University of Glasgow

Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897 by Richard PipesReview by: Reginald E. ZelnikSoviet Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1964), pp. 95-97Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149774 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 08:27

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and University of Glasgow are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Soviet Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.92 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Richard Pipes, Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, I963. xi+ 154 pp. $4.25.

PROFESSOR PIPES' short but interesting monograph has two main goals: first, to reduce the role played by the young Lenin in the early social democratic movement of St. Petersburg to human proportions; second, to shed some light on the controversial question of the relationship between the radical S.D. intelligentsia and the factory workers of St. Petersburg during the period prior to Lenin's departure from the city in I897. The author is successful in fulfilling the first of these goals, but his treatment of the second problem is sometimes open to question. It is true that he succeeds in breaking down the myth of a harmonious fusion between S.D. intellectuals and what he terms the labour elite (i.e., the more skilled and educated segments of the Petersburg labour force), but the contrast which he presents as existing between the two groups is often overstated, particularly as regards the question of labour's interest in or indifference to political questions.

The picture of the labour elite that emerges from Professor Pipes' book is essentially one of a non-political group, mistrustful of the radical intelligentsia's abstract political concerns, and anxious to limit its contacts with the intelligentsia to the exploitation of their knowledge for the purpose of self-advancement within the society of tsarist Russia. When Pipes departs from this presentation and admits a modicum of sympathy for socialism among the workers, he maintains his general theme by showing that it is precisely the non-political elements in social democracy, the emphasis on the purely economic struggle, that attracts the workers. At times one feels that he is straining to make this point. Thus in his brief background discussion of the I870s, Pipes brings out the populist influence on St. Petersburg's first labour organization, the Northern Union (p. 8), as well as the exclusion of intelligentsia from its membership, but fails to mention one of the most important features of the Union, namely that its creation repre- sented in part a reaction against the non-political orientation of populism (it was even criticized by 'Land and Freedom' for being excessively political). In discussing the late i88os, Pipes insists that the workers who participated in study circles differed from the intellectuals in that they viewed education simply as a means to escape from the monotony of factory life and get ahead in society. But the only evidence offered to prove this contention is a quotation from one -worker who recalled the workers' objections to the fact that intellectuals ,were indulging in too much revolutionary propaganda in the circles :and not enough education (p. io). To interpret such evidence as

REVIEWS 95

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.92 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

implying that the workers wanted nothing more than to get ahead in society is to make an unwarranted leap. It is true that members of workers' circles resented the often simplistic approach of revolutionary students, and insisted upon a more laborious educational process. Nevertheless the type of education they sought, at no small risk for themselves-political economy, study of the European labour move- ment, natural science-was primafacie evidence of political disloyalty in 19th-century Russia and was so interpreted by the government. The workers' objections to the over-enthusiastic approach of some radical intellectuals to the business of education can well be summed up by the remark of one worker, which Pipes uses to illustrate the point that workers did not wish to be incited against the government. The worker told some agitators: '. . . we want you to give us the facts, and when we know everything and the time comes to get mad we will get mad ourselves' (p. I5). This type of declamation certainly suggests friction between the two groups and a spirit of independence among the workers, but it does not indicate the absence of an anti- government attitude among the labour elite or their 'innate conser- vatism' (p. I4). It suggests a desire to face the difficulties of arriving at a full and sophisticated understanding of social and political problems rather than the simple acceptance of the conclusions of others. That the labour elite saw a distinct connection between the autocratic political order and the economic exploitation of labour can be clearly seen in the surviving workers' May Day speeches of 1891, where the need to struggle for political rights and against the autocracy is clearly emphasized (see Rabocheye dvizheniye v Rossii v xix veke, vol. III, part 2, M., I952, pp. 58-66). Pipes recognizes the political consciousness represented in these speeches, but quotes only a passage emphasizing the self-emancipation of labour, which was hardly the gist of the talks (pp. I5-I6).

In discussing the activities of the St. Petersburg social democrats known as stariki, in i895, Pipes introduces another variation in the theme of labour-intelligentsia conflict by blaming the social democrats for the arrest of the labour leaders who were dragged to jail 'for the sake of a handful of proclamations' issued by the intelligentsia. This argument loses much of its strength when one considers that the proclamations had been almost invariably requested by the labour leaders themselves. With regard to the great textile strikes of 1896-97, Pipes is of course correct in emphasizing their spontaneity, but at the same time one is struck by the way in which the labour leaders insisted on returning to the members of the 'Union of Struggle for the Eman- cipation of Labour' for assistance, notwithstanding all their reservations about the intelligentsia. Finally, one must question the view that the

96 REVIEWS

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.92 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

decision of Lenin and his colleagues to engage in economic agitation among the workers in response to the great strikes represented an 'economist' approach. On the contrary, it was viewed by them as a way of broadening the political approach into a mass movement. To sum up-the author is correct in concluding that labour would not 'concede leadership to the intelligentsia', but his conclusion that the failure of the two sides to merge reflected the divergence between the intelligentsia's political orientation and labour's concern with 'intellectual and economic self-improvement' (p. 117) is overdrawn.

REGINALD E. ZELNIK

Indiana University

Oleg S. Pidhaini, The Ukrainian-Polish Problem in the Dissolution of the Russian Empire, 1914-1917. New York, Toronto, New Review Books, 1962. I25 pp. $1.95.

THE author states that 'this book is meant to be an introduction to my wider work on the rebirth of the Ukrainian commonwealth in the Revolution and the diplomacy of European powers, I917-I920, which may appear towards the end of 1963'. Viewed from this stand- point, the summary nature of the present volume, which stops at the end of 1917, is understandable. Mr. Pidhaini has presented a factually accurate account of the evolution of the policy of the Central Powers towards Poland and the Ukraine. His account of the policy of the Tsarist and the Provisional Governments in Russia is also generally correct, though his assertion of an understanding between the German and Bolshevik representatives at Brest-Litovsk, based on a patently expediential statement by Joffe (p. IoI), is strained. Mr. Pidhaini's brief summary of the evolution of Polish political groups appears to be accurate, but his treatment of the development of the Ukrainian Rada-which obviously interests him more-considerably over- emphasizes the support this body enjoyed in I917. For example, he asserts that the Ukrainians 'had the support of all Jewish parties (except the Bund)'-yet the Bund was the most significant of these parties.

On the whole, the book may be of considerable use to the general reader, who has very little to turn to for an introduction to the tangled affairs of east Central Europe during World War I. The work contains very little new information for the scholar, however, for Mr. Pidhaini has not utilized many of the published primary sources, such as the

G

decision of Lenin and his colleagues to engage in economic agitation among the workers in response to the great strikes represented an 'economist' approach. On the contrary, it was viewed by them as a way of broadening the political approach into a mass movement. To sum up-the author is correct in concluding that labour would not 'concede leadership to the intelligentsia', but his conclusion that the failure of the two sides to merge reflected the divergence between the intelligentsia's political orientation and labour's concern with 'intellectual and economic self-improvement' (p. 117) is overdrawn.

REGINALD E. ZELNIK

Indiana University

Oleg S. Pidhaini, The Ukrainian-Polish Problem in the Dissolution of the Russian Empire, 1914-1917. New York, Toronto, New Review Books, 1962. I25 pp. $1.95.

THE author states that 'this book is meant to be an introduction to my wider work on the rebirth of the Ukrainian commonwealth in the Revolution and the diplomacy of European powers, I917-I920, which may appear towards the end of 1963'. Viewed from this stand- point, the summary nature of the present volume, which stops at the end of 1917, is understandable. Mr. Pidhaini has presented a factually accurate account of the evolution of the policy of the Central Powers towards Poland and the Ukraine. His account of the policy of the Tsarist and the Provisional Governments in Russia is also generally correct, though his assertion of an understanding between the German and Bolshevik representatives at Brest-Litovsk, based on a patently expediential statement by Joffe (p. IoI), is strained. Mr. Pidhaini's brief summary of the evolution of Polish political groups appears to be accurate, but his treatment of the development of the Ukrainian Rada-which obviously interests him more-considerably over- emphasizes the support this body enjoyed in I917. For example, he asserts that the Ukrainians 'had the support of all Jewish parties (except the Bund)'-yet the Bund was the most significant of these parties.

On the whole, the book may be of considerable use to the general reader, who has very little to turn to for an introduction to the tangled affairs of east Central Europe during World War I. The work contains very little new information for the scholar, however, for Mr. Pidhaini has not utilized many of the published primary sources, such as the

G

REVIEWS REVIEWS 97 97

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.92 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions