Respect is not fear or awe; it denotes the ability to see a person as he/she is, to be aware of the unique individuality. Respect means the concern that the other person should grow and unfold as they are. Respect, thus, implies the absense of exploitation. I want the loved person to grow and unfold for their own sake, and not for the purpose of serving me. If I love the other person, I feel one with him or her, but with them as they are, not as I need them to be as an object for my use. It is clear that respect is only possible if I have achieved independence, without having to exploit anyone else. Respect exists only on the basis of freedom, for love is the child of freedom, never that of domination.
The most fundamental kind of love, which underlies all types of love, is brotherly love. By this I mean the sense of responsibility, care, respect, knowledge of any other human being, the wish to further his life. This is the kind of love the Bible speaks about when it says: Love your neighbour as yourself. Brotherly love is love for all human beings; it is characterized by its very lack of exlusiveness. If I have developed the capacity for love, then I cannot help loving my brothers. In brotherly love there is the experience of union with the whole of mankind, of human solidarity. Brotherly love is based on the experience that we're all one.
The differences in talents, intelligence, knowledge are negligible in comparison with the identity of the human core common to all men. In order to experience this identity it is necessary to penetrate from the periphery to the core. If I perceive in another person mainly the surface, I perceive mainly differences, that which separates us. If I penetrate to the core, I perceive our identity, the fact of out brotherhood.
Intentionality: The first thing we have to learn is that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art. Maybe here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power - almost all our energy is used for learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving.
For loving relationships energy must be directed towards the creation and perpetuation of love. In other words, love must be intentional. Each member of a kvutza must actively develop and explore their relationships with each other as well as their understanding of themselves. These things cannot happen on their own, they need intentionality.
Love isn't primarily about relating to one specific person, but ''is an attitude, an orientation of character, which determines the relatedness of the person to the world as a whole, not toward one 'object of love.' '' It follows that authentic love isn't remotely connected to the familiar, superficial, and much-misunderstood notion of romantic love, or ''falling in love.'' Rather, it's a demanding and disciplined ''art'' that includes elements of care, effort, respect, courage, responsibility and knowledge. Love, like any other ''art,'' involves mastering both theory and practice.
Consensus
Consensus is a process for group decision-making. The goal of consensus is for the group to work collaboratively to achieve better solutions, and to promote the growth of community and trust among the group members. All the participants are encouraged to give ideas and input. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Consensus requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue.
Many of the decisions we face demand that we find ways to listen to opposing points of view, and find ways to accommodate deeply held and differing values. Conventional decision making mechanisms tend to exclude rather than include diverse interests and do not cope well with the complexity that many social issues present. In spite of this, Consensus Decision Making is currently the least used form of conflict resolution, taking a back seat to majority voting, Robert's rules, adversarial processes, and power structures. In spite of this, decision making by consensus can also be the most powerful and durable form of agreement.
Decision making is as much about conflict as it is about agreement. Consensus works better in an atmosphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, explored and resolved cooperatively with respect and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished or denied.
While consensus decision making may not be appropriate in all circumstances, it can be invaluable in reconciling competing interests, forging cooperative partnerships and exploring creative solutions to complex issues. Consensus processes do not avoid conflict or require abdication of leadership - but call upon leaders to forge partnerships that work toward developing solutions. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.
Economics
What does this cooperation look like? The concept of mutual aid dictates the sharing of resources and services to better one another not to benefit the individual over another in terms of greater monetary value and prestige in society.
Mutual aid is arguably as ancient as human culture; an intrinsic part of the small, communal societies, universal to humanity’s ancient past. From the dawn of humanity, until far beyond the invention of agriculture, humans were foragers, exchanging labor and resources for the benefit of group and individual alike.
We have been given the message that it is human nature to compete with one another but that is because our society is based on competition. This does not mean however that society cannot be based on a different set of principles and values, ones that stress cooperation over competition.
Our very concept of human nature, what we believe human beings are even capable of is affected by our economic system. If we create a structure that promotes cooperation over competition our very concept of human nature changes.
KUPA: A communal fund which acts as a tool that kvutzot use to build relationships, shared responsibility, and communal ownership.
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. 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.
What is Consensus?
What is consensus?
Consensus is a process for group decision-making. The goal of consensus is for the group to work collaboratively to achieve better solutions, and to promote the growth of community and trust amoung the group members. All the partipants are encouraged to give ideas and input. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Consensus requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue.Decision-making
Many of the decisions we face demand that we find ways to listen to opposing points of view, and find ways to accommodate deeply held and differing values. Conventional decision making mechanisms tend to exclude rather than include diverse interests and do not cope well with the complexity that many social issues present. In spite of this, Consensus Decision Making is currently the least used form of conflict resolution, taking a back seat to majority voting, Robert's rules, adversarial processes, and power structures. In spite of this, decision making by consensus can also be the most powerful and durable form of agreement!
Consensus
Decision making is as much about conflict as it is about agreement. Consensus works better in an atmosphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, explored and resolved cooperatively with respect and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished or denied.
While consensus decision making may not be appropriate in all circumstances, it can be invaluable in reconciling competing interests, forging cooperative partnerships and exploring creative solutions to complex issues. Consensus processes do not avoid conflict or require abdication of leadership - but call upon leaders to forge partnerships that work toward developing solutions. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.
A consensus process is one where all those who have a stake in the outcome work together to reach an agreement acceptable to all parties. Consensus is sometimes spoken of as "more or less unanimous", or "virtual unanimity", or "consensus minus one..or two". But true consensus brooks no such dilution. Every party thus has a veto power, and unanimity may seem an unattainable goal - but consensus when achieved, creates commitment to the agreement, and that is a powerful motivating force. Either all parties support a settlement or there is no consensus. Although they may not regard all aspects of the agreement as ideal, consensus is reached if all participants are willing to live with "the total package."
Consensus vs. voting
Voting is a means to choose one alternative from several. Consensus is a process of synthesizing many diverse elements together. Voting is almost always faster than consensus, but it may deter full discussions of ideas and may leave subgroups that do not support a decision, and in the worse case, disaffected members may work to undermine the decision they do not support. Consensus tries to create solutions that all the group members will support.
Advantages of consensus
· The process builds trust and a sense of community among the members· All ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered giving the widest range of ideas to work from· Solutions are supported by the whole group
Consensus may be difficult if:
· The group is new and not used to working with each other.· The group does not understand consensus process or has some members who do not.· The group is larger than 20· People are upset about something but not willing to address the issue directly.· The issue is complicated and there are a lot of options.· There aren't any good options available.· The correct question hasn't been posed.
Consensus should probably not be used when:
· Members of the group attack each other over their positions, causing people to not state their real opinions or truths for fear of being attacked.· There is no agreed upon mission, purpose or principals for the group.· There is not an agreed upon consensus process for the group to use.· There is a clear hierarchy in the system where one persons opinions dominate, eg the boss speaks and countering the bosses ideas will cause negative consequences.· Individuals use blocking as a means to get their way or threaten to do so in order to influence the outcome.· There really is not a best answer for the group as a whole. For example, colour choices as a design issue are entirely opinion based, and whether green or blue is best is a matter of opinion. There is no best answer.
Disadvantages of Consensus Decision Making
· Takes time in a group meeting to hear everyone's ideas and opinions; the larger the group, the more time needed· The group has to consider all viewpoints and sort them out· Trust is needed among members to encourage idea and opinion sharing· Group leaders must use facilitation rather than control· Blocking allows one individual to hold up the whole group
Sample Steps for a basic consensus process
1. Describe and define the problem, situation, or issue2. Write the exact item so all can see and refer to it3. Encourage people to offer ideas, opinions, and comments relevant to the item4. Brainstorm a list of alternatives without judging, discussing, or rejecting any ideas5. Evaluate the list of alternatives and create a draft proposal that combines the best of all the ideas6. Review, revise the proposal until it meets the best interests of the group7. Write down the final proposal8. Ask if any one has any issues regarding adopting the proposal, if there are none left, you have achieved consensus9. Evaluate the results later; revise if needed
Special consensus problems
· Facilitator is lacking or poorly trained so group does not function effectively· The group is poorly trained in consensus, or has numerous new members that lack training or experience with consensus· People do not really share their ideas or objections in order to end the meeting quickly.· People agree to things they really don't want in order to get along or because they are afraid to speak up.· The group is deadlocked between two alternative proposals· Two or more group members dominate the issue, participation is not equal.· One or more group members withdraw from the process· Group avoids consideration of unpopular alternative ideas· Group climate is hostile, members attack each others ideas creating a negative atmosphere· Two or more group members have an unresolved conflict which affects the issue.· Behaviors, attitudes, or personality problems keep the group from working effectively· One member blocks, or threatens to block, for personal gain or to exercise power.· Issues do not get resolved, keep getting sent back to subgroup for more refinement, subgroup loses interest or becomes demoralized after continued efforts do not achieve a solution.· Group members who were not present at the discusssion bring up the same issues again.· Group members are not willing to compromise or work for the best interest of the group.
Elephants are a Big Threat to Judaism - Samo
Simply put, Capitalism is the elephant of which I speak. Our Jewish community is shouting from the top of the tallest mountain… Money = happiness.
The biggest threats to our community are the values of competition, selfishness, individualism, materialism and consumerism. Meaning with a barcode, which makes us feel good about ourselves. The direction that our community has taken is in direct contradiction with basic Jewish values. Escapism can never be the answer to the lack of fulfillment in our lives.
Money as the center of our community’s ambitions is a really big elephant in the room that we don’t talk about and when the time is right and no one else is around most people will give the elephant a most intimate and affectionate hug.
The Jewish obsession with financial prosperity has limited the potential of our “other” Jewish wealth - our souls - spiritual aspirations, our inner abilities to dream. Our hope and potential to create a world that is built on the humanistic values of Am Yisrael is slowly disappearing. Obsession with Money has limited us to a confined room, and rather than looking for a key, we are decorating.
Money = opportunity = position= power = Money
Money = happiness
This cycle rules our lives. Where has all the fulfillment gone? Why have we supplemented it with sporadic shots of pleasure? Has fulfillment become something limited to certain times of the year or certain stages in our lives? Has fulfillment become a ten day vacation or working for the weekend? Why is it that the list of rights of passage in one’s life now includes a mid life crisis?
What I’m asking is: Would life not have more meaning if we were to have jobs that defined us—our entire spiritual, educational holistic being. A job that gives us meaning -one where we would wake up in the mornings excited for the prospect of it being a new day with new challenges, new ways to affect change in our lives and society. A reality we engage with and not want to run away from. What we do today defines who we will be tomorrow. These ideas are becoming a foreign pipe dream to us and the thought of how this will limit future generations is despairing.
Capitalism leads to immorality because it takes away the fact that human beings are social beings. It makes life a competition where the person with the most power is the winner. Capitalism does not teach us to love thy neighbour it teaches us to beat him. Like the control of consumerism we will never have enough power, one of the roots of capitalism is the continual perpetuation of the system by us because we all believe that one day we will see our names at the top spot of the BRW Rich list.
This culture of competition, of winning “the life game” which has nothing to do with the ability of the human spirit, is leading us down a path of destruction, an individualistic and lonely lifestyle that leaves our souls empty.
Slowly our Jewish identity is being hijacked by consumerist culture. An identity based on objectification does not enhance our freedom but leads us to avoiding what is “real” in life. The consumerist environment is no longer just related to going to Westfield when I feel down. It’s seeing our parents solely as providers, seeing our friends as objects, actively consuming our relationships. In the 21st century it will be us, generation Y, who are known for giving our loved ones this advice. Feeling socially vulnerable? Go shopping, it makes you feel better! Low self esteem? Tease somebody. Having a hard time dealing with the questions of your life? Weed clears everything up! Our answers of poker and drugs are not genuine answers yet these are the answers of today.
Relationships are only one example, a microcosm of how we engage with our Judaism today. Rather than seeing it as an all-encompassing way of life that enhances human beings and fulfills us, we are all still looking for our quick fix. Aspirations in a vial. Retail therapy, sweeping stuff under the rug, escapism, drugs. These defense mechanisms might make us feel good for a moment in time but after that moment has passed we are still left with a life that leads to isolation and alienation from our loved ones and ourselves. We need a society of freethinking individuals who struggle with the harder complexities of what it means to live as a human being. We need a community of Jews who are more in touch with themselves, their identity, who they are, who they want to be and how to see their choices in the context of determining the destiny of the whole Jewish People.
Capitalism has become so institutionalized that education is now seen as a chore and not a virtue. Today learning is not about enriching life, it is about getting a piece of paper to get a better job with a better salary to enRICH one’s life. Although everything is telling us otherwise escapism is not an answer, it’s a quick fix that brings a smile to your face until you are faced with reality once again. A fix, which we are building a tolerance for.
To be a nation means to have solidarity between people, where has it gone?
Charity has become giving our 10 dollars to someone in need. It has become less about them and more about us. We are trying to give ourselves the legitimacy not to feel guilty for not living up to our Jewish responsibilities or, at least, for asking why are there poor people in the first place? Our responsibility to the rest of our nation and the world at large is endangered by the way we make decisions not by delving into their complexities of how choices will affect our lives but by choosing efficiency and enjoyment because we “need“ answers NOW!. We are fighting a game of relative poverty where the 20 year old who doesn’t go to uni or have a car is poor and is less of a person than other members of our community by virtue of material possession, which leads to material position. The kid with the coolest game in school--the “trendsetter”--quickly becomes the cool kid. Not because of how they treat people, not because of the values they exude, not their life aspirations but their new Nintendo makes them the measuring stick to how we are living our lives.
Without solidarity within the Jewish people there is no Jewish people. No centre with value. If we carry on with the rat race people will be left to the way side and are being left to the wayside. As long as a person goes hungry to bed at night our Jewish mission is not being fulfilled. We are failing one of our biggest tests of life. Our responsibility is towards life itself and not just looking at our lives alone but the beating heart of the Jewish people. Equality is further away now than it ever has been. We don’t need to focus on the person who dies of hunger, lets focus on why parents will give their child a present, a material object as a sign of affection? The bigger the pooh bear the more my daddy loves me. Since when was a hug not enough? Why when we have conflict, which is natural, rather than working through issues and growing as people together we run to our ipods, go for a fast walk, hit punching bags or buy a Ferrari? To let off steam is a need but to see that as the solution to our problems of life is to choose to objectify our own lives.
I ask of you what is in the center of our Jewish community?
Is it God and the laws of Moses? Is it Zionism and Israel? Is it a Jewish culture and the nostalgic feeling of being a part of something bigger? Is that enough?
Or is it materialism? The rat race? Consumerism? Capitalism? A mixture of all of these?
We are in a downward spiral towards the abyss where we will lose the real meaning of living a Jewish life. This is not the view of a self hating Jew. This is the view of a worried member of our community saying our Jewish moral compass is leading us towards the best seat in synagogue or the newest Ipod on the market. We are much more worried about our image than the content of who we really are.
If I am beautiful, meaning I have a flat stomach, good social abilities and make enough money to ensure that there is somebody below me on the monetary ladder then I am “happy”, or at least happier than my neighbour. A society that defines its members by how many zeros at the end of their bank account statement is a society that has lost its way.
As individualism reigns supreme, communication deteriorates. When you have social class, hierarchy, and the perfect image to keep up with, who has time for real communication? I am looking for a society where people give of themselves to other human beings--sharing of themselves insights into their inner thoughts and feelings? We are educated towards being carbon copies of societal expectations. In a society that doesn’t allow us to be unique why would we want to be? Being different is a disease. And yet the truth remains, all human beings are complex! We all feel a bit depressed sometimes, we all feel inadequate, we all feel love, we all have fun. We all should be struggling with the deeper questions of life but I don’t think we are going to find the answer in Westfield Bondi Junction where when I walk in I feel like an idolater praying to a shrine of consumerism.
So what now?
Rather than sitting around next Friday night debating how much your best friends brothers 2nd wife got for her house in the east of Sydney, lets talk about why we are Jewish. What connects us to our neighbors? What does it mean to be a part of a nation that unifies human beings together? What place does community have in our skewed moral compass? What demand does that make of us when it comes to thinking of our fellow man?
If only humans could hug humans with the same intimacy as we hug the elephant in the room.
Why Socialism? - Albert Einstein
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
On Human Nature - CrimethInc.
We're often told it is "human nature" to be greedy, and that this is why our world is the way it is. The very existence of other societies and other ways of life contradicts this. Once you realize that modern capitalist society is only one of a thousand ways that human beings have lived and interacted together, you can see that this talk of "human nature" is nonsense. We are formed first and foremost by the environments we grow up in - and human beings now have the power to construct our own environments. If we are ambitious enough, we can design our world to reconstruct us in any shape our hearts desire. Yes, all of us are haunted by feelings of greed and aggression, living as we do in a materialistic and violent world. But in more supportive environments, built on different values, we could learn to interact in ways that would bring more pleasure to all of us. Indeed, most of us would be far more generous and considerate today if we could be - it's hard to give gifts freely in a world where you have to sell a part of yourself away in order to get anything at all. Considering that, it's amazing how many gifts we still give each other.
