Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:52:26.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Worker Opposition in the Russian Jewish Socialist Movement, from the 1890's to 19031

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Ezra Mendelsohn
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.

The emergence of nineteenth century socialism as a mass political movement required the cooperation of two distinct elements – a radical intelligentsia, and a working class whose interests the former purported to represent. In theory these two elements were to fuse into a harmonious whole, but in fact certain tensions arose, whether between trade union and party or between workers and intellectuals within the same organization. It is my intention to consider this problem within the context of the Russian Jewish socialist movement. Specifically, this entails an examination of the various forms of worker opposition to the leadership of the socialist “circles” of the 1880's and 1890's and to the leadership of the “General Jewish Labor Union in Russia and Poland” (the “Bund”), founded in 1897.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , August 1965 , pp. 268 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1965

References

page 268 note 2 For a discussion of this issue with regard to the Russian situation see Pipes, Richard, Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885–1897 (Cambridge, 1963)Google Scholar, and Geyer, Dietrich, Lenin in der russischen Sozialdemokratie (Cologne, 1962), pp. 80ff.Google Scholar

page 268 note 3 For general histories of the Russian Jewish socialist movement covering the period under discussion the reader may be referred to Rafes, M., Ocherki po istorii “Bunda” (Moscow, 1923)Google Scholar; Bukhbinder, Nahum A., Istoriia evreiskago rabochego dvizheniia v Rossii (Leningrad, 1925)Google Scholar; Hertz, Y.Sh, and others, ed., Di geshikhte fun Bund, Vol. I (New York, 1962).Google Scholar

page 268 note 4 Broadly speaking, the “Pale of Settlement” included the Ukraine and “New Russia”, the White Russian and Lithuanian Provinces, and the ten Provinces which constituted the area formerly known as the Kingdom of Poland. Certain privileged groups of Jews (such as first guild merchants) were allowed to settle outside the Pale, but for the Jewish masses it remained the most obvious mark of Russia's antisemitic policy.

page 269 note 1 For an examination of the economic condition of the Russian Jewish proletariat see Sbornik, materialov ob ekonomicheskom polozhenii evreev v Rossii (Petersburg, 1904), Vol. I, Part III, Vol. II, Part IV.Google Scholar

page 269 note 2 Gozhanskii, S., “Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie nachala 90-kh godov”, in: Dimanshtein, S. ed., Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie sredi evreev (Moscow, 1930), p. 83Google Scholar; T. M. Kopel'zon, “Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie kontsa 80-kh i nachala 90-kh godov”, ibid., p. 71.

page 269 note 3 In Homel and Minsk attempts were made to establish legal schools for the workers. See E.A.Gurvich, “Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie v Minske v 80-kh gg.”, ibid., p. 37, and Levin, Sholem, “Di ershte yorn fun der revolutsie”, in: Royte bleter, I (Minsk, 1929), p. 3Google Scholar; for the general characteristics of the circles see also Zhenie Hurvitsh, “Di ershte propagandistishe kraizl”, ibid., p. 3; Martov, Iu., Zapiski sotsialdemokrata (Berlin, 1922), pp. 182ffGoogle Scholar; Gurvich, I., “Pervye evreiskie rabochie kruzhki”, in: Byloe, No. 6 (06 1907), pp. 65–77Google Scholar; Presman, Azriel, Der durkhgegangener veg (New York, 1950), pp. 27–28Google Scholar; Gordon, Avrom, In friling fun vilner yidisher arbeterbavegung (Vilna, 1926), pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

page 269 note 4 See, for example, “Voprosy (zaniatiia v vilenskikh s.-d. rabochikh kruzhakh)”, in: Sh. Agursky, Di sotsialistishe literatur of yidish in 1875–1897 (Minsk, 1935), pp. 392–391.Google Scholar

page 269 note 5 Bernshtein, Leon, Ershte shprotsungen (Buenos Aires, 1956), p. 64.Google Scholar

page 269 note 6 Kopel'zon, op. cit., p. 72.

page 270 note 1 Ibid.; Gordon, op. cit., p. 20; Bernshtein, op. cit, p. 68; Levin, Sholem, Untererdishe kemfer (New York, 1946), pp. 104, 107Google Scholar; I. Gurvich, op. cit., p. 72; Martov, op. cit., p. 228.

page 270 note 2 Kopel'zon, op. cit., p. 72.

page 270 note 3 Pervoe maia 1892 goda. Chetyre rechi evreiskikh rabochikh (Geneva, 1893), p. 10.Google Scholar

page 270 note 4 Martov, op. cit., p. 227.

page 270 note 5 Bernshtein, op. cit., pp. 68–69; Kopel'zon, op. cit., p. 78; Mikhalevitsh, B., Zikhroynes fun a yidishen sotsialist, I (Warsaw, 1921), p. 32Google Scholar; Martov, op. cit., p. 223. In Minsk some of the “circle” members bought shops and set themselves up as employers. One of the first strikes in the city was directed against one such worker turned employer; see E. A. Gurvich, op. cit., p. 57.

page 270 note 6 Ibid., p. 43. See also the description of Jewish workers who went about “… with a Russian book under their arms and the Russian language on their lips …” in Mikhalevitsh, op. cit., p. 32.

page 271 note 1 Gozhanskii, op. cit., pp. 83 ff; Martov, op. cit., pp. 224ff. The two basic texts advocating the new tactic of “agitation” are Kremer's, Arkady “Ob agitats” (written in 1893 and first published in Geneva in 1897)Google Scholar and Gozhanskii's, S. “A briv tsu di agitatorn” (probably written at the end of 1893)Google Scholar. The latter brochure is published in Historishe shriftn, Vol. III (Paris-Vilna 1939), pp. 626–648.Google Scholar

page 271 note 2 Gordon's writings from this period are collected in his In friling fun vilner yidisher arbeter-bavegung, op. cit. For description of the Vilna “opposition” see Bernshtein, op. cit., pp. 151–159; (David Zaslavskii), P.P., “Di oppositsie fun 1893 yor”, in: Di hofnung, No. 14 (22 09-8 10, 1907), p. 4Google Scholar; Gozhanskii, op. cit., p. 85; Martov, op. cit., pp. 229 ff; Mill, John, Pioneren un boyer, I (New York, 1946), pp. 101–105Google Scholar; Blum, Hillel Katz, Zikhroynes fun a bundist (New York, 1940), pp. 32ff.Google Scholar

page 271 note 3 Gordon, op. cit., p. 12.

page 271 note 4 Ibid., p. 45.

page 272 note 1 Martov, op. cit., p. 230.

page 272 note 2 Botvinik, H., “Di vilner may-demonstratsie in 1902 yor”, in: Hirsh Lekert, tsum 20-tn yortsayt fun zayn kepung (Moscow, 1922), pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

page 272 note 3 For Minsk see Levin, Untererdishe kemfer, op. cit., pp. 102–104, and Khanke Kopele-vitsh, “Der onheyb fun kamf”, in: Royte bleter, op. cit., p. 4. On Homel see Bukhbinder, , ”Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie v Gomele 1890–1905 gg.”, in: Krasnaia letopis', No. 2–3 (1922), p. 42Google Scholar, and for Brest-Litovsk see Mikhalevitsh, op. cit., p. 21.

page 272 note 4 On the Bialystok “Group” see B. Eidel'man, , “K istorii vozniknovedena rossiiskoi sots.-dem. part”, in: Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, No. 1 (1921) p. 35Google Scholar; Gel'man, S., “Pervaia podpol'naia typografiia grupy ‘rabochee znamia’”, in: Katorga i ssylka, No. 6 (27) (1926), p. 46Google Scholar; Mikhalevitsh, op. cit., p. 44; Gershanovich, David, “O Moise Vladimiroviche Lur'e”, in: K dvadtsatpiatiletiiu pervogo s'ezda partii (1898–1923) (Moscow-Petrograd, 1923), pp. 166–174.Google Scholar

page 272 note 5 The quotation is from (Rosenthal), P. An-man, “Der bialystoker period in lebn fun tsentral komitet fun bund (1900–1902)”, in: Royter pinkes, I (Warsaw, 1921), p. 52Google Scholar. See also A. Lev, “Pervye shagi evreiskago rabochego dvizhenüa v g. Grodno”, in: Dimanshtein, op. cit., pp. 268–273 Akimov-Makhnovets, V., “Stroiteli budushchago”, in: Obrazo-vanie, No. 4 (1907), p. 115Google Scholar; “Di arbeterbavegung in Grodno”, in: Di letzte pasirungen, No. 14 (25 July, 1905), p. 3Google Scholar; Szaszkewicz, Bronislaw, “Organizacja grodień'ska P.P.S. w latach 1898–1910”, in: Niepodległośé, Vol. XVI (09-10 1937), pp. 513ff.Google Scholar

page 273 note 1 Bukhbinder, , “Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie v Minske”, in: Krasnaia letopis', No. 5 (1923), p. 131.Google Scholar

page 273 note 2 For a list of Gozhanskii's popular brochures see Hertz, op. cit., p. 98. Feuilletons touch ing on various aspects of worker life appeared in the local Bundist press.

page 273 note 3 This was the basic organizational pattern, though certain differences did exist from city to city. See Aronson, G., “Tsu der geshikhte fun der sotsialistisher un arbeter bavegung”, in Vitebsk amol (New York, 1956), p. 302Google Scholar; Medem, Vladimir, Fun mayn leben, I (New York, 1923), pp. 199 ff (Minsk)Google Scholar; An-man, op. cit., pp. 46ff (Bialystok); “Di arbeterbave-gung in Grodno”, op. cit.; “Ustav rabochei organizatsii”, in: Rafes, op. cit., pp. 315–326 (Vilna); “Konstruktsiia partiinoi organizatsii ‘bunda’”, ibid., pp. 326–328 (Kovno); ”Gomel'skoe rabochee dvizhenie”, in: Agursky, op. cit., p. 360.

page 273 note 4 See, for example, An-man, op. cit., p. 47, and Medem, op. cit., p. 200. Abramovitch, R. comments in his memoirs that “None of the workers … know our [the intellectuals] real names and addresses.” R. Abramovitch, In tsvey revolutsies, Vol. I (New York, 1944), p. 64.Google Scholar

page 274 note 1 For a statistical study of the Jewish strike movement see Borochov, Ber, “Tenuat ha-poalim ha-yehudit be-misparim”, in: Levita, L., and Ben-Nahum, D., eds., Borochov, Ketavim, Vol. II (Tel-Aviv, 1958), pp. 260–320.Google Scholar

page 274 note 2 izvestiia, Poslednaia, No. 91 (25 Oct. 1902).Google Scholar

page 274 note 3 Der bialystoker arbeter, No. 1 (April, 1899), p. 15Google Scholar. For other examples see Arbeter Bletel (Minsk), No. 8 (Aug. 1897), in: Historishe shriftn, op. cit., p. 743; Levin, “Di ershte yorn fun revolutsie”, op. cit., p. 5; M. Daitch, “Vegn mayn revolutsionerer arbet”, in: Royte bleter, op. cit., p. 3; “Unzer arbet in berditsheverzhitomirer svive rayon”, in: Di arbeter shtime, No. 37 (June, 1904), p. 15Google Scholar; “Der mord fun a loynketnik in Bialystok”, in: Der idisher arbeter, No. 7 (August, 1899), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

page 274 note 4 Rafes, , “Girsh Lekert i ego pokushenie”, in: Krasnyi arkhiv, II (XV) (1926), p. 89.Google Scholar

page 274 note 5 In the feuilliton “A brief tsu Berel'n”, in: Der bund, No. 1 (Jan., 1904)Google Scholar, the main character is very fond of the old terrorist heroes: “Each was engraved in his heart, each did he invest with the highest qualities…”

page 274 note 6 Der idisher arbeter, No. 12 (1901), p. 98.Google Scholar

page 274 note 7 flug-bletel, Minsker, No. 5 (March, 1902).Google Scholar

page 275 note 1 “Vos darfen mir ton gegen shtraykbrekher?”, in: Der freyheytsglok, No. 2 (April, 1902), p. 5Google Scholar. See also “Di arbeter bavegung un der terror”, in: Di arbeter shtime, No. 14 (1899), pp. 1–4Google Scholar; “Vegen bruns shrayk”, in: Der klasen-kamf, No. 4 (April, 1901), p. 2Google Scholar; “Unzer 10-ter tsuzammenfor”, in: Der veker, No. 8–9 (March, 1902), p. 2.Google Scholar

page 275 note 2 Khatovitsh, Y.A., “Dos vos ikh veys vegn Hirsh Lekert”Google Scholar, in: Hirsh Lekert…, op. cit., p. 13.

page 275 note 3 See the accounts in Isak Mitskin, “Di vilner organizatsie fun bund un Lekerts atentat”, ibid., pp. 42–46; Bentse Levin, “Di 5-te konferents fun ‘bund’, zikhroynes”, ibid., pp. 58–60; Hertz, , Hirsh Lekert (New York, 1952), pp. 43 ffGoogle Scholar. The text of the resolution on “organized vengeance” is published in Hertz, Di geshikhte …, op. cit., pp. 245–246.

page 275 note 4 See Medem, op. cit., pp. 315 ff. For the Foreign Committee's point of view see the brochure K voprosu o terrorisme (London, 1903). The resolution of the Bund's fifth congress is published in V-yi s'ezd vseobshchago evreiskago rabochago souiza v Litve i Pol'she i Rossii (London, 1903), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

page 275 note 5 Botvinik, op. cit., p. 45.

page 275 note 6 Its program (“Programma rizhskoi sotsial-demokraticheskoi boevoi organizatsii”) is published in Bukhbinder, Istorüa …, op. cit., pp. 262–264.

page 275 note 7 Der bund, No. 3 (April, 1904), p. 9.Google Scholar

page 276 note 1 Yasni, Volf A., Geshikhte fun der yidisher arbeter bavegung in Lodz (Lodz, 1937), pp. 214–215.Google Scholar

page 276 note 2 Shtufler, Benjamin, “Tsvey pioneren fun der revolutsionerer arbeter-bavegung in Bialystok”, in: Frank, H., and others, eds., Natsionale un politishe bavegungen ba yidn in Bialystok, I (New York, 1951), p. 53.Google Scholar See also Belostokhanin, , “Iz istorii anarkhicheskago dvizhenüa v Belostoke”, in: Almanakh, Sbornik po istorii anarkhicheskago dvizheniia v Rossii, I (Paris, 1909), pp. 5–28.Google Scholar

page 276 note 3 A.M. Ginsburg (Naumov), “Nachalnie shagi vitebskogo rabochego dvizheniia”, in: Dimanshtein, op. cit., p. 112.

page 276 note 4 “O konspiratsie” (1902)Google Scholar, published in Bukhbinder, “Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie v Gomele”, op. cit., pp. 80–81.

page 276 note 5 See Rafes, Ocherki …, op. cit., pp. 80–81, for the text.

page 276 note 6 Hertz, , Di geshikhte fun bund in Lodz (New York, 1958), p. 78Google Scholar. An account of the changes wrought by the new organizational tactics on the local level (in this case in Grodno) is given in Akimov-Makhnovets, op. cit., p. 115.

page 276 note 7 Bukhbinder, “Evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie v Minske”, op. cit., pp. 144–145.

page 277 note 1 An alter bekanter (Pesakhson), “Der onheyb fun der yidisher arbeter-bavegung in Lodz”, in: Royter pinkes, Vol. II (Warsaw, 1924), p. 161Google Scholar. For a typical example of this tactic see the proclamation “Ko vsem grodneskim rabochim i rabotnitsam”, published in Dimanshtein, op. cit., pp. 278–279. The proclamation attacks, in turn, the employer, the police, and the factory inspector, leading up to an attack on the autocracy.

page 277 note 2 Gozhanskii, op. cit., pp. 86–87; Martov, op. cit., pp. 193–194; Mill, op. cit., p. 86.

page 277 note 3 Tsu alle vilna'r arbeter un arbeterinen (Nov. 1897).

page 277 note 4 Ko vsem rabochim i rabotnitsam (Mohilev, 1903)Google Scholar; Levin, Untererdishe kemfer, op. cit., pp. 97–98 (Minsk); Mikhalevitsh, op. cit., p. 22 (Brest-Litovsk); Der idisher arbeter, No. 4–5 (Nov., 1897), pp. 26–27 (Bialystok).Google Scholar

page 277 note 5 See Tsh., , “Di lage fun di minsker handl-ongeshtelte in di 80-ker yorn”, in: Tsaytshrift, IV (Minsk, 1930), pp. 133–135Google Scholar; “Gomel'skoe rabochee dvizhenie”, op. cit., pp. 362–361. The dates of the petitions are 1889 (Minsk) and 1894 (Homel).

page 278 note 1 The petition, originally written in Russian, is published in Yiddish in Yeshurin, Yefim, ed., Vilne, a zamlbukh gevidmet der shtot Vilne (New York, 1935), pp. 133–134.Google Scholar

page 278 note 2 Der veker, No. 5 (May, 1900), p. 6Google Scholar. See also Listok'rabotnika', No. 6 (Feb. 1898), p. 18Google Scholar, for the use of this tactic in Bialystok.

page 278 note 3 Poslednaia izvestiia, No. 83 (28 Aug., 1902).Google Scholar

page 278 note 4 See, for example, Tsu alle bialystoker arbeter un arbeterinen (Nov., 1903)Google Scholar; Der idisher arbeter, No. 1 (1898), p. 46Google Scholar; “Fabriksinspektsion”, in: Der varshaver arbeter, No. 5 (Aug., 1900), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

page 278 note 5 Di arbeter shtime, No. 4–5 (Sept., 1897), pp. 11, 14.Google Scholar

page 278 note 6 “Materialy dlia kharakteristiki rabochego dvizheniia nashego goroda Vilny za poslednie 4–5 let (sobrany v 1895 g.)”, in: Agursky, op. cit., p. 416; Di arbeter shtime, No. 22 (March, 1901), p. 8Google Scholar; Listok, “rabotnika”, No. 2 (Dec, 1892), p. 3Google Scholar; Rabotnik, , No. 3 & 4 (1897), p. 91Google Scholar. According to this last source, during a strike in Vilkovishki the inspector ”Officially … warned the workers on breaking their terms, but in a private letter to the factory owner he persuaded him to satisfy the just demands of the workers.”

page 278 note 7 Pesakhson, op. cit., p. 161.

page 279 note 1 An-man, op. cit., p. 65.

page 279 note 2 “Vi kumt an arbeter tsu politik”, in: Der varshaver arbeter, No. 7–8 (May, 1901), p. 1.Google Scholar

page 279 note 3 Poslednaia izvestiia, No. 135 (9 July, 1903).Google Scholar

page 279 note 4 On the Zubatov movement see Ainzaft, S., Zubatovshchina i Gaponovshchina (Moscow, 1925).Google Scholar

page 279 note 5 The above account is based on a typescript of a lecture read in the Zubatov “fereins” (unions) in Minsk. The typescript, signed “Gruppa soznatel'nykh rabochikh”, is available in the Bund Archives, New York City. See also Zubatov's comments in Zaslavskii, D., “Zubatov i Mania Vilbushevits”, in: Byloe, No. 3 (31) (03, 1918), pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

page 280 note 1 Mikhalevitsh, op. cit., Vol. II (Warsaw, 1912), p. 14Google Scholar. It should be pointed out that Zubatovism in Minsk attracted not only workers but socialist intellectuals as well. To these intellectuals it held out the enticing prospect of participating in a mass legal movement dedicated to the economic and cultural welfare of the working class. The defection of some Bundist intellectuals to the “Independent” camp has been stressed by S. M. Shvarts in his controversy with la. Sh. Gerts concerning the relationship between the Bund and the “Independents”. See Shvarts, S. M., Menshevizm i bol'shevizm v ikh otnoshenii k massovomu rabochemu dvizhenii (New York, no date), pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar, and Gerts, Ia.Sh., and Shvarts, S.M., Zubatovshchina v Minske (New York, 1962)Google Scholar, especially Shvarts, , “Otvet Gertsu”, pp. 6 ffGoogle Scholar. Whatever the exact nature of this relationship, it is clear that the doctrine of legalism, by reserving a place for disaffected Bundist intellectuals, succeeded in transcending the limitations of a purely worker protest movement and came to offer a viable alternative to “Bundism”.

page 280 note 2 Frumkin, B., “Zubatovshchina i evreiskoe rabochee dvizhenie”, in: Perezhitoe, III (1911), pp. 212–215Google Scholar; “Novoe o Zubatovshchine”, in: Krasnyi arkhiv, I (1922), pp. 527–328Google Scholar; Zaslavskii, “Zubatov …”, op. cit., pp. 100 ff. The Manifesto of the “Independents” is published in Bukhbinder, , “Nezavisimaia evreiskaia rabochaia partiia”, in: Krasnaia letopis', No. 2–3 (1922), pp. 222–223.Google Scholar

page 280 note 3 Der karnf, No. 1 (Sept., 1900), p. 16.Google Scholar

page 281 note 1 Der bund, No. 2 (Match, 1904), pp. 8–9Google Scholar. For evidence of Zubatov's influence elsewhere see ibid., (Mohilev); An-man, op. cit., pp. 51–52 (Bialystok and Grodno); Mikhalevitsh, op. cit., II, p. 9 (among bristle makers); Bukhbinder, , “O zubatovshchine”, in: Krasnaia letopis', IV (1922), p. 319 (Bobruisk).Google Scholar

page 281 note 2 Bukhbinder, “Nezavisimaia …”, op. cit., p. 212.

page 281 note 3 Arbets-mark, , No. 8 (Feb., 1903)Google Scholar. See also Bukhbinder, “O Zubatovshchine”, op. cit., p. 327; Bukhbinder, “Nezavisimaia …”, op. cit., p. 258; B.Frumkin, op. cit., pp. 222–223.

page 281 note 4 Protokol-bukh fun ferein fun di stoliers, Minsk, Dets. 1902–2 Yuli 1903, available in the Bund Archives. See the minutes of 30 Dec, 1902, 13 Jan., 1903.

page 281 note 5 “Novoe o zubatovshchine”, op. cit., pp. 317–318; “Minskim rabochim i rabotnitsam” (Aug., 1901)Google Scholar, published in Bukhbinder, “Nezavisimaia …”, op. cit., p. 247. The Manifesto of the “Independents” announced that the Party would be run on a democratic basis. See ibid., p. 243.

page 282 note 1 See Tsu alle yidishe arbeter un arbeterinen (July, 1903), announcing the Party's intention to end its existence. This followed a similar proclamation, Tsu unzere parteygenossen (Feb., 1903), which noted the failure of the “Independents” to take root in Vilna, a failure caused largely by the strength of the Bund in that city.