Kibbutzim go bicoastal
bicoastal September 3rd, 2007
The New York Times had a story (subscription) last week on how kibbutzim have changed in the last decade or so. Kibuttzim were once communal utopias, or at least aspired to be, but according to the article too much communalism caused the kibbutzim to fail. Now, says the NYT, kibbutzim have reemerged as a hybrid of market and socialist organizations.
Now, in a surprising third act, the kibbutzim are again thriving. Only in 2007 they are less about pure socialism than a kind of suburbanized version of it.
On most kibbutzim, food and laundry services are now privatized; on many, houses may be transferred to individual members, and newcomers can buy in. While the major assets of the kibbutzim are still collectively owned, the communities are now largely run by professional managers rather than by popular vote. And, most important, not everyone is paid the same.
Once again, people are lining up to get in.
This is a perfect example of bicoastalism. Neither pure market nor pure socialist (or “altruist”) forms are nearly as appealing as some combination of the two. As one resident explained it, ”Everyone does what they want, we have our independence, but without the kind of competition you find outside.”
Richard Posner and Gary Becker both miss the point of it all. Becker gives the most simplistic spin on the article, describing the new kibbutzim as if they have completely embraced capitalism, when the article makes clear that this is not the case. In the bicoastal kibbutzim the major assets are collectively owned, and residents are taxed quite heavily to support the less able. Becker’s view seems to be based mainly on a visit he had to a kibbutz decades ago, where he stayed with a disaffected friend. Becker concludes that the kibbutzim “ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years.”
