Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:24:49.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Polishness” of Production: Factory Politics and the Reinvention of Working-Class National and Political Identities in Russian Poland's Textile Industry, 1880-1910

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Laura A. Crago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the development of nineteenth-century Polish nationalism has received considerable scholarly attention, it has almost always focused on how the intelligentsia became the standard-bearers of Polish national consciousness. As a result, we know very little about how other members of Polish society constructed national identities. This is particularly perplexing when it comes to studying Russian Poland's workers, for there was no dearth of Polish nationalist activity among these workers. National demands articulated by Łodź's Polish workers during strikes in 1892, for example, inspired a group of social democrats to abandon internationalism and instead create the Polish Socialist Party (PPS). During the revolution of 1905, nationalism once again assumed an important place in both working-class protest and organization. Workers played a prominent role in the Polish school strikes. They also supported and sustained a uniquely Polish phenomena—a nationalist working-class political party, the National Union of Workers (NZR). Although the NZR and its constituent trade unions could be found within every industry within Russian Poland, the organization gained its greatest foothold within the textile industry. Moreover, it was within the textile industry in 1906 where bitter debates between nationalist and socialist workers erupted in violence after a disgruntled weaver from the Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL) concluded a political argument with an NZR coworker by gunning him down in the street.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , Spring 2000 , pp. 16 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2000

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. The National Union of Workers’ textile trade union, Unity (Jedność), counted some 35, 500 workers at its membership peak in fall 1907, a number that ultimately exceeded the memberships of the textile labor organizations associated with either the PPSLeft or the Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL). The SDKPiL textile trade union contained slightly more than 14, 000 members at its membership peak in November 1906, whereas the so-called class-based textile union of the PPS-Left numbered 27, 500 members at its membership height in July 1907. For these statistics see, Karwacki, Wladyslaw Lech, Związki zawodowe i stowarzyszenia pracodawców w Łodzi do roku 1914 (Warsaw, 1972), 60, 72, 83.Google Scholar

2. Posiak, Jan, “Po zabójstwie Bezyngiera i bitwa zarzeska,” Kiliński 1, no. 3 (July 1936): 128–29Google Scholar; Brzeziński, Maksymiljan, “Dzielnica ‘Zielona’ w Łodzi,” Kiliński 1, no. 1 (January 1936): 18 Google Scholar; “Walkji [sic] bratobójcze,” Łodzianin, no. 28 (November 1906): 2; and Ajnenkiel, Eugeniusz, “Z kurzem krwi bratniej,” Niepodlegiość 4, no. 2(8) (1931): 286–302.Google Scholar

3. The standard account of the NZR centered on it being nothing more than an “artificial creation of the bourgeoisie,” which attracted only “the darkest elements” (i.e., illiterate male peasant workers “straight from the countryside” and women workers “under clerical influence “). See, here, Kalabiński, Stanisław, Antynarodowapolityka endecji wrewolucji 1905–1907 (Warsaw, 1955)Google Scholar; Kalabiński, Stanisław and Tych, Feliks, Czwarte powstanie czy pierwsza rewolucja: Lata 1905–1907 na ziemiach polskich, 2d ed. (Warsaw, 1976)Google Scholar; and Monasterska, Teresa, Narodowy Związek Robotniczy, 1905–1907 (Warsaw, 1973).Google Scholar

4. “Miejsce i rola tzw. nieklasowych nurtów w środowisku robotniczym w Polsce (XIXXX w): Stenogram dyskusji redakcyjnej,” ZPola Walki 113 (1986): 39–83.

5. Led by Anna Żarnowska, these historians transformed the study of labor history during the 1980s. Compare, for example, Żarnowska, , Klasa Robotnicza Królestwa Polskiego, 1870–1914 (Warsaw, 1974)Google Scholar; with the work by the same author, Robotnicy Warszawy na przełomie XIX i XX wieku (Warsaw, 1985). The younger generation of partition–era historians and ethnographers are showcased in the edited volume by the same author, Wokół tradycji kultury robotniczej w Polsce (Warsaw, 1986) as well as in the more recent edited work, Społeczeństwo i polityka—dorastanie do demokracji—Kultura polityczna w Królestwie Polskim na początku XX wieku (Warsaw, 1993). An idea of how the new historiography explored working–class life in the textile industry can be derived from examining, among others, Grażyna Ewa Karpińska, Bronisława Kopczyńska–Jaworska, and Anna Wożniak, Pracować żeby żyć, żyć żeby pracować, vol. 31, Łódźkie Studia Etnograficzne (Łódź, 1992) about the textile industry centered in Łódź. For Żyrardów, see, Stawarz, Andrzej, ed., Tradycyna kultura robotnicza Żyrardowa (Warsaw, 1982)Google Scholar; and Woźniak, Andrzej, Zwyczaje doroczne i rodzinne w Żyrardowie (od przełomu XIX i XX w. do II wojny światowej (Żyrardów, 1981).Google Scholar

6. Kaczyńska, Elżbieta, “Tłum i margines społeczny w wydarzeniach rewolucvjnych (Królestwo Polskie, 1904–1907),” Dzieje Najnowsze 14, no. 3–4 (1982): 221–30Google Scholar; Kaczyńska, , “Pierwotne formy ruchu społecznego w miastach Królestwa Polskiego, 1815–1879,” Polska Klasa Robotnicza: Studium Historyczne, vol. 10 (Warsaw, 1983), 35–64Google Scholar; and Kaczyńska, , “Nad historia masowych ruchów społecznych,” Więź, no. 11/12 (1983): 25–37 Google Scholar. The articles ultimately formed the basis of a volume Kaczyńska edited with Rykowski, Zbigniew, Przemoc zbiorowa—ruch masoxvy—rewolucja (Warsaw, 1990).Google Scholar

7. Blobaum, Robert, Rewolucja: Russian Poland, 1904–1907 (Ithaca, 1995), 72–114, 234–59.Google Scholar

8. See, among others, Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Brass, Paul R., Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison (New Delhi, 1991)Google Scholar; Hylland Erikson, Th., Ethnicity and Nationalism (London, 1993)Google Scholar; Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar; Greenfeld, Liah, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)Google Scholar; Kohn, Hans, The Idea of Nationalism (New York, 1945)Google Scholar; and Smith, Anthony D., Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nationalism (New York, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. See, for example, how Polish nationalism is understood by Breuilly, John, Nationalism and the State, 2d ed. (New York, 1982), 115–22Google Scholar; or Hobsbawm, Eric J., Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge, Eng., 1990), 116–17, 124–25.Google Scholar

10. In no way do I mean to deny women an important place in the maintenance of Polish cultural identities. Rather, with the study of Polish women's history very much in its infancy, we still know very little about the role women played in Polish national life during the nineteenth century. As a result, the few historians who touch on the contribution women made to Polish national life tend to emphasize the widely held popular belief that nineteenth–century women served as conservers of Polish national traditions. Scholars, however, must be careful about blindly accepting such romanticized, popularly held stereotypes. Otherwise, we risk missing an important opportunity to wrestle with the development of nineteenth–century Polish nationalism in terms of a much more complex history of gender, a history that tells the story of how both men and women contributed to Polish national developments and how and why those contributions ultimately gendered Polish nationalism in the ways they did. For the state of Polish gender history, see the four–volume edited work by Anna Żarnowska and Andrzej Szwarc, especially the volume on politics, Kobieta i świat polityki (Warsaw, 1994) as well as the English-language contributions in Pietrów–Ennker, Bianka and Jaworski, Rudolf, eds., Women in Partitioned Poland (Boulder, Colo., 1992).Google Scholar

11. The industry, as I shall indicate, placed a great emphasis on “family employment.” Statistics on women's employment are taken from Karwacki, Związki zawodowe, 10; and Anna Żarnowska, “Robotnicy Żyrardowa na przelomie XIX i XX wieku: Z badań nad pochodzeniem, strukturą, i ruchliwością społeczną, “Ekonomia (1976): 165–75.

12. Julian K. Janczak, “Struktura narodowościowa Łodzi w latach 1820–1939,” in Wieslaw Puś and Stanisław Liszewski, eds., Dzieje Żydów w Łodzi, 1820–1944: Wybrane problemy (Łódź, 1991), 48–50.

13. Otto Heike, Die deutsche Arbeiterbewegutig in Polen, 1835–1945 (Dortmund, 1969), 24; Gryzelda Missalowa, Studio, nad powstaniem łódzkiego okręgu przemysłowego, vol. 2, Klasa robotnicza (Łódź, 1972), 54–55, 77; and Górski, Stefan, Niemcy to Królestwie Polskirn (Warsaw, 1908), 24–27.Google Scholar

14. Szram, Antoni, “The Impact of the Investor on the Work of the Architect Taking as Examples the Activities of Factory Owners in Łódź—J. K. Poznański and K. Scheibler,” Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki 29 (1984): 281–28Google Scholar; Popławska, Irena, “Architektura przemyslowa Łodzi w XIX wieku,” Studia i Materiaiy do Teorii i Historii Architektury i Urbanistyki 11 (1973): 84–91 Google Scholar; Kubiak, Janusz and Szyburska, Teresa, “Urbanistyka i architektura Żyrardowa—jej wartości i problemy konserwatorskie,” Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki 29 (1984): 95–111 Google Scholar; and Dumala, Krzysztof, “Geneza form przestrzennych miast przemysłowych w Królestwie Polskim,” in Imbs, Hanna, ed., Miasto i kultura polska doby przemysłowej (Wroclaw, 1988), 133–42.Google Scholar

15. Svod dannykh o fabrychno–zavodskoi promyshknnosti v Rossii za 1897 g. (St. Petersburg, 1898), 102–14.

16. Laskowski, Pawel Hulka, Mój Żyrardów (Warsaw, 1934), 128.Google Scholar

17. Letter from “Kronika miesięczna, “Ateneum (Warsaw) 11, no. 3 (September 1889): 566–67.

18. Jędraszczyk, Ignacy, “Z dzielnicy bałuckiej w Łodzi,” Kiliński 1, no. 2 (April 1936): 73.Google Scholar

19. “Kronika miesięczna,” Ateneum (Warsaw) 14, no. 17 (December 1892): 585.

20. The Russian term masterovoi (pi. masterovye), as Victoria Bonnell has pointed out, was highly elastic since it applied to both foremen and skilled factory workers (factory artisans). See Bonnell, , Roots of Rebellion: Workers’ Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900–1914 (Berkeley, 1983), 47–48n62Google Scholar. In the Congress Kingdom, the same sort of conflation occurred in the use of, not only the Russian term, but also the Polish and German terms, that is, majster and Meister. (In Russian Poland's textile industry, all factory records and internal correspondence were maintained in German until 1918.) In contrast to the Russian case, however, the Congress Kingdom's textile factory administrations continued to apply the term equally to both supervisors and skilled workers all the way up to World War I. While such an action might have been an effort by German–speaking factory administrators to imbue positions held by German–speaking workers with much more prestige than they warranted, evidence, as 1 shall show, indicates that after 1892 such positions continued to require a great deal of skill. Equally important, in 1906, factory artisans successfully sued employers, thereby winning legal recognition of their right to the same benefits enjoyed by white–collar foremen and supervisors. The court further added to the conflation of the term masterovye in Russian Poland when it decided that “even though these workers oversaw machines, and not people, the management of such machines nonetheless entitles such workers to the title of supervisor [masterowoi].” See here, articles on the case in Rozwój, “U majstrów,” 20 September, 31 October, and 26 November 1906, 3, 2, 2; as well as examinations of the cases in “Przed czem się broni,” Polski Pracownik Przemyslowy, 15 October 1924, 1; and “Kto jest majstrem,” Polski Pracownik Przemyslowy, 15 February 1925, 1.

21. For statistical figures charting the ethnic divisions among work categories, see Wacław Długoborski, “Napływ siły roboczej do przemyslu w krajach Europy środkowo–wschodniej (1850–1918),” in Irena Pietrzak–Pawłowska, ed., Gospodarka przemysłowa a początki cywilizacji technicznej w rolniczych krajach Europy środkowo–wschodniej (Wrocław, 1977), 265–68; and Kaczyńska, Elżbieta, “Siła robocza w przemyśle ciężkim Królestwa Polskiego (1870–1900),” Polska Klasa Robotnicza: Studium Historyczne 1 (1970): 124–25Google Scholar. A copy of the labor minister's orders can be found in Archiwum Państwowe w Łodzi (APŁ), Akta Kancelarii Gubernatora Piotrkowskiego (KGP), 2666, Report of Piotrków Governor to the Warsaw Governor General, 14 [27] May 1892, 2.

22. APŁ, Starszy Inspektor Fabryczny, 2622, Report on Strikes in Łódź Factories from G. Rykowski, Regional Factory Inspector for the Piotrków Gubernia, to Piotrków Governor K. Miller, 27 April [7 May] 1892; and Report of the Piotrków Governor to the Warsaw Governor General, 14 [27] May 1892, in Ryszard Rosin and Mieczysław Bandurka, Łódź 1423–1823–1971. Zarys dziejów i wybór dokumentów (Łódź, 1974), 129–36.

23. The most complete set of published documents about the strike can be found in Bundurka, Mieczyslaw, ed., “Dokumenty buntu łódzkiego 1892 r., “Rocznik Łódzki 31 (1982): 203–31Google Scholar. The only secondary account of the strike remains Adam Próchnik, Bunt łódzki w roku 1892: Studium historyczne (Warsaw, 1932). An edited volume commemorating the one hundredth anniversary of the strike was prepared by Paweł Samuś, ed., “Bunt łódzki “: 1892 roku. Studia z dziejów wielkiego konfiiktu spotecznego (Łódź, 1995).

24. Laura Crago, “Nationalism, Religion, Citizenship and Work in the Development of the Polish Working Class and the Polish Trade Union Movement, 1815–1929” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1994), 49–51.

25. “Kronika miesięczna,” Ateneum (Warsaw) 14 (July 1892): 190.

26. Krótki zarys historii Związku Majstrów Fabrycznych Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, 1890–1930 (Łódź, 1930), 2.

27. Polish historians remain divided over whether tsarist mandates led to the Polonization of work. Older accounts, based on fragmentary records, indicate that the number of Poles, or those speaking another language plus Polish, increased dramatically over the next two decades, reaching 55 percent of the overall skilled labor force by 1903. See, Żarnowska, Anna, “O składzie narodowościowym klasy robotniczej w Królestwie Polskim na przełomie XIX i XX wieku,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 80 (1973): 795–97Google Scholar; and Kalabiński, Stanislaw, ed., Polska Klasa Robotnicza, 3 vols. (Warsaw, 1978–80), vol. 1, pt. 2, 194–95Google Scholar. More recent analyses, however, draw on the same records but reach the opposite conclusion. These accounts suggest that the ethnic segregation of skilled and managerial positions continued all the way down to the revolution of 1905 when only 24 percent of all supervisory personnel and skilled workers were Polish. Another 65 percent were filled by either German-speakers or foreign workers. To compound the problem, in the words of Elżbieta Kaczyńska, only 41 percent of all supervisors and skilled workers “spoke Polish, but frequently poorly.” See “Tlum a władza: Anatomia masowych ruchów społecznych w Królestwie Polskim na przełomie XIX i XX wieku,” in Kaczyńska and Rykowski, eds., Przemoc zbiorowa, 73.

28. Jędraszczyk, “Z dzielnicy bałuckiej w Łodzi,” 73–74.

29. “Wspomnienie pośmiertelne,” Polski Pracownik Przemyslłowy, 15 March 1925, 9–10.

30. Hulka–Laskowski, Mój Żyrardów.

31. Jędraszczyk, “Z dzielnicy bałuckiej w Łodzi,” 75. For administrative documents relating to the strike, see Report from Piotrków Governor K. Miller to the Warsaw Governor General, 16 [29] September 1903, in Korzec, Paweł, ed., Żródła do dziejów rewolucji 1905–1907 w okręgu łódzkim, 2 vols. (Warsaw, 1957), vol. 1, pt. 2, 286–89.Google Scholar

32. Polish journalists, however, held German workers responsible for the continued ethnic struggle at work. A December 1892 article in Ateneum, for example, claimed: “In Łódź there was a case where a German artisan refused to reveal the ‘secrets of production’ to a Polish apprentice even though the apprentice was handpicked by the factory owner. Skilled German artisans in Łędź are in such solidarity that they even ignore the orders of owners, believing themselves to be wizards and holding natives to be nothing more than Helots. They claim they would rather leave their positions than agree to give natives equal status.” Quoted in “Kronika Miesięczna, “Atenum (Warsaw) 14, no. 17 (December 1892): 585. As late as 1908, another journalist reached a similar conclusion after interviewing “an extremely well known” textile factory owner “who spoke but one language, German.” According to the reporter, the owner, who refused to be identified, continued to support the “German community's predilection for hiring skilled German workers and foremen over Poles with equal qualifications.” The owner explained: “As the whole world knows, German culture is on an extremely high plane. And German workers are a model of virtue when it comes to order, punctuality, and loyalty. Poles simply do not have these same qualities.” Interview in “Wrażenia łódzkie: Ze spraw narodowościowych,” Świat, 21 November 1908, 1.

33. “F.Z.,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 8–9 (November–December 1911): 469.

34. Posiak, Jan, “Dzielnica ‘Górna’ w Łodzi,” Kilinski 1, no. 3 (July 1936): 113, 115.Google Scholar

35. See, among others, Rozwój, 13 May 1905, 3; 2 June 1905, 2; 5 June 1905, 2; and 28 July 1906, 3; “F.Z.,” 469; Report of Łódź Police Chief to the Piotrków Governor, 1 April [19 March] 1905, in Korzec, ed., Źródła do dziejów rewolucji, vol. 1, pt. 2, 8–10; “Hakata przy pracy,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 6–7 (July 1910): 424–25; and “Faworyzowanie Niemców,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 1 (January 1910): 67–68.

36. The editors of Głos, for example, contended tsarist linguistic categories provided an unfair indicator of nationality since a gender division occurred in “German” families over their mother tongue. Fathers and sons invariably claimed Polish, while wives and daughters cited German. Glos, no. 17 (1897): 430.

37. Piskorski, Feliks, “Znad Dobrzynki [sic],” Kiliński 1, no. 3 (July 1936): 104.Google Scholar

38. The change within the PPS, as seen through the press, is the subject of Kancewicz, Jan, PPS w latach 1892–1896 (Warsaw, 1984), 203–11Google Scholar. Piłsudski's position on economic strikes is perhaps best understood through his correspondence. On strikes, see the document “M-2” (9 September 1895 letter from Piłsudski to the ZZSP) in [Aleksander Malinowski, ed.], Materiaiy do historii PPS i ruchu rewolucyjnego w zaborze rosyjskim od r. 1893–1904, vol. 1, Rok 1893–1897 (Warsaw [Kraków], 1907), 151, in which Piłsudski warned that the PPS “should not get accustomed to limiting itself to strikes and bettering pay.” Piłsudski's position on the SDKP's “craft unions,” where he claimed he was “extremely against” these organizations (krańcowy przeciwnik fachowości), is the subject of the April 1896 letter to WitoldJodko–Narkiewicz in “Listy J. Pilsudskiego,” Niepodległośĉ 12 (1936): 293.

39. Żarnowska, Anna, Geneza rozłamu w Polskiej Partii Socjalistycznej, 1904–1906 (Warsaw, 1965)Google Scholar; and Karwacki, Władysław Lech, Łódzka organizacja Polskiej Partii Socjalistycznej– Lewicy (Łódź, 1964), 21–43.Google Scholar

40. Jędraszczyk, “Z dzielnicy bałuckiej w Łodzi,” 74.

41. Szczerkowski, Antoni, “Wspomnienia,” Księga pamiątkowa PPS (Warsaw, 1923), 193.Google Scholar

42. See, among others, “Wrażenie łódzkie,” Świat, 28 November 1908, 11–12.

43. Czesław Łączny, (untitled), Kiliński 1, no. 1 (January 1936): 24.

44. Jeremski, Józef, “Na marginesie walk bratobójczych w Łodzi,” Kiliński 1, no. 2 (April 1936): 52.Google Scholar

45. “Protokoły V Zjazdu SDKPiL (1906),” Archiwum Ruchu Robotniczego 6 (1981): 37. Postwar Polish historians questioned claims made by both the SDKPiL's prewar political leadership and interwar analysts about the national affiliations of the workers who joined SDKPiL labor and party organizations. (The two organizations were synonymous because the SDKPiL required party affiliation as a credential for trade union membership.) They asserted that an index (kartoteka) they had compiled of SDKPiL members revealed that a quarter of the party's members were German. Another 55.8 percent were Polish, with Jews comprising the remaining 17.2 percent of the party's members. As late as 1989, however, the index on which the statistical data was based, had yet to encompass more than 5 percent of the SDKPiL's entire membership. See Paweł Samuś, “Członkowie łódzkiej organizacji SDKPiL w okresie do upadku rewolucji 1905–1907 w świetle badań ankietowych,” Z Pola Walki (1975): 5–23; and the figures presented in his most recent work on the subject, Dzieje SDKPiL w Łodzi, 1893–1918 (Łódź, 1984), 49–50.

46. German historians, however, have condemned the Polish approach. Georg W. Strobel, for example, described Polish inquiries as “polemical, ahistorical, and not particularly scientific.” Choosing instead to rely on the testimonies of Dzierzynski, Rosa Luxemburg, andjogiches Tyszka, Strobel has claimed that some two–thirds of the SDKPiL's membership was German, though at times he argues that the SDKPiL was comprised exclusively of Germans. Georg W. Strobel, “Die ‘Deutschenarbeit’ Kongresspolens und die russische Revolution 1905–1907,” Jahrbuch Weichsel-Warthe (Hanover, 1972), 47–64; and Die Partei Rosa Luxemburgs, Lenin und die SPD: Der polnische “europäische” Internationalismus in der russischen Sozialdemokratie (Wiesbaden, 1974), 302–14.

47. Tych, Feliks, Julian Marchlewski-Karski (Berlin, 1966), 151–52Google Scholar; Marchlewska, Zofia, Piórem i pędzlem: Wspomnienia i listy (Warsaw, 1967), 96–97.Google Scholar

48. Hulka–Laskowski, Mój Żyrardów, 23; and the interview by Kuczyńska–Skrzypek, Anna, “Badania nad kulturą robotniczą w etnografii,” in Kolodziejczyk, Ryszard, ed., Klasa robotnicza i ruch robotniczy na zachodnim Mazowszu 1878–1914: Materiaty z sesji popularnonaukowej Żyrardów, 5–6grudnia 1978 (Warsaw, 1981), 120–25.Google Scholar

49. Varsoviensis, (pseud.), “Plotno: Garśĉ wrażeń z pobytu w Żyrardowie,” Kraj, no. 46 (1903): 6 Google Scholar; Macierzewska, Janina, Każdy idzie swoja drogą (Warsaw, 1966), 183–84Google Scholar; and Archiwum Katedry Etnografii Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego (AKEUŁ), Interviews from Workers at Księzy Młyn, (Łódź, 1980–81), folio B, interview nos. 1829, 1831, 1861, 1862.

50. Wiktor Czajewski, Warszawa illustrowana, vol. 2, Rys rozwoju przemysłu i handlu (Warsaw, 1896), 48–50; Archiwum Katedry Etnografii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego (AKEUW), Customs and Fashions among Żyrardów Workers: An Oral History project, (1976–1980), interview nos. 101/102—L.D., 106/107—M.N.C., and 108/109—W.Ł.; Hulka–Laskowski, Mój Żyrardów, 11–12, 59–60; and interview material by Kopczyńska–Jaworska, Bronisława, “Zwyczaje i obyczaje ludności Łodzi,” in Rosin, Ryszard, ed., Łódź: Dzieje miasta (Łódź, 1988), 496–97.Google Scholar

51. “Z Żyrardowa,” Kurier Warszawski, no. 184 (16 July 1859): 984; Hulka-Laskowski, Mój Żyrardów, 356; AKEUW, Customs and Fashions, interview no. 101/102; and AKEUŁ, Interviews from Workers, interviews nos. 1830 and 1862.

52. AKEUW, Customs and Fashions, interview no. 53—K.L.

53. EL, W, “Żyrardów,” Głos, no. 27 (1893): 322 Google Scholar; and Macierzewska, Każdy idzie swoją, drogą, 145.

54. By 1898, the patrons of the society included the governor of the Piotrków gubernatoria; Factory Inspector Rykowski; Lódź's police chief Danil'chuk; as well as a long list of some twenty–five textile manufacturers including: Karol Scheibler, Markus Silberstein, I. K. Poznański, Maurycy Poznański, Juliusz Kunitzer, Juliusz Heinzel, Emil Geyer, Henryk Grohman, Szaja Rosenblatt, and Markus Kohn. For a brief description of the support and activities of the Foreman's Mutual Aid Society, see Ustawa Stowarzyszenia Wzajemnej Pomocy Majstrów Przędzalniczych, Tkackich, Wykończalnych i Farbiarskich Fabrykm. Łodzi (ᐡódź, [1901]), 5–23; “Państwowa Szkoła Włókiennicza w Łodzi,” Polski Pracownik Przemyslowy, 15 April 1924, 3; and Krótki zarys historii, 1–5.

55. Michalowska, Marta, Słownik terminologiczny włókiennictwa (Warsaw, 1995), 46–49, 130Google Scholar.

56. Schweikert, Karl, Die Baumwoll Industrie Russisch Polens (Zurich, 1913), 148–50.Google Scholar

57. Marceli Lewy, Życie ekonomiane Królestwa Polskiego, 3 vols. (Warsaw, 1915–1921), 2: 40–48; Łukasiewicz, Juliusz, Przewrót techniczny w przemyśle Królestwa Polskiego (Warsaw, 1963), 302–3, 314–15Google Scholar; V. Laverychev, la., Monopolisticheskii kapital v tekstil'noi promyshlennosti Rossii (Moscow, 1963), 23 Google Scholar; and Ihnatowicz, Ireneusz, Przemysł łódzki w latach 1860–1900 (Warsaw, 1965), 58–61.Google Scholar

58. Bajer, Karol, Przemysłwłókienniczy na ziemiach polskich (Łódź, 1958), 134 Google Scholar;and Puś, Wieslaw, Przemysł włókienniczy w Królestwie Polskim w latach 1870–1900 (Łódź, 1976), 40, 48.Google Scholar

59. “Ratuj przemysł!” Łycie Robotnicze, no. 3 (March 1910): 149–51; and “Historia przemysłu włókienniczego,” Przegląd Techniczny 38 (1912): 362–68.

60. Miąso, Józef, Szkolnictwo zawodowe w Królestwie Polskim w latach 1815–1915 (Wrocław, 1966), 259–60.Google Scholar

61. Jan Jatczyk, “Dlaczego byliśmy enzeterowcami,” Kiliński (August 1935): 8–9; Posiak, “Dzielnica ‘Górna’ w Łodzi,” 108–9; Brzeziński, “Dzielnica ‘Zielona’ w Łodzi,” 10–11; Kozicki, Stefan, Historia Ligi Narodowej (okres 1887–1907) (London, 1964), 261–62, 358, 374Google Scholar; and “Sprawozdanie KC Ligi Narodowej za rok 1900/1901,” Niepodległośĉ 9 (1934): 108–9.

62. Kowalewski, Stanisław, Historia związków zawodowych robotników polskich w Królstwie Polskim do wybuchu wojny światowej (Poznań, 1932), 60–62.Google Scholar

63. “Korespondencja, “Polak, no. 1 (1900): 10.

64. “Sprawy polskie—wzaborze rosyjskim, “PofaA, no. 8 (1899): 6.

65. Kozicki, Historia Ligi Narodowej, 587.

66. Brzeziński, “Dzielnica ‘Zielona’ w Łodzi,” 11.

67. For statistical comparisons see, Karwacki, Związki zawodowe, 24–43.

68. Hechter, Michael, Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536–1966 (London, 1975)Google Scholar; and Hechter, Michael F. and Levi, Margaret, “The Comparative Analysis of Ethnoregional Movements,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 2–3 (1979): 262–74.Google Scholar

69. Trenklerówna, Ewa, Polski przemysł bawełniany w poczatkach XX-go stulecia (Warsaw, 1925), 22–25.Google Scholar

70. Żarnowska, “Robotnicy Żyrardowa,” 164.

71. WAPŁ, Kanceleria Gubernatora Piotrkowski, Report of the Piotrków Police Chief to the Warsaw Governor General, 16 [29] December 1903, 873.

72. Monasterska, Narodowy Związek Robotniczy, 56–58; Turowski, Konstanty, Historia ruchu chrześcijańsko–demokratycznego w Polsce, 2 vols. (Warsaw, 1989), 1: 176–80Google Scholar; and Bujalski, M., Związek im. Jana Kilińskiego (Narodowa Młodziez Robotnicza), 1901–1906 (Warsaw, 1930), 8–9.Google Scholar

73. J. Zet [Marian Rapacki], “Ruch spółdzielczy, “Jednośĉ, 12 October 1907, 2; and “Historia ruchu spóldzielczego w Łodzi,” Jednośĉ, 3 January 1908, 3.

74. A very brief outline of some of the textile industry's cooperatives is presented in Karwacki, Władysław Lech, Łódź w latach rewolucji, 1905–1907 (Łódź, 1975), 285–93.Google Scholar

75. “1 Tkacki Związek Koboczy,” Jednośĉ, 24 May 1907, 3; “Ruch spółdzielczy,” Rozwój, 4 September 1906, 4, and 2 August 1907, 3.

76. “1 Tkacki Związek Roboczy, “Jednośĉ, 24 May 1907, 3.

77. Wspomnienia z okazji 25–lecia rozpoczęcia pierwszej pracy organizacyjnej społeczno–oświatowej w Królestwie Polskim przez ks. Andrzeja Rogozińskiego, pierwszego organizatora Stowarzyszenia “Demokracji Chrześcijańskiej” i istnieJących przy niej sklepów spółdzielczych w 1904 roku w Łodzi (Łódź, 1929), 15.

78. “1 Tkacki Związek Roboczy,” Jednośĉ, 19 August 1907, 2.

79. “Robotnicza kooperacya wytwórcza,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 4 (July 1911): 206.

80. “Robotnicy a inteligencya,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 1 (January 1910): 5.

81. “Kilka uwag o działalności przemysłowej łódzkich królików bawełnianych,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 3 (March 1910): 151.

82. “Robotnicza kooperacya wytwórcza,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 4 (July 1911): 152.

83. For post–1905 claims about Germans within socialist ranks, see “Idea narodowa, a robotnicy,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 5 (May 1910): 271; and “Obozy robotnicze,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 5 (August 1911): 259–60.

84. The best overview of the union's social and cultural activities appears in B., “Powstanie i działalnośĉ polskiego ruchu zawodowego w Łodzi,” Praca, 3 January 1932, 3.

85. Jednośĉ, 22 October 1908, 2.

86. “Rzut oka na dzialalnośĉ i zawieszenie Stowarzyszenia Jednośĉ,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 2 (February 1910): 84–87; and “Stow. Zaw. Rob. Przemysłu Włóknistego Jednośĉ,” Życie Robotnicze, no. 4 (April 1910): 251.