of their movement for the whole people. They are sufficiently mature to see how
very false and paltry liberal labour policy is and they will always brush it aside with contempt.

page 617

NOTES
[63]

See Note 1.

[Note 1 -- This refers to the shooting of unarmed workers in the Lena gold-fields, Siberia, on
April 4 (17), 1912.
The gold-fields were owned by British capitalists, and their partners were Russian capitalists,
members of the tsar's family, and tsarist dignitaries. The owners made a profit of about 7,000,000
rubles annually. The gold-fields being situated in a region of taiga forests, almost 2,000
kilometres from the Siberian Railway, the capitalists and their helpers committed the worst
excesses: they paid the workers niggardly wages for their back-breaking toil, supplied them with
rotten food, and outraged the workers' wives and children. Unable to bear the oppression and
outrages any longer, the workers went on strike early in March 1912. The strike was led by the

Bolshevik group formed in the gold-fields in the autumn of 1911. On March 4 (17), 1912, a
central strike committee was elected with the Bolsheviks occupying a leading position on it. The
demands to be presented to the management included: an eight-hour working day, a 10 to 30 per
cent wage increase, abolition of fines, organisation of medical aid, improvement of food and
living quarters, etc. The Board of Lenzoto (Lena Gold-Mining Company) rejected these demands
and decided to dismiss the strikers, stop supplying them with food on credit and evict them from
the gold-fields barracks, which meant dooming the workers and their families to death by
starvation. The workers did not allow the police to carry out the evictions. The strikers held their
ground and resisted all attempts at provocation and intimidation. The strike was peaceful and
organised.
At the instance [insistence? -- DJR] of influential British and Russian shareholders of the
company, the tsarist authorities decided to use arms against the strikers in order to intimidate
workers in Russia. During the night of April 3-4 (16-17) some of the members of the Central
Strike Committee were arrested. In reply, on April 4 (17) about 3,000 workers marched to the
Nadezhda Mine to lodge a complaint against the unlawful actions of the authorities and hand the
Procurator a petition for the release of those arrested. Captain Treshchenkov of the gendarmerie
ordered his men to open fire, with the result that 270 workers were killed and 250 injured.
The news of the bloody drama on the Lena aroused the furious indignation of the workers
throughout Russia. Protest demonstrations, meetings and strikes took place all over the country.
The Social-Democratic Duma group interpellated the government on the Lena shootings. The
insolent reply of the tsar's Minister Makarov -- "So it was and so it will be!" -- added to the
workers' indignation. Strikes protesting against the Lena shootings involved about 300,000
workers. They merged with the May Day strikes in which about 400,000 workers took part. "The
Lena shootings," Lenin pointed out, "led to the revolutionary temper of the masses developing
into a revolutionary upswing of the masses. " (See p. 103 of this volume. [Transcriber's Note: See
Lenin's "The Revolutionary Upswing". -- DJR])]
[p. 86]

page 618

Russkiye Vedomosti (Russian Recorder ) -- a newspaper published in Moscow from 1863

onwards by moderately liberal intellectuals. Between the 1880s and 1890s contributors to it
included writers of the democratic campV. G. Korolenko, M. Y. Saltykov-Shchedrin, G. I.
Uspensky and othersand it also published articles by liberal Narodniks. In 1905 it became an
organ of the Right wing of the Cadet Party. Lenin pointed out that the newspaper "provided a
unique combination of Right Cadetism and Narodnik overtones" (see present edition, Vol. 19, p.
135 [Transcriber's Note: See Lenin's "Frank Speeches by a Liberal". -- DJR]). In 1918 it was closed
down along with other counter-revolutionary newspapers. [p. 86]
[64]

[65]
Nevsky Golos (Neva Voice ) -- a legal newspaper of the Menshevik liquidators, published in
St. Petersburg from May to August 1912. [p. 87]