After an introduction to the printing industry of late imperial Russia and the start of legal print unionization after the Revolution of 1905, I will present two micro-herstories.6 In the first, I will analyze a debate in the printers’ trade union
1 Labour Organization in Late Imperial Russia
The history of workers in the Russian Empire—peasant serfs, miners, workers in cottage industry, urban artisans, and factory workers—did not begin in the nineteenth or even twentieth century, of course. However, due to forced industrialization in the 1870s and 1890s and simultaneous urbanization, an industrial workforce developed in the industrial hotspots of the empire.8 Numerically speaking, this was a small group: in the 1897 national census, the industrial workforce numbered about two million persons out of a population of over 128 million. Nevertheless, despite their relatively small numbers, industrial workers gained social and political prominence in the late Russian
Labour unrest, including work stoppages, became increasingly visible and political, especially when it took place in the industrial political centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Workers frequently connected their deteriorating working conditions with the structural problems of the imperial administration, and unrest was reported in the growing commercial periodical press. The decade leading up to the 1905 Revolution saw widespread strike actions in the St. Petersburg textile and metal industries (1896–1897 and 1901, respectively), in the Moscow printing industry (1903), and elsewhere in the empire.11 From the first organized factory strike actions in the 1870s on, members of the radical intelligentsia interacted with workers. Above all, the Marxist-influenced groups of the Social Democrats, which split into the Menshevik and Bolshevik wings in 1903, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries became involved in labour unrest and the organized labour movement.12 In the Jewish Pale of Settlement, the socialist “Bund” (algemeyner yidisher arbeter-bund in lite, poyln un rusland) organized workers. In order to prevent such activity, the tsarist authorities even came up with their own workers’ organization administered by police officers. The idea was to sponsor associations and activities among workers that were intensively surveilled by the police and distanced members from other oppositional political groups. The experiments of Sergei Zubatov and Father Gapon are the most famous examples of this strategy of “ideological subservience.”13
In 1904, the Russian Empire entered into a disastrous and unpopular war with Japan, which led to open criticism of the government across the political spectrum and caused economic conditions to deteriorate. In the early days of
One of the most influential groups of industrial workers involved in the unrest of 1905 were the printers, who had de facto control over the print production of the empire, that is, a vital part of the empire’s communication infrastructure. Their Moscow strike in September and October 1905, for example, led to the complete closure of printing plants and paralyzed all newspaper operations for a fortnight, causing a news blackout.15 There is some evidence of printers refusing to set and print articles that ran counter to their political views in the dailies or refusing to hand over newspaper issues to censorship officers.16 Printers also set and printed articles against the wishes of editors.17 In October 1905, tsar Nikolai ii (1868–1918) finally had to give in to the pressure of the protestors and some of his advisers. In the 1905 “October Manifesto,” he was forced to grant a series of civil and political rights, including freedom of assembly, and the introduction of a State Duma (the lower house of the legislative assembly) with elected delegates.18 After the major strike actions of 1905,
2 The Printers’ Unions
The printers overwhelmingly belonged to the factory labour force within the manufacturing sector. In the last decades of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth, the printing trade of imperial Russia went from being a small, skilled handicraft into a factory-based industry that produced printed materials for a mass market.21 In factories, the mechanization as well as the division of printing labour became more advanced.22 A highly hierarchical organization based on “skill, training, and authority” became dominant, leading to constant tension between master printers, supervisors, assistants, skilled printers, apprentices, semi-skilled or unskilled press workers, and folders. Unskilled peasant boys came into industrial centers to work in the lowest
After the mass strikes of the 1905 Revolution and the legalization of trade unions, many mutual aid societies, factory committees, and strike committees were transformed into trade unions. General unionization developed across the Russian Empire. Printers organized themselves into industrial unions, unifying the various craft-based groups such as typesetters, press-workers, lithographers, folders, and bookbinders.32 In August 1905, the St. Petersburg Union of Print Workers (Союз рабочих печатного дела) was founded, and its leaders organized around the new class-oriented and more militant trade union paper The Print Herald (Печатный вестник).33 After the official registration
Trade union journals in general were financed by the unions, usually ran eight to sixteen pages, and normally contained an amalgam of features of newspapers and thematic magazines, both in form and content.34 The editors of The Printers’ Herald declared that their journal was a union organ, and as such, it would look out for the needs of printers as well as explain and defend their interests.35 As The Printer’s Voice was clearly a continuation of The Printers’ Herald, the same purpose and objectives can be assumed for The Printer’s Voice. The editors of both papers included advertisements, job postings, and articles about the most important developments in their profession in the Russian Empire and abroad. There were reports about the trade union executive committee meetings, articles about the labour and civil rights policies of the imperial government, and candidate recommendations for State Duma elections. The printers’ trade union journals had a circulation of approximately 10,000 copies, an impressive figure compared to the print run of other St. Petersburg dailies during the same time.36 But the activities of the St. Petersburg Printers’ Union were not limited to publishing a trade union paper in the period between legalization in spring 1906 and the tsarist “coup” in 1907. The union also fought for the introduction of a Sunday rest day for all printers and a single tarif for all Petersburg printing plants, and union leaders entered into negotiations with employers and publishers.37
Still, due to a lack of sources, it remains difficult to assess how accessible strike committees and trade unions were for women printers in practice. Apart from possible ideological differences, one can imagine there were several obstacles preventing women from joining the union. As equal wages were not a reality, it is likely that it was far more difficult for women workers to pay the union membership fee. Further, strike committee meetings often took place in locations that were not always accessible to women such as pubs and restaurants. The Moscow printers’ strike of 1903, for example, was organized during unofficial meetings involving several hundred participants in a restaurant in Moscow, and later, for security reasons, at locations outside the city.40 In general, attending meetings—especially in the evening—would likely have been far more difficult for women workers to attend since many had to care for children after finishing their factory work. And then there is the question of how the workplace culture at printing plants influenced women printers’ decisions to unionize or not. As mentioned above, research has described the “masculinized culture of the capitalist workplace” among male workers—also present at the printing plants of St. Petersburg—which included intense peer pressure, heavy drinking, vulgar language, explicit boasts about sexual exploits, as well
3 The Voice of the Woman Worker Debate
Especially after 1905, trade union journals were used by women workers to publicly “confront not only management and society but men comrades as well” due to their experiences of gender-based discrimination and harassment.45 The article “The Voice of the Woman Worker” by Naborshchitsa is one such example of this.46 As the title already suggests, the article functions as a speech in essay form, and it was published in the 20 May (2 June) issue of The Printers’ Herald in 1906.47 The self-proclaimed motivation for the essay was to make the voices of women printers heard as they had not yet been represented
Naborshchitsa opens the essay by using classical rhetorical techniques to address the audience: “Comrades!” During the essay, it becomes clear that by “comrades,” she specifically means her “politically conscious” fellow men printer-unionists.49 She repeats this apostrophe eight times in the essay, using it as her refrain and emphasizing the pressing nature of her words. Naborshchitsa introduces herself as a reader of “our journal” in the first sentences, creating a political and emotional connection between herself and her addressees. With this unifying captatio benevolentiae, Naborshchitsa paves the way for her following accusation: Male comrades do not want to recognize their female colleagues as human beings or as comrades. She demands a collegial relationship because: “First and foremost, we are human beings.” The male comrades must prepare for the presence of women in the world of work and, thus, in the public sphere because this is where things are heading. Due to a sudden change in tense, this prolepsis clearly stands out as the climax of the speech and takes on a threatening tone: If men comrades do not change their behavior, Naborshchitsa warns, women workers will form their own organization. According to her, such a split would be a crime against the whole proletarian liberation movement, and men comrades would bear the blame. Naborshchitsa explains that due to the uncooperative and condescending attitude of male workers toward their female colleagues, the latter are not likely to get involved in proletarian organizations. They avoid contact with men workers, which results in their alienation from the struggle for proletarian goals, ultimately damaging the common proletarian cause. But Naborshchitsa is determined not to accept this situation: “No, comrades, it cannot go on like this; it must not!” The finale is, again, typical for speeches. It uses slogans and a call to action: “Down with this old relic! It must be recognized that our enemies are our exploiters. And our comrades are those who work honestly without exploiting others and do not live at the expense of others.” With this finis
No matter how hard and painful it is, one has to admit that the plight of the woman worker is so bad because her comrades do not want to acknowledge in her the human being, the comrade who is as capable as them to think, fight, and hope for liberation from exploitative oppression.50
Naborshchitsa constructs a moral basis for class unity, which was a characteristic of printers’ unionism after 1905, but turns a key argument of the movement against male print unionists. She explicitly addresses the immoral behavior (disrespect and condescension directed toward women printers) of readers of The Printers’ Herald, the trade union organ—in other words, the behavior of “conscious printers.” In Naborshchitsa’s eyes, this attitude is the direct cause of women workers’ lack of participation in the Printers’ Union and, thus, disunity among print workers. Naborshchitsa’s idea of a “union” on the other hand, is a proletarian trade union that crosses gender lines to unite workers in the fight against exploiters. In her essay, she repeatedly emphasizes her most important concern: the continuation of a united workers’ movement. Her remark about organizing women printers into a “special group” is a threat, not an aspiration. Her warning is explicit: “among the working class [the woman worker] will occupy a major place. She will have to be reckoned with, life will force you to reckon with her.”51 Separate union organizing along this line of thinking is merely a strategy to bind women printers to proletarian organizations despite the behavior of men printers and unionists, it is not a goal.52 To ensure unity and union, Naborshchitsa does not demand change from women printers but
Naborshchitsa’s insistence on the importance of drawing women printers into proletarian organizations such as the Printers’ Union is indicative of the broader political context of the time in which she was writing. It was a time when women workers had several potential allies from which to choose. In fact, in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century, liberal and left-wing parties, philanthropic women’s groups, the women’s rights movement, conservative circles, and trade unions, among others, competed with each other for the support of workers, especially working women.54 Socialist groups, for instance, were afraid that women’s rights groups would lead women workers away from socialism. Social Democrats, who were the most influential group in printers’ organizations, were generally opposed to separate women’s organizations because they believed that “feminism” would divert attention away from the class struggle. According to this argument, the “woman question” would be solved automatically as soon as the class struggle was won. Therefore, Naborshchitsa’s threat of separate women’s organizations and her statement that such segregation would be a betrayal of the proletarian cause collates with the socialist commitment to unified organizing. Naborshchitsa also identifies the limits of this position in her description of women’s real-life experiences in the workplace.
The challenge to “make sense of gender, as well as class inequalities and oppression”55 was confronted not only by Naborshchitsa and the left-wing parties of imperial Russian but by socialists in other countries as well.56 However, as Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild stresses in her study of the fight for full women’s suffrage in the Russian Empire, the “boundaries between feminism and socialism were permeable and shifting.”57 For instance, by 1906, the League of Working Women in Finland (then a Grand Duchy governed as an autonomous part of the Russian Empire) had organized hundreds of suffrage meetings and demonstrations, aligned with the Social Democratic Party of Finland,
4 Reactions
The initial reaction to Naborshchitsa’s criticism was an editorial comment that accompanied the essay. The editors responded to Naborshchitsa’s claim that the voices of women printers were not represented in The Printers’ Herald. They agreed that “in the pages of our professional organ […] the very important topic of women workers […] has not been raised.”61 Additionally, they immediately offered up the trade union journal as a place to discuss such issues. And the editors kept their word: in the following issues of The Printers’ Herald, there were five articles on questions related to women workers.
The 28 May (10 June) 1906 issue contains an article by a certain Ia. Kopeliovich.62 In “It is Time: On the Occasion of the Article ‘The Voice of the Woman Worker,’” Kopeliovich salutes the comrade woman typesetter for her
A different perspective on unity and union in response to Naborshchitsa was expressed by a bookbinder called P. Bogushevich, whose “Answer to the ‘Voice of the Woman Worker’” was published in The Printers’ Herald on 11 June (24 June) 1906.63 In Bogushevich’s eyes, Naborshchitsa is mistaken about disunity among printers: The proletarian movement regards women as fellow comrades and, therefore, it is not possible that men printers treat their female colleagues in the disrespectful manner described by Naborshchitsa. His line of reasoning is simple: Since such behavior does not conform to proletarian ethics, it does not—cannot—exist among workers. It can only exist among the immoral bourgeoisie or maybe among unconscious and, therefore, morally imperfect workers, but certainly not among print unionists. Indeed, in an earlier article by the same author entitled “Men Workers and Women Workers,” he points out the exploitative work conditions in the Kirkhner bookbinding and printing factory where only profit rules and describes workplace inequality and harassment (meager salaries, vulgar jokes, and abuses of power) women and girls must endure in order to have enough to eat. However, according to Bogushevich, this harassment comes from managers and supervisors only, i.e.,
Regarding Naborshchitsa’s experience with print workers, however, Bogushevich disagrees vehemently. In his “Answer to the ‘Voice of the Woman Worker,’” Bogushevich writes that Naborshchitsa has misunderstood something fundamental, and the “facts” prove her wrong, although the “right facts” are simply based on his own experience. He undermines and discredits Naborshchitsa’s perception of reality by stating that she imagines things and alleges that his own experience represents the true story in a classical example of gaslighting. Bogushevich then declares that Naborshchitsa is the problem, not the victim, adding that if some women workers experience condescension from their male colleagues, it is because they are politically unconscious and therefore in the wrong, which implicitly suggests that in such a case, men’s intrusive and degrading behavior is acceptable.67 Bogushevich’s article makes very clear the consequences of the ideological deadlock, about which Kopeliovich is confused: A moral construction of class unity not only excludes “less developed” printers who are still “unconscious” but is also incapable of
Finally, a completely new aspect of unity and union among printers was introduced a couple of weeks after the publication of Naborshchitsa’s essay. A certain Pavel published an article entitled “Something about the Woman Worker” in The Printers’ Herald on 1 July (14 July) 1906.69 First, Pavel acknowledges the importance of the subject of women’s labour and supports the call to overcome the old conceptualization of women as “lesser beings.” In the rest of his article, however, Pavel is very much preoccupied with introducing the element of class into discussions concerning union. For example, he describes the exploitation of women by the management of two printing factories in St. Petersburg: Marks and Kirkhner. In the Marks factory, women workers are tyrannized by a woman supervisor, while in the Kirkhner factory, they endure cynical remarks and vulgar behavior by a male supervisor. In the eyes of Pavel, the problem is the supervisors’ status (or class), not their gender. In other words, women from the exploiter class are no better than men from the same class. The solution to this problem, in Pavel’s eyes, is to exchange the entire management with persons elected by the printers themselves. Following this line of reasoning, there is no way to account for gender-based harassment among workers.
Pavel also identifies another source of disunity in the social relationships among workers in general, namely their aspiration to adapt to bourgeois culture. If a woman worker tries to dress nicely and disrespects a male worker in a dirty shirt, Pavel writes, this can only lead to mockery and jokes, which then culminate in fights. The influence of the “cursed bourgeoisie” also causes other conflicts. For example, when working girls see bourgeois women in their fancy dresses, they understandably work overtime to buy nice clothes to hide their miserable living conditions. Male workers, however, try to forget their depressing situations by drinking. According to Pavel, both phenomena are the result of an oppressive regime that can only be successfully opposed by a unified
His article serves as yet another example of the socialists’ fear of “losing” workers to the bourgeoisie, but he goes further, addressing the dangers (excessive) consumption poses to workers’ unity and prosperity. Here, Pavel reacts to yet another aspect of the everyday life of urban workers in late imperial Russia. The last decades of the Russian Empire saw the rapid growth of a consumer culture in urban centers. Commerce was the main engine of economic life, and it remained the sector most responsible for the expansion of the urban economy (more than large-scale industry) until the end of the century. Streets were filled with shops, stores, open markets, hawkers, and peddlers.70 There were also theaters, concert halls, circuses, clubs, societies, and outdoor stages, which offered commercialized entertainment for a low price.71 At the beginning of the twentieth century, nearly 40 percent of the space in commercial newspapers were dedicated to advertisements.72 There are many reports about workers longing for fashionable objects, just like Pavel described in his article; many women workers spent their small incomes on fancy dresses and traveled to their villages to show them off. However, contrary to what Pavel suggests, both women and men workers aspired to the “bourgeois” lifestyle.73 The “loss” of workers to middle-class consumer culture seemed to have been yet another worry for trade unionists in late imperial Russia. The debate sparked by Naborshchitsa in The Printers’ Herald in the summer of 1906 shows the multiple points of tension in discussions concerning workers’ unity and women’s labour activism, as well as the social, political, and economic context in which unionization after 1905 evolved.
5
One last contribution to the debate in The Printers’ Herald hints at the practical rather than ideological incentives for women printers to join the Printers’ Union. The article “Woman—Into the Fraternal Ranks!” was published by T. Rubinchik on 11 June (24 June) 1906.74 At one point in the article, Rubinchik calls readers “sisters,” leading to the conclusion that Rubinchik was a woman printer.75 Her article, again as the title already suggests, is similar to Naborshchitsa’s in terms of style, but this time it was addressed to the “woman comrade.” Rubinchik uses short, sharp sentences to describe the miserable life of a young woman worker who has never known anything else but poverty, hunger, and shame.76 This woman is constantly stepped on, and it never occurs to anyone to offer her a helping hand. According to Rubinchik, the only solution is that she rises up on her own and joins the proletarian fight and the fraternal ranks of the trade union. This essay is very short and does not contain any detailed arguments or explanation. But the description of the wretched life of the typical young woman worker speaks to a greater disillusionment or perhaps frustration. Rubinchik clearly does not put any trust in fellow women workers, male workers, or bourgeois women’s groups. The only pragmatic option for the woman worker is to join the union. Rubinchik seems to link two incentives women printers have for joining the union: unionization as a coping strategy in a hostile environment, and unionization as a contribution to the proletarian struggle.
Beyond the printers’ trade union paper, there is evidence that women workers had other pragmatic motives for joining the union. I will point to two articles published in the feminist journal The Women’s Union (Союз Женщин), edited by Maria Alekseevna Chekhova (1866–1937), who was the co-founder and secretary of the All-Russian Union for Women’s Equality (Всероссийский союз равноправия женщин). The Women’s Union was an organ of the “bourgeois” women’s movement, and its main objective was securing equal political rights
The statements by Rubinchik, S. D. and Dmitrieva do not exclude the possibility that union membership can serve as a coping strategy as well as an act of proletarian unity. At least in Rubinchik’s case, there is enough evidence to suggest that despite the pragmatism of her arguments, she was an ardent supporter of the Printers’ Union. Indeed, thanks to four articles and one speech transcript published by Rubinchik, one comment about her in the printers’ union paper, as well as several entries about her in censorship files, it is clear that the typesetter Tat’iana Abramovna Rubinchik was a print unionist. She was a member of the St. Petersburg Printers’ Union executive committee during the transitional period between the legalization of trade unions and
The printers called for a boycott of Suvorin’s successful newspaper Twentieth Century in order to pressure him to introduce Sunday as a day of rest. All the other trade unions in the city joined the boycott in an unusual act of workers’ solidarity. The tense situation did not abate for weeks, until both sides agreed on an arbitration tribunal to settle the matter.81 Both parties—the Printers’ Union and Twentieth Century—appointed three judges and three representatives. Rubinchik acted as one of three representatives for the Printers’ Union, the only women among the otherwise exclusively male panel.82 The Printers’ Herald closely followed all seven sessions of the tribunal. Rubinchik’s speech was published in its entirety. In that speech, Rubinchik introduces herself as experienced unionist: “Out of the dozens of everyday conflicts I dealt with as representative [female ending] of a trade union, the present conflict is especially interesting to me.”83 She then addresses the structural disadvantages of the exploited class and declares that the printers are taking a revolutionary stance in this regard: “We know that Russian laws are completely on the side of the owners, the gentlemen engineers, and the lawyers who defend their interests; this is exactly why we fight against these laws and their creators.” The printers’ advantage is their moral superiority. Rubinchik says that the printers behaved properly, whereas those who claim to be “well educated knights who see themselves as the salt of the earth and representatives of art and literature” did the opposite. They used insulting language and violence, oppressed workers by threatening to dismiss them, and forbade self-organization. In a
Tat’iana Rubinchik and the St. Petersburg Printers’ Union won a sensational victory against publisher Suvorin, who was ordered to reintroduce the Sunday Rest for the printers in his factory. But the printers’ victory did not last long. In July 1906, the tsarist police raided the St. Petersburg Printers’ Union’s offices, arresting many unionists and confiscating trade union papers, documents, and funds. The union and The Printers’ Herald were officially closed.84 Only weeks later, the printers re-opened both, and Rubinchik took over as editor of the “new” union paper, The Printer’s Voice. In her articles, Rubinchik reminded her fellow printers of past victories, the morality of their proletarian cause, and the executive committee’s ongoing activities in an effort to keep spirits up and fortify the sense of unity and strength.85 In five months, Rubinchik oversaw the publication of seventeen issues of The Printer’s Voice, and two cases against her were referred to the district court by the Main Administration of Press Affairs (Главное управление по делам печати). In a period of political oppression, constant searches, and imprisonments, Rubinchik continued to hold a very public position in the union. But in the end, she paid for her activism. In an announcement in the re-launched The Printers’ Herald from March 1907, the typesetters of the Slovo print factory in St. Petersburg announced Rubinchik’s deportation. They, as well as the executive committee of the union, supported Rubinchik from the day of her arrest on, and they collected money to give Rubinchik on her way into exile. “Com. Rubinchik,” wrote her fellow printers and unionists, “is a restless spokesperson for the idea of trade unionism in society, and for this, the Suvorins and Shebuevs hate her.”86
6 Conclusion
During the transitional period of unionization in the Russian Empire (1906–1907), St. Petersburg women printers engaged in labour activism using the Printers’ Union paper. Naborshchitsa raised her voice in The Printers’ Herald to show that workplace harassment, which even “conscious” men printers engaged in, discouraged women printers from joining the union and might eventually force them to organize and fund their own union.
In addition to the ideological justifications for unionism, there were also pragmatic arguments for unionization specifically directed at women workers; these were usually based on women’s lack of financial resources and time to organize a separate women’s union. Bringing these two strands together, Tat’iana Abramovna Rubinchik was a pragmatic, yet convinced, print unionist. As a member of the St. Petersburg Printers’ Union executive committee during the transitional period, Rubinchik represented the union in arbitration and served as editor of the trade union paper The Printer’s Voice, thereby making publishing itself part of her broader labour activism. However limited the sources, the voices and figures discussed in this chapter—like Naborshchitsa’s and Rubinchik’s—belong to the history of the imperial Russian printers’ movement and, thus, to its historiography.
Naborshchitsa 1906, 3. All translations from Russian into English are mine.
Bonnell 1983, 315–321.
Zelnik 2006, 620; Engelstein 1982, 73. Between 1906 and 1907, out of a total of 18,048 printers in St. Petersburg, 12,000 were union members (peak membership), corresponding to a unionization rate of 66 percent. At the same time in Moscow, 8,000 out of 12,384 printers were union members, which corresponds to a 65 percent unionization rate. Bonnell 1983, 208–209.
Bonnell 1984, 216–217; Sher 1911, 44–45.
A newly released anthology about women in print production tackles the “challenges of rescuing these lives from obscurity” by using other sources such as wills or company archives, see Moog 2022, 2. One contribution uses census data and vital records in order to track the employment of women especially in typesetting in Perth, Scotland, see Williams 2022, 173–192.
Contributing to what Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild calls “telling Russia’s herstory”: see Ruthchild 2016, 173. For works on women’s lives in imperial Russia, see Muravyeva and Novikova 2014; Clements 2012; Engel 2004, 1994, 1983; Bisha 2002; Edmondson 2001; Norton and Gheith 2001; Worobec, Engel, and Clements 1991. This is not an exhaustive list.
Gymnich 2010, 255–259; Allrath and Gymnich 2004, 33–48.
Zelnik 2006, 619–621; Ananich 2006, 408–417; Palat 2007, 307–312. Such hotspots were St. Petersburg, Moscow, Baku, the Don basin, the Urals, parts of Congress Poland, and the port cities of Riga and Odesa. It is important to note that the category of “industrial workers” is an elusive one.
Mayoraz 2021, 76–80; Zelnik 2006, 620–621, 627–631; Steinberg 1994, 76; Steinberg 1992, 323; Ruud 1981, 383–384; Sher 1911, 460.
Koenker 2005, 19–20; Steinberg 1992, 525–551; Bonnell 1983, 73–97.
Mayoraz 2021; Zelnik 2006, 621–624; Bovykin, Borodkin, and Kiryanov 1988; Bonnell 1983, 80–81.
Mayoraz 2021, 30–31; Zelnik 2006, 623–624; Engelstein 1982, 73–96. However, this does not mean that all strikes or trade union activities were necessarily revolutionary in character.
Palat 2007, 337–341; Zelnik 2006, 625–627; Daly 2006, 644; Bonnell 1983, 80–93. Zubatov worked for the Department of the Police, and in the late 1890s, he came up with the program of police-sponsored workers’ clubs in major cities of the empire that addressed the material life conditions of workers. A spin-off of Zubatov’s experiment was the organization of tearooms and social clubs by Father Gapon in St. Petersburg in 1904. Both initiatives were meant to drive the workers away from revolutionary groups and activities. This strategy did not go according to plan for the tsarist government as the events of late 1904 and early 1905 show.
Aust 2017, 23–55; Smith 2017, 9–59; Steinberg 2017, 47–59, 132–138, 170–215; Lieven 2015, 46–224; Figes 2014, 27– 47; Aust 2007; Sprotte 2007; Ascher 2004.
Engelstein 1982, 97–113; Ruud 1981, 387; Sher 1911, 160–182.
Engelstein 1982, 97– 113, Ruud 1981, 390; Sher 1911, 211–222.
Aust 2017, 23–55; Smith 2017, 60–71; Dahlmann 2009; Ascher 2004.
Bonnell 1984, 194–209. In St. Petersburg alone, 72 unions were registered between 1906 and the summer of 1907.
Solov’ev 2021; Aust 2017, 23–55; Smith 2017, 71–100; Figes 2014, 49–69; Dahlmann 2009; Bonnell 1984, 315–349.
Steinberg 1994, 76; Steinberg 1992, 323; Sher 1911, 460.
This development was not unique to the Russian printing trade. For the British case, see, for instance, Score 2014. Compared to the British printing trade, setting machines were introduced in the Russian Empire only in the early years of the twentieth century and were not as successfully adopted as elsewhere because labour was cheaper than the purchase and maintenance of the machines. See Koenker 2005, 31.
Koenker 2005, 26; Engel 2004, 95–100; Steinberg 1992, 323–342. In the 1880s, women made up 22 percent of the overall factory work force in the central part of the empire; by 1914, this figure was 32 percent, see Clements 2012, 136–138.
In 1900, a Petersburg machine master in the typographic department earned 72 rubles per month, whereas a feeder in the same department earned 24 rubbles. A news compositor earned 51 rubbles, and a book compositor 31 rubles. Binding workers had an average income of 26 rubbles. See McDermid and Hillyar 1998, 35, 45, 86–88; Steinberg 1992, 366–374.
Sher 1911, 55; Dmitrieva 1909. For the British context, see Score 2014.
Mayoraz 2021, 65; Engel 2004, 96–97; Smith 2002, 99; McDermid and Hillyar 1998, 44–45, 111; Glickman 1984, 204–208. Working women in general were often forced to engage in prostitution because their income was not high enough to support their families.
Clements 2012, 136–137; Glickman 1984, 86–87; Sher 1911, 55–57; Dmitrieva 1909.
Steinberg 1994, 67–68; Bonnell 1984, 76–80.
Steinberg 1994, 81; Bonnell 1984, 160–164. Vasilii Vladimirovich Sher (1883–1940), author of the study on the Moscow printers’ movement from 1911, was a Menshevik himself. Several articles in the printers’ press also explicitly express their sympathy for the Social Democrats. See, for instance, Orlov 1906, 7.
Steinberg 1994, 67.
Koenker 2005, 18–19; Steinberg 1992; Bonnell 1984, 106–151.
Steinberg 1994, 76; Steinberg 1992; Bonnell 1984, 129–130.
Sliadneva 2016, 166–169.
“Ot redaktsii” 1906a. Additionally, there were organizations and journals for specific crafts within the printing industry. See Koenker 2005; Steinberg 1992.
In two incidents, authorities ordered that all 10,000 copies of an issue of The Printer’s Voice were to be confiscated. Therefore, I assume The Printers’ Herald had the same or a similar print run. As noted in the official censorship documentation, the printers managed to save 75 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the copies by the time the inspectors arrived: Document No. 1791, 8 February (22 February) 1907, str. 68, d. 196, op. 9, f. 776, rgia, St. Petersburg, Russia; Document No. 1186, 19 February (4 March) 1907, str. 72–72ob, d. 196, op. 9, f. 776, rgia, St. Petersburg, Russia. The St. Petersburg dailies Новое Время (The New Time) and Речь (Speech) had print runs of 60,000 and 40,000, respectively, for the year 1905. See McReynolds 1991, appendix.
Bonnell 1984, 298–304.
Sher 1911, 189. The pre-revolutionary Zubatov and Gapon societies, for instance, excluded women from leadership positions, see Wood 1997, 27.
“Революция 1905 г. Петиция типографских рабочих, от департамента полиции (хроника событий), Забастовка типо-литографов” [The Revolution of 1905. Petition of printing workers, from the police department (a chronicle of events), the strike of printers], 19 September (2 October) 1905, e. kh. 26, k. 26, f. 259, Russian State Library. Manuscript Department (Российская государственная библиотека, Отдел рукописей), Moscow, Russia.
Smith 2002, 98–99. Williams speaks of “‘male’ practices” in print shops in Great Britain, including rituals for “marking the transition from apprentice to journeyman” (women were officially excluded from apprenticeships in print shops) and a drinking culture, see Williams 2022, 178.
Mayoraz 2021, 65; Engel 2004, 96–97; Smith 2002, 98–99; McDermid and Hillyar 1998, 44–45, 111; Steinberg 1992, 78, 242; Glickman 1984, 204–208. Also, the idea that leadership was a male prerogative continued to be prevalent in the labour movement of the early twentieth century, preventing women workers from joining unions. See Clements 2012, 138.
Smith 2002, 98–99; Steinberg 1994, 82.
Glickman 1984, 204.
Since the activist signed her article with the pseudonym “Naborshchitsa,” meaning “woman typesetter,” I will treat this pseudonym as her name in the following analysis.
Here, Naborshchitsa touches on the issue of the representation of marginalized voices in the media. Most press institutions are not structured to include women’s voices (or those of other marginalized groups), resulting in the under-representation of their opinions and experiences in journalistic products. See, for instance, Hall 2021; Allan 2010, 145–191.
Usually “politically conscious” meant active oppositional thinking or activity, in this specific case, I assume it meant union membership.
On the differentiation between “degrees of separateness,” see Briskin 1993, 90–91.
On “women changing” and “unions changing,” see Briskin 1993, 95.
Zelnik 2006, 624; Wood 1997, 30–33. On the suffrage movement in the Russian Empire, see, for instance, Ruthchild 2010; Iukina 2007.
Zimmermann 2014, 101–126 (for the German context); Hannam and Hunt 2002, 57–78, 105–133 (for the British context); Wood 1997, 30–33 (for the imperial Russian context).
Ruthchild 2010, 242–243.
Blanc 2017, 1–18.
Roelofs 2018; Ruthchild 2010, 102–145; Iukina 1998. During the discussion of full women’s suffrage, the Congress reached its high point; this group left the Congress in protest.
Ruthchild 2012, 8–9; Wood 1997, 13–39.
“Ot redaktsii” 1906b, 3. In my perusal of The Printers’ Herald, I found very few editorial comments, underlining the exceptionality of this case.
Mayoraz 2021, 65, 105–111, 330; McDermid and Hillyar 1998; Dmitrieva 1909, 143–144. In other states, there was the same dispute, see Score 2014, 280–286.
The concept of punishing “bad women” is a common feature of misogyny, as described by today’s scholars and feminists, see Manne 2018, 80; Marchese 2018.
This is the one point on which Steinberg’s otherwise very careful study falls short, see Steinberg 1994.
Pavel 1906, 2–3.
Ananich 2006, 395–425; Smith and Kelly 1998, 108; Kimerling Wirtschafter 1997, 143–144; Brower 1990, 33–36.
For a discussion of the social function and symbolic meaning of specific forms of entertainment and consumer goods in the Russian Empire, see Brooks 2019; Dralyuk 2012; West 2011; McReynolds 2003; Smith and Kelly 1998; Engelstein 1992; Kelly 1990.
Neuberger 1993, 52; West 2011, 19–61; Zhirkov 2014, 120.
Engel 2004, 97; Smith and Kelly 1998, 111–113; Gerasimov 2018.
Rubinchik 1906a, 3. The surname “Rubinchik” does not reveal the gender of the person. Whether the article title uses the adjective “fraternal” on purpose or without a hidden agenda, I cannot say.
Indeed, in the imprint of The Printer’s Voice—the successor of The Printers’ Herald after its closure in July 1906—I found T. Rubinchik as “editor-publisher” (“редактор-издательн.”) The grammatic female ending of the Russian noun confirms that T. Rubinchik was a woman printer.
Another word for prostitution.
Ruthchild 2010; McDermid and Hillyar 1998, 108. Famous representatives of the imperial Russian women’s movement contributed to The Women’s Union, such as Liubov’ Iakovlevna Gurevich, Anna Pavlovna Filosofova, and Ariadna Vladimirovna Tyrkova.
S. D. 1907a; S. D. 1907b. I cannot say whether the abbreviation S. D. refers to the author’s affiliation to the Social Democrats.
I found her full name in a censorship document: Document No. 9191, str. 4, d. 196, op. 9, f. 776, rgia, St. Petersburg, Russia. Her membership in the union’s executive committee is mentioned in the announcement “The First Session of the Arbitrational Court” 1906, 1. Her profession is given in a short note by fellow compositors about Rubinchik’s exile: “Among Printers” 1907, 10. I have not found Rubinchik mentioned in any scholarly publication to date.
Sliadneva 2016, 178; Steinberg 1992, 645–666; Bonnell 1984, 298–299; “Boikot gazete” 1906, 1.
Bonnell 1984, 299.
Bibliography
“1-e zasedanie treteiskogo suda” [1-е заседание третейского суда; The First Session of the Arbitration Court]. 1906. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 20 May (June 2) 1906, 1.
Allan, Stuart. 2010. News Culture .Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Allrath, Gaby, and Marion Gymnich. 2004. “Neue Entwicklungen in der gender-orientierten Erzähltheorie” [New developments in gender-oriented narrative theory]. In Erzähltextanalyse und Gender Studies [Narrative text analysis and gender studies] , edited by Vera Nünning and Ansgar Nünning, 33–48. Stuttgart/Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler.
Ananich, Boris. 2006. “The Russian Economy and Banking System.” In The Cambridge History of Russia. Vol. 2: Imperial Russia, 1689–1917 , edited by Dominic Lieven, 394–425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ascher, Adam. 2004. The Revolution of 1905: A Short History .Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Aust, Martin. 2017. Die russische Revolution: Vom Zarenreich zum Sowjetimperium [The Russian Revolution: From the tsarist rule to the Soviet Empire] .Munich: C. H. Beck.
Aust, Martin, and Ludwig Steindorff, eds. 2007. Russland 1905: Perspektiven auf die erste Russische Revolution [Russia 1905: Perspectives on the first Russian Revolution] .Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bisha, Robin. 2002. Russian Women, 1698–1917: Experience and Expression. An Anthology of Sources .Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Blanc, Eric. 2017. “‘Comrades in Battle’. Women Workers and the 1906 Finnish Suffrage Victory.” Aspasia. The International Yearbook of Central, Eastern and Southeastern European Women’s and Gender History 11: 1–18.
Bogushevich, P. [Богушевич, П.]. 1906a. “Рабочие и работницы” [Men workers and women workers]. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 28 May (June 10) 1906, 2.
Bogushevich, P. [Богушевич, П.]. 1906b. “Ответ на ‘голос женщины-работницы’” [Answer to “The Voice of the Woman Worker”]. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 11 June (24 June) 1906, 3.
“Boikot gazete xx Vek” [Бойкот газете xx Век; Boycott of the Newspaper 20th Century]. 1906. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 20 May (2 June) 1906, 1.
Bonnell, Victoria. 1983. Roots of Rebellion. Workers’ Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900–1914 .Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bovykin, V. I., L. I. Borodkin, and Y. I. Kiryanov. 1988. “Strikes in Imperial Russia, 1895–1913: A Quantitative Analysis.” In Strikes, Wars, and Revolutions in an International Perspective: Strike Waves in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries , edited by Leopold H. Haimson and Charles Tilly, 197–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Briskin, Linda, and Patricia McDermott, eds. 1993. Women Challenging Unions. Feminism, Democracy, and Militancy .Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Brooks, Jeffrey. 2019. The Firebird and the Fox: Russian Culture under Tsars and Bolsheviks .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brower, Daniel R. 1990. The Russian City between Tradition and Modernity, 1850–1900 .Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clements, Barbara Evans. 2012. A History of Women in Russia: From Earliest Times to the Present .Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dahlmann, Dittmar, Pascal Trees, Christian Hacke, Klaus Hildebrand, Christian Hillgruber, Joachim Scholtyseck. 2009. Von Duma zu Duma: Hundert Jahre russischer Parlamentarismus [From Duma to Duma: One hundred years of Russian parliamentarism] .Göttingen: v&r unipress.
Daly, Jonathan W. 2006. “Police and Revolutionaries.” In The Cambridge History of Russia. Vol. 2: Imperial Russia, 1689–1917 , edited by Dominic Lieven, 637–654. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dmitrieva [Дмитриева]. 1909. “Женщины-типографщицы” [Women printers]. Союз Женщин [The women’s union], April 1909, 5–8.
Dralyuk, Boris. 2012. Western Crime Fiction Goes East: The Russian Pinkerton Craze 1907–1934 .Leiden: Brill.
Edmondson, Linda Harriet. 2001. Gender in Russian History and Culture .Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Engel, Barbara Alpern. 1994. Between the Fields and the City: Women, Work, and Family in Russia, 1861–1914 .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engel, Barbara Alpern. 1983. Mothers and Daughters: Women of the Intelligentsia in Nineteenth-Century Russia .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engel, Barbara Alpern. 2004. Women in Russia, 1700–2000 .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engelstein, Laura. 1992. The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siècle Russia .Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Engelstein, Laura. 1982. Moscow, 1905: Working-Class Organization and Political Conflict .Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Figes, Orlando. 2014. Revolutionary Russia, 1891–1991 .London: Pelican.
Gerasimov, Ilia. 2018. Plebeian Modernity: Social Practices, Illegality, and the Urban Poor in Russia, 1906–1916 .Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Glickman, Rose L. 1984. Russian Factory Women: Workplace and Society, 1880–1914 .Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gymnich, Marion. 2010. “Methoden der feministischen Literaturwissenschaft und der Gender Studies” [Methodology of feminist literary studies and gender studies]. In Methoden der literatur- und kulturwissenschaftlichen Textanalyse. Ansätze—Grundlagen—Modellanalysen [Methods of literary and cultural text analysis. Approaches, foundations, model analysis], edited by Vera Nünning and Ansgar Nünning, 251–269. Stuttgart/Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler.
Hall, Stuart. 2021. “The Whites of their Eyes: Racist Ideologies and the Media.” In Stuart Hall: Selected Writings on Race and Difference , edited by Paul Gilroy and Ruth Wilson Gilmore, 97–120. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Hannan, June, and Karen Hunt. 2002. Socialist Women. Britain, 1880s to 1920s .London: Routledge.
Iukina, Irina Igorevna [Юкина, Ирина Игоревна]. 2007. Русский феминизм как вызов современности [Russian feminism as a challenge to modernity]. St. Petersburg: Aleteia.
Iukina, Irina Igorevna [Юкина, Ирина Игоревна]. 1998. “Первый всероссийский женский съезд” [The First All-Russian Women’s Congress]. Вы и мы. Диалог женщин [You and we. Women’s dialogue], no. 6: 13–16.
Kelly, Catriona. 1990. Petrushka: The Russian Carnaval Puppet Theatre .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kimerling Wirtschafter, Elise. 1997. Social Identity in Imperial Russia .DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Koenker, Diane P. 2005. Republic of Labour: Russian Printers and Soviet Socialism, 1918–1930 .Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kopeliovich, Ia. [Копелиович, Я.]. 1906. “Пора. По поводу статьи ‘голос женщины-работницы’” [It’s time. Regarding the article “The Voice of the Woman Worker”]. 1906. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 28 May (10 June) 1906, 3.
Lieven, Dominic. 2015. Towards the Flame. Empire, Wars and the End of Tsarist Russia. London: Penguin Books.
Manne, Kate. 2018. Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marchese, David. 2018. “In Conversation: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. The Novelist on Being a ‘Feminist Icon,’ Philip Roth’s Humanist Misogyny, and the Sadness in Melania Trump,” Vulture, 9 July 2018. https://www.vulture.com/2018/07/chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-in-conversation.html.
Mayoraz, Sandrine. 2021. Streik! Fabrikunruhen, jüdische Gesellschaft und staatliche Behörden in den nordwestlichen Gouvernements des Russischen Reiches 1895–1904. Eine mikrohistorische Perspektive [Strike! Factory riots, Jewish society, and state authorities in the northwestern governments of the Russian Empire 1895–1904. A microhistorical perspective] .Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.
McDermid, Jane, and Anna Hillyar. 1998. Women and Work in Russia, 1880–1930. A Study in Continuity through Change .London: Longman.
McReynolds, Louise. 2003. Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era .Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
McReynolds, Louise. 1991. The News Under Russia’s Old Regime: The Development of a Mass-Circulation Press .Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Moog, Christine. 2022. “Introduction.” In Women in Print. Vol. 2: Production, Distribution and Consumption , edited by Caroline Archer-Parré, Christine Moog, and John Hinks, 1–6. Oxford, New York: Peter Lang.
Muravyeva, Marianna, and Natalia Novikova, eds. 2014. Women’s History in Russia: (Re)establishing the Field .Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Naborshchitsa [Наборщица]. 1906. “Голос женщины-работницы” [The voice of the woman worker]. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 20 May (2 June) 1906, 3.
Neuberger, Joan. 1993. Hooliganism: Crime, Culture, and Power in St. Petersburg, 1900–1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Norton, Barbara T., and Jehanne M. Gheith, eds. 2001. An Improper Profession: Women, Gender, and Journalism in Late Imperial Russia .Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Orlov, P. [Орлов, П.]. 1906. “Независимая чушь” [Independent nonsense]. Голос печатника [The printer’s voice], 9 September (22 September) 1906, 7.
“Ot redaktsii” [От редакций; From the editors]. 1906a. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 21 April (4 May) 1906, 1.
“Ot redaktsii” [От редакций, From the editors]. 1906b. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald] , 20 May (2 June) 1906, 3.
Palat, Madhavan K. 2007. “Casting Workers as an Estate in Late Imperial Russia.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 8, no. 2: 307–348.
Pavel [Павел]. 1906. “Кое-что о женщине-работнице” [Something about the woman worker]. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 1 July (14 July) 1906, 2–3.
Roelofs, Joan. 2018. “Alexandra Kollontai: Socialist Feminism in Theory and Practice.” International Critical Thought 8, no. 1: 166–175.
Rubinchik, T. [Рубинчик, Т.]. 1906a. “Женщинa в братские ряды!” [Woman—into the fraternal ranks!]. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 11 June (24 June) 1906, 3.
Rubinchik, T. [Рубинчик, Т.]. 1906b. “Речь тов. Рубинчик на заседании третейского суда с ХХ Веком” [Speech by comr. Rubinchik at a session of the arbitration court against twentieth century]. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 7 July (20 July) 1906, 4.
Rubinchik, T. [Рубинчик, Т.]. 1906c. “Существует ли Союз?” [Does the union exist?]. Голос Печатника [The printer’s voice], 16 August (29 August) 1906, 6–7.
Rubinchik, T. [Рубинчик, Т.]. 1906d. “Что же дальше?” [What’s next?]. Голос Печатника [The printer’s voice], 24 August (6 September) 1906: 7–8.
Ruthchild, Rochelle Goldberg. 2016. “Telling Russia’s Herstory.” Aspasia. International Yearbook for Women’s and Gender History of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe 10: 169–174.
Ruthchild, Rochelle Goldberg. 2012. “From West to East: International Women’s Day, the First Decade.” Aspasia. International Yearbook for Women’s and Gender History of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe 6: 1–24.
Ruthchild, Rochelle Goldberg. 2010. Equality and Revolution. Women’s Rights in the Russian Empire, 1905–1917. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Ruud, Charles. 1981. “Printing Press as Agent of Political Change in Early Twentieth Century Russia.” The Russian Review 40 , no. 4: 378–395.
S. D. [С. Д.]. 1907a. “Женский вопрос и профессиональные союзы” [The women’s question and trade unions]. Союз женщин [The women’s union], August–September 1907: 7–8.
S. D. [С. Д.]. 1907b. “Женский вопрос и профессиональные союзы” [The women’s question and trade unions]. Союз женщин [The women’s union], November 1907: 7–10.
Score, Melissa. 2014. “Pioneers of Social Progress? Gender and Technology in British Printing Trade Union Journals, 1840–64.” Victorian Periodicals Review 47, no. 2 (Summer): 274–295.
Sher, Vasilii Vladimirovich [Шер, Василий Владимирович]. 1911. История профессионального движения рабочих печатного дела в Москве [History of the professional movement of print workers in Moscow]. Moscow: Nauka.
Sliadneva, O. V. [Сляднева, О. В.]. 2016. “Профессиональные издания 1906–1914 гг.” [Trade union journals 1906–1914]. In Петербург газетный 1711–1917 [Newspaper Petersburg 1711–1917], edited by E. S. Sonina [Сонина, Е. С.], 166–185. St. Petersburg: Svoe izdatel’stvo.
Sloane, Nan. 2018. The Women in the Room. Labour’s Forgotten History .London: i. b. Tauris.
Smith, S. A. 2002. “Masculinity in Transition: Peasant Migrants to Late-Imperial St. Petersburg.” In Russian Masculinities in History and Culture , edited by Barbara Evans Clements, Rebecca Friedman, and Dan Healey, 94–112. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Smith, S.A. 2017. Russia in Revolution. An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Steve, and Catriona Kelly. 1998. “Commercial Culture and Consumerism.” In Constructing Russian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881–1940 , edited by Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, 106–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solov’ev, Kirill Andreevich. 2021. “Правительство и избирательные кампании в Государственную думу” [The government and the election campaigns to the state Duma]. In Российская Империя между реформами и революциями, 1906–1916. Коллективная монография [The Russian Empire between reform and revolutions, 1906–1916. Collective monograph], edited by Aleksei Il’ich Miller and Kirill Andreevich Solov’ev, 73–99. St. Petersburg: Kvadriga.
Sprotte, Maik Hendrik, Wolfgang Seifert, and Heinz-Dietrich Löwe, eds. 2007. Der Russisch-Japanische Krieg 1904/1905: Anbruch einer neuen Zeit? [The Russo-Japanese War 1904/1905: Dawn of a new era?]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
“Sredi pechatnikov” [Среди печатников; Among printers]. 1907. Вестник Печатников [The printers’ herald], 20 March (2 April) 1907, 10.
Steinberg, Mark D. 2017. The Russian Revolution, 1905–1921. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steinberg, Mark D. 1994. “Vanguard Workers and the Morality of Class.” In Making Workers Soviet. Power, Class, and Identity, edited by Lewis H. Siegelbaum and Ronald Grigor Suny, 66–84. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Steinberg, Mark D. 1992. Consciousness and Conflict in a Russian Industry: The Printers of St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1855–1905 .Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
West, Sally. 2011. I Shop in Moscow: Advertising and the Creation of Consumer Culture in Late Tsarist Russia .DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Williams, Helen S. 2022. “‘Dangerous Intruders’: Women Compositors and Nineteenth-Century Print Trade Unionists—the Case of Perth.” In Women in Print. Vol. 2: Production, Distribution and Consumption , edited by Caroline Archer-Parré, Christine Moog, and John Hinks, 173–192. Oxford, New York: Peter Lang.
Wood, Elisabeth A. 1997. The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia .Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Worobec, Christine, Barbara Alpern Engel, and Barbara Evans Clements, eds. 1991. Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation .Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zelnik, Reginald E. 2006. “Russian Workers and Revolution.” In The Cambridge History of Russia. Vol. 2: Imperial Russia, 1689–1917 , edited by Dominic Lieven, 617–636. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmermann, Susan. 2014. “A Struggle over Gender, Class and the Vote: Unequal International Interactions and the Formation of the ‘Female International’ of Socialist Women (1905–1907).” In Gender History in a Transnational Perspective. Networks, Biographies, Gender Orders , edited by Oliver Janz and Daniel Schönpflug, 101–126. New York: Berghahn.
Zhirkov, Gennadii Vasil’evich [Жирков, Геннадий Васильевич]. 2014. Журналистика России: от золотого века до трагедии. 1900–1918 гг. [The journalism of Russia: from golden age to tragedy. 1900–1918]. Izhevsk: Institut komp’uternykh issledovanii.