Formerly an Iranian possession, the Caspian port of Baku was finally ceded to the Russian Tsars in 1806.1 Its population grew from a mere 15000 in 1875 to more than 334000 in 1913,2 an increase mainly attributable to the development of the oil industry with which Baku quickly became synonymous. Systematic drilling began during the 1870s: by the turn of the century the surrounding oil fields were producing more than those of the entire United States.3 This period of remarkable growth was, however, followed by a serious and prolonged contraction. Output dropped by 11 per cent between 1901 and 1903 and took a further dive in 1905. There was to be no substantial improvement before the First World War — production levels in 1913 had still not surpassed those attained during 1901, allowing Russia’s American competitors to forge ahead.4


Trade Union Party Member Russian Worker Bomb Attack Railway Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    For background on Baku and the Caucasus region see the following works: R. G. Suny, The Baku Commune 1917–1918 — Class and Nationality in the Russian Revolution (Princeton, 1972);Google Scholar
  2. and ‘A Journeyman for the Revolution: Stalin and the Labour Movement in Baku, June 1907–May 1908’, in Soviet Studies, 23, no. 3 (1972), pp. 373–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. G. A. Arutyunov, Rabochee dvizhenie v Zakavkaz’e v period novogo revolyutsionnogo pod’ema, 1910–1914gg (Moscow and Baku, 1963);Google Scholar
  4. Filipp Makharadze, Ocherki revolyutsionnogo dvizheniya v Zakavkaz’e (Tiflis, 1927).Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Arutyunov, Rabochee dvizhenie v Zakavkaz’e, pp. 34, 56; Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 7.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 4.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    Suny, The Baku Commune, pp. 6, 50; ‘A Journeyman for the Revolution’, pp. 375–6; Lane, Roots of Russian Communism, p. 177.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Lane, Roots of Russian Communism, p. 176.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    The following table is based on information in B. Ya. Stel’nik, ‘Ar’ergardnye boi Bakinskogo proletariat v 1907 godu’, in Azerbaidzhan v gody pervoi russkoi revolyutsii (sbornik statei) (Baku, 1966).Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 10; ‘A Journeyman for the Revolution’, p. 376 (92 per cent of oil workers were not native to Baku.)Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    Suny, The Baku Commune, pp. 10–12, 14–16. Lane, Roots of Russian Communism, p. 178.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    Suny, ‘A Journeyman for the Revolution’, p. 377.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 6; A. N. Guliev, Bakinskii proletariat v gody novogo revolyutsionnogo pod”ema (Baku, 1963), pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    Guliev, Bakinskii proletariat, p. 34.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    Ibid., pp. 292–3.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    Ibid., pp. 30, 33.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Guliev, Bakinskii proletariat, Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 13.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    Lane, Roots of Russian Communism, p. 178. Suny, ‘A Journeyman for the Revolution’, p. 376 quotes a figure of 89.1 per cent for illiterate Azerbaijanis.Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    A.M. Stopani, Neftepromyshlennyi rabochii i ego byudzhet, (Moscow, 1924), pp.124–5.Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    The most important archival document on the early history of the PSR is: K dokladu Sakina/Materialy po 3–mu zakavkaznomu oblastnomu s”ezdu PSR 25–30 Mart 1907g, Archive 628. On the 1904 strike, see also: RR, no. 66 (May 1905), p. 14.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    RR, no. 66, p. 14.Google Scholar
  22. 19.
    RR, no. 51, p. 24; no. 71, p. 24; no. 75, p. 20.Google Scholar
  23. 20.
    PI, no. 9 (May 1907), p. 12; Kdokladu Sakina, Archive 628.Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    PI, no. 9, p. 12; Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei p. 248 and n. 59. The Dashnaktsutyun was formed in Tiflis in 1890 to promote minority Armenian interests, especially in Turkey. Like the SRs the Dashnaks favoured individual terrorism, but did not adopt a Socialist programme until 1907 (Suny, The Baku Commune, pp. 21–24).Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    Materialy, Archive 628.Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    Kdokladu Sakina; PI, no. 9, p. 12; Protokoly 1908, pp. 32, 34.Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    Materialy, Archive 628; Protokoly 1908, p. 32.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    See below pp. 138–9.Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    PI, no. 9, p. 12. A MS from Baku, dated September 1907 (Archive 553/I) cites membership figures of around 1825–1925 SRs (625 Armenians), compared with 1800 SDs (1200 Bolshevik, 600 Menshe vik). Suny, however, (‘A Journeyman for the Revolution’, p. 376), offers a figure of 2500 SDs. For the Armenian defectors to the PSR, see below pp. 138–9.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    Stel’nik, ‘Ar’ergardnye boi’, p. 97.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    Various documents in Archive 551, 553/I.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    The Baku reporter to the third Caucasus Congress of the PSR in March 1907 mentions the existence of a ‘young group of Tatars’ (that is, Azerbaijanis): K dokladu Sakina, Archive 628. The existence of ‘Ittifag’ is mentioned by Stel’nik, ‘Ar’ergardnye boi’, p. 97 and is confirmed by archival sources: Dve Stachki, 15 September 1906, Archive 553/I.Google Scholar
  33. 30.
    PI, no. 9, p. 12; K dokladu Sakina, Archive 628.Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    ZT, no. 5 (September 1907), p. 13; Protokoly 1908, p. 32; PI, no. 7 (March 1907), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    Arutyunov, Rabochie dvizhenie v Zakavkaz’e, here p. 165. Also Suny, ‘Labor and Liquidators — Revolution and the ‘Reaction’ in Baku, May 1908–April 1912’, in Slavic Review, no. 34 (1975), p. 320 and ZT, no. 19 (July 1909), p. 17.Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    See below, p. 135.Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    Quoted by Suny, The Baku Commune, pp. 45–6.Google Scholar
  38. 35.
    ZT, no. 17 (April 1909), p. 15; ZT, no. 19 (July 1909), p. 17. The SDs experienced a parallel decline in membership. Bolshevik numbers, for example, were estimated at 300 (maximum) for the end of 1909 (Arutyunov, Rabochee dvizhenie v Zakavkaz’e, p. 74).Google Scholar
  39. 36.
    For this episode see Dve Stachki, 15 September 1906, Archive 553/I. Also Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 47.Google Scholar
  40. 37.
    P. N. Valuev, Bol’sheviki azerbaidzhana v pervoi russkoi revolyutsii (Baku, 1963), p. 229; Protokoly 1908, p. 32; Ko vsem bakinskim rabochim, 28 Nov 1906, Archive 553/I.Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    See below, p. 138.Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 32.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    For the background, see Suny, The Baku Commune, pp. 43–6; for a Soviet (Stalinist) account, see P. N. Valuev, Soveshchatel’naya kampaniya 1907–8gg. v Baku (IMEL, 1946).Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    For a statement of the SR position, see the (1908) leaflet Tovarishchi, Archive 553/I; also, ‘K voprosu o soveshchanii’, in Izvestiya bakins-koiorganizatsii PSR, no. 1 (18 April 1908), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  45. 42.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 32.Google Scholar
  46. 43.
    Suny, ‘A Journeyman for the Revolution’, p. 389 gives a figure of 19 000 votes for the Bolshevik position and only 8000 for the original Menshevik position.Google Scholar
  47. 44.
    Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 44.Google Scholar
  48. 45.
    Ibid., p. 49.Google Scholar
  49. 46.
    The Baku representative at the third Caucasus congress contradicts this, claiming that ‘we’ [that is, the SRs] formed the oil union and that ‘the entire business is in our hands’: K dokladu Sakina, Archive 628.Google Scholar
  50. 47.
    Arutyunov, Rabochee Dvizhenie v zakavkaz’e, p. 165; Stel’nik, ‘Ar’ergardnye boi bakinskogo proletariat’, p. 95.Google Scholar
  51. 48.
    The following information is drawn predominantly from the (Bolshevik-controlled) newspaper of the oil-workers’ union, Gudok.Google Scholar
  52. 49.
    Gudok, no. 10 (16 December 1907), p. 5; no. 13 (6 January 1908), pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
  53. 50.
    Gudok, no. 16 (27 January 1908), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  54. 51.
  55. 52.
    Izvestiya bakinskoi organizatsii PSR, no. 1 (April 1908), pp. 3–4 (Archive 553/I), Gudok, no. 25 (30 March 1908), p. 4.Google Scholar
  56. 53.
    Gudok, no. 49 (17 January 1909), p. 6, ZT, no. 19, p. 18.Google Scholar
  57. 54.
    ZT, no. 19, p. 18; ZT, no. 31, p. 25.Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    Stel’nik, ‘Ar’ergardnye boi’, p. 95.Google Scholar
  59. 56.
    Quoted in Guliev, Bakinskii proletariat, p. 49.Google Scholar
  60. 57.
    Biographical details in PKS.Google Scholar
  61. 58.
    Information on the strike is derived from ‘Sredi moryakov’ in Molot-izdanie Bakinskoi organizatsii partii sotsialistov-revolyutsionerov, no. 2 (September 1907), and ‘Morskaya zabastovka Kaspiinskoi flotii v 1907g’, in Morskaya Volna — organ bezpartiin. profess. soyuza moryakov kaspiisk. Torg. flota, no. 7 (10 September 1909), pp. 3 ff., Archive 553/I.Google Scholar
  62. 59.
  63. 60.
    See the leaflet dated 25 April 1907 in Archive 553/I.Google Scholar
  64. 61.
    ZT, no. 27, p. 28; no. 26, p. 23.Google Scholar
  65. 62.
    ZT, no. 27, p. 28.Google Scholar
  66. 63.
    On the later history of the union see Morskaya Volna, no. 7, pp. 3–11, 21–22 (Archive 553/I).Google Scholar
  67. 64.
    See n. 21 above.Google Scholar
  68. 65.
    Otchet A rmyanskoi organizatskii partii SR — Archive 551.Google Scholar
  69. 66.
    This profile is based on: ZT, no. 26 (February 1910), p. 23; no. 45, p. 23; Protokoly 1908, p. 33.Google Scholar
  70. 67.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 33. One of the more skilled (and loyal) SRs was Grigorii Erem’yan, a fitter and son of a mining engineer. Born in Shushe in 1889, Erem’yan completed four classes of grammar school before being expelled for participating in disturbances. During 1903–4 he was a member of the Dashnaktsutyun party in his home town, before moving to Baku. In 1907 he joined the PSR and was involved in agitational, combat and trade union work as well as contributing to the party press. After being subjected to several arrests, Erem’yan was finally removed from the scene for distributing leaflets in 1914 (PKS).Google Scholar
  71. 68.
    ZT, no. 26, p. 23. The Caucasus obkom donated a total of 300r. to the Armenian literature fund between July 1908 and July 1909, the majority of which would presumably have been allocated to Baku (ZT, no. 26, p. 26). There were smaller Armenian centres in Erivan, Tiflis, Aleksan-dropol and Batum.Google Scholar
  72. 69.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 33.Google Scholar
  73. 70.
    Pamyatnaya Knizhka attributes only one killing to a fighting detachment operating in Baku — the ‘execution’ of a provocateur named Petrov on 28 August 1905. There are four other killings listed for other places in the Caucasus oblast’ before 1910. See Pamyatnaya Knizhka, vol. II. The SRs were also held responsible for a ‘series of terrorist acts’ during the seamen’s strike of March–April 1907 (Stel’nik, ‘Ar’ergard-nye boi’, p. 104). Our impression is that terror in Baku was organised on an ad hoc basis, and that it was not given an especially high profile.Google Scholar
  74. 71.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 36.Google Scholar
  75. 72.
    Criminal activity of this type wreaked even greater havoc among SRs in the neighbouring North Caucasus oblast’. See Protokoly 1908, p. 37. In 1907 alone there had been 1732 recorded robberies in Transcaucasia and 1328 other ‘terrorist’ acts (Suny, The Baku Commune, p. 45).Google Scholar
  76. 73.
    ZT, no. 19 (July 1909), p. 17; Morskiya Volny-izdanie ispolnitel’nogo komiteta Bakinskoi organizatsii partii SR, no. 1 (February 1910), pp. 15–17. The archive contains a notice warning local SRs that someone had recently sent a letter demanding 400r. for political prisoners, using an old party stamp as ‘authorisation’ — Zayavlenie (Baku committee, undated), Archive 553/I.Google Scholar
  77. 74.
    The reference to the Armenian Detachments is in ZT, no. 5, p. 14.Google Scholar
  78. 75.
    For archival information on the Armenian organisation, see the following: ‘Otchet Armyanskoi organizatsii partii SR’, in Sovremennik no. 2 (May 1909), p. 12, Archive 551; Proclamation, dated 28 November 1909; ‘Otchet o zasedaniyakh ispolnitel’nogo komiteta’, in Morskiya Volny no. 1, p. 15, Archive 551. ZT, no. 45, p. 23. Two Armenians were among the Baku delegation to the sixth (Caucasus) oblast’ Congress in October 1909.Google Scholar
  79. 76.
    Although Bryansk was, strictly speaking, included in the North-West oblast’ it was, in almost all respects, quite distinct from other parts of the region. As such it will be treated separately in this study.Google Scholar
  80. 77.
    Protokoly 6-go oblastnogo s”ezda severo-zapadnoi oblastnoi organizatsii, PSR (12 October 1906), Archive 426.Google Scholar
  81. 78.
    Ezra Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale: the Formative Years of the Jewish Workers’ Movement in Tsarist Russia (Cambridge, 1970), p. 3. (Most of the following introductory remarks are based on this source.)Google Scholar
  82. 79.
    Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale, p. 5. In Minsk the proportion was 52 per cent, in Dvinsk 44 per cent, in Vitebsk 52 per cent and in Gomel’ 55 per cent.Google Scholar
  83. 80.
  84. 81.
    Population of figures are for 1910 and are taken from T. S. Fedor, Patterns of Urban Growth, Appendix I.Google Scholar
  85. 82.
    Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale, p. 25, n. 1.Google Scholar
  86. 83.
    Ibid., p. 6 and n. 4.Google Scholar
  87. 84.
    Ibid., p. 21.Google Scholar
  88. 85.
    Ibid., p. 21. For artisanal conditions, see the discussion on pp. 7–26.Google Scholar
  89. 86.
    See the article ‘Ob osobennostyakh raboty v severo-zapadnom krae’, in PI, no. 8 (April 1907), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  90. 87.
    F. M. Watters, ‘The Peasant and the Village Commune’, in The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Stanford, CA, 1968), pp. 146–7. See also Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei, p. 238.Google Scholar
  91. 88.
    Some Jews evidently did respond from purely altruistic motives: ‘“Zemlya i volya! in Jewish this sounds so strange”, one young Jew said to me. “What is the land to me, to us Jews? But in the name of the common ideal of justice I too will fight for the land”’. Jews did actually conduct propaganda work in the countryside for the PSR (‘Ob osobennostyakh’,p. 12).Google Scholar
  92. 89.
    See ‘Iz pisem sev-zap. O.K. k mestnym komitetam’ (dated variously from November 1906 to January 1907), in PI, no. 5 (February 1907), pp. 7–8 and ‘Iz otcheta Sev. Zapadnogo Obl. Komiteta’ (presented to North-West oblast’ congress in February 1907), PI, no. 7 (March 1907), pp. 14–15. The financial account quoted earlier is to be found on p. 13.Google Scholar
  93. 90.
    In the summer of 1906 for example ‘the entire body of progressive teachers’ was arrested at a congress in Minsk (‘Ob osobennostyakh’, p. 13).Google Scholar
  94. 91.
    Ibid. Many had first belonged to the Bund youth organisations Malyi Bund and Nadezhda.Google Scholar
  95. 92.
    PI, no. 8 (April 1907), p. 13. The rival parties included the Bund, Social Democrats, Social Zionists, Jewish Socialists and the Polish Socialist party.Google Scholar
  96. 93.
    See chapter 3 of this study.Google Scholar
  97. 94.
    RR, no. 31 (August 1904), p. 23.Google Scholar
  98. 95.
    Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale, pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar
  99. 96.
    ‘Ob osobennostyakh’, p. 12.Google Scholar
  100. 97.
    ‘Statistika terroristicheskikh aktov’ (Pamyatnaya knizhka sotsialista-re-volyutsionera).Google Scholar
  101. 98.
    See M. D. Zakgeim in PKS; also Pamyatnaya knizhka; and Spiridovitch, Histoire du terrorisme Russe, pp. 396, 405.Google Scholar
  102. 99.
    See the article ‘Anarkhizm v Rossii’, in Sotsialist-Revolyutsioner, no. 3 (1911), pp. 75–94.Google Scholar
  103. 100.
    ‘Anarkhizm v Rossii’, pp. 82–3; ‘Koe-chto o “Maksimalistakh”‘, PI, no. 8, pp. 3–5. The exception was Dvinsk, which was apparently free of Maximalism at least.Google Scholar
  104. 101.
    ‘Koe-chto o “Maksimalistakh”’, p. 4.Google Scholar
  105. 102.
  106. 103.
    Protokoly 6-go oblastnogo s”ezda, Archive 426. The previous intolerance of SR organisations was in fact blamed for earlier problems with the Maximalists (‘Koe-chto’, p. 4).Google Scholar
  107. 104.
    Protokoly 7–go ocherednogo s”ezda severo-zapadnoi oblasti partii SR, Archive 426.Google Scholar
  108. 105.
    ‘Ob osobennostyakh’, p. 12; ‘Iz pisem sev-zap. O.K.’, p. 8.Google Scholar
  109. 106.
    The following statistics refer to the period around October 1906–February 1907. They are taken from these sources: Dvinsk — Rapport 1907, p. 122; Vitebsk — Otchet k oblastnomu s”ezdu (12 February 1907), Archive 426; Gomel’ — MS (October 1906) Archive 426; Rapport 1907, p. 134; for the remainder see the various reports in Archive 426 quoted below. It should be emphasised that these figures should be taken as rough (and optimistic) approximations. However, they do at least indicate the relative strengths of the various organisations in the region.Google Scholar
  110. 107.
    Otchet k oblastnomu s”ezdu (Archive 426).Google Scholar
  111. 108.
    Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei, p. 327, citing document in Archive 483.Google Scholar
  112. 109.
    Both the information above and that which follows is taken from the following reports in Archive 426: Otvety Minskogo komiteta PSR (February 1907); Otchet k oblastnomu s”ezdu (Vitebsk); Otvety pinskogo komiteta (February 1907); otvety … (Novozybkov, February 1907); Otchet smolenskogo komiteta (February 1907); MS: Dvinskaya org-tsiya (October 1906) and MSS for Gomel’, Belostok, Vil’no (October 1906). See also Rapport 1907, pp. 120–41.Google Scholar
  113. 110.
    Rossiya: Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie vol. IX, p. 573.Google Scholar
  114. 111.
    ‘Ob osobennostyakh’, p. 12.Google Scholar
  115. 112.
    See n. 109 above.Google Scholar
  116. 113.
    Vtoroi Sovet PSR (October 1906), Archive 489.Google Scholar
  117. 114.
    Minsk: Otvety na zaprosy Ts.K; Dvinsk: 6 January 1907; Vil’no: Otvety, PI, no. 5, pp. 8–9; Minsk: Rapport 1907, p. 136.Google Scholar
  118. 115.
    Seen. 109 above.Google Scholar
  119. 116.
