We want to create a steadfast, strong generation without illusions. Our youth must prepare for a life of toil, must face its responsibilities in the diaspora and in the homeland. The task of redeeming waste-land, rocky soil, sand-dunes, and desert areas can be achieved only by the mighty hands of the courageous...
Yes, to develop the mind and the heart, the will power and the character, let there be joy and faith. But the ultimate goal of our activities is not here. Here is only the preparation for a Shomer-halutz life. Here is the potential energy to be converted to a life of labor.
The Shomer in the Jewish homeland is not a day-dreamer. Our forefathers have dreamt for tens of centuries. We must raise a generation of activists, we must return to the tradition of Jewish fighters.
What we need are not pen and ink, not odes and hymns, not confessions and lyrics. What we need are saws and hoes, first and foremost - hands! Give us your hands! You still live in a world of ideas and books. We must live six days in the world of reality and toil and celebrate Shabbat on only one day of the week. Only through work and activity shall we consecrate the name of the Shomer. We must be guided by realism and not romanticism...
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
The Hehalutz Movement - Berl Katznelson
Pioneering, halutziut, is not merely an idea and a theory; it is a way of life, essentially a personal act. We believe this to be the true harbinger of history. We hope it will be the foundation on which our future will be built. It is an act whose roots lie deep within the community, yet it remains essentially personal and individual. In this lies the true strength of the entire aliya movement, the main source of our hope for the future. And this is what makes every single individual so very important for the movement that knows no conquest other than the conquest of one's self, the individual struggling with his own world and gaining mastery over it.
This is the one characteristic which distinguishes our movement from all others - the striving to build the nation's future by rebuilding the individual's life. This is the reason our movement really know no leaders and no led - only people, living and working people, individuals whose life and work go to make up the national wealth. This is perhaps the only movement in our time that has at its core no leadership, no fixed platform, only the life and the work of its individual components. The individual is its central aim - his life, his experiences, his failures and his successes, his weaknesses and his strengths.
If the Hehalutz movement is to remain true to its essential character, it will retain the personal striving toward pioneering work as its central aim. To unveil the hidden forces that live within the individual, to bring them into the open by education and training, to focus them on deeds of purity, friendship and mutual trust - this is what the work of our movement is really about.
This is the one characteristic which distinguishes our movement from all others - the striving to build the nation's future by rebuilding the individual's life. This is the reason our movement really know no leaders and no led - only people, living and working people, individuals whose life and work go to make up the national wealth. This is perhaps the only movement in our time that has at its core no leadership, no fixed platform, only the life and the work of its individual components. The individual is its central aim - his life, his experiences, his failures and his successes, his weaknesses and his strengths.
If the Hehalutz movement is to remain true to its essential character, it will retain the personal striving toward pioneering work as its central aim. To unveil the hidden forces that live within the individual, to bring them into the open by education and training, to focus them on deeds of purity, friendship and mutual trust - this is what the work of our movement is really about.
The New Man - Martin Buber
The Halutz is the new type of man born of the movement of Jewish renaissance. In him that movement finds its complete expression. The test of every national movement is its ability to produce this type of man, and his ability to control the forces of history and fulfill his historical task. Through his very personality he helps to effect a decisive change in the life of his people. His is a two-fold task: external liberation from the yoke of strangers, and inner liberation and recovery of spiritual independence, refusing to live on foreign cultures.
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.
Essence of Halutziut - Haim Arlosoroff
The very character of a movement like Hehalutz means action, not formula. Ideas, convictions, programs, - whatever may be their character - are here not to be preached, but to be lived up to. Nothing more, nothing less. Zionism is neither a political platform to which one subscribes, nor a social club which one joins, nor a fundraising machinery, nor even a party organization for its own sake. Zionism is primarily the movement of those whose belief in the future of the Jewish Nation in Palestine is strong and sincere enough to make them throw their own lives into the scale, wherever they are called upon to do so.
Zionism is not the result of needs that change constantly nor of casual circumstances. It is the outcome of deeply rooted, historical forces affecting Jewish life. It has outlived tyrannies and regimes; it has overcome many temporary setbacks and critical periods. Turning Zionism into reality cannot be achieved by mechanical devices within a specific period of time. There will be a fifth, a ninth, a tenth Aliyah. There will be a fiftieth anniversary of Hehalutz. And the movement will live on. Once it has risen, it cannot come to a standstill until its aim is achieved and a free, laboring Jewish People is rooted in Palestinian soil. Is not the rise of a movement like this in itself proof of the amazing vigor and vitality, a sign and promise that we shall live and not die?
Zionism is not the result of needs that change constantly nor of casual circumstances. It is the outcome of deeply rooted, historical forces affecting Jewish life. It has outlived tyrannies and regimes; it has overcome many temporary setbacks and critical periods. Turning Zionism into reality cannot be achieved by mechanical devices within a specific period of time. There will be a fifth, a ninth, a tenth Aliyah. There will be a fiftieth anniversary of Hehalutz. And the movement will live on. Once it has risen, it cannot come to a standstill until its aim is achieved and a free, laboring Jewish People is rooted in Palestinian soil. Is not the rise of a movement like this in itself proof of the amazing vigor and vitality, a sign and promise that we shall live and not die?
Thursday, February 13, 2014
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.
Youth Movement Principles - Chaim Schatzker
An attempt will now be made to define the phenomenon of the youth movement according to seven characteristics, exercising a clear, explicit reservation that we are talking here about an ideal, Max Weber-type entity. In actuality, these characteristics are not always so fully noticeable, and their appearance in the various movements is variable. These seven characteristics were not determined arbitrarily. The determination was preceded by many years of research, in the course of which the texts of various movements were examined for their motivations and characteristics. An analysis of these elements may then explain the essential character or essence of the different youth movements and their behavior in various historical situation, including the Holocaust, in which the reaction of youth belonging to a youth movement differed from that of unorganized youth.
Discontent with "Society"and the Striving for "Community"
In its critique of society, the youth movement deplores the atomization of men in the age of technology; the dissolution of organic relationships and bonds; loneliness and heartlessness; the ugliness and constriction of the large cities; modern technology and the rational industrial society which, through its one-sided emphasis on the development of the intellect, leads to the spiritual and emotional impoverishment of mankind. Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs prompts the striving for a new life style, for a community, a collectivity in which all those frustrated and withered vital shoots can thrive and blossom out in a new and satisfying life.
Inner Truth as an Ontological Criterion
The endeavor to "fashion life in the spirit of inner truth," proclaimed in the Meissner Formula, indicates the crucial importance of this theme within the total concept of the youth movement. In the youth movement's critique of society, the one feature most frequently pilloried was the lies and falsehood behind the facade of social norms and conventions. They were confronted with "inner truth" or "the spirit of truth" as a criterion of a fulfilled and righteous life conducive to strengthening community bonds. The movement sought the key to the discovery and recognition of this truth in the intuition, the subjective inner stirrings of the individual and the community, while rejecting rational, objective criteria as inadequate and misleading. It was art rather than science, sentiment rather than reason, intuitively grasped rather than externally established norms that were considered the effective instruments in a genuine search for truth.
The Bund
This organizational cell of the youth movement also owes its origin to a collective emotional experience. "For the constitution of the 'Bund' emotional experiences are vital, they form its 'foundation.'" "The flame of the 'Bund' only leaps up when those stirred to their depths as individuals meet, mutually recognize the common direction of their 'feeling' and on that basis kindle one another's enthusiasm."
The collective will (volente generale) is forged at the Bund rally, mostly through strong emotional attachments focused on the personality of an inspiring leader. Born as a flash of intuition, the collective will is subsequently spelled out in statutes and resolution. Any deviation from that collective will must end either in separation from the Bund or in a recantations. Discussions may well take place within the Bund, but decisions are arrived at by the rising into consciousness of an "inner truth," not by the mechanistic method of democratic vote-counting. Sparked by the emotional ambiance of the Bund rally, this "liberating" idea illuminates the road ahead.
Totality of Commitment
Although activities accounted for only a small proportion of the time of its members, the youth movement was not content with the role of an additional and subsidiary instrument of eduction, but endeavored, on the whole with success, to totally dominate the lives of its members. Actually, the striving for "wholeness" and total commitment follows from the characteristics of the youth movement already described here. In its critique of society the youth movement deplored the fragmented, mechanistic relations between men, and its search for communion was expressed in a yearning for a pattern of organic, harmonious and all-embracing relations between the members of the community. Thus, there is a straight line leading from the principle of "inner truth" and the attempt to translate it into real life to the principle of the "totality" of the youth movement. "Inner truth," as it was truth in its purest form - in contrast to all externally imposed norms - demanded unconditional compliance, irrespective of society and social circumstances. It was bound to be regarded as indivisible and exempt from the need to enter into compromises with other "truths," exempt from the need to iron out differences and find a middle way. The more that "inner truth" was felt to be an elementary phenomenon of nature, the more complete was its demand for total submission. The educational approach chosen by the youth movement to translate its postulate into reality and to harness the total identities of its members consisted in the endeavor to mold their "conviction" and their "bearing."
Molding "Conviction" and "Bearing"
The youth movement based its approach on the assumptions that in education the relationship between cause and effect, challenge and response, is never a straightforward and direct one, but that human reactions and modes of behavior in real situations are determined by psychological predispositions, classified as Gesinnung and Haltung, conviction and bearing. These predispositions in turn are derived from certain value judgments.
Having adopted this concept, which is diametrically opposed to that of modern behaviorism, the youth movement proceeded with faultless logic to draw a conclusion that is vital for an understanding of the movement. Once it is accepted that an individual's mode of behavior is governed entirely by convictions and bearing, there is little point in attempting to influence behavior directly in the course of the educational process. What matters instead is to dominate convictions and bearing. This would then spontaneously and without any further outside intervention - perhaps with redoubled efficacy as a result of refraining from exerting any external pressure - direct behavior into the desired channels. An unshakable faith in the inner logic and inevitability of this process confirmed the youth movements in its tendency to concentrate almost exclusively on the molding of the convictions of its followers, while the customary "schoolmasterly" methods of behavioral drill were spurned with ridicule and contempt, as they appeared to be based on a confusion of cause with effect in the sphere of education.
The same interpretation was applied to social processes. All the sections of the youth movement, representing a broad spectrum of different hues and divergent tendencies, were united in the belief that a transformation of the social order could only be effected by human beings who themselves had been transformed beforehand, and that only a "different" type of man would be able to ensure the survival of a new order. On the other hand, a genuine transformation could never be brought about by the use of violence to enforce changes in external circumstances, unless such changes were preceded by a spiritual transformation of the human beings concerned,
"Indirect" Education
The youth movement looked upon "indirect" education as the most effective means of influencing the conviction and bearing of its followers. In place of the "direct" education practiced in the schools, which endeavored to transmit to the pupil information, opinions, skills and modes of behavior, the youth movement sought to affect the conviction and bearing of its followers indirectly, not by preaching the word, but through the mysterious workings of symbols and allusions, and above all through the participation in experiences charged with emotion; not through the impact of outside influence, but though the inward force of moved hearts and souls.
Contrary to the educational principle of rationality, which took it for granted that rational thinking will of necessity engender rational, and thus "positive" action, the youth movement believed that if only the youngster was exposed to the "right" type of experience, if he became "moved," his convictions and bearing would be molded the "right" way and appropriate action was bound to follow in due course.
The Movement and the "Moved"
The features listed here suggest a new and unconventional definition of the youth movement, summing it up primarily not as an organization of young people but rather as Jugendbewegtheit, youth's state of being moved, of being emotionally gripped by the sense of being young. This interpretation in terms of a movement of the human spirit appears to be supported by the general usage of the youth movement, which in referring to its followers never spoke of "members," bur of Jugendbewegte, the "youth-moved" or "moved youth."
Yet, such movements of the human spirit, peaks of spiritual agitation, are by their very nature transient and fugitive, whereas social structures, even if generated in the first place by a movement of the human spirit, tend to outlast the inspiration and take on the character of movements in the sense of organizations, and then moods are superseded by statutes, feelings by actions, formative experience by tasks, and the free, unshackled gathering of the young by a lifelong association tied to limited objectives.
In this way the youth movement fell victim to an inexorable dialectic: for a perpetuation of the state of being spiritually moved and in the grip of emotion without ever reaching the stage of bringing the ideals down to earth and proving them viable in real life was bound to reduce the youth movement to absurdity, whereas the translation of the ideals into reality spelled the dissolution of the movement. The span between the two poles of this dialectical process constitutes the history of the various youth movements.
Summing up, the youth movement can be regarded as a manifestation of a profoundly pessimistic view of modern culture, aiming at a radical transformation of man as a prerequisite for the transformation of the real world.
Discontent with "Society"and the Striving for "Community"
In its critique of society, the youth movement deplores the atomization of men in the age of technology; the dissolution of organic relationships and bonds; loneliness and heartlessness; the ugliness and constriction of the large cities; modern technology and the rational industrial society which, through its one-sided emphasis on the development of the intellect, leads to the spiritual and emotional impoverishment of mankind. Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs prompts the striving for a new life style, for a community, a collectivity in which all those frustrated and withered vital shoots can thrive and blossom out in a new and satisfying life.
Inner Truth as an Ontological Criterion
The endeavor to "fashion life in the spirit of inner truth," proclaimed in the Meissner Formula, indicates the crucial importance of this theme within the total concept of the youth movement. In the youth movement's critique of society, the one feature most frequently pilloried was the lies and falsehood behind the facade of social norms and conventions. They were confronted with "inner truth" or "the spirit of truth" as a criterion of a fulfilled and righteous life conducive to strengthening community bonds. The movement sought the key to the discovery and recognition of this truth in the intuition, the subjective inner stirrings of the individual and the community, while rejecting rational, objective criteria as inadequate and misleading. It was art rather than science, sentiment rather than reason, intuitively grasped rather than externally established norms that were considered the effective instruments in a genuine search for truth.
The Bund
This organizational cell of the youth movement also owes its origin to a collective emotional experience. "For the constitution of the 'Bund' emotional experiences are vital, they form its 'foundation.'" "The flame of the 'Bund' only leaps up when those stirred to their depths as individuals meet, mutually recognize the common direction of their 'feeling' and on that basis kindle one another's enthusiasm."
The collective will (volente generale) is forged at the Bund rally, mostly through strong emotional attachments focused on the personality of an inspiring leader. Born as a flash of intuition, the collective will is subsequently spelled out in statutes and resolution. Any deviation from that collective will must end either in separation from the Bund or in a recantations. Discussions may well take place within the Bund, but decisions are arrived at by the rising into consciousness of an "inner truth," not by the mechanistic method of democratic vote-counting. Sparked by the emotional ambiance of the Bund rally, this "liberating" idea illuminates the road ahead.
Totality of Commitment
Although activities accounted for only a small proportion of the time of its members, the youth movement was not content with the role of an additional and subsidiary instrument of eduction, but endeavored, on the whole with success, to totally dominate the lives of its members. Actually, the striving for "wholeness" and total commitment follows from the characteristics of the youth movement already described here. In its critique of society the youth movement deplored the fragmented, mechanistic relations between men, and its search for communion was expressed in a yearning for a pattern of organic, harmonious and all-embracing relations between the members of the community. Thus, there is a straight line leading from the principle of "inner truth" and the attempt to translate it into real life to the principle of the "totality" of the youth movement. "Inner truth," as it was truth in its purest form - in contrast to all externally imposed norms - demanded unconditional compliance, irrespective of society and social circumstances. It was bound to be regarded as indivisible and exempt from the need to enter into compromises with other "truths," exempt from the need to iron out differences and find a middle way. The more that "inner truth" was felt to be an elementary phenomenon of nature, the more complete was its demand for total submission. The educational approach chosen by the youth movement to translate its postulate into reality and to harness the total identities of its members consisted in the endeavor to mold their "conviction" and their "bearing."
Molding "Conviction" and "Bearing"
The youth movement based its approach on the assumptions that in education the relationship between cause and effect, challenge and response, is never a straightforward and direct one, but that human reactions and modes of behavior in real situations are determined by psychological predispositions, classified as Gesinnung and Haltung, conviction and bearing. These predispositions in turn are derived from certain value judgments.
Having adopted this concept, which is diametrically opposed to that of modern behaviorism, the youth movement proceeded with faultless logic to draw a conclusion that is vital for an understanding of the movement. Once it is accepted that an individual's mode of behavior is governed entirely by convictions and bearing, there is little point in attempting to influence behavior directly in the course of the educational process. What matters instead is to dominate convictions and bearing. This would then spontaneously and without any further outside intervention - perhaps with redoubled efficacy as a result of refraining from exerting any external pressure - direct behavior into the desired channels. An unshakable faith in the inner logic and inevitability of this process confirmed the youth movements in its tendency to concentrate almost exclusively on the molding of the convictions of its followers, while the customary "schoolmasterly" methods of behavioral drill were spurned with ridicule and contempt, as they appeared to be based on a confusion of cause with effect in the sphere of education.
The same interpretation was applied to social processes. All the sections of the youth movement, representing a broad spectrum of different hues and divergent tendencies, were united in the belief that a transformation of the social order could only be effected by human beings who themselves had been transformed beforehand, and that only a "different" type of man would be able to ensure the survival of a new order. On the other hand, a genuine transformation could never be brought about by the use of violence to enforce changes in external circumstances, unless such changes were preceded by a spiritual transformation of the human beings concerned,
"Indirect" Education
The youth movement looked upon "indirect" education as the most effective means of influencing the conviction and bearing of its followers. In place of the "direct" education practiced in the schools, which endeavored to transmit to the pupil information, opinions, skills and modes of behavior, the youth movement sought to affect the conviction and bearing of its followers indirectly, not by preaching the word, but through the mysterious workings of symbols and allusions, and above all through the participation in experiences charged with emotion; not through the impact of outside influence, but though the inward force of moved hearts and souls.
Contrary to the educational principle of rationality, which took it for granted that rational thinking will of necessity engender rational, and thus "positive" action, the youth movement believed that if only the youngster was exposed to the "right" type of experience, if he became "moved," his convictions and bearing would be molded the "right" way and appropriate action was bound to follow in due course.
The Movement and the "Moved"
The features listed here suggest a new and unconventional definition of the youth movement, summing it up primarily not as an organization of young people but rather as Jugendbewegtheit, youth's state of being moved, of being emotionally gripped by the sense of being young. This interpretation in terms of a movement of the human spirit appears to be supported by the general usage of the youth movement, which in referring to its followers never spoke of "members," bur of Jugendbewegte, the "youth-moved" or "moved youth."
Yet, such movements of the human spirit, peaks of spiritual agitation, are by their very nature transient and fugitive, whereas social structures, even if generated in the first place by a movement of the human spirit, tend to outlast the inspiration and take on the character of movements in the sense of organizations, and then moods are superseded by statutes, feelings by actions, formative experience by tasks, and the free, unshackled gathering of the young by a lifelong association tied to limited objectives.
In this way the youth movement fell victim to an inexorable dialectic: for a perpetuation of the state of being spiritually moved and in the grip of emotion without ever reaching the stage of bringing the ideals down to earth and proving them viable in real life was bound to reduce the youth movement to absurdity, whereas the translation of the ideals into reality spelled the dissolution of the movement. The span between the two poles of this dialectical process constitutes the history of the various youth movements.
Summing up, the youth movement can be regarded as a manifestation of a profoundly pessimistic view of modern culture, aiming at a radical transformation of man as a prerequisite for the transformation of the real world.
Shivyon Erech Ha'Adam - Avraham Aderet
In the uniqueness of every person, there is undoubtedly hidden a special "intention" that is essential and that guides one's life. The uniqueness of each person serves to show us each person's individual value; that uniqueness rises up as a one-time event in one's life. Each person has a unique value that does not stem from socio-economic standing or talents and abilities; rather, from being a human being that bears from birth a divine spark that is unique, a spark which was thrust upon on by the authority of the rule of consequence, and which one is responsible for expressing and actualizing in one's short life.
Therefore, all human life is precious, in that it is a new and unique discovery in the world of the living. One must relate to this with respect and awe, and protect it as a precious gift and expose it completely to the best of one's ability. Therefore, one must demand of others to treat the individual's life and human uniqueness with honor and holiness, and provide the other with the conditions and opportunities to reveal this uniqueness in its full force, and to coalesce one's life with the lives of others. The sanctity of each person's life is therefore the primary foundation of the values of human civilization. It is an absolute value that is not open to argument or compromise, and that is not dependent on a person's standing, abilities, or power. Rather, it stems from the fact of one's human essence that exists from the day one is born until the day one dies.
