Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:39:29.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Marching Together!”: Left Bloc Activities in the Russian Revolutionary Movement, 1900 to February 1917

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Michael Melancon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Russian socialists often used the slogan "vroz' idti, vmeste bit'," which signified that socialists should maintain separate party identities (march apart), but, if revolution approached, join together to deliver the coup de grace. Even in ordinary times, in tsarist Russia "marching apart" was a luxury revolutionaries could rarely afford. Of course, various parties and factions did not completely sacrifice their independence, but at all levels they informally coordinated activities and, at key times, resorted to official interparty arrangements. Although some histories have mentioned left bloc tactics during the 1905 Revolution and in elections to the duma, the full extent of socialist cooperation has hitherto escaped note.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , Summer 1990 , pp. 239 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1990

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. This study refers to both official intersocialist agreements and informal arrangements as “left bloc activities.” Among numerous Soviet studies of the left bloc (the topic is a minor cottage industry in Soviet historiography) are Khazaret Argun, Bor'ba BoVshevistskoi partii za soiuz rabochego klassa i krest'ianstva v period mezhdu dvumia burzh.-dem. revoliutsiami v Rossii (1907-fevral' 1917) (Sukhumi: Aloshara, 1974); N. P. Badaeva, Leninskaia taktika “levogo bloka” v revoliutsii 1905–1907 gg. (Leningrad, 1977); and D. A. Kolesnichenko, “Parlamentskaia taktika bol'shevikov i narodnicheskii blok v izbiratel'noi kampanii vo II Gosudarstvennuiu dumu,” Istoricheskie Zapiski [henceforth I.Z.] 104 (1979): 91–122.

2. Richard Pipes, Social-Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885–1897 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 40–51; Michael Melancon, “The Socialist Revolutionaries from 1902 to 1907: Peasant and Workers’ Party,” Russian History 12 (Spring 1985): 4–5 ; idem, “Athens or Babylon?: The Birth of the Socialist Revolutionary and Social Democratic Parties in Saratov, 1890–1905” in Politics and Society in Provincial Russia: Saratov, 1590–1917, ed. Rex Wade and Scott Seregny (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989).

3. Iskra and Rabochee delo found, respectively, that the SR program “to a significant degree represented SD principles,” and that it “is not distinguished in anything substantive from the [SD] program.” Iskra, no. 5 (June 1901); Rabochee delo, no/9 (May 1901); B. V. Levanov, lz istorii bor'by bol'shevistskoi partii protiv eserov v gody pervoi russkoi revoliutsii (Leningrad: Len. un-ta, 1974), 40.

4. G. A. Kuklin, Za 40 let; itogi revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia v Rossii (1862–1902 gg.). Sbornik programm … (Geneva, 1903), 47–48; Revoliutsionnaia Rossiia [henceforth R.R.], nos. 5, 18, 21, 22, 24, 31 (1902–1903); A. I. Spiridovich, Partiia Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov i eia predshestvenniki. 1886–1916 (Petrograd, 1918), 142n.

5. Obzor vazhneishikh doznanii proizvodivshikhsia v zhandarmskikh upravleniiakh za 1902 god (Rostov-on-Don, 1906), 2; “K vospominaniiam starogo obukhovtsa,” Krasnaia letopis’ [henceforth K.L.], no. 19 (1926): 58–60; R.R., no. 36 (1903); Melancon, “SRs from 1902,” 15; P. Lebedev, “K istorii Saratovskoi organizatsii RSDRP (1901–1903 gg.),” Proletarskaia Revoliutsiia [henceforth P.R.], no. 3 (1923): 244; Melancon, “Athens or Babylon “; V. I. Lenin, “Pochemu Sotsial-Demokraty dolzhny ob“iavit’ reshitel'nuiu i besposhchadnuiv voinu na Sotsialistov-revoliutsionerov,” Iskra, no. 21 (June 1902).

6. A. Argunov, “Iz proshlogo partii sots.-rev.,” Byloe, no. 10 (1907): 108; V. B. Ostrovskii, ed., Lenin i Saratovskii krai: sbornik dok. i mat. Saratov: Povolzhskoe knizhnoe, 1975), 250.

7. The rejection of unification is in Vtoroi ocherednoi s“ezd Ross. Sots-Dem. Rabochei partii (Geneva, 1903), 358–364; Vtoroi s“ezd RSDRP, iiul'-avgust 1903 goda. Protokoly (Moscow, 1959), 401–407; 456–457, 500–501; 512–513; A.I. Spiridovich, Istoriia BoVshevizma v Rossii (Paris: Frankorusskaia pechat, 1922), 71; M. Balabanov, Ocherk istorii revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia v Rossii (Leningrad: Priboi 1929), 188; R.R., no. 37 (1 December 1903): 3–5; Levanov, Iz istorii, 40.

8. Vtoroi s“ezd RSDRP, 159; R.R., nos. 4, 5, 26, 31, 36, 39 (1902–1904); Lebedev, “K istorii saratovskii organizatsii RSDRP,” 44; I. Iurenev, “Rabota RSDRP v severo-zapadnom krae (Vil'no) (1903–1913 gg.),” P.R., nos. 31–32 (1924): 169.

9. R.R., no. 56 (5 December 1904): 1–2, 7–9; Krasnoe znamia (n.p., 1905), 74–79; Melancon, “SRs from 1902,” 14; Henry J. Tobias, The Jewish Bund in Russia from Its Origins to 1905 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1972), 279–280. Lenin abandoned the April 1905 multiparty conference in Geneva because it lacked an SD majority. Tretii s“ezd RSDRP, aprel'-mai 1905 goda. Protokoly (Moscow: Gozizdat, 1959), 378–382; Lenin i saratovskii krai, 29; Spiridovich, Partiia Sots.-Rev., 195–196.

10. About the offensive phrases, Lenin stated, “No eto uzh chistye rugatel'stva!” Tretii s“ezd, 61, 67–68, 173–176, 372–390.

11. M. Perrie, ed., Protokoly Pervogo S“ezda Partii Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov (1906; reprint. New York: Kraus, 1983), 338–342, 350; Obzor revoliutsionnykh partii. Obzor partii sots.-rev. (n.p.. 1909), 20. Nicolaevsky Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, box 194, files 4–8. The Menshevik offer to the SRs included a suggestion that the PSR call a party conference to adopt the SD proposal; the SR M. Natanson, who received the communication, evidently resented SD interference in his party's internal affairs and refused, unless certain conditions were met, to forward the request to party organs. The correspondence quickly degenerated into a series of missives in which each side proclaimed its desire to reach an agreement but only upon the condition that the other side be reasonable.

12. la. A. Shuster, Peterburgskie rabochie v 1905–1907 gg. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1976), 133; Otdel'nyi ottisk iz no. 77, Revoliutsionnaia Rossiia, no. 3 (December 1905): 16; A. L'vov, “1905 god v Baku,” Novyi listok, nos. 13–14 (1926): 152; V. S. Kirillov, Bol'sheviki vo glave massovykh pol. stachek v period pod “ema rev., 1905–1907 gg. (Moscow, 1961), 114; Argun, Bor'ba Bol'shevistkoi partii, 200; Spiridovich, Partii Sots.-Rev., 167–170; Iurenev, “Rabota RSDRP,” 170–182.

13. “Boevaia druzhina v 1905 za Nevskoi zastavoi. Vospominaniia,” K.L., no. 20 (1926): 101–108; S. Chernomordik, ed., Put’ k oktiabriu (Moscow, 1922), 203; Spiridovich, Partiia Sots-Rev., 212–213; N. Leshchenskii, “Rabota sotsial-demokratov v stavropole-gubernskom (1904–1907 gg.),” P.R., no. 27 (1924): 125, Znamia truda [henceforth Z.T.], no. 7 (16 September 1907): 16; Otdel'nyi ottisk, 16; Melancon, “Athens or Babylon?” In Moscow the Coalitional Council of Armed Detachments led the revolutionary forces during the December 1905 uprising.

14. Leshchenskii, “Rabota sotsial-demokratov,” 125; Melancon, “Athens or Babylon? “; 1. Merinkov, et al., “Brianskii zavod v 1905 godu,” Letopis’ revoliutsii [henceforth L.R.], nos. 3–4 (1926): 169–173.Google Scholar

15. Levanov, Iz istorii bor'by bol'shevistskoi partii, 121.

16. Pushkareva, I. M., Zheleznodorozhniki Rossii v burzhuazno-demokraticheskikh revoliutsiiakh (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), 150, 194, 202nGoogle Scholar; Reichman, Henry, Railwaymen and Revolution 1905 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987, 198–201 Google Scholar; Melancon, “SRs from 1902,” 27; idem, “Stormy Petrels,” 12–13.

17. Petrov, Z. S., “Partiia i Soviet rab. dep.,” 1905 god v Saratovskoi gubernii (Po materialam zhandarmskogo upravleniia) (Saratov: Gubkoma, 1925), 57–70 Google Scholar; Melancon, “SRs from 1902,” 20–25; “Athens or Babylon? “; G. M. Derenkovskii and S. V. Tiutiukin, “Rabochii klass v revoliutsii 1905–1907 gg.,” I.Z., no. 95 (1978): 64.

18. Vpered, no. 7 (1905); Soboleva, P. I., “Bor'ba bol'shevikov s eserami po takticheskim voprosam v period pervoi russkoi revoliutsii,” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, no. 1 (1956): 90–91 Google Scholar; Lenin, V. I., Sochineniia, 30 vols. (Moscow, 1936), 8: 137 Google Scholar; Letopis’ revoliutsii (Berlin, Petersburg, Moscow: Kniga Nardaia, 1923), 1: 86–87; Studentsov, A., Saratovskoe krest'ianskoe vosstanie 1905 goda. Iz vospominanii raz”ezdnogo agitatora (Penza: Penzpechatel', 1926). 1 Google Scholar. During the 1905 revolutionary crisis, the sphere of joint work was enormous. The SR worker Aleksei Buzinov recalls that the SD and SR district committees in the Moskovskii district of St. Petersburg met and arranged for the election in the factories of a joint-party workers committee for the purpose of “coordinating activities of both parties and to lead the workers’ movement.” Buzinov, Aleksei, Za nevskoi zastavoi. Zapiski rabochego (Moscow and Leningrad, 1930), 63–64 Google Scholar.

19. Z.T., nos. 23–24 (December 1909).

20. Tretii s“ezd, 187, 372–390; Protokoly Pervogo S“ezda P.S.-R., 338–342, 350, 355–366; Obzor partii sots.-rev., 20. In this connection, the SRs called the Russian bourgeoisie “the most reactionary in Europe.” Soviet historiography is only now edging closer to admitting Lenin's debt to populism; see Soviet Studies in History 27 (Winter 1988–1989); 37–38.

21. Argun, Bor'ba Bol'shevistkoi partii, 202–207, 247; V (Londonskii) s“ezd RSDRP. Protokoly (Moscow, 1960), 401; Nasha zaria, no. 3 (1912): 3–12.

22. Soboleva, Bor'ba bol'shevikov, 96–99; Argun, Bor'ba Bol'shevistkoi partii, 193–202, 206–212; V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., 55 vols. (Moscow: Gozpolizdat, 1958–1965) 9: 276; 14: 135; 21: 90–91, 157–158, 362–364; 22: 337; Ocherki istorii leningradskoi organizatsii KPSS. Chast’ 1 (1883-Oktiabr’ 1917 gg.) (Leningrad, 1962, 223–224; “Protokoly i dokumenty PKb, 1907,” K.L., no. 41 (1931): 71–72.

23. Argun, Bor'ba Bol'shevistkoi partii, 202–207, 247; V (Londonskii) s“ezd RSDRP, 401; Nasha zaria, no. 3 (1912): 3–12.

24. Revoliutsionnaia mysl', no. 3 (1908): 5–7; A. Savin, “Kak otnosiatsia s.-r. k vyboram v 4-iu G. Dumu,” Nasha zaria, no. 6 (1912): 73–79; Z.T., no. 47 (1913): 9; Kolesnichenko, “Parlamentskaia taktika,” 109–110.

25. Rapport du Parti Socialiste-Révolutionnaire de Russie au Congrés Social. Int. de Stuttgart (Août 1907) (Gand, 1907), 91, 98; Levanov, Iz istorii bor'by bol'shevistskoi partii, 124; A. N. Stepanov, “Kritika V. I. Leninym programmy i taktiki eserov v period novogo revoliutsionnogo pod “ema (1910–1914 gg.),” in Bolsheviki v bor'be protiv melko-bwzhuaznykh partii Rossii (Moscow: Mysl', 1969), 23; D. A. Kolesnichenko, “Iz istorii bor'by rabochego klassa za krest'ianskie massy v 1906 g.,” I.Z., no. 95 (1975): 279; Kolesnichenko, “Parlamentskaia taktika,” 116; G. Kotov, “Bol'shevistskaia rabota v Ekaterinburge v 1906–1907 gg. v period vyborakh vo II Gos. Dumu,” P.R., no. 87 (1929); 120.

26. In association with the First Duma, the United Committee of the Social Democratic Factions and the Trudovik Group arose; the SDs and SRs convened mass meetings to introduce the Trudoviks to the workers. Argun, Bor'ba Bol'shevistkoi partii, 200; Kolesnichenko, “Iz istorii bor'by,” 279–280; A. Leont'ev, “Iz proshlogo, 1905–1910,” K.L., no. 11 (1924): 119; B. Peres, “Arest Peka na Udel'noi,” P.R., nos. 18–19 (1923): 166–167.

