Advertisement

Russian Industry and the Making of a Russian Industrial Bourgeoisie

  • Lewis H. Siegelbaum
Part of the St Antony’s/Macmillan Series book series

Abstract

For much of the nineteenth century, Russian industrial development was shaped by the experience of serfdom and then, after Emancipation, by the persistence of feudal relations between landlords and peasants. The state, by allowing the nobility to mortgage serfs for non-productive as well as productive expenditure, by generously compensating it for the loss of serf ownership and by embarking on the construction of railways designed to expedite the grain trade, limited access to capital by industrial entrepreneurs. At the same time, the reinforcement of communal ties through collective responsibility for redemption payments favoured a cottage industry as opposed to a wage labour force. The existence of numerous state-owned enterprises including the State Bank, legal restrictions against national and religious minorities, and the perpetuation of the guild system defining the rights and obligations of the merchant estate, the kupechestvo, reinforced these limitations on private entrepreneurial activity and the development of a well-defined or even self-defined bourgeoisie in Russia.

Keywords

Donets Basin Factory Owner Russian Industry Export Company Heavy Industrial Enterprise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    There has been little work on this important question which, in view of the often cited conflict between the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) and the Ministry of Finance, is surprising. For two penetrating studies of the MVD see Daniel T. Orlovsky, ‘High Officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1855–1881’, and Don Karl Rowney, ’Organizational Change and Social Adaptation: the Pre-Revolutionary Ministry of Internal Affairs’, in Russian Officialdom: The Bureaucratization of Russian Society from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century eds Walter M. Pintner and Don Karl Rowney (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1980) pp. 250–82, 283–315. Rowney claims that ’the relatively privileged legal-social category of “noble” managed to retain a position of dominance in the central higher civil service as a whole ’ but admits that ’the simple denomination of “noble” concealed a great amount of variation…’ (pp. 302–3). Significantly, the War Ministry encompassed both modes thereby perpetuating intra-ministerial struggles.Google Scholar
  2. See P.A. Zaionchkovskii, Samoderzhavie i russkaia armiia na rubezhe xix–xx stoletii, 1881–1903 (Moscow, 1973) esp. chs 2, 3 and 6.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    One is reminded of that contrast which Antonio Gramsci drew between the West where ‘there was a proper relation between State and civil society’, and Russia where ‘the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous’ (A. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, eds Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey N. Smith (London, 1971) p. 238).Google Scholar
  4. See also Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London, 1974) pp. 195–235, 328–60 for a broad historical argument along these lines.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Rezoliutsii Vysochaishe razreshennogo torgovo-promyshlennogo s"ezda obschchestva dlia codeistviia russkoi promyshlennosti i torgovli v Moskve v iiule 1882 g. (St Petersburg, 1882). For earlier congresses see E.S. Lur’e, Organizatsiia organizatsii torgovo-promyshlennykh interesov v Rossii (St Petersburg, 1913) pp. 75–9.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    D.I. Mendeleev, Problemy ekonomicheskogo razvitiia Rossii (Moscow, 1960) p. 157.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    See Robert W. Tolf, The Russian Rockefellers: The Saga of the Nobel Family and the Russian Oil Industry (Stanford, Calif., 1976)Google Scholar
  8. and John P. McKay, Pioneers for Profit: Foreign Entrepreneurship and Russian Industrialization, 1885–1913 (Chicago, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. On the role of Witte, the classic study is Theodore Von Laue, Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia (New York, 1963). For a forceful but not entirely convincing critique of Von Laue’s viewsGoogle Scholar
  10. see I.F. Gindin, ‘Russia’s Industrialization under Capitalism as seen by Theodor Von Laue’, Soviet Studies in History, vol. VII (1972) pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    The literature on these two syndicates is extensive. On their origins and the importance of the French see Olga Crisp, Studies in the Russian Economy before 1914 (London, 1976) pp. 159–66, 174–82;Google Scholar
  12. M.Ia. Gefter, ‘Tsarizm i monopolisticheskii kapital v metallurgii Iuga Rossii’, IZ, vol. XLIII (1953) pp. 75–82;Google Scholar
  13. René Girault, Emprunts russes et Investissements français en Russie, 1887–1914 (Paris, 1973) pp. 364–71;Google Scholar
  14. A.L. Tsukernik, Sindikat ‘Prodamet’ (Moscow, 1959) pp. 37–42;Google Scholar
  15. P.V. Volobuev, ‘Iz istorii sindikata “Proudgol’”’, IZ, vol. LVIII (1956) pp. 107–44.Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    P.V. Volobuev, ‘Politika proizvodstva ugol’nykh i neftianykh monopolii v Rossii nakanune pervoi mirovoi voiny’, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, seriia ix, no. 1 (1956) p. 72.Google Scholar
  17. 10.
    For a summary of the interesting debate among Soviet historians on whether finance capital and the Tsarist state were moving towards a coalescence (srashchivanie) of interests or the subjection (podchinenie) of the latter to the former, see K.N. Tarnovskii, Sovetskaia istoriografiia Rossiiskogo imperializma (Moscow, 1964) pp. 30–44, 126–9, 170–87.Google Scholar
  18. See also contributions by I.F. Gindin, A.P. Pogrebinskii, V.I. Bovykin and K.N. Tarnovskii in Ob osobennostiiakh imperializma v Rossii (Moscow, 1963) pp. 86–123, 124–48, 250–313, 419–38. On the shift towards passive investment cf. McKay, Pioneers for Profit pp. 36878, and Girault, Emprunts russes pp. 511–40.Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    McKay, Pioneers for Profit pp. 192–200; Olga Crisp, ‘Labour and Industrialisation in Russia’, in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe vol. VII, part 2 (London, 1978) pp. 385–6.Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    See, for example, Ia.A. Livshin, ‘Predstavitel’nye organizatsii krupnoi burzhuazii v Rossii v kontse XIX-nachale XX vv.’, Istoriia SSSR, no. 2 (1959) pp. 110–17;Google Scholar
  21. R.A. Roosa, ‘Russian Industrialists Look to the Future: Thoughts on Economic Development, 1906–1917’, in Essays in Russian and Soviet History, ed. J.S. Curtiss (Leiden, 1963) pp. 193–218; Roosa, ‘Russian Industrialists and “State Socialism”’, pp. 395–417; Carl Goldberg, ‘The Association of Industry and Trade, 1906–17: the Successes and Failure of Russia’s Organized Businessmen’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974).Google Scholar
  22. 13.
    V.T. Bill, The Forgotten Class: The Russian Bourgeoisie to 1900 (New York, 1959) pp. 1535;Google Scholar
  23. I.F. Gindin, ‘Russkaia burzhuaziia v period kapitalizma, ee razvitie i osobennosti’, Istoriia SSSR, no. 2 (1963) pp. 61–3;Google Scholar
  24. V.K. Yatsunsky, ‘The Industrial Revolution in Russia’, in Russian Economic Development from Peter the Great to Stalin, ed. Wm L. Blackwell (New York, 1974) pp. 114–17; Wm L. Blackwell, ‘The Old Believers and the Rise of Private Industrial Enterprise in Early Nineteenth Century Moscow’, in ibid., pp. 139–58; and M.C. Kaser, ‘Russian Entrepreneurship’, in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. VII, part 2, pp. 444–7.Google Scholar
  25. 14.
    A.G. Rashin, Formirovanie rabochego klassa Rossii (Moscow, 1958) p. 200.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    The life and times of ‘calico Moscow’ is vividly portrayed in P.A. Buryshkin, Moskva kupecheskaia (New York, 1954). See also Ruckman, ‘The Business Elite of Moscow’, pp. 41–5;Google Scholar
  27. and Thomas C. Owen, Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of the Moscow Merchants, 1855–1905 (Cambridge, 1981) pp. 145ff.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    Iu.B. Solov’ev, ‘Protivorechiia v praviashchem lagere Rossii po voprosu ob inostrannykh kapitalakh v gody pervogo promyshlennogo pod’ ‘ema’, in Iz istorii imperializma v Rossii (Moscow, 1959) pp. 382–3.Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    McKay, Pioneers for Profit, p. 293. McKay cites as the source of this ‘piquant phrase’, C. Ernest Dawn, ’Arab Islam in the Modern Age’, Middle East Journal, vol. XIX (1965) pp. 442–3.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    N.K. Krestovnikov, Semeinaia khronika Krestovnikovykh 3 vols (Moscow, 1903–4) vol. III, p. 115 (emphasis mine). Such yearnings were typical of what Owen (Capitalism and Politics in Russia p. 208) calls ‘violently xenophobic polemics of the merchant-slavophile alliance’.Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    Quoted in E.D. Chermenskii, Burzhuaziia i tsarizm v revoliutsii 1905–1907 gg. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1939) p. 65. This statement, published in the Moscow newspaper, Russkie Vedomosti served as the basis for numerous others submitted by provincial organizations.Google Scholar
  32. See V.Ia. Laverychev, Tsarizm i rabochii vopros v Rossii, 1 861–1917 gg. (Moscow, 1972) p. 192.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    On the Riabushinskii family’s economic endeavours see M.L. Lavigne, ‘Le plan de Mihajl Rjabusinskij: un projet de concentration industrielle en 1916’, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, no. 1 (1964) pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
  34. For the original Russian and commentary see ‘K istorii kontserna br. Riabushinskikh’, ed. I.F. Gindin, in Materialy po istorii SSSR 7 vols (Moscow, 1952–9) vol. VI, pp. 603–40. Also, Buryshkin, Moskva kupecheskaia pp. 189–93.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    M.M. Tsvibak, Iz istorii kapitalizma v Rossii: khlopchatobumazhnaia promyshlennost’ (Leningrad, 1925) pp. 55, 67.Google Scholar
  36. On the Russian Export Company see V.Ia. Laverychev, ‘Protsess monopolizatsii khlopchatobumazhnoi promyshlennosti Rossii (1900–1914 gody)’, Voprosy istorii, no. 2 (1960) p. 143.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    See below p. 240, n. 27. On the Neo-Slav movement, see Hugh Seton Watson, The Russian Empire 1801–1917 (Oxford, 1967) pp. 665, 688–9.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    For the former, so-called ‘optimist’ view, see Arthur Mendel, ’Peasant and Worker on the Eve of the First World War’, Slavic Review, vol. XXIV (1965) pp. 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. and the restatement of his argument, ‘On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia’, in Russia under the Last Tsar, ed. T.G. Stavrou (Minneapolis, 1969) pp. 13–41;Google Scholar
  40. for the latter see Leopold Haimson, ‘The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905–1917’, Slavic Review, vol. XXIII (1964) pp. 619–40, and vol. XXIV (1965) pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Sidorov, Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie, p. 503; Monopolisticheskii kapital v neftianoi promyshlennosti Rossii, 1883–1914, Dokumenty i materialy (Moscow and Leningrad, 1961) pp. 501–11, 598–608, 737–8.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tsukernik, Sindikat ‘Prodamet’, pp. 183–8. On the fuel famine see Volobuev, ‘Politika proizvodstva ugol’nykh i neftianykh monopolii’, pp. 71–115; M.Ia. Gefter, ’Toplivno-neftianoi golod v Rossii i ekonomicheskaia politika tret’ei iiunskoi monarkhii’, IZ, vol. LXXXIII (1969) pp. 76–122.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    See speech by S.I. Timashev, the Minster of Trade and Industry, in Gosudarstvennaia Duma, IV Sozyv, Stenograficheskie otchety (St Petersburg, 1913) sessiia 1, ch. 2, zasedanie 31 (22 Mar. 1913) cols 52–6;Google Scholar
  44. also, M.Ia. Gefter, ‘Tsarizm i zakonodatel’noe “regulirovanie” deiatel’nosti sindikatov i trestov v Rossii nakanune pervoi mirovoi voiny’, IZ, vol. LIV (1954) pp. 170–93.Google Scholar
  45. and T.D. Krupina, ‘K voprosu o vzaimootnosheniiakh tsarskogo pravitel’stva s monopoliiami’, IZ, vol. LVII (1956) pp. 166–74.Google Scholar
  46. 44.
    Ugroza chastnomu khoziaistvu, PT no. 7 (151), 1 Apr. 1914, pp. 357–60.Google Scholar
  47. 50.
    S.G. Strumilin, Ocherki ekonomicheskoi istorii Rossii (Moscow, 1960) p. 537.Google Scholar
  48. 51.
    Gos. Duma, IV Sozyv, Sten. otchety ses. 1, zas. 2 (12 Dec. 1912) cols 658–60.Google Scholar
  49. 52.
    Cf. Haimson, ‘The Problem of Social Stability’, pp. 4–8 and I.S. Rozental’, ’Russkii liberalizm nakanune pervoi mirovoi voiny i taktika bol’shevikov’, Istoriia SSSR, no. 6 (1971) pp. 52–70.Google Scholar
  50. For published documents relating to the Information Committee and its negotiations with the Bolsheviks, see Istoricheskii Arkhiv no. 6 (1958) pp. 8–10, 12–13, and no. 2 (1959) pp. 13–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lewis H. Siegelbaum 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lewis H. Siegelbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.La Trobe UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations