Zionism or hedonism
Hey Miki
In the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon, I read several articles regarding the lack of a sense of national social solidarity that characterizes most of the National Religious community today, compared to the past. These articles did refer to acts of kindness within the community, but it was claimed that outside of it - no! And I assume you know the matter intimately. I have no complaints about the Haredi community, which throws its love at God, and which cannot be confused with historical facts. But I am puzzled by the National Religious community, which is so devoted to the security of our country.
See Michi - decades ago I drove the minds of the Mapam leaders who came after Yaari and Hazan crazy, and I tried to explain to them that they had a trump card in their hand in social and economic matters, they just needed to know how and when to use it. I told them that the problems of the security existence of the State of Israel require that Israeli society be cohesive, and since there are few Jews relative to the Arabs who surround us, we must know how to cultivate And to maximize the potential of each individual.
My words fell on deaf ears - because I only presented the security aspect of solidarity, they wanted to hear from me something on a purely spiritual, principled level.
I return to the words of the authors I mentioned, and add my own interpretation - most religious Zionists are focused on preserving the spirit of the Jewish people, in addition to the commandment to settle in Israel. And these two issues are implemented within the framework of the family and the community.
Commandments that are kept with people like us.
But I couldn't understand how the people in the knitted kippahs, who insist on their intellectual excellence and engage in extreme calculations - in terms of demographics and the recent demographics - [is it expected that Arabs will be 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 the people in the knitted kippahs that we can put our trust in our quality. Without going into the issues of genetics - it is clear that without proper education and training, there is little chance that the genetic potential will be expressed.
And I wonder - how is it that the religious 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 accept that we are dependent on each other - we will become dependent on each other.
For dessert - a few days ago, an article appeared in the "Eretz" supplement by Adam Raz, in which he claimed what I raised as a question:
Mordechai Wa'anunu acted on behalf of the establishment. It is not clear whether Wa'anunu was aware of this, but this possibility has also been raised. Even though Purim has already passed a month ago, I will add a passage that will put a smile on your face: Wa'anunu did not sit in prison, but only for the press conferences, and the rest of the time he was outside with makeup and a disguise…
Happy Holidays and Happy Week
Hello.
This supplement is still waiting on my desk because I thought I would write a response to it. In my opinion, it is a collection of nonsense that is all based on one fundamental misunderstanding: the question of capitalism (which I, like those described there, tend to be inclined towards) is in no way related to social solidarity or concern for others. The question at issue is whether the distribution of resources is justice or charity. Communists like you and the writers there believe that they should be distributed to everyone for reasons of justice, while I and my friends think that it is not right to distribute them, but rather that people should contribute according to their desire and ability, because it is about charity and not justice.
Contrary to the assumption taken for granted there, the question at hand is not at all a question of caring and solidarity, but two other claims: 1. The socialist system works less well. 2. Everyone has a proprietary right to their property, and there is no justification for the state to rob a person of their property in order to distribute it to the needy.
Therefore, all the petty explanations given there, and also, with apologies, the one you offered, are unnecessary and incorrect. Quite simply, capitalism is deeply embedded in Jewish culture and thought, and the communists who try to find their doctrine in the Torah and Halacha are simply rapists (and also disturbing).
Why do you refer to taxes as the state's robbery of the individual? After all, that individual could not generate his profits without the services of the state. Because of this, he and the state share in the profits. The state is like a large company that provides a service to its citizens (security, infrastructure, etc.) and specifies a price that it charges for the services (taxes). An individual can decide that the price of taxes is too high for him and move to another country.
There can be two types of connections, ideological or sociological. You say that there is no connection between the two ideas internally, but it seems to me that there is a connection between them in terms of the themes of the ideas, and this requires rethinking the internal connection.
I would be happy if you would actually write a response to the Shabbat supplement. A little common sense wouldn't hurt all these red-headed fools.
Oren, it is clear that 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 benefit of security, health, etc., since all of these are the basis of the success of the rich, is legitimate. The difference is in the question of whether the rich pay for the services they receive or are required to be communist, that is, to share the profits with everyone, those who contributed and those who did not, according to needs and not according to contribution.
Of course, the state can decide not to provide services to those who do not share their resources with everyone as you described. This is legal, as it has the right not to provide services. But it is unfair, and I certainly have no criticism of those who evade or flee abroad in such a situation, like all the expropriation of shares. Monopoly is also legal (freedom of occupation) and yet the state prevents it. The state itself is a type of monopoly. And then the rich are blamed for trying to influence politics (capital-government). After all, this is what they are forced to do because they are a minority and the majority forces them to share the profits unfairly.
You can measure the contribution of each individual to the overall profit (GNP) using the Shefley index and immediately see that the rich contribute much more. Shefley suggested measuring the contribution of a member to the profit of a coalition by looking at what the profit would have been without him. Without the last of the workers, profit would not have decreased much, but without the tycoon, there would have been nothing here. Of course, you could argue and gather all the workers into one party against the tycoon (this is what labor organizations are trying to do), and if you removed all the workers, nothing would have happened here either. But in my opinion, that's argumentative.
The title of my speech was: Zionism or Hedonism
At first I thought of writing Zionism or capitalism, but since I am an entrepreneur at heart, I welcome capitalism, except that I think that understanding [not feeling!] responsibility to the public [state or all of humanity!] is what should motivate those who have to financially support those who don't.
I'm sure you've read about studies that have shown that responsibility motivates people just as much [in many cases more!] than a higher salary.
After all, to motivate people to engage in something they hate, they need to be paid salaries that are many times higher than if they were to engage in an occupation that satisfies them.
How does all this relate to what was written in that supplement? There they assumed that responsibility meant socialism and capitalism was an opposition to responsibility for others.
By the way, your words raise an interesting point: that some of the tax money that a person pays can be considered tithe money (since some of it is forced charity).
This is what several poskim wrote (for example, Rabbi Ovadia and others).
Since there is no property without a state (the gates of justice) and since there is no state without the opinion of those who sit and support it, the claim that the state does not have distributive authority seems excessive to me.
Your economic argument about the tycoons in themselves is very problematic and flawed (Eliezer Fishman, for example). It applies more to high-tech and technology entrepreneurs, whose contribution is much more direct.
Maybe I missed something, but I went through the 4 articles discussing "The Price of Capitalism" 3 times and searched and found no place where it was written that capitalism is an opposition to responsibility for others - but rather a reservation is expressed in these articles about nepotism and pig capitalism. I think you also abhor nepotism and pig capitalism.
First, I don't like hedonism, but there are bigger drawbacks.
Second, aversion to pig capitalism is a tautology. Usually when people write this, they mean the claim that all capitalism is pig.
It is very worth reading here: https://news.walla.co.il/item/1378554
YD, are you sure you read what I said?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer