12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2018
The Slavic peoples of the Austrian Empire developed a labor movement which owed its character to two elements: the common problems of all workmen in their relationship to the dynasty, the aristocracy, the Church and the predominant German minority on the one hand, and the national aspirations of the Slavs on the other. It is the purpose of this paper to trace the influence of these two elements up to dismemberment of the Empire following the defeat of the Imperial armies in World War I.
1 This paper concerns the provinces in which Slavic nations had the following majority in 1910:
Czechs: Bohemia (63.19%); Moravia (71.75%); Silesia (24.33% Czechs, 31.72% Poles).
Poles and Ukrainians: Galicia (58.55% Poles, 40.20% Ukrainians).
Slovenes: Carnolia (94.36%); Gorizia area (88%)x; Istria (14.26% Slovenes, 43.52% Serbo-Croats).
Important minorities of Slovenes were in Styria (30%), Carynthia (25%), Trieste (30%). The over-all Slavic majority in the Austrian part of the monarchy attained 60.65% of the whole population while Germans amounted to 35.58% according to the census based on the “most used language” (Umgangssprache). If the mother tongue had been considered, the Slavic majority would have been more pronounced. Sources: K. K. Statistische Zentral Kommission, Oesterreichisches Hcmdbuch fuer die im Reichsrate vertretenen Koenigsreiche und Laender (Wien), Vol. 33.
x J. Krek, Les Slovenes (Paris, 1917), p. 18.
2 Cf. the gradual change in the United States in J. Commons and others, History of Labor in the United States (1935), I, 406 ff.
3 Cf. Congress Socialiste International, Compte rendue (Stuttgart, 1907), pp. 784-215.
4 Laws Nos. 134 and 135, 1867, RGBL.
5 Law No. 43, 1870, RGBL.
6 Die Gewerbeordnung, Law No. 227, 1859 and No. 39, 1883, RGBL.
7 See Huebner, A., “Partei und Gewerkschaften in Oesterreich,” Der Kampf, Sozialdemokratische Monatschrift, No. 11 (Wien, 1907).Google Scholar
8 Teifen, T. W., Das soziale Elend mid die besitzenden Klassen in Oesterreich (Wien, 1894), pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar; Bruegel, Ludwig, Geschichte der Sozialdemokratie (Wien, 1922-25), IV, 216.Google Scholar
9 In the provincial Galician parliament of 161 members, 88 were elected by 2300 large estate owners while the rest of the population, approx. 7 million, had only 73 deputies. Cf. Ig. Daszyński, “Der Kampf um den Galizistichen Landtag,” Der Kampf (Wien, 1907), pp. 60 ff.; Teifen, op. cit., and Fr. Bujak, Galicia (Lwow, 1908), I.
10 Ig. Daszyński, Pamietki (Kraków, 1925), I, 39 and Deutsch, J., Geschichte der sozialistischen Gewerkschaftsbewegung Oesterreichs bis zur Krise des Jahres 1873 (Wien, 1907), 42 Google Scholar.
11 Schulze-Delitzsch wanted workers to solve their problems by economic action only. They should pool their savings and set up co-operatives through mutual self-help. Lassalle, on the other hand, preached the necessity of state intervention which he believed could only be brought about by an independent workers’ political party.
12 Cf. Beneš, E., Dějiny dělnickěho hnuti v rakousku a Čechách (Brandýs, 1911)Google Scholar; Wolf, Miloslav, Naše dělnické hnuti v minulosti (Praha, 1947), p. 92 Google Scholar and Deutsch, J., op. cit., p. 73.Google Scholar
13 Later Pecka influenced by J. Most, an anarchist, followed him to the USA. Wolf, M., op. cit., p. 57.Google Scholar
14 Cf. Verhandlungen des zweiten Soz. Dem. Parteitages (Wien, 1891), pp. 53 ff.; Ibid. (1894), Dr. V. Adler's statement, pp. 43 ff.
15 Ibid., 1891.
16 In 1905 for the first time educational associations were not included in statistics submitted to the International Federation of Trade Unions “since they do not come into consideration any more in the workers’ economic struggle in Austria.” Hueber, A. in Bericht ueber die Gewerkschaftsbewegung (Berlin, 1905), p. 82.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., 1903, p. 74.
18 Beneš, E., op. cit., pp. 138-52.Google Scholar
19 Kuleman, W., Die Berufsvereine (Jena, 1908-13), IV, 49 Google Scholar.
20 Gruber, J., Průmyslová politika in česká politika (Praha, 1911), IV, 799 Google Scholar.
21 Ibid.; Bruegel, L., op. cit., pp. 384-86.Google Scholar
22 Congress Socialiste International, Compte rendue(Copenhagen, 1910), pp. 120-50.
23 Wolf, M., op. cit., pp. 99 ff.Google Scholar
24 For instance, in 1909 7,000 metallurgical workers and masons, and in 1910 29,211 Czech workers left the Central (Viennese) Trade Union Commission to join the Czechoslovak Federation according to “Die Gewerkschaft,” Neue Folge XII, in Socile Rundschau, No. 12 (Wien, 1910), p. 44 and No. 11 (1911), p. 1179.
25 * Českoslovanské odborové sdružení; ** Národní sociální všeodborová komise, Wolf, op. cit.
26 “Der original Bericht der Zentralkommission der Christlichen Gewerkschaften Oesterreichs, Der Christliche Gewerkschafter 1909,” No. 20, in Soziale Rundschau, I (1909), 175.
27 Ig. Daszyński, , Pamigtki, p. 68.Google Scholar
28 Cf. Fr. Bujak, , op. cit., p. 129.Google Scholar
29 Grabiec, J., op. cit., p. 178 Google Scholar and Ig. Daszyński, , op. cit., p. 39 Google Scholar, blame the Church for perpetuation of poor living conditions.
30 Fr. Bujak, , op. cit., 1, 391.Google Scholar
31 K. K. Arbeitstat. Amt im Handelsministerium, Die Arbeitsvereine in Oesterreich (Wien, 1905), II, 30.
32 There were 200,000 farmers whose holdings were less than 1 ha. 42% of all farms were insufficient to provide enough for their owner. On the other hand, 475 farms having more than 1,000 ha. accounted for 37% of the land. Bujak, op. cit., I, 244 ff.
33 Robotnicze towarzystwo zapomogowe, Daszynski, , op. cit., p. 61.Google Scholar
34 Cf. Verhandlungen, 1891, reports of Hudec, Daszýnski, Kurowski.
35 Kuleman, W., op. cit., V, 113.Google Scholar
36 “Arbeiterverhaelmisse im Ostrau-Karwiener Steinkohlenrewiere,” Soziale Rundschau, No. 1 (1907), pp. 7 ff.; Daszyński, , op. cit., pp. 174 ff.Google Scholar
37 Ibid.
38 Soziale Rundschau, No. 2 (1902), pp. 302 ff.
39 Wl. Lewinskyj, “Das erste Jahrzeit der ukrainischen Sozialdemokratie in Oesterreich,” Der Kampf (1911-22), pp. 314 ff.
40 Cf. Lewinskyj, , op. cit., pp. 314 ff.Google Scholar
41 Beneš, op. cit., pp. 224 ff. Ot. Bauer gives slightly lesser number in “Galizistiche Parteitage,” Der Kampf (1911-12), pp. 151 ff.
42 In 1891 a false rumor spread in Eastern Galicia that Russia was allocating land to farmers without payment. A mass exodus of Ukrainian farmers from Galicia to Russia followed. F. Padro, “Die Agrarstreiks in Ostgalizien in den Jahren 1902/3,” Mitteilungen ueber die Landesverhaeltnisse Galizien, Band XX, No. 1.
43 S. Wityk was later elected to the Imperial parliament.
44 Cf. Lewinskij, op. cit.; “ Die Spaltung der Ukrainischer Sozialdemokratie,” Der Kmnpf (1911-12), pp. 360 ff.; Bauer, O., “Galizische Parteitage,” Der Kampf (1911-12), pp. 154 ff.Google Scholar “Die Gesamtpartei,” Ibid. (1912-13), pp. 17 ff.
45 Abr. Korkis in Krytyka, V (Krakow, 1903), 306 ff.
46 Polskie Zjednoczenie Zawodowe Chrzescijanskich Robotników.
47 Cf. St. Rychliński, Les syndicats professionnels des travailleurs en Pologne (Warsaw, 1927), pp. 11 ff.
48 “Orig. Bericht der Zenrralkommission dcr Christlichen Gewerkschaften Ocsrcrreichs,” Soziale Rundschau, II (1909), 827 ff.
49 Kuleman, op. cit., V, 84 ff.; ILO, op. cit.
50 Polen, , Entwicklung und gegenwartiger Zustand (Bern, 1918), p. 835 Google Scholar.
51 Lj. Hauptman, “Slovenci,” Narodna Enciklopedija Srpsko-Hrvatsko-Slovenecka, IV, 209 ff.
52 Ibid.
53 Bauer, Otto, Soziale Gliederung der Oest. Nationen im Kampf (1907-8), p. 31.Google Scholar
54 Arbeitsamt, K. K., Arbeitsvereine, II, 30.Google Scholar
55 See Lončar, D., op. cit., p. 64 Google Scholar; cf. Etbin Kristan, Narodno vpršahnje in Slovenci (1907).
56 Socijalni načrt slovenskih delavskih stanov. C. Hauptman, op. cit.
57 “Krsćanski radnici sjedinite se.” Ibid.
58 Cf. “Reichsgewerkschaftskommission der Christlichen Arbeiterschaft Oesterreichs,” Soziale Rundschau, No. 1 (1909), pp. 328 ff.
59 Cf. Kuleman, , op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar
60 Zadnik, L. in Verhandlungen des zweiten Farteitages (1891), pp. 41 ff.Google Scholar
61 Verhandlungen (1894), p. 12.
62 Ibid.
63 D. Lončarš, op. cit.; E. Kristan, op. cit.; A. Dermota in Beneš, op. cit.
64 E. Beneš, ibid., pp. 247 ff.
65 Bericht ueber die Gewerkschajtsbetaegimg, herausgegeben von dem internationalen Sekretaer der gewerkschaft. Landeszentralen, C. Legicn (1911), p. 145.
