Collective Action and Collective Violence in the Russian Labor Movement

Author(s): Diane Koenker

Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 443-448
Published 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 support@jstor.org.

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANE

KOENKER

CollectiveActionand CollectiveViolence
in the RussianLabor Movement

Historians
of theRussianlabormovement
have been slowlychipping
awayat
thestereotypes
aboutRussianworkerscreatedby generations
of intellectuals
quick to generalizefromeye-catching
impressions.
The resulthas been the
stereotyped,
bipolarworking
class.On theone handis the"peasantyokel"who
too frequently
resortsto theviolentand mindlessbehaviorindigenousto his
originalruralswamp.On the otherhand,we findthe skilledurbanworker,
a "half-literate
sometimes
intellectual,"
sometimes
a laboraristocrat
who disdainsto cooperatewithhis socialistmentors.'Daniel Brower'slook at labor
violenceattemptsto help reshapethe familiarstereotype
by exploringthe
forviolenceand byshowing
culturalrootsoftheRussianworker's
predilection
thatsuch behavioris less mindlessand morepoliticalthanits criticshave
the contoursand especiallythe freaccepted.By not adequatelyspecifying
withthe old imageof a
quencyof violence,however,he leavesus ultimately
Pugachevshchina
in the factories.Browerin effecttakes the pieces of the
thesame
stereotype
he haschippedawayandgluesthembackin approximately
pattern.
To clarify
theproblemofviolence,we mustdistinguish
betweencollective
violenceandcollective
action.Collectiveactionbyworkers
includesmutualaid
funds,cooperatives,
job placementbureaus,and politicalactionas well as
strikesand demonstrations.2
Collectiveviolenceis a subsetofcollectiveaction,
and somecollectiveactionspillsoverintocollective
violence,usuallyforsome
WesternEurope, Charles,Louise, and
good reason.For nineteenth-century
abouttheincidenceofcollecRichardTillyoffersomeprovocative
conclusions
tiveviolence:(1) mostcollectiveviolencein France,Italy,and Germanybetween1830and 1930grewout of collectiveactionsthatwerenotintrinsically
violent;(2) violenceresultedfromresistance
bya secondparty,ratherthanat
actionsinthisperiod
ofcollective
theoutsetoftheaction;(3) thegreatmajority
is farmore
didnotendinviolence.3
Eventhoughevidenceaboutthesematters
forRussiathanforWesternEurope,thefindings
problematic
bytheTillysput
in doubt.
Brower'sconclusions
of
The mostimportant
questionin assessingtheso-calledviolentcharacter
incidents
ofviolence.The specific
to thefrequency
theRussianworkerpertains
in 1902, quoted in WilliamH. Chamberlin,
1. The language is fromPrinceSviatopolk-Mirskii
The Russian Revolution,vol. 1 (New York, 1965), p. 263. See also G. V. Plekhanov, Russkie
dvizhenii,in Sochineniia,vol. 3 (Moscow-Leningrad,1928). For pertirabochie v revoliutsionnom
nent criticismof these views, see, forexample, Pamela Sears McKinsey, "From City Workersto
Peasantry:The Beginningsof the Russian Movement 'To the People,"' Slavic Review, 38, no. 4
(December 1979): 629-49 and Allan K. Wildman,The Making of a Workers'Revolution(Chicago,
1967).
2. Charles Tilly, From Mobilizationto Revolution(Reading, Mass., 1978), pp. 90-91.
3. Charles Tilly, Louise Tilly, RichardTilly, The Rebellious Century,1830-1930 (Cambridge,
Mass., 1975), pp. 248-49.

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Slavic Review

444

did occur,of course,butjudgments

as to
ofviolence,looting,and destruction
observtheirtypicality
mustreston thecontradictory
statements
ofgovernment
workers.The factory
ers and disapproving
inspectorGvozdovfindsviolence
A completeenuinfrequent;
thegendarmeVoronovsaysit is commonplace.4
oftheincidents
actionand collective
meration
ofcollective
violencewouldend
RobertJohnson,
ourdependenceon suchimpressions.
whohas made a count
forMoscowprovinceas thoroughly
as hissourcespermit,
findsthattheproportionofviolencein theMoscowregionis small.5I failto see the"evidence"that
to
Browerthinkssuggests
that"violenceremaineda constantin laboractivity
theend of thecentury."
Let us assume,however,thatwe can determine
withsomeconfidence
the
relativefrequency
of labor violencein Russia. The nextstep is to specify
thatemerge
changing
patterns
and to lookforunderlying
causes.The patterns
will,as Browersuggests,
provideinsight
intothementaliteof Russianfactory
workersand others.Browersuggests
thatthereis a distinguishable
difference
between"traditional
protest"whichsoughtstateintervention
and a newertype
whichdirectly
ofprotest
attackedthefactory
capitalsystem
and,byextension,
ism.The distinction
eludesme.The commonthreadofhisexamplesandofmost
ofa three-way
divisionof
laborprotestknownto meis thecontinuing
existence
interests
amonglabor,management,
and state.Is it truethatworkerssought
inthe1880sandlaterignoredthestateinfavor
stateaid againsttheiremployers
If so, whydo thepolicebecomesuchpopular
of directattackson factories?
The examplesBrowercitessuggestthatthefactory
targets?
systemremaineda
theperiod.Wherethenis a changein consciousness?
targetthroughout
To use theevidenceofcollective
violencefully,historians
mustrigorously
examinethespecifics
oftheexamples.Whatprovokedviolenceineachcase? In
the 1885strikeat theMorozovfactory,
workstoppage"suddenly
an "orderly
intoa riot.Why?Surelytheriotersmusthavebeenresponding
to
degenerated
some actioneitherby government
(police?) or management.The specific
provocationmightexplainthe directionand scope of the riot. One might
to focus
logically
expectviolencestemming
fromdisputesoverwageaccounting
on thefactory
at thelocationoftheperceivedabuse.6One might
bookkeeper,
also expecta spinners'strikeopposedby thehigherpaid weaversto resultin
violentdestruction
thatwould forcethe weaversto "strike"too.7 Careful
examination
mightrevealwhetherRussianviolencewas markedby wanton
or whetherit showedthe sameunderlying
and relative
destruction
selectivity
restraint
thatE. P. Thompsonhas foundin the eighteenth-century
English
crowd.8
4. See Brower's note 5.
5. Robert Eugene Johnson,Peasantand Proletarian:The WorkingClass of Moscow in theLate
NineteenthCentury(New Brunswick,N.J., 1979).
6. See William M. Reddy, "Skeins, Scales, Discounts, Steam, and other Objects of Crowd
Justicein Early FrenchTextile Mills," ComparativeStudiesin Societyand History,21, no. 2 (April
1979): 204-13.
7. According to E. J. Hobsbawm, in England, "wreckingwas simplya technique of trade
unionismin the period before,and duringthe early phases of, the IndustrialRevolution" (Hobsbawm, Labouring Men [Garden City,N.Y., 1967], p. 11).
8. E. P. Thompson, "The Moral Economy of the EnglishCrowd in the EighteenthCentury,"
Past and Present,no. 50 (February 1971): 76-136.

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CollectiveAction, CollectiveViolence

445

Whenthe particulars
of theseincidentsare clarified,
thenperhapsthe
patternsthatdelineateworking-class
consciousness
will become clear. The
Tillys,forexample,findgenerallythreetypesof collectiveviolenceamong
workersin the nineteenth
century:competitive
(amonggroupsof workers),
reactive(in defenseofrights
takenaway),and"proactive"
(to winnewrights
or
concessions).'The samecategories
can applyto Russia.Workersand peasants
offighting
indeedhada tradition
amongthemselves;
thisis notuniquetoRussia.
The widelyreported
kulachnye
boi parallelthetradition
offighting
amongrival
sectsof Frenchcompagnonsor traveling
artisans.'0
There is no doubtthat
competition
amonggroupsofRussianworkers,
sometimes
leadingto violence,
remainedan important
sourceof tensionwell into the twentieth
century.
Reactivecollective
action(anditsviolentsubset)wasfarmorecommonevenup
to 1917thanmanyobservers
concede.Mostofthefewcasesofworkers'
seizure
of factoriesin 1917 can be classifiedas defensiveactionintendedto keep
factories
and jobs going.I wouldfurther
suggestthattheincidents
ofviolence
towardforemen
mightalso represent
defensive
behaviorratherthanthedawningofnewclassconsciousness.
Perhapsthenewauthority
offoremen
challenged
an established
ofpowerwithin
pattern
factories,
whereworkwasperformed
by
teams(artels)hiredby worker-leaders.11
Thus,violencetowardsupervisors,
whileimportant,
was not necessarily
the sign of class consciousnessnewly
or of "proactive"
collective
action.Suchcollectiveactionmayhave
triumphant
butthisevoluprovidedtheseedbedfortheevolutionof a newconsciousness,
tionproceededbywayofinteraction
withtheideasofintellectuals
andworkerintellectuals.
Becauseofthisinteraction,
andnotbecauseoftheinnatesocialism
of the mirthe workershad leftbehind,the consciousness
of manyRussian
workerswas by 1917profoundly
socialist.'2
A further
areathatmustbe clarified
tounderstand
themeaning
ofcollective
of theparticipants.
violencein Russiais theidentity
Brower'sanswerto the
intextilefactories,
Someexamplesofviolenceoccurred
questionis inconclusive.
othersin mines,stillothersin metalplants.The consensusof contemporary
opinionwas thatthe rioterswerepeasantmigrants,
disruptedfromfamiliar
The imageoftheunwashed
villagelife,"youthtornawayfromtheirfamilies."
thesparkof revoltis a popularone, butis supported
peasant-worker
carrying
evidence.Manyworkerslefttheirvillagesto workin
onlyby circumstantial
and at thesametimetherewerestrikes,
factories,
unrest,and violence.'3But
werethemostuprootedworkers?
andrioters
howdo we knowthatthestrikers
9. Tilly, Tilly, and Tilly, Rebellious Century,pp. 249-50.

Memoires
d'un Compagnon
(Moulins,1914);WilliamH. Sewell,Jr.,
10. AgricolPerdiguier,

Workand Revolutionin France: The Language of Labor fromtheOld Regimeto 1848 (Cambridge,

1980),pp. 40-61.
11. Thereis a suggestion
of thisin HeatherHogan,"Conciliation
Boardsin Revolutionary
Petrograd,"
RussianHistory
(forthcoming).
ofsuchinteraction
in Ideologyand PopularProtest
12. GeorgeRudestresses
theimportance
and the1917
in 1917,see Diane Koenker,MoscowWorkers
(New York,1980).On consciousness
Revolution
(Princeton,
1981),pp. 362-64.
ofthe1980
pp. 44-45.Earlyreporting
13. Thisviewis discussed
inKoenker,MoscowWorkers,
strikesin the Gdanskshipyards
made the same familiar
claim.Gdanskemployedmanynew
and unrest.Similarly,
labelingLech Walesaan "unemmigrants,
whichled to socialbreakdown
thancorrectly
makeshimseema muchmoresociallymarginal
character
calling
ployedelectrician"
hima "blacklisted
electrician."

