What Egalitarianism Really Looks Like

Growing Up in a Progressive Utopia

I grew up in one of the most progressive societies in the history of humanity. The gap between the rich and poor was tiny compared to the current gulf between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ we find across much of the West. Access to education was universal and students were paid to study and offered free accommodation. Healthcare was available to all and free at the point of use. Racial tensions were non-existent, with hundreds of different ethnic groups living side by side in harmony under the mantra of ‘Friendship of the Peoples.’ Women’s equality was at the very heart of Government policy. According to the prevailing ideology “all forms of inequality were to be erased through the abolition of class structures and the shaping of an egalitarian society based on the fair distribution of resources among the people.”

You are probably wondering whether the idyllic nation from which I hail is Sweden or Iceland. It was the Soviet Union. In modern Britain, the top 10 percent earn 24 times as much as the bottom 10 percent but in the Soviet Union the wealthy and powerful barely made 4 times as much as those at the bottom. The illiteracy rate in late Soviet times was just 0.3 percent compared to 14 percent of the US adult population who cannot read today. University students were paid an allowance to study and those from working class backgrounds were often given preferential treatment to facilitate better access to higher education. Free accommodation was available for students studying outside their home town.

The Soviet Union was a huge country populated by hundreds of ethnic and religious groups that had been slaughtering each other for centuries. In this shining example of a successful multicultural state, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Ukrainians, Russians, Tatars, Moldovans, Belarussians, Uzbeks, Chechens, Georgians, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Turkmens, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, and dozens of others all lived side-by-side as friends and neighbours.

Unfortunately, despite these facts and the lofty ideals from which they were derived, the reality of life in the Soviet Union was rather different.

Low levels of wealth and income inequality were achieved by making everyone poor and restricting access to basic goods such as food, domestic appliances, and basic clothing. The ’emancipated’ women of the USSR were denied the evil fruits of misogynistic Western civilisation such as tampons, washing machines, and the ability to feed their children. And while healthcare provision was universal, it was also universally poor and entirely corrupt. Only people with influence, connections, and the ability to pay bribes could actually obtain good treatment.

University places which paid students to study were subject to the same corruption with examiners able to solicit bribes and favours. In exchange for an education, you forfeited the right to a future career of your own choosing—instead, you would be allocated a job by the state system, often in a completely different part of the country.

The temporary lull in ethnic and religious strife was achieved through systematic murder, forced starvation, mass deportation, imprisonment, and ruthless ethnic cleansing by an oppressive police state to keep everyone in check. At least 50 million people were killed or sent to concentration camps to create this ‘peaceful’ society, to say nothing of millions who had their property seized ‘for the benefit of society.’ These enemies of the state included my great-grandparents who met in a Soviet concentration camp for political prisoners. Every morning at their camp, three people would be picked out at random from the general population of the camp and thrown into the icy waters of the lake to freeze and drown in full view of the other prisoners to ‘keep things under control.’ And the moment the regime was no longer able to keep a lid on this volatile melting pot, it exploded into horrific ethnic conflicts, which erupted all over the former Soviet empire and resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

Continue reading…

US Foreign Aid: A Cast on a Healthy Leg

May 23, 2018 | Moshe Feiglin, Chairman of Zehut

Yesterday, Ayal Union, Vice President of Finances at Israel Aircraft Industries, said the following in a radio interview: “Israel is now seventy years old and it has to stand on its own two feet.  Israel must withdraw from the US Aid Agreement because the damage that it does to Israel’s aircraft industry is destructive. Twenty-two thousand Israelis will be fired if it goes forward.”

“It is like a drug addiction,” he added. “Just like we lost the textile industry in the nineties if the agreement continues, we will lose the aircraft industry.”

The reasons for ending US foreign aid to Israel and the damages that it causes are detailed in Zehut’s platform. The US aid is like a cast on a healthy leg. It does serious harm to our economy and our security. In PM Netanyahu’s first speech at the US Congress, he also spoke of ending US aid.

So why hasn’t it ended? Because the aid industry sustains generations of political wheeler-dealers.

From Zehut International, here.

Rashi on ‘Retracting’

Bechoros 44b:

אמר רבי אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא משתינין מים בפני רבים ואין שותין מים בפני רבים ותניא נמי הכי משתינין מים בפני רבים ואין שותין מים בפני רבים ומעשה באחד שביקש להשתין מים ולא השתין ונמצא כריסו צבה. שמואל איצטריך ליה בשבתא דרגלא נגדו ליה גלימא אתא לקמיה דאבוה א”ל אתן לך ד’ מאה זוזי וזיל אהדר עובדא את דאפשר לך דלא אפשר ליה ליסתכן…

What does “Ahadar Uvda” mean?

Rashi explains:

אהדר עובדא, דרוש שאסור להמתין מלהטיל מים עד שיהא לו צניעות.

If retraction is just oral, such a large sum of money seems excessive as a reward for doing his clear duty. Rather, it appears the retraction referred to here means to do Teshuvas Hamishkal: Teach again and urinate without a mechitza. Perform a Ma’aseh Rav to counteract the faulty one.

Soncino agrees with me, for what that’s worth:

R. Abba b. R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan: It is permitted to urinate in public, whereas it is not permitted to drink water in public. So indeed it has been taught: It is permitted to urinate in public, whereas it is not permitted to drink water in public. And it once happened that someone wanted to urinate and forewent it, and it was found that his belly was swollen.

Samuel needed to urinate on a Sabbath preceding a Festival. He spread his cloak [as a screen between his audience and himself]. He came before his father [and reported this to him]. He [the latter] then said to him: ‘I will give you four hundred zuz to retract* this ruling, for you were able to spread a cloak, but one who is not able to do so, shall he delay and expose himself to the danger?’

* To urinate in their presence and thus proclaim that it was not necessary to exercise privacy when requiring to urinate.

Maybe that’s why the sum is exactly 400 Zuz (the fine paid for shaming a Jew).

אם ראית מלכיות מתגרות אלו באלו…

בראשית י”ד א’:

ויהי בימי אמרפל מלך שנער אריוך מלך אלסר כדרלעמר מלך עילם ותדעל מלך גוים. עשו מלחמה…

וז”ל בראשית רבה מ”ב ד’:

ויהי בימי אמרפל מלך שנער זו בבל ואריוך מלך אלסר זה (יון) אנטיוכס כדרלעומר מלך עילם זה מדי ותדעל מלך גוים זו מלכות אדום שהיא מכתבת טירוניא מכל אומות העולם.

אמר רבי אלעזר בר אבינא, אם ראית מלכיות מתגרות אלו באלו צפה לרגלו של משיח תדע שכן שהרי בימי אברהם על ידי שנתגרו המלכיות אלו באלו באה הגאולה לאברהם.

Rabbi Simcha Wasserman Was Not a Socialist!

I quote “Reb Simcha Speaks“, ArtScroll 1994.

From p. 80:

A Torah scholar causes all of the Jewish people to become rich. In economics, there is the sphere of the individual’s domain and the sphere of the community’s domain. When it comes to the total national wealth, it does not make a difference to the wealth of the nation, in one particular sense, whether that wealth is concentrated in a few hands or distributed equally among everyone. The nation is still wealthy. And a wealthier nation can accomplish more. Even a poor man who is living in a wealthy nation has certain advantages.

It is exactly the same in the Jewish community. When someone is learning, he is adding to the public good with his learning. The Torah scholar adds to the accumulation of Torah and causes the whole nation to be rich. When the Chafetz Chaim lived, all the Jewish people were rich. When he passed away, the entire nation became poorer.

We have a responsibility to the Jewish people to become great in Torah…

From p. 85:

“You open your hand and You give to every living being…”

The Master of the World has organized everything so that we have all that we need. But that is not enough; if we have food but we have no appetite, we will starve. So the Master of the World gave us also the will to eat.

This appetite and ambition is what Hashem has instilled in us. A shoemaker makes shoes not because he does not want people to walk barefoot. He makes shoes because he has an appetite to eat. But Hashem uses him in order to provide shoes for people. He has given us ambition, but the wise ones realize that, in truth, we are not working for ourselves, but for others.

Sounds like the famous passage in Adam Smith to me…

And from p. 105:

The Jew doesn’t ask for a blessing for his bread. He says, “Thank You, G-g, for giving me the bread.” He’s not asking G-d to serve him; he realizes that he has to be grateful to -d for giving him this.

That is the difference between the giver and the taker. Idol worshippers are takers. A person would like to have everything, but there are some things which are not in his reach, so he conjures up a mysterious power that can give him whatever is beyond his reach.

Children are very much like this. They are concerned with who is going to bring them a gift and give them toys. A truly mature person is interested in more than simply receiving gifts. The realities of life teach him that if he want to consume, he has to produce. Only the child thinks he can take and not give. He would like to have things, so he dreams that maybe there will be a miracle.