After the 1908 mutiny: mass strikes and the socialist movement

The event that bears the closest similarities to the 1908 revolt, is the Russian Revolution of 1905. The most obvious similarity is the fact that in both cases, faced with massive opposition, absolutist monarchies granted constitutional regimes and parliaments. The difference was that the Ottoman Meclis-i Mebusan was considerably stronger than the Russian Duma, and the Ottoman bourgeoisie was determined not to hand power back to the monarchy. One of the main differences was that the 1905 revolution began directly with workers’ strikes, whereas the 1908 mutiny began in the army under the leadership of the officers. That said, however, just like in Russia there was a strike wave in the Ottoman Empire in 1908 which deserves to be described as a mass strike, and while the Russian mass strike was longer lasting and the percentage of the participating population higher, these differences are surprisingly less than what may be expected.1 As the first mass strike in the history of the Ottoman working class, and one of the first mass strikes of the world working class, the mass strike of 1908 has as much importance as the overthrow of the Abdulhamit regime itself.

At their August 1908 Congress, the Narrow Socialists stated clearly that they saw the proletarian revolution as a realistic possibility in the Ottoman Empire and that socialism was the only way to truly emancipate the Ottoman working class. A strike wave far greater than their wildest dreams was to demonstrate the undeniable correctness of this analysis in a matter of weeks. In fact, the strikes began on July 30th among the tobacco and ferry workers in Constantinople. Between July 30th and December 20th 1908 there were at least 119 strikes in cities including Constantinople, Thessaloníki, Smyrna, Beirut, Mytilene, Varna, Samsun, Skopje, Bitola, Alexandroupoli, Aydin, Afyon, Gevgelija, Kavala, Drama, Eskisehir, Ankara, Konya, Eregli, Zonguldak, Manise, Adrianople, Svilengrad, Mitrovica, Zbekche, Damascus, Riyaq, Aleppo, Balikesir, Diyarbakir, Hareke, Xanthi, Adana and Jerusalem. Workers from nearly all sectors of the Ottoman proletariat took part, including ferry sailors, tobacco workers, dockers, printers, tram workers, carpet factory workers, box factory workers, porters, carpenters, fiber and paint workers, water company workers, cement factory workers, bakery workers, ice factory workers, janitors, soap factory workers, ship building workers, postmen, busboys, railroad workers, telegraph workers, workers in small stores, butchers' shops, barbers' shops and tailors, waiters and waitresses, miners, gas workers, sugar workers, leather workers, fez factory workers, municipality workers, olive oil factory workers, department store workers, sewing machine factory workers, warehousemen, cotton workers and weavers.

The total numbers participating is unknown. We know only the numbers for 31 of the 119 recorded strikes: 42,752.2 However these include some of the strongest and most massive of the entire strike wave. While the total number taking part remains unknown, research about twenty years ago estimated that in August and September it reached more than 100,000.3 Subsequent studies discovered many previously unknown strikes. Avram Benaroya, an active participant in the workers’ movement at the time, recorded that membership of the trade unions, which barely existed before 1908, had risen by 1910 to between 125,000 and 150,000;4 and this was a year when the workers’ movement was suffering repression. We know also that massive strikes took place in cities where trade unions did not later appear, so we can safely conclude that the number participating in the strike wave was more than 100,000. Unfortunately it is not possible to make a more detailed study of this movement here, or to draw all the lessons of this very important experience for the working class. We will limit ourselves to a brief account of the high points with some examples to illustrate its character.