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

446

Slavic Review

The vastbulkofempirical
studieson thisquestion,including
myownworkon
1917 in Moscow,suggeststhatsocial breakdowndoes not lead to collective
violence,and, in fact,the "rioters"usuallyturnout to be the leastuprooted
14 Whenmigrant
didengageincollective
members
ofsociety.
workers
actionsuch
as strikes,
theywereable to mobilizeoftenbecauseoftheirpriorzemliachestvo
ties.Theydid notrevoltbecausetheyhad losttheirrootsand wereno longer
subjectto socialcontrol.'5
Browerconcedesthispointlaterwhenhe identifies
at least some of the
rebelsas experiencedworkers.It would be interesting
to know,however,
whetherone typeof workerwas disproportionately
involvedin the violent
If it is truethat
subsetof collectiveaction.Let me suggestsomepossibilities.
weredisproportionately
ruralmigrants
involvedin violence,thenperhapsthe
old theoriesaboutsocialbreakdown
and anomiecausingrevolution
are correct
afterall. If theriotersas wellas collectiveactivists
tendedto be moreexperienced workers,drawingon traditional
patternsof protestto articulatenew
thenwe mustlookforother,morepoliticalexplanations
ofviolence
grievances,
and unrest.In the latterpart of his article,Browerindeed suggeststhat
likethisis at work:therewas an underlying
something
politicallogiceven to
Butuntilwe havespecific
informaepisodesofviolenceinRussianlaborhistory.
tionaboutparticipants
andinformation
aboutcollective
violenceamongthemawhowereemployedin smallworkshops
ratherthan
jorityof Russianworkers
thisviolenceas classconsciousness.
itwillbe difficult
to characterize
factories,
toBrower'scontention
oftherevolutionism
andconsciousVeryimportant
nessoflaborviolenceis thefactthatsuchviolenceappearsto havediminished
intheearlytwentieth
someworkers
in 1917,for
significantly
century.
Although
to hauloutunlovedsupervisors
inwheelbarrows
and dump
example,continued
inunpleasant
themunceremoniously
than
places,theseactsweremoresymbolic
inthecultural
violent.(In fact,scholarsinterested
ofworking-class
components
woulddo well to explorethe originand symbolicmeaningof this
mentality
workers
turnedtoorganizedprocedures
widespread
practice.)Morecommonly,
fordealingwiththesegrievances:
strikes.'6
negotiations,
arbitration,
of
Whydidviolencedisappear?Partofthereasonis surelybetterreporting
butmyguessis thatworkerslearnedbyexperiencethat
nonviolent
incidents,
As workers
violencewas essentially
unproductive.
gainedcollectiveexperience
in the industrial
less costly
world,theylearnedto use othermoreefficient,
thentheworker-intellecmethods
to achievetheirends.17 Ifmyguessis correct,
whodeploredviolencewerenotimposing
tualslikeKanatchikov
andBabushkin
butwereinfacthelping
theirownidealistic
viewoftheworldon theircomrades,
to focustheircomrades'angeron morerealizableand permanent
goals.
14. M. Tugan-Baranovskiioffersevidence thatyouthswere not "torn" fromtheirnativesoil;
theyeagerlytraveledto jobs in the big cities (Tugan-Baranovskii,Russkaia fabrika v proshlom i
nastoiashchem[Moscow, 1922], p. 388). See also Tilly, Tilly, and Tilly, Rebellious Century,
pp. 251-52.
15. See Johnson,Peasant and Proletarian,pp. 75-79 and Koenker, Moscow Workers,p. 49.
16. The intensityof the grievances,as well as nonviolentways of articulatingthem, are
admirablydocumentedin Hogan, "ConciliationBoards."
17. David Snyderand WilliamR. Kelly, "IndustrialViolence in Italy, 1878-1903," American
Journal of Sociology,82, no. 1 (1976): 131-62, reportviolent strikeswere much less likely to
succeed than nonviolentones.

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CollectiveAction, CollectiveViolence

447

A similardisappearance
ofviolenceinFranceinthenineteenth
century
has
beenexplainedbya shift
intheforms
oforganization
fromthecompagnonnage,
withitstradition
of intraclass
rivalry,
to themutualaid society,with'itstraditionalfocuson solidarity.18
inRussiaawayfromthe
Perhapsa similartransition
village-basedzemliachestva
of factoryworkerstowarda factory-based
or
community-centered
workforcealso affected
thecharacter
ofcollectiveaction.
The GuzhonmetalplantinMoscow,forexample,hireditsworkers
through
such
villagenetworks,
as did mostfactories.In the 1870s,Guzhonworkerswere
knownto engagein massbrawlson theice of theMoscowriverwithworkers
froma neighboring
textile
factory,
andinthe1880s,Guzhonworkers
resorted
to
theirfiststo settlegrievances
withmanagers.
But by1905,perhapsbecausethe
factorylabor forcehad based itselfmoresecurelyaroundthe factorythan
aroundthezemliachestvo,
similar
disputes
weresettledbystrikes
ratherthanby
violence.19
Urbanforms
oforganization
probably
minimized
thedivisiveness
of
zemliakloyaltiesand in so doingpreparedworkersto engage in typesof
collectiveactionthatrequiredmore planningand cooperation.The more
urbanized
theworkforce,thelessprevalent
wouldbe violentforms
ofcollective
action.
The issue of labor violenceis an important
one and deservesrigorous
examination.
thecultural
andpsychological
Byclarifying
as wellas theeconomic
sourcesofRussianworkers'
otherissuescanbe reconsidered.
For
consciousness,
determined
who in factwas contributing
example,if it can be finally
to the
violenceof thenineteenth
century
and whytheseviolentimpulseswereredirectedin otherchannelslateron, we mightbe able to judgetheefficacy
ofthe
tsarist
government's
nonurbanization
policyofthenineteenth
Governcentury.
mentofficials
encouragedthebuildingof factories
in thecountryside
to keep
riot-prone
peasant-workers
frombringing
theirviolenceto politically
sensitive
urbancenters.
Assuming
thatthekindofviolenceBrowerdescribes
wasmeasurin cities,thereare at leastthreeexplanations
foritsabsence:
ablylessfrequent
(1) thecitycivilizedmigrants
otheroutletsfortheirenergies(the
by offering
businessofdailylife,commuting,
taverns,
clubs,schools,libraries);(2) thecity
repressedviolencewithitshighconcentration
ofpolice;(3) thecityredirected
violentangerintorevolutionary
becauseof theproximity
of skilled
discipline
worker-leaders
andrevolutionary
intellectuals.
Forthegovernment,
thesethree
offertwoalternative
urbansettlement
could
explanations
policies.Encouraging
eitherbringlaborpeace through
a combination
ofrepression
and recreation
or
becausethecityorganized
workers
to mobilizetheir
endangerpoliticalstability
energiesratherthandissipatethemin wildorgiesof violence.
in1905and1917suggests
All thatwe knowaboutworkers
thatitwasindeed
theroleof thecityas organizer,
notas concentrator
of violentpeasants,that
knewwhatit
Thissuggests
thatthegovernment
producedtheurbanrevolution.
was doingin keepingthosethousands
ofpeasant-workers
outin Egorevskand
Orekhovo-Zuevo.
Fromthisperspective,
theoutbreaksof laborviolencethat
18. Ronald Aminzade, "The Transformationof Social Solidarities in Nineteenth-Century
Toulouse," in JohnM. Merriman,ed., Consciousnessand Class Experiencein Nineteenth-Century
Europe (New York, 1979), pp. 85-105.
19. I. Belousov, UshedshaiaMoskva (Moscow, 1927?), p. 91; A. Gaisinovich,"Pervyietap
rabochego dvizheniiana zavode 'Serp i Molot,"' IstoriiaproletariataSSSR, vol. 6 (1931), p. 159.

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Slavic Review

448

ofthegoverntheconfidence
Browerdescribesmighthaveservedto reinforce
mentin itspolicyof dispersal.
of a moresystemare intendedto stresstheimportance
These comments
andto
actionamongRussianworkers
studyofcollective
atic,lessimpressionistic
suggestthatwhereevidenceis scarce,posingquestionsbased on comparative
truethat"collective
violence
It is notnecessarily
examplescanproveinstructive.
evidenceof profoundsocial stress."Labor violencein Russian
constitutes
thecompleteandunchanging
characwhileintriguing,
doesnotreflect
factories,
issuessuch
awayfromcritical
teroftheRussianworkforceanddrawsattention
relations,workplacerelations,and the impactof
as labor-management-state
in
manifested
ofan innateworkerradicalism
urbanization.
Brower'ssuggestion
aboutthepowerof
myths
to dressup old Bakuninist
violenceservesultimately
in newculturalclothes.
peasantbuntarstvo

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

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions