Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group: Difference between revisions
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Citation needed}} |
Citation and source provided. |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
At a meeting of the group on August 10, 1908, at which Dimitar Blagoev and [[Georgi Kirkov]] presented reports, the program of the group was discussed and adopted, which included demands for self-determination of the nationalities in the Ottoman Empire, general, direct, equal and secret suffrage, abolition of the [[Ottoman Senate]], the introduction of a progressive income tax, the replacement of the regular army with a people's militia, reforms in labor legislation, and others.<ref>Добринов, Дечо. Македоно-одринска социалдемократическа група, в: Национално-освободителното движение на македонските и тракийските българи (1878 – 1944). Том 3, Освободителното движение след Илинденско-Преображенското въстание 1903 – 1919, МНИ, София, 1997, стр. 142.</ref> The idea of a self-governing [[region of Macedonia|Macedonia]] (and Adrianople) regions was emphasized in the program of these socialists and their agenda was made more explicit in their newspaper ''Political Liberty''. |
At a meeting of the group on August 10, 1908, at which Dimitar Blagoev and [[Georgi Kirkov]] presented reports, the program of the group was discussed and adopted, which included demands for self-determination of the nationalities in the Ottoman Empire, general, direct, equal and secret suffrage, abolition of the [[Ottoman Senate]], the introduction of a progressive income tax, the replacement of the regular army with a people's militia, reforms in labor legislation, and others.<ref>Добринов, Дечо. Македоно-одринска социалдемократическа група, в: Национално-освободителното движение на македонските и тракийските българи (1878 – 1944). Том 3, Освободителното движение след Илинденско-Преображенското въстание 1903 – 1919, МНИ, София, 1997, стр. 142.</ref> The idea of a self-governing [[region of Macedonia|Macedonia]] (and Adrianople) regions was emphasized in the program of these socialists and their agenda was made more explicit in their newspaper ''Political Liberty''. |
||
The newspaper criticized the Bulgarian chauvinist government for its ambitions at territorial expansion in both areas and appealed for the creation of an independent [[Balkan Socialist Federation]], and conceived it as some kind of “Switzerland of the Balkans”. It would have a presumed [[cantonal]] organization separate for all local ''national elements'', which would choose free their official language.<ref>Tchavdar Marinov, “We, the Macedonians: The Paths of Mace- donian Supra-Nationalism (1878–1912),” in We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, with Mishkova Diana as ed., Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, pp. 107-137.</ref> Per ''Political Liberty'', every ''Macedonian'' should be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, etc., as he is, but on the first place, as a “political slave”. Its political agenda of a separate Macedonian people was based on [[Marxist]] class-ideological aspects, with a strong anti-nationalist motivation. Such socialist rhetoric, with specific and distinct political tasks of the ''Macedonian people'', uniting in this designation not only “Bulgarians” but a number of other “nationalities”, reveals that then socialist “national” categories were quite distinct from today's separate Macedonian and Bulgarian national concepts. |
The newspaper criticized the Bulgarian chauvinist government for its ambitions at territorial expansion in both areas and appealed for the creation of an independent [[Balkan Socialist Federation]], and conceived it as some kind of “Switzerland of the Balkans”. It would have a presumed [[cantonal]] organization separate for all local ''national elements'', which would choose free their official language.<ref>Tchavdar Marinov, “We, the Macedonians: The Paths of Mace- donian Supra-Nationalism (1878–1912),” in We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, with Mishkova Diana as ed., Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, pp. 107-137.</ref> Per ''Political Liberty'', every ''Macedonian'' should be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, etc., as he is, but on the first place, as a “political slave”. Its political agenda of a separate Macedonian people was based on [[Marxist]] class-ideological aspects, with a strong anti-nationalist motivation. Such socialist rhetoric, with specific and distinct political tasks of the ''Macedonian people'', uniting in this designation not only “Bulgarians” but a number of other “nationalities”, reveals that then socialist “national” categories were quite distinct from today's separate Macedonian and Bulgarian national concepts.<ref>''"It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology... It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character."'' For more see: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction?Authors: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkovq pp.: 469–555, in Entangled Histories of the Balkans – Volume Two, Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 9004261915, p. 503.</ref> The idea of establishing a multinational autonomous Macedonian entity and promoting an inclusive Macedonian identity, was a supranational concept, not a national one.<ref>Dimitar Bechev, Historical dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810855658, p. 140.</ref> |
||
While Bulgarian historians today criticize such a "nihilistic" position, their Macedonian colleagues are worried that the group was ''blind'' for Macedonians' separate ethnic identity.<ref>Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction? In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Two, (2014) Authors: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, ISBN: 978-90-04-26191-4, pp. 469–555.</ref> |
While Bulgarian historians today criticize such a "nihilistic" position, their Macedonian colleagues are worried that the group was ''blind'' for Macedonians' separate ethnic identity.<ref>Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction? In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Two, (2014) Authors: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, ISBN: 978-90-04-26191-4, pp. 469–555.</ref> |
||
Revision as of 09:51, 13 June 2021
The Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group was a regional faction of the Bulgarian Workers' Social Democratic Party in the Ottoman Empire.[1] According to the post-WWII Macedonian historiography, most of its activists were ethnic Macedonians.[2]
History
Creation and development
In 1894, on the instructions of Dimitar Blagoev, Vasil Glavinov founded the first socialist group in Ottoman Macedonia in Veles. In 1896 Glavinov founded the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group itself.[3] Raising slogans such as "Macedonia for the Macedonians", and "Autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople regions", they managed to create socialist groups and circles in some cities in Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace. They published the newspaper Political Liberty (Политическа свобода) and accepted the idea of an armed revolution, but criticized the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) for "excessive centralization and insufficient ideological resilience." Finally the group established contacts with the IMRO and participated in the first socialist conference on July 3, 1900, held in Krushevo.
Unable to reach the mass they desired, the Socialists decided to join the IMRO, but under certain conditions: autonomy within the Organization; freedom of socialist agitation; participation by right of one of their representatives in each district committee of IMRO.[4] These conditions were accepted only by the Bitola revolutionary district, and the socialist Nikola Karev became the Krushevo district voivode and took an active part in the Ilinden Uprising in 1903. After the failure of the uprising there was discord both in the IMRO and in the BWSDP itself. After the Young Turk Revolution in 1908, the Marxist Bulgarian Social Democratic Workers' Party (Narrow Socialists) sympathized with the Bulgarian People's Federative Party and created its social democratic groups and trade unions in Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace. At the end of July 1908, Vasil Glavinov left from Bulgaria for the Ottoman Empire and toured Edirne, Alexandroupolron, Serres, Kommotini, Xanthi, Drama and settled in Thessaloniki.[5] At the end of 1910, a conference was held in Thessaloniki to establish an Ottoman Socialist Party, but attempts failed without much success.
After the beginning of the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) the members of the faction moved to Sofia, where the group was practically dissolved.[6]
Views and concept
At a meeting of the group on August 10, 1908, at which Dimitar Blagoev and Georgi Kirkov presented reports, the program of the group was discussed and adopted, which included demands for self-determination of the nationalities in the Ottoman Empire, general, direct, equal and secret suffrage, abolition of the Ottoman Senate, the introduction of a progressive income tax, the replacement of the regular army with a people's militia, reforms in labor legislation, and others.[7] The idea of a self-governing Macedonia (and Adrianople) regions was emphasized in the program of these socialists and their agenda was made more explicit in their newspaper Political Liberty.
The newspaper criticized the Bulgarian chauvinist government for its ambitions at territorial expansion in both areas and appealed for the creation of an independent Balkan Socialist Federation, and conceived it as some kind of “Switzerland of the Balkans”. It would have a presumed cantonal organization separate for all local national elements, which would choose free their official language.[8] Per Political Liberty, every Macedonian should be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, etc., as he is, but on the first place, as a “political slave”. Its political agenda of a separate Macedonian people was based on Marxist class-ideological aspects, with a strong anti-nationalist motivation. Such socialist rhetoric, with specific and distinct political tasks of the Macedonian people, uniting in this designation not only “Bulgarians” but a number of other “nationalities”, reveals that then socialist “national” categories were quite distinct from today's separate Macedonian and Bulgarian national concepts.[9] The idea of establishing a multinational autonomous Macedonian entity and promoting an inclusive Macedonian identity, was a supranational concept, not a national one.[10]
While Bulgarian historians today criticize such a "nihilistic" position, their Macedonian colleagues are worried that the group was blind for Macedonians' separate ethnic identity.[11]
See also
- Strandzha Commune
- Krusevo Republic
- Macedonian Secret Revolutionary Committee
- Socialist Workers' Federation
References
- ^ Добринов, Дечо. Македоно-одринска социалдемократическа група, в: Национално-освободителното движение на македонските и тракийските българи (1878 – 1944). Том 3, Освободителното движение след Илинденско-Преображенското въстание 1903 – 1919, МНИ, София, 1997, стр. 139.
- ^ Александар Матковски, ВМРО и Македонско национално питанье у другој половини XIX века. стр. 427-442. in Balcanica, Volume 8, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Balkanološki institut, 1977.
- ^ The politics of terror: the Macedonian liberation movements, 1893–1903, Duncan M. Perry, Duke University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-8223-0813-4, p. 172.
- ^ Христо Христов (1964) Аграрните отношения в Македония през ХІХ и началото на ХХ век: гл. 3, "Аграрният въпрос в програмата и революционната дейност на ВМОРО. Селяните и Илинденското въстание".
- ^ Maria Todorova, The Lost World of Socialists at Europe’s Margins: Imagining Utopia, 1870s - 1920s, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020, ISBN 1350150355, p. 63.
- ^ Енциклопедия България, колектив, том 5, издателство на БАН, София, 1984, стр. 28.
- ^ Добринов, Дечо. Македоно-одринска социалдемократическа група, в: Национално-освободителното движение на македонските и тракийските българи (1878 – 1944). Том 3, Освободителното движение след Илинденско-Преображенското въстание 1903 – 1919, МНИ, София, 1997, стр. 142.
- ^ Tchavdar Marinov, “We, the Macedonians: The Paths of Mace- donian Supra-Nationalism (1878–1912),” in We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, with Mishkova Diana as ed., Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, pp. 107-137.
- ^ "It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology... It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character." For more see: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction?Authors: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkovq pp.: 469–555, in Entangled Histories of the Balkans – Volume Two, Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 9004261915, p. 503.
- ^ Dimitar Bechev, Historical dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810855658, p. 140.
- ^ Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction? In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Two, (2014) Authors: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, ISBN: 978-90-04-26191-4, pp. 469–555.