Collective Action and Collective Violence in the Russian Labor Movement.pdf

8/10/2019 Collective Action and Collective Violence in the Russian Labor Movement.pdf

1/7

Collective Action and Collective Violence in the Russian Labor MovementAuthor(s): Diane KoenkerSource: Slavic Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 443-448Published by:Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2497017.

Accessed: 03/10/2014 00:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:02:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2497017?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2497017?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

DIANE KOENKER

CollectiveAction nd CollectiveViolence

in the RussianLaborMovement

Historiansf theRussian abormovement ave been slowly hippingway t

the stereotypesboutRussianworkers reated y generationsf ntellectuals

quickto generalize rom ye-catchingmpressions.he resulthas been the

stereotyped,ipolarworkinglass.On the ne hand s the peasant okel who

toofrequentlyesorts o theviolent nd mindless ehavior ndigenouso his

original ural wamp.On the otherhand,we find he skilled rbanworker,

sometimes half-literatentellectual, ometimes laboraristocrat hodis-

dainsto cooperatewith

his

socialistmentors.' aniel Brower's ook at labor

violence ttempts o help reshape he familiar tereotype y exploring

he

cultural oots f theRussianworker's

redilection

or

iolence nd

by howing

thatsuch behavior s less mindless nd more political han ts critics

ave

accepted.By not adequately pecifying

he

contours nd especially

he fre-

quency

f

violence, owever,

e leavesus

ultimately

ith he

old

image

of

a

Pugachevshchinan the factories. rower

n

effect akes

the

pieces of

the

stereotypee has chipped way ndglues

hem ack n

approximately

he ame

pattern.

To clarifyheproblemfviolence,we must istinguishetween ollective

violence nd collectivection. ollectivection yworkersncludesmutual

id

funds, ooperatives,ob placement ureaus,

nd

political ction

s

well

as

strikesnd demonstrations.2ollective iolence

s

a subset fcollectivection,

and some

collective

ction

pills ver

nto

ollective iolence, sually

or ome

good reason.

For

nineteenth-century

estern

urope, Charles, ouise,

and

Richard illy fferomeprovocativeonclusions

bout

he ncidence

f

collec-

tiveviolence: 1) most ollective iolence

n

France, taly, nd Germany

e-

tween

830

and 1930

grew

ut of collective ctions hat

were

not

ntrinsically

violent; 2) violence esultedromesistanceya secondparty,ather han t

the utset f he ction; 3) thegreatmajorityf ollective

ctions

n

this

eriod

did not

nd

n

violence.3 ven

though

vidence bout

hesematterss far

more

problematic

orRussia han

or

Western

urope,

he

findingsy

the

Tillys ut

Brower's

onclusions

n

doubt.

The

most

mportantuestion

n

assessing

he o-called iolent

haracter

f

the

Russianworker

ertains

o the

frequency

fviolence. he

specific

ncidents

1. The language s from rinceSviatopolk-Mirskii

n 1902, quoted

in William H.

Chamberlin,

The Russian Revolution,vol. 1 (New York, 1965), p. 263. See also G. V. Plekhanov, Russkie

rabochie

v revoliutsionnomvizhenii,

n Sochineniia,vol.

3 (Moscow-Leningrad,

928). For

perti-

nent criticism

f theseviews, see,

for example,

Pamela Sears McKinsey,

From City Workers

to

Peasantry:

The Beginnings

f

the

RussianMovement

To

the People, '

Slavic Review, 38,

no.

4

(December 1979): 629-49

andAllan K. Wildman,

TheMaking of a

Workers'

Revolution Chicago,

1967).

2. Charles Tilly,

From Mobilizationto

RevolutionReading,

Mass., 1978), pp. 90-91.

