David Bernstein's post on the excesses of Israeli socialist ideology remind me of Milton Friedman's 1972 essay, "Capitalism and the Jews: Confronting a Paradox," (I haven't been able to find an online link, but it's available in Kurt R. Leube ed., The Essence of Friedman at 43-57 (1987)). Friedman addressed the interesting question of why Jews tend to be hostile to capitalism and sympathetic to socialism despite the fact that, historically, Jews have been most successful and most tolerated in those societies where free markets and civil society were relatively unfettered, and suffered most from anti-semitism in highly socialized and statist economies (worst of all under Soviet socialism and, of course, Hitler's National Socialism).
He argues that Jewish support for socialism was partly a reaction to the fact that in 19th and 20th century Europe, the right-wing parties tended to be nationalistic and anti-semitic, so that Jews were naturally drawn to their political opponents (at the time mostly socialists and statist liberals). More interestingly, Friedman suggests that Jewish socialism was in part a reaction to the stereotype of the Jew as a greedy capitalist, an attempt to "prove" the stereotype wrong. He specifically references Israeli attitudes as the most extreme manifestation of this mentality. And in fact early socialist Zionist ideology emphasized the need to reject the stereotypes associated with Diaspora Jews; socialist Zionists called for what they called "Negation of the Diaspora." They especially decried the association of Diaspora Jews with trading and capitalist commercial enterprise, but also (to a lesser extent), private philanthropy and civil society organizations of the kind foolishly denounced by Israel's socialist Defense Minister Amir Peretz, quoted in David's post.
Despite Peretz's idiotic comments, my impression is that "Negation of the Diaspora" and its associated anti-capitalism is a less powerful force in Israeli political culture today than it was early in the state's history. Hopefully, attitudes like Peretz's are on the way out.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on Milton Friedman and Israel:
- Milton Friedman on Israel and Jewish Support for Socialism:
- Talk about your tired Socialism:
They'd been so used to helping one another with everything so they all would survive, that they kept with it in times of greater prosperity.
But then, my family's primarily former Russian Jews, so perhaps those from more capitalist countries had other ideas.
They'd been so used to helping one another with everything so they all would survive, that they kept with it in times of greater prosperity.
The "communalist ethos of the ghetto" was not socialism and indeed predated socialism by hundreds of years. Jewish communal life in the ghetto era was based on (mostly) voluntary cooperation, not on state control of economic life and civil society (as under socialism).
Of course, in this forum, what is interesting is that this socialist / progressive attitude seems far more prevelant in those descended from earlier Jewish immigrants, as compared to immigrants from Soviet Block countries (who presumably experienced attempts at Communism (and socialism) first or second hand). From that, I would suggest that the 19th Century experiences of ancesters who immigrated in the later 19th and earlier 20th Centuries may be more important than Judaism itself.
Nazi Germany may be described as crony capitalism or a kleptocracy, but socialism, hardly. Germany's control of the economy never even reached the level of centralization and planning that ours did during World War II. Granted, it was mostly due to the sheer incompetence and corruption of the Nazi leadership in handling their war economy. But unless you are saying the U.S. was socialist during WWII (and I'm sure some of you would), don't call the Nazis socialist.
As for Russia. Even before the Revolution, the rural economy ran on a communal, and by your loose definition, socialist, model. After the serfs were freed in the 1860s, land was held communally by the village. Individual families did not own land but only their livestock. Even fields were divided row by row, assigned each year by the village elders, rather than by plot, leading to extremely inefficient agriculture. Land reform was just getting under way at the time of the revolution.
You can spin Jesus' teachings all you want, and maybe socialistic is too strong a word. But to wonder why observant Jews or Christians who bother to actually take the words of Jesus or the Talmad seriously tend to support social welfare programs rather than be Ayn Rand devotees or Milton Friedman laissez faire capitalists doesn't isn't really a much harder question than which group (animals, workers, or consumers) gets the short end of the stick at McDonalds.
Its true that the mir were communal and land ownership was rotated - and extremely inefficient - but there was still private ownership (some of land, not insignificant to the economy, and as you point out, all of livestock etc). Though Jews were segregated into communities and discriminated against, they were better off in an absolute sense than under socialism, though worse off in relative terms.
Before socialism Jews could do well for themselves and their families if they got into business, they could also get officer positions in the army I believe and skilled positions in the ranked positions for the state (though they hit a ceiling) and through that route gain prestige.
Under socialism they were often treated better - though not always, and under Stalin were targeted as kulaks disporportionatly - but everyone was worse off. They could no longer do well for themselves through business, of course, and anti-semitism did not disappear.
I was merely pointing out that "the fact that, historically, Jews have been most successful and most tolerated in those societies where free markets and civil society were relatively unfettered, and suffered most from anti-semitism in highly socialized and statist economies" is not a fact at all and that the situation in Europe was much more complex than Ilya or Milton Friedman (apparently) would have us believe. The Nazis weren't socialist, pre-Revolutionary Russia wasn't kind to Jews and post-Revolution, the Jews weren't particularly worse off than any other group.
The answer is yes and no. In the time of the Tzar, certain discriminatory rules were a matter of government policy but they were open and could be discussed and in particular criticized by a significant slice of Russian liberal intelligentsia without fear of being severely punished for criticism. Plus, since the rules were open, people knew, what was required, e.g., how to deal with quotas in educational institutions, residence permits, etc. In the Soviet times, any public discussion of similar quotas and restrictions was impossible, post-Stalin times very much included. Of course, there was no open official anti-semitism and the terms used were cosmopolitans, zionists, and other euphemisms. True, the pogroms did not have the Soviet equivalent outside of Stalin's times, but the danger for Jews was much more everyday and pervasive under Stalin, if not as savagely "picturesque." Add also, that the steamvalve was open in the Tzar's time, hence, the big wave washing through Ellis Island. Not the case under the Soviets, even counting limited opportunities in the 70's, until the actual empire started falling apart.
Finally, for the recent rise of anti-semitism, I believe that this is in large part coming out into the open rather than simply created from nothing. But it's the cost of lifting (at least some) oppression from everybody. Conversely, anti-semitism can now be discussed and criticized publicly, including by the government, whereas in the past even the neutral word for "Jew" was shameful and to be avoided, except in street talk (of course "kike" was used more often in that context).
Yes but then he gives one example where the free market was relatively unfettered (Nazi Germany) and another where it the driving force behind the oppression wasn't anti-semitism in particular, but rather just the general bad lot of living in a horrible society. If anything, Jews were probably "better off" in Soviet Russia as a group than they were under the Tsars (not that life was easier or materially better, but that they were less likely to be discriminated against simply for being of Jewish descent, and a religiously observant orthodox Christian would be equally suspect as a religiously observant Jew, so there was a leveling of religious discrimination).
Yay! We can all be equally oppressed!
R. Elai stated: It was ordained at Usha that if a man wishes to spend liberally (on tzedakah) he should not spend more than a fifth (of what he owns).
So it was also taught: If a man desires to spend liberally he should not spend more than a fifth, [since by spending more] he might himself come to be in need [of the help] of people.
As I think the above passage illustrates, Judaism is not a socialistic religion and much of Talmud is concerned with private property including the classic question of the gored ox. Demanding social responsibility and concern for others less fortunate is not contrary to capitalism. Laissaiz faire refers to role of government and has no bearing on personal behavior. Indeed, I suspect that personal charity is probably decreased in socialistic economies because it is assumed that the government is taking care of problems with money from raised from (usually high) taxes revenues and that there is no need for individuals to contribute anything additional. Does anyone know the figures on private charitable contributions in the US and Europe?
Yes, I have looked at that. You will find higher private charitable giving in the US than in Europe, except for in certain isolated incidents such as the Tsunami where eg the UK exceeded the US in the end possibly in private giving, perhaps due to the British Indian population. Otherwise the US per capita private charitable giving tends to be higher than any country in Europe. I forget where I found this, sorry to not cite a source.
I knew I was on a shaky path. But to argue that Jews were oppressed in Soviet Russia simply because they were Jewish is overlooking a lot of factors other than ethnicity/religious identity that resulted in oppression in Soviet Russia.
I think some of the discussion here makes me think of how some workplaces handle the United Way drives.
Sure you have to encourage charitable giving, and some professions are more "competitive", but at some point, doesn't it get a bit silly for adults, who could easily donate $20 to an organization and probably annually donate on their own time? Really, you don't have to bribe people to give cheap canned food and macaroni boxes. It worked in high school, but law school or the workplace? Silly
It is true that, relative to Christians (particularly, Russian Orthodox), Jews (as a religion) were officially "better off" under Soviet rule than Tsarist rule. (I.e., the policy was to persecute both equally.) However, it is difficult to say whether this was true in practice.
First of all, Russian anti-Semitism made Jews targets for political opportunists and the Soviet secret police. Second, Jews ethnic identity made renouncing their religion difficult to both define and prove. Third, the Soviet Union had an official and violent hostility to Zionism. Fourth, Jews tended to be in demographic groups that were oppressed under Soviet rule (e.g., business owners, financiers, academics, intellectuals).
And very often this combined with anti-semitism such that all Jews were assumed to be "kulaks" and treated as such.
Among late-19th- and early-20th-century Jews, socialism--along with Zionism, as a matter of fact--was primarily a statement of rebellion against religious orthodoxy, not capitalism. Its appealing features were secular intellectualism, social and sexual libertarianism, and internationalist universalism (or, in the case of Zionism, secular "nation like all others" nationalism)--all explicit contrasts with the narrow intellectual focus, puritanism and religious particularism and separatism that informed traditional Jewish thought and practice.
Today's secular Jews tend to be conventional liberal Democrats, not socialists, but their preoccupations haven't changed much: they may occasionally complain about corporate greed, but their real bugbears are uneducated populists, puritanical religious zealots and exclusivist white (or Jewish) racists. Their liberalism is not a rejection of capitalism--far from it, in most cases. It's not mammon they're rejecting, but God.
As I mentioned in my previous posting, even uttering the word "Jew" was made shameful and not done lightly.
Well, I was surprised to find in a textbook of biblical history which my father used while in the 3d grade under the czars, that it was developed and published specifically for students of Judaic faith under the supervision of the Ministry for Public Enlightenment. Needless to say, that while the Russian Patriarchate was allowed to occasionally publish a (hard to get) Russian edition of the bible, the only counterpart on the Jewish side was the propaganda sheet "Sovietische Heimland"
Of course, that was a big part of the reason why he did not live for a few more years..., but you conveniently neglect that part...
You are not saying Stalin's henchmen killed him to save the Jews rather than their own hides, are you? Is there evidence that he wanted World War III and all his cosmopolitans hunt was just a way to provoke it, not to mention the evidence that it would indeed have provoked it in the nuclear age? Nothing happened in connection with Hungary 3 years later and nobody was killed to prevent the invasion.
As others have pointed out, despite the name, Nazism was not particularly socialist. And while the Soviet Union was clearly anti-Semitic it is far from obvious that it was worse than Czarist Russia in this regard. Indeed, it is likely that Soviet anti-Semitism had little to do with ideology and much to do with historic Russian attitudes towards Jews.