    Protokoly 7-go ocherednogo, Archive 426.Google Scholar
  120. 117.
  121. 118.
    Otchet Vitebskoi organisatsii (Autumn 1907?), Archive 426.Google Scholar
  122. 119.
    Doklad o polozhenii i deyatel’nosti Dvinskogo Komiteta PSR (19 November 1907), Archive 426.Google Scholar
  123. 120.
    Background information is taken from the following: Brokgaus-Efron (ed.), Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’, 1900, vol. VIII, pp. 815–18; vol. XXXVI, pp. 508–9; Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Russkogo Bibliogra-ficheskogo Instituta Granat, Moscow 1910–1948 vol. VII, cols 34–5; vol. XVII, col. 120; O. Yu. Shmidt (ed.), Bol’shaya Sovetskaya entsiklopedia (1st edn), Moscow, 1926–48, vol. VII, cols. 743–53; vol. XXXVII, col. 828.Google Scholar
  124. 121.
    M. Balabanov, ‘Promyshlennost’ V 1904–7gg’, in Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii, vol. IV, pt. 1, p. 114.Google Scholar
  125. 122.
    RR, no. 38 (December 1903), p. 15; no. 37 (December 1903), p. 24; no. 42 (March 1904), p. 21.Google Scholar
  126. 123.
    RR, no. 69 (June 1905), p. 19.Google Scholar
  127. 124.
    RR, no. 70 (July 1905), p. 18.Google Scholar
  128. 125.
    RR, no. 74 (September 1905), p. 16. See also Izveshchenie o Demonstratsii, Archive 321.Google Scholar
  129. 126.
    Archive 321. Unfortunately no record seems to have survived of the organisation’s activities during the last quarter of 1905.Google Scholar
  130. 127.
    Politicheskaya katorga i ssylka. Google Scholar
  131. 128.
    See, ‘Severo-zapadnaya oblast’ — ob osobennostyakh raboty v sev-zap. krae’, in PI, no. 8 (April 1907), p. 12.Google Scholar
  132. 129.
    MS, Bryansk report (October 1906), Archive 426; Rapport 1907, pp. 129–30.Google Scholar
  133. 130.
    PI, no. 8, p. 12.Google Scholar
  134. 131.
  135. 132.
    PI, no. 8, p. 13.Google Scholar
  136. 133.
    Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei, p. 138.Google Scholar
  137. 134.
    ‘Koe-chto o “maksimalistakh” (pis’mo iz Smolenska)’, in PI, no. 8, pp. 3–5 (here p. 4).Google Scholar
  138. 135.
    See archive reference in Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei, p. 139 n. 54.Google Scholar
  139. 136.
    For an expression of this argument see V. Chernov, ‘K kharakteristike Maksimalizma’, in Sotsialist-Revolyutsioner, no. 1 (1910), pp. 178–9.Google Scholar
  140. 137.
    Balabanov, ‘Promyshlennost’ v 1904–7gg’, p. 114.Google Scholar
  141. 138.
    PI, no. 8, p. 4.Google Scholar
  142. 139.
    In Bryansk, the Anarchists allegedly ceased work when their leader was killed after an unsuccessful expropriation (in the summer of 1907). By that time the Maximalists too were said to be weak (see report in Trud, no. 17 (October 1907), p. 14, Archive 472. In Bezhetsa, however, a (Maximalist?) group, practising economic terror and private expropriations was causing the local SRs concern as late as December 1907, but there were ‘almost no’ Anarchist and Maximalists at the Raditsa factory (for source of reference see n. 22).Google Scholar
  143. 140.
    Protokoly konferentsii predstavitelei Bezhetskogo, Bryanskogo Paravoznoi Raditsy i Privokzal’noi Slobody — rabochikh soyuzov PSR (23 December 1907), Archive 426.Google Scholar
  144. 141.
    9e Yanvarya; k rabochim i krest’yanam, Archive 321. The outcome of the elections here is unknown.Google Scholar
  145. 142.
    Ko vsem Bryanskim rabochim (May 1907), Archive 321; see also comments of Bryansk delegate at seventh oblast’ congress — Protokoly 7-go ocherednogo s”ezda severo-zapadnoi oblasti partii SR (July 1907), Archive 426.Google Scholar
  146. 143.
    Zasedanie kollektiv a Bryanskoi organizatsii SR (24 June 1907), Archive 321.Google Scholar
  147. 144.
    Trud, no. 17, pp. 14–15, Archive 472.Google Scholar
  148. 145.
    See MS from Bryansk dated 7.10.07, Archive 426.Google Scholar
  149. 146.
    Protokoly konferentsii (23 December 1907), Archive 426.Google Scholar
  150. 147.
    The last archival record of any of the Bryansk organisations occurs in March 1908, when the Raditsa workers’ union issued a proclamation calling for the factory to be saved from closure (Archive 321). See also Protokoly 1908, p. 54.Google Scholar
  151. 148.
