Kapitalistinės kredito institucijos ir etniniai santykiai (Liaudiškos kredito institucijos lietuvių ir žydų santykių kontekste XIX a. pabaigoje - XX a. pradžioje

LTTyrimo objektas susijęs su Rusijos imperijos socialinės – ekonominės modernizacijos jos vakariniuose pakraščiuose (konkrečiau Kauno, iš dalies Vilniaus bei Suvalkų gubernijose) specifika. Analizuojamos ne tiek imperinio centro socialinės – ekonominės politikos kryptys keliose gubernijose, bet labiau to politinės pasekmės. Antra vertus, kalbama ne apie politiką apskritai, bet tik apie vieną svarbų jos aspektą. Konkrečiai analizuojama, kaip kapitalistinių kredito institucijų tikslo susiformavimas Lietuvos kaime XIX a. pab. – XX a. pr. veikė dviejų etninių bendruomenių – lietuvių ir žydų santykius. Aiškinamasi, kaip skolinamosios – taupomosios kasos (draugijos), kurių oficialus, valdžios deklaruojamas tikslas buvo padėti valstiečiams akumuliuoti kapitalą ir plėtoti žemės ūkį, veikė lietuvių ir žydų santykius. Apibendrinat teigtina - straipsnyje siekiama aptarti, kaip modernizacija, šiuo atveju, regis, tiksliau būtų teigti – inovacija kredito sferoje, veikė tarpetninius santykiu.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Žydai; Modernizacija; Valstietiškas kreditas; Taupomosios skolinamosios kasos; Antisemitizmas.

ENThe article analyses how the formation of a network of small popular capitalist credit institutions (lending – savings societies), the aim of which was to help the peasants accumulate capital, affected Lithuanian – Jewish relations. In the opinion of the Tsarist Russian authorities as well as according to the majority of the Lithuanian intelligentsia, such credit institutions had to ‘protect’ the peasants from ‘exploitation’ by usurers (which the Jews were generally considered to be). In other words, the lending – savings societies had to compete with the popular lending system, which had existed up until then, was traditional, and in which, as is frequently stated, the Jews predominated. One of the aims of the societies was to push the ‘Jewish usurer’ out of the rural economy. It is possible to make the assumption that the creation of the lending – savings societies and their operation could have also been affected by a heating up of interethnic relations (between Lithuanian peasants and Jewish financial middlemen). The article draws the conclusion that the Russian authorities, in striving to become the primary ‘guardian’ of the emancipated peasantry in the area of lending, sought to protect the ‘gullible’ peasants from the negative influence of the Jews and landlords. Nevertheless the results of the efforts by the authorities in the area of popular lending were fairly ambivalent. The weakening of Jewish influence in the area of lending was caused by both economic circumstances, i.e. the appearance of peasants able to lend money to their neighbours, and by the traditional religious hostility to the Jews that was characteristic of peasant thinking. The influence of the landlords, however, was harder to eliminate. In the late 1880s, the Lithuanian intelligentsia that was appearing began to agitate ever more actively for the establishment of popular lending societies.According to the contemporary Lithuanian periodical literature, lending – savings societies had to help the peasants solve not only important economic but also social problems. But in order to solve these problems, it was necessary to ‘liberate’ the Lithuanian peasantry from the grip of Jewish usurers. The article asserts that in everyday practice, at least until the early twentieth century, the popular societies were frequently forced to interact with the Jews and the latter also frequently became members of the lending societies. In other words, the economic logic of everyday life did not conform (at least for a fairly long time) to the demands raised by the government’s laws and decrees or by the national ideology. This occurred due to several reasons. First, the peasant lending societies were usually founded in rural districts and small towns. Not only their economic potential but also their ‘social capital’, as is said today, was limited. In this way, the lending societies did not actually become centres generating national self-awareness (and ethnic tension). On the other hand, we believe that the societies existed for a long time not so much as a national institution in the strict sense of the word but as more a hierarchical estate structure. This occurred because the initiative to found and manage societies belonged to the landlords for a long time. [From the publication]