Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:35:09.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kokovtsov Commission: An Abortive Attempt at Labor Reform in Russia in 1905

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

George Edward Snow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The labor unrest that spilled out onto the streets of St. Petersburg in January 1905 and shook the autocracy was hardly a new phenomenon in Russia. Historiography— both Western and Soviet—has shown persuasively that labor discontent was widespread in Russia’s industrial centers for at least the preceding two decades. An explosive combination of miserable working and living conditions and repressive regimentation was further aggravated by only partially redeemed hopes of government-sponsored reforms in the 1880s and 1890s. Moreover, reform legislation was vitiated from the start by the government’s desire to keep the workers under strict control. This aim not only took precedence over the wish to see their grievances redressed, but amounted to a philosophy running through the whole corpus of Russian labor law and virtually institutionalized in the Department of Factory Inspection, created by a decree of July 1, 1882. Designed originally to seek out infractions of the labor laws, it soon became a policing agency for the factory owners.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 780 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Otto Goebel, Entwicklungsgang der russischen Industriearbeiter bis sur ersten Revolution (1905), Osteuropa-Institut in Breslau, Quellen und Studien, Abt. 1, Heft 4 (Leipzig, 1920); Gordon, Maxim, Ocherk ekonomicheskoi bor'by rabochikh v Rossii (Leningrad, 1924)Google Scholar; Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I., Russkaia fabrika v proshlom i nastoiashchem: Istoriko-ekonomicheskoe issledovanie, vol. 1, 6th ed. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1934)Google Scholar; Liashchenko, P. I., Istoriia narodnogo khosiaistva SSSR, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1966)Google Scholar; Pipes, Richard, Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)Google Scholar; Bendix, Reinhard, “Entrepreneurial Ideologies in Eighteenthand Nineteenth-Century Russia,” in his Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialisation (New York, 1963)Google Scholar; and Laue, Theodore Von, “Russian Peasants in the Factory, 1892-1904,” Journal of Economic History, 21 (March 1961): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Liashchenko, Istoriia, 2: 167.

3. Ozerov, I. Kh., Politika po rabochemu voprosu v Rossii sa poslednie gody (Moscow, 1906)Google Scholar; Mikulin, Alexander, Fabrichnaia inspektsiia v Rossii, 1882-1906 (Kiev, 1906)Google Scholar; Bykov, A. N., Fabrichnoe sakonodatel'stvo i rasvitie ego v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1909)Google Scholar; Lunts, M. G., Sbornik statei: Is istorii fabrichnago sakonodatel'stvo, fabrichnoi inspektsii i rabochago dvizheniia v Rossii (Moscow, 1909).Google Scholar

4. See Liubimov's reminiscences, D. N., “Gapon i 9 ianvaria,” Voprosy istorii, 1965, no. 9, pp. 114–21.Google Scholar

5. “Dnevnik Kn. Ekateriny Alekseevny Sviatopolk Mirskoi za 1904-1905 gg.,” Istoricheshie sapiski, 77 (1965): 273.

6. “Doklady V. N. Kokovtsova Nikolaiu II: 9-e ianvaria 1905 g.,” Krasnyi arkhiv, 11-12 (1925): 5. See also Kokovtsov, V. N., Is moego proshlago, 2 vols. (Paris, 1933), 1: 55.Google Scholar

7. “Doklady V. N. Kokovtsova Nikolaiu II,” p. 5.

8. “Vsepoddaneishii doklad ministra finansov V. N. Kokovtsova 19 ianvaria, 1905 g., “ in Romanov, Boris, ed., Rabochii vopros v kommissii V. N. Kokovtsova (Moscow, 1926), p. 2 Google Scholar. This compilation of documents has some three hundred pages and contains twentyeight items, the majority of which are government draft laws for the improvement of workers’ conditions. The collection also includes such relevant documents as Kokovtsov's official reports during January 190S and the minutes of both the Committee of Ministers and the plenary sessions of the Kokovtsov Commission. These are chiefly from the “fund“ of the General Chancellery of the Ministry of Finance contained in the Economic Section of the Leningrad Central Historical Archive. Finally, it contains the policy statements and counterproposals of the contemporary industrial groups, drawn from various sources. On the whole, the collection contains a fairly representative selection of documents which give an excellent picture of the main issues confronting the commission and the problems it had to deal with. The only shortcoming is a relative lack of the preliminary drafts, minutes, and transcripts of the commission's working subcommittees. In this one respect, at least, the reader is unable to get any representative picture of the actual mechanics of the commission and how decisions on preliminary drafts were made.

9. “Doklady V. N. Kokovtsova Nikolaiu II,” p. 7. For a description of the “political“ demands of the workers see Turin, S. P., From Peter the Great to Lenin: A History of the Russian Labour Movement with Special Reference to Trade Unionism (London, 1935), p. 74.Google Scholar

10. “Osobye zhurnaly komiteta ministrov 28 i 31 ianvaria 1905 g.,” Rabochii vopros, p. 29.

11. “Pervye rodov dvorianskikh Rossiiskoi imperii,” Obshchii gerbovnik dvorianskikh rodov Vserossiiskoi imperii (St. Petersburg, 1797), p. 65.

12. Schwarz, Solomon M., The Russian Revolution of 1905: The Workers’ Movement and the Formation of Bolshevism and Menshevistn (Chicago, 1967), pp. 86–128 Google Scholar. The significant differences between the two commissions were many, but the main difference was that the Shidlovsky Commission included elected representatives of the workers and the Kokovtsov Commission did not. Exactly who was responsible for this provision in the former instance is not known, but it is commonly assumed that it was the idea of General D. F. Trepov, because it reflects many of his basic assumptions. See, for example, “Trepovskii proekt rechi Nikolaia II k rabochim posle 9 ianvaria, 190S g.,” Krasnyi arkhiv, 20 (1927): 240-42. The chief purpose of the Shidlovsky Commission was investigation. In this way the Russian government hoped to redirect the energies of the workers from revolution in the streets toward a peaceful solution of their problems. This did not presage a shift in the government's usual policies toward the inclusion of workers in commissions of this nature but was rather an experiment which would stand or fall on the success it achieved in grounding worker discontent. The Kokovtsov Commission, on the other hand, was created solely to formulate concrete draft laws to improve the conditions of workers. That it was designed to take advantage of and incorporate what the Shidlovsky Commission had learned is borne out by the fact that Nicholas II named Senator N. V. Shidlovsky to sit on the Kokovtsov Commission as an official member in addition to chairing his own. See “Lichnyi sostav vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi kommissii dlia obsuzhdenia mer po uporiadocheniiu byta i polozheniia rabochikh v promyshlennykh predpriatiiakh imperii, “ Rabochii vopros, p. 34.

13. Kokovtsov, Is moego proshlago, 1: 43. There was some basis for Kokovtsov's optimism, since of the two major groups of Russian industrialists the St. Petersburg group generally favored some aspects of labor reform, though the Moscow factory-owners did not.

14. See Ermansky, A., “Krupnaia burzhuaziia v 1905-1907 g.,” in Martov, L., Maslov, P., and Potresov, A., eds., Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii v nachale XX-go veka, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1909–14), vol. 2, pt 2, p. 189 Google Scholar; also Trudy of the Thirtieth Session of the South Russian Mining Industrialists and Gornozavodskii listok, no. 12-13, p. 7234.

15. Walkin, Jacob, “The Attitude of the Tsarist Government Toward the Labor Problem,” American Slavic and East European Review, 13 (April 1954): 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. “Lichnyi sostav vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi kommissii,” p. 34.

17. “Rech1 Kokovtsova na zasedanii IS marta 190S g.,” Rabochii vopros, p. 49.

18. Ermansky, “Krupnaia burzhuaziia,” pp. 43-44.

19. Since the 1880s Germany had been the leading country in legislation for its workers. Under the leadership of Prince Bismarck, the imperial government anticipated the programs of the socialists by a series of laws—the Health Insurance Law of 1883, the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and 188S, and the Old Age Law of 1888—which decisively undercut much of their appeal. At first limited only to industrial workers, the schemes were extended by subsequent legislation in 1886 and 1887 to include farm workers, craftsmen, persons employed in naval and were compulsory—that is, both employers and employees had to participate in them. The minimum relief available under the former two acts consisted of free medical treatment, medicine, bandages, and so forth, while monetary compensation for more serious illnesses was administered through various “friendly societies” or “funds” to which all workers had to belong. Associations of employers (Berufsgenossenschaftett) were established on a regional basis and were required to raise the money needed to meet all claims from among their members. Pensions could be claimed beginning only in the pensioner's seventy-first year, although annuities could begin after the worker had been insured for five years if he was the victim of some permanent incapacity. In other areas of labor reform, laws passed in 1890 to amend the German Industrial Code provided for the creation of industrial courts for the settlement of monetary disputes, restricted the number of hours of weekly employment of women and juveniles, and prohibited employment of the preceding two groups during night hours. Moreover, the workers were given the right to form associations (unions) through which they could negotiate with their employers concerning working conditions. Finally the German government had, by the 1890s, conceded grudging acceptance of the legality of the workers' right to strike, although it was hedged about with restrictions. For a more detailed discussion of German labor legislation see Dawson, William H., Bismarck and State Socialism: An Exposition of the Social and Economic Legislation of Germany Since 1870 (London, 1890), pp. 120 ffGoogle Scholar.; Bruck, W. F., Social and Economic History of Germany from William II to Hitler, 1888-1938: A Comparative Study (London, 1938; New York, 1962), p. 129 Google Scholar; Dawson, William H., The German Empire, 1867-1914, and the Unity Movement, 2 vols. (London, 1919), 2: 265 Google Scholar; and Mitchell, Harvey and Stearns, Peter N., Workers and Protest: The European Labor Movement, the Working Classes and the Origins of Social Democracy, 1890–1914 (Itasca, III., 1971), p. 136 Google Scholar.

20. “Proekt zakona prodolzhitel'nosti i raspredelenii rabochego vremeni v promyshlennykh zavedeniiakh,” Rabochii vopros, pp. 64-65. It was further suggested that on Christmas Eve the maximum be reduced to half the number of hours required on the eve of any other holiday.

21. Ibid., pp. 68-69, arts. 19, 22, and 24.

22. “Proekt polozheniia ob obespechenii vrachebnoiu pomoshch'iu rabochikh promyshlennykh predpriatii,” Rabochii vopros, p. 94. But not all of the chinovniki on the commission were convinced of the efficacy of such a decentralized scheme. Thus some recommended that the whole question of medical assistance be included in a system of state insurance, with the organization and control of private expenditures resting with the government. See “Zhurnal zasedaniia kommissii po zakonoproektu ob obespechenii vrachebnoi pomoshch'iu … 26 aprelia 1905 g.,” Rabochii vopros, p. 99.

23. “Osnovnoe polozhenie zakonoproekta o gosudarstvennom strakhovanii rabochikh i sluzhashchikh na zavodakh, fabrikakh i gornykh promyslakh,” Rabochii vopros, pp. 110-31.

24. Ibid., p. 111.

25. Ibid., p. 113.

26. Ibid., p. 116, art. 34; p. 128, art. 98. Provision was also made for earlier retirement if the worker had suffered at least two-thirds disability or had reached at least fifty years of age (with a lower pension in the latter instance).

27. “Osnovnye polozheniia ob organizatsiiakh lits, zaniatiiakh v promyshlennykh predpriatiiakh,” Rabochii vopros, pp. 133-40, and “Ob izmenenii karatel'nykh statei zakona, kasaiushchikhsiia stachek i dosrochnykh rastorzhenii dogovorov o naime,” pp. 141-74.

28. Torgovo-promyshlennaia gaseta, Apr. 1/14, 1905.

29. “Ob izmenenii karatel'nykh statei zakona,” p. 171, arts. 1-4.

30. Zapiska s-peterburgskogo obshchestva, “K predstoiashchim zaniatiam kommissii,” Rabochii vopros, p. 62.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid., p. 56. See also Zapiska s-peterburgskogo obshchestva, “Po zakonoproektu ob obespechenii vrachebnoi pomoshch'iu rabochikh promyshlennykh zavedenii,” pp. 102-9.

33. “K predstoiashchim zaniatiam kommissii,” p. 58. See also “Po zakonoproektu ob izmenenii karatel'nykh statei zakona, kasaiushchikhsiia stachek i dosrochnykh rastorzhenii dogovorov o naime,” pp. 174-94.

34. “K predstoiashchim zaniatiam kommissii,” p. 59.

35. See, for example, “Zakonoproekt s-peterburgskogo obshchestva o prodolzhitel'nosti i raspredelenii rabochego vremeni v promyshlennykh zavedeniiakh,” Rabochii vopros, pp. 86-92.

36. “K predstoiashchim zaniatiam kommissii,” p. 63.

37. “Zhurnal vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi kommissii dlia obsuzhdeniia mer po uporiadocheniiu byta i polozheniia rabochikh v promyshlennykh predpriatiiakh imperii: Zasedanie 16 maia, 190S g.,” Rabochii vopros, p. 197.

38. Ibid., p. 203.

39. The industrialists were overwhelmingly represented at both plenary sessions of the commission. Whereas the government had twenty-two people present—six members appointed by the emperor (including Kokovtsov himself) and sixteen from the ministries (Interior, Finance, Justice, War, etc.)—the industrialists had one hundred twenty. For the sake of convenience, the latter can be divided into eight categories: those representing committees of trade and manufacture (twenty-four representatives); members of various bourse committees from all parts of the empire (forty); representatives of the Councils of Congresses—which included mining industrialists, oil industrialists, and flour and sugar manufacturers (thirty-one); and five other groups. These latter groups were the Permanent Imperial Consultative Bureau of Railway Industrialists (four representatives); the Permanent Consultative Bureau of Gold and Platinum Mining Industrialists (five); the League of Brewers (four); the St. Petersburg Society for the Assistance, Improvement, and Development of Factory-Mill Industry (eight); and the Commercial and Manufacturing Firms of the City of Batum (four). The government representatives were all trusted senior officials below the ministerial level in their respective departments. On the other hand, the composition of the industrial delegations tended to vary. As a rule, however, they included a major official in one of the most important firms of the respective area of industry as the chief representative. Also included in the delegations were a number of “deputies.” These men were frequently technical experts such as engineers and accountants. Both Rabinovich and Neratov are listed in this category. See “Lichnyi sostav vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi kommissii,” pp. 34-40.

40. “Zhurnal vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi kommissii: Zasedanie 16 maia, 1905 g., “ pp. 207-8.

41. Ibid., p. 217.

42. Ibid., pp. 213, 218.

43. “Stenograficheskii otchet o zasedanii kommissii …, 18 maia, 1905 g.,” Rabochii vopros, p. 236.

44. Ibid., p. 241.

45. For a more detailed discussion of the commission's subsequent efforts in the years from 190S to 1908 see K. Pazhitnov, “ ‘Novyi loirs’ politiki po rabochemu voprosu: Proekty rabochago zakonodatel'stva s 1905 po 1908 g.,” Vestnik Evropy, March 1909, pp. 218-50.

46. “Imennoi vysochaishii ukaz o vremennykh pravilakh o nakazuemosti uchastiia v zabastovkakh v predpriatiiakh, imeiushchikh obshchestvennoe ili gosudarstvennoe znachenie, a ravno v uchrezhdeniiakh pravitel'stvennykh, i ob obespechenii sud'by tekh sluzhashchikh, koi ne prinimaia uchastiia v zabastovkakh, postradali ot uchinennogo nad nimi nasiliia,” Rabochii vopros, pp. 274-79.

47. “Senat o zabastovkakh,” Rabochii vopros, p. 280.

48. Ibid.

49. Polnoe sobranie sakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, 3rd series, vol. 25, no. 26, 987.

50. Ibid., vol. 26, no. 27, 479.

51. Turin, From Peter the Great to Lenin, p. 124.

52. Kokovtsov, Is moego proshlago, 1: 55. Even if expediency remained the major reason for introducing such a wide-ranging program, it should be remembered that the German government, which was the model for Europe in the area of labor legislation in the nineteenth century, introduced its reformist laws purely out of expediency and for much baser political reasons. See Mitchell and Stearns, Workers and Protest, p. 158, and Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism, p. 120. See also Wachenheim, Hedwig, Die deutsche Arbciterbewegung, 1844 bis 1914 (Cologne, 1967)Google Scholar.

53. “25 let nazad (Iz dnevnikov L. Tikhomirova),” Krasnyi arkhiv, 39 (1930): 66.

54. Borovoy, S. Ia., “Ob ekonomicheskikh sviaziakh burzhuaznoi verkhushki i tsarizma v period imperializma,” Istoriia SSSR, 1970, no. 2, p. 109.Google Scholar

55. Ozerov, I. Kh., Kak raskhodiatsia v Rossii narodnyia den'gi (po neizdannym dokumentam) (Moscow, 1907), p. 53 Google Scholar. See also Bovykin, V. I., Zaroshdenie finansovogo kapitala v Rossii (Moscow, 1967), p. 290.Google Scholar

56. Kokovtsov, Is tnoego proshlagp, 1: 179 ff