Social protesters represent real Zionism
In his book "Altneuland," Herzl describes the Land of Israel of the future as a social welfare society, a third way that would position itself between capitalism and socialism.
By Shlomo AvineriTheodor Herzl was not a socialist but he understood well that a revolutionary enterprise like Zionism could not succeed if it was to be solely based on the capitalist market model.
In his book "Altneuland," he therefore describes the Land of Israel of the future as a social welfare society, a third way that would position itself between capitalism and socialism.
It would be a society in which natural resources - land, water, mineral wealth - are to be held by the public at large, where industry for the most part is organized through cooperatives, as is agriculture. Retail trade, however, would be in private hands. The society would provide its citizens with education and health and welfare. To staff social welfare institutions, everyone, both men and women, would be required to do two years of national service.
Herzl called this middle approach "mutualism," and it was based on the European social and economic experience. The future Jewish society would take the principles of liberty and competition from capitalism, and the principles of equality and justice from socialism.
These ideas are correct today, just as they were correct, and revolutionary, when they were written in 1902. The Zionist movement followed this path, as did the Jewish community in the pre-state period and in Israel's infancy, reflecting a deep awareness of the need to establish social solidarity as a necessary condition for the success of the Zionist enterprise.
It is no coincidence that Israel was the subject of admiration and emulation by so many people and movements in the West, because it managed, under difficult circumstances, to combine democracy and liberty with a strong foundation of social solidarity.
It would have been hard to call the young Israel a model society, and there is no point in engaging in excessive idealizing about it, but the ability to maintain social cohesion and a relatively large degree of equality were among its most impressive achievements.
This combination gave the Labor movement an edge over the Revisionist movement, which grew focused solely on national and diplomatic goals. The welfare state that was established here made it possible to absorb millions of immigrants from countries in distress in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, an amazing undertaking that, despite all its flaws, is without historical parallel in its scope. And this occurred not in some wealthy Scandinavian country or Switzerland, but in a poor society of limited means that was subject to diplomatic and economic siege. We underestimate this accomplishment too readily.
A lot has changed in the world and the historic failure of Labor was that it didn't manage to cope with these changes in a systematic manner. It was replaced by a simplistic model of privatization that espoused the neo-capitalist economics of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Israel's Likud governments led these steps, but one cannot deny that Labor also lost faith in the justice of its own approach.
The currently unfolding social protests are a product of distortions that this unrestrained market economy created. This was accompanied, due to political and coalition considerations, by a comprehensive system of government housing subsidies, public sector employment and extravagant tax benefits for Jewish settlements in the territories and for the ultra-Orthodox.
These two sectors are carried by the taxes, military service and economic accomplishments of those same young men and women who are demonstrating now.
It's clear why so few of them are settlers or ultra-Orthodox, since they are the ones who fed at the trough of the state without any connection to their economic contribution.
It's hard to know where these protests are leading, but it's clear that three revolutionary things have occurred here. First of all, these demonstrators are neither ultra-Orthodox, fanatic rightists, nor left-wingers for whom the situation in Sheikh Jarrah or Bil'in are their top priority. The current demonstrators are from the mainstream.
Secondly, it turns out the people and their involvement in the political process, rather than just rulings by the courts, are the foundation of democracy.
Finally, it seems the neo-capitalist model, which clearly caused the economic crises the West is currently experiencing, is contrary to the requirements and values of the Zionist enterprise.
It is therefore wonderful to see the Israeli flag flying at these demonstrations after it seemed to have become the property of the right-wing settlement movement. The current demonstrations are not only a reflection of social protest. They are Zionist in the deeper sense of a just and humanistic Zionism.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
I don´t agree that protesters are better zionists than those who believe in capitalism.Sure.the society has problems but they can be solved only by better jobs that means more peolple employed with better salaries and they come from investement and in general from foreign investoris and capitals who demands clear rules and benefits.Another problem is the public budget and how it allocates the resources.The better they arae allocate the less burden needed in taxes from the citizens.
It's collectiv fault for your education system blended with insensitive and incompetent politycal system, with a greedy approach to materialism with iresposible and ungenuine demands and allways the problem has been solved as rescue model , and you Mr. Avnery are part of it.
An excellent article. It is quite clear that some huge form of re-balancing needs to take place beteeen those parts of society/economy better suited to entrepreneurship and competition and those parts better suited to co-operation. The same goes for Europe, the USA and the West in general. At present the western capitalist model only seems able to survive by continually eroding the living standards of the less well off.
excellent article!!
Cooperatives - they are a 20th century business model which there are very few of today because they have limited growth potential. Can you imagine a company like Intel becoming the giant it is today if it were a cooperative? It would have remained a small - medium sized company in Silicon Valley. Israel will not survive economically in the 21st century unless it does adopt a neo capitalist model. We need the the big foreign companies to invest in Israel to provide jobs and bring money into the country but these companies want a neo capitalist system, they are not interested in social welfare and if they feel Israel has to many rules or they are having to make to many concessions on their way of doing business so they can fit in with Israelis non capitalist system they will decide its just not worth me staying in Israel and they will close their plants and move to a country where they can do business their way and Israel will pay the price through lost jobs and lost income from exports. Its not capitalism that failed around the world it was to much borrowing. In the late 90s & early 2000s things were good, countries borrowed heavily, banks encouraged people who could not usually afford to buy their home to take out a mortgage become one of the property owners, people on low incomes were given credit cards and allowed to borrow thousands and then the bubble burst and overnight individuals, companies and countries found themselves with big debts they couldn't pay. One of the reasons that Israel escaped this is because of its current property laws which makes it hard for people to get mortgages, people who could not afford to buy property in Israel were not getting the mortgages so there were no collapse in the property market, Israel's were living within their means and it helped Israel avoid the economic crash everybody else experienced. Israel cannot afford to adopt this utopia idea of Herzels, we have moved beyond late 19th, early 20th century economics and Israel is no longer a zionist ideal its a real country and nit has all the same problems other countries must face and it must compete with everybody else. In an a dream which is all Israel was in Herzel's day you can create a country that where buildings are made of gold and nobody wants for anything but when you move beyond the dream into reality you also have to accept that reality isn't as wonderful as the dream. Capitalism has been good for Israel and its not something we want to abandon on a whim just because there are a bunch of people campaigning for more social welfare, especially because most these protestors have not even considered how we pay for all these things they want. They just know what they want and they would be quite happy for the government to borrow money to fund it and thats the attitude that got the rest of the world into trouble.
I agree with you.But we can consider that the real problem starts with the governmente spending.I.m sure that it is not efficient and
Very true and very well said. But it wont help. Most of the israeli population comes from countries without democracy and human rights (Tzarist Russia, Soviet Union, colonialist north Africa etc). Hence no constitution, no separation between state and religion, disappearance of social welfare. The protest are about housing, but it is the whole infra structure wich is of another age. France who gave the world the french revolution wich ended feudalism and started modern society, separated state and religion more than 100 yeas ago. For us it seems an impossible utopia.
Look who is talking? Do u ant to tell me that the Mapai, Mapam etc Kibbuzim lived within their economic contribution to the GNP? If that is the case why did the State need to save them from major bankruptcy, and by getting land as a present from the State became rich? Let's not kid around as an eco venture the Kibbutzim and the socialistic enterprises of Israel were and are nothing but a failue.
It was voted down. Why? Because of the inflation it created (over 100% pa). Second, because its pro- ponents teamed up with Stalin's block. Remem- ber all those Stalin mustaches ? Because of its brutal anti-judaism (forcibly cutting Peot of Yeme- nite kids, manipulating votes in favor of Mapai and Mapam, universal - instead of Jewish - ideology, etc ). The ideas are not new. From Prof. Avineri I would have expected newer and better susbtantiated idea.