    Rossiya: Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie, vol. XIV, p. 176; Bol’shaya sovetskaya entsiklopedia, vol. L, pp. 545–7.Google Scholar
  152. 149.
    Rossiya, vol. XIV, p. 176.Google Scholar
  153. 150.
    Rashin, Formirovanie, p. 356.Google Scholar
  154. 151.
    Before 1894, goods to the value of 13m. roubles had passed annually through Sevastopol’ ; after 1894 this figure dropped to 2.5m. roubles per annum (Rossiya, vol XIV, p. 176).Google Scholar
  155. 152.
    Brokgauz and Efron, Entsiklopedicheskiislovar’, vol. LVII, pp. 293–4.Google Scholar
  156. 153.
    Information on the early history of the party is drawn from two archival documents: Delegate’s report to the second party congress (Sevastopol’), Archive 488; and Kratkii ocherk rabochei organizatsii Sevastopol’s-kogo Komiteta PSR so Noyabrii 1905g do fevralya 1907 goda, Archive 488.Google Scholar
  157. 000.
    leaflets were distributed between November 1905 and February 1906.Google Scholar
  158. 155.
    For details see below p. 163.Google Scholar
  159. 156.
    Delegate’s report, Archive 488.Google Scholar
  160. 157.
    For the above see: Delegate’s report; Kratkii ocherk’, and Answers to questions put by the orgbureau at the time of the (second) party congress, all in Archive 488. For a résumé see, Rapport 1907, pp. 165–8.Google Scholar
  161. 158.
    Kratkii ocherk, Answers to questions … (no. 3).Google Scholar
  162. 159.
    Kratkii ocherk. Google Scholar
  163. 160.
    The accounts were located in the ‘Workers’ Organisation’ sections of Archive 488 and Archive 792. Abbreviated accounts (with interruptions) exist for the period 15 December 1905 to 30 May 1906. The complete accounts for October to December 1906 and March to July 1907 form the basis of Table 28, p. 331.Google Scholar
  164. 161.
    These (highly approximate) estimates are based on an average individual donation of 20 kopeks per month (the membership contribution demanded by the Kiev SR organisation before 1905). Calculations made on that basis turned out to be fairly reliable in the (admittedly few) cases where they could be tested for the 1905–7 period (at the Nevskii shipbuilding and Aleksandrovskii mechanical factories in Petersburg for example and the Bezhetsa engineering works in Bryansk).Google Scholar
  165. 162.
    See table 5.7 in my study of St. Petersburg, chapter 5 p. 119Google Scholar
  166. 163.
    The Sevastopol’ detachment probably relied more than most on the participation of soldiers and sailors. Workers were also involved, however, though we have no breakdown of numbers.Google Scholar
  167. 164.
    Delegate’s report, Archive 488.Google Scholar
  168. 165.
    See ‘Statistika terroristicheskikh aktov’, in Pamyatnaya Knizhka.Google Scholar
  169. 166.
    The full details are in Spiridovitch, Histoire du terrorisme Russe, pp. 367–9.Google Scholar
  170. 167.
    ‘Statistika terroristicheskikh aktov’.Google Scholar
  171. 168.
    Izveshchenie vnov organizovannoi boevoi druzhiny (1907), Archive 488; ‘Statistika terroristicheskikh aktov’.Google Scholar
  172. 169.
    Izveshchenie po povodu otkolovshikhsya druzhinnikov (June 1907), Archive 488; Rabochii listok, no. 1 (11 August 1907), Archive 488.Google Scholar
  173. 170.
    Otchety Sevastopol’skogo Komiteta PSR, Archive 488.Google Scholar
  174. 171.
    Sevastopol’skaya Gorodskaya Konferentsiya (May 1907); see also MS (Sevastopol’ Committee), both in Archive 488.Google Scholar
  175. 172.
    MS Archive 488; Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei, p. 275 and n. 21.Google Scholar
  176. 173.
    Provokatorskii manifest’ i nashi zadachi (June 1907), Archive 488.Google Scholar
  177. 174.
    The full story is told in Hildermeier, Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei, pp.171–2.Google Scholar
  178. 175.
    Protokoly pyatogo soveta partii (Stenograficheskii otchet), session 2, p. 8, Archive 792.Google Scholar
  179. 176.
    The SRs took 54 of the 77 seats in the town duma: Delo Naroda, no. 110 (26July 1917), p.4.Google Scholar
  180. 177.
    Radkey, Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism, p. 243, n. 14.Google Scholar
  181. 178.
    Rapport 1907, p. 142. For the boundaries and other details, see Map 6.Google Scholar
  182. 179.
    Portal, R., ‘The Industrialization of Russia’, p. 806; Lenin, V. I., The Development of Capitalism in Russia, (London, 1977), pp. 490–3.Google Scholar
  183. 180.
    Portal, ‘The Industrialization of Russia’, pp. 829–31, 858.Google Scholar
  184. 181.