3. Charles Tilly,

Louise Tilly, Richard

Tilly, TheRebellious Century,

830-1930 Cambridge,

Mass.,

1975), pp. 248-49.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

444 Slavic

Review

of violence,ooting, nd destruction

id

occur, f course, ut udgments

s to

their ypicalityust est n the ontradictorytatementsfgovernmentbserv-

ers and disapproving

orkers. he

factorynspector vozdov

finds

iolence

infrequent;hegendarme oronov ays t s commonplace.4 completenu-

meration

fthe

ncidentsf

collectivection nd

collective iolence

would nd

ourdependence

n

such mpressions.

obert

Johnson, ho has made

a count

for

Moscow

rovinces thoroughly

s

his

ources

ermit, inds hat

hepropor-

tion

f

violence n

theMoscow egion

s

small.5

fail o

see the evidence

hat

Brower hinksuggestshat violence emained constantnlabor ctivityo

the end

of

the century.

Let us assume, owever,hatwe can determineith omeconfidencehe

relative requencyf labor violence n Russia. The nextstep is to specify

changingatternsnd to ook

for

nderlyingauses.

The

patterns

hat merge

will, s Brower uggests, rovide nsightnto he

mentalite

f Russianfactory

workersnd

others. rower uggests

hat

here s

a

distinguishable

ifference

between traditionalrotest

hich

ought tate nterventionnd a newer ype

of

protest

hich

irectly

ttacked

he

factoryystemnd,by xtension,apital-

ism.The distinction

ludes

me.The commonhread

fhis

xamples

ndofmost

laborprotest nown o me s the ontinuingxistence

fa

three-wayivision f

interestsmong abor,management,nd state.

s

it

true hatworkersought

state

id

against heir mployers

n

the1880s nd ater gnored

he tate

n favor

of

direct

ttacks n factories?

f

so, why

do the

police

become uch

popular

targets?heexamples rower ites uggest hat hefactoryystememained

target hroughout

he

period.

Where hen s a

change

n

consciousness?

To

use the vidence fcollective iolence ully, istorians ust igorously

examine he

pecifics

f

the xamples.What rovoked iolence

n

each

case?

n

the 1885 trike t the

Morozov actory,n orderly

ork

toppage uddenly

degenerated

nto

riot.Why? urely heriotersmust

ave

been responding

o

some action eitherby governmentpolice?) or management.

he specific

provocationmight xplain

he direction

nd scope

of the riot. One might

logicallyxpect iolence temmingrom isputes verwage ccountingo focus

on the

factoryookkeeper,

t the ocation f

theperceived

buse.6

One might

also expect spinners'trikepposedbythehigher aidweavers o resultn

violent

destruction

hat

would force he

weavers

o

strike oo.7 Careful

examination

ight

eveal

whether ussianviolencewas marked

y

wanton

destruction

r

whethert

showed he same

underlyingelectivity

nd relative

restrainthatE.

P.

Thompson

as found n

the

eighteenth-centurynglish

crowd.8

4. See Brower's note 5.

5. Robert Eugene Johnson, easant and Proletarian: he Working

lass of Moscow in theLate

Nineteenth entury New Brunswick,N.J., 1979).

6. See William M. Reddy, Skeins, Scales, Discounts, Steam,

and other Objects of Crowd

Justice

n

Early FrenchTextile Mills, Comparative tudies n Society

nd History, 1, no. 2 (April

1979): 204-13.

7. According to E. J. Hobsbawm, in England, wreckingwas

simply technique of trade

unionism n the period before, nd during he early phases of, the IndustrialRevolution Hobs-

bawm, Labouring Men [Garden City,N.Y., 1967], p. 11).

8.

E.

P.

Thompson,

The

Moral

Economy

of

the

English

Crowd n

the

EighteenthCentury,

Past

and Present,

no.

50 (February 1971):

76-136.



4/7

CollectiveAction, CollectiveViolence 445

When

the particulars

f these

ncidents

re

clarified,henperhaps he

patterns hat delineateworking-classonsciousness ill become clear. The

Tillys, orexample, ind enerallyhree ypes f collective iolence mong

workersn the nineteenthentury: ompetitiveamonggroups f workers),

reactivein defense frightsaken way), nd proactive to winnew ightsr

concessions).' he samecategoriesan apply o Russia.Workersnd peasants

indeed

ad

a tradition

f

fightingmong hemselves;his s notunique o Russia.

The widely eported ulachnyeoi parallel he raditionffightingmong ival

sectsof French

ompagnons

r

traveling

rtisans.'0

here

s no doubt

that

competitionmong roups

f

Russianworkers,ometimeseading o violence,

remained n importantource of tensionwell into the twentiethentury.

Reactive ollectivection and tsviolentubset)wasfarmore ommon venup

to

1917

han

many

bserversoncede.Most f hefew asesofworkers'eizure

of factoriesn 1917can be classified s defensive ction ntended o keep

factoriesnd

obs going.

would urther

uggest hat he ncidentsf

violence

toward oremen

ight

lso

representefensiveehavior ather han

hedawn-

ing fnew lass onsciousness.erhaps henew uthorityfforemenhallenged

an established

attern

f

powerwithin actories, hereworkwas performedy

teams

artels)

hired

by

worker-leaders.11

hus,

violence oward

upervisors,

while

mportant, as not necessarilyhe sign of class consciousness ewly

triumphant

r

of

proactive

ollectivection. uch

ollective

ction

may

have

provided

he

eedbed

or

he volution

f a new

onsciousness,

ut his volu-

tion roceeded yway f nteractionithhe deasof ntellectualsnd worker-

intellectuals.ecauseof his nteraction,ndnotbecause f he nnate ocialism

of the mir he workers ad left

behind,

he

consciousnessf

many

Russian

workers

as

by

1917

profoundlyocialist.'2

A further

reathatmust e clarifiedounderstandhemeaningf ollective

violence

n Russia s

the dentity

f

theparticipants.rower's nswer o the

question

s

nconclusive.ome

xamples

f

violence

ccurred

n

textile actories,

others

n

mines,

till

thers

n

metal

plants.

The

consensus f

contemporary

opinion

was that he rioters

were

peasantmigrants,isrupted

rom amiliar

village ife, youth

orn

way

from heir amilies. he

mage

f

theunwashed

peasant-workerarryinghe park f revolts a popular ne,but s supported

onlyby

circumstantialvidence.

Many

workers

eft heir

illages

o work

n

factories,

nd at the ame

time herewere

trikes, nrest,

nd

violence.'3

ut

howdo we know

hat he trikersnd

rioters ere hemost

prooted

orkers?

9. Tilly, Tilly,and Tilly,RebelliousCentury, p.

249-50.

10. Agricol erdiguier,

emoires 'un CompagnonMoulins, 914); William . Sewell,

Jr.,

Work nd Revolution n France:

The Language of Labor from heOld

Regime o 1848 (Cambridge,

1980),pp. 40-61.

11. There s a suggestionf this n HeatherHogan, Conciliationoards n

Revolutionary

Petrograd, ussianHistoryforthcoming).

12. GeorgeRude stresseshe

mportancef uch nteractionn

deology nd Popular rotest

(New York, 980).On consciousnessn 1917, ee Diane Koenker,

MoscowWorkersnd the 917

RevolutionPrinceton,981),pp.

362-64.

13. This iew s discussednKoenker, oscowWorkers,p. 44-45.

Early eportingf he 980

strikesn

the

Gdansk

hipyards

ade the same familiarlaim.

Gdansk mployedmanynew

migrants,hich ed to socialbreakdown

nd unrest. imilarly,abeling

ech Walesa an unem-

ployed

lectrician akes

im

eem muchmore ociallymarginalharacterhan orrectlyalling

him blacklistedlectrician.



5/7

446 Slavic Review

The vastbulk f empiricaltudies n

this

uestion,ncluding y wnwork n

1917 n Moscow, uggests hat ocial breakdown oes not ead to collective

violence, nd, n fact, he rioters sually urn ut to be the eastuprooted

membersf ociety.

4

Whenmigrant orkersid ngagencollectivection uch

as strikes,heywere bletomobilizeften ecause ftheir rior emliachestvo

ties.Theydid notrevolt ecause hey ad osttheir oots nd wereno longer

subject o social control.'5

Brower oncedes

his

point

aterwhenhe

identifiest least some of the

rebels as experienced orkers. t would be interestingo know,however,

whether ne type

of

workerwas disproportionatelynvolved

n

the violent

subset

f collective ction. et me

suggest

ome

possibilities.

f

it s

true hat

ruralmigrants

ere

disproportionatelynvolved

n

violence, henperhaps he

old theoriesbout ocialbreakdownnd anomie

ausing

evolutionre correct

after ll. If therioterss wellas collectivectivistsended o be more xperi-

enced

workers, rawing

n

traditional

atterns

f

protest

o articulate

ew

grievances,

hen

we must ookfor ther,more olitical xplanations

f

violence

and unrest.

n

the latter

part

of his

article,

Brower ndeed

suggests

hat

something

ike this s

at work: herewas

an

underlyingolitical ogiceven to

episodes

f

violence

n

Russian abor

history.

utuntilwe

have

pecific

nforma-

tion boutparticipantsnd nformationbout ollectiveiolencemonghema-

jority

f

Russianworkers

ho

were mployed

n

small

workshops

ather han

factories,

t will

be

difficulto characterize

his

iolence s classconsciousness.

Very mportanto Brower'sontentionfthe evolutionismnd conscious-

nessof abor

violence

s

thefact hat uchviolence ppears

o

have diminished

significantly

n

the

arly

wentieth

entury. lthough

omeworkersn

1917,

or

example,

ontinuedo hauloutunloved

upervisors

n

wheelbarrowsnddump

them

nceremoniously

n

unpleasantlaces,

hese ctsweremore

ymbolic

han

violent.

In fact,

cholarsnterested

n

the ultural

omponents

f

working-class

mentality ould

do

well

to

explore

he

origin nd symbolicmeaning f this

widespreadractice.)

More

ommonly,

orkersurnedo

organized rocedures

for

dealing

with hese

grievances: egotiations,rbitration,

trikes.'6

Why

id

violence

isappear?

art

f hereason

s

surely

etter

eporting

f

nonviolentncidents,utmyguess s thatworkersearned y experiencehat

violence

was

essentiallynproductive.

s workers

ained

ollective

xperience

in

the ndustrial

orld, hey

earned

o

use othermore

efficient,

ess

costly

methodso achieve

heir nds.

7

If

my

uess s

correct,

hen heworker-intellec-

tuals

ike

KanatchikovndBabushkin

ho

deplored

iolencewere

not

mposing

their wn dealisticiew

f

heworld

n their

omrades,

ut

were

n

fact

elping

to focus heir omrades'

nger

n more

realizable nd

permanentoals.

14. M. Tugan-Baranovskii ffers vidence thatyouthswere not torn from heirnative soil;

theyeagerlytraveledto jobs in the big cities Tugan-Baranovskii, usskaia fabrika

v

proshlom

nastoiashchem Moscow, 1922], p. 388). See also Tilly, Tilly, and Tilly, Rebellious Century,

pp. 251-52.

15. See Johnson, easant and Proletarian, p. 75-79 and Koenker, Moscow Workers, . 49.

16. The intensity f the grievances, as well as nonviolentways of articulating hem, are

admirably ocumented n Hogan, ConciliationBoards.

17. David

Snyder

nd WilliamR.

Kelly,

IndustrialViolence in

Italy, 1878-1903,

American

Journal of Sociology,82, no.

1

(1976): 131-62, report violent strikeswere

much

less likely to

succeed than nonviolent nes.



6/7

Collective

Action, CollectiveViolence

447

A

similar

isappearancefviolencenFrance nthe

nineteenthenturyas

been xplained y shiftn

the ormsf

organizationrom he ompagnonnage,

with tstraditionf ntraclassivalry,o the

mutual id society, ith'its radi-

tional ocus nsolidarity.18erhaps similarransitionnRussia way rom he

village-based

emliachestvaf factory

workers oward factory-basedr

community-centeredork

orce lso affectedhe haracterf

collectivection.

The

Guzhonmetal lantnMoscow, or

xample, ired tsworkers

hroughuch

villagenetworks,s did

mostfactories.n

the 1870s,Guzhonworkers ere

known o engage n

massbrawls n the ceof theMoscow iver

withworkers

from neighboring

extile actory,nd n he

1880s,Guzhonworkersesortedo

their

ists

o

settle rievances ithmanagers.

ut by 1905, erhaps ecause he

factory

abor

forcehad based

itselfmore

ecurely round he

factoryhan

around he

emliachestvo,

imilar

isputes ere ettled y trikesather

han y

violence.19rban ormsforganizationrobablyminimizedhedivisivenessf

zemliak

oyalties nd in so

doingpreparedworkers o engage n

types

of

collective ctionthat

requiredmore

planning

nd

cooperation. he more

urbanizedhework

orce, he essprevalent ould eviolentorms

f ollective

action.

