Q&A: Zionism or Hedonism
Zionism or Hedonism
Question
Hi Michi,
In the Sabbath supplement of Makor Rishon, I read several articles about the lack of a sense of general national social solidarity that characterizes most of the Religious Zionist public today, compared to the past. Those articles did refer to acts of kindness within the community, but claimed that outside it—no. And I assume you know this up close. Toward the Haredi public, which places its trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, and cannot be confused by historical facts, I have no complaints. But I am puzzled by the Religious Zionist public, which is so devoted to the security of our state.
Look, Michi—decades ago I drove the leaders of Mapam who came after Yaari and Hazan crazy, trying to explain to them that they had a winning card in their hands on social and economic matters; they just needed to know how and when to use it. And I told them that the problems of the State of Israel’s security and survival require Israeli society to be cohesive, and since there are relatively few Jews compared to the Arabs around us, we need to know how to cultivate and fully realize the potential of every individual.
My words fell on deaf ears—because I presented only the security aspect of solidarity; they wanted to hear from me something on the level of pure spiritual principle…
I return to the words of the writers I mentioned, and add my own interpretation: most people in Religious Zionism are focused on preserving the spirit of traditional Judaism, along with the commandment of settling the Land of Israel. And these two issues are implemented within the framework of family and community.
Commandments that are fulfilled with people like us.
But I cannot understand how the knitted-kippah crowd, who pride themselves on intellectual excellence and busy themselves with end-time calculations—with demographic give-and-take—[is it expected that the Arabs will become the majority here?]—allow themselves to ignore and avoid thinking about the quality of the Jews who will live here. Since I have already heard more than once from knitted-kippah people that we can place our trust in our quality. Without getting into issues of genetics—it is obvious that without proper education and schooling, there is little chance that genetic potential will find expression.
And I wonder—how is it that the Religious Zionist public still advocates capitalism and does not understand that if all of us—everyone who lives here between the sea and the Jordan—do not internalize that we depend on one another, then we will merely be dependent next to one another..
For dessert—a few days ago an article appeared in the Haaretz supplement by Adam Raz, in which he claimed what I had raised as a question:
Mordechai Vanunu acted on behalf of the establishment. It is not clear whether Vanunu was aware of this, but that possibility was also raised. And although Purim already passed a month ago, I’ll add a passage that will bring a smile to your face: Vanunu wasn’t in prison at all; rather, only when journalists came to visit, and the rest of the time he was outside with makeup and a disguise…
Happy holidays and have a good week
Answer
To Ayin, hello.
This supplement is still waiting on my desk because I thought I’d write a response to it. In my view it’s a collection of nonsense, all based on one fundamental misunderstanding: the question of capitalism (which I too, like those described there, tend toward) has nothing whatsoever to do with social solidarity or caring about others. The question in dispute is whether distribution of resources is justice or charity. Communists like you and like the writers there believe they should be distributed to everyone as a matter of justice, whereas I and my friends think they should not be distributed; rather, people should contribute according to their will and ability, because this is charity, not justice.
Contrary to the assumption taken there as self-evident, the question on the table is not at all one of caring and solidarity, but two other claims: 1. The socialist system works less well. 2. Each person has a property right over his possessions, and there is no justification for the state to rob a person of his property in order to distribute it to the needy.
Therefore all the cheap explanations brought there—and, pardon me, the one you offered too—are unnecessary and incorrect. Very simply, capitalism is deeply embedded in Jewish culture and thought, and the communists who try to find their doctrine in the Torah and Jewish law are simply rapists (and harassers too).
Discussion on Answer
There can be two kinds of connections, ideological or sociological. You’re saying there is no connection between the two ideas intrinsically, but it seems to me there is a connection between them in terms of the people who hold those ideas, and that requires rethinking whether there is an internal connection.
I’d be glad if you really do write a response to the Sabbath supplement. A little common sense wouldn’t hurt all this red nonsense.
Oren, obviously not every tax is robbery. But a tax that takes from the strong and gives to the weak is problematic. A tax that distributes resources equally for the sake of security, health, etc.—since all these underlie the success of the wealthy person—is legitimate. The difference is whether the rich person is paying for services he receives, or whether he is required to be a communist, meaning to share profits with everyone, those who contributed and those who did not, according to need and not according to contribution.
Of course the state can decide that it does not provide services to those who do not distribute their resources to everyone, as you described. That is legal, since it has the right not to provide services. But it is not fair, and certainly I have no criticism of someone who dodges this or flees abroad in such a situation, like any price gouging. A monopoly too is legal (freedom of occupation), yet the state prevents it. The state itself is a kind of monopoly. And then they accuse the rich of trying to influence politics (money-power ties). But that is what they are forced to do, because they are a minority and the majority forces them to share profits unfairly.
It is possible to measure each individual’s contribution to the general profit (GDP) by means of the Shapley value and immediately see that the rich person contributes much more. Shapley proposed measuring a member’s contribution to a coalition’s profit by looking at what the profit would have been without him. Without the last of the workers, not much profit would be lost, but without the tycoon there would be nothing here. Of course one can quibble and gather all the workers into one party against the tycoon (that’s what labor organizations try to do), and if you remove all the workers then nothing would happen here either. But in my opinion that’s sophistry.
The title of my remarks was: Zionism or Hedonism.
At first I thought to write “Zionism or Capitalism,” but since I am an entrepreneur in my soul, I welcome capitalism. Rather, I think that understanding [not feeling!] responsibility toward the public [the state or all humanity!] is what ought to motivate those who have to support financially those who do not.
I’m sure you’ve read about studies showing that responsibility motivates people no less [in many cases more!] than higher pay does.
After all, in order to motivate people to engage in something they find repulsive, you have to pay them salaries several times higher than if they were engaged in an occupation that gives them satisfaction.
How does all this relate to what was written in that supplement? There they assumed that responsibility means socialism, and that capitalism means opposition to responsibility toward others.
By the way, what follows from your words is an interesting practical implication: part of the tax money a person pays can be considered tithing money (since part of it is forced charity).
Quite a number of halakhic decisors wrote that (for example Rabbi Ovadia and others).
Since there is no property ownership without a state (Sha'arei Yosher), and since there is no state without the consent of those who live in it and support it, the claim that the state has no distributive authority seems exaggerated to me.
Your economic argument about tycoons as such is very problematic, and this is not the place to elaborate (Eliezer Fishman, for example). It applies more to high-tech and technology entrepreneurs, where the contribution is much more direct.
Maybe I missed something, but I went over the 4 articles discussing “the price of capitalism” 3 times, and I looked and did not find any place where it says that capitalism is opposition to responsibility toward others—rather, these articles express reservations about hedonism and piggish capitalism. I think you too recoil from hedonism and piggish capitalism.
First, I don’t like hedonism, but there are worse flaws.
Second, recoiling from piggish capitalism is a tautology. Usually when people write that, what they mean is the claim that all capitalism is piggish.
It would be very worthwhile to read here: https://news.walla.co.il/item/1378554
Y.D., are you sure you read what I wrote?
Why do you relate to taxes as the state robbing the individual? That person could not have produced his profits without state services. Since that is so, he and the state are partners in the profits. The state is like a large company that provides services to its citizens (security, infrastructure, etc.) and sets a price that it charges for those services (taxes). A person can decide that the tax price is too high for him and move to another country.