Emil Lederer’s 1910 review examines Witte’s 1909 study of Russian trade unionism from its beginnings through revolution and counterrevolution. Praising its generally reliable evidence, Lederer emphasizes the political conditions governing collective organization. His central concern is the unequal freedom of workers and employers to defend their interests.
The Russian government initially regarded workers as a threat to the state and suppressed efforts to improve their circumstances. Its later encouragement of unions was a tactical attempt to weaken Social Democracy, while independent organizations developed clandestinely. Revolution accelerated both union formation and industrial conflict:
Die Revolution steigerte die Zahl dieser Gründungen, und brachte ein wahres »Streikfieber« mit sich.
English translation: The revolution increased the number of these foundings and brought with it a veritable "strike fever."
Lederer reports that 60 percent of factory workers participated in strikes in 1905. Counterrevolution subsequently forced many unions to dissolve. The concessions of 1905–06 nominally permitted strikes and trade unions, but restrictive conditions obstructed effective organization and excluded agricultural workers and several transport and communications occupations. Legal recognition therefore did not necessarily improve workers’ capacity to act: the February 1906 all-Russian trade-union conference favored legalization only as a last resort.
Repression intensified under Stolypin, particularly after the dissolution of the Second Duma, affecting both unions and their newspapers. Employers, meanwhile, enjoyed organizational freedom. Lederer records 124 employers’ associations in 1907 and permission for their expansion across the empire.
Es begann eine Aera der großen Aussperrungen, welche fast durchwegs mit schweren Niederlagen für die Arbeiter endigten.
English translation: There began an era of the great lock-outs, which almost throughout ended in severe defeats for the workers.
The lockouts reveal the practical consequences of this asymmetry. Employers demanded harsh conditions for reopening workplaces, while mechanization and rising prices could strengthen their position despite industrial conflict. Lederer develops Witte’s observation that foreign, often English, manufacturers led employers’ associations into a broader argument: employer organization becomes autocratic when workers lack organizations capable of restraining it. His comparison with America distinguishes legal exclusion from workers’ failure to exercise existing civic rights, while identifying comparable imbalances of collective power.
The review’s sharpest conceptual claim concerns the initiative behind class struggle. Lederer locates it with the stronger party—in Russia, the employers—rather than treating conflict simply as an expression of worker militancy. Organized resistance consequently appears as a necessary counterweight to concentrated employer power.
Lederer concludes by noting Witte’s discussion of union decline, central organizational activity, and the persistent impulse toward association despite repression. Membership tables and an extensive literature appendix support his favorable assessment. The review thus turns a historical account into an argument about substantive freedom of association: legal permission matters only insofar as workers can organize effectively against powerful employers.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian