Israel’s collectivist kibbutzim were once one of the world’s most highly touted experiments in socialism. But, as the Financial Times reports [HT: Tyler Cowen], they have increasing switched over to private property rights:
Set amid rolling hills in central Israel, Kibbutz Nachshon is a cluster of simple houses shaded by pine trees and surrounded by gardens and fields. The midday calm is broken only occasionally, when a tractor rumbles towards the grain silo or children pass by on their way from the nursery.
To the casual visitor, Nachshon presents a facade of quiet, rural simplicity that conforms perfectly with the image of the kibbutzim, the collective farms unique to Israel.
In truth, however, Nachshon has spent the past four years in the grip of a social and economic revolution that swept away most of the socialist ideals and egalitarian practices that marked this experiment in communal life. The buildings and fields are still the same, the left-wing leanings are still there, as is a sense of solidarity. But in most practical terms, the lives of kibbutzniks like Jane Ozeri have changed beyond recognition....
Equality, once at the core of the kibbutz ideology, has been breached in other ways, too. Tasks that used to be performed by kibbutzniks regardless of their education and background — such as washing the dishes — are today largely the preserve of hired workers from outside the community.
Attitudes towards business have also changed radically. As recently as the 1980s, Nachshon members voted down a plan to open a petrol station on a nearby highway, because it would force the proud kibbutzniks to “serve” motorists.
Today, many kibbutzim not only have thriving businesses — including in the tourism industry — that operate exactly like other private enterprises, but some have even decided to embrace the capital market: 22 kibbutz companies are currently listed on stock exchanges in Tel Aviv, New York and London.....
“The kibbutz was never isolated from society,” says Shlomo Getz, the director of the Institute for Research of the Kibbutz at Haifa University. “There was a change in values in Israel, and a change in the standard of living. Many kibbutzniks now wanted to have the same things as their friends outside the kibbutz.”
Ms Ozeri says: “People wanted more control over their own lives and economics. They wanted to make their own decisions, and have their own car and their own telephone. It is very difficult to live this strong communal life. It is very tiring.”
Just as these social trends were gathering pace, the kibbutz movement was dealt a knock-out blow from a different direction. Keen to diversify away from farming, more and more kibbutzim had started dabbling in industry, setting up businesses that — often burdened by a lack of management expertise and capital — made hefty losses.
The result was a debt-crisis, a government bail-out in 1985 — and a wholesale re-examination of the kibbutz economic philosophy.
“Israeli society had always looked to the kibbutzniks as an elite group. But now they were regarded as a mere interest group that depended on money from the state,” says Mr Getz.
The answer to this dilemma — and to the communities’ financial woes — came in the form of privatisation — a process that started slowly in the 1990s and has gathered pace ever since.
Nachshon, for example, finally decided to abandon collectivism in 2006. In a so-called “privatised kibbutz”, members are free to keep their salaries, but in return they have to pay for all the goods and services that the kibbutz used to provide for free.
More often than not, kibbutzniks found they would rather do their own cooking and washing and have their own car than use communal facilities. Even the dining hall — once the heart of every community, where members used to meet, eat and talk on a daily basis — became a victim of privatisation: in some kibbutzim, attendance dropped so sharply that communal dining was abandoned altogether.
[emphasis added].
In this post, I explained why the failure of socialism in the kibbutzim is important to broader debates about markets and property rights:
As [Gary] Becker puts it, “nowhere is the failure of socialism clearer than in the radical transformation of the Israeli kibbutz.” If a socialist experiment could ever succeed, it should have done so in this case. Most kibbutzim were founded by highly motivated volunteers strongly committed to socialist ideology. For many years, kibbutzim had great prestige in Israeli society, and many of the nation’s early leaders were kibbutz members. After Israel became an independent state in 1948, the kibbutzim also benefited from extensive government subsidies. Unlike other socialist experiments, the failure of the kibbutzim cannot be ascribed to lack of ideological fervor, inadequate resources, or hostility from the surrounding “capitalist” society. Despite these advantages, kibbutzim failed to achieve a high level of economic productivity, and even failed to retain the loyalty of many of their own members. Over time, many kibbutz residents became frustrated with the perverse incentives created by socialism, and many also yearned for the individual freedom and privacy created by private property rights.
Only by watering down or abandoning their comitment to socialism have kibbutzim been able to survive. If socialism cannot work under the highly favorable circumstances of the Israeli kibbutz, it almost certainly cannot work anywhere.
Houston Lawyer says:
Early Christians learned this lesson two millenia back.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:40 pmbyomtov says:
My understanding is that this trend is nothing new, but that kibbutzim have been moving this way for many years now.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:48 pmRPT says:
HL:
What do you mean by this comment? Do you mean re scripture references or something else? P.S. I am not neither a kibbutznik nor a socialist, but I have read Acts a few times.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:53 pmorca says:
I hope nobody tells the Chinese that socialism is a failure...they might stop lending us the money to prop up our failing capitalist experiment.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:56 pmWidmerpool says:
Orca, there’s a difference between kleptocracy and socialism.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:58 pmMark N. says:
I suppose even from a libertarian perspective I don’t have much problem with people voluntarily living in collectivist communities if they want. The Israeli kibbutzim, unlike many socialist experiments, never degenerated into authoritarian dictatorship and mass murder, and don’t appear to have made it illegal for those who wanted to leave to do so. So if they want to organize themselves internally in a collectivist manner, or in a manner that involves accounts and exchange of money, I guess I don’t see it as a big deal either way.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:00 pmIlya Somin says:
My understanding is that this trend is nothing new, but that kibbutzim have been moving this way for many years now.
That’s true. It’s been going on for 20–30 years, but has accelerated recently.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:05 pmIlya Somin says:
I suppose even from a libertarian perspective I don’t have much problem with people voluntarily living in collectivist communities if they want. The Israeli kibbutzim, unlike many socialist experiments, never degenerated into authoritarian dictatorship and mass murder, and don’t appear to have made it illegal for those who wanted to leave to do so.
I agree, though they did get a lot of money in state subsidies. My point is not that kibbutzim should be forbidden by the Israeli government, but that their failures teach an important lesson.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:06 pmIlya Somin says:
I hope nobody tells the Chinese that socialism is a failure
No need to tell them. They already know. That’s why they gave it up.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:07 pmorca says:
A few cosmetic changes = no more socialism?
That will comes as a relief to the hundreds of thousands of Chisnese political prisoners.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:09 pmegd says:
The problem isn’t that socialism can’t work under highly favorable conditions, but rather that the conditions aren’t favorable enough. Socialism will only work when the entire world is socialist so that there aren’t any capitalists working to sabotage the worker’s paradise and reinstitute slavery of the proletariat.
That and there’s no chance to escape.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:12 pmHerb Spencer says:
The Pilgrims learned this lesson shortly after they arrived in Massachusetts, too, as the WSJ delights in recounting every Thanksgiving on its editorial page.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:14 pmIlya Somin says:
A few cosmetic changes = no more socialism?
No, the privatization of the vast bulk of the economy=no more socialism.
That will comes as a relief to the hundreds of thousands of Chisnese political prisoners.
A regime can have political prisoners without being socialist. I didn’t say that China today is a liberal democratic paradise, merely that it isn’t socialist anymore.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:15 pmOleh says:
Much like the God of gaps is constantly reduced to smaller and smaller fiefdoms, so is workable, purist socialism, constantly relagated to further and further backwaters.
Perhaps a small community in post-disaster extremis can carry it off for a while.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:19 pmAlex Bensky says:
I assume, Ilya, that you’re not actually expecting socialists to consider the kibbutz experience, although leaving aside the flood of evidence elsewhere that the idea doesn’t work, if it can’t work on a kibbutz it probably can’t work anywhere...well, escept as egd says, if no one has a choice.
But most socialists embrace socialism as a religious tenet rather than as a conclusion about society drawn from evidence and analysis. This will be rationalized away.
I once called myself a socialist, although to paraphrase the old Jewish joke, by a socialist I was probably no socialist. But whatever else my intellectual shortcomings, after a time I did realize that the reason it never worked, and in fact invariably resulted in less prosperity, less freedom, and almost always less help to the lower classes it purported to represent, is because it’s a bad idea.
After umpteen times of insisting “that wasn’t real socialism; what we have is” anyone susceptible to rationality would have long since realized this.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:20 pmrequired says:
The success and failure of capitalism have nothing to do with the success or failure of kibbutzim or other socialist communities. Capitalism in not merely applicable to economics (although it is an economic theory) but to all of life. Capitalism is the freedom to spend your labor and property into whatever you think worthwhile and the right to reap the benefits from them. All the demise of the kibbutzim demonstrates is that people have shifted their priorities and value the sense of community less than material wealth. If anything, both the growth and decline of the kibbutzim show how capitalism works — when people are to free they can form socialist communities when it meets their wants and when their wants change they can change how they order their affairs to meet those needs.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:22 pmMark N. says:
Aren’t a lot of those nominally privatized companies actually still controlled by the government, though, at least when it comes to major decisions? And many of the largest and most critical parts of the economy aren’t even nominally privatized. For example, the financial sector is almost entirely government-owned.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:23 pmorca says:
?????
The Chinese government owns a considerable percentage of all those “privatized” companies.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:24 pmLior says:
No, the kibbutz didn’t fail because of socialism — the kibbutzim that failed did so because they failed to evolve. The kibbutz worked great for its founders, who were committed to the ideal and were happy with the results. The next generations (especially the third) don’t believe in socialism — so of course they are happier with private property etc.
Those “[who] wanted more control over their own lives ... [who] wanted to make their own decisions, and have their own car and their own telephone.” are not the same people who founded the kibbutz, but rather their children and grandchildren who were born into the system and didn’t like it. The founders were happier in the commune (they had the choice to live otherwise and chose not to, after all) and didn’t want the system to change.
What this shows is that forcing socialism on people doesn’t work. But it doesn’t show that a voluntary commune can’t work.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 6:02 pmgeokstr says:
Right. Just another “progressive”, I suppose, whose views are, coincidentally, to the left of Bernie Sanders, whose voting was to the right of Sen. Obama.
Seems that conservatives are proud to hold to that philosophy, but those on the left are very, shall we say, circumspect in wanting others to know theirs. Why is that anyway?
If socialism, or liberalism, or even communism is so freaking wonderful, why not just say so? Be proud of who you are and what you believe. So what if all us troglyditic retards here in flyover country are too stupid to agree with you, right?
We do have enough booklarnin’ to know that two negatives equals a positive though. That one will have to be added to my list of favorite Freudian slips.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 6:43 pmMartinned says:
Inferiority complex much?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 6:46 pmgeokstr says:
Not at all. Just trying to make ol’ rpt feel comfortable by mirroring his, and probably your, views.
By the way, you claim to not be on the left, like another commenter here, but you are always critical of the right and always agree with the left. Is this a case of there being a totally different political direction, at right angles to left/right, or something? I sincerely doubt that moderate or centrist would fit, would it?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 6:57 pmyankee says:
Anyone got any spare tinfoil? I need a way to block geokstr’s telepathic mind-reading powers.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 7:09 pmScott Fruehwald says:
The kibbutz doesn’t work because it goes against human nature. Human nature is very hard to overcome. See my article A Biological Basis of Rights at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440247 .
Quote
January 26