A vacuum does not exist. Wherever we go, whatever we do, the reality around us affects us: our surroundings shape our beliefs, our relationships, our behavior, and every intimate thought we have. There is no vacuum. If we do not think about how we want the world to look, others will do it for us. If we do not take active steps to shape the world in the way we believe is right, someone else will do it instead. As a group we have the power to create a different reality, with different behavioral norms. Our power as human beings stems from our ability to think, to plan, and to decide how we want to be as human beings and how we want our society to look. Our tools are our house, our routine, our culture. By making conscious decisions about our surroundings and our day-to-day activities, we are choosing the specific elements that we want to affect and change us. We must not give in to codes that we think are harmful. The Socialist Zionist movement proved that it is possible to create real change, and as Socialist Zionists we understand that we must be active in shaping reality to reflect our ideals.
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
On the Difference Between Revolutionary Service and Community Service - Nikitah Okembe Imana
There are essentially three distinctions to be made in differentiating between revolutionary service and community service. The first is to examine the modus operandi of the organization to see if it is self-replicating or self-eliminating. Community service organizations, for the most part, function with an eye towards maintaining a foothold in the communities they serve, in a sense, to legitimate their own role. This is self-regarding and it results in the creation of a proverbial service or "vanguard" elite that hoards the organizational training and resources over the heads of the "masses." The problem with this model, in addition to the fact that it is undemocratic, is that it can never truly lead to revolution, for the relevant populations remain perpetual subjects of liberation rather than initiators of liberation, and a revolution cannot come from the top and the bottom.
Revolutionary service, in stark contrast, emphasizes the dissemination of the methods, resources, and techniques of revolutionary organization to the population it desires to liberate from some type of oppression. Consequently, revolutionary organizations and their leaders are always to be perceived as short-term facilitators for the community's liberation. This requires a sacrifice in terms of ego and individual aspirations to become a member of some revolutionary elite. The motivation behind this temporal nature of a revolutionary organization lies in the corruption inherent in power relationships. This effect can only be minimized by minimizing in turn the amount of time any particular organization or individual has a monopoly on the implements of revolutions. Accordingly, the best revolutionary organizations are those that emphasize tool-building projects like the development of alternative, independent, and non-exploitive economic ventures, literacy and community-regarding education for all, alternative media, etc.
The second difference between the two forms of interaction is between outreach and in-reach. Outreach results as a consequence of the community service perspective whenever the "vanguard," by virtue of its monopoly of the tools of the revolution, begins to distinguish between itself and the population it is attempting to serve. Whether you agree with their economic theories or not, Marx & Engels hit the nail on the head in "The Communist Manifesto" when they said that the true communist agitator could have no interest apart from the proletariat, the class he/she sought to the tools of revolution. The revolutionary ideology, the physical movement, and the human resources must be constituted and operated by the population itself.
The third and final distinction between revolutionary service and community service is drawn out of the second. The community servant and the "true" revolutionary inevitably have different views about the outcome of their work. The best case scenario for the former is that he or she be able to perpetually institutionalized a response to the needs of the population being served. Even if systematic change renders this desire meaningless, the community servant takes pride in the act of service. As such, the enthusiasm of community servant is cyclical and their actions tend to lack unity of purpose. There is no dominant goal that integrates them. For the revolutionary, however, the revolution is perceived as inevitable, needing only the sufficient distribution of the tools. As such, revolutionary organizations tend to thrive "underground" despite cyclical fluctuations in popular "liberal" opinion, and have a much higher degree of understanding of purpose between individual actions, in relation to the actions of the whole group, and in relation to the relevant population.
Given the rising tide of fascism in the United States, I believe that it will be critical for the liberal establishment not to become co-opted as were some French and Austrians in WWII, nor to try to reform the system which will bring only brutal repression. We must strike the beast that is the system where it lives, in the hearts and minds of the masses of people and to do that we must be revolutionaries and not just community servants.
Revolutionary service, in stark contrast, emphasizes the dissemination of the methods, resources, and techniques of revolutionary organization to the population it desires to liberate from some type of oppression. Consequently, revolutionary organizations and their leaders are always to be perceived as short-term facilitators for the community's liberation. This requires a sacrifice in terms of ego and individual aspirations to become a member of some revolutionary elite. The motivation behind this temporal nature of a revolutionary organization lies in the corruption inherent in power relationships. This effect can only be minimized by minimizing in turn the amount of time any particular organization or individual has a monopoly on the implements of revolutions. Accordingly, the best revolutionary organizations are those that emphasize tool-building projects like the development of alternative, independent, and non-exploitive economic ventures, literacy and community-regarding education for all, alternative media, etc.
The second difference between the two forms of interaction is between outreach and in-reach. Outreach results as a consequence of the community service perspective whenever the "vanguard," by virtue of its monopoly of the tools of the revolution, begins to distinguish between itself and the population it is attempting to serve. Whether you agree with their economic theories or not, Marx & Engels hit the nail on the head in "The Communist Manifesto" when they said that the true communist agitator could have no interest apart from the proletariat, the class he/she sought to the tools of revolution. The revolutionary ideology, the physical movement, and the human resources must be constituted and operated by the population itself.
The third and final distinction between revolutionary service and community service is drawn out of the second. The community servant and the "true" revolutionary inevitably have different views about the outcome of their work. The best case scenario for the former is that he or she be able to perpetually institutionalized a response to the needs of the population being served. Even if systematic change renders this desire meaningless, the community servant takes pride in the act of service. As such, the enthusiasm of community servant is cyclical and their actions tend to lack unity of purpose. There is no dominant goal that integrates them. For the revolutionary, however, the revolution is perceived as inevitable, needing only the sufficient distribution of the tools. As such, revolutionary organizations tend to thrive "underground" despite cyclical fluctuations in popular "liberal" opinion, and have a much higher degree of understanding of purpose between individual actions, in relation to the actions of the whole group, and in relation to the relevant population.
Given the rising tide of fascism in the United States, I believe that it will be critical for the liberal establishment not to become co-opted as were some French and Austrians in WWII, nor to try to reform the system which will bring only brutal repression. We must strike the beast that is the system where it lives, in the hearts and minds of the masses of people and to do that we must be revolutionaries and not just community servants.
The Eight Degrees of Tzedakah - Maimonides
There are eight degrees in the giving of tzedakah, one higher than the other:
One who gives grudgingly, reluctantly or with regret.
One who gives less than should be given but gives graciously. One who gives correctly, but only after being asked.
One who gives before being asked.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, although the receiver knows who has given.
One who gives without making themselves known.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, and the receiver doesn't know who has given.
One who helps another to support themselves by a gift or a loan or by finding them a job, because in this way the receiver is helped to become self-supporting.
One who gives grudgingly, reluctantly or with regret.
One who gives less than should be given but gives graciously. One who gives correctly, but only after being asked.
One who gives before being asked.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, although the receiver knows who has given.
One who gives without making themselves known.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, and the receiver doesn't know who has given.
One who helps another to support themselves by a gift or a loan or by finding them a job, because in this way the receiver is helped to become self-supporting.
A Moral Medusa
For Better or for worse, all members of the movement - if not all members of Western society - grow up with at least some awareness of the shortcomings of capitalism. The most often discussed critique is that it creates large gaps between rich and poor, which in the end creates extreme poverty both in the midst of massive economic growth (China, Israel, Brazil) and in the midst of unparalleled wealth (the United States). Moreover, the poverty is largely self-perpetuating: the overwhelming majority of those who start out in poverty will always remain in poverty, though a few escape to testify to the fairness and flexibility of the system. The existence of poverty, however, remains inflexible.
The next most accepted critique is environmental: we relentlessly pursue economic growth, which means that each person has more and more stuff. Economic growth means using more and more resources. We can’t build more cars without more steel, and we can’t manufacture more plastics without more oil. But the earth’s resources (metal, oil, water, etc.) are limited, so an economy can’t grow towards infinity. Our current system is thus unsustainable. And that is without even acknowledging the risks to the ecosystem posed by global warming, the result of our fossil fuel addiction.
Then there are the nuanced critiques, which involve analyzing our lives, our culture, our values. Critics of the system point out that the world is moving toward an ultra-competitive school system based on testing and career placement, and that any notion of raising thoughtful, moral citizens is at best a secondary consideration. The ultimate conclusion of this is Singapore, a highly efficient society which has perhaps the highest math and science scores of any country in the world and a rapidly growing economy. Coincidentally, Singapore has no political freedom and no elections, and produces no great works of art, literature, or music (though it does produce great engineers and businessmen). There is also a growing awareness of our consumerist tendencies, that we are all obsessed with things and products and labels to the point of extreme cultural shallowness. We cringe when we think of the people who can’t afford proper food or healthcare or education for their family, but will spend their savings for a new iPhone (or just steal one). Yet we’re all still hopelessly in love with that same iPhone.
And as the best thinkers among us have pointed out, this obsession with owning things and making money and using brand-names to improve our image deeply affects our relationships with one another. We are so use to relating to products that we turn people and relationships into items: human beings, after all, can also be treated like mere tools for our own pursuit of happiness. In pre-modern society, human beings had strong communities, each one had a strong code of ethics and responsibility that is placed on each of its members. But today, it is perfectly acceptable - perhaps encouraged - to care about no one besides yourself, or at least no one besides your family. You certainly have no great moral or financial responsibility to anyone else, and society has no right to “impose” some sort of moral codes on your behavior.
What is the point of all this? As members of the movement, we often see one or two of these particular effects quite strikingly: whether it’s the crippling conditions of the poor, or the alienation of wealthy suburbanites, or the vacuous consumerist culture of the twenty-first century, or the impending environmental crisis. But rarely do we see the whole picture. Rarely do we see that all of these are merely the symptoms of a larger problem.
According to Investopedia.com, capitalism is “an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive, and private ownership of the means of production.” According to the capitalists themselves, the essence of capitalism is profit, competition, private ownership. In other words: every man is for himself, and life is a game of getting as much stuff as possible.
How do you justify what is explicit in this definition, that it is better for human beings to compete rather than to cooperate? And how do you justify what is implicit in this definition, that neither the government nor individuals have a responsibility to help anyone else out? The answer was invented by Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. In his masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations, He declared that for each man, “[b]y pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” In other words: by following your own self-interest you’ll do more to help others than if you actually care about promoting their interests. Thus capitalism alleviates us of the burden of caring about others and validates our every selfish inclination.
The result is the world you see today: alienated and lacking intimacy at the top, exploited and dehumanized at the bottom, obsessively consumerist at every level. This world has also created lots of wealth and many technological wonders; it’s undeniable. Medicine has improved, Google works very well, we all have nifty gadgets in our pockets. So we must ask: is it all worth it?
The next most accepted critique is environmental: we relentlessly pursue economic growth, which means that each person has more and more stuff. Economic growth means using more and more resources. We can’t build more cars without more steel, and we can’t manufacture more plastics without more oil. But the earth’s resources (metal, oil, water, etc.) are limited, so an economy can’t grow towards infinity. Our current system is thus unsustainable. And that is without even acknowledging the risks to the ecosystem posed by global warming, the result of our fossil fuel addiction.
Then there are the nuanced critiques, which involve analyzing our lives, our culture, our values. Critics of the system point out that the world is moving toward an ultra-competitive school system based on testing and career placement, and that any notion of raising thoughtful, moral citizens is at best a secondary consideration. The ultimate conclusion of this is Singapore, a highly efficient society which has perhaps the highest math and science scores of any country in the world and a rapidly growing economy. Coincidentally, Singapore has no political freedom and no elections, and produces no great works of art, literature, or music (though it does produce great engineers and businessmen). There is also a growing awareness of our consumerist tendencies, that we are all obsessed with things and products and labels to the point of extreme cultural shallowness. We cringe when we think of the people who can’t afford proper food or healthcare or education for their family, but will spend their savings for a new iPhone (or just steal one). Yet we’re all still hopelessly in love with that same iPhone.
And as the best thinkers among us have pointed out, this obsession with owning things and making money and using brand-names to improve our image deeply affects our relationships with one another. We are so use to relating to products that we turn people and relationships into items: human beings, after all, can also be treated like mere tools for our own pursuit of happiness. In pre-modern society, human beings had strong communities, each one had a strong code of ethics and responsibility that is placed on each of its members. But today, it is perfectly acceptable - perhaps encouraged - to care about no one besides yourself, or at least no one besides your family. You certainly have no great moral or financial responsibility to anyone else, and society has no right to “impose” some sort of moral codes on your behavior.
What is the point of all this? As members of the movement, we often see one or two of these particular effects quite strikingly: whether it’s the crippling conditions of the poor, or the alienation of wealthy suburbanites, or the vacuous consumerist culture of the twenty-first century, or the impending environmental crisis. But rarely do we see the whole picture. Rarely do we see that all of these are merely the symptoms of a larger problem.
According to Investopedia.com, capitalism is “an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive, and private ownership of the means of production.” According to the capitalists themselves, the essence of capitalism is profit, competition, private ownership. In other words: every man is for himself, and life is a game of getting as much stuff as possible.
How do you justify what is explicit in this definition, that it is better for human beings to compete rather than to cooperate? And how do you justify what is implicit in this definition, that neither the government nor individuals have a responsibility to help anyone else out? The answer was invented by Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. In his masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations, He declared that for each man, “[b]y pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” In other words: by following your own self-interest you’ll do more to help others than if you actually care about promoting their interests. Thus capitalism alleviates us of the burden of caring about others and validates our every selfish inclination.
The result is the world you see today: alienated and lacking intimacy at the top, exploited and dehumanized at the bottom, obsessively consumerist at every level. This world has also created lots of wealth and many technological wonders; it’s undeniable. Medicine has improved, Google works very well, we all have nifty gadgets in our pockets. So we must ask: is it all worth it?
The Dismantling of the Israeli Welfare State: A Timeline
1965-1966: The Israeli market is in a planned recession after a decade of prosperity and growing economical gaps. The Israeli market is very centralized. There are high columns, strict regulation of consumer goods, and high restriction on foreign currency trade.
1967: After the Six Day War, American consumer goods (Coca-Cola, etc...) start entering the market. The occupied Palestinians become a market for its Israeli goods, as well as a poor, unorganized labor force. The war and the French embargo that followed created new Army/Security industries which grew out of the Israeli army's need for new technologies and bases in the occupied territories. This is considered the beginning of wealth accumulation in Israel.
1971-1972: Mizrachi activists create The Black Panthers to protest against growing poverty and its correlation between ethnical background. The government "social" budget grows - mainly in education and child support.
1973: As a result of the Yom Kippur War, the government military budget rises dramatically to 30% of spending. Money flows toward the parts of the Israeli market involved in the defense industries. The World enters an economic crisis as a result of the OPEC oil embargo.
1974: Golda Meir's government collapses after mass demonstration about the Yom Kippur scandal, Rabin takes the office as Prime Minister. This will be the last social democratic government in Israel.
1977: Hamahapch. After years of the left controlling the government, Begin's Likud win and take power by promising social reform and on anti-left propaganda
1977-1983: The Social Change. Taking after Milton Friedman's (who spoke to the Knesset shortly after Begin began his term) writing, and the Reagan and Thatcher example, the Likud initiates a new neo-liberal economic policy characterized by:
-Reducing limitations on foreign currency trade.
-Reducing import taxes and customs - "the merry days of Aridor" - imports expand and becomes cheaper, spurring a massive wave of consumption.
-Social projects like the "Poor Neighborhoods Rehabilitation Project" increase governmental stipends for the poor while allowing unemployment and poverty to rise.
-Liberalization of the market and refusal to increase taxes to pay for the growing budget.
-Mint more money to make up for deficits. Yearly inflation rises from around 40% in 1970, to around 200% in 1983.
The Histadrut cancels Hevrat Ovedim (The Workers Company) monetary plan - the self-financing system where Histadrut pension funds were used to finance new Histadrut factories without the need of financing from the banks.
1983: Banks' stocks, which had been promoted by banks and the government, and were heavily invested in by the public, crash. Many people's savings are ruined. To stop other sectors from crashing (and the loss of more savings) the government freezes the stock market for about 20 days. As a result, the banks are nationalized.
1984: The establishment of the "National Consensus Government" which continues until 1990. Shimon Peres (Labor) and Yitzchak Shamir (Likud) replace each other as Prime Minister every two years. Israel's inflation level rises to 400% per year.
1985: Prime Minister Peres, Financial Minister Moda'i, and the National Bank Treasurer Bruno, initiate the "Market Stabilizing Plan" under recommendations from the IMF. The plan's main points are:
-Downsizing the national budget, which mainly hurts the poor and limits the redistribution of wealth.
-Tying the shekel to the dollar (1200 shekel = 1 dollar)
-The "No-Printing" amendment to the Israeli National Bank Law.
-Inflation stops, but the banks did decrease the interest on money owed accordingly. So, in actuality, the interest paid on debts jumped to hundreds of percent rather than stabilizing at tens of percent. And accordingly, the debts of the manufacturing sector grow enormously, further hurting the working class.
From here on, every government in Israel (left or right) continues basically the same neo-liberal policies, although the right with much greater zeal.
The National Economic Arrangement Law is first used, and used every year since then. It's a law with hundreds of clauses that is attached to the budget bill every year. It is voted on as a whole, and usually the Knesset members don't really know what is really written in it.
1987-1991: The First Intifada. As a result, Israeli companies begin bringing foreign workers to replace Palestinian workers who now have a hard time entering Israel.
1989: The beginning of privatization. Bezeq (the Israeli telecommunication company) starts to be privatized. The process continues until 2005 when the government sells it's remaining stock in Bezeq for less than it's worth.
1991: The First Gulf War
1992: Rabin is re-elected into office. His time as Prime Minister is characterized with the continuation of privatization, a lot of investment in infrastructure, education, and wage raises in the public sector. Israel Chemical Co. one of Israel's biggest corporations starts it's privatization process. The process ends when the government sells it to Isenberg group fro half of it's value.
1994: The National Health Bill - separates The General Health Service (Kupat Cholim Klalit) from the Histadrut, causing a financial crisis for the Histadrut. The Health Service becomes supported by the government , which has cut it's budget ever since.
Chaim Ramon (close associate of Peres) is elected as chairman of the Histadrut and starts selling off it's assets, with the end goal of making the Histadrut only a union. The Hitadrut diminishes in power and membership, mainly because of the separation from it's health services, which had great appeal.
1995: Rabin is assassinated.
1996: Netanyahu is elected as Prime Minister. The first election done by the new election law, which separates voting for Prime Minister and voting for the Knesset. The law is soon after revoked.
1997: Bank Hapoalim is sold for less than it's worth, by a loan from another bank. The loan is paid back from the bank's profit right after.
The liberalization process that deregulates foreign currency trade is finished. There are no more rules regarding investment in foreign currency. This makes Israel very vulnerable to money speculation - a process which caused the East-Asian market collapse a few years back.
1999: Barak is elected as Prime Minister. The last government that is elected by the new election law.
2000: Israeli forces leave Lebanon.
Tzim, the national shipping company is privatized (finishes in 2004).
2001: The first Sharon government comes into office. It is characterized by harsh neo-liberal policies including cuts in the social budget, senior citizens, child support, and income support, bringing many people below the poverty line. The policies are created by Finance Ministers Netanyahu and Silvan Shalom.
The Wisconsin Welfare to Work plan starts.
The Israeli labor market moves towards unorganized labor and man power companies that exploit workers.
The unemployed are accused of cheating and laziness and social security is cut more as an incentive for them to work.
High level income taxes are cut, further helping those who are well off.
2003: El-Al is privatized. The postal service starts it's privatization process.
2004: The privatization of prisons start - first private prison starts being built.
2005: Disengagement from the Gaza Strip.
Dovrat report is issued to the government, an attempt (that failed for now) to start privatizing education.
Histadrut pension plan is nationalized.
The Decrease National Debt Law is initiated, which obligates the government to decrease the national debt.
Amendment to the budget law says that the national budget can grow a maximum of 1% a year - which is less than Israel's natural growth - and means a decrease in the budget in reality.
