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: 27 January 2017
During the first months after the October Revolution, Russian workers, soldiers, and sailors who had supported the overthrow of the Provisional Government in the name of soviet power—power to ordinary citizens exercised through democratically operated Soviets—participated in revolutionary politics most actively and directly through city and district Soviets. The lowest rungs on the ladder of democratic councils established throughout much of urban Russia after the fall of the tsar, these Soviets became the new regime's primary institutions of urban local government. Their early history reveals much about the extent to which the revolutionary ideal of popular grass-roots democracy was attempted and realized at that time, as well as about the first stages of the process by which that ideal was undermined and Bolshevik party-controlled authoritarianism became irreversibly entrenched. This history can be illustrated by close examination of the evolution of one Petrograd district soviet—that of the First City District— between November 1917 and the full explosion of the civil war crisis in June 1918.
1. This article was originally prepared for a conference on “The Earliest Months of Soviet Rule” at the University of Essex in May 1984. A companion paper on the evolution of the Petrograd First City District Soviet during the civil war years was presented at the fourth annual conference of the National Seminar on Russian Social History in the Twentieth Century, held at the University of Pennsylvania in October 1984, and is to be published in a volume of essays from that conference.Both papers are part of a broader study of Petrograd politics and society in 1917–1920, currently inprogress.
2. For a description of the First City District in 1917–1918 see Levitas, E. R., “O partiinoi isovetskoi rabote v 1-m gorodskom raione,” in V ogne revoliutsionnykh boev: Raiony Petrograda v dvukh revoliutsiiakh 1917g. (Moscow: Mysl', 1967), pp. 411–414 Google Scholar. See Stepanov, Z. V., Robochie Petrograda v period podgotovki i provedeniia Oktiobr'skogo \ooruzhennogo vosstaniia (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1965, p. 30 Google Scholar, for data on workers in the First City District.
3. The formation of district Soviets in Petrograd and their role in 1917 are discussed in Akademiianauk SSSR, Leningradskoe otdelenie instituta istorii, Raionnye sovety Petrogrado v 1917 godu: Prolokoly, rezoliutsii, postanovleniia obshchikh sobranii i zasedanii ispolnitel'nykh komiletov, 3 vols. (Moscowand Leningrad: Nauka, 1964–1966) 1: 3–8. A fuller discussion is contained in B. D. Gal'perina, “Raionnye sovety Petrograda v 1917 g.” (Kandidat dissertation, Leningrad Branch, Institute of History, USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, 1968). See also Wade, Rex. A., “The Raionnye Sovetyof Petrograd: The Role of Local Political Bodies in the Russian Revolution,” Jahrbiicher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 20 (1972): 226–240.Google Scholar
4. Raionnye sovety Petrograda v 1917 godu 1: 183.
5. Gal'perina, “Raionnye sovety Petrograda v 1917 g.,” p. 161; Pravda, 8 June 1917, p. 4; Vestnik soveta 1-go gorodskogo raiona, no. 28 (28 August 1918), pp. 4–5.
6. Novoe vremia, 2 June 1917, p. 2.
7. Lending special piquancy to these clashes between opposing sides in the First City District Soviet during this period was the fact that, while the chief spokesman for the Bolshevik side was theveteran revolutionary Semen Nakhimson, the leader of the Menshevik-Socialist Revolutionary blocwas the Menshevik Fedor Nakhimson, a lawyer by profession, a persuasive orator, and Semen's brother. In the First City District Soviet the warring brothers were commonly referred to asNakhimson I (Semen) and Nakhimson II (Fedor) and were usually at each other's throats. Levitas, “O partiinoi i sovetskoi rabote,” pp. 422–423.
8. Thus, in early June, when the district soviet was invited to send representatives to reorganizeddistrict and subdistrict food-supply and distribution committees, the deputies, including the Bolsheviks, turned down the invitation. That Bolsheviks should have abjured participation in “coalition” organs was fully consistent with their opposition to socialist collaboration with liberals nationally.What is unexpected is that the Bolshevik deputies justified leaving management of food suppliesexclusively in the hands of district dumas, then under the control of Kadets and moderate socialists, because, in the words of the Bolshevik-sponsored resolution on the issue, they had been elected on a “broad democratic basis.” Raionnye sovety Petrograda v 1917 godu 1: 199.
9. B. D. Gal'perina and V. I. Startsev, “Sovety rabochikh i soldatskikh deputatov Petrograda vbor'be za ovladenie aparatom gorodskogo obshchestvennogo upravleniia (noiabr’ 1917-noiabr’ 1918g.),” in Rabochie Leningrada v bor'be za pobedu sotsializma (Moscow and Leningrad, 1963), p. 82.
10. Such was the case with the finance section of the soviet. In 1917 it had consisted of a parttimetreasurer, who sought donations for the Soviet's upkeep and who attempted, evidently with onlyvery mixed success, to keep a running account of income and expenditures, which at that time averagedless than 400 rubles a month. By 1 January 1918, the finance section employed several staffmembers, including a trained accountant, and managed a complex budget amounting to more than600, 000 rubles a month. Pervaia konferentsiia rabochikh i krasnoarmeiskikh deputatov 1-go gorodskogo raiona (stenograftcheskie otchety 25 maia-5 iiunia) (Petrograd, 1918), pp. 308–309; Vestnik, no. 12–13, 19 (6) June 1918, p. 10; no. 44, 7 November 1918, p. 10. Detailed monthly financial statements publishedin the Vestnik are a valuable source for studying the expansion of the district Soviet's activities.
11. The first people's courts in Petrograd were established at the initiative of the Vyborg DistrictSoviet in late October. By late December nine people's courts had been set up in the First City District;during the first three months of 1918 this figure was increased to sixteen. Around the same time the district soviet created a presidium of the people's courts to replace the old district and commercial courts and in January an investigating commission was created to consider indictments and to forward triable cases to the appropriate people's courts. Because of the relatively high crime rate in the First City District, the people's courts and investigating commission there may have been the busiest in thecity. Between 15 January and 25 May 1918 some 1, 102 cases of robbery, murder, wrecking, illegalsales of liquor and cocaine, counter fitting, and sundry other major and minor crimes were reviewedby the investigating commission; some 500 of these were turned over for trial. Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 323–325; Vestnik, no. 1–2, 1 May (18 April) 1918, p. 8; no. 8, 1 June (19 May) 1918, p. 2.
12. Vestnik, no. 8, 1 June (19 May) 1918, pp. 2–3; no. 44, 7 November 1918, p. 7; Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 306–307.
13. Vestnik, no. 7, 29 (16) May 1918, p. 1; Levitas, “O partiinoi i sovetskoi rabote,” pp. 435–436.
14. Vestnik, no. 8, 1 June (19 May) 1918, p. 3.
15. Ibid.; Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 313–316.
16. Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 320–323. The paper kept residents informed about district sovietactivities and about developments relating to food supply, health and sanitation problems, the organizationof local militia and Red Army forces, and other matters of particular importance to them.Published usually on Wednesdays and Saturdays in eight-page to ten-page editions between 1 May (18 April) 1918 and 30 July 1919 when it was ordered shut down, the paper was a mine of detailedinformation about varied phases of daily life in the district.
17. Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 326–329.
18. Vestnik, no. 3, 15 (2) May 1918, pp. 2–3; no. 4, 18 (5) May 1918, p. 3; no. 7, 29 (16) May1918, p. 5.
19. Gal'perina and Startsev, “Sovety rabochikh i soldatskikh deputatov,” p. 101.
20. Vestnik, 1 June (19 May) 1918, pp. 1–2.
21. By June 1918 the population of the First City District, along with that of the rest of Petrograd, had declined drastically, from 546, 000 to 333, 539 residents. Veslnik, no. 19, 20 July 1918, p. 8. Nonetheless, the district remained the city's most populous.
22. Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 303, 330.
23. K. I. Shelavin, “Iz istorii Peterburgskogo komiteta bol'shevikov v 1918 g.,” Krasnaia letopis', no. 2 (26), 1928, p. 109.
24. For a full elaboration of this interpretation see Rabinowitch, Alexander, The Bolsheviks Come to Power: The Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd (New York: W. W. Norton, 1976)Google Scholar.
25. Ocherki istorii Leningradskoi organizatsii KPSS, 1883–1977 (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1980), p. 34.
26. From the 5th to the 19th of March 1918 the Left Communist Petrograd Bolshevik leadershippublished its own daily newspaper, Kommunist, primarily to campaign against the Brest treaty. Anilluminating report on the Fourth City Party Conference in early March, which reaffirmed the PetrogradBolsheviks’ opposition, is in Kommunist, 5 March 1918, p. 4. Reports on the emergency Fifth CityParty Conference on 20 March are in Krasnaia gazeta, 21 March 1918 (evening edition), p. 1, and Petrogradskaia pravda, 22 March 1918 (evening edition), p. 2. A protocol of the conference is in M. Lur'e, “Iz istorii bor'by s‘levymi’ kommunistami v Petrogradskoi organizatsii bol'shevikov,” Krasnaia letopis', no. 2 (59) (1934), pp. 100–111. See also A. O. Chubar'ian, Brestskii mir (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), pp. 219–220, and Il'in-Zhenevskii, A., “Brestskii mir i partiia,” Krasnaia letopis1, no. 1 (25) (1928), p. 61.Google Scholar
27. Shelavin, K. I., “Iz istorii Peterburgskogo komiteta,” Krasnaia letopis1, no. 2 (26) (1928), pp.106–124 Google Scholar; no. 3 (27) (1928), pp. 146–172; no. 1 (28) (1929), pp. 68–88; no. 2 (29) (1929), pp. 24–25; no.3 (30) (1929), pp. 120–153.
28. Shelavin, , “Iz istorii Peterburgskogo komiteta,” Krasnaia lelopis', no. 2 (26) (1928), pp.108–124.Google Scholar
29. A useful recent collection of documents relating to the emergence and suppression of theextraordinary assembly, and of an “independent” Russian workers’ movement generally, in the firsthalf of 1918 is in Bernshtam, M. S., ed., Nezavisimoe rabochee dvizhenie v 1918 godu (dokumenty i materialy) (Paris: YMCA Press, 1981)Google Scholar.
30. Initially formed in May 1917 and composed of representatives of all Petrograd district Soviets, the Interdistrict Conference helped to coordinate the activities of district Soviets and played an important independent, as yet little-studied role in city political affairs until the middle of 1919.
31. Shelavin, “Iz istorii Peterburgskogo komiteta,” Krasnaia letopis', no. 2 (26) (1928), p. 111; Vestnik, no. 4, 18 (5) May 1918, p. 1.
32. During this first half year of Soviet rule Shelavin sees a continuing pattern of friction andtension between the Petersburg Committee and the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet, withthe latter generally simply ignoring the former. According to him, the same independent spirit governedthe relations between district Soviets and district Bolshevik committees. In the first of hisessays, Shelavin recalls that a major conflict between the Petersburg Committee and the executivecommittee of the Petrograd Soviet erupted after the Petersburg Committee learned of Zinoviev's response to one of its messages, perhaps relating to the convocation of workers’ conferences; theSoviet “cannot permit itself to be run by various little boys,” that is, the Petersburg Committee, Zinoviev is quoted as saying. Shelavin, , “Iz istorii Peterburgskogo komiteta,” Krasnaia letopis', no. 2 (26) (1928), p. 111.Google Scholar
33. Ibid., and ibid., no. 3 (27) (1928), pp. 162–164.
34. Pervaia konferentsiia, p. ix.
35. Ibid., pp. viii-xv; Vestnik, no. 5, 22 (9) May 1918, p. 5.
36. For one thing, the Bolsheviks controlled most factory committees, which, as a rule, organizedthe factory electoral assemblies at which many delegates were selected. Additionally, the Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary leadership had a bloc of some forty-five Red Army representatives whose loyalty to the existing regime was a condition of their service. The inclusion of Red Army representatives appears to have been a departure from the instructions issued by the Interdistrict Conference.
37. Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. xv, 269–274. Deliberative (nonvoting) rights were accorded delegatesfrom workshops with fewer than fifty workers.
38. Vestnik, no. 7, 29 (16) May 1918, pp. 1–3; no. 8, 1 June (19 May) 1918, pp. 2–3, 5–7; no.9–10, 8 June (26 May) 1918, pp. 11–16; no. 11, 12 June (30 May) 1918, pp. 5–6; no. 14, 22 (9) June1918, pp. 2–3; no. 16–17, 6 July 1918, pp. 3–4, 8–9.
39. Pervaia konferentsiia. Included in the book are stenograms of all speeches, resolutions, anddiscussions; regulations governing the make-up and operation of the conference; a full list of delegatesand where they came from; and an analysis of the political affiliation of the delegates.
40. Ibid., pp. 89–95. While each of these discussions ended with the passage of Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary resolutions (the forty or so votes of Red Army representatives often probably being decisive in providing the majority its margin of victory), the conference format assured the airing of opposing views. In each case, a thirty-minute report by a high-level Bolshevik representative of the city administration was commented upon by officially designated spokesmen of the Bolshevik, Menshevik, Socialist Revolutionary, and Left Socialist Revolutionary conference factions. Each of these spokesmen was allotted fifteen minutes. Comments from the floor were then entertained and administration spokesmen were given fifteen minutes for rebuttal, after which delegates voted on resolutions offered by the opposing sides.
41. All quotations below relating to these reports are from Pervaia konferentsiia, pp. 19–85.
42. All quotations below relating to this review are from ibid. pp. 300–352.
43. Ibid., pp. 352–356.
44. Ibid., p. 356.
45. Ibid., p. 355.
46. Ibid., p. 383.
47. Ibid.
48. The political make-up of the First City District Soviet, as it was reformed following partial elections in mid-June 1918, is described in Vestnik, no. 16–17, 6 July 1918, pp. 7–8. While the Bolsheviks temporarily lost the absolute majority in the soviet that they had previously enjoyed, they remained far and away the largest single party and, with the support of their own sympathizers andthat of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and their followers, retained firm control of the districtsoviet leadership.
The most comprehensive results of the subsequent Petrograd soviet elections were published in Severnaia kommuna, 5 July 1918, p. 3, and 6 July 1918, p. 3. A Bolshevik victory was assured by the numerically quite significant representation now given to trade unions, district Soviets, factory-shop committees, district worker conferences, and Red Army and naval units, in which the Bolshevikshad overwhelming strength. Nonetheless, the campaign for deputies elected directly in the factories appears to have been relatively free and intense, with all parties working to win adherents—the Bolsheviks by working to regain the popular support that had clearly eroded in the previous weeks and the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries by attempting to capitalize on popular anxietiesover the threat of famine and the spread of disease, the negative effects of the Brest treaty, and thehorror of expanding civil war. Final tallies showed that approximately 50 percent of elected factorydeputies were Bolsheviks (127 of 260 deputies), the Left Socialist Revolutionaries running a verydistant second. Comparison of results in the First City District with factory delegate reports at theFirst City District Workers’ Conference suggests that the Bolsheviks held their own in factories wherethey had retained strength in late May and early June and managed to regain a measure of respectabilityin at least some plants where the anti-Bolshevik mood had seemed most intense earlier.
