According to the Globe article, the members of the community recently voted to end the practice of shared ownership and wages. This was being done because of…
“the slow exodus of younger kibbutzniks. The Shapiros’ son, who left Deganya to practice law and is now a judge, is among the 50 percent of young people who have left the kibbutz. The total population of the country’s kibbutzim peaked at 124,000 in 1994 and has since fallen to 115,000; as a proportion of the growing Israeli population, kibbutz residents have fallen from 4.2 percent in 1952 to 1.7 percent in 2004.”
Heading for Galt’s Gulch possibly? Or just the free-market system practiced in the rest of Israel and other places in the world.
The kibbutz were started in 1910 and have been under going changes in recent years that have been moving the communities closer to what we practice here in the US.
Under the new system, kibbutz members keep their salaries, but pay taxes into a fund for common services such as health, education, and cultural events, as well as a support fund for poorer members.
Sound familiar? By the way, the taxes are a flat tax system.
The kibbutz has calculated a minimum wage and anyone earning more than that is taxed at a rate of 20 percent for services including health care and education, which are still provided on a collective basis.
But that is a discussion for another day.
The motivating factor for this change…
They wanted to get more money in the bank at the end of the month if they worked harder.
Pay based on merit, egads! What a barbaric practice.
I think this excerpt from John Galt’s speech says it all…
“You know that you can’t give away everything and starve yourself. You’ve forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it’s your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn’t built by men who sought handouts.”
Cross Posted at Red Mass Group
“It was putting into practice the theories that many on the left hold dear.”
<
p>
Yes, we’re all communists. Not. Where do you righties get the idea that we all want total communism? I am sick to death of that lie.
<
p>
Neither communism, nor pure capitalism, will ever work. Both extremes are seriously flawed and eventually totally break down. However, combining the aspect of sharing and spreading wealth with the aspect of allowing greedy bastards to do well for themselves strikes a balance which helps to soften the flaws of each and keep a system stable.
<
p>
Pure communism, you’re right, it ends in stagnation. Humans just aren’t evolved enough as a species to live like that on a large scale – yet. But pure capitalism ends in feudalism and a stratification of wealth which would put Marie Antoinette to shame.
<
p>
By the way, we in the US have never had a totally pure capitalist system, and we have been at our most prosperous for the most amount of our population for the longest periods of time when we have been our least closest to pure capitalism. Go ahead, dispute it.
<
p>
then
<
p>
“It was putting into practice the theories that many on the left hold dear.”
<
p>
This is not the first time someone from the right side of the aisle has done this.
<
p>
In fact, once upon a time, the mere accusation of such cost people their livlihoods.
<
p>
McCarthy was, after all, from your side of the spectrum.
Perhaps you’re younger than the some of us here, but red-baiting really was one of the favorite indoor sports of the right wing — especially before 1990. Certainly, not every last conservative thinks all liberals want total communism, but Demolisher, on this very blog, often indulges in this ancient game. There are enough conservatives who still do this for it to register. Anyway, conservatives may not remember it so well; you guys weren’t on the receiving end of it.
<
p>
So you might forgive those of us who advocate universal health care if we get a little impatient or brusque with those who cannot resist conflating liberals with communists.
Your last paragraph intrigues me. But first, let me reply to some of your comments.
<
p>
<
p>
You could be correct in this, so let me give some specifics of what I was referring to. Oh wait, I did in the original post.
<
p>
<
p>
Are these not some of the things that the left would like to see in America? Now, this is by no means a complete list, just ones I offered in the original post. You are correct that not all of the ones I listed apply to all on the left, there are wide varieties of left views just like right views. But I did not attribute them to all of the left, just many.
<
p>
However for someone that is taking “offense” to this, why do later “praise” communism?
<
p>
<
p>
“evolved enough” “yet” Based on your language you do appear to favor communism.
<
p>
Now, all of the above was a discussion of communism but I was actually referring to socialism. Is it really a stretch to say that it is socialist to think that people should be paid based on their needs, wealth should be redistributed and the “state” should provide services like universal health care? These are the things I stated in my post.
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t fully follow this line of logic. Feudalism is a system of classes in which people can’t move up but capitalism doesn’t cause this. The concept of capitalism is that every person or company can participate in buying or selling goods or services without impediment from regulation. Under a capitalist system, people in lower classes would be free to participate in the market just as people in the upper classes would be. Could you please explain how capitalism is the cause of feudal system?
<
p>
As for the stratification of wealth, sure it would. People with money would be allowed to make money, just like people without money. This would all be done based on the merit of their own work. Based on that same merit, people with money could loose it through poor choices. I guess this is one of the areas where the right and the left differ significantly. The right does not view the stratification of wealth as a bad thing in and of itself. Yes, some people will have more money then others. But as long as they earned it through legal means, what does that matter? If the person with the money ripped others off for it, then there is a problem. But simply earning it does not make it bad.
<
p>
Also, you are making a false connection in this position. Capitalists are against regulation on the market. Taxes do not equal regulation. The types of things that capitalists are against are regulations that say cable companies have to provide service to the entire city or none at all, thus preventing the offering of service to profitable areas. Or regulations that say X% of your work force has to be minorities, union, what ever. Taxes, as long as they are equal for all companies and individuals, are just part of the costs of doing business.
<
p>
Now for your last paragraph, this is an interesting prospect. I need some clarification before I can really take on the challenge. You have angled it that is has to be the “most prosperous for the most amount of our population”. Am I to take this to mean that say anything pre-Civil War is out because of the existence of slavery? Also, is “most amount of our population” limited to only those participating in the market (i.e. the working people) or do I need to include the unemployed in this discussion?
until you back this up:
<
p>
<
p>
Names and links.
<
p>
Put up. Or shut up.
I’ll give it a try.
<
p>
But I don’t think it is necessary. I used “left”, I did not use liberals or Democrats intentionally. Although there are people that identify as those that would support this type of system. I also said “many”, not all, most, the majority, etc.
<
p>
Redistribution of wealth
<
p>
It is fair to say that the political left is for progressive taxation. If fact, you have advocated for it. In your words…
<
p>
<
p>
Progressive taxes put a higher burden, in dollars and percent of income, for the costs of government on the wealthier in our society. This is redistributing wealth. Some on the left will even admit this out right. From theloquaciousliberal…
<
p>
<
p>
Progressive taxation is supported by Democrats, Socialists, Communists and others on the political left.
<
p>
No Private Wages or Property
<
p>
The extreme extent of redistributing wealth is the owning of all wages and property by the government, this is Communism. Communism is on the left side of the political spectrum.
<
p>
community health care
<
p>
Besides all of the discussion on this blog, I would also point to Hillary’s Health Care Plan and John Edward’s recent jump in this topic.
<
p>
The political and social theory behind the kibbutz lies on the left side of the political spectrum. Is that really your problem with my post?
<
p>
lies on the Right side of the spectrum.
<
p>
Is this not one of the things that the Right would like to see in America?
<
p>
As expected, you have completely failed to introduce the name of one person on the left who wants to introduce America to
<
p>
<
p>
Then you want to redefine
<
p>
<
p>
as “progressive taxation”–which Eisenhower and Nixon also believed in, knowing full well that the actual article described a completely different system:
<
p>
<
p>
You also failed miserably to find a single quote proving “many” on the left in America advocate a “healthcare collective.”
<
p>
So there you are. What you thought was a cheap shot at “the left” has blown up in your face. Sorry.
<
p>
Oh, by the way, I find it hard to take seriously any analysis by somebody who can’t even tell the difference between a system of government and a voluntary association of individuals. I suppose monks, nuns and early Christians were all “Communists,” too.
disingenuous, just once in a while, Peter.
I don’t know of one soul…and I know a lot of liberal lefty and even far-lefty souls, mind you…that advocate such an extreme position as the abdication of ownership or private wages.
<
p>
I not only find it a silly generalization, but rather insulting to have those peers of mine as well as myself told that’s what we want, when we have said no such thing.
<
p>
Redistribution of a portion of one’s wealth based on ability to meet one’s basic needs (progressive income tax) does not communism make. And I’m not going to let people get away with claiming such.
You have admitted that you believe in the redistribution of wealth. Call it what you want, socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism, democrat. It is supported by all of these. It is an idea of the political left, not the political right.
<
p>
Karl Marx called for progressive taxation in The Communist Manifesto. He also called for the “extreme position as the abdication of ownership or private wages.” He and his supporters are members of the political left. I did not try and tell you what you think, I said it was “theories that many on the left hold dear.” These are theories supported by communism and to some extent socialism. As I already pointed out, I intentionally did not say democrats, liberals, progressive, etc. I said the LEFT.
<
p>
Are you denying that socialism and communism are on the political left?
<
p>
And again, not all leftists are communists/socialists, but all communists/socialists are leftists.
You can’t tell the difference between a 100% communist system and one that mixes both capitalism and socialism?
<
p>
Your insinuation is that it’s common to find people on the left desiring total communism. THAT was the point I was countering. It’s an intentional false talking point of the right in order to discredit liberalism, and as I said, I’m not going to let it pass. It’s not common. It’s not even infrequently talked about among the left – far left or otherwise. I have never once had a conversation with a liberal friend and heard someone voice that opinion.
<
p>
Ergo, your original statement is completely misleading.
You are perhaps correct that my original statement may be misleading, so please see the revisions above.
You tried to smear by innuendo, then slipped and fell into your own crap.
I almost included something similar to the Nazi line in my reply. The problem is that the facts don’t back that up. Nazi is actually slang for “Nationalsozialismus” which is German for National Socialism. Nazi’s were actually members of the political left. I hate when truth gets in the way of good shot. So back at ya….
<
p>
<
p>
First, you are judging the completeness of my response by saying I have “completely failed to introduce the name of one person on the left who wants to introduce America to ‘no private wages, no private ownership property.'” Why not ask for a more impossible task, maybe I can prove cold fusion or the existence of parallel dimensions. That is the same as asking you to provide a quote from someone in the Bush administration who has said they are for corrupt companies and giving them more money at taxpayers expense. Even if there are people in the Democrat Party that are in favor of this, they are not stupid enough to say it in public. Despite cheap shots we all take at politicians, they are not complete idiots.
<
p>
But that was not my assertion! It was “many on the left”. Not the American left as you have tried to make it out to be. Although, I am sure there are some communists on the American left, there is after all a Communist Party USA, a Socialist Labor Party of America and other fringe parties of this ilk. Not all leftists are communists and socialists but all communists and socialists are leftists. Are you denying that there are communist and socialist governments out there that support this?
<
p>
To your next “attack” at my post. Progressive taxes = redistribution of wealth Yes, this is my position on progressive taxes. You are taking more money, by dollars and percent of income, from people whom you deem “rich” and giving it to the “poor” in the form of government services. What is your definition of progressive taxes?
<
p>
You also said that redistribution by need is not the same as “received their income from the central kibbutz coffers, strictly budgeted according to marital status, the number of children, and special needs like health or education.” Could you please explain that further, because they seem to be the same to me?
<
p>
One thing you have argued is that the American left is not for a “collective healthcare” system. I also do not under stand this based on the amount of discussion there has been on this blog alone about doing exactly that.
<
p>
Final, your clever little line about the difference between systems of government and a voluntary association of individuals. In the case of the kibbutz, the voluntary association of individuals has chosen to govern themselves by a socialist/communist system. Just like the NFL chooses to govern themselves under a socialist system. And monks, nuns and early Christians choose to govern themselves under a theocracy.
<
p>
I suggest you expand your scholarly reading beyond The American Head Injury Association’s Guide to European History. It is acutely embarassing to have to teach someone facts covered in high school history: The NSDAP was a party that Hitler found, not founded. He kept the name, changed the program–destroying unions, murdering Communists and Socialists, and engineering the union of corporations and the state. That someone would call this agenda “leftist” is, I suppose, not surprising in a world in which MUFON has 5,000 members.
<
p>
<
p>
Your surrender is graciously accepted.
<
p>
<
p>
Hmmm, maybe MUFON is really the place for you, after all.
<
p>
In the late 1910’s, Hitler was sent to infiltrate the German Workers Party while he was of a branch of the military that I can not remember the name of at this time because the party was thought to be Marxists/communists. While infiltrating the group, Hitler found that they were anti-Semitic, anti-free market, anti-Marxists/communists and practiced a form of socialism. Hitler liked the combination of socialism with anti-capitalist and anti-Marxists/communists and, of course, anti-Semitism. A few of years later, after Hitler had been named head of the German Workers Party, he changed the name to the NSDAP.
<
p>
Hitler started to become militant in the early 1920’s (1922 or 1923 I think) and tried to overthrow the Bavarian government. This failed and Hitler was sent to prison. In prison, Hitler became more militant but was still against both the right and the left. Hitler continued to hate capitalists as much as communists.
But you have to be Jonah Goldberg, or, what is the possibly same thing, ignorant to think that the Nazi party grew out of the German Left.
May I extend a belated welcome to you, JK, to the world of liberal blogs — not Mao-Tse Tung Thought blogs, not Blogs of the Second Internationale, not blogs in support of nineteenth century socialist manifestos, and not blogs of Trotskyists before they emigrated to neoconservatism. Quaint though they be, us guys is not those guys.
<
p>
While your generalization about the Left may have some world-historical truth to it if we cast our net wide enough, you and I live in a country without even a social democratic party — never mind a significant communist one of any stripe or denomination. So “left” in our current tiny context means liberal; it might embrace a few of socialists of distinctly Fabian hue, but that’s as red as it gets. (To use the old meaning of “red”.)
<
p>
We liberals, one and all, seek to use government to accomplish what the market cannot. Redistribution of wealth, in our liberal minds, does not mean turning of the “means of production” over to our neighbors. To the extent liberals favor using taxation for such redistribution, it is for simpler reasons less revolutionary reasons:
These are perfectly reasonable and not unlike how groups of friends or a family might decide to allocate resources jointly. Liberals are all about “we’re all in this together”.
Objectivism is nothing more than warmed-over Egoism with a couple of buzzwords and psuedo-proofs thrown in.
Doesn’t make anything Ayn Rand advocates believe a good idea.
<
p>
“The sky isn’t red, therefore it’s green!”
The sky turned purple once. Then we had a down burst and Bill Weld landed in a helicopter behind my house and declared my town a disaster area. It was pretty cool.
…a nutty, sex-obsessed Russian emigre who went by the pseudonym Ayn Rand. She was an authoritarian, provided those in authority were male.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but the enthusiasm for the nutty Randians eludes me.
<
p>
It’s amusing that there is a blogger who goes by the handle janegalt.com (actually, her name is Megan McCardle) who works for the American branch of the British publication The Economist. She is as nutty as the Randians.
… for you lil’ gay bois, Ayn Rand hated gay bois. Don’t cast your pearls before swine, until you know the sensitivies of the swine that you cast them before.
<
p>
Interpretation: Gay bois: Randians hate you.