Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:58:06.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Great Berlin Beer Boycott of 1894

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Eleanor L. Turk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Consider the subject of beer. For millennia this homely brew has been a staple of the human diet and a central ingredient of our social activity. Records dating as far back as 2800 B.c. show that there were four types of beer brewed in the Babylonian culture, and that the ancient Egyptians were often sealed into their tombs with a ceremonial supply of the frothy beverage. But of all the cultures producing beer, the Germans are the most closely associated with it in modern times. It was the Germans who perfected the practice of adding wild hops to the brew to give it its characteristic tang, and also to help preserve it. Whereas elsewhere in northern Europe brewing was usually a cottage activity, the Germans began very early to treat brewing as an important commercial activity. In 1146, even before the founding of the great city of Munich, the abbey in Weihenstephan in Bavaria received a patent from the local duke to brew beer. In 1516 the Bavarian dukes instituted the brewing code which stipulated that thereafter beer must be brewed naturally with grain, hops, water, and yeast. This has since been the standard for purity in brewing throughout Germany.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 377 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. A concise history of beer and of the brewing industry since antiquity is provided in the article by Ecker, , “Bier und Bierbrauerei,” Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, 4th ed., 2 (Jena, 1924): 834–48.Google Scholar

2. Ibid., p. 838. One hectoliter equals 26.4 gallons.

3. Weber, Adna Ferrin, Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), pp. 368ff.Google Scholar

4. Röpke, Wilhelm, “Boykott,” Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, 4th ed., 3 (Jena, 1926): 2–6.Google Scholar

5. Oldenberg, K., “Der Berliner Bier-Boycott im Jahre 1894,” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, n.s. 20, no. 1 (1896): 264Google Scholar (hereafter Oldenberg, “Bier-Boycott”).

6. Ibid., p. 268.

7. Oldenberg, K., “Der Arbeitsnachweis im Berliner Braugewerbe,” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, n.s. 20, no. 4 (1896): 304Google Scholar. Workdays of 12 to 15 hours were maintained in breweries in many parts of Germany, and wages were held to as low as 65 marks per month in some breweries. Top wages of 90 marks per month were considered adequate for these long hours in some Dresden breweries. Oldenberg, “Bier-Boycott,” pp. 267–68.

8. K. Oldenberg, “Der Arbeitsnachweis im Berliner Braugewerbe,” pp. 304–7; “Bier-Boycott,” p. 270.

9. Ibid., p. 269.

10. Ibid., pp. 269, 272.

11. Ibid., p. 271.

12. Ibid., pp. 272–73. “Parteitag der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands vom 22. bis 28. Oktober 1893 in Köln: Resolution zur Feier des 1. Mai,” Dokumente und Materialen zur Geschichte der Deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, 3 (Berlin, 1974): 409.Google ScholarIbid., “Resolution zur Unterstützung der Gewerkschaftsbewegung,” p. 410. Vorwärts, Apr. 29, 1894, no. 99, Supplement, p. 4; May 1, 1894, no. 100, 2d Supplement, p. 2.

13. National-Zeitung, May 9, 1894, no. 291, Supplement, p. 1; May 10, 1894, no. 393, Supplement, p. 2; May 16, 1894, no. 302, p. 3. The Ring took out large ads in Berlin non-Socialist papers for a statement explaining their action.

14. Oldenberg, “Bier-Boycott,” pp. 273–74.

15. Vorwärts, May 10, 1894, no. 106, p. 3.

16. Neue Preussische Zeitung, known, and hereafter identified as: Kreuzzeitung, May 17, 1894, no. 224, Supplement, p. 3, emphasis original.

17. Vorwärts, May 17, 1894, no. 111, p. 1, emphasis original. Vorwärts later published figures which indicated that, by June 1, the seven breweries had discharged 94 workers. The number rose to 270 workers by June, including 166 married men who, among them, had 229 children. Vorwärts gave the number of workers laid off in the other breweries at 185, for a total of 455 workers. Vorwärts, June 17, 1894, no. 138, Supplement, p. 1.

18. Vorwärts, May 17, 1894, no. 111, p. 1.

19. Ibid., May 18, 1894, no. 112, pp. 1–2, 2. National-Zeitung, May 19, 1894, no. 310, p. 3.

20. National-Zeitung, June 6, 1894, no. 343, pp. 2–3; June 7, 1894, no. 345, p. 3; June 10, 1894, no. 350, Supplement, p. 2. Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, June 10, 1894, no. 266, p. 2. Vossische Zeitung, June 7, 1894, no. 261, p. 3; June 9, 1894, no. 265, p. 1, Supplement, p. 1; June 12, 1894, no. 269, p. 3.

21. Oldenberg, “Bier-Boycott,” p. 282.

22. On July 4, the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung repeated a rumor originating in the Leipziger Tageblatt reporting that in a secret meeting the Socialist Boycott Committee had split, Auer wishing an immediate expansion of the boycott while Social Democratic leader August Bebel had disagreed. Auer reportedly had resigned over this disagreement. Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, July 4, 1894, no. 307, p. 3; July 5, 1894, no. 308, p. 2. Vorwärts, June 30, 1894, no. 149, Supplement, p. 1, announced only that Auer would be away for a few weeks and that written communication to the Boycott Committee should be directed to Singer. In fact, Auer never resumed his responsibilities as head of the Committee, even after the boycott was extended early in July. The unions had relinquished all control of the movements to the party, which thereafter managed the conflict until its conclusion. Auer rejoined the Boycott Committee in September, but Singer was clearly its leading spokesman.

23. Oldenberg, “Bier-Boycott,” p. 286. Vossische Zeitung, July 4, 1894, no. 307, p. 1. Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, July 5, 1894, no. 308, p. 2. The report of this rebuke to the Ring was ignored by the pro-industrialist National-Zeitung. In 1890 a system of Industrial Courts had been established in the empire to arbitrate wage disputes. Von Schulz served as a judge in the Industrial Court of Berlin.

24. Vossische Zeitung, July 6, 1894, no. 310, Supplement, p. 1; July 12, 1894, no. 321, Supplement, p. 1. Both the Vossische Zeitung and the National-Zeitung observed that during the first boycott in 1890 Social Democratic leader August Bebel had criticized the workers for being intoxicated with their own sense of power, and had warned them that it was folly to believe that they could make the boycott work. Vossische Zeitung, July 13, 1894, no. 322, p. 4. National-Zeitung, July 13, 1894, no. 406, Supplement, p. 1. Neither paper acknowledged that the labor bureau which had been created as a result of the 1890 boycott had been a stabilizing influence in the industry.

25. The Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, July 12, 1894, no. 321, p. 2, disputed Socialist claims that over 19,000 had attended the meetings. It also was shocked that a number of women had participated in the assemblies. There were 24 meetings in Berlin proper and 6 in various suburbs, including 2 in Rixdorf.

26. Kreuzzeitung, July 8, 1894, no. 314, Supplement, p. 3; July 10, 1894, no. 316, Supplement, p. 1. Oldenberg, “Bier-Boycott,” p. 279.

27. Vossische Zeitung, July 20, 1894, no. 334, Supplement, p. 1.

28. Vossische Zeitung, July 21, 1894, no. 336, Supplement, p. 2.

29. National-Zeitung, July 24, 1894, no. 425, p. 3.

30. National-Zeitung, Sept. 29, 1894, no. 541, p. 3; Sept. 30, 1894, no. 542, Supplement, p. 2. Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 29, 1894, no. 548, p. 5. Vossische Zeitung, Sept. 29, 1894, no. 457, p. 4; Sept. 30, 1894, no. 458, 2d Supplement, p. 3.

31. Vossische Zeitung, Oct. 5, 1894, no. 467, pp. 2–3. National-Zeitung, Oct. 6, 1894, no. 552, 1st Supplement, p. 2.

32. National-Zeitung, Oct. 14, 1894, no. 566, 1st Supplement, p. 1. Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Oct. 13, 1894, no. 481, p. 2; Oct. 14, 1894, no. 482, p. 5. Vossische Zeitung, Oct. 13, 1894, no. 481, 1st Supplement, p. 1.

33. The financial reports and the reports of stockholders' meetings appear in numerous issues of the Vossische Zeitung from Oct. through Dec. 1894. Of particular interest is the précis of Rösicke's report to the stockholders of the Schultheiss brewery, in which his actions to combat the boycott were specifically endorsed despite the unfavorable business report. Vossische Zeitung, Nov. 16, 1894, no. 538, 2d Supplement, p. 1.

34. White beer brewery financial reports, and reports of non-Ring breweries appear in issues of the Vossische Zeitung from Oct. to Nov. 1894.

35. Freund, Richard, “Der Arbeitsnachweis im Berliner Braugewerbe,” Soziale Praxis: Centralblatt für Sozialpolitik 6 (11. 7, 1895): 150–51.Google ScholarRösicke, Richard, “Das Ende des Bierboykotts und der Arbeitsnachweis der Berliner Brauereien,” Preussischer Jahrbücher 79 (1895): 312–33.Google Scholar

36. Oldenberg, “Der Arbeitsnachweis im Berliner Braugewerbe,” pp. 313–18.

37. Freund, op. cit.

38. Oldenberg, “Der Arbeitsnachweis im Berliner Braugewerbe,” p. 313.

39. Barth, Theodor, “Sozialistenfurcht,” Die Nation, vol. 11, no. 47 (08. 24, 1894); 692–93Google Scholar, argued forcefully that, while the Socialists had foolishly overreached themselves with the boycott, the confrontation was being conducted virtually without disruptive incident and demonstrated that the Socialists were indeed respecting the rules for law and order.