2006: Bazan - Israeli refinery is privatized.
18% of the employees in Israel are poor.
2007: The nationalized pension plans are sold off. A new pension system is established linking pensions to the stock market.
2008: Israel privatizes remaining oil refineries and Agrexco, Israel's largest exporter of agricultural products.
In 2011, Agrexco goes bankrupt.
2010: Israel's government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, makes plans to sell land that is held by the Israel Land Authority in trust for the people of Israel. Israel continues with it's plans to privatize the national ports of Eilat, Ashdod, and Haifa.
2011: Hundreds of thousands of citizens go out to the streets protesting against inequalities in class, shouting "who is that coming? It's the Welfare State!" and "the people demand social justice!"
2012: Israel Aerospace moves more towards privatization.
1967: After the Six Day War, American consumer goods (Coca-Cola, etc...) start entering the market. The occupied Palestinians become a market for its Israeli goods, as well as a poor, unorganized labor force. The war and the French embargo that followed created new Army/Security industries which grew out of the Israeli army's need for new technologies and bases in the occupied territories. This is considered the beginning of wealth accumulation in Israel.
1971-1972: Mizrachi activists create The Black Panthers to protest against growing poverty and its correlation between ethnical background. The government "social" budget grows - mainly in education and child support.
1973: As a result of the Yom Kippur War, the government military budget rises dramatically to 30% of spending. Money flows toward the parts of the Israeli market involved in the defense industries. The World enters an economic crisis as a result of the OPEC oil embargo.
1974: Golda Meir's government collapses after mass demonstration about the Yom Kippur scandal, Rabin takes the office as Prime Minister. This will be the last social democratic government in Israel.
1977: Hamahapch. After years of the left controlling the government, Begin's Likud win and take power by promising social reform and on anti-left propaganda
1977-1983: The Social Change. Taking after Milton Friedman's (who spoke to the Knesset shortly after Begin began his term) writing, and the Reagan and Thatcher example, the Likud initiates a new neo-liberal economic policy characterized by:
-Reducing limitations on foreign currency trade.
-Reducing import taxes and customs - "the merry days of Aridor" - imports expand and becomes cheaper, spurring a massive wave of consumption.
-Social projects like the "Poor Neighborhoods Rehabilitation Project" increase governmental stipends for the poor while allowing unemployment and poverty to rise.
-Liberalization of the market and refusal to increase taxes to pay for the growing budget.
-Mint more money to make up for deficits. Yearly inflation rises from around 40% in 1970, to around 200% in 1983.
The Histadrut cancels Hevrat Ovedim (The Workers Company) monetary plan - the self-financing system where Histadrut pension funds were used to finance new Histadrut factories without the need of financing from the banks.
1983: Banks' stocks, which had been promoted by banks and the government, and were heavily invested in by the public, crash. Many people's savings are ruined. To stop other sectors from crashing (and the loss of more savings) the government freezes the stock market for about 20 days. As a result, the banks are nationalized.
1984: The establishment of the "National Consensus Government" which continues until 1990. Shimon Peres (Labor) and Yitzchak Shamir (Likud) replace each other as Prime Minister every two years. Israel's inflation level rises to 400% per year.
1985: Prime Minister Peres, Financial Minister Moda'i, and the National Bank Treasurer Bruno, initiate the "Market Stabilizing Plan" under recommendations from the IMF. The plan's main points are:
-Downsizing the national budget, which mainly hurts the poor and limits the redistribution of wealth.
-Tying the shekel to the dollar (1200 shekel = 1 dollar)
-The "No-Printing" amendment to the Israeli National Bank Law.
-Inflation stops, but the banks did decrease the interest on money owed accordingly. So, in actuality, the interest paid on debts jumped to hundreds of percent rather than stabilizing at tens of percent. And accordingly, the debts of the manufacturing sector grow enormously, further hurting the working class.
From here on, every government in Israel (left or right) continues basically the same neo-liberal policies, although the right with much greater zeal.
The National Economic Arrangement Law is first used, and used every year since then. It's a law with hundreds of clauses that is attached to the budget bill every year. It is voted on as a whole, and usually the Knesset members don't really know what is really written in it.
1987-1991: The First Intifada. As a result, Israeli companies begin bringing foreign workers to replace Palestinian workers who now have a hard time entering Israel.
1989: The beginning of privatization. Bezeq (the Israeli telecommunication company) starts to be privatized. The process continues until 2005 when the government sells it's remaining stock in Bezeq for less than it's worth.
1991: The First Gulf War
1992: Rabin is re-elected into office. His time as Prime Minister is characterized with the continuation of privatization, a lot of investment in infrastructure, education, and wage raises in the public sector. Israel Chemical Co. one of Israel's biggest corporations starts it's privatization process. The process ends when the government sells it to Isenberg group fro half of it's value.
1994: The National Health Bill - separates The General Health Service (Kupat Cholim Klalit) from the Histadrut, causing a financial crisis for the Histadrut. The Health Service becomes supported by the government , which has cut it's budget ever since.
Chaim Ramon (close associate of Peres) is elected as chairman of the Histadrut and starts selling off it's assets, with the end goal of making the Histadrut only a union. The Hitadrut diminishes in power and membership, mainly because of the separation from it's health services, which had great appeal.
1995: Rabin is assassinated.
1996: Netanyahu is elected as Prime Minister. The first election done by the new election law, which separates voting for Prime Minister and voting for the Knesset. The law is soon after revoked.
1997: Bank Hapoalim is sold for less than it's worth, by a loan from another bank. The loan is paid back from the bank's profit right after.
The liberalization process that deregulates foreign currency trade is finished. There are no more rules regarding investment in foreign currency. This makes Israel very vulnerable to money speculation - a process which caused the East-Asian market collapse a few years back.
1999: Barak is elected as Prime Minister. The last government that is elected by the new election law.
2000: Israeli forces leave Lebanon.
Tzim, the national shipping company is privatized (finishes in 2004).
2001: The first Sharon government comes into office. It is characterized by harsh neo-liberal policies including cuts in the social budget, senior citizens, child support, and income support, bringing many people below the poverty line. The policies are created by Finance Ministers Netanyahu and Silvan Shalom.
The Wisconsin Welfare to Work plan starts.
The Israeli labor market moves towards unorganized labor and man power companies that exploit workers.
The unemployed are accused of cheating and laziness and social security is cut more as an incentive for them to work.
High level income taxes are cut, further helping those who are well off.
2003: El-Al is privatized. The postal service starts it's privatization process.
2004: The privatization of prisons start - first private prison starts being built.
2005: Disengagement from the Gaza Strip.
Dovrat report is issued to the government, an attempt (that failed for now) to start privatizing education.
Histadrut pension plan is nationalized.
The Decrease National Debt Law is initiated, which obligates the government to decrease the national debt.
Amendment to the budget law says that the national budget can grow a maximum of 1% a year - which is less than Israel's natural growth - and means a decrease in the budget in reality.
2006: Bazan - Israeli refinery is privatized.
18% of the employees in Israel are poor.
2007: The nationalized pension plans are sold off. A new pension system is established linking pensions to the stock market.
2008: Israel privatizes remaining oil refineries and Agrexco, Israel's largest exporter of agricultural products.
In 2011, Agrexco goes bankrupt.
2010: Israel's government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, makes plans to sell land that is held by the Israel Land Authority in trust for the people of Israel. Israel continues with it's plans to privatize the national ports of Eilat, Ashdod, and Haifa.
2011: Hundreds of thousands of citizens go out to the streets protesting against inequalities in class, shouting "who is that coming? It's the Welfare State!" and "the people demand social justice!"
2012: Israel Aerospace moves more towards privatization.
American Jews in the Civil Rights and Labor Movements (primary sources and activities)
http://jwa.org/teach/livingthelegacy
Living the Legacy (LTL) uses primary sources to explore the roles of American Jews in the Civil Rights and Labor Movements. The 24 lessons that comprise LTL include art projects, text studies, role-playing opportunities, and more, providing new entry points to Jewish identification for young Jews interested in social justice. LTL is designed for use in both formal and informal settings with students in grades 8-12. The materials are flexible and easy to adapt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)