The Russian Revolution of 1917 was not a spontaneous event but the culmination of deep social, economic, and political crises. Among the most influential forces were the labor unions and factory committees, which became the organizational backbone of the working-class movement. Their evolution throughout 1917 illustrates how grassroots labor activism intersected with revolutionary politics.

February–March: The Birth of Workers’ Power

The February Revolution toppled the Romanov dynasty and ushered in the Provisional Government. Almost immediately, workers seized the opportunity to organize openly. Trade unions, long suppressed under Tsarist rule, re-emerged with vigor. Simultaneously, factory committees (fabzavkomy) sprang up in industrial centers, initially as strike committees but quickly evolved into bodies asserting control over hiring, wages, and production. These committees, elected directly by workers on the shop floor, were highly localized and democratic, giving the working class a powerful voice in their own destiny.

Spring: Competing Visions of Labor Organization

By April and May, the labor movement faced a strategic crossroads. Trade unions sought to centralize and formalize workers’ representation, while factory committees championed direct control of production. This tension reflected a broader debate: should workers aim for negotiated reforms within capitalism or strive for a socialist transformation? The All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions in June attempted to unify the movement, but factory committees remained more radical and resistant to bureaucratic oversight.

Summer: Radicalization and Confrontation

The summer of 1917 saw escalating economic chaos and political instability. During the July Days, armed demonstrations shook Petrograd, and although the Bolsheviks were temporarily suppressed, factory committees continued to radicalize the population. The July Days were a series of demonstrations in Petrograd, sparked by the failure of the Provisional Government’s military offensive and the growing disillusionment with the government’s policies. They demanded greater autonomy and, in many cases, began implementing workers’ control without waiting for government approval. The Kornilov Affair in August further cemented their revolutionary credentials, as workers mobilized to defend Petrograd against a potential military coup. The Kornilov Affair was a failed coup attempt by General Kornilov, who sought to establish a military dictatorship, but was thwarted by the actions of the workers and soldiers, organized through the factory committees.

Autumn: Convergence with Bolshevik Strategy

By September and October, the Bolsheviks had gained majorities in key Soviet and factory committees. Their slogan of “All Power to the Soviets” resonated with workers’ aspirations for control over production and governance. When the October Revolution erupted, factory committees played a crucial role in securing industrial strongholds for the Bolsheviks. Their actions were instrumental in the success of the revolution, marking a significant moment in the history of labor movements. However, their autonomy was short-lived. After the Bolsheviks consolidated power, factory committees were gradually subordinated to centralized trade unions and state planning organs, marking the end of their revolutionary independence.

This section could be followed by an analysis of why factory committees lost autonomy after 1917 or how their experience influenced later Soviet labor policy.

Factory Committees vs. Trade Unions: Competing Models of Workers’ Power

The revolutionary year of 1917 witnessed the rapid growth of two distinct forms of labor organization: factory committees and trade unions. While both represented workers’ interests, their structure, goals, and relationship to the state and employers diverged sharply.

1. Origins and Structure

• Factory Committees (Fabzavkomy)
• Emerged spontaneously in factories after the February Revolution.
• Elected directly by workers at the enterprise level.
• Highly decentralized and democratic, often operating without formal legal recognition.
• Trade Unions
• Reconstituted from pre-revolutionary labor organizations once Tsarist restrictions were lifted.
• Organized by industry rather than by individual factories.
• More hierarchical, with leadership bodies seeking national coordination.

2. Goals and Functions

• Factory Committees
• Advocated for workers’ control of production, including hiring, firing, and wage setting.
• Often acted as de facto management during strikes or employer lockouts.
• Pushed for radical transformation of workplace relations, sometimes bypassing state authority.
• Trade Unions
• Focused on collective bargaining, wage negotiations, and improving working conditions.
• Favored legal recognition and institutional stability over revolutionary upheaval.
• Sought to mediate between workers, employers, and the Provisional Government.

3. Political Alignment

• Factory Committees
• Strongly influenced by Bolsheviks and anarchists, who supported direct workers’ control.
• Viewed as engines of revolutionary change rather than reformist bodies.
• Trade Unions
• Initially dominated by Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who favored gradual reform.
• Later, it shifted toward Bolshevik influence as the political crisis deepened.

4. Fate After October

• Factory Committees
• Played a key role in the October Revolution by securing industrial strongholds.
• After the Bolsheviks consolidated power, committees were subordinated to centralized trade unions and state planning organs.
• Trade Unions
• Became the official channel for labor representation under Soviet rule.
• Lost much of their independence as they were integrated into the state apparatus.

5. Factory Committees vs. Trade Unions: Structures, Goals, and Examples

a. Factory Committees (Fabzavkomy)

• Nature and Role:
  Factory committees were grassroots organizations formed at the enterprise level after the February Revolution. They were highly democratic, elected by workers, and often assumed managerial functions when owners fled or sabotaged production. Their radicalism made them closer to anarcho-syndicalist ideals than to traditional unionism.
• Key Examples:
• Putilov Metal Works (Petrograd): One of the largest and most influential committees, representing tens of thousands of workers in heavy industry. It played a decisive role in organizing strikes, demanding the eight-hour day —a labor reform that aimed to limit the workday to eight hours —and later supported the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution.
• Thornton Textile Mills: Formed a factory committee as early as February 26, 1917, demonstrating how quickly these bodies emerged in response to the collapse of Tsarist authority.
• Obukhov Steel Plant: Another major Petrograd enterprise where committees asserted control over hiring and firing, reflecting the broader workers’ control movement.

b.Trade Unions

• Nature and Role:
  Trade unions were re-legalized after February 1917 and sought to organize workers by industry rather than by factory. They focused on collective bargaining, wage negotiations, and legal recognition, favoring a more centralized and reformist approach.
• Key Examples:
• All-Russian Metalworkers’ Union: One of the most powerful unions, representing workers in strategic industries. It played a prominent role at the Third All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions in June 1917, where debates raged over whether unions should control production or leave that to the state.
• Vikzhel (All-Russian Union of Railway Workers): A politically influential union dominated by Mensheviks. In late 1917, it challenged Bolshevik authority by demanding a coalition socialist government, triggering a major political crisis.
• Petrograd Printers’ Union: Though smaller, it illustrates how unions retained some autonomy even after the revolution, influencing managerial appointments during the early Soviet period.

Summary of Differences

• Factory Committees: Local, radical, focused on direct workers’ control, often aligned with Bolsheviks and anarchists.
• Trade Unions: Industry-wide, reformist, aimed at legal recognition and centralized coordination, initially dominated by Mensheviks and SRs.

Summary:

Factory committees embodied grassroots, revolutionary democracy, while trade unions represented a more institutionalized, reformist approach. Their rivalry reflected a broader tension between spontaneity and centralization—a tension that shaped the trajectory of the Russian Revolution and Soviet labor policy.