In general the 1908 mass strike was a product of the spontaneous struggles of the working class; all the strikes were around demands for higher wages and better living and working conditions. There were also demands for the recognition of strike committees and spontaneous workers’ organizations as well as the newly formed trade unions, along with demands opposing separate negotiations in different workplaces. Slogans of solidarity against the repressive measures taken against the strikes were also raised. While workers harboured certain illusions in promises made by the Society of Union and Progress during the July revolt, in many cases they did not back down when confronted with obstruction by state forces. At the center of the mass strike wave were the struggles of the railroad, dock and tobacco workers. All three sectors were significant and employed considerable numbers of workers across the Empire: tobacco was the biggest industry and export earner. The railroads employed workers of many different trades in separate workplaces ranging from rail repairmen to locomotive factory workers, train drivers and conductors to workers in the stations. Strikes by dock workers spread rapidly to factories using the docks and triggered many other strikes. Both the railroads and docks had immense power not only to stop imports and exports but also transport between cities, and this in turn encouraged other sectors of the working class to join the struggle.5

From the beginning of August the strikes began to spread, from tobacco and ferry workers in Constantinople to dock workers in the same city as well as Smyrna and Thessaloníki, and in the following weeks to tram workers, the printing, tobacco and weaving industries and other factories in these cities as well as the docks in Beirut, Varna and Bitola. Tobacco workers in Samsun went on a strike too, not only preventing scabs from going to work but also fighting the armed forces sent to suppress them. From August 23rd workers started to join the movement en masse, with strikes on the Thessaloníki-Zbekche railroad of the Eastern Railroad Company and simultaneously in the Constantinople Sirkeci locomotive factory. On August 30th, police raided the train stations in order to prevent a planned strike on the Constantinople-Thessaloníki railroad but this backfired and a protest strike started in Skopje and spread to many other railroads. At the same time a strike was planned on the Anatolian railroads. On August 26th, the day it was supposed to start, the Haydarpasha station in Asian Constantinople was besieged by the police but, anticipating the attack, the railroad workers had decided to hold a meeting in the Moda district to discuss how to struggle. By the time the Anatolian railroads were on a country-wide strike, a strike committee had been formed to represent all workers in the company. On August 30th railroad workers in the Smyrna area also joined the strikes, but harsh repressive measures and arrests caused its temporary suspension after only a few days.6

Despite the repression, in September the movement grew. On the 13th, 12,000 tobacco workers in Kavala came out. They did not stand alone; thanks to the dockers’ support they brought the whole city out in a general strike. Not even small shops opened, and there were mass demonstrations in the squares. The next day the Anatolian railroad strike started, well organized and with maximum participation. Striking workers defied all government warnings, and organized highly disciplined and coordinated demonstrations in several cities that enjoyed wide support from the local populations. On September 16th the government decided it had to act and cracked down on the strikes while accepting some of their demands. But as soon as the railroad strike in Anatolia was suppressed, the entire workforce of the Eastern Railroads of European Turkey came out. This strike too was quickly suppressed But as this strike ended more strikes broke out on the railroads in Hejaz Smyrna. In Beirut railroad and dock workers completely unified their strikes, resisting repression and only ending their struggle when they were given a 50% pay rise. The Smyrna strike beginning on September 26th in many ways turned out to be the most violent. Using a fight between strikers and scabs as an excuse, on September 30th state forces intervened and arrested some of the workers. This led to massive clashes the next day between the armed forces and workers who gathered to rescue their arrested friends. One worker was killed in the clashes and many were injured. This only made the workers angrier: they cut the telegraph lines, locked scabs in the factories and started to burn down the bosses’ warehouses. Union and Progress politicians trying to act as mediators between the bosses and workers were coldly rebuffed. Military forces in Smyrna were unable to control or suppress the striking workers and only after the army sent from Constantinople had literally occupied the city on October 7th did order reign in Smyrna once again. In the mean time there were armed clashes between the authorities and tobacco workers in Samsun. The day after the Smyrna strike was suppressed a Temporary Strike Law was hurriedly passed, banning the strikes. This did not prevent now illegal class struggles – but it was clear the balance of forces had shifted. The fire was damped down. 7

If the railroad, dock and tobacco industries were the industrial heart of the strike movement, Thessaloníki and Constantinople were its geographical centers; half of the strikes in 1908 took place in these two cities. The workers of Constantinople had started the strikes in the first place and showed themselves to be one of the most determined sections of the working class, especially with the strikes of the waiters and waitresses in October in defiance of the new strike ban. As for Thessaloníki, especially in September there was not a single workplace which did not participate in the movement. Every aspect of life was affected by the strikes there; the waiters’ and waitresses’ strike in September was so massive and solid that when representatives of the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian states were invited to the city by the Society of Union and Progress, there was no one in the entire city to serve them, and embarrassed Union and Progress members ended up putting on waiters’ uniforms and serving them themselves.8 The strike movement united workers of many different ethnic roots in common struggle, and also gained considerable sympathy among low ranking soldiers. During a beer factory strike, again in Thessaloníki, soldiers sent in to protect the scabs and management were greeted by striking workers chanting “Long live the soldiers!” and responded by shouting “Long live freedom!”, embracing the workers and leaving afterwards thinking they had done what they were supposed to do, which did not mean protecting the scabs or the management.9

The Young Turks were not sure of their own strength and, faced with the Ottoman proletarian masses spontaneously rising up in unprecedented numbers with support among the soldiers, were uneasy at first about openly confronting the strike movement, instead trying to play the role of mediators. Only by making hundreds of cunning and well planned maneuvers were they eventually able to get in a position where they could openly ban strikes. For an important part of the Ottoman working class this was their first experience of the class struggle, And those sections of the class who did have experience of struggle may have been strong enough to rally workers behind them in Constantinople, Thessaloníki, Smyrna, Kavala, but not to lead the movement throughout the country. The movement was also isolated internationally;, a significant section of the international workers’ movement did not even think such a strike wave was possible in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman proletariat engaged in many more important struggles before 1914 but none was as huge as the strike wave of 1908. This had been defeated, but it constituted a link in that chain of historic defeats which is the pride and strength of international socialism. For what had taken place was none other than the mass strike described by Rosa Luxemburg just two years before:

“The mass strike (...) is such a changeable phenomenon that it reflects all the phases of the political and economic struggle, all stages and factors of the revolution. Its adaptability, its efficiency, the factors of its origin are constantly changing. It suddenly opens new and wide perspectives of the revolution when it appears to have already arrived in a narrow pass and where it is impossible for anyone to reckon upon it with any degree of certainty. It flows now like a broad billow over the whole kingdom, and now divides into a gigantic network of narrow streams; now it bubbles forth from under the ground like a fresh spring and now is completely lost under the earth. Political and economic strikes, mass strikes and partial strikes, demonstrative strikes and fighting strikes, general strikes of individual branches of industry and general strikes in individual towns, peaceful wage struggles and street massacres, barricade fighting – all these run through one another, run side by side, cross one another, flow in and over one another – it is a ceaselessly moving, changing sea of phenomena.”10

The 1905 events in Russia that Luxemburg describes here differed from the 1908 movement in two important, related, respects. Firstly, by 1905 the Russian proletariat had already been through a whole series of major strike movements and gained a whole organizational and political experience that the young Ottoman proletariat did not yet possess. Secondly, and partly as a consequence, Russian workers also possessed a battle-hardened Social-Democratic organization which was able in some cases (Trotsky’s election to lead the Petrograd soviet is the most striking example) to have a decisive influence on events. This was not the case for Ottoman socialism, which before 1908 was a debating, hard-working, determined, active yet marginal movement.

The 1908 mass strike was to be a turning point for the Ottoman socialist movement, transforming it into a widespread, powerful and effective mass movement. The mass strike had fed Ottoman socialism like the first rain of spring pouring onto the earth after a black winter, and very soon it would flower. Both left and right wing socialist organizations would begin to grow and strengthen with hitherto unseen speed. The most powerful bastions of Ottoman socialism would be the two cities where the heart of the mass strike had beaten strongest: Thessaloníki and Constantinople.

 

Avram Benaroya

 

The most active tendency to intervene in the mass strike were from the outset the Narrow Socialists, who played an important role in the struggles in most cities in Ottoman Europe. Militants such as Nikola Rusev, Emerich Fiala, Dimitar Tokhev, Ivan Pockov and Nikola Kasabov founded the first union organization in Thessaloníki, one of the first in the country, which immediately launched an ambitious campaign of open conferences.11 Shortly after, Bulgarian militants of the anarcho-liberal tendency and their Jewish supporters led by Avram Benaroya founded their own separate organization. Soon, these new socialist unions united as the Workers’ Association under Nikola Rusev’s leadership.12 This especially attracted Jewish workers in Thessaloníki and Benaroya soon became a rapidly rising leader. On May Day and in June of 1909 the Workers’ Association organized demonstrations of thousands of workers. In August, it changed its name to the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki and was joined by the left wing of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, now organized as a legal party. The most notable new IMRO member was Dimitar Vlahov, a deputy in the Ottoman parliament. A small Muslim workers’ group led by a teacher called Rasim Hasmet and a Greek group also joined. The Federation launched into ambitious publications work, producing four papers in four languages: Jornal do Laborador in Ladino, Efimeris tu Ergatu in Greek, Rabotnicheski Vestnik in Bulgarian and Amele Gazetesi in Turkish - all meaning ‘Workers' Paper’.13

 

The Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki became a serious force, however the co-existence of Narrow Socialist militants and opportunists in the same group proved problematic from the start and destabilized the new organization. While the Narrows in Thessaloníki participated, they retained membership of the Social Democratic Workers’ Organization of Macedonia and Adrianople, which itself launched a new publication at the beginning of 1909 called Rabotnicheski Iskra (Workers Spark). The Narrows did not like the fact that the Federation was working with Vlahov, elected to parliament from the Union and Progress list and the left wing of IMRO. The Narrows argued that Benaroya’s adoption of the federative model of Austrian socialism was keeping alive nationalist prejudices among the workers. A split was inevitable. Only two months after its foundation, after some of its leaders marched together with representatives of the bourgeoisie and Freemasons in a protest against the murder of the Spanish Anarchist Francisco Ferrer, the Narrows left, taking with them a large majority of the Bulgarian members to form the Social Democratic Workers’ Organization of Thessaloníki. The Federation soon ceased publication of its Turkish and Bulgarian papers, however, it was still much stronger than the Narrows’ rival organization, and within its Jewish section a left wing led by the tailor Abraham Haason emerged, which opposed both working with Freemasons and representatives of the bourgeoisie as well Benaroya's federative principle in general.14 The Federation’s practical roots in the Bulgarian anarcho-liberal and broad socialist traditions, and the theoretical influence of Austrian socialism on its leaders, placed the Federation firmly on the right wing of international socialism and it was strongly rejected by the left wing of Ottoman socialism. Nevertheless, developments in the coming period were to push the organization towards the center rather than the right both internationally and at home..

The Narrow Socialists may have found themselves in a minority in the Thessaloníki workers’ movement but this was far from the case. in many other cities of the Empire where they led the socialist and workers’ movement. In cities like Bitola and Xanthi the Narrow Socialists had founded workers’ organizations themselves and continued to dominate by them; in Bitola the local leader was none other than Vasil Glavinov, leader of the Social Democratic Workers’ Organization of Macedonia and Adrianople. But Constantinople was the Narrows’ strongest bastion. The first socialist organization there was founded by the Bulgarian printer Teodor Sivachev, a Narrow Socialist militant, at the beginning of 1909, as was the first union organization which organized the May Day demonstrations in the city the same year.15 The Socialist Center of Constantinople was an organic part of the Narrow Socialist organization in the Ottoman Empire and followed its political line. Aside from Teodor Sivachev its founders included Greek Narrow Socialist militants such as Zaharias Vezestenis and Stefanos Papadopoulos, as well as some Armenian workers led by the Armenian militant Karekin Kozikian, also known as Yessalem, who had arrived in Constantinople in 1908.16

The Socialist Centre of Constantinople produced several important publications, the first, owned and edited by Sirvanizade Mahmud Tahir, being the Turkish language İşçiler Gazetesi ('Workers' Paper'17), Tahir, who worked with a Greek militant on the publication,18 was without doubt influenced by the mass strike and was close to the organization, later forming relations with the Ottoman Socialist Party created in 1910 - according to some sources he was among the Party’s founders.19 İşçiler Gazetesi followed the Socialist Centre line and acted as a publication of this organization. Its plain language and interest in matters concerning the lives of workers made it a more successful and widespread publication than the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki’s Turkish publication, Amele Gazetesi.20 İşçiler Gazetesi was clearly a proletarian internationalist publication:

“Aiming for the development of relations based on mutual solidarity, the workers of the Ottoman lands who have not so far managed to create a unity with their brothers and sisters in foreign countries, declare that they are always together with their friends in Europe with all their hearts. Soon the workers of the Ottoman lands will be among the vanguard both of Europe and the army of labor”.21

Soon after İşçiler Gazetesi began to appear in mid-February 1909, a new weekly socialist publication called Nor Hossank (‘New Current’) was founded by Karekin Kozikian together with revolutionaries such as the great Armenian poet Ruben Sevak, a solid defender of the workers' cause, and the Hunchak founder Gevorg Gharadjian, also known as Arkomedes, who was in Constantinople at the time.22 Kozikian who, as we have seen was a founding member of the Socialist Center of Constantinople, had also joined the Hunchak Social Democrat Party.23 At first he tried to work with Tigran Zaven, with whom he had collaborated on the paper Yerkri Tzayn,24 But the 1908 revolt and the declaration of the constitutional regime had seriously softened Zaven's irreconcilable internationalist attitude towards the Young Turks, and after forming close relations with the likes of the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki parliamentary deputy, Dimitar Vlahov, Zaven more or less started to defend a similar line; Kozikian, who maintained his unwavering internationalism and belief in the class struggle, had to part company. By defending the Socialist Center’s views in the Hunchak Party, Kozikian sowed the seeds for a left wing faction of this party, but more importantly, with Kozikian's group being one of the Socialist Center’s founders, for the first time the eastern and the western traditions of Ottoman socialism and their left wings were united. In the first issue of Nor Hossank, Kozikian called for uncompromising class struggle in the Ottoman Empire:

“Despite the fact that in Turkey economical development is very slow and mechanized industry is quite new (…) Turkey is already on the road to becoming a capitalist country. Class struggle has already begun (…) Ten thousands of workers are working in the factories, workshops and the railroads of the country and without a doubt they are being exploited more than ever before. Are they supposed to remain silent and unmoving while they wait for Turkey to reach the level of Europe?”25

Shortly after, the Jewish members of the Socialist Center started a weekly publication called El Laborador ('The worker') and in the same period Greek members began publishing Ergatis (Worker).26 Like İşçiler Gazetesi and Nor Hossank these publications very clearly defended internationalism:

“This paper is being published to bring together the socialists in the Ottoman Empire and to form an international socialist party here – 'an international party' because any other sort of socialism in the Ottoman Empire is impossible – to become its voice. Thus we will leave no Turk, Greek or Bulgarian who wants to join us out, given they are socialists”.27

So by 1909 the newly unified left wing of Ottoman socialism was publishing in the five main languages spoken in the Empire: Greek (Ergatis), Armenian (Nor Hossank), Bulgarian (Rabotnicheski Iskra), Turkish (İşçiler Gazetesi) and Ladino (El Laborador). Unlike the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki, the organizations of the left wing did not have thousands of members: these were narrow organizations of cadres with strict criteria for membership. But to conclude from this that the left was ineffective and insignificant would be a serious mistake; alongside political organizations of cadres. it had formed class unions. The Constantinople Association of Unions,28 which consisted of eight unions organizing Greek, Turkish, Armenian, Jewish and Bulgarian workers and describing themselves as revolutionary internationalist class unions together had a numerical strength more or less equal to that of the Socialist Workers’ Federation, with similar organizations around it in several other cities as well. Nor was the influence of the left current among the masses negligible. This was the only current in the whole Empire irreconcilably to oppose the Union and Progress. Dashnaktsutyun, if it could be counted as part of Ottoman socialism, clearly constituted its right wing and was closely allied with Union and Progress, while the defenders of Bulgarian Broad Socialism were busy cheering for the Young Turks. Those organizations belonging to the center rather than the right, like the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki and the Hunchak Social Democrat Party, although distancing themselves from the new regime, all gave it more or less conditional support; when supporters of Abdulhamid tried to stage a coup d’état they had joined the ‘Action Army’ organized by Union and Progress against it. At the end of 1909, however, feeling stronger against the now fully defeated Abdulhamid, Union and Progress began to crack down on the socialists, and despite their support for the government both the Federation and the Hunchak Party were targeted. Slowly yet surely the question of socialist unity was brought back onto the agenda.

In February 1910 a new paper joined the existing socialist publications in the Ottoman Empire called Istirak (‘Commune’; after being closed down it was to continue under names such as ‘Humanity’, ‘Civilization’, ‘Socialist’). In September the circle around this paper formed the Osmanli Sosyalist Firkasior (Ottoman Socialist Party), which was significant as the first socialist organization mostly formed and composed of people from the Muslim community. The leader of the Ottoman Socialist Party was an adventurer called Huseyin Hilmi who had adopted socialism after seeing socialist demonstrations during a trip to Romania. Hilmi's understanding of socialism was a reformist and opportunist one close to the opinions of Jaurès on the right wing of the international socialist movement. The Paris section of the Party was formed by Refik Nevzat, who declared himself to be as much a nationalist as he was a socialist. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Socialist Party conducted a brave and uncompromising opposition to Union and Progress,29 and some of its more left wing militants defended internationalist and revolutionary positions. But despite its claims to be a centralized party, the organization remained a circle with no common views among its members, so it is not possible to claim that there was an organised left wing or opposition within it. The most powerful representative of the left tendency in the OSP was Baha Tevfik, an influential thinker, materialist and internationalist who had contributed to Huseyin Hilmi’s adoption of socialism in the first place. In an article in the third issue of Istirak, Tevfik clearly demonstrated his revolutionary and anti-reformist views:

“Socialists are for revolution, they are revolutionaries. This is because they have understood that they can't impose their goals in a peaceful way; because they have understood that their goals, whose grand and sacred nature they do not doubt, cannot be realized peacefully (…) They are not those who make a revolution but those who form its body with their interventions. Socialists are for revolution. This is because they see the revolution as just and helpful”.30

He also defended an anarchist vision:

“Anarchism means there being no other law over the individual than the laws of nature, making the wonderful law of the struggle for life come out in all its nakedness. In this new age I see anarchism. In my opinion humanity which has passed from slavery into wage-slavery and which will go from wage-slavery into socialism will reach anarchism in the end and realize all the independence and all the wonders of individuality”.31

Another OSP member to defend internationalist opinions was a young man called Rusen Zeki who wrote in the second issue of Istirak:

“The bond called nationality is a catastrophe for humanity. For it will make humanity crawl in the same life for centuries.”32

During 1910 the Union and Progress government became increasingly repressive and stepped up its attacks against socialists. While the Dashnaks continued loyally to support the Young Turks, others such as the Socialist Workers’ Federation and the Hunchaks began to distance themselves, which led to a renewed perspective for joint work and even organizational unity with the left. At the end of January 1911 the ‘1st. Conference of Ottoman Socialist Organizations’ was held with delegates from many local organizations of the left and the center. The outcome of the conference more or less reflected a victory for the line put forward by the left. Even the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki moved closer to the left now. The conference strongly condemned the nationalist and militaristic policies of the Union and Progress government were and emphasized the need for a Balkan federation to be formed as a result of the struggles of the Ottoman proletariat for its own interests. While an immediate merger was ruled out, the conference expressed its desire for the Ottoman Empire to be represented in the Second International33 by a single party uniting all the socialist organizations in the country.34 The Socialist Center of Constantinople also decided to cease its own publication in Ladino, El Laborador, in order to strengthen distribution of the new Socialist Workers’ Federation Ladino publication, Solidaridad Obradera (‘Workers’ Solidarity’).35 The first fruit of these good relations was the May Day demonstration by 20,000 workers in Thessaloníki, a city of 150,000 inhabitants.36 But such joint work proved short lived and by the end of 1911 relations deteriorated. Faced with increasing repression prior to forthcoming elections, the centrist Hunchak Party, Socialist Workers’ Federation and Huseyin Hilmi's Ottoman Socialist Party decided to support and work with the Freedom and Alliance Party. This had been formed by dissident Young Turks opposed to the Society of Union and Progress, and had become a powerful center of bourgeois opposition, but on the same class basis as Union and Progress. For the left wing the cooperation of the centrists with bourgeois forces was just a repeat of the same song from a few years before.

---

1 Based on data for populations and the number of strikes, we see that in the 1905 mass strike in Russia 1,5% of the population participated, compared to 0,75% of the population in the 1908 Ottoman strikes..

2 Kırpık, Cevdet. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde İşçiler ve İşçi Hareketleri (1876–1914)”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. 2004. Isparta. p. 256–263

3 “Meşrutiyet, Emperyalizm ve İşçi Hareketi”. Sosyalizm ve Toplumsal Mücadeleler Ansiklopedisi, Vol 6. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1988. p. 1836

4 Ibid, p. 1840

5 Dinçer, Sinan. “The Revolution of 1908 and the Working class in Turkey”. Boğaziçi University. Political Sciences and International Relations. 2006. Istanbul p. 28

6 Ibid, pp. 29-30, 33, 42-43

7 Dinçer, Sinan. “The Revolution of 1908 and the Working class in Turkey”. Boğaziçi University. Political Sciences and International Relations. 2006. Istanbul p. 31, 36-37, 40-41, 43-45

8 Adanır, Fikret. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Ulusal Sorun ve Sosyalizmin Oluşması ve Gelişmesi: Makedonya Örneği”. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik” Editor: Mete Tunçay and Erik Jan Zürcher. İletişim. 2004. Istanbul. p. 66-67

9 Ibid, p. 68

10 Luxemburg, Rosa. “The Mass Strike”. Part 4. 1906. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm

11 Dumont, Paul. “Yahudi, Sosyalist ve Osmanlı Bir Örgüt: Selanik İşçi Federasyonu”. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik” Editor: Mete Tunçay and Erik Jan Zürcher. İletişim. 2004. Istanbul. p. 89

12 Ibid, p. 90

13 Ibid, p. 91-93

14 Benaroya, Abraham. “A Note on the ‘Socialist Federation of Saloniki’”. Jewish Social Studies XI. 1949. p. 70

15 Ginzberg, Roland. “Beynelmilel İşçiler İttihadı A”. “Beynelmilel İşçiler İttihadı (Mütareke Istanbulu’nda Rum Ağırlıklı Bir İşçi Örgütü ve TKP ile İlişkileri)”. Editor: Erden Akbulut and Mete Tunçay. Sosyal Tarih Yayınları. 2009. Istanbul. p. 44

16 Harris, George. “The Origins of Communism in Turkey”. Hoover Institute Publications. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 1967 p. 21

17 A more modern term than the previous Amele Gazetesi, which could more properly be translated as 'The Toilers' Paper'

18 Gazel, Ahmet Ali and Şaban Ortak. “İkinci Meşrutiyet’ten 1927 Yılına Kadar Yayın İmtiyazı Alan Gazete ve Mecmualar (1908-1927)”. e-dergi.atauni.edu.tr/index.php/SBED/article/viewFile/318/313 p. 243

19 Topçuoğlu, Hayriye. “Bektaşi Ahmet Rıfkı: Hayatı ve Eserleri”. www.hbektasveli.gazi.edu.tr/dergi_dosyalar/19-87-142.pdf p. 7

20 Harris, George. “The Origins of Communism in Turkey”. Hoover Institute Publications. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 1967 p. 20–21

21 Ökçün, Gündüz. “Tatil-i Eşgal Kanunu, 1909: Belgeler – Yorumlar.” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasi Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları No 503. Ankara. 1982 p. 38

22 Ter-Minasian, Anahide. “1876–1923 Döneminde Osmanlı Toplumunda Sosyalist Hareketin Doğuşunda ve Gelişmesinde Ermeni Topluluğun Rolü”. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik” Editor: Mete Tunçay and Erik Jan Zürcher. İletişim. 2004. Istanbul. p. 233-234

23 Ter-Minasian, Anahide. “Le mouvement révolutionnaire arménien, 1890-1903” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique. Vol. 14 N°4. pp. 596

24 Papazyan, Vahan. “Anılarım”. Vol II. Section 15.

25 Ter-Minasian, Anahide. “1876–1923 Döneminde Osmanlı Toplumunda Sosyalist Hareketin Doğuşunda ve Gelişmesinde Ermeni Topluluğun Rolü”. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik” Editor: Mete Tunçay and Erik Jan Zürcher. İletişim. 2004. Istanbul. p. 235

26 Ginzberg, Roland. “Beynelmilel İşçiler İttihadı A”. “Beynelmilel İşçiler İttihadı (Mütareke Istanbulu’nda Rum Ağırlıklı Bir İşçi Örgütü ve TKP ile İlişkileri)”. Editor: Erden Akbulut and Mete Tunçay. Sosyal Tarih Yayınları. 2009. Istanbul. p. 45

27 Kechriotis, Vangelis. “Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or Just Greeks? Theories of Coexistance in the Aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution”. www.arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/kechriotisottomangreekidentity... p. 69

28 Sendikal Birlik

29 “Meşrutiyet, Emperyalizm ve İşçi Hareketi”. Sosyalizm ve Toplumsal Mücadeleler Ansiklopedisi, Vol 6. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1988 p. 1841

30 Tunçay, Mete. “Türkiye’de Sol Akımlar I (1908-1925)”. Bilgi Yayınevi. Istanbul. 1978 p. 43

31 https://hasat.org/forum/Baha_Tevfik-k11110s1.html

32 Zeki, Ruşen. "Sosyalizmin Terakkiyatı ve İstikbali", İştirak, No: 2, 21 June 1328

33 Every single socialist organization in the Ottoman Empire had relations with the Second International and with the exception of the Ottoman Socialist Party which had ties with Jaures, they were all represented in some way as members. However there was never an Ottoman section of the Second International. The Social Democrat Hunchak Party had been a member since 1903-1904 and as a Caucasian party it was represented by Plekhanov. Ottoman Narrow Socialists and the left wing were members as part of the (Narrow) BSDWP and were represented by the Bulgarian Narrow Socialists. The Dashnaks became members as the sub-section of Ottoman Armenia in 1907 and the Socialist Workers’ Federation of Thessaloníki joined as the Thessaloníki sub-section in 1909.

34 Haupt, George and Paul Dumont. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Sosyalist Hareketler”. Gözlem Yayınları. Istanbul. 1977 p. 225-227

35 Ginzberg, Roland. “Beynelmilel İşçiler İttihadı A”. “Beynelmilel İşçiler İttihadı (Mütareke Istanbulu’nda Rum Ağırlıklı Bir İşçi Örgütü ve TKP ile İlişkileri)”. Editor: Erden Akbulut and Mete Tunçay. Sosyal Tarih Yayınları. 2009. Istanbul. p. 45

36 Dumont, Paul. “Yahudi, Sosyalist ve Osmanlı Bir Örgüt: Selanik İşçi Federasyonu”. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik” Editor: Mete Tunçay and Erik Jan Zürcher. İletişim. 2004. Istanbul. p. 102