Other values are drawn from this value, which come from it and compliment it. If the life of each person is sacred, then we must honor life and give life the right and the circumstances to become full. This is not given to one by any external force, but rather from the nature of one's humanity.
How do you make life full? According to the present, it is by the ability to discover the self, which contains the unique nucleus that nature bestowed upon it and only upon it, in order to add to human life what only it can add - its unique musical note of life.
Shivyon erech ha'adam is therefore a primary value that stems not from political, economic, or social considerations, but rather from the fact of one's human essence. From the difference that one's uniqueness provides. Violating this equality is an attack on the foundational rules of life, preventing people from the conditions of discovering their own uniqueness and strength, and limiting their ability to discover their life possibilities.
There is no superior and no inferior in a system of human uniqueness. "He who kills a single Jewish soul is as if he demolishes the entire world" - every human is an entire world, a precious being that must be nurtured and be protected from injury and despair. One's existence and development are important not only for oneself, but for all of humanity. For all life. Shivyon erech ha'adam binds the existence of one's freedom to live without external boundaries within the framework of accepted social norms. This definition of freedom is the primary human value, which allows the natural growth and completion of the unique nucleus hidden in every human being.
This growth cannot be created only by shedding the heavy external restrictions, it requires encouragement and nurturing.
Therefore, one should not be satisfied by granting only formal freedoms; rather, one must allow another to grow that which is hidden in the depths of each human life patiently and lovingly.
Therefore, all human life is precious, in that it is a new and unique discovery in the world of the living. One must relate to this with respect and awe, and protect it as a precious gift and expose it completely to the best of one's ability. Therefore, one must demand of others to treat the individual's life and human uniqueness with honor and holiness, and provide the other with the conditions and opportunities to reveal this uniqueness in its full force, and to coalesce one's life with the lives of others. The sanctity of each person's life is therefore the primary foundation of the values of human civilization. It is an absolute value that is not open to argument or compromise, and that is not dependent on a person's standing, abilities, or power. Rather, it stems from the fact of one's human essence that exists from the day one is born until the day one dies.
Other values are drawn from this value, which come from it and compliment it. If the life of each person is sacred, then we must honor life and give life the right and the circumstances to become full. This is not given to one by any external force, but rather from the nature of one's humanity.
How do you make life full? According to the present, it is by the ability to discover the self, which contains the unique nucleus that nature bestowed upon it and only upon it, in order to add to human life what only it can add - its unique musical note of life.
Shivyon erech ha'adam is therefore a primary value that stems not from political, economic, or social considerations, but rather from the fact of one's human essence. From the difference that one's uniqueness provides. Violating this equality is an attack on the foundational rules of life, preventing people from the conditions of discovering their own uniqueness and strength, and limiting their ability to discover their life possibilities.
There is no superior and no inferior in a system of human uniqueness. "He who kills a single Jewish soul is as if he demolishes the entire world" - every human is an entire world, a precious being that must be nurtured and be protected from injury and despair. One's existence and development are important not only for oneself, but for all of humanity. For all life. Shivyon erech ha'adam binds the existence of one's freedom to live without external boundaries within the framework of accepted social norms. This definition of freedom is the primary human value, which allows the natural growth and completion of the unique nucleus hidden in every human being.
This growth cannot be created only by shedding the heavy external restrictions, it requires encouragement and nurturing.
Therefore, one should not be satisfied by granting only formal freedoms; rather, one must allow another to grow that which is hidden in the depths of each human life patiently and lovingly.
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?
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.
Letter to a Menahel - Miriam Falk Biderman
If you are ready to come in off "the sidelines," if you understand
that your local movement depends on your assuming leadership, if you are
willing to apply yourself to the task of being a
menahel— then you have started in the proper direction.
But there is no recipe for becoming a good menahel. I can give you an outline to show you how to lead a discussion. I can give you a book with many ideas for clever arts and crafts projects. I can tell you about a hundred games. I can explain how our holidays should be celebrated. All that I can give you with a great degree of objectivity. But to tell you how to be a menahel, well, that is not so easy; for it involves you.
What are you? That is the first question you must answer for I yourself in the process of being a menahel. You have to become better acquainted with yourself, with your own beliefs, with your likes and dislikes, with your understanding of life and of our people and of our future. Know yourself and know where you are going. Be honest with yourself in your self-investigations.
Perhaps you are wondering what place the above paragraph has in an answer to your problem of how to be a good menahel. Well, I shall tell you. When you become a menahel, you have placed in your hands the power to influence all the young chaverim in your kvutza. They will imitate everything you do and say; they will copy your mannerisms in dress, in speech, and in thought. You must never disillusion them by being one thing yourself and simultaneously telling them to be another. You will not be able to know them and to judge them unless you first know and understand yourself. You will not be able to convey ideas and action to them unless you first have clear in your mind the ideas in which you believe and the action that you, yourself, are willing to take.
So, if you would be a good menahel, first know yourself. This would not imply for you that you must "know all the answers." I hope that you have a questioning mind, that you will go through many periods of pondering and self-searching and re-evaluation in your life. But it should be clear to you that you must have a definite outlook on life, a desire to be an active participant in that part of society that will remake the Jewish nation.
Do you like people? That may sound like a silly question, but you had better be able to answer it affirmatively, or give up the idea of being a menahel. And by liking people, I mean—do you like them enough to study them, to want to know all you can about them, their hopes, their troubles, and their way of thinking? When you become a menahel) you will learn the names and faces of your young chaverim. Will you learn more? Will you call them on the phone occasionally? Will you know the hundred and one things about each of your youngsters that will make you understand their personalities and their actions?
Will you be willing to listen, listen, listen to them? And will you try to listen, too, to the things that they leave unsaid? That is a difficult thing to do—to hear the words that are not spoken. But if you really like your chaverim, you will soon be able to do even this.
Just as you know you must be a menahel, so you must know that being a menahel spells work for you. First, you have to be an example for your young chaverim. You have to participate in every machaneh affair and be outstanding in your work. Nothing will make your youngsters more proud of you than if you collect the most money for JNF, or if you sell the most Furrows subscriptions. If you take a leading part in the concert, if you arrange an oneg Shabbat, your young chaverim will begin to picture the time when they will be like you.
Then you have to work on the kvutza itself. You have to prepare every meeting activity with utmost care. You must always know what you want to do with "the kids." Never come to a meeting without knowing what your aim and program will be. For this you have to read, read, read; be awake to everything that is happening to our people throughout the world, to your city, and this country. When I was at school, a very good teacher once told me, "Try to know a little bit about everything and everything about one thing."
You have to find ways of presenting what you know to your chaverim. You may not succeed at first, but keep trying. If you are primarily a "good guy," you will find the affection of your "kids"; and they will be patient with you as you learn to educate them. Just see that they have fun in the process; give them lots of activity.
Remember that as an educator, as well as a good chaver, you must consider the importance of experimenting. Every single activity and discussion you have is an experiment. Prepare for it. When it is over, look back on what you did and how you did it, and evaluate your work. Repeat methods that you find successful and discard your mistakes. Don't be afraid to try something new. The oneg Shabbat, our Camp Kvutzot, everything we have—even our form of organization—is the result of the experiments of menahalim who started as you start today, a bit unsure of yourself but well aware of the need of your effort.
More important than anything else is your attitude to our movement. But to proper attitude, we must add knowledge. And that is what you must acquire. Do you know your holidays, their meaning, and their historical background? Do you know about the history of Zionism? Do you know the work of the chalutzim and what they have created in Eretz Israel? Are you keeping yourself informed about what is happening to world Jewry? These are the questions you should answer before becoming a menahel. Work to educate yourself.
And now, I wonder what else I should tell you? Need I tell you to dress simply and neatly, always be punctual, always to set high standards in your own "way of being" . . .? There is one thing more:
Do all your work with chalutz devotion. Leading your kvutza is your most important duty in Habonim.
But there is no recipe for becoming a good menahel. I can give you an outline to show you how to lead a discussion. I can give you a book with many ideas for clever arts and crafts projects. I can tell you about a hundred games. I can explain how our holidays should be celebrated. All that I can give you with a great degree of objectivity. But to tell you how to be a menahel, well, that is not so easy; for it involves you.
What are you? That is the first question you must answer for I yourself in the process of being a menahel. You have to become better acquainted with yourself, with your own beliefs, with your likes and dislikes, with your understanding of life and of our people and of our future. Know yourself and know where you are going. Be honest with yourself in your self-investigations.
Perhaps you are wondering what place the above paragraph has in an answer to your problem of how to be a good menahel. Well, I shall tell you. When you become a menahel, you have placed in your hands the power to influence all the young chaverim in your kvutza. They will imitate everything you do and say; they will copy your mannerisms in dress, in speech, and in thought. You must never disillusion them by being one thing yourself and simultaneously telling them to be another. You will not be able to know them and to judge them unless you first know and understand yourself. You will not be able to convey ideas and action to them unless you first have clear in your mind the ideas in which you believe and the action that you, yourself, are willing to take.
So, if you would be a good menahel, first know yourself. This would not imply for you that you must "know all the answers." I hope that you have a questioning mind, that you will go through many periods of pondering and self-searching and re-evaluation in your life. But it should be clear to you that you must have a definite outlook on life, a desire to be an active participant in that part of society that will remake the Jewish nation.
Do you like people? That may sound like a silly question, but you had better be able to answer it affirmatively, or give up the idea of being a menahel. And by liking people, I mean—do you like them enough to study them, to want to know all you can about them, their hopes, their troubles, and their way of thinking? When you become a menahel) you will learn the names and faces of your young chaverim. Will you learn more? Will you call them on the phone occasionally? Will you know the hundred and one things about each of your youngsters that will make you understand their personalities and their actions?
Will you be willing to listen, listen, listen to them? And will you try to listen, too, to the things that they leave unsaid? That is a difficult thing to do—to hear the words that are not spoken. But if you really like your chaverim, you will soon be able to do even this.
Just as you know you must be a menahel, so you must know that being a menahel spells work for you. First, you have to be an example for your young chaverim. You have to participate in every machaneh affair and be outstanding in your work. Nothing will make your youngsters more proud of you than if you collect the most money for JNF, or if you sell the most Furrows subscriptions. If you take a leading part in the concert, if you arrange an oneg Shabbat, your young chaverim will begin to picture the time when they will be like you.
Then you have to work on the kvutza itself. You have to prepare every meeting activity with utmost care. You must always know what you want to do with "the kids." Never come to a meeting without knowing what your aim and program will be. For this you have to read, read, read; be awake to everything that is happening to our people throughout the world, to your city, and this country. When I was at school, a very good teacher once told me, "Try to know a little bit about everything and everything about one thing."
You have to find ways of presenting what you know to your chaverim. You may not succeed at first, but keep trying. If you are primarily a "good guy," you will find the affection of your "kids"; and they will be patient with you as you learn to educate them. Just see that they have fun in the process; give them lots of activity.
Remember that as an educator, as well as a good chaver, you must consider the importance of experimenting. Every single activity and discussion you have is an experiment. Prepare for it. When it is over, look back on what you did and how you did it, and evaluate your work. Repeat methods that you find successful and discard your mistakes. Don't be afraid to try something new. The oneg Shabbat, our Camp Kvutzot, everything we have—even our form of organization—is the result of the experiments of menahalim who started as you start today, a bit unsure of yourself but well aware of the need of your effort.
More important than anything else is your attitude to our movement. But to proper attitude, we must add knowledge. And that is what you must acquire. Do you know your holidays, their meaning, and their historical background? Do you know about the history of Zionism? Do you know the work of the chalutzim and what they have created in Eretz Israel? Are you keeping yourself informed about what is happening to world Jewry? These are the questions you should answer before becoming a menahel. Work to educate yourself.
And now, I wonder what else I should tell you? Need I tell you to dress simply and neatly, always be punctual, always to set high standards in your own "way of being" . . .? There is one thing more:
Do all your work with chalutz devotion. Leading your kvutza is your most important duty in Habonim.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
To Remember the Future - Gerry Stahl
"after Auschwitz, poetry cannot be written" - Theodor Adorno
The technological development in the field of nuclear weapons has brought humanity to a state which the danger of total extinction is hovering above it. This brings us to the question - who will suffer the loss of human beings lives if they themselves annihilate these lives? Answer: not a single soul. Total annihilation is not a loss for there can be no loss without there being a loser. Therefore, we must search for the meaning of extinction only in human beings expectation of it, the very same expectation that corrupts their very own lives (according to Jonathan Shell).
Just as the meaning of the past is only fully understood in the present, the meaning of our acts in the present seek for their full understanding in the future. The threat of self extinction of humanity therefore redefines the face of the moral world we live in today. It is commonly considered that a single event that occurs in the present may lead to several different results in the future. This may also be looked upon from the opposite perspective - our acts in the present, in part, are a suggestion as to shaping the future a certain way. In other words, the future which we are preparing ourselves has a role in shaping the present we are operating in now.
The current policy of nuclear threat is in a way a suggestion to a general behavior that portrays a refusal by principal to the possibility of the existence of a moral world, one of a moral time and space, without such there is no moral existence to the world.
If an end shall come to man in the same threat of mutual suicide, history will then come to an end. If our present is the past of the future - it now has a new meaning from the one we thought. One of the ways in which our acts in the present get their meaning is from our own conception - the way we imagine the future. Self extinction of humanity is a denial of any possible future, and in that it is in fact denial of any meaning of the present.
Today denial of human respect is no theoretical threat - it is an existing reality that is well instilled in us. We are living in the present, in a world that chooses to continue what was invented in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Hiroshima. Today, human traits are no longer a source of great honor. Degrading behavior is no longer surprising or upsetting, insult and disrespect have become integral parts of our world.
If indeed justice is with sustainers of the nuclear threat there is then no alternative to this world of degraded honor: we are - in Albert Camus' words - "the victims and the executors" all at once.
Is it possible to create a present based on a positive memory of the future and not that of annihilation?
The answer is in the hands of man!
Notes:
How can you write poetry when you know man can create the Holocaust?
Future picture and self-fulfilling prophecy
Is it possible to have a positive future picture?
Future picture is hard > idealistic, but also shaped by the fact that humans created Auschwitz. Which "reality" is more prevalent?
humans created Auschwitz shaping future picture > apathy
What is the future picture for your life? Your actions, interactions, and relationships should reflect that. Garin Aliya? Socialism? Anarchy? Shivyon Erech Haadam? Or is it a super capitalist America?
Don't accept that there will be conflict and war forever!
("That's not what I want, but that's what it is.") No > Enemies surrounding us > Mifgash B'Englit > accepting that
See peace in future > prepare for it, treat Israeli Arabs better
See no peace in future > prepare for it, racism
Use imagination in future picture!
Martin Buber, Zion and the Youth: Older people see "reality" > push on youth > accepting
America's future picture > violent, survival of the fittest > strength, don't touch us > mass weapon build-up
Postitive future picture > may sound naive, but it is important, even essential > We need the courage to see and act towards things that may be/seem naive, but is what we believe is right.
Don't be afraid to think naive thoughts or to imagine a different world.
You can't imagine or work toward a better world alone. You need a group. Work together!
The technological development in the field of nuclear weapons has brought humanity to a state which the danger of total extinction is hovering above it. This brings us to the question - who will suffer the loss of human beings lives if they themselves annihilate these lives? Answer: not a single soul. Total annihilation is not a loss for there can be no loss without there being a loser. Therefore, we must search for the meaning of extinction only in human beings expectation of it, the very same expectation that corrupts their very own lives (according to Jonathan Shell).
Just as the meaning of the past is only fully understood in the present, the meaning of our acts in the present seek for their full understanding in the future. The threat of self extinction of humanity therefore redefines the face of the moral world we live in today. It is commonly considered that a single event that occurs in the present may lead to several different results in the future. This may also be looked upon from the opposite perspective - our acts in the present, in part, are a suggestion as to shaping the future a certain way. In other words, the future which we are preparing ourselves has a role in shaping the present we are operating in now.
The current policy of nuclear threat is in a way a suggestion to a general behavior that portrays a refusal by principal to the possibility of the existence of a moral world, one of a moral time and space, without such there is no moral existence to the world.
If an end shall come to man in the same threat of mutual suicide, history will then come to an end. If our present is the past of the future - it now has a new meaning from the one we thought. One of the ways in which our acts in the present get their meaning is from our own conception - the way we imagine the future. Self extinction of humanity is a denial of any possible future, and in that it is in fact denial of any meaning of the present.
Today denial of human respect is no theoretical threat - it is an existing reality that is well instilled in us. We are living in the present, in a world that chooses to continue what was invented in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Hiroshima. Today, human traits are no longer a source of great honor. Degrading behavior is no longer surprising or upsetting, insult and disrespect have become integral parts of our world.
If indeed justice is with sustainers of the nuclear threat there is then no alternative to this world of degraded honor: we are - in Albert Camus' words - "the victims and the executors" all at once.
Is it possible to create a present based on a positive memory of the future and not that of annihilation?
The answer is in the hands of man!
Notes:
How can you write poetry when you know man can create the Holocaust?
Future picture and self-fulfilling prophecy
Is it possible to have a positive future picture?
Future picture is hard > idealistic, but also shaped by the fact that humans created Auschwitz. Which "reality" is more prevalent?
humans created Auschwitz shaping future picture > apathy
What is the future picture for your life? Your actions, interactions, and relationships should reflect that. Garin Aliya? Socialism? Anarchy? Shivyon Erech Haadam? Or is it a super capitalist America?
Don't accept that there will be conflict and war forever!
("That's not what I want, but that's what it is.") No > Enemies surrounding us > Mifgash B'Englit > accepting that
See peace in future > prepare for it, treat Israeli Arabs better
See no peace in future > prepare for it, racism
Use imagination in future picture!
Martin Buber, Zion and the Youth: Older people see "reality" > push on youth > accepting
America's future picture > violent, survival of the fittest > strength, don't touch us > mass weapon build-up
Postitive future picture > may sound naive, but it is important, even essential > We need the courage to see and act towards things that may be/seem naive, but is what we believe is right.
Don't be afraid to think naive thoughts or to imagine a different world.
You can't imagine or work toward a better world alone. You need a group. Work together!
On the New Human - A. D. Gordon
Creating a new life requires the creation of a new person. Ideals, aspirations, and deeds that a person does not renew with his own hands will end up being dictated by the very life and spirit around him that he seeks to conquer, and will become swallowed up by that life until no trace is left...
A true expression of an ideal must live in all of the cells and atoms of an entire organism. This expression, which is essentially the life renewal of the bearer of the ideal, is the complete and proper discovery of this being's desire for change.
A true expression of an ideal must live in all of the cells and atoms of an entire organism. This expression, which is essentially the life renewal of the bearer of the ideal, is the complete and proper discovery of this being's desire for change.
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.
Zion and the Youth - Martin Buber
The youth are humanity's eternal possibility for happiness. This possibility occurs
repeatedly and humanity misses it again and again. Generations of people in their
twenties return to the stage again and again with the passion of absolute yearning
in their hearts, devoted to ideals, ready and waiting to break through the blocked
gates of Eden.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation an abundance of inferior and unimportant goals from the society around them take control of the youths' souls. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and power take control of them. Their environment preaches the perception that the 'facts' are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjects in a sequence of events that we cannot change, shape, or control, and that the aspiration to escape from the rituals of the all-powerful “greater good” will turn the rebel into an outsider from society and a hallucinatory person. He will become a man that lives a life of celibacy, who isolates himself from society, and is unsuccessful. This preaching overcomes the longings and devotion; the pure force, which was going to actualize a life of truth on earth, was coerced into becoming a burden of lies and the burden of the soulless walking on the sidelines. And the remaining few rebels, who were abandoned and left behind by their friends become – as was foretold – the exceptions that do not succeed in life. And again the empty mechanism was saved; it was proven again that inertia is stronger than the flight of the free spirit, which aspires to legislate more exalted laws. And again humanity did not receive the achievement and the chance that fate summoned for it, and a new generation rises up, a new youth, and what had happened to its predecessors will happen to it too.
However, the uniqueness of times in which great internal and external crises occur in the lives of nations and humanity as a whole, is that they refuse to surrender to the decree, they rebel against the law of inertia and dare to save the youthful vigor that did not yet disintegrate, and from it they dare to grow an act of revolution, an act of renewal. These times speak to the youth with lungs of fire, they demand from the youth, even command of it, not to surrender, to face the evil, to save the soul, and to do its deeds. And the youth listens.
This youth stretches via great exertion and shakes itself free from the coercion of the empty mechanism, and is not tempted by it. This youth dares to do what is beyond. It performs an act like Yehoshua in Givon: it delays the sun from rising in the sky until its endeavor is completed. It prolongs its youth by one hour, one great hour, and performs what is necessary for the turning point to occur.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation an abundance of inferior and unimportant goals from the society around them take control of the youths' souls. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and power take control of them. Their environment preaches the perception that the 'facts' are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjects in a sequence of events that we cannot change, shape, or control, and that the aspiration to escape from the rituals of the all-powerful “greater good” will turn the rebel into an outsider from society and a hallucinatory person. He will become a man that lives a life of celibacy, who isolates himself from society, and is unsuccessful. This preaching overcomes the longings and devotion; the pure force, which was going to actualize a life of truth on earth, was coerced into becoming a burden of lies and the burden of the soulless walking on the sidelines. And the remaining few rebels, who were abandoned and left behind by their friends become – as was foretold – the exceptions that do not succeed in life. And again the empty mechanism was saved; it was proven again that inertia is stronger than the flight of the free spirit, which aspires to legislate more exalted laws. And again humanity did not receive the achievement and the chance that fate summoned for it, and a new generation rises up, a new youth, and what had happened to its predecessors will happen to it too.
However, the uniqueness of times in which great internal and external crises occur in the lives of nations and humanity as a whole, is that they refuse to surrender to the decree, they rebel against the law of inertia and dare to save the youthful vigor that did not yet disintegrate, and from it they dare to grow an act of revolution, an act of renewal. These times speak to the youth with lungs of fire, they demand from the youth, even command of it, not to surrender, to face the evil, to save the soul, and to do its deeds. And the youth listens.
This youth stretches via great exertion and shakes itself free from the coercion of the empty mechanism, and is not tempted by it. This youth dares to do what is beyond. It performs an act like Yehoshua in Givon: it delays the sun from rising in the sky until its endeavor is completed. It prolongs its youth by one hour, one great hour, and performs what is necessary for the turning point to occur.
About Approval and Demand, or "How Can You Move the Earth Through One Spot"
"Give me one point to stand on, and I will move the Earth." - Archimedes
Suddenly, when you are approved of, you are happy.
That revolutionary sensation that only someone standing in front of you can give you: that you have an undisputed, unconditional place; regardless of reality, regardless of season. That within you, within your uniqueness, there is an internal place that will exist forever and eternally have a place in the world. This is how the person facing you makes you happy and gives you his approval.
There is here a very fragile sensitivity, but its power is great.
You are being approved of. There is a concealed part within you - that even you do not understand completely, which is given an undisputed place. And now, all of the storms, all of the arguments, all of the challenges, all of the hardships and disagreements can come and they are suddenly not so bad, not so final, and not so cold. Not everything is dependent on them. Suddenly everything is not so dependent on these things. What freedom! The painful dependence has disappeared.
There is now the place to make mistakes, to receive, to be angry and to demand.
And you feel as though someone has found within you that same "Archimedean point," that inner-point that will not disappoint, that, with its help, it is possible to move the entire world.
Now, suddenly, a place for demand is created, as if by itself. A great place. The demand stops being external, hostile or foreign. It becomes natural and warm. The difficulty still exists within it, and it can still hurt, but it's a difficulty of warmth, of contact. It no longer has within it the cold and distant sting of judgment, the threatening sward of loneliness, "If you don't do this, than you will no longer have a place."
You are approved of, and then demanded of, demanded of and then approved of. And suddenly something is cleared up for you - that the demand of you is an extension of the approval. That only those who truly demand of you, with warmth and with feeling, can approve you and vice versa.
And without words, you are demanded, maybe, to speak the most beautifully, the most difficultly - you also must approve of - the person facing you.
Only you can do this. What a simple wonder, and so difficult! And only you can give him - the person in front of you - make him feel approved of and happy. And now, it is possible to imagine, to desire, and to demand - an approving, demanding, and happy tzevet, and approving and demanding society. A happy society.
Suddenly, when you are approved of, you are happy.
That revolutionary sensation that only someone standing in front of you can give you: that you have an undisputed, unconditional place; regardless of reality, regardless of season. That within you, within your uniqueness, there is an internal place that will exist forever and eternally have a place in the world. This is how the person facing you makes you happy and gives you his approval.
There is here a very fragile sensitivity, but its power is great.
You are being approved of. There is a concealed part within you - that even you do not understand completely, which is given an undisputed place. And now, all of the storms, all of the arguments, all of the challenges, all of the hardships and disagreements can come and they are suddenly not so bad, not so final, and not so cold. Not everything is dependent on them. Suddenly everything is not so dependent on these things. What freedom! The painful dependence has disappeared.
There is now the place to make mistakes, to receive, to be angry and to demand.
And you feel as though someone has found within you that same "Archimedean point," that inner-point that will not disappoint, that, with its help, it is possible to move the entire world.
Now, suddenly, a place for demand is created, as if by itself. A great place. The demand stops being external, hostile or foreign. It becomes natural and warm. The difficulty still exists within it, and it can still hurt, but it's a difficulty of warmth, of contact. It no longer has within it the cold and distant sting of judgment, the threatening sward of loneliness, "If you don't do this, than you will no longer have a place."
You are approved of, and then demanded of, demanded of and then approved of. And suddenly something is cleared up for you - that the demand of you is an extension of the approval. That only those who truly demand of you, with warmth and with feeling, can approve you and vice versa.
And without words, you are demanded, maybe, to speak the most beautifully, the most difficultly - you also must approve of - the person facing you.
Only you can do this. What a simple wonder, and so difficult! And only you can give him - the person in front of you - make him feel approved of and happy. And now, it is possible to imagine, to desire, and to demand - an approving, demanding, and happy tzevet, and approving and demanding society. A happy society.
On Education - David Cohen
At the moment that the decision to take this action came to fruition in my heart, I knew that the organizational and educational path that would bring them to us was not to try to raise them up, but rather to descend to them, to join them, live with them and with them to ascend.
This was my educational method, for raising garinim (seeds) – hardcore groups from within the neighborhoods, not to call them to come to HaNoar HaOved, but rather, to truly bring HaNoar HaOved to them.
I enlisted alongside the first ones, the founders, the living spirit and the force directing the operation, and with them, as an assistant for them; and together we started to set the foundations and to create the tools for this enterprise.
This was my educational method, for raising garinim (seeds) – hardcore groups from within the neighborhoods, not to call them to come to HaNoar HaOved, but rather, to truly bring HaNoar HaOved to them.
I enlisted alongside the first ones, the founders, the living spirit and the force directing the operation, and with them, as an assistant for them; and together we started to set the foundations and to create the tools for this enterprise.
Notes on R. Wesley Hurd's Postmodernism
Maybe people saw modernism as a race to win instead of an open opportunity.
Modernism = man controls itself and can effect the world > creation of ideologies, expectation that things will be better in the world, solve societies problems
Absolute elements: premodern > G-d, modern > man, postmodern > no absolute elements, maybe nothing
We live in a postmodern era, so everything is a part of it, so it is hard to understand
Postmodernism = apathetic and dissapointed
Is acceptance of all truth apathetic?
Perceived truths are relative, but point to universal truths
I don't like the idea that no one should impose truth, "That is your opinion (truth)" > is this wrong?
Postmodernism brought about both pluralism and relativism
You can't tell anyone that they are wrong
Reality and truth are different > Reality: things that happen in life, the situation we are in that created or was brought about by "truth" Truth: guiding principle/ideology
Postmodernism brings attention to marginalized people by deconstruction, gives validation to more than one thing, bringing power to the unprivileged, not putting one above the other, and bringing attention to the other
Each person creates their own interpretations of reality
Postmodernism = reality is based on images of perceived reality, not on truth
movies described a reality, but that reality no longer exists, so those images have become the reality
Critical thought is important in a postmodern world, important to have opinions, no matter what they are
The way the movement looks at Judaism is a mixture of modernism and postmodernism = spectrum, but there is a limit to the spectrum
Postmodernism makes people alone, even in thoughts and beliefs (they are unique)
Postmodernism isn't trying to be a thing, but it is a rejection of a thing (modernism)
Modernism ended > Postmodernism
Feminism ended > Postfeminism = Ditch it, disappointment, disillusionment, apathy Zionism ended > Postzionism
Our society is based on postmodernism
Not saying what the world should look like, but what it does
Masa = postmodern, nobody opposes you because of apathy and they don't have a truth
People feel threatened by truth
When postmodernists are faced with people who bring/promote truth, they say they are brainwashing.
Brainwashing in a postmodern world is bringing and teaching toward a strong truth and direction.
In a postmodern world, there is no truth, optimism or direction.
How do you live by a truth in a society where truth doesn't exist?
Postmodernism goes well with capitalism.
In postmodernism, there is no rebellion. There is nothing to rebel against.
Postmodern rebel > running through an open door, nobody fighting back, entitled to opinions/truths
What is the place of a revolutionary movement in a postmodern society?
What kind of influence can a movement have in a postmodern world?
We need to rebel against postmodernism itself!
Modernism = man controls itself and can effect the world > creation of ideologies, expectation that things will be better in the world, solve societies problems
Absolute elements: premodern > G-d, modern > man, postmodern > no absolute elements, maybe nothing
We live in a postmodern era, so everything is a part of it, so it is hard to understand
Postmodernism = apathetic and dissapointed
Is acceptance of all truth apathetic?
Perceived truths are relative, but point to universal truths
I don't like the idea that no one should impose truth, "That is your opinion (truth)" > is this wrong?
Postmodernism brought about both pluralism and relativism
You can't tell anyone that they are wrong
Reality and truth are different > Reality: things that happen in life, the situation we are in that created or was brought about by "truth" Truth: guiding principle/ideology
Postmodernism brings attention to marginalized people by deconstruction, gives validation to more than one thing, bringing power to the unprivileged, not putting one above the other, and bringing attention to the other
Each person creates their own interpretations of reality
Postmodernism = reality is based on images of perceived reality, not on truth
movies described a reality, but that reality no longer exists, so those images have become the reality
Critical thought is important in a postmodern world, important to have opinions, no matter what they are
The way the movement looks at Judaism is a mixture of modernism and postmodernism = spectrum, but there is a limit to the spectrum
Postmodernism makes people alone, even in thoughts and beliefs (they are unique)
Postmodernism isn't trying to be a thing, but it is a rejection of a thing (modernism)
Modernism ended > Postmodernism
Feminism ended > Postfeminism = Ditch it, disappointment, disillusionment, apathy Zionism ended > Postzionism
Our society is based on postmodernism
Not saying what the world should look like, but what it does
Masa = postmodern, nobody opposes you because of apathy and they don't have a truth
People feel threatened by truth
When postmodernists are faced with people who bring/promote truth, they say they are brainwashing.
Brainwashing in a postmodern world is bringing and teaching toward a strong truth and direction.
In a postmodern world, there is no truth, optimism or direction.
How do you live by a truth in a society where truth doesn't exist?
Postmodernism goes well with capitalism.
In postmodernism, there is no rebellion. There is nothing to rebel against.
Postmodern rebel > running through an open door, nobody fighting back, entitled to opinions/truths
What is the place of a revolutionary movement in a postmodern society?
What kind of influence can a movement have in a postmodern world?
We need to rebel against postmodernism itself!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Postmodernism - R. Wesley Hurd
At the end of
this century the big questions about reality and being human rise with
unexpected power. We ask ever more agonizingly: What does it mean to
be human? How do human beings fit into this vast cosmos? Where to
from here? We live in a time of great uncertainty–caught in the
transition from a bold and passionate optimism about the future to a
deep skepticism and spirit of nihilism about finding any universal ways
for mankind. We live in a postmodern time.
The term “postmodernism” pops up in newspapers, magazines, and other media. What does it mean? And what does it mean for a Christian? My goal in this essay is to describe some primary features underlying postmodernism and to give examples of postmodernism’s effects. In the first section, I will focus on postmodernism’s philosophical underpinnings. In the second, I will present some examples of how postmodernism manifests itself today.
The Underpinnings
To characterize postmodernism, we must look briefly at what came before: modernism. “Modern” was once used liberally as an adjective to describe many things–from the latest kitchen gadget to a style of art. But “modern” also refers to a specific period of time (roughly 1870 through the mid-1960s) and to the range of cultural ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that people generated during that period.
Modernism was grounded in the beliefs of the Enlightenment–a time in western civilization (roughly 1730-1800) in which the “great minds” of the West began to disbelieve in the authority of the Judeo-Christian God as the basis for the truth and the law that undergird society and culture. Replacing traditional beliefs in God, church, and king, they established a new authority centered in man and his rational abilities to create a new, “liberated” social and intellectual framework for human endeavor.
The modernist believed that science had shaken the foundations of traditional authorities and truths. (Consider, for example, how three developments–the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory–had radically altered the social consciousness of western man.) Modern man could find a new, rational foundation for universal truth; science, particularly, would reveal new truth, which, when applied to modern society and institutions, would literally remake the world. Modernism “… held the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would further not only the control of the forces of nature but also the understanding of self and world, moral progress, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness.” (Jurgen Habermas, Modernity: An Unfinished Project, pp 162-63.)
Modernism presupposed an understanding of human identity and self that was unified, coherent, and autonomous: man was a thinking being capable of rationally perceiving, knowing, and conquering the world–and he would. To be “modern,” then, was to embrace the power of scientific rationality, the spirit of progress, a vision of unlimited potential for human society, and an optimism for the future in which man could obtain his two greatest needs: meaning and material security.
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:
(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a “holy grail” that doesn’t exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are “truths” that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
(2) A person’s sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness–a vague, “decentered” collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world–is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.
(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally “construct” what we think of as “real” in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a “text” or “composite” of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self–who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it–is subjectively constructed through language.
(4) “Reality” is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism’s preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the “official” use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political “spin” control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone’s willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.
(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by “deconstructing” it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a “binary,” one of which is “privileged” and the other of which is “marginalized,” and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says “Honey is better for you than white sugar,” this statement of opinion has “privileged” honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say “Sex should only happen in marriage,” in which case the experience of sex in marriage is “privileged” and sex out of wedlock is “marginalized.” Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. “Deconstruction” is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or “unprivileged” end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.
Some Examples
The central characteristics of postmodernism present us with a radically different way of looking at life. At this point, however, we need to remember the proverb that says “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish!” The postmodernist elements of our culture are to us like water to the fish: we live and breathe in them everyday, but we take them so much for granted that it is very difficult for us to see them.
Perhaps the most general characteristics of postmodernism are fragmentation and pluralism. Our culture is rapidly reaching the point where we no longer think of ourselves in a universe but rather a multi-verse. In the postmodern worldview, transience, flux, and fragmentation describe our growing sense of how things really are. Where do we see this played out around us?
Personal identity. At the level of the individual, there abides a sense of uncertainty about how to understand oneself; most people consciously search for a sense of identity–for who and what they are and for what significance and worth they have. Our media-generated, consumer culture daily offers us a thousand choices for who we should be like, what we should value, and how we can attain worth and significance. And we take these images for what is real. So, for example, tennis pro Andre Agassi can say “Image is everything!” in an advertisement, and we believe him.
Education and academics. From the modernist perspective, truth was largely relative, but the possibility of universals in knowledge remained conceivable. In the postmodern model, we don’t really “know” anything; rather, we “interpret.” Postmodernist education says “Pick a worldview,” as if only a choice of clothing style were at issue, “and create your interpretations accordingly,” since truths are only language constructions put in place by those who have influence and power. The emphasis on multi-cultural education is grounded philosophically in this perspective. After all, says the postmodernist educator, the emphasis in Western education on rationality and the quest for what is ultimately true is only another manifestation of Western “cultural imperialism” motivated by consumer capitalist power.
The term “postmodernism” pops up in newspapers, magazines, and other media. What does it mean? And what does it mean for a Christian? My goal in this essay is to describe some primary features underlying postmodernism and to give examples of postmodernism’s effects. In the first section, I will focus on postmodernism’s philosophical underpinnings. In the second, I will present some examples of how postmodernism manifests itself today.
The Underpinnings
To characterize postmodernism, we must look briefly at what came before: modernism. “Modern” was once used liberally as an adjective to describe many things–from the latest kitchen gadget to a style of art. But “modern” also refers to a specific period of time (roughly 1870 through the mid-1960s) and to the range of cultural ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that people generated during that period.
Modernism was grounded in the beliefs of the Enlightenment–a time in western civilization (roughly 1730-1800) in which the “great minds” of the West began to disbelieve in the authority of the Judeo-Christian God as the basis for the truth and the law that undergird society and culture. Replacing traditional beliefs in God, church, and king, they established a new authority centered in man and his rational abilities to create a new, “liberated” social and intellectual framework for human endeavor.
The modernist believed that science had shaken the foundations of traditional authorities and truths. (Consider, for example, how three developments–the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory–had radically altered the social consciousness of western man.) Modern man could find a new, rational foundation for universal truth; science, particularly, would reveal new truth, which, when applied to modern society and institutions, would literally remake the world. Modernism “… held the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would further not only the control of the forces of nature but also the understanding of self and world, moral progress, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness.” (Jurgen Habermas, Modernity: An Unfinished Project, pp 162-63.)
Modernism presupposed an understanding of human identity and self that was unified, coherent, and autonomous: man was a thinking being capable of rationally perceiving, knowing, and conquering the world–and he would. To be “modern,” then, was to embrace the power of scientific rationality, the spirit of progress, a vision of unlimited potential for human society, and an optimism for the future in which man could obtain his two greatest needs: meaning and material security.
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:
(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a “holy grail” that doesn’t exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are “truths” that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
(2) A person’s sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness–a vague, “decentered” collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world–is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.
(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally “construct” what we think of as “real” in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a “text” or “composite” of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self–who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it–is subjectively constructed through language.
(4) “Reality” is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism’s preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the “official” use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political “spin” control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone’s willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.
(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by “deconstructing” it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a “binary,” one of which is “privileged” and the other of which is “marginalized,” and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says “Honey is better for you than white sugar,” this statement of opinion has “privileged” honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say “Sex should only happen in marriage,” in which case the experience of sex in marriage is “privileged” and sex out of wedlock is “marginalized.” Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. “Deconstruction” is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or “unprivileged” end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.
Some Examples
The central characteristics of postmodernism present us with a radically different way of looking at life. At this point, however, we need to remember the proverb that says “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish!” The postmodernist elements of our culture are to us like water to the fish: we live and breathe in them everyday, but we take them so much for granted that it is very difficult for us to see them.
Perhaps the most general characteristics of postmodernism are fragmentation and pluralism. Our culture is rapidly reaching the point where we no longer think of ourselves in a universe but rather a multi-verse. In the postmodern worldview, transience, flux, and fragmentation describe our growing sense of how things really are. Where do we see this played out around us?
Personal identity. At the level of the individual, there abides a sense of uncertainty about how to understand oneself; most people consciously search for a sense of identity–for who and what they are and for what significance and worth they have. Our media-generated, consumer culture daily offers us a thousand choices for who we should be like, what we should value, and how we can attain worth and significance. And we take these images for what is real. So, for example, tennis pro Andre Agassi can say “Image is everything!” in an advertisement, and we believe him.
Education and academics. From the modernist perspective, truth was largely relative, but the possibility of universals in knowledge remained conceivable. In the postmodern model, we don’t really “know” anything; rather, we “interpret.” Postmodernist education says “Pick a worldview,” as if only a choice of clothing style were at issue, “and create your interpretations accordingly,” since truths are only language constructions put in place by those who have influence and power. The emphasis on multi-cultural education is grounded philosophically in this perspective. After all, says the postmodernist educator, the emphasis in Western education on rationality and the quest for what is ultimately true is only another manifestation of Western “cultural imperialism” motivated by consumer capitalist power.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
On Faith - Berl Katznelson
Faith is a great and deep matter, but proclamations about faith cannot themselves produce it. By demanding faith from one another, we shall not ignite the fire of faith in his heart.
Happy are they who have faith! But, is self-inspired conviction or easy bought belief which proclaims itself as faith, capable of inspiring other people with genuine, true faith?
And if one says, "I believe" -- does he thereby answer all the questions which gnaw at the heart of everyone who bears within him the grief of man in our time and the pain of Jewish suffering in the world today?
We often hear of the wonders of faith and the bliss of the believer. No doubt people know whereof they speak. But it seems to me that the plight of a true believer, whose faith - whatever it may be - is not a mere duty of convention, is not an easy one either. If one believes in a living G-d, who judges the world with mercy, is he not now compelled to tear down the heaven with his outcry? And if one holds his sociological or political views as a faith (and it is in this regard that we are now challenged to believe) he can not but feel that his convictions are under severe strain today. He must demand of his views an answer of life and death, to his questioning and doubt.
Perhaps Micah the Morashtite was right, when he demanded that faith "walk humbly." And if one has really been graced with faith, has he the right to demand of others that they believe as he does? Can we ask of the Youth Leader, standing at the beginning of his way, that he have as firm convictions as our comrades of the Second Aliyah? ... Not everyone has had the good fortune of our fruitful, fortifying experience in Palestine, which teaches us to regard every ill event as something passing and to be able to say, whatever the situation: "Thou hast sown a seed - be of good heart!" Let us not forget that we live in a time when even firm trees have been uprooted from their bed. There is certainty only in the menace which surrounds us on every side. We are threatened by concrete dangers. Consolation? That, each one of us must find in his heart - and that requires stern efforts.
Happy are they who have faith! But, is self-inspired conviction or easy bought belief which proclaims itself as faith, capable of inspiring other people with genuine, true faith?
And if one says, "I believe" -- does he thereby answer all the questions which gnaw at the heart of everyone who bears within him the grief of man in our time and the pain of Jewish suffering in the world today?
We often hear of the wonders of faith and the bliss of the believer. No doubt people know whereof they speak. But it seems to me that the plight of a true believer, whose faith - whatever it may be - is not a mere duty of convention, is not an easy one either. If one believes in a living G-d, who judges the world with mercy, is he not now compelled to tear down the heaven with his outcry? And if one holds his sociological or political views as a faith (and it is in this regard that we are now challenged to believe) he can not but feel that his convictions are under severe strain today. He must demand of his views an answer of life and death, to his questioning and doubt.
Perhaps Micah the Morashtite was right, when he demanded that faith "walk humbly." And if one has really been graced with faith, has he the right to demand of others that they believe as he does? Can we ask of the Youth Leader, standing at the beginning of his way, that he have as firm convictions as our comrades of the Second Aliyah? ... Not everyone has had the good fortune of our fruitful, fortifying experience in Palestine, which teaches us to regard every ill event as something passing and to be able to say, whatever the situation: "Thou hast sown a seed - be of good heart!" Let us not forget that we live in a time when even firm trees have been uprooted from their bed. There is certainty only in the menace which surrounds us on every side. We are threatened by concrete dangers. Consolation? That, each one of us must find in his heart - and that requires stern efforts.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
This is the Nucleus of a New Reality - Pesach Housepetter
Here we see the expression of this group's need to develop life skills in a more humane manner, as an expression of humanism - humanism that is always synonymous with sociability. These skills cannot be developed unless one is a part of a chevruta, an organic group, tangible life circles in which man is actualizing himself in each circle using the new modus operandi. There is no seperation between these life circles; they are unified in their modus operandi.
In this activity there is no seperation between individual life on one hand, and social life on the other. This means that individual life is the end, and social life is the means. From here we also draw the need for living in a social environment, which is an expression of a developed humanism. It is the expression of the development of social skills, the development of man.
There are places in which material life becomes the basic and only need. That is when society turns into a battlefield, through differential wages, or various kinds of privatization. In such places, regression occurs with great strength. Such places are the target for regeneration. Such regeneration will actually happen only if a certain group of people, a certain human circle, lives by a different modus operandi inside such a place. In order for this regeneration process to happen, we simply need to live differently, so that other people who are seeking the fulfillment of their natural human needs and do not find fulfillment in today's society will find it in our life circles.
Human reality is always shaped by the various powers that are active in it. We wish to see ourselves as the subjects of this regenerating reality. We wish to create it practically, not theoretically. This is why we need to shape the circles in which it is created in a matter that will allow us to actualize this, just as we do in the youth movement. We are trying to eliminate the gap between theory and practice in the educational process that occurs between the madrich and his chanichim. Theory has become activity. What is experienced by each of the two sides was spiritual and pure, and because of this it has not yet reached the examination of consciousness, but rather the meaning of this experience is self-education. Self-education educates toward understanding the praxis and eliminating the gap between the idea and reality.
From: The Community of Shitufi, Messimati Kibbutzim of Kvutzot
Notes: theoretical leads to practical
theory and action are connected
combine theory and action in all different circles of our lives - kvutza of kvutzot
see the larger body of kvutzot
it is a choice what groups you relate to or interact with
In this activity there is no seperation between individual life on one hand, and social life on the other. This means that individual life is the end, and social life is the means. From here we also draw the need for living in a social environment, which is an expression of a developed humanism. It is the expression of the development of social skills, the development of man.
There are places in which material life becomes the basic and only need. That is when society turns into a battlefield, through differential wages, or various kinds of privatization. In such places, regression occurs with great strength. Such places are the target for regeneration. Such regeneration will actually happen only if a certain group of people, a certain human circle, lives by a different modus operandi inside such a place. In order for this regeneration process to happen, we simply need to live differently, so that other people who are seeking the fulfillment of their natural human needs and do not find fulfillment in today's society will find it in our life circles.
Human reality is always shaped by the various powers that are active in it. We wish to see ourselves as the subjects of this regenerating reality. We wish to create it practically, not theoretically. This is why we need to shape the circles in which it is created in a matter that will allow us to actualize this, just as we do in the youth movement. We are trying to eliminate the gap between theory and practice in the educational process that occurs between the madrich and his chanichim. Theory has become activity. What is experienced by each of the two sides was spiritual and pure, and because of this it has not yet reached the examination of consciousness, but rather the meaning of this experience is self-education. Self-education educates toward understanding the praxis and eliminating the gap between the idea and reality.
From: The Community of Shitufi, Messimati Kibbutzim of Kvutzot
Notes: theoretical leads to practical
theory and action are connected
combine theory and action in all different circles of our lives - kvutza of kvutzot
see the larger body of kvutzot
it is a choice what groups you relate to or interact with
Kvutza Messimatit
"An individual that's involved and active in social change processes according to his beliefs and views"
"An individual that aspires to fulfill himself in the state of Israel and is a partner in its processes of building."
-From the Goals of the NOAL movement
Messima is an attempt and effort to create a better reality not just within the kvutza, but also towards the environment and society that the kvutza is in.
The universality and exclusiveness of Shivyon Erech Ha'adam demands the believer to actualize it in his own life and in his surroundings and wider society. To this manner adds the understanding that we cannot create a nice, warm bubble for ourselves inside a self-consuming, self-destructive society and if we value and crave for life (chafetz chaim) we must act and influence Israeli society in the deepest, most meaningful way possible.
As a result, we choose to take an active and shaping stand withing Israeli society which is expressed by the personal responsibility that every chanich and madrich must bear in his community.
In messima, the madrich is exposed to Israeli society from a view point of a shaper, educator and ties himself in a relationship of partnership to society. Only from that place cam he become a chalutz.
Messima is a platform for a kvutza experience, an opportunity for mutual thinking and doing, learning the kvutza itself and the people in it.
Creating a meaningful base of encounter - that reveals the individuals, their desires, and abilities in a new light.
"An individual that aspires to fulfill himself in the state of Israel and is a partner in its processes of building."
-From the Goals of the NOAL movement
Messima is an attempt and effort to create a better reality not just within the kvutza, but also towards the environment and society that the kvutza is in.
The universality and exclusiveness of Shivyon Erech Ha'adam demands the believer to actualize it in his own life and in his surroundings and wider society. To this manner adds the understanding that we cannot create a nice, warm bubble for ourselves inside a self-consuming, self-destructive society and if we value and crave for life (chafetz chaim) we must act and influence Israeli society in the deepest, most meaningful way possible.
As a result, we choose to take an active and shaping stand withing Israeli society which is expressed by the personal responsibility that every chanich and madrich must bear in his community.
In messima, the madrich is exposed to Israeli society from a view point of a shaper, educator and ties himself in a relationship of partnership to society. Only from that place cam he become a chalutz.
Messima is a platform for a kvutza experience, an opportunity for mutual thinking and doing, learning the kvutza itself and the people in it.
Creating a meaningful base of encounter - that reveals the individuals, their desires, and abilities in a new light.
On Modern Man - Erich Fromm
"What
is the outcome? Modern man...has been transformed into a commodity,
experiences his life forces as an investment which must bring him the
maximum profit obtainable under existing marketing conditions. Human
relations are essentially those of alienated automatons, each basing his
security on staying close to the herd, and not being different in
thought, feeling or action. While everybody tries to be as close as
possible to the rest, everybody remains utterly alone, pervaded by the
deep sense of insecurity, anxiety and guilt which always results when
human separateness cannot be overcome. Our civilization offers many
palliatives which help people to be consciously unaware of this
aloneness: first of all the strict routine of bureaucratized, mechanical
work, which helps people to remain unaware of their most fundamental
human desires, of the longing for transcendence and unity. Inasmuch as
the routine alone does not succeed in this, man overcomes his
unconscious despair by the routine of amusement, the passive consumption
of sounds and sights offered by the amusement industry; futhermore by
the satisfaction of buying ever new things, and soon exchanging them for
others.
Modern man is actually close to the picture Huxley describes in his Brave New World: well fed, well clad, satisfied sexually, yet without self, without any except the most superficial contact with his fellow men, guided by the slogans which Huxley formulated so succinctly, such as: 'When the individual feels, the community reels'; or 'Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today,' or, as the crowning statement: 'Everybody is happy nowadays.' Man's happiness today consists in 'having fun.' Having fun lies in the satisfaction of consuming and 'taking in' commodities, sights, food, drinks, cigarettes, people, lectures, books, movies -- all are consumed, swallowed. The world is one great object for our appetite, a big apple, a big bottle, a big breast; we are the sucklers, the eternally expectant ones, the hopeful ones -- and the eternally disappointed ones. Our character is geared to exchange and to receive, to barter and to consume; everything, spiritual as well as material objects, becomes an object of exchange and of consumption.
