1. Smith, S. A., Red Petrograd. Revolution in the Factories (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mandel, David,Petrograd Workers and the Fall of the Old Regime and Petrograd Workers and the Soviet Seizure of Power (New York, 1983–84)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koenker, Diane, Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution (Princeton,1981)Google Scholar.

2. Schapiro, Leonard, The Russian Revolutions of 1917. The Origins of Modern Communism(New York, 1984), p. 213.Google Scholar

3. Vladimir Brovkin, “The Mensheviks’ Political Comeback: The Elections to the Provincial City Soviets in Spring 1918,” The Russian Review, 42, no. 1 (January 1983): 1–50, especially pp. 37–38; Medvedev, Roy, The October Revolution (New York, 1979)Google Scholar, especially chap. 12, “The Masses Turn Away from the Bolsheviks. “

4. Grigorii Aronson, “Ouvriers russes contre le bolchevisme,” Le Control social, 10, no. 4(July-August 1966): 202. See also his “Na perelome (k kharakteristike nastroenii rabochego klassa Rossii v pervuiu polovinu 1918 g.),” manuscript in the Hoover Institution library, Stanford, Calif.,1935; and Bernshtam, M. S., ed., Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie v 1918 godu. Dokumenty i materialy(Paris: YMCA Press, 1981), pp. 306–20.Google Scholar

5. The number (and definition) of “workers” in Russia at this time is the subject of much dispute. See, for example, Gaponenko, L. S., Rabochii klass Rossii v 1917 godu (Moscow, 1970),pp. 33–75 Google Scholar, who gives 15 million as the figure for all hired labor in industry, including transport,construction, and agriculture, and 18.5 million for all hired labor in general (p. 75).

6. Keep, John L. H., The Russian Revolution: A Study in Mass Mobilization (New York, 1976)Google Scholar.

7. Of the other major industrial sectors, only leather, linen, hemp, and jute, and some clothing branches (including shoes) showed any increase whatsoever, and accounted for only 8.3 percent of new output. Wood products production fell 38 percent; the production of paper, some 20 percent.See N. la. Vorob'ev, “Izmeneniia v russkoi promyshlennosti v period voiny i revoliutsii,” Vestnik statistiki, 14, nos. 4–6 (April-June 1923): 152–53.

8. N. la. Vorob'ev, “Fabrichno-zavodskaia promyshlennost’ v period 1913–1918 gg.,” in Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe Upravlenie [TsSU], Trudy, vol. 26, vyp. 1 (Moscow, 1926), pp. 34–43; Vorob'ev, “Izmeneniia,” pp. 116–28.

9. In the early months of the war, for example, contracts worth 66 million rubles for shells and shrapnel were placed with only 16 plants, led by the Putilov, Baltic, Obukhov, Nevskii, and Petrograd metals plants in Petrograd. See Vorob'ev, “Fabrichno-zavodskaia promyshlennost',” pp. 38–43.

10. Ibid.

11. TsSU, Trudy, vol. 26, vyp. 1, table 33, pp. 374–413.

12. Sidorov, K., “Rabochee dvizhenie v Rossii v gody imperialisticheskoi voiny (1914–1917), “in Pokrovskii, M. N., ed., Ocherki po istorii oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927),pp. 213–18Google Scholar; Shkaratan, O. I., Problemy sotsialnot struktury rabochego klassa SSSR (Moscow, 1970),pp. 196–219.Google Scholar

13. Sidorov, “Rabochee dvizhenie,” p. 217. Most of these were, of course, new workers arriving from the countryside.

14. See especially Kleinbort, L. M., Istoriia bezrabotitsy v Rossii, 1857–1919 gg. (Moscow,1925), pp. 215–44, 264–65.Google Scholar

15. See the discussion in H. Hogan, “Industrial Rationalization and the Roots of Labor Militance in the St. Petersburg Metalworking Industry, 1901–1914,” The Russian Review, 42, no. 2 (April 1983): 163–90.

16. TsSU, Trudy, vol. 26, vyp. 1, pp. 374–413.

17. Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie Rossii nakanune velikoi oktiabr'skoi sotsialisticheskoi revoliutsii(Moscow-Leningrad, 1957–67), vol. 2, pp. 74–79, 90.

18. Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie, vol. 2, p. 163; Chugaev, D. A., ed., Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii v avguste 1917 g. (Moscow, 1959), pp. 195–97Google Scholar.

19. Of the four principal regulatory commissions inherited by the Provisional Government from the tsarist regime, moreover, only the Defense Commission continued by mid-summer to act with any vigor, and even here new rules promulgated to control increasingly contentious problems of defense production could not be effectively implemented. See Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie, vol. 2,p. 163; Chugaev, Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie, pp. 195-–97.

20. S. A. Smith, “Craft Consciousness, Class Consciousness,” History Workshop Journal, 11(Spring 1981): 33–58. See also William G. Rosenberg, “Workers and Workers’ Control in the Russian Revolution,” History Workshop Journal, 5 (Spring 1978): 89–97.

21. See, for instance, James D. White, “The Sormovo-Nikolaev zemlyachestvo in the February Revolution,” Soviet Studies, 31, no. 4 (1979): 475–504.

22. Oktiabr'skaia revoliutsiia i fabzavkomy (Moscow, 1927), pt. 1, p. 85.

23. Ibid., p. 164.

24. Meller, V L. and Pankratova, A. M., comps., Rabochee dvizhenie v 1917 godu (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926), pp. 120–21Google Scholar.

25. Drobizhev, V Z., Glavnyi shtab sotsialisticheskoi promyshlennosti (Moscow, 1966), pp. 48–50 Google Scholar gives summary statistics on the spread of workers’ control. See also Natsionalizatsiia promyshlen nosti v SSSR (Moscow, 1954), p. 107. As many as 49 different “Central Councils” also sprang up in these weeks to coordinate committee activities. See Itkin, M. L., “Tsentry fabrichno-zavodskikh komitetov Rossii v 1917 godu,” Voprosy istorii, 2 (1974): 21–35.Google Scholar

26. Carr, E. H., The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923 (New York, 1952), vol. 2, p. 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Avrich, Paul H., “The Bolshevik Revolution and Workers’ Control in Russian Industry, “Slavic Review, 22, no. 1 (1963): 48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. See, for instance, Rabochii/control’ i natsionalizatsiia promyshlennykh predpriiatii Petrograda v 1917–1919 gg., vol. 1 (Leningrad, 1947), pp. 285–300, and especially p. 370; Pankratova, A. M., Fabzavkomy Rossii v bor'be za sotsialisticheskuiu fabriku (Moscow, 1923), esp. pp. 238–39Google Scholar; and the reports in Professional'nyi vestnik (Petrograd), 8 (December 20, 1917); Vestnik narodnogo komissariata truda, 2–3 (February 1918), pp. 125–26; Vestnik truda, 3 (1920): 91; Rabochii kontrol’ (Petrograd), 1–4 (1918): 284–85. Novaia zhizn’ (November 11, 1917), discusses in some detail the efforts at cooperation in the Treugol'nik plant in Petrograd, and similar reports appear in the collection Natsionalizatsiia promyshlennosti, especially pp. 93–99. See also Siderov, A., “Ekonomicheskaia programma Oktiabria i diskussiia s ‘levymi kommunistami’ o zadachakh sotsialisticheskogo stroitel'stva,” Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, 6 (890) (1929), pp. 48ffGoogle Scholar. An article in Petrogradskoe ekho (January 25, 1918) reported discussion among Petrograd industrialists on the question of cooperating with the Bolsheviks by taking part in the work of the Sovnarkhoz and other organs,including factory committees, and cited a report from Moscow that a number of industrialists there had already entered into “working contact” with these groups.

29. In fact, Lenin's regime felt impelled to restrain the process of nationalization from below.See especially V. Miliutin, “K voprosu o natsionalizatsii promyshlennosti,” Narodnoe khoziaistvo, 5(July 15, 1918): 5–; Drobizhev, V. Z., “Sotsialisticheskoe obshchestvlenie promyshlennosti v SSSR, “Voprosy istorii, 6 (1964): 3–64 Google Scholar; Venediktov, A. V., Organizatsiia gosudarstvennoi promyshlennosti v SSSR, vol. 1 (Leningrad, 1957), pp. 178–80Google Scholar.

30. Rossiia v mirovoi voine, p. 7.

31. See, for example, Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie, 1:399, 401.

32. This was particularly the case in enterprises where payments on state contracts were due upon delivery. See, for instance, Rabochii /control’ i natsionalizatsiia, pp. 280ff.

33. Dekrety sovetskoi vlasti, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1957), pp. 196–98. Decisions about specific instance swere left to local Soviets, and both they and the labor exchanges were similarly ordered to work more expeditiously, “facilitating the transfer of workers to areas where they were still needed. “

34. The number of carloads of cattle, meat, and fowl dropped more than 85 percent; of eggs 90 percent; of sugar and salt more than 70 percent. Similarly with fuel oil, peat, and coal. From an average of some 4.8 million puds of coal per month in 1917, a figure which was already only half ofwhat it had been in 1916, Petrograd received an average of only .9 million puds a month in early 1918, and only .5 million puds of oil, one quarter of the city's monthly average for 1917. The declines of other goods were comparable. See especially the report in Novyiput', 5 (September 1, 1918).

35. See Statistika truda, 2–3 (August 15, 1918): 22–26.

36. Statistika truda, 2–3 (August 15, 1918), pp. 8–14.

37. Ibid.

38. Izvestiia petrogradskogo obshchestvennogo upravleniia, 49 (July 13, 1918). See also the discussion in Statistika truda, 2–3 (August 15, 1918) and Novaia zhizri, 74 (April 23, 1918).

39. Prishlye were officially given permits to leave because there was no work, but also, in all likelihood, because the authorities regarded them as particularly prone to violence. They also undoubtedly constituted the single largest contingent of out-migrants leaving on their own, since, as relatively recent arrivals, they maintained the strongest links with the countryside. By the same token, it was precisely the skilled and semiskilled workers who had the deepest roots in the city, and whom factory committees and administrators were least willing to see leave even as plants began toshut down.

40. Statistika truda, 6–7 (October 15, 1918): 21–22; Rabochii mir, 1 (March 31, 1918): 18.

41. Peat production in the Central Industrial Region, for example, accounting for some 70 percent of the country's total output, fell to near zero precisely because less than 3 percent was still produced by hand, and workers were unable to keep equipment running. See Narodnoe khoziaistvo, 5–6 (March 1920): 12–14.

42. For example, Philips Price, M., My Reminiscences of the Russian Revolution (London, 1921),p. 212 Google Scholar.

43. Zheleznodorozhniki i revoliutsiia (Moscow, 1923), p. 86.

44. Rabochii mir, 3 (April 28, 1918).

45. Avrich, “Bolshevik Revolution,” p. 54.

46. With the publication of the decree on demobilization, for example, the Erikson telephone factory suddenly found all its outstanding military orders canceled outright and had to ask for “voluntary resignations” until new buyers could be found. Workers responded by demanding six weeks'terminal wages, and in the face of their anger the factory committee yielded, even though this meant all work would soon have to stop. See Kleinbort, htoriia bezrabotitsy, pp. 273–75.

47. See, for instance, reports in Russkie vedomosti, January 31, February 23, and March 9,1918; Vestnik otdela upravleniia NKVD, 4 (January 23, 1918); Novaia zhizn', January 18, 1918; and the general reports in Vestnik narodnogo komissariata truda, 2–3 (February 1918): 211ff.

48. Rabochii khimik (Petrograd), 4–5 (August 1918): 28. Tekstilshchik (Moscow), 7–8(October 25, 1918): 12–13, reporting on a conference of textile workers and factory committees in June 1918.

49. See, for example, Vestnik NKT, 2–3 (February 1918)): 211ff.

50. Vestnik glavnogo komiteta po kozhevennym delam (Moscow), 6 (March 1918).

51. Mysli zhekznodorozhnika (Petrograd), 14–15 (April 21–28, 1918).

52. Mikhailov, I. D., Osnovy voprosy transporta (Moscow, 1918), p. 140 Google Scholar.

53. Osinskii, N., Stroitel'stvo sotsializma (Moscow, 1918), p. 140 Google Scholar; Pervyi vserossiiskii s “ezdprofessional'nykh soiuzov 7–14 Jan. 1918 (Moscow, 1918), pp. 192–230.

54. Dekrety sovetskoi vlasti, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1958), pp. 18–20. See also the discussion in Naporko, A. G., Ocherki razvitiia zheleznodorozhnogo transporta SSSR (Moscow, 1954), p. 81 Google Scholar; Gimpel'son, E. G., Velikii oktiabr’ i stanovlenie sovetskoi sistemy upravleniia narodnym khoziaistvom (Moscow,1977), pp. 95–97 Google Scholar.

55. Volia i dumy zneleznodorozhnika, 29 (May 18, 1918).

56. Ibid., 30 (May 22, 1918).

57. The Treugol'nik works shut its doors, for example, after a special delegation sent to Rostov brought back 40 tank cars of fuel, only to have them requisitioned by the Sovnarkom. See Kleinbort,Istoriia bezrabotitsy, pp. 273–75.

58. Prodput', 3–4 (June 1918): 74; see also Izvestiia (Petrograd), April 9, 1918.

59. Petrogradskoe ekho, 39 (March 30, 1918).

60. See, for example, Pechatnik, 3–4 (April 4, 1918).

61. See Krasnaia letopis', 3 (28): 146–72.

62. See especially the account in Novaia zhizn', January 9 (22), 1918. According to Bolshevik accounts some 21 persons were killed but the number was undoubtedly higher. See Bernshtam,Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, p. 30.

63. The one major exception, the Nikolaev railroad shops, was both closely tied to the metalworking plants and also the first major railroad to be formally seized by its own workers after October and to be managed entirely by democratically based workers’ committees.

64. The conference organizers were centered around B. O. Bogdanov and M. Sh. Kefali (Kammermakher),who were active in the printers’ union. See especially G. Iu. Aronson, “Dvizhenie upolnomochennykh ot rabochikh fabrik i zavodov v 1918 godu,” ms. in the Hoover Institution library,pp. 6–7. See also Chernov, V M., Pered burei (New York, 1953), pp. 366–68Google Scholar. Apparently organized efforts to reconvene the Constituent Assembly were laid aside (including a plan to have delegates reassemble within the gates of the Semiannikovskii factory), a tacit acknowledgment, perhaps, of worker reluctance to continue fighting on this issue.

65. Sokolov, B., “Zashchita vserossiiskogo uchreditel'nogo sobraniia,” Arkhiv russkoi revoliutsii, 13 (1924): 26–27 Google Scholar. The name “Sobranie Upolnomochennykh” was apparently proposed by Bogdanov at a meeting of Putilov workers and adopted officially by the conference at a meeting early in March.See Bernshtam, Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, p. 57.

66. Bernshtam, Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 56–62. At Putilov, for example, anxious workers demanded information from the Metal Workers’ Union about evacuation plans. Union leaders had no satisfactory answers but castigated workers in turn for meeting during work hours. SeeNovaia zaria, 42 (March 15, 1918). At the Westinghouse plant, workers sent an angry delegation to the city soviet with similar questions. To the question, “where do we go?” soviet spokesmen told them, “wherever you like,” and suggested that they take “whatever they like” with them! See Bernshtam,Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, p. 69.

67. Den', April 2, 1918.

68. “Protokoly chrezvychainogo sobraniia upolonomochennykh fabrik i zavodov Petrograda, “Kontinent (Paris), 2 (1975): 391–92.

69. Aronson, “Dvizhenie,” p. 7; Novaia zaria, 1 (April 22, 1918): 62.

70. Den', April 2, 1918. Aronson indicates representatives from more than 50 plants and factories( “Dvizhenie,” p. 12).

71. A delegation was also soon dispatched to Moscow, where a large meeting of workers at Shaniavskii University determined early in April to organize a similar group. Issuing the protocols of the Petrograd meeting of March 13, the Moscow group announced its own intention to begin “a broad, public campaign” to organize workers here and elsewhere into “the institution workers need in order to resolve decisively the vital questions of the day.” The April 3 meeting also adopted a resolution opposing forced evacuation of the city; and on April 11, the Assembly's Trade Union Commission issued an appeal for strike funds, ostensibly to resist “a new capitalist offensive” but almost certainly with the idea of strengthening resistance to the Bolsheviks. See Den', April 2,1918;Novyi den', April 4 and 13, 1918; Novaia zaria, 2 (May 1, 1918): 60–62. See also Bernshtam,Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 204–207.

72. Novaia zaria, March 26, 1918 (reprinted in Bernshtam, Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, p. 63).

73. Ibid., May 1, 1918.

74. Ibid.; Petrogradskoe ekho, March 28, 1918.

75. These data are for meetings between March and late June. The metal plants included the Patronnyi plant in the Vyborg district, officially under the control of the state artillery administration and a major supplier of grenades and other weapons to the Bolsheviks in October; the Orudiinyi and Obukhov works, two of the country's three main producers of artillery pieces; the Petrogradarsenal; the Nevskii shipbuilding works, and the Trubochnyi works. The Erikson and Simens-Shukkert instrument plants also had delegations, and so did the state powder works (Porokhovnyi), now the city's leading chemical plant, as well as the Nikolaev and Northwestern railroad shops, whose workers were closely affiliated with the metal workers. The most complete list of factory representation is in Novaia zhizn', 93 (May 18, 1918).

76. Employment data for individual plants come from a variety of sources. Figures cited are from Tekstilshchik, 1–2 (1918): 26–27; 3–4 (1918): 20–21; Rabochii khimik, 1 (February 1918): 30–31; Pechatnik, 3–4 (1918): 9–10; Metallist, 9–10 (September 1918): 9; and especially Novyiput', 11(December 1918), as well as individual newspaper accounts. See also the discussion in Kleinbort,especially pp. 273ff.

77. Protests centered at Putilov, Simens-Shukkert, Rechkin, and especially Obukhov, which sent a delegation to visit additional factories and mobilize further protests. On May 11 and 12 thousands gathered at meetings in the Narvskii, Vasil'evskii Ostrov, and Nevskii districts. Twenty-one factories sent delegations to attend the victims’ funeral. A particularly full report appears in Novyi den', May 15, 1918.

78. Novyi den', May 26, 1918.

79. Novaia zhizri', May 30, 1918. See also Bernshtam, Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 164–65.

80. Ibid. (See also Bernshtam, Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 169–70).

81. Aronson, “Ouvriers,” p. 202.

82. In Moscow, Tula, Iaroslavl', Briansk, and other places, gatherings like those in Petrograd took place in plants like the Tula armament works and the huge Sormovo complex in Nizhnii Novgorod,formerly one of the country's major defense producers. See especially Novaia zhizn', June 8,12, 21, and 16, 1918; Chas, June 19, 20, 1918; Novyi vechernii chas, June 17, 1918. In Moscow a gathering of more than 4,000 railroad workers in the Aleksandrovsk shops endorsed the demand of the conference for civil liberties and an end to Bolshevik rule. See Novaia zhizn', June 7, 1918.

83. See the discussion by Vladimir Brovkin, “The Mensheviks’ Political Comeback,” pp. 1–50.On the elections to the Petrograd Soviet in July, which returned a comfortable Bolshevik majority,see especially Mandel, David, Petrograd Workers and the Soviet Seizure of Power (New York, 1984),pp. 404–13.Google Scholar

84. Tekstil shchik, 3–4 (May 12, 1918): 3. These occurred largely around the Tornton mill,located in the Vyborg district, although mills in the Nevskii district near Obukhov struck as well.Among the metal workers’ protests, less than 10 percent seem to have involved workers from plants like Simens-Shukkert and Maksvel, which manufactured generators and other complex instruments and machines, and which had relatively large complements of highly skilled workers. The tobacco workers in the Rozhdestvenskii district protested briefly after Kolpino and then seem to have been relatively passive. There are no reports at all of protests by wood workers, and only one account of involvement by leather workers from the important Skorokhod plant (in late May). It is possible, of course, that protest meetings at metal plants drew workers from other industries.

85. We know, moreover, that residency patterns in the Vyborg district before 1918 had, in general, been relatively stable. This district, at least, and to a lesser extent the Nevskii region, had a much smaller annual influx of migrants than the Vasil'evskii district and other outlying neighborhoods.While Vyborg's population had increased over the past two decades, it also retained a rather large core of established city residents. Given the concentration of protests here in May and June 1918, it is reasonable to assume that the protesters were themselves largely long-term residents.While direct evidence is lacking, this pattern is at least consistent with what is known about the evacuation, during which the greatest number of departures were from the ranks of unskilled workers and recent migrants. See the discussion in Bater, James, St. Petersburg. Industrialization and Change (London, 1976), especially chap. 4 and pp. 165–68, 250, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86. Novyi put', 6–8 (March-April 1918); Severnaia kommuna, 13 (June 16, 1918); Kleinbort,Istoriia bezrabotitsy, p. 288.

87. Severnaia kommuna, 13 (June 16, 1918).

88. Zinov'ev, Lunacharskii, and Volodarskii seem to have been treated with special rudeness,perhaps because they were experienced and familiar orators whose style now angered their listeners.

89. See especially Chas, June 20, 1918; Novaia zhizn', June 21, 16, 1918. The Nevskii district was placed under “martial law,” which produced an effect “like an exploding bomb” according to Novaia zhizn'.

90. Novaia zhizri, June 27, 1918; Novyi vechernii chas, June 27, 1918.

91. Mysli zheleznodorozhnika, July 30, 1918; Chas, July 1, 1918; Novyi vechernii chas, July 2,1918; Novaia zhizn', July 3, 1918. A number of conference representatives were arrested before July 2 in Petrograd as well as in Moscow. See Bernshtam, Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie, pp. 216—17.