Which Mitzvah Is REALLY Equal to All Other Mitzvos?

The Mitzvah of Settling the Land of Israel

 

When the State of Israel was established, on the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the Jewish people as a whole were privileged to fulfill the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (settling the Land of Israel). Even before the declaration of statehood, every Jew who lived in the Land fulfilled this mitzvah. The Sages even said, “A person should always dwell in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city inhabited mostly by heathens, and he should not dwell outside the Land, even in a city inhabited mostly by Jews, for anyone who dwells in Eretz Yisrael is like one who has a God, and anyone who dwells outside the Land is like one who has no God” (Ketuvot 110b). Nonetheless, the mitzvah is mainly incumbent upon Klal Yisrael (the entire Jewish community) – to take control of the Land. The mitzvah to dwell in the Land, which applies to every individual Jew, is an offshoot of the general mitzvah that is incumbent upon Klal Yisrael as a whole.

This is the meaning of the verse “You shall possess the Land and dwell in it, for to you have I given the Land to possess it”(Bamidbar, 33:53). “You shall possess” denotes conquest and sovereignty, while “you shall dwell” implies settling the Land so that it not remain desolate. Similarly, the Torah states, “You shall possess it and you shall dwell therein”(Devarim, 11:31). Accordingly, the Ramban defines the mitzvah as follows: “We were commanded to take possession of the Land that God, may He be blessed, gave to our forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov; and we must not leave it in the hands of any other nation or let it remain desolate” (Addendum to Rambam’sSefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 4).

This mitzvah is incumbent upon the Jewish people in every generation. For a long time, however, we lacked the means by which to fulfill it. We were forced to neglect it, because we did not have an army or weapons with which to conquer and settle the Land. A few generations ago, God showed kindness to His nation and a spirit of nationalism began to stir, causing Jews to go forth and gather in the Land. They planted trees, developed the country’s economy, established an organized defense force, and struggled against the foreign power that controlled the Land, so that when the British Mandate expired, the Jews in Israel were able to declare the establishment of Medinat Yisrael. On that day, the Jewish people began fulfilling the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz. Granted, we are not yet in control of the entire Land, and we are partially dependent on the nations of the world, but we are actually fulfilling, once again, the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz.

We find in halakhah, as well, that Jewish sovereignty over the Land is a significant factor], for the laws of mourning over Eretz Yisrael’s destruction depend on sovereignty. Our Sages prescribed that one who sees the cities of Judea in ruins should say, “Your holy cities have become a wilderness” (Yeshayah 64:9), and tear his garments. The poskim explain that the definition of “in ruins” depends on who is in control. If Gentiles rule the Land, its cities are considered ruined, even if most of the inhabitants are Jewish, and one must tear his garment upon seeing them. But if the Jews are in control, the cities are not considered ruined, even if Gentiles constitute the majority, and no tearing is required (Beit Yosef and BachO.C. 561; Magen Avraham 1, and Mishna Berura 2).

In addition, Chazal lavished praise upon the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz, going so far as to say that it is equal to all the mitzvot of the Torah (Sifrei, Re’eh 53.

The Ramban lays down the foundations of the mitzvah of settling the Land in his Addendum to Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 4, and our master and teacher, Rav Tzvi Yehuda HaKohen Kook zt”l, expands upon them in his work L’Netivot Yisrael(Vol. 1, LeTokef Kedushato Shel Yom HaAtzmaut, Beit El Publications, pp. 246-50, see also pp. 160-62; Vol. 2, Mizmor Yud Tet shel Medinat Yisrael, pp. 357-68). The mitzvah ofYishuv HaAretz applies in every generation, as the Ramban (loc. cit.) and Rivash (387) write. Therefore, the halachah that a husband and wife can force each other to make aliyah (Ketuvot 110b) is applicable at all times, as the Shulchan Aruch determines (Even HaEzer 75:3-5). This is also the consensus of the Rishonim and Acharonim, as the Pitchei Teshuvah cites there (6).

True, Tosafot in Ketuvot (110b) quote Rabbeinu Chayim’sopinion that the mitzvah “does not apply today,” but the greatest Rishonim and Acharonim disregard this opinion, claiming that a mistaken student authored it Maharit,Yoreh Deah 28; many of the greatest Acharonim agree; see also Gilyon Maharsha,Ketuvot 110b; Responsa Chatam Sofer, Y.D. 234). The fact that the mitzvah is mainly fulfilled by way of Jewish sovereignty is elucidated in Yeshu’ot Malko, Y.D. 66, Avnei Neizer, Y.D. 455, and elsewhere.

Chazal comment on several other mitzvot that they are equal to all the rest (circumcision – Nedarim 32a; charity – Bava Batra 9a; tzitzit – Shevuot 29a; tefillin – Menachot 43b; Shabbat – Yerushalmi Nedarim 3:9; Torah study – Peah 1:1; acts of kindness – ibid.). Nonetheless, from a halachic standpoint, Yishuv HaAretz takes precedence over them all, for it is the only one that overrides a rabbinic injunction relating to the Sabbath (a “shevut”). If someone needs to violate a shevut in order to perform a brit milah(circumcision) on Shabbat, we postpone the brit instead of violating the shevut. For the sake of Yishuv HaAretz, however, the Rabbis allow one to purchase a home in Eretz Yisrael on the Sabbath, if necessary, even if this entails violating the shevut of amirah le’nochri (telling a non-Jew to do work for you on Shabbat), as the Talmud states in Gittin 8b and Bava Kama 8b (with Tosafot).

We are not talking about the redemption of the entire Land, just the purchase of one house, and it still overrides a shevut! Furthermore, in order to make a protective “fence” around the Sabbath, our Sages abrogate the biblical commandments of shofar and lulav, when Rosh HaShanah and the first day of Sukkot coincide with Shabbat. When it comes to Yishuv HaAretz, however, the Sages revoke their words and permit the violation of a shevut, which is a serious offense, as it is supported by a scriptural text (and the Smag apparently considers it a biblical prohibition).

We are commanded to sacrifice our lives for the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz. After all, the Torah commands us to take possession of the Land, i.e. to conquer it; and soldiers are called upon to endanger their lives in war. See Minchat Chinuch 425.

The reason the Rambam does not include this mitzvah in his count of the 613 is that it is beyond the regular “value” of mitzvot; therefore, it is not included in their detailed enumeration. This coincides with the rules the Rambam lays down at the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvot, stating it is inappropriate to reckon commandments that encompass the entire Torah, as he writes in Mitzvah #153 [that settling the Land of Israel is all-inclusive]. Besides which, it is implausible to say that the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz is only rabbinically ordained today [and that that is why the Rambam leaves it out of the count]. After all, Chazal’s statement that settling the Land is equal to all the mitzvot of the Torah was made after the destruction of the Second Temple. Now, it is unlikely that they would say such a thing about a rabbinic mitzvah. Moreover, it is improbable that the Rabbis would dismantle a family (see above regarding divorce), and allow one to violate a shevut, merely for the sake of a rabbinic mitzvah (see Rabbi Zisberg’s Nachalat Ya’akov, Vol. 1, pp. 201-249).

Salvation of Israel 

That day brought about a salvation for Diaspora Jews, as well. They now have a country that is always willing to absorb them, and even works on their behalf in the international arena. Before the State was established, almost no one paid attention to our complaints against the murderous, anti-Semitic persecutions that raged in many countries. After Israel gained independence, however, even the most evil regimes were forced to take into consideration Israel’s possible reprisals on behalf of the Jews living in their midst. Even Communist Russia had to relent and allow the Jews to leave from behind the Iron Curtain, something that was unfathomable before the State was born.

The establishment of the State also brought spiritual salvation to the Jews. Previous to this, the Jewish nation underwent a profound spiritual crisis since the dawn of the modern era. The opportunity to integrate into the civil and national frameworks of the developed nations, which the Jews were granted, generated a strong desire to assimilate. This is not the place to elaborate on the reasons for this crisis; our master, Rav Kook, zt”l, deals with the issue at length, discussing its various facets. In brief, a dangerous process of assimilation and the abandonment of Judaism developed in all countries that embraced modernization. This process threatened the very existence of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Assimilation began approximately two hundred years ago in Western Europe, spreading gradually to Eastern Europe and the capitals of the more developed Arab countries. Today, most young people in the Jewish community of America marry out of the faith, and even those who marry Jews beget very few offspring. Under these circumstances, Diaspora Jewry is fading away. Only in the State of Israel is the Jewish population growing, and intermarriage is relatively rare. Moreover, the percentage of Jews connected to Torah and mitzvot in Israel is higher than that of any other Jewish community in the world. This spiritual salvation came about in the merit of the establishment of Medinat Yisrael, which enabled the ingathering of the exiles and diminished the temptations of assimilation.

Thus, Yom HaAtzmaut is invested with three sanctities: the mitzvah of settling the Land, the beginning of redemption which created a Kiddush Hashem in the eyes of the nations, and the various salvations that the Jewish people merited with the rebirth of sovereign nationhood in our Land.

The Beginning of Redemption and Sanctifying God’s Name 

The establishment of the State removed the disgrace of exile from the Jewish people. Generation after generation, we wandered in exile, suffering dreadful humiliation, pillage, and bloodshed. We were an object of scorn and derision among the nations; we were regarded as sheep led to the slaughter, to be killed, destroyed, beaten, and humiliated. Strangers said to us, “There is no more hope or expectation for you.” That situation was a terrible Chillul HaShem (desecration of God’s Name), because HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s Name is associated with us, and when we are degraded, His name is desecrated among the nations (see Yechezkel, 36).

The prophets of Israel prophesied, in God’s name, that the exile will eventually end: “I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all the lands, and I will bring you to your own soil” (Yechezkel, 36:24). “They will build houses and inhabit them; they will plant vineyards and eat the fruit thereof” (Yeshayah, 65:21). “You will yet plant vineyards upon the mountains of Samaria; the planters with plant and eat of the fruit”(Yirmiyah, 31:4). “The desolate Land will be tilled, instead of having been desolate in the eyes of all passersby. They will say, ‘This Land which was desolate has become like the Garden of Eden and the cities which were ruined, desolate, and destroyed, have been fortified and inhabited” (Yechezkel, 36:34-35). “I will return the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the destroyed cities and inhabit them; they will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruits. I will plant them upon their Land and they will never again be uprooted from their Land that I have given them, says the Lord, your God” (Amos, 9:14-15).

However, when so many years passed without God’s word coming to fruition, Hashem’s Name became increasingly desecrated in the world, and the enemies of Israel proclaimed that there was no chance that the Jews would ever return to their Land. Even Chazal spoke exaggeratingly about the miracle of the ingathering of the exiles, to the point that they said, “The ingathering of the exiles is as great as the day upon which the heaven and earth were created” (Pesachim 88a). And behold, the miracle occurred! Hashem fulfilled His promise, causing an enormous and awesome Kiddush HaShem (sanctification of God’s Name), which gained even more strength during the Six Day War, when we liberated Jerusalem and the holy cities of Judea and Samaria.

This process – the ingathering of the exiles and the blooming of the wasteland – which gained tremendous momentum when the State was established, is the beginning of the redemption, as Rabbi Abba says (Sanhedrin 98a), “There is no clearer [sign of the] End [of the exile] than this [verse]: “But you, O mountains of Israel, will give forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are soon to come” (Yechezkel, 36:8). Rashi comments, “When Eretz Yisrael gives forth its fruit in abundance, the End will be near, and there is no clearer [sign of the] End [of the exile].

True, many things still need fixing – unfortunately, we have not yet repented fully from our sins, and many Jews have not yet immigrated to Eretz Yisrael – but our Sages have taught that redemption can come in one of two ways: if we achieve complete repentance, God will hasten the redemption, and if not, it will come “in its time,” through natural processes (Sanhedrin 98a). That is, when the predetermined time for redemption arrives – even if Israel fails to repent – natural historical processes, burdened with complications and severe hardships will come to pass – such as wars, persecutions, political movements, and international treaties – causing the Jewish people to return to their Land and rebuild it.

We will proceed from one stage to another in this manner, until the ultimate redemption materializes. These hardships, which stimulate the redemptive process, are called the birth pangs of Mashiach. The more we strengthen ourselves in the areas of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael and penitence, the more pleasant and less bitter these birth pangs will become (based on the Gra in Kol HaTor). Concerning this type of redemption, Chazal say, “Such is the redemption of Israel: at first little by little, but as it progresses it grows greater and greater” (Yerushalmi, Berachot 1:1).

Explicit verses in the Torah and the Prophets indicate that the order of redemption is as follows: first, there will be a small degree of repentance, and the Jewish people will gather in their Land, which will begin to yield its fruit. Afterward, Hashem will bestow upon us a spirit from on high, until we return to Him completely.

My teacher and Rosh Yeshiva , HaRav Tzvi Yehudah HaKohen Kook, explains in detail – in an essay entitled “HaMedinah KeHitkymut Chazon HaGeulah,” LeNetivot Yisrael, vol. 1, pp. 261-72 – that this is the order of redemption: first there will be a small degree of repentance, with a return to the Land and a national revival; then, with the passage of time, a complete return to God will ensue. Many sources confirm this; we will mention but a few.

In the section dealing with repentance in the Book of Devarim (chap. 30), the Torah states that there will first be a return “unto (עד) God,” which refers to a minor repentance stemming from fear and harsh decrees. Afterward, the exiles will gather in the Land, and then a complete return “to (אל) God” will take place. Rav Tzvi Yehudah explains, based on his father’s teachings, our master, HaRav Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook, that the minor repentance will manifest itself in a return to the Land.

This return began with a holy awakening of love, when the hassidim and the students of the Gra immigrated to the Land in the 1800s). The book of Yechezkel (Chap. 36) also describes the redemption in this order, as does the Talmud (Sanhedrin 97b). There, Rabbi Yehoshua opines that redemption does not depend on repentance; rather, God will give power to a king as cruel as Haman, and this will cause the Jews to repent – partially. Rabbi Eliezer, who argues with him, remains silent at the end of the debate, implying that he concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Other sources that indicate that redemption is independent of repentance are: Shemot Rabbah 25; Tikkunei Zohar Chadash; Ramban,Parashat Ha’azinu; Or HaChayim HaKadosh, VaYikra 25:28; Rav Elyashuv’s Hakdamot VeSha’arim 6:9. Elsewhere in Rav Elyashuv’s book (pp. 273-76), he quotes some of the greatest Acharonim who viewed the modern-day ingathering of exiles as the beginning of redemption.

Our teacher and master, Rav Tzvi Yehudah HaKohen Kook adds, in vol. 2, p. 365, that one who fails to recognize these acts of kindness on Hashem’s part lacks faith. This lack of faith sometimes wraps itself in a garb of ultra-Orthodoxy and righteousness, but it is actually a denial of the Divine nature of the Written Law, the words of our Prophets, and the Oral Law. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (98b) quotes several Amora’im who were so afraid of the terrible suffering that would occur during the era of the birth pangs of Mashiach that they said, “Let him [Mashiach] come, but let me not see him.”

See other sources in Eim HaBanim Semeichah [by Rabbi Y. S. Teichtal]; HaTekufah HaGedolah by Rabbi M. M. Kasher; and Kol HaTor – reprinted at the end of Rabbi Kasher’s book – which contains many deep ideas which the Gra revealed to his students on the topic of redemption. See also Ayelet HaShachar by Rabbi Yaacov Filber, the section entitled Shivat Tziyon HaShelishit.

משיח לא אוסף אותך – בא מבורו פארק!

Yitzchak fuchs – Boro Park יצחק פוקס – בורופארק

Published on Jan 23, 2015
video clip for Yitzhak Fuchs’s song “BOROPARK” produced & directed by Stas Golovin in studio “Frame”, 2015 וידאו קליפ לשיר של יצחק פוקס “בורופארק”, הופק ובויים ע”י סטאס גולובין בסטודיו “פריים” בהרצליה
מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

Don’t Upset Complex Systems Without Prophecy

badhand2.JPG

06/09/2018
David Gordon

Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Random House, 2018

To review Skin in the Game is a risky undertaking. The author has little use for book reviewers who, he tells us, “are bad middlemen. … Book reviews are judged according to how plausible and well-written they are; never in how they map the book (unless of course the author makes them responsible for misrepresentations).”

The risk is very much worth undertaking, though, because Skin in the Game is an excellent book, filled with insights. These insights stress a central antithesis. Irresponsible people, with what C.D. Broad called “clever silly” intellectuals prominent among them, defend reckless policies that impose risks on others but not on themselves. They have no “skin in the game,” and in this to Taleb lies their chief defect.

Interventionist foreign policy suffers from this defect. “A collection of people classified as interventionistas … who promoted the Iraq invasion of 2003, as well as the removal of the Libyan leader in 2011, are advocating the imposition of additional such regime change on another batch of countries, which includes Syria, because it has a ‘dictator’. So we tried that thing called regime change in Iraq, and failed miserably. … But we satisfied the objective of ‘removing a dictator.’ By the same reasoning, a doctor would inject a patient with ‘moderate’ cancer cells to improve his cholesterol numbers, and proudly claim victory after the patient is dead, particularly if the postmortem showed remarkable cholesterol readings.”

But what has this to do with risk? The fallacy of the interventionists, Taleb tells us, is that they disregard the chance that their schemes will fail to work as planned. A key theme of Taleb’s work is that uncertain outcomes mandate caution.

“And when a blowup happens, they invoke uncertainty, something called a Black Swan (a high-impact unexpected event), … not realizing that one should not mess with a system if the results are fraught with uncertainty, or, more generally, should avoid engaging in an action with a big downside if one has no idea of the outcomes.”

The same mistaken conception of risk affects economic policy. “For instance, bank blowups came in 2008 because of the accumulation of hidden and asymmetric risks in the system: bankers, master risk transferors, could make steady money from a certain class of concealed explosive risks, use academic risk models that don’t work except on paper … then invoke uncertainty after a blowup … and keep past income — what I have called the Bob Rubin trade.”

Instead of relying on mathematical models, economists should realize that the free market works. Why use misguided theory to interfere with success in practice? “Under the right market structure, a collection of idiots produces a well-functioning market. … Friedrich Hayek has been, once again, vindicated. Yet one of the most cited ideas in history, that of the invisible hand, appears to be the least integrated into the modern psyche.”

Upsetting a complex system like the free market, can have disastrous consequences. Given this truth, libertarianism is the indicated course of action. “We libertarians share a minimal set of beliefs, the central one being to substitute the rule of law for the rule of authority. Without necessarily realizing it, libertarians believe in complex systems.”

Taleb greatly admires Ron Paul, the foremost libertarian in politics, and he is one of two people to whom the book is dedicated. (Ralph Nader is the other.) Ron Paul grasps Taleb’s fundamental lesson that misguided theory should not supplant what has stood the test of time. “The insightful and luckily nonacademic historian Tom Holland … wrote: ‘The Romans judged their political system by asking not whether it made sense but whether it worked,’ which is why while dedicating this book, I called Ron Paul a Roman among Greeks.”

One common objection to the free market is that it allows powerful corporations to dominate people. Taleb’s response converges with that of Murray Rothbard: “There are two ways to make citizens safe from large predators, say, big powerful corporations. The first one is to enact regulations — but these, aside from restricting individual freedoms, lead to another predation, this time by the state, its agents, and their cronies. … The other solution is to put skin in the game in transactions, in the form of legal liability, and the possibility of an efficient lawsuit. The Anglo-Saxon world has traditionally had a predilection for the legal approach instead of the regulatory one; if you harm me, I can sue you. This has led to the very sophisticated, adaptive, and balanced common law, built bottom-up, by trial and error.”

Rothbard held the same view. In his pathbreaking monograph “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” he remarks: “There are, of course, innumerable statutes and regulations that create illegality besides the torts dealt with in common-law courts. We have not dealt with laws such as the Clean Air Act of 1970 or regulations for a simple reason: None of them can be permissible under libertarian legal theory. In libertarian theory, it is only permissible to proceed coercively against someone if he is a proven aggressor, and that aggression must be proven in court (or in arbitration) beyond a reasonable doubt. Any statute or administrative regulation necessarily makes actions illegal that are not overt initiations of crimes or torts according to libertarian theory. Every statute or administrative rule is therefore illegitimate and itself invasive and a criminal interference with the property rights of noncriminals.”

Another complaint against the free market stems from “behavioral economics.” Consumers, it is alleged, often act in an irrational way against their own best interests. Hence the benevolent action of bureaucratic experts is required to “nudge” people into rationality. Taleb responds. “We have survived in spite of tail risks; our survival cannot be that random.” (Tail events are “extreme events of low frequency,” i.e., the Black Swans mentioned earlier.) The supposed “mistakes” that the behavioral economists allege people commit often are good ways to cope with tail risks.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

Gilad Alper: One More Reason to Reject US Military Aid

American Libertarians VS Israel

Barack Obama is considered by many to be hostile to Israel and there’s a general hope among Israelis for the Republican Party to win the 2016 presidential elections. However, the Republican Party is changing and there may come a day when Israelis will miss the Obama presidency.

The sluggish economic recovery from the 2008 recession and US continuous intervention in the Middle East are strengthening the Libertarian movement within the Republican Party. Libertarians believe in free-market capitalism, personal liberties, and a small government. All three are admirable principles that could be a blessing for Israel and the entire world.

However, the fly in the ointment as far as Israel is concerned is that US libertarians are also isolationists. They support a massive reduction in the US defense budget and pursue a general retrenchment strategy. And from their perspective they might be right – after all, what did America get from its many entanglements other than an increasing debt load and waves of hostility?

The real thorny point for Israel is that, through no fault of its own, it’s considered by many US libertarians as the poster-boy of US involvement in foreign affairs. Arguably, Israel doesn’t deserve to be on this dubious pedestal. Unlike Japan, South Korea, and Germany, there’s virtually not a single American soldier stationed in Israel.

To be sure, Israel is a major recipient of military aid—to the tune of $3-4 billion a year—but most of this money is spent in the US. It is a symbol of US corporate welfare rather than Israel taking advantage of America. It’s also costing the Israeli weapons industry dearly as it limits commercial relationships with countries the US is not fond of or wants to keep for itself.

Moreover, late Israeli PM Ariel Sharon objected to the 2003 invasion of Iraq out of fear that the war would destabilize the area. Recent events in Iraq and Syria prove he was right. Recent events also demonstrate, very convincingly, that Israel was never the root cause of instability in the region.

At any rate, the strong resentment libertarians feel towards US foreign policy manifests itself in hatred towards Israel. I use the word “hatred” intentionally: One need only peruse libertarian-leaning websites such as Zerohedge or antiwar.com to see the vile anti-Israel attitude that flourishes there. In fact, these sites are sometimes so nasty and nonsensical, that they can only thinly disguise anti-Semitic sentiments.

Israel might be facing a dangerous political pincer movement in the near future. As Obama’s actions demonstrate, the Democratic Party is moving left and is becoming increasingly hostile to Israel, as Obama’s presidency demonstrates. On the other side of it, the Republican Party is becoming, if not outright hostile, increasingly indifferent.

Time to Give Up Aid and Brace for the Future

What can Israel do? There’s nothing Israel can do about the hatred coming from the left—it runs too deep and wide. However, something could be done with the Libertarian movement. Firstly, one can hope that unlike the left, libertarians are not monolithic when it comes to Israel. More importantly, Jew-hatred is not supposed to be a natural feature of an ideology that espouses liberty.

Perhaps Israel should finally forego the $3bn it receives in military aid every year, much like it did with civilian aid under the first Netanyahu government. It is too easy a weapon for haters and its benefit to Israel is questionable. In addition, Israel should start a dialogue with US libertarians. Sen. Rand Paul’s 2013 visit to the country went almost unnoticed. Such a faux pas must not repeat itself.

Most importantly, Israel has to recognize that the golden age in its relationship with the US is over. New alliances have to be forged. It won’t be easy but the worst thing the country can do is to bury its head in the sand and pretend the world isn’t changing.

From Mida, here.

מדריך לא פוליטיקלי-קורקט לקפיטליזם מאת רוברט מרפי – בעברית

“השיטה החברתית היחידה שבאמת עובדת”: עולם טוב יותר, עולם קפיטליסטי יותר

העורך גלעד אלפר מספר על ספרו החדש של רוברט מרפי, שמציג את אידיאל השוק החופשי באופן בלתי מתפשר ובסגנון נגיש. רכשו את הספר בהנחה מיוחדת לקוראי ‘מידה’

“קפיטליזם היא השיטה החברתית היחידה שבאמת עובדת. הקפיטליזם הוא זה שמיגר את העוני, וחילץ את המין האנושי מחיים קצרים, קשים ומלאי מחלות. הקפיטליזם הוא כל כך אפקטיבי בשיפור רמת החיים, שכיום העשירון התחתון במדינות קפיטליסטיות מרוויח פי עשר מהעשירון התחתון במדינות הכי פחות קפיטליסטיות”.

כך פותח גלעד אלפר, העורך המדעי של “המדריך הלא פוליטיקלי-קורקט לקפיטליזם”, את השיחה על הספר החדש שרואה אור בהוצאת סלע מאיר. ספרו של ד”ר רוברט מרפי לא רק תורגם לעברית, אלא עבר התאמה לקורא הישראלי עם דוגמאות מהחיים היומיומיים בארצנו הקטנה.

אלפר, שעבד על הספר בצוותא עם אורי רדלר, מספר בשיחה עם ‘מידה’ על ייחודו של הספר ועל חשיבותו לקורא הישראלי. “ישנם כמה מאפיינים ייחודיים שגרמו לי להתאהב בספר הזה”, הוא אומר ומסביר כי מדובר בטקסט בלתי מתפשר ששואף להציג את הקפיטליזם באופן טהור יחסית. “ספרים אחרים, גם כאלו שדוגלים בכלכלת שוק חופשי, לא פעם מתייחסים למצב הקיים היום ברוב המדינות, של ריכוזיות ומעורבות ענפה בחיי האזרחים, ומתפשרים אתה, במובן המעשי, וגם התאורטי. הספר הזה מציב אידאל גם במקומות בהם הוא נראה כרגע לא ישים”.

בנוסף לכך אומר אלפר כי סגנונו הייחודי של המחבר הופך את הקריאה לכיפית ונוחה, בניגוד לספרים אחרים בנושא. “הכתיבה של רוברט מרפי קצת דומה לסגנון של בלוגים טובים. בנושא שעלול להיות יבשושי כמו כלכלה, יש לסגנון כזה תועלת רבה עבור אנשים שמתחילים להתעניין בתחום”, הוא מסביר.

יותר שפע, פחות זיהום

כותרת הספר רומזת בבירור על הקשר שבין הקפיטליזם והסלידה מתרבות הפוליטיקלי-קורקט, ואלפר בהחלט מסכים עם האבחנה. “כמובן שישנו חיבור. הרבה פעמים סוציאליסטים מביעים עמדות חברתיות שנראות יפה על הנייר למרות שבפועל הן יוצרות נזק אדיר”, אומר אלפר ומביא כדוגמה את נושא ה- sweatshops, הכינוי למפעלים במדינות עולם שלישי בהם תנאי העבודה קשים.

“קל להתנגד להם ממקום מושבינו במערב, וזה מצטלם יותר טוב לדרוש תנאים הולמים בעבודה ולהתנגד לעבודה של ילדים, אבל בפועל זו הדרך של אוכלוסייה נחשלת לשפר באופן דרמטי את רמת החיים”. אלפר מוסיף כי אם המפעלים האלה היו נסגרים או אם לחלופין הייתה נאסרת עבודה בכאלה תנאים (נניח ללא מזגן, או שעות עבודה ארוכות), הראשונים להיפגע היו אזרחי אותן מדינות, שהיו נופלים לעוני חמור יותר וללא תקווה להתקדמות.

“הרבה פעמים מי שנפגע מהשיח הפוליטיקלי-קורקט אלו דווקא החלשים. הרי מדינות המערב ובראשון אנגליה וארה”ב עברו את אותו תהליך במאה ה-19. למזלם, הם לא נפלו קרבן למתחסדים ממדינות עשירות שניסו לעצור את ההתקדמות הכלכלית שלהם, כדי שאותם מתחסדים ירגישו יותר טוב עם עצמם”.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר מידה, כאן.