JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ut influential minority of the Jews as remuneration for cultural
assimilation. The price to pay was basically severance of
their relations with the rest of the Jewish community and the
abandonment of the active desire to perpetuate this community.
Under the circumstances, the offer of social acceptance
was a tempting one since it involved social advancement by
the criteria of the community at large. That not every social
group would accept its Jewish counterpart even at the price
of cultural assimilation was obvious, but during the transition
period personal or narrow group interests were strong and the
fight for universal civil rights still very much ahead. The situation
presented a challenge to the Jewish communal authority
and called for surrender of its traditional power of exclusive
representation of the Jews and of its power of *taxation. The
weakening of the authority of the Jewish community organization
could also be traced to the growing unwillingness of the
more affluent groups in the community to subject themselves
to income redistribution in favor of the poor. Poor relief was
“scaled down” from a duty concept to one of discretionary
charity, and paupers were “encouraged” to find employment.
Although the full impact of the newly created situation of defining
one’s identity, under conditions of relatively free choice,
was to be felt during a later period, the difficulties and problems
thus created – psychological and social – were already
becoming apparent during the transition period.
Modern Period
The main features of the development of the economy of the
Jews during the modern period are patterns of migration, penetration
into areas of industry, maintenance of a strong position
in the area of services, and very limited involvement in
agriculture. Decades ago economic historians were engaged in
a debate about the role of the Jews in the development of capitalism,
some trying to define the historically objective role of
the Jews as active agents of capitalist development. Now with
historical hindsight the discussion would probably be conducted
and conclusions reached within a different framework.
The implicit notion that capital was abundant in the Jewish
sector of the economy would now be refuted and therefore the
logic of portraying the Jews as “objectively acting” on behalf of
a capitalist order would be rejected. It would probably be accepted,
however, that an order of economic liberalism is one
that provides greater opportunities for any minority, the Jews
included, than an alternative economic system based upon a
different ideology and set of political principles. An impersonal
market and a high degree of division of labor may create
alienation and other social ills, but by not requiring that the
commodities produced have any other labels than the price
tag, the free market works against discrimination. A competitive
market may injure high-cost producers or cause unemployment,
but its principles were compatible with the ideas of
social and cultural pluralism. The relatively favorable response
of Jews and other minorities to the liberalization of the economic
order was based primarily on an expected reduction in
discrimination. However, while a liberal economic order pro-
economic history
vided the Jews with opportunities, it could not provide them
with a right to work, to compete on equal terms, to the same
extent that such a “right” was traditionally enjoyed by the various
classes of the majority population. In addition, the phase
of economic liberalism as a chief characteristic of the capitalist
system was neither a permanent feature nor a very longlasting
one, nor even one universally followed in all countries
experiencing the capitalist type of economic growth.
In most countries of Eastern Europe the capitalist stage
of development coincided with a rise of nationalism, which at
various points exhibited a discriminatory attitude toward the
Jews in general or toward some social groups within the Jewish
community, in attempts to promote the interests of the ethnic
majority. Tariff policies against foreign goods were accompanied
not infrequently by discriminatory taxation imposed
upon “foreigners” within the country, meaning national minorities.
In the multi-national states of Eastern Europe there
were ample opportunities for labeling various minorities as
“foreign,” “alien,” and so on. Under such conditions it could
hardly be expected that the Jewish masses, who were adversely
affected by discriminatory policies, would consider the capitalist
economic system as more desirable or attractive than an
alternative promising them the “right to work.”
JEWISH MIGRATION. It is against the background of insufficient
employment opportunities and discrimination that the
process of migration has to be viewed. The pattern of Jewish
migration, of spatial mobility of labor, during the modern period
differed in many respects from previous migration patterns.
The general direction was westward, from Eastern Europe
to the West, and from Europe overseas. As a matter of
fact, the migration from Western Europe overseas was more
than made up for by an influx of Jews from the East. This general
direction of the migration was significant as a movement
from less rapidly developing countries to more rapidly developing
ones. In terms of its time dimension the inter-country
migration was intensified during the 19th century and reached
its peak during the decade prior to World War I. But apart
from the inter-country migration, of very considerable significance
was the intra-country migration from the less urbanized
areas to the more urbanized areas, a development that
increased the degree of concentration of the Jewish population
in large urban and metropolitan areas, with their developed
industry, trade, and other social or cultural characteristics.
Both the domestic and international migration and the pattern
of settlement of the Jews contributed to urban concentration
and had an impact upon the social and economic structure
of the Jewish population. While it is tempting to assign the
role of prime mover in Jewish migrations to purely economic
causes, it would be erroneous to omit political elements such
as discriminatory legislation, violent antisemitism, pogroms,
and revolutions. Political upheavals and governmental policies
influenced the pace of the migration process, but could
not stop it for any appreciable length of time (the case of the
Soviet Union being an exception).
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 129