From Days of War, Nights of Love
From Days of War, Nights of Love
On Judaism - Berl Katznelson
There is an ancient Hebrew saying, which I believe is an important principle, particularly in these times: 'Anyone who repudiates idolatry is called a Jew' (Megillah, 13A)... Judaism was based on the belief in the Oneness of the Creator. And then arose the sage who proclaimed that this one thing alone was sufficient for Judaism: repudiating idolatry! I look upon this as one of the brilliant discoveries of Jewish thought and character. Jewish culture does not begin with some grand credo, but with the war against idolatry. We might well translate 'idolatry' as 'fetishism'. The starting point for Judaism is the war against fetishism; the search for truth begins with the war against idolatry.
Getting the History Right - 'Socialist-Zionism' NOT 'Socialism' and 'Zionism'
Borochov, Syrkin, Pinsker, Brenner and the other thinkers who developed our movement's ideology were all clearly writing about 'Socialist-Zionism' as the best way forwards for the Jewish People in exile, before the State of Israel existed. They were writing in direct contradiction to the 'Socialists' at the time, who saw the way forwards for the Jews as uniting with all the lower-classes internationally and joining the workers' revolution. They also wrote critically about the (non-Socialist) Territorialists and (non-Socialist) Zionists, because they were certain that the new Jewish State must be created on a basis fundamentally linked to Socialist values of equality. Before people such as Borochov and Syrkin, there were separate 'Socialist' and 'Zionist' ideologies, separate 'Socialist' and 'Zionist' movements and separate 'Socialist' and 'Zionist' youth movements. Only afterwards was there a distinct and separate 'Socialist-Zionist' movement, which attempted to unify the Jewish people behind this combined ideology of making a new egalitarian Jewish State in Israel.
The people who first put these new ideological theories into practice were the pioneers (chalutzim) of the 2nd and 3rd Aliyah, before either Habonim or Dror existed. Many of them were from Hashomer Hatzair. They developed the 'intimate kvutzot' like Degania, which became the first kibbutzim, and the beginning of the kibbutz movement. Each kvutza or kibbutz was an example of a community that combined freedom and equality - no centralized government with a nationalized economy forced people to share, but instead a group of idealistic individuals used their own free choice in order yo 'give acording to their abilities and get according to their needs'. Whilst this utopian lifestyle choice succeeded for a small group of people, it relied upon maximum trust, honesty and collective responsibility, and so was not easily maintained as kibbutzim grew, and certainly would break down on the level of the whole nation. Therefore, rather than building one huge kibbutz in Israel, the first kvutzot had a vision of a network made up of many smaller kvutzot and kibbutzim. Here we start to see the wider ideological implications - that very slowly over a long period of time, through great determination, vision, hard work, and 'dugma ishit', more and more Jewish people would use their freedom in order to choose equality - i.e. join a kibbutz. As more and more kibbutzim were built, and the network got bigger, gradually an entire sub-society of socialist communities evolved in Israel. The utopian, idealistic plan of 'Socialist-Zionism' was that evolutionarily, with many thousands of kibbutzim all over the country, linked together by the network of the Kibbutz Movement, the State of Israel would develop as a new exemplary society, valuing both freedom and equality.
Both Dror and Habonim were youth movements that developed after the unification of 'Socialist-Zionism', and after the creation of the first kvutzot and kibbutzim. We were inspired by the 'Socialist-Zionist' ideology, and we put it into practice (i.e. realized it - 'Hagshama') by following the example of our leaders ('Dugma Ishit'), who made aliyah to build the first kvutzot and kibbutzim. Habonim-Dror's 'Socialist Zionism' was expressed through freely choosing to join the Kibbutz Movement, as an attempt to pioneer a new, free, egalitarian society in Israel. This is obviously a very idealist vision, which takes a very long time, perhaps even forever, to achieve. From the 1930's until the 1980's it was clear in Habonim and Dror around the world that our ultimate hagshama was 'Chalutzik Kibbutz Aliyah' - i.e. furthering the goals of 'Socialist Zionism' by building a new kibbutz or by joining a developing kibbutz, in order to get closer to that utopian vision.
The debate about the future of Habonim Dror's ideology must begin to take place in the correct historical context of this unified ideology. The mistake of separating our ideology into 3-5 'pillars' or 'platforms' has led to huge misunderstanding of our own movement identity in recent years. We are not 'socialists' and 'Zionists', and we never were. We were 'socialist Zionists', and sadly it is no longer clear what we are, partially because the debate has been taking place in the wrong context, due to a lack of knowledge about our own history.
The people who first put these new ideological theories into practice were the pioneers (chalutzim) of the 2nd and 3rd Aliyah, before either Habonim or Dror existed. Many of them were from Hashomer Hatzair. They developed the 'intimate kvutzot' like Degania, which became the first kibbutzim, and the beginning of the kibbutz movement. Each kvutza or kibbutz was an example of a community that combined freedom and equality - no centralized government with a nationalized economy forced people to share, but instead a group of idealistic individuals used their own free choice in order yo 'give acording to their abilities and get according to their needs'. Whilst this utopian lifestyle choice succeeded for a small group of people, it relied upon maximum trust, honesty and collective responsibility, and so was not easily maintained as kibbutzim grew, and certainly would break down on the level of the whole nation. Therefore, rather than building one huge kibbutz in Israel, the first kvutzot had a vision of a network made up of many smaller kvutzot and kibbutzim. Here we start to see the wider ideological implications - that very slowly over a long period of time, through great determination, vision, hard work, and 'dugma ishit', more and more Jewish people would use their freedom in order to choose equality - i.e. join a kibbutz. As more and more kibbutzim were built, and the network got bigger, gradually an entire sub-society of socialist communities evolved in Israel. The utopian, idealistic plan of 'Socialist-Zionism' was that evolutionarily, with many thousands of kibbutzim all over the country, linked together by the network of the Kibbutz Movement, the State of Israel would develop as a new exemplary society, valuing both freedom and equality.
Both Dror and Habonim were youth movements that developed after the unification of 'Socialist-Zionism', and after the creation of the first kvutzot and kibbutzim. We were inspired by the 'Socialist-Zionist' ideology, and we put it into practice (i.e. realized it - 'Hagshama') by following the example of our leaders ('Dugma Ishit'), who made aliyah to build the first kvutzot and kibbutzim. Habonim-Dror's 'Socialist Zionism' was expressed through freely choosing to join the Kibbutz Movement, as an attempt to pioneer a new, free, egalitarian society in Israel. This is obviously a very idealist vision, which takes a very long time, perhaps even forever, to achieve. From the 1930's until the 1980's it was clear in Habonim and Dror around the world that our ultimate hagshama was 'Chalutzik Kibbutz Aliyah' - i.e. furthering the goals of 'Socialist Zionism' by building a new kibbutz or by joining a developing kibbutz, in order to get closer to that utopian vision.
The debate about the future of Habonim Dror's ideology must begin to take place in the correct historical context of this unified ideology. The mistake of separating our ideology into 3-5 'pillars' or 'platforms' has led to huge misunderstanding of our own movement identity in recent years. We are not 'socialists' and 'Zionists', and we never were. We were 'socialist Zionists', and sadly it is no longer clear what we are, partially because the debate has been taking place in the wrong context, due to a lack of knowledge about our own history.
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?
Socialism, My Temple - Yosef Chaim Brenner
I am a socialist. To me Socialism is the holy of holies. The ideal of ideals. All other ideals have no warrant except when bound up with Socialism. What value is there in beauty and art at a time when all humanity is sinking in a swamp of ugliness and degradation? What sense is there to science and moral preaching, to deep emotion and exalted concepts at a time when there are tens of thousands of human beings who live on moldy bread, without a ray of light or hope, at a time when human dignity is being crushed by the iron heel, when a man's thoughts can be bought for money, when human tears flow like flood waters, and the slaughter of human beings is like the dying of the flies in the fall. In the light of all this what values is there to man's conquest of nature, to advancement of culture, to poetry, philosophy and the like? And what meaning can there be to all human existence, to all of man's spiritual striving and ideals? It is only my faith in Socialism, my hope in a free and bright future that gives value and meaning to human existence, social progress, and cultural development.
Socialism is my temple, my comforter in everyday experience, that creates harmony out of the chaos of the world and protects all that is dear to me and close to my heart. Only in the field of Socialism do I find a basis to my cultural activities and life, aware that through my work, together with thousands and tens of thousands of others do I bring nearer the day of redemption.
However, in addition to all this I am also a Jew, connected through thousands of fibers to my people. I am part of it, flesh of its flesh. Strong and solid are the bonds that tie my life to it. Dear to me are the Jewish masses to whom I would want to devote all my life, my work, all of my energy and talent. I would like to pour into them all the warmth of my heart, all the blaze of my soul, for the social ideals that I have. The Jewish community serves as the land upon which I can labor, the framework within which I can work. I am an integral part of this community; I grew up in its bosom; within it I live. It is within Jewish life that I want to work for my socialist ideals. I cannot fight for Socialism within the non-Jewish society, for within it I cannot find satisfaction. Only within a Jewish environment can I rise to heights of fruitful creation, only there can I reach self-fulfillment. All my inner satisfaction is derived from working for the Jewish masses and through them for a Socialist world.
Socialism is my temple, my comforter in everyday experience, that creates harmony out of the chaos of the world and protects all that is dear to me and close to my heart. Only in the field of Socialism do I find a basis to my cultural activities and life, aware that through my work, together with thousands and tens of thousands of others do I bring nearer the day of redemption.
However, in addition to all this I am also a Jew, connected through thousands of fibers to my people. I am part of it, flesh of its flesh. Strong and solid are the bonds that tie my life to it. Dear to me are the Jewish masses to whom I would want to devote all my life, my work, all of my energy and talent. I would like to pour into them all the warmth of my heart, all the blaze of my soul, for the social ideals that I have. The Jewish community serves as the land upon which I can labor, the framework within which I can work. I am an integral part of this community; I grew up in its bosom; within it I live. It is within Jewish life that I want to work for my socialist ideals. I cannot fight for Socialism within the non-Jewish society, for within it I cannot find satisfaction. Only within a Jewish environment can I rise to heights of fruitful creation, only there can I reach self-fulfillment. All my inner satisfaction is derived from working for the Jewish masses and through them for a Socialist world.
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.
Choveret On Socialism in Habonim Dror
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/On%20Socialism%20In%20Habonim%20Dror%20(readable%20online).pdf
Table of Contents
I. Preface…………………………………..………3
II. Goals……………………………………....….…6
III. List of Concepts………………….…....……..8
IV. Peulot Ideas…………………..……...….……9
V. Conceptualizing Capitalism….……………14
A. Problems with Mainstream Economics…….……15
B. Debt…………………………………………...….…18
C. Money……………………………………………….20
D. Large-Scale Effects of Capitalism……………..…22
E. Alienation…......................................................…24
VI. Socialism Beyond Kupa…………….…….26
A. A Rough Sketch of Socialism…………………….28
B. Beyond Socialism vs. Communism………………30
C. Socialism in Contrast To Liberalism……………..32
D. Disagreements Among Socialists Today………..34
E. Real Utopias………………………………………..36
F. Organizing and Social Movements………………38
VII. Defining Socialism at Machaneh: Spaces
and Structures……………………………..……41
A. Two conceptions of Socialism……………………42
B. David Graeber and Economic Relations………...43
C. Applying Economic Morals to Habonim…………44
D. Socialist Structures………………………………...45
E. Socialist Spaces……………………………………46
VIII. Some Possible Definitions……….....…..47
IX. Works Cited…………………..………...……69
Table of Contents
I. Preface…………………………………..………3
II. Goals……………………………………....….…6
III. List of Concepts………………….…....……..8
IV. Peulot Ideas…………………..……...….……9
V. Conceptualizing Capitalism….……………14
A. Problems with Mainstream Economics…….……15
B. Debt…………………………………………...….…18
C. Money……………………………………………….20
D. Large-Scale Effects of Capitalism……………..…22
E. Alienation…......................................................…24
VI. Socialism Beyond Kupa…………….…….26
A. A Rough Sketch of Socialism…………………….28
B. Beyond Socialism vs. Communism………………30
C. Socialism in Contrast To Liberalism……………..32
D. Disagreements Among Socialists Today………..34
E. Real Utopias………………………………………..36
F. Organizing and Social Movements………………38
VII. Defining Socialism at Machaneh: Spaces
and Structures……………………………..……41
A. Two conceptions of Socialism……………………42
B. David Graeber and Economic Relations………...43
C. Applying Economic Morals to Habonim…………44
D. Socialist Structures………………………………...45
E. Socialist Spaces……………………………………46
VIII. Some Possible Definitions……….....…..47
IX. Works Cited…………………..………...……69
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)