27. I.I. Menitskii, Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie voennykh godov (Moscow, 1925), 395; Z.T., no. 53 (April 1914): 11 (material from “M.V.D., Dep. Politsii, 4 Oktiabr 1907, no. 1363”); Melancon, “Stormy Petrels,” passim. During this era, many SD, SR, anarchist, and workers with no party affiliation who had been fired for involvement in revolutionary activities set up small cooperative ventures, which not only gave the workers a livelihood, but also were centers of revolutionary activity and friendly debates among workers with various orientations. Taimi, A., Stranitsy perezhitogo (Petrozavodsk, 1949), 78–79.Google Scholar

28. P. Arskii, “Epokha reaktsii v Petrograde (1907–1910 gg.),” K.L. no. 9 (1924): 80; Z.T., no. 6 (30 September 1907).

29. Leont'ev, “Iz proshlogo,” 120; F. Petrov, “Iz zhizni Peterburgskoi organizatsii bol'shevikov, 1905–1907 gg.,” K.L., no. 9 (1924): 109; N. Sapozhnikov, “Is istorii Izhevskoi sots.-dem. gruppy (1902–1910 gg.), P.R., no. 24 (1924): 87; Novikov, V., Vospominaniia podpol'shchika (Moscow, 1929), 24–27 Google Scholar; 1905 god, 112; Derenkovskii, Tiutiukin, “Rabochii klass v revoliutsii,” 94–95; Malyshev, S., “Iz istorii dvizheniia bezrabotnykh v 1906–1907 gg.,” PR., nos. 111–112 (1931): 139 Google Scholar; Trud, no. 4 (October 1906): 11–12; Z.T., no. 7 (1907): 16.

30. hvlecheniia iz doklada tsent. kom. P.S.R. o Vladivostokskom vozstanii v oktiabr’ 1907 goda (n.p., 1908), 2; M. Morshchanskaia, “Pervaia konferentsiia voennykh i boevykh organizatsii RSDRP(b) (v Tammerforse v noiabre 1906 goda),” P.R., no. 27(1924): 90–92;Revoliutsiia 1905 goda i samoderzhavie. Dok. i mat. (Moscow, 1925), 112–123; L. Ol'shanskii, “Kronshtatskoe vosstanie 1906 goda,” K.L., no. 5 (1923): 188–190.

31. Z.T., nos. 23–24 (1909): 29; D. N. Rudnik, “Lenin v bor'be s gruppoi ‘Vpered, '” K.L., no. 29 (1929): 51–53, 66–67; N. Voitinskii, “Boikotizm, otzovizm, i ul'timatizm,” P.R., nos. 91–92 (1929): 64. Besides the left-wing alliance, the so-called Liquidators, consisting of Right Mensheviks and Right SRs who wished to liquidate underground organizations in favor of legal reformist work, joined together in labor organizations.

32. A. Kopiatkevich, “Iz istorii Olenetskoi organizatsii (1905–1908 gg.),” P.R., no. 6 (1922): 62–88; A. Belobrazov, “Iz istorii partizanskogo dvizheniia na Urale (1906–1909 gg.),” K.L., no. 16 (1926): 92–99; A. Arosev, “Iz proshlogo revoliutsii. Kazan’ 1907–1909 gg.,” P.R., no. 4 (1922): 261–267; N. Popov, “Vospominaniia podpol'noi rabote v Khar'kove v 1907–1909 gg,” L.R., no. 3 (1923): 4–6.

33. Melancon, “Stormy Petrels,” 31–32; Arskii, “Epokha reaktsii,” 106; Z.T., no. 35 (April 1911): 14–16; G. Shidlovskii, “V peterburgskikh partiinykh riadakh vesnoi-letom 1910,” K.L., nos. 44–45 (1931): 187–188; Izvestiia oblastnogo zagranichnogo komiteta P.S.R. (Vestnik), no. 13 (January 1911): 20–24; V. Vladimirova, ed., Lenskie sobytiia 1912 goda. (Dok. i mat.) (Moscow: Voprosa truda, 1925), 259–260.

34. S. Ainzaft, “Ocherki prof, dvizheniia v Zhitomire (1902–1912 gg.),” Materialy po istorii professional'nogo dvizheniia v Rossii, no. 1 (1924): 80; Gorbovets et al., “Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie i partrabota v Chernigove, 1911–1915,” L.R., nos. 3–4 (1926): 178–181; N. Iakovlev, “Aprel'sko-maiskie dni 1912,” K.L., no. 14 (1925): 229–230; ZT., nos. 33, 35, 43, 45, 52 (1911–1913); M. K. Korbut, “Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii pered voinoi v otsenke Departamenta Politsii, 1911–1913 gg.,” Uchenie zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta 86, no. 2 (1926): 358.

35. Z.T., nos. 47, 48, 49, 51, 53 (1912–1913).

36. Kaiurov quoted in V. Kaiurov, “Rabochee dvizhenie v Pitere (1914),” P.R., no. 44 (1925): 195; his Petrogradskie rabochie v gody imperialisticheskoi voiny (Moscow, 1930), 90–93; Aleksandr Fedorovich Kerenskii (Po materialam Departamenta Politsii) (Petrograd: Tsentralnyi Komitet Trudovoi Gruppy, 1917), 9; Bodraia mysl', no. 2 (22 December 1913); Z.T.. no. 51 (4 April 1913); A. Kuchkin, “V podpol'e v Ufe v 1911–1915 gg.,” P.R., no. 84 (1929): 235; F. G. Popov, Letopis’ revoliutsionnykh sobytii v samarskoi gubernii, 1902–1917 (Kuibyshev, 1969), 235; Smelaia zhizn', no. 9 (6 June 1914): 3; Profsoiuzy SSSR: dok. i mat. (Moscow, 1963), 296–298; Trudovoi golos, no. 21 (16 July 1913): 2.

37. Z.T., nos. 47, 49 (1913); “Rabochie organizatsii na iuge, 1914,” L.R., no. 20 (1926): 153; V. G. Kikoin, “'Zvezdy’ i ‘Pravdy'; legal'naia rabochaia pechat',” K.L., no. 35 (1930): 107–108.

38. Za narod, no. 61 (1914).

39. Argun, Bor'ba Bol'shevistkoi partii, 235.

40. “Vo vremia imp. voiny,” K.L., no. 10 (1924): 122; Petrogradskii proletariat i bol'shevistskaia organizatsiia v gody imp. voiny, 1914–1917 gg. (Leningrad, 1939), 180–181; Michael Melancon, “The Socialist Revolutionaries from 1902 to February 1917: A Party of the Workers, Peasants, and Soldiers” (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1984), 131–202.

41. Melancon, “SRs from 1902 to February 1917,” 203–286.

42. Ibid., 287–359. An incomplete count shows joint organizations in Kronshtadt, Smolensk, Minsk, Chernigov, Odessa, Mariupol, Nikolaev, Kherson, Lugansk, Kazan', Orenburg, Tomsk, Irkutsk, and Krasnoiarsk.

43. V. Astrov, Bol'sheviki v Smolensk* do oktiatbria 1917 g. (Smolensk, 1924), 15–16; A. Puzakov, “Vokrug soiuza metallistov (1912–1917 gg.),” Revoliutsionnoe byloe, no. 3 (1924): 52; Materialypo istorii revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia, 4 vols. (Nizhnii-Novgorod, 1921–1922) 2: 151; 4; 161–163; V. Ter, “Nakanune velikoi revoliutsii,” in Nakanune revoliutsii. Sbornik statei, zametok, i vospom., ed., N. Ovsiannikov (Moscow: Gozizdat, 1922), 49–52; S. Gopner, “1916 goda v Ekaterinoslave,” L.R., no. 2 (1923); Melancon, “SRs from 1902 to February 1917,” 406–453.

44. M. Melancon, “Who Wrote What and When?: Proclamations of the February Revolution in Petrograd, 23 February-1 March 1917,” Soviet Studies 40 (July 1988): 485 (quotation from Aleksandr Shliapnikov, Kanun Semnadtsatogo goda [Moscow, Leningrad, 1923], 337–338).

45. “V ianvare i fevrale 1917 g. iz donesenii sekretnykh agentov A. A. Protopopov,” Byloe, no. 13 (1918): 95.

46. Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi, The February Revolution: Petrograd, 1917 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981 Google Scholar; Raleigh, Donald, Revolution on the Volga; 1917 in Saratov (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar. Soviet studies often note socialist cooperation during the February Revolution: Oktiabr'skoe vooruzhennoe vosstanie, 2 vols. (Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk, 1967) 1: 63; and Kukin, D. M., Aluf, A. I., and Leiberov, I. P., Partiia bol'shevikov vfevral'skoi revoliutsii 1917 goda (Moscow, 1971), 146 Google Scholar ( “unity of action of all revolutionary forces in the struggle [took place] “).