    Figures for 1910: T. S. Fedor, Patterns of Urban Growth.Google Scholar
  185. 182.
    Portal, ‘The Industrialization of Russia’, p. 829 gives a figure of 105 factories, 13 of which were state-owned. My own calculations suggest that this is an underestimate and that the number of enterprises was closer to 150.Google Scholar
  186. 183.
    R. E. Zelnik, ‘The Peasant and the Factory’, in W. S. Vucinich (ed.), The Peasant in Nineteenth Century Russia, pp. 160–1.Google Scholar
  187. 184.
    Some details of the post-reform arrangements can be found in the essays by F. S. Gorovoi, N. D. Alenchikova and Ya. B. Rabinovich, in Iz istorii rabochego klassa Urala (sbornikstatei) (Perm’, 1961).Google Scholar
  188. 185.
    Portal, ‘The Industrialization of Russia’, p. 830.Google Scholar
  189. 186.
    The following description of the Izhevsk factory is based on A. A. Aleksandrov, ‘Sostav i polozhenie rabochikh na Izhevskom i Votkinskom zavodakh (1894–1904gg)’ in Iz istorii rabochego klassa Urala (sbornik statei) (Perm’, 1961), pp. 252–61.Google Scholar
  190. 187.
    F. S. Gorovoi, ‘Vliyanie reformy 1861 goda na formirovanie rabochego klassa Urala’, in Iz istorii, p. 165.Google Scholar
  191. 188.
    See, for example, ‘Rabochaya li partiya sotsialisty-revolyutsionery?’ in Bor’ba (Motovilikha), no. 1 (April 10 1907), Archive 478, p. 12; Bor’ba (Motovilikha), no. 3 (15 May 1907), pp. 1–2; no. 4 (9 June 1907), pp. 1,2. At the same time as emphasising the virtues of its land programme, the third oblast’ congress of the PSR adopted a resolution in favour of including factory socialisation in the minimum programme of the party. This was a response to the ‘special position’ of the Urals population, being at the same time factory workers and peasant land-holders, and to the decline of private industry in particular and industry in general.Google Scholar
  192. 189.
    There was a joint SR-SD group in Ufa in 1899, for example. See: 1905 — Revolyutsionnye sobytiya 1905g.v.g. Ufe i Ural’skikh zavodakh, p. 17 (Ufa, 1925).Google Scholar
  193. 190.
    See Programma Ural’skogo soyuza Sotsial’-Demokratov i sotsialistov-revolyutsionerov, in Archive 474, which contains eighteen flysheets, published by the Union between 1901 and 1903.Google Scholar
  194. 191.
    See below, pp. 173–4, 174–5.Google Scholar
  195. 192.
    For the SR role in the ‘Alapaev republic’ of 1905 see ZT, no. 10–11 (February–March 1908), p. 23.Google Scholar
  196. 193.
    The voting went 8 votes to 5 and a minority resolution was also published: ‘Postanovleniya III s”ezda Oblastnoi Ural’skoi organizatsii PSR’, PI, no. 1 (October 1906), pp. 22–3.Google Scholar
  197. 194.
    The SRs took 60 per cent of the vote at Izhevsk and won 1000 votes at Katav-Ivanovsk. In Ufa the party took 7 seats in the workers’ curia and had one elector. They had two representatives in Perm’ and only one in Vyatka. In Ekaterinburg the SDs won an outright victory. This information has been assembled from a variety of archival documents.Google Scholar
  198. 195.
    Of twenty-three Urals activists surveyed in PKS, ten were arrested between June and November 1907.Google Scholar
  199. 196.
    See below, p. 170.Google Scholar
  200. 197.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 136.Google Scholar
  201. 198.
    Protokoly 1909, Archive 792, session 3, pp. 2 ff.Google Scholar
  202. 199.
    Rapport 1910, p. 18; Rapport 1914, p. 12.Google Scholar
  203. 200.
    Archive 478.Google Scholar
  204. 201.
    Otchet Permskogo komiteta PSR s vesnoi 1906 g. do vesnoi 1907 g., Archive 478.Google Scholar
  205. 202.
    See below.Google Scholar
  206. 203.
    Protokoly 1909, Archive 792, session 3, p. 2.Google Scholar
  207. 204.
    See accounts in Bor’ba, no. 2 (May 1907), Archive 478.Google Scholar
  208. 205.
    Bor’ba, no. 2. See also ZT, no. 7 (October 1907), p. 14.Google Scholar
  209. 206.
    The following is based on information in ZT, no. 7, p. 14, and a report on Nadezhdin rail factory in ZT, no. 8 (December 1907), p. 15. According to an early Soviet source, L’bov first linked up with a group of Maximalists from Petersburg who had arrived in Perm’ early in 1906. They split in the summer of 1907 and L’bov began to act independently again. Apparently, some of the terrorists from these gangs were tried by military courts in 1909. See A. Beloborodov, ‘Iz istorii partizanskogo dvizheniya na Urale (1906–09 gg)’, in Krasnaya Letopis’, no. 1 (1926), pp. 92 ff.Google Scholar
  210. 207.
    Protokoly 1909, Archive 792, session 3, p. 2.Google Scholar
  211. 208.
  212. 209.
    Iz otcheta Ekaterinburgskogo okruzhn. kom. Ural’noi organizatsii PSR (February–October 1906), Archive 480.Google Scholar
  213. 210.
    ZT, no. 7 (October 1907), p. 14.Google Scholar
  214. 211.
    Rossiya, vol. v, p. 557.Google Scholar
  215. 212.
    Rapport 1907, pp. 143–8; Otvety (second congress), Vyatka, Archive 486.Google Scholar
  216. 213.
    Report to fourth oblast’ congress in ZT, no. 7, p. 14.Google Scholar
  217. 214.
    Protokoly 1909, Archive 792, session 3, p. 2.Google Scholar
  218. 215.
    See biography of S. N. Krasnoperov in PKS. Krasnoperov was the son of a priest and a fitter at the factory. Having attended student circles in Vyatka from 1902 to 1904, at the age of seventeen he joined the Izhevsk PSR, where he remained until his arrest in 1907.Google Scholar
  219. 216.
    Izhevskaya zavodskaya organizatsiya in PI, no. 10 (September 1907), p. 15; Rapport 1907, p. 145; biography of F. I. Shipitsyn in PKS. Shipitsyn, a former SD became a member of the Izhevsk SR committee in August 1906, at the age of thirty-three, and was an elector to the second Duma.Google Scholar
  220. 217.
    Assistance mainly in the form of personnel support. For example, E. A. Deryabina-Kondorskaya, a teacher from Vyatka province conducted agitation and propaganda at Izhevsk in 1907 having previously worked in Vyatka town. Likewise P. P. Suvorova-Varaksina (PKS).Google Scholar
  221. 218.
    See oblast’ report dated 30 October 1907 in Archive 486.Google Scholar
  222. 219.
    Accounts for Izhevsk (and Votkinsk, see n 221 below) in Archive 548.Google Scholar
  223. 220.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 39; Protokoly 1909, Archive 792, session 3, p. 2; D. I. Gorbunov was an SR on the Izhevsk committee in 1908–9 (aged seventeen) and a member of the Votkinsk group (PKS).Google Scholar
  224. 221.
    Rossiya, vol. v, p. 524.Google Scholar
  225. 222.
    Rapport 1907, p. 145.Google Scholar
  226. 223.
    Oblast’ report (30 October 1907), Archive 486.Google Scholar
  227. 224.
    Protokoly 1909. Google Scholar
  228. 225.
    Rossiya, vol. V, pp. 458–60.Google Scholar
  229. 226.
    1905-Revolyutsionnye Sobytiya 1905g., p. 8; Statistika terroristicheskikh aktov. Sokolovskii was killed (?) by a worker, Bubetov.Google Scholar
  230. 227.
    See the biography of P. P. Myl’nikov, an SR joiner in the railway workshops (PKS).Google Scholar
  231. 228.
    Ufa workers’ union accounts for 1906 can be found in Sotsialist’: organ Ufimskogo rabochego Soyuza, no. 1 (January 1907), Archive 682.Google Scholar
  232. 229.
    Rapport 1907, p. 146. Otvety (second congress), Archive 486; ‘Smert’tovarishcha’ (notice in Sotsialisf), Archive 682.Google Scholar
  233. 230.
    Urals oblast’ report (30 October 1907), Archive 486.Google Scholar
  234. 231.
    Protokoly 1908, p. 39.Google Scholar
  235. 232.
    Protokoly 1909, Archive 792.Google Scholar
  236. 233.
    1905 Revolyutsionnye sobytiya 1905 g., pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
  237. 234.
    For information on the Zlatoust organisation during this period, see the financial accounts in Archive 480 and Doklad Zlatoustavshego delegata na II-m partiinom s”ezde, Archive 480; and Rapport 1907, p. 146.Google Scholar
  238. 235.
    Doklad Zlatoustavshego and accounts, Archive 480; Satkinskaya rabochaya organizatsiya (September 1906–June 1907), also Archive 480.Google Scholar
  239. 236.
    ZT, no. 7 (October 1907), p. 14; Zlatoust committee (Summer 1907?), Archive 480.Google Scholar
  240. 237.
    Protokoly 1908, pp. 39, 40. The Zlatoust armed detachment continued to be active — two provocateurs were killed in 1908 and a police inspector in December 1907. See also the biography of S. I. Perevalov (PKS), a fitter at the Zlatoust factory and a member of the committee from 1905–8. In February the police arrested him after discovering two bombs in his possession.Google Scholar
  241. 238.
    Protokol Zlatoustovskoi okruzhskoi konferentsii (19 November 1908), Archive 480.Google Scholar
  242. 239.
    Protokoly 1909, Archive 792, session 3, pt 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Christopher Rice 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Rice

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations