Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:36:53.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor Violence — A Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Daniel R. Brower
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , Fall 1982 , pp. 449 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 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. Herbert Gutman, “Work, Culture and Society,” American Historical Review, 11 (June 1973): 543.

2. Robert Eugene Johnson, Peasant and Proletarian: The Working Class of Moscow in the Late Nineteenth Century (New Brunswick, N.J., 1979), p. 153.

3. Gerald Surh, “Labor Organization in 1905: The Petersburg Pattern” (paper presented at the Conference on the Social History of Russian Labor, Berkeley, Calif., March 26, 1982), p. 6. Research for this article was conducted in the collections of the Inter-University Project on theHistory of Menshevism at Columbia University, the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, andPeace at Stanford University, and the International Institute on Social History in Amsterdam. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Anna Mikhailovna Bourguina, the curator of the NicolaevskyCollection at the Hoover Institution, for information and insights that she generously shared with me.