Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T17:40:13.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor and Liquidators: Revolutionaries and the “Reaction” in Baku, May 1908-April 1912

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Ronald Grigor Suny
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the years after 1905, Social Democrats in Russia agonized over the form of struggle in which to engage. The defeats suffered in the revolution and the new legal possibilities offered after 1905 led to strains among the socialists and changed considerably the nature of their debates from the prerevolutionary years as each faction attempted to deal with the potential of a legal labor movement and the actuality of continued police repression. Paradoxically the years of “reaction” were also the seedbed of Russian trade unionism. Many Social Democrats, most notably the so-called likvidatory (“liquidators”), believed that the time had come to concentrate on the legal labor movement, to broaden its appeal and deepen its roots among the working class. Others, tied to the traditions of the underground party and the primacy of political work, opposed the new reliance on legal activity. All Social Democrats inside Russia were faced with the reality of economic depression, a decline in labor activism, and political repression. They faced together a strategic dilemma. The deeper they retreated into the underground, the more tenuous their ties with the workers became. Yet the more actively they engaged in trade unionist and other legal activities, the more vulnerable they were to police persecution.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 319 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

References

1. Zakharova-Tsederbaum, K., “V gody reaktsii,” Katorga i ssylka, 1929, no. 11(60), p. 76.Google Scholar

2. The organ of the Baku oil industrialists, Neftianoe delo ﹛Oil Business), reflected the liberalism of at least some of the oil men when in January 1908 a writer flatly asserted: “That trade unions can play a great role in lessening the tensions between labor and capital, that the trade union movement is a powerful regulating factor in the struggle of labor with capital, and that it is one of the positive sides of the modern workers’ movement, we do not doubt, and it is not necessary to prove this to anyone “ ﹛Neftianoe delo, 10, no. 1 [Jan. 15, 1908], p. 8). The writer's only regret was that in Baku trade unions included only 10 percent of the workers and therefore could not be considered the legitimate spokesmen of the working class as a whole. Barely five months after these liberal sentiments were expressed, Baku oil men revealed a harsher policy toward workers, which was to characterize the difficult postrevolutionary years.

3. Daniel-Bek, P. A., Russkii neftianoi eksport i mirovoi rynok v period s 1904 po 1911 g.: Ekonomicheskii etiud, ed. P. B. Struve (Petrograd, 1916), p. 89 Google Scholar.

4. Ushakov, M. I., Nejtianaia promyshlennost’ v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1912), p. 198 Google Scholar.

5. Arutiunov, G. A., Rabochee dvizhenie v Zakavkaz'e v period novogo revoliutsionnogo pod “ema ﹛1910-1914 gg.) (Moscow and Baku, 1963), p. Baku Google Scholar.

6. Mirov, V, “Iz praktiki bakinskogo rabochego dvizhenii,” Nasha zaria, nos. 5-6 (May-June 1910), p. 78Google Scholar.

7. Ibid., p. 76.

8. Bakinskii proletarii, no. 7, Aug. 27, 1909; Stalin, I. V., Sochineniia, 13 vols. (Moscow, 1951), vol. 2 (1907-13), p. 160Google Scholar.

9. A. M. Stopani was responsible for a series of books on the Baku workers, the most important of which is Neftepromyshlennyi rabochii i ego biudzhet (Baku, 1916). Other of his studies include Rabochie v avguste 1907 g. (Baku, 1907) ; Rabochie i sluzhashchie bakinskogo neftepromyshlennogo raiona (obshchie svcdeniia i rabochii den’) (Baku, 1908) ; Zarabotnaia plata i rabochii den’ bakinskikh neftepromyshlennykh rabochikh v sviazi s usloviiami rabot na promyslakh (Baku, 1910) ; Neschastnye sluchai v bakinskikh neftianykh promyslakh (1907-1910 gg.) (Baku, 1913); and Bakinskii neftepromyshlennyi rabochii: Ego zarabotnaia plata i rabochii den’ (Leningrad and Moscow, 1924). A useful summary of Stopani's work is available in A. D. Bok, “Usloviia byta rabochikhneftianikov g. Baku,” in Druzhinin, N. K., ed., Usloviia byta rabochikh v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (po dannym biudshetnykh obsledovanii) (Moscow, 1958), pp. 59–95 Google Scholar.

10. Bok, “Usloviia byta,” p. 64. 11. The average pay of an oil worker was significantly higher than that of workers in other Russian industries. The average salary in the oil industry was 429 rubles a year; the average salary in Moscow industry was 186 rubles a year for women and 276 for men. One of the highest paid workers in European Russia was the metal worker, but his average salary of 375 rubles a year did not approach that of the Baku oil worker (ibid., p. 71). This higher salary can be explained primarily by the higher cost of living in Baku, but also by occasional shortage of local workers (85 percent of oil workers were not native to Baku), the physical hardship of the work, and, in part, the past successes of the labor movement. Of the expenditures of a worker with a family 90 percent went for material needs. Single workers, however, managed to live on 68.6 percent of their wages and sent more than a quarter (26.1 percent) away to their families in the village (ibid., p. 73). These men, usually less skilled and more poorly paid than the family men, formed groups of four or five to eat together, thus keeping costs down and maintaining some aspect of communality in their exile from home (p. 74).

12. Stopani, , Neftepromyshlennyi rabochii i ego biudshet, p. 145 Google Scholar.

13. Ibid., p. 147.

14. Mirov, “Iz praktiki,” p. 88.

15. See Ronald Grigor Suny, “A Journeyman for the Revolution: Stalin and the Labour Movement in Baku, June 1907-May 1908,” Soviet Studies, 23, no. 3 (January 1972): 373-94.

16. Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, nos. 8-9, July-September 1908, p. 38.

17. Gudok, no. 38, Oct. 23, 1908.

18. Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, nos. 8-9, July-September 1908, p. 38; the “neutral “ Menshevik Union of Mechanical Workers grew a little during this period, according to Menshevik estimates.

19. Ibid.

20. Shaumian, S. G., Isbrannye proisvedeniia, 1902-1916 gg., 2 vols. (Moscow, 19S7-S8), 1: 285Google Scholar.

21. Ibid., p. 287.

22. Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, nos. 10-11, November-December 1908.

23. Shaumian, S. G., Pis'ma, 1896-1918 (Erevan, 1959), p. 149 Google Scholar.

24. Shaumian, , Izbrannye proisvedeniia, 1: 267Google Scholar.

25. Il'ia Moiseevich Dubinsky-Mukhadze, Ordzhonikidze (Moscow, 1963), pp. 92-94; this sentence was removed in the 1967 edition of this book (see p. 76).

26. Shaumian, , Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 1: 268Google Scholar.

27. Ibid., p. 286.

28. This resolution has been published in Stalin, , Sochineniia, 2: 170-73Google Scholar.

29. Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 74–75Google Scholar.

30. Pravda (Vienna), no. 11, Mar. 18, 1910.

31. Rabochaia gazeta, no. 3, Feb. 8 (21), 1910.

32. “Partiinyi krizis i nashi zadachi,” Bakinskii proletarii, no. 6, Aug. 1, 1909; no. 7, Aug. 27, 1909; Stalin, , Sochineniia, 2: 1S7Google Scholar.

33. Ibid., pp. 156-57.

34. Ibid., p. 158.

35. M. B. Koz'min and L. I. Ponomarev, A. M. Gor'kii v portretakh, illiustratsiiakh, dokumentakh, 1868-1936 (Moscow, 1962), p. 126.

36. Kolesnikova, N. N., Po dorogam podpol'ia: Is vospominanii (Baku, 1966), pp. 93–95 Google Scholar. 37. Bakinskii professional'nyi vestnik, no. 1, Feb. 21, 1909.

38. Zakharova-Tsederbaum, “V gody reaktsii,” pp. 90-96. By March 1910 Nauka counted 800 members, in mid-April 1, 066 members, and by the end of 1911 2, 000 members (Arutiunov, Rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 171-73)Google Scholar. A series of lectures in March 1911 attracted an audience of 1, 300 (ibid., p. 166).

39. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 11, Feb. 13 (26), 1911; Stalin, , Sochineniia, 2: 191, 407Google Scholar.

40. Kolesnikova, , Po dorogam, p. 98 Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., p. 99; Saratovets was later arrested and died in prison in 1912.

42. Stalin, , Sochineniia, 2: 192Google Scholar.

43. Guliev, A. N. and Strigunov, I. V., eds., Rabochee dvizhenie v Azerbaidzhane v gody novogo revoliutsionnogo pod “ema (1910-1914 gg.): Dokumenty i materialy, 2 vols. (Baku, 1967), 1: 34 Google Scholar.

44. Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvizhenie, p. 159 Google Scholar.

45. Shaumian, , Isbrannye proizvedeniia, 1: 295-96Google Scholar.

46. Baku, no. 1, Jan. 1, 1911; Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvizhenie, p. 164 Google Scholar.

47. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 12, Mar. 23, 1910; Stalin, , Sochineniia, 2: 187Google Scholar.

48. Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, no. 23, November 1910; this article was probably written by Muravsky (identified by Boris Nicolaevsky).

49. Rabochaia gazeta, no. 6, Sept. 22 (Oct. 5), 1911; Shaumian, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 1: 343-45. In the several Soviet accounts and collections of documents concerning Knuniants there is no mention of his conversion to Menshevism and his writings on likvidatorstvo. See, for example, Indzhikian, O. G., Bogdan Knuniants (Erevan, 1961), p. 238 Google Scholar; Indzhikian merely says that Knuniants made certain mistakes and “wavered on questions of party tactics” after his return to Baku. This is explained by “his very long absence from direct party work, his sick condition, and the influence of Reaction.” The same verdict is rendered in the preface to Knuniants, B. M., Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 1903-1911 gg. (Erevan, 1958), p. 9 Google Scholar.

50. Radin-Knuniants, B., “Odin iz itogov,” Nasha zaria, no. 5 (May 1911), p. 52Google Scholar.

51. Ibid., pp. 53-54.

52. Ibid., pp. 57-58.

53. Ibid., p. 59.

54. Radin-Knuniants, B., “Staroe i novoe (okonchanie),” Nasha saria, nos. 7-8 (1911), p. 39Google Scholar.

55. Radin-Knuniants, B., “Staroe i novoe,” Nasha zaria, no. 6 (1911), p. 22Google Scholar.

56. Nasha saria, nos. 7-8 (1911), pp. 34-35.

57. Ibid., p. 42.

58. Nasha zaria, no. 6 (1911), p. 18.

59. Martov was also aware of such a danger. He wrote to Potresov on lune 17, 1909: “Great care must be taken not to slip into a real ‘liquidationism’ of all elements of politics, and consequently of party-mindedness.” This letter is in the Nicolaevsky Collection at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, California. The citation is from Israel, Getzler, Martov: A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat (Cambridge, 1967), p. 125 Google Scholar

60. The Bolshevik members of the Baku Committee were S. G. Shaumian, A. S. Enukidze, V. M. Kasparov ( “Slava “), Kazi Magomed, A. I. Dogadov, M. A. Karagezov, S. T. Iakushev, and G. N. Azatian. Arutiunov gives only eight names for nine positions, which leads one to believe that the ninth position was held by the police spy, Miron Chernomazov. See Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 24, Oct. 18 (31), 1911; Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvizhenie, p. 100 Google Scholar. Chernomazov later worked in St. Petersburg on the newspaper Prdvda from May 1913 to February 1, 1914, when he was dismissed on suspicion of being a police agent. In November 1916 the Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDRP ordered all party organizations not to have relations with Chernomazov. He was arrested on March 7, 1917, by the new revolutionary government. See the article by M. Muranov in Pravda, no. 8, Mar. 14 (27), 1917, p. 2Google Scholar.

61. Some Bolsheviks, such as “Alesha” Dzhaparidze, were willing to invite all Social Democrats, regardless of their position on the underground organization, to join a united party. See Raevsky, A. M., Alesha Dzhaparidze: Politicheskii siluet (Baku, 1931), pp. 25–26 Google Scholar. Such “conciliationist” views were also expressed by Viktor Nogin on a visit to Baku in May 1910. But the “hard” Leninists, like Shaumian, were able to prevent such broad-based unity.

62. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 28-29, Nov. S (18), 1912.

63. Boris Ivanovich Nicolaevsky, who had arrived in Baku in September 1911, was a leading member of this conciliationist Menshevik group. He was willing to work with all factions, but the “hard” Leninist Shaumian refused to work with him. See interview with B. I. Nicolaevsky, no. 11, in the Menshevik Project, Columbia University, pp. 13-20.

64. Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvizhenie, p. 168 Google Scholar.

65. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 24, Oct. 18 (31), 1911.

66. When meetings were held in connection with the forthcoming AU-Russian Congress of Artisans, the Hkvidatory found that the Party Mensheviks refused to cooperate with them. Only after the Bolsheviks declined to work with the Party Mensheviks on certain projects did the latter reluctantly agree to join the Hkvidatory in some legal activities. See Priloshenie k no. 24 Golosa Sotsial-Demokrata, February 1911, p. 4.

67. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 26, Apr. 25 (May 8), 1912; Rabochaia gaseta, no. 7, Dec. 22, 1911 (Jan. 4, 1912).

68. Rabochaia gazeta, no. 7, Dec. 22, 1911 (Jan. 4, 1912) ; Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvishenie, p. 134 Google Scholar.

69. The resolution of the Baku organization was published in Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 23, Sept. 1, 1911; Shaumian, , Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 1: 340-41Google Scholar. See also G. A. Arutiunov, “Uchastie zakavkazskikh bol'shevistskikh organizatsii v podgotovke VI (Prazhskoi) Vserossiiskoi konferentsii RSDRP,” Teghekagir ( “Newsletter” of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR), 1957, no. 11, p. 92.

70. Rabochaia gazeta, no. 7, Dec. 22, 1911 (Jan. 4, 1912).

71. Another delegate from Baku, Dmitrii Stepanovich Egorov, was imprisoned and died before he could attend.

72. See the resolution passed by the conference of Bolshevik groups abroad, held in Paris, December 27-30, 1911: “Our duty is to support the unity between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks being established in Russian practice, examples of which are the organizations in Baku, Kiev, Ekaterinoslav, etc.” (cited in Arutiunov, Rabochee dvishenie, p. 107).

73. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 26, Apr. 25 (May 8), 1912.

74. Arutiunov, “Uchastie,” pp. 97-98.

75. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 26, Apr. 25 (May 8), 1912. This article, written by Stalin, is not included in his Sochineniia, but it has been published recently in Guliev and Strigunov, Rabochee dvizhenie v Azerbaidzhane, pp. 201-2. Arutiunov argues that Stalin's actions at this conference prove that at this time he was a “conciliationist” willing to merge the Bolshevik organization with the Menshevik organization, which was then led by likvidatory ﹛Rabochee dvizhenie, p. 201). In fact, the Baku Mensheviks were led by those moderates who were willing to cooperate with likvidatory while continuing to work within the underground party organization.

76. Arutiunov, , Rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 222–23Google Scholar. 77. Sotsial-Demokrat, no. 31, June 15 (28), 1913.

78. For a general discussion of the “revolutionary upsurge” in Russia on the eve of World War I see Leopold H. Haimson's seminal article, “The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917,” Slavic Revieiv, 23, no. 4 (December 1964): 619—42; 24, no. 1 (March 1965): 1-22. For a brief account of that period in Baku see Suny, Ronald Grigor, The Baku Commune, 1917-1918: Class and Nationality in the Russian Revolution (Princeton, 1972), pp. 51–58 Google Scholar.