The issueof labor

violence

s

an

important

ne

and deserves igorous

examination.

y

clarifying

he

ultural

nd

psychologicals

well

s the conomic

sources

f

Russianworkers'

onsciousness,

therssues an

be reconsidered.

or

example,

f

t can be

finally

etermined ho

n

factwas

contributing

o the

violence fthenineteenthenturynd why heseviolentmpulseswereredi-

rected n

other hannelsater

n,

we

might

e

able

to

udgethe

fficacy

f the

tsarist

overnment'sonurbanization

olicy

f

thenineteenth

entury.

overn-

ment

fficialsncouraged

he building f

factories

n

thecountrysideokeep

riot-proneeasant-workersrom ringing

heir iolence opoliticallyensitive

urban enters.

ssuminghat he

kind f

violence

rower escribes asmeasur-

ably

ess

frequent

n

cities,

here re at

east

hree

xplanations

or

ts bsence:

(1) the

city ivilizedmigrants

y offering

ther utlets or heir

nergiesthe

business f

daily ife, ommuting,averns,

lubs, chools,

ibraries);2)

the

ity

repressed iolence

with ts

high

oncentrationf

police; 3)

the

city

edirected

violentngerntorevolutionaryisciplineecauseoftheproximityf skilled

worker-leaders

nd

revolutionary

ntellectuals.or the

government,

hese hree

explanations

fferwo lternative

olicies.

ncouraging

rban ettlementould

either

ring

abor

peace

through

combinationf

repression

nd recreationr

endanger oliticaltability

ecause he

ity

rganized

orkerso mobilize heir

energies

ather han

dissipate

hem

n wild

orgies

f violence.

All thatwe

know boutworkers

n

1905

nd1917

uggests

hat t

was

ndeed

therole of the

city

s

organizer,

ot as concentratorf

violent

easants,

hat

produced

heurban evolution.his

uggests

hat he

government

newwhat t

was

doing

n

keeping

hose housandsf

peasant-workers

ut

n

Egorevsk

nd

Orekhovo-Zuevo.rom his erspective,heoutbreaksf aborviolence hat

18.

Ronald Aminzade, The Transformation

f

Social Solidarities n

Nineteenth-Century

Toulouse,

in John

M. Merriman, d., Consciousness nd Class Experience n

Nineteenth-Century

Europe (New York, 1979), pp. 85-105.

19. I. Belousov, UshedshaiaMoskva (Moscow, 1927?), p. 91; A. Gaisinovich,

Pervyi etap

rabochego dvizheniiana zavode 'Serp i Molot, ' Istoriiaproletariata SSR, vol. 6 (1931),

p. 159.



7/7

448

Slavic

Review

Brower escribes

might ave erved o

reinforceheconfidencef the

govern-

ment

n

itspolicy f dispersal.

These

commentsre

ntended o stresshe mportance

f a more ystem-

atic,ess mpressionistictudyf ollectivectionmong ussianworkersndto

suggest

hatwhere vidences scarce, osing

uestions ased

on

comparative

examples

an

prove

nstructive.t s notnecessarily

rue hat collective iolence

constitutesvidence f

profound ocial

stress. Labor violence

n Russian

factories,

hile

ntriguing,

oes not eflect

he

ompletendunchanging

harac-

ter

fthe

Russian

work orce nddraws

ttention

way

rom riticalssues

uch

as labor-management-state

elations,

orkplace elations,nd the

mpact f

urbanization.rower's uggestion

f

an

nnateworker adicalism

anifested

n

violence erves ltimately

o dress p oldBakuninist yths

bout he

power f

peasantbuntarstvo

n newcultural lothes.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:02:51 AM

Documents

Collective Action and Collective Violence in the Russian Labor Movement.pdf