Between 120 to 130 Israeli kibbutzim and moshavim (collective agricultural communities) have been privatized in recent years in a deliberate campaign on the part of the Jewish Agency and credit organizations, which have been bearing the burden of debts incurred by these underproductive communities. Many other collective communities opted to privatize in the first wave several years ago. It?s an economic revolution, and one could say ?bloodless?, but that wouldn?t be entirely accurate. Privatization may boost efficiency and worker motivation, but it comes at a painful cost. ?Breaking-up is hard to do??
Before the change, members might have resented neighbors or co-workers for not pulling their weight or for failing to properly administer the shared business interests and causing large losses. But the social problems resulting from privatization are often worse. Members who never were given the chance to learn a lucrative profession resent those who were and, therefore, are able to earn decent salaries to support their families. Before the split-up, each member family received a monthly stipend according to its size. Members who worked in agricultural branches of the business and only received meager pension provisions resent teachers who built-up sizeable pension funds over the years. Those same agricultural workers and managers are getting low salaries or find themselves unemployed altogether as the result of the current crisis in conventional agriculture. Those whose children already received higher education and respectable weddings before the break-up are resented by those who now bear those financial burdens alone. After privatization, these debt-ridden communities can afford to spread only the most minimal ?safety net?.
Was socialism a complete failure? Much of the land of Israel was developed and farmed by these cooperatives. Many new immigrants were absorbed by them so people with little or no family in Israel were able to belong to a caring, supportive community. Young people without the means to farm independently were able to realize their dream of working the land. The elderly in these communities had the opportunity to live productive, dignified lives. Remarkable developments in Israeli agriculture, industry and tourism came out of kibbutz-style entrepreneurism. Bad business decisions were often the rule, but, in many cases, this resulted from the desire to involve as many members as possible in the decision-making process.
On the other hand, talented people were often thwarted and prevented from progressing, because kibbutzim and moshavim clung to out-dated modes of thinking and stubbornly insisted on uniformity. Usually, cooperative communities were late in seeing the value of sending members to learn computers and electronics, for instance, and many good, talented people left in frustration.
There are some notable kibbutzim that have prospered as the result of good management, hard work and adherence to pure socialist principles. Places like Yotvata, Yavne and Lavi are proud of their communal systems and no one is forcing them to change. Many of their members work in well-paying, challenging jobs in the city or in the kibbutz industries and wouldn?t dream of leaving. These prosperous kibbutzim are able to provide all with a high standard of living and the members enjoy being part of a successful, idealistic endeavor.
Members of those communities that have been privatized by force still hope there will be profit-sharing someday from the jointly-owned kibbutz enterprises. But the only thing shared at present are the debts. Some communities weren?t even able to give members ownership of their houses in the break-up agreement, because the houses are being held by the banks as security against large loans.
Bitterness is palpable in many communities; members have reached middle age with little to show for a life of hard work. Their children don?t want to continue what they built and they feel they have nothing of monetary value to pass on to them. The situation became so unnatural and absurd that, in a few cases, children were getting their 90-year-old senile parent to ?agree? to sign a contract to leave the kibbutz with a ridiculously large severance payment. (One advantage of privatization is that shares are distributed and can ideally be bought and sold if the enterprise ever turns a profit. This way, children could inherit and sell their parents? shares.) But the mass of members who exited prior to privatization did so of their own free will because they were fed up with unprofitable, unwieldy socialism. Severance payments had to be paid and this caused considerable financial hardship to those left behind.
It is being said that the test of the heart of a kibbutz or moshav is how the members care for their weaker partners after privatization. Then, each family knows that assistance payments to the less fortunate are coming directly out of their own bank account and not out of some anonymous collective pot. The concept of a kibbutz isn?t necessarily Jewish, but the concept of tithing 10% of one?s income to support the charitable institutions of the community is.
There are experts at disassembling unsuccessful kibbutzim and moshavim who have fancy academic credentials in economics and social science. They earn enormous fees (the process can cost up to one million shekels, or $250,000, over two to three years) for their services. It is the ultimate indignation when, as in divorce, outsiders can capitalize on you at a time of suffering and weakness.
Despite pressure to privatize, some kibbutzim and moshavim have been reluctant to relinquish their ?shetufi? (cooperative) character, their togetherness. Instead, they?ve come up with compromise solutions to encourage productivity, reward individual initiative and prevent hemorrhaging - the loss of members who are frustrated with continuous cut-backs and feel they can do better on their own. There are provisions that allow members to supplement their monthly allowance by working extra hours or by receiving a percentage of the difference between what they earn and what their family costs. Certain members are exempt from performing shared chores after work hours such as guard duty and milking in the dairy. But what is the criterion for an exemption? A member in a position of responsibility where he can make the biggest mistakes and cause the biggest losses? One who pounds on the table the loudest?
Those communities that start on the path to privatization inevitably find themselves on a conveyor belt to its completion. Once members are ranked and rewarded according to their monetary worth on the job market, the socialist ideal of ?from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs? is destroyed. The communities that have tried to hold-out a little longer were at least acknowledging the complexity of human worth and the belief that everyone has inherent strengths and weaknesses that together balance out.
These humanistic experitments in collectivism called kibbutzim and moshavim have been part and parcel of the building of the Jewish state. But today, their failings are under scrutiny and they are under attack for being mostly Ashkenazic, largely elitist and arrogantly wasteful of state funds, to the point of corruption. The demise of kibbutzim and moshavim coincides with the demise of collective industry in Israel and the rest of the world. Now that a crueler capitalist economy has taken its place, the debt-strapped ?shetufnikim? (?collectivists?) are gracefully bowing out. But privatization does not have to mean sink or swim for the still loosely-associated members. Perhaps some of these communities will manage to be an example to the rest of Israeli society (currently embroiled in social confrontation between the haves and have-nots) of what the Torah has been teaching all along - love thy neighbor as thyself.
Before the change, members might have resented neighbors or co-workers for not pulling their weight or for failing to properly administer the shared business interests and causing large losses. But the social problems resulting from privatization are often worse. Members who never were given the chance to learn a lucrative profession resent those who were and, therefore, are able to earn decent salaries to support their families. Before the split-up, each member family received a monthly stipend according to its size. Members who worked in agricultural branches of the business and only received meager pension provisions resent teachers who built-up sizeable pension funds over the years. Those same agricultural workers and managers are getting low salaries or find themselves unemployed altogether as the result of the current crisis in conventional agriculture. Those whose children already received higher education and respectable weddings before the break-up are resented by those who now bear those financial burdens alone. After privatization, these debt-ridden communities can afford to spread only the most minimal ?safety net?.
Was socialism a complete failure? Much of the land of Israel was developed and farmed by these cooperatives. Many new immigrants were absorbed by them so people with little or no family in Israel were able to belong to a caring, supportive community. Young people without the means to farm independently were able to realize their dream of working the land. The elderly in these communities had the opportunity to live productive, dignified lives. Remarkable developments in Israeli agriculture, industry and tourism came out of kibbutz-style entrepreneurism. Bad business decisions were often the rule, but, in many cases, this resulted from the desire to involve as many members as possible in the decision-making process.
On the other hand, talented people were often thwarted and prevented from progressing, because kibbutzim and moshavim clung to out-dated modes of thinking and stubbornly insisted on uniformity. Usually, cooperative communities were late in seeing the value of sending members to learn computers and electronics, for instance, and many good, talented people left in frustration.
There are some notable kibbutzim that have prospered as the result of good management, hard work and adherence to pure socialist principles. Places like Yotvata, Yavne and Lavi are proud of their communal systems and no one is forcing them to change. Many of their members work in well-paying, challenging jobs in the city or in the kibbutz industries and wouldn?t dream of leaving. These prosperous kibbutzim are able to provide all with a high standard of living and the members enjoy being part of a successful, idealistic endeavor.
Members of those communities that have been privatized by force still hope there will be profit-sharing someday from the jointly-owned kibbutz enterprises. But the only thing shared at present are the debts. Some communities weren?t even able to give members ownership of their houses in the break-up agreement, because the houses are being held by the banks as security against large loans.
Bitterness is palpable in many communities; members have reached middle age with little to show for a life of hard work. Their children don?t want to continue what they built and they feel they have nothing of monetary value to pass on to them. The situation became so unnatural and absurd that, in a few cases, children were getting their 90-year-old senile parent to ?agree? to sign a contract to leave the kibbutz with a ridiculously large severance payment. (One advantage of privatization is that shares are distributed and can ideally be bought and sold if the enterprise ever turns a profit. This way, children could inherit and sell their parents? shares.) But the mass of members who exited prior to privatization did so of their own free will because they were fed up with unprofitable, unwieldy socialism. Severance payments had to be paid and this caused considerable financial hardship to those left behind.
It is being said that the test of the heart of a kibbutz or moshav is how the members care for their weaker partners after privatization. Then, each family knows that assistance payments to the less fortunate are coming directly out of their own bank account and not out of some anonymous collective pot. The concept of a kibbutz isn?t necessarily Jewish, but the concept of tithing 10% of one?s income to support the charitable institutions of the community is.
There are experts at disassembling unsuccessful kibbutzim and moshavim who have fancy academic credentials in economics and social science. They earn enormous fees (the process can cost up to one million shekels, or $250,000, over two to three years) for their services. It is the ultimate indignation when, as in divorce, outsiders can capitalize on you at a time of suffering and weakness.
Despite pressure to privatize, some kibbutzim and moshavim have been reluctant to relinquish their ?shetufi? (cooperative) character, their togetherness. Instead, they?ve come up with compromise solutions to encourage productivity, reward individual initiative and prevent hemorrhaging - the loss of members who are frustrated with continuous cut-backs and feel they can do better on their own. There are provisions that allow members to supplement their monthly allowance by working extra hours or by receiving a percentage of the difference between what they earn and what their family costs. Certain members are exempt from performing shared chores after work hours such as guard duty and milking in the dairy. But what is the criterion for an exemption? A member in a position of responsibility where he can make the biggest mistakes and cause the biggest losses? One who pounds on the table the loudest?
Those communities that start on the path to privatization inevitably find themselves on a conveyor belt to its completion. Once members are ranked and rewarded according to their monetary worth on the job market, the socialist ideal of ?from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs? is destroyed. The communities that have tried to hold-out a little longer were at least acknowledging the complexity of human worth and the belief that everyone has inherent strengths and weaknesses that together balance out.
These humanistic experitments in collectivism called kibbutzim and moshavim have been part and parcel of the building of the Jewish state. But today, their failings are under scrutiny and they are under attack for being mostly Ashkenazic, largely elitist and arrogantly wasteful of state funds, to the point of corruption. The demise of kibbutzim and moshavim coincides with the demise of collective industry in Israel and the rest of the world. Now that a crueler capitalist economy has taken its place, the debt-strapped ?shetufnikim? (?collectivists?) are gracefully bowing out. But privatization does not have to mean sink or swim for the still loosely-associated members. Perhaps some of these communities will manage to be an example to the rest of Israeli society (currently embroiled in social confrontation between the haves and have-nots) of what the Torah has been teaching all along - love thy neighbor as thyself.