Modern man is actually close to the picture Huxley describes in his Brave New World: well fed, well clad, satisfied sexually, yet without self, without any except the most superficial contact with his fellow men, guided by the slogans which Huxley formulated so succinctly, such as: 'When the individual feels, the community reels'; or 'Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today,' or, as the crowning statement: 'Everybody is happy nowadays.' Man's happiness today consists in 'having fun.' Having fun lies in the satisfaction of consuming and 'taking in' commodities, sights, food, drinks, cigarettes, people, lectures, books, movies -- all are consumed, swallowed. The world is one great object for our appetite, a big apple, a big bottle, a big breast; we are the sucklers, the eternally expectant ones, the hopeful ones -- and the eternally disappointed ones. Our character is geared to exchange and to receive, to barter and to consume; everything, spiritual as well as material objects, becomes an object of exchange and of consumption.
On Interactions Between Different Sects of Jews - Berl Katznelson
Who do we see as the bearers of the Zionist hagshama? We say the Jewish people. But do we live in a way that the concept of a Jewish people is a reality for us or not? When one of the kids from Kinneret or Degania meets a Kurdish Jew or their kids in Tveria, do they feel as if they are one people and one family? Will a child, that had been raised in a kvutza and comes across these Jews, feel a real sense of partnership with them? Is Tveria (not Warsaw or Lublin!), the Jewish community of Tveria, a differnt world altogether? Officially it is considered to be a part of the Jewish people, but in what way does the fate of the Jew in Tveria really concern him? And I would like to hear the truth: how does he interact with the "other Jew"?
When a Jewish kid from a kvutza meets a Jew with peas and a zupitsa (kind of hat) or a Jew dressed in Sephardic fashion, does he really feel (not just like he learned about it in school!) that they belong to the same society? I am not sure of that. Sometimes I think that a friend of his from Ha'noar Ha'oved, or the movement or the meshek, when he talks about the fate of the Jews, can't imagine something outside of the blue shirts. He can include Hashomer Hatzair, even though they have a different semel...
When a Jewish kid from a kvutza meets a Jew with peas and a zupitsa (kind of hat) or a Jew dressed in Sephardic fashion, does he really feel (not just like he learned about it in school!) that they belong to the same society? I am not sure of that. Sometimes I think that a friend of his from Ha'noar Ha'oved, or the movement or the meshek, when he talks about the fate of the Jews, can't imagine something outside of the blue shirts. He can include Hashomer Hatzair, even though they have a different semel...
On Klaliyut in Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed
In Sukkoth 1924, Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed was established. First, as Ha'noar Ha'oved and then in a series of mergers it became Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed as we know it today. At an asefa in Tel Aviv in 1924, 150 working teenagers passed a resolution declaring that each and every youth that wishes to can become a member of Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed.
This is a unique component in Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed's identity - klaliyut. From the beginning this component lent a unique quality to its act, as we can see in this article by Benjamin Kachlily:
"It was a general movement, a framework available for every working youth. The youth organized itself, from the bottom up, and created from scratch a movement that didn't stop growing.
As it grew bigger, the movement managed to unionize youth from three different sources: working youth, learning youth from the cities and moshavot, and youth from the working settlements - the kibbutzim and the moshavim. They overcame the differnces and the three strams consolidated into one."
That comes to say that from its beginning, Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed was a general movement, addressing all sectors and parts of Israeli society and binds them together into one movement. This approach is the opposite to the elitist approach - more common in other youth movements at that time - an approach that demanded a filtering process that will create a strong chalutznik avant-garde.
From the perception of shivyon erech ha'adam that puts the human being in the center, we must see all children and youth as our chanichim and potential partners in the movement. The educational way of the movement demands the hard core to take responsibility over the outer layers, the means is a rational and logical use of the informal code of education, adapting the activities and the demand to the different populations and not being dogmatic.
This is a unique component in Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed's identity - klaliyut. From the beginning this component lent a unique quality to its act, as we can see in this article by Benjamin Kachlily:
"It was a general movement, a framework available for every working youth. The youth organized itself, from the bottom up, and created from scratch a movement that didn't stop growing.
As it grew bigger, the movement managed to unionize youth from three different sources: working youth, learning youth from the cities and moshavot, and youth from the working settlements - the kibbutzim and the moshavim. They overcame the differnces and the three strams consolidated into one."
That comes to say that from its beginning, Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed was a general movement, addressing all sectors and parts of Israeli society and binds them together into one movement. This approach is the opposite to the elitist approach - more common in other youth movements at that time - an approach that demanded a filtering process that will create a strong chalutznik avant-garde.
From the perception of shivyon erech ha'adam that puts the human being in the center, we must see all children and youth as our chanichim and potential partners in the movement. The educational way of the movement demands the hard core to take responsibility over the outer layers, the means is a rational and logical use of the informal code of education, adapting the activities and the demand to the different populations and not being dogmatic.
On Judaism as a Civilization - Amos Oz
Religion is a central element in the Jewish civilization, perhaps even its origin, but that civilization cannot be presented as nothing more than religion. From the religious source of that civilization grew spiritual manifestations that enhanced the religious experience, changed it, and even reacted against it: language, customs, lifestyles, characteristic sensitivities (or perhaps it should be said, sensitivities that used to be characteristic), and literature and art and ideas and opinions. All of this is Judaism. The rebellion and apostasy in our history and in recent generations - they are Judaism, too. A broad and abundant inheritance. And I see myself as one of the legitimate heirs: not as a stepson, or a disloyal and defiant son, or a bastard, but as a lawful heir.
And what follows from my status as an heir will certainly cause you people great unease, for it follows that I am free to decide what I will choose from this great inheritance, to decide what I will place in my living room and what I will relegate to the attic. Certainly our children have the right to "import" and combine with my inheritance what I see fit - without imposing my taste or preference on another heir, on you for one. That is the pluralism I praised earlier. It is my right to decide what suits me and what doesn't, what is important and what is negligible and what to put into storage. Neither you, nor the ultraorthodox, nor Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz can tell me, in whatever terms, that it's a package deal and I should take it or leave it. It is my right to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And from this follows another fateful spiritual decision: can any civilization survive as a museum or does it only live when it wears the garb of dramatic improvisation?
A museum curator relates ritualistically to his ancestral heritage: on tiptoe, in awe, he arranges the artifacts, polishes the glass cases, cautiously interprets the significance of the items in the collection, guides the astonished visitors, convinces the public, and seeks, in due time, to pass on the keys of the museum to his sons after him. The museum curator will proclaim, Holy, Holy, Holy. And he will proclaim, I am too humble to determine what is important here. It is my lot only to see that the light of this inheritance shall shine in as many eyes as possible, and that nothing is damaged or lost. Up to this point I have presented a drawing (sketchy and simplistic, for the sake of argument) of the museum curator. But I believe there can be no vital existence for a museum civilization. Eventually it is bound to shrivel and to cut off its creative energies: at first it permits innovations only on the foundations of the old, then the freedom is restricted to the freedom to interpret, after that it becomes permissible only to interpret the meaning of the interpretations, until finally all that is left is to polish the artifacts in their cases.
A living civilization is a drama of struggle between interpretations, outside influences, and emphases, an unrelenting struggle over what is the wheat and what is the chaff, rebellion for the sake of innovation, dismantling for the purpose of reassembling differently, and even putting things in storage to clear the stage for experiment and new creativity. And it is permissible to seek inspiration from and by other civilizations as well. This implies a realization that struggle and pluralism are not just an eclipse or a temporary aberration but, rather, the natural climate for a living culture. And the rebel, the dismantler, is not necessarily perverted or trying to assimilate. And the heretic and the prober are, sometimes, the harbingers of the creator and the innovator.
On this we disagree, at the root of the matter: Museum or drama? Ritual or creativity? Total orientation toward the past - "What was is what will be" - i which every question has an answer from the holy books, every new enemy is simply a reincarnation of an old familiar one - or not? Can it be that history is not a spinning wheel but a twisting line, which, even if it loops and curves, is essentially linear, not circular?
And what follows from my status as an heir will certainly cause you people great unease, for it follows that I am free to decide what I will choose from this great inheritance, to decide what I will place in my living room and what I will relegate to the attic. Certainly our children have the right to "import" and combine with my inheritance what I see fit - without imposing my taste or preference on another heir, on you for one. That is the pluralism I praised earlier. It is my right to decide what suits me and what doesn't, what is important and what is negligible and what to put into storage. Neither you, nor the ultraorthodox, nor Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz can tell me, in whatever terms, that it's a package deal and I should take it or leave it. It is my right to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And from this follows another fateful spiritual decision: can any civilization survive as a museum or does it only live when it wears the garb of dramatic improvisation?
A museum curator relates ritualistically to his ancestral heritage: on tiptoe, in awe, he arranges the artifacts, polishes the glass cases, cautiously interprets the significance of the items in the collection, guides the astonished visitors, convinces the public, and seeks, in due time, to pass on the keys of the museum to his sons after him. The museum curator will proclaim, Holy, Holy, Holy. And he will proclaim, I am too humble to determine what is important here. It is my lot only to see that the light of this inheritance shall shine in as many eyes as possible, and that nothing is damaged or lost. Up to this point I have presented a drawing (sketchy and simplistic, for the sake of argument) of the museum curator. But I believe there can be no vital existence for a museum civilization. Eventually it is bound to shrivel and to cut off its creative energies: at first it permits innovations only on the foundations of the old, then the freedom is restricted to the freedom to interpret, after that it becomes permissible only to interpret the meaning of the interpretations, until finally all that is left is to polish the artifacts in their cases.
A living civilization is a drama of struggle between interpretations, outside influences, and emphases, an unrelenting struggle over what is the wheat and what is the chaff, rebellion for the sake of innovation, dismantling for the purpose of reassembling differently, and even putting things in storage to clear the stage for experiment and new creativity. And it is permissible to seek inspiration from and by other civilizations as well. This implies a realization that struggle and pluralism are not just an eclipse or a temporary aberration but, rather, the natural climate for a living culture. And the rebel, the dismantler, is not necessarily perverted or trying to assimilate. And the heretic and the prober are, sometimes, the harbingers of the creator and the innovator.
On this we disagree, at the root of the matter: Museum or drama? Ritual or creativity? Total orientation toward the past - "What was is what will be" - i which every question has an answer from the holy books, every new enemy is simply a reincarnation of an old familiar one - or not? Can it be that history is not a spinning wheel but a twisting line, which, even if it loops and curves, is essentially linear, not circular?
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)