Kuriton suutari ja kiistämisen rajat. Työväenliikkeen läpimurto hämäläisessä maalaisyhteisössä 1899-1909

Abstract

Sosialistinen työväenliike saavutti Suomessa kansainvälisesti vertailtuna poikkeuksellisen vahvan jalansijan 1900-luvun alussa. Poikkeuksellista oli myös se, että työväenliike sai Suomessa kannatuksensa pääosin maaseudulta, toisin kuin muualla Euroopassa.

Sami Suodenjoen mikrohistoriallinen tutkimus lähestyy työväenliikkeen läpimurtoa 1900-luvun alun suomalaisella maaseudulla yksittäisen henkilön ja hänen toimintansa kautta. Tutkimuksen keskushahmo on urjalalainen suutari Vihtori Lindholm (1868-1918), joka toimi paikallisessa työväenliikkeessä 1900-luvun ensikymmenellä.

Lindholm oli paitsi poliittisesti aktiivinen käsityöläinen, myös itseoppinut kirjoittaja ja yhteisössään ristiriitoja herättänyt kyläoriginelli. Hänen toimintansa välityksellä avautuu uudella tavalla se, millaisissa muodoissa maalaistyöväestön protesti vallanpitäjiä kohtaan ilmeni maalaisyhteisössä ja miten tämä protesti kanavoitui työväenliikkeeseen. Samalla Lindholmin monisärmäinen hahmo nostaa esiin työväenliikkeen sisälle muodostuneet rajalinjat ja jännitteet.

Edellytykset työväenliikkeen läpimurrolle tarjosi vuosien 1899-1904 ns. ensimmäinen sortokausi, jonka aikana Venäjän keisarillinen hallinto tiivisti otettaan Suomen suuriruhtinaskunnasta. Tutkimus tuo näkyviin, että kenraalikuvernööri Bobrikovin käynnistämillä venäläistämistoimilla oli keskeinen rooli maaseudun työväestön omaehtoisen protestin mahdollistajana. Vuoden 1899 helmikuun manifesti ja hallinnon aloittamat asevelvollisuuskutsunnat aktivoivat suomalaiset säätyläiset protestiin keisarihallintoa vastaan, mutta samalla ne avasivat tilattomalle väestölle väylän edistää omia tavoitteitaan esimerkiksi maanjakohuhujen ja virkavallalle lähetettyjen ilmiantojen välityksellä. Tämä tilattomien poliittinen aktivoituminen loi perustaa sosialismille, joka tarjosi poliittisesta vallankäytöstä suljetuille väestöryhmille uusia vastarinnan välineitä ja lupasi radikaaleja parannuksia työ- ja maanomistusolojen kaltaisiin yhteiskunnallisiin ongelmiin.

Työväenliike juurtui Urjalaan vuodesta 1901 alkaen, samoihin aikoihin kuin muuallekin eteläisen Suomen maaseudulle. Urjalassa liike vetosi ennen muuta maataloustyöläisiin, palkollisiin ja käsityöläisten vähävaraisimpaan osaan sekä jossain määrin myös torppareihin. Ensimmäisinä vuosinaan Urjalan työväenyhdistyksen jäsenmäärä pysyi kuitenkin vähäisenä, ja yhdistyksen mahdollisuudet vaikuttaa säätyläisten ja talollisten hallitsemaan paikallispolitiikkaan olivat niukat. Niinpä liikkeessä oli tilausta suutari Lindholmin kaltaiselle aloitekykyiselle ja uskaliaalle aktiiville, joka oli valmis avoimesti haastamaan paikalliset vallanpitäjät.

Toisaalta suutari oli huonomaineinen käräjäpukari, joka ärsytti paitsi poliittisia vastustajia myös omia aatetovereita. Hänen värikkäät vaiheensa osoittavat, että jäsenistön kurittomuus aiheutti työväenliikkeelle jatkuvia ongelmia liikkeen pyrkiessä murtautumaan mukaan paikalliseen ja kansalliseen vallankäyttöön. Ongelmat korostuivat erityisesti vuoden 1905 suurlakon jälkeen. Työväenliikkeen jäsenmäärä ja joukkovoima kasvoivat tuolloin räjähdysmäisesti ja liike suuntautui eduskuntavaalikampanjointiin ja toimintaan kunnalliselimissä. Sosiaalidemokraattisen puolueen organisaation yhdenmukaistuminen ja tarve varjella mainettaan johtivat aatteiltaan ja toimintatavoiltaan kiusallisten rönsyjen karsimiseen liikkeestä.vuoropuheluun pitäjän säätyläisten ja talollisten kanssa.

This study addresses the breakthrough of the labour movement in the Finnish countryside during the first decade of the 20th century by focusing on one individual and his activity. The central figure of the research is shoemaker Vihtori Lindholm (1868-1918), who lived in Urjala, a municipality in the province of Häme, south-western Finland. In the early 20th century, Lindholm actively participated in the local labour movement. In addition to being politically active, he was a self-taught writer with a multifaceted literary work. Furthermore, he appears to have been regarded as a somewhat unusual person by the inhabitants of his local community. Hence, the term village idiot has proven useful in describing some of Lindholm´s actions.

The aim of this research is to use Lindholm as a prism that illuminates the forms and limits of contestation in the early labour movement of rural Finland. Firstly, the study addresses the following questions: which kind of political activity did the shoemaker engage in and what kind of a role did he adopt in the local labour movement - Secondly, the study examines the role of contestation or resistance towards the Establishment in directing Lindholm´s activity. Which forms of contestation did the shoemaker resort to and how did his fellow workers define the acceptable forms of contestation?

By examining Lindholm and his actions, the study addresses a more general question about the repertoire and ideological basis of collective action in rural Finland. Most importantly, which forms of resistance did the rural labour movement adopt during the first decade of the 20th century - What kind of boundaries and tensions appeared inside the movement´

The key source for the study is an autobiographical letter written by Vihtori Lindholm in 1909. In the letter, the shoemaker depicts his vicissitudes during the preceding ten years, focusing particularly on his political activity and family life. To outline Lindholm´s actions, the study also utilises district court records, for Lindholm appeared repeatedly in court as a claimant, defendant and witness. Moreover, Lindholm´s activities are elucidated by the local letters published in labour newspapers and by the minutes, annual reports and membership rolls of workers? associations. The source material also includes various petitions, reports of the authorities, parish registers, and statistical documents about the economy and population in Urjala.

As mentioned above, Lindholm´s writings consisted of autobiographical narratives, newspaper reports and legal documents. These writings form a valuable source not only for examining the breakthrough of the labour movement, but also for studying the writing practices of common people, that is, the book culture from below . At the turn of the 20th century, less than half of the Finnish people aged 15 or over were able to write, and the number of active writers was still relatively limited. With this in mind, Lindholm as an active self-educated writer represents an all the more interesting case for study. By examining the shoemaker´s writing practices, the study gives a better understanding of the ways the lower classes utilised writing as a means of resistance against the elite. Furthermore, Lindholm?s personal writings give information on how common people internalised the national priorities and values promoted by the dominant classes. Evidently, the lower classes may have looked at the nationalistic ideas in ways which did not fit with the nationalistic elite´s point of view.

This study utilises microhistorical approaches originated by such scholars as Carlo Ginzburg, Giovanni Levi and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. Microhistory has introduced subjects, groups and people previously considered marginal to historical research, and microhistorical studies have often used exceptional persons and events to illuminate broader structures and phenomena. The term exceptional typical , often used in the context of microhistory, is very applicable to shoemaker Lindholm, who was a peculiar person both in his local community and in the labour movement. His exceptional behaviour has produced a wide range of sources which reveal such features of the local labour movement that have been inaccessible to studies relying on more established sources.

This study on Lindholm and the local labour movement is also influenced by the history from below approach, which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people. The pioneers of history from below, e.g. E. P. Thompson and E. J. Hobsbawm, have often focused on subjects such as the political mobilisation of the working-class and the early history of the labour movement. This study rests, in particular, on prior research done on the rural workers? mobilisation in the era of industrialisation. To reveal special characteristics of the rural mobilisation in Finland, the findings of this study are contrasted with previous literature covering other European countries, the Russian empire and even some South-East Asian regions.

The central concept of the research is the culture of contestation originally formulated by folklorist Luigi Lombardi-Satriani. I apply this concept to the various forms of resistance and opposition expressed by the common people towards the dominant classes in rural Finland. In traditional rural society, the culture of contestation usually remained hidden in folklore, or was manifested in various forms of everyday resistance, such as slander, pilfering, sabotage and foot-dragging in the workplace. Only in exceptional conditions, such as the time of local turmoil or national revolution, was the contestation transformed into overt and public protest. Around 1900, the socialist labour movement taking root in the Finnish countryside opened up new channels for this overt resistance. Evidently, the movement´s ability to offer the rural workers new means of contestation contributed significantly to the movement´s success in the Finnish countryside.

The research highlights the means of the labour movement in promoting its causes in rural Finland in the early 20th century. In the local workers? association, shoemaker Lindholm took the role of a ram , fighting against the evils of the local society on behalf of his fellow workers. He belonged to a small group of labour activists, capable of taking initiative and throwing down the gauntlet against the local power holders. With his gumption, Lindholm proved to be a valuable asset for the small association suffering from the lack of capable and venturous activists.

As a labour activist, Lindholm overtly contested the actions and values of the local establishment, employing various forms of contestation such as litigation, petitions, oral agitation and writing for labour newspapers. Lindholm´s militant activism led him to conflicts with the local civil servants, landowners and foremen. In these conflicts, the shoemaker did not necessarily receive overt support from his fellow workers. Rather, Lindholm often seems to have operated as a buffer who personally suffered the most serious blows of the elite on behalf of the other organised workers. As a result of his conflicts with the elite, the shoemaker lost several trial proceedings and was condemned to fines and custody.

The reluctance of the workers´ association to aid the shoemaker in contesting the elite may have resulted from the submissiveness and timidity of his fellow workers. Another possible explanation might be that the shoemaker did not always act in accordance with the official line of the local labour movement. From the viewpoint of the fellow workers, some of Lindholm´s initiatives may have appeared impractical and foolish. Furthermore, Lindholm´s actions were often viewed as self-willed and unruly, as he advanced his personal objectives in the pretext of promoting the movement. Some of Lindholm?s actions were simply unacceptable for his fellow activists. For example, Lindholm´s aptitude for violence, illegal bootlegging of spirit and promiscuous behaviour were certainly hard to swallow for the local workers´ association.

An even more severe offence was Lindholm´s implication in the denunciations to Russian authorities. In their denunciations, dozens or hundreds of ordinary Finns reported to the imperial government about the anti-imperial activities of their fellow countrymen, most of whom were nationalist-minded Finnish constitutionalists. As these denunciations became common after 1899, particularly in 1903, they evoked shock and irritation among the Finnish nationalists, who struggled against the imperial integration policies. From the nationalists´ perspective, the denunciations represented the immorality, corruption and ignorance of a part of the Finnish people. Their view was largely shared by the Finnish labour movement, which had adopted nationalistic ideas and officially perceived the Russian government as an oppressor. Hence, alongside the Finnish nationalists, the labour movement condemned anyone conspiring with the imperial authorities. Shoemaker Lindholm, on the other hand, apparently regarded denunciations as just one extra form of opposing the local elite, not as an anti-national act. Nonetheless, Lindholm´s exposure as a denouncer after the general strike of 1905 undoubtedly harmed his reputation within the local labour movement.

As the labour movement spread to the Finnish countryside at the turn of the 20th century, it was faced with rather harsh suspicions. When the first workers? association in Urjala adopted socialist ideas around 1902, belonging to a workers´ association was considered an overt protest against the social order of the local community. Hence, the activists and the rank-and-file of the movement often experienced various forms of persecution by the dominant classes. Furthermore, as the workers´ association lacked mass support, it was effectively marginalised in local politics by the landowners. Often the only effective means for the labour activists to highlight flaws in the local conditions was to write about them in labour newspapers. The local reports of labour newspapers, however, proved to be an effective way to express the resistant attitude and, hence, to irritate the local elite. This was well discovered by shoemaker Vihtori Lindholm, who utilised newspaper writing wilfully to retaliate against his upper class adversaries.

The operational preconditions for the labour movement, however, changed owing to the Finnish general strike of 1905. The general strike was linked to the revolutionary upheaval in the Russian empire and it caused a massive mobilisation of the working-class in Finland. As a result of the strike, the number of workers´ associations and their members multiplied in the cities and particularly in the countryside. Consequently, the Finnish Social Democratic Party became the strongest socialist party in Europe, and what is also worth noting, the party gathered most of its members from rural areas. Hence, the socialist movement in Finland was by nature an exceptionally agrarian movement. This is illustrated by the fact that in Urjala, up to a quarter of the adult population belonged to workers´ associations in 1906. Prime reason for this massive mobilisation was the fact that due to the strike, the emperor pledged to introduce universal and equal suffrage for men and women in parliamentary elections.

After the suffrage reform was realised in 1906, the energy of the Social Democrats was oriented more and more on election campaigns and parliamentary work. Concurrently, the status of the labour movement strengthened significantly in local politics as well. In Urjala, the labour activists succeeded in gaining seats in municipal bodies, such as the municipal council, although the bodies still remained in command of the upper classes. Accession of the labour movement in local administration apparently had some moderating effects on the movement, as the labour activists had to be capable of peaceable dialogue and co-operation with the landowners and civil servants. A troublemaker like Lindholm was of little use in the work of municipal bodies or in the formulation of the labour movement´s municipal objectives in general. Hence, Lindholm inexorably forfeited his status in the vanguard of local labour movement.

The change in Lindholm´s role in the labour movement can be illustrated by using the concepts of respectability and unruliness . In this case, respectability refers to the ideal behavioural norm adopted by the labour movement. In the labour activists´ rhetoric, the organised worker was represented as civilised, stable and sober-minded, in brief, as respectable. The opposite of this ideal worker was a wilful and unruly worker, whose life style was labelled as undisciplined, obscene and disturbant. The term unruly is applicable to Vihtori Lindholm, who was displaced from workers? associations several times due to his notoriety and undisciplined actions.

Despite the personal difficulties, the shoemaker, nonetheless, repeatedly sought his way back to participate in the labour movement. This was possible as he moved over to small village associations, which suffered from chronic lack of capable activists after the short surge of mobilisation in 1905-1906. Yet, after the general strike, Lindholm no longer played a leading role in the local labour movement. This resulted from his inability to participate in constructive dialogue with the upper class in local politics, but also from his difficulties in perceiving the labour movement as a modern national movement, which exceeded the boundaries of the local community. From another perspective, Lindholm´s displacement from the movement´s vanguard also reflects the standardisation of the labour movement´s management and ideological foundation. This standardisation, increasingly evident after 1905, aimed at clarifying the political message of the movement by edging out disconcerting and heterodox ideas or characters, including many of the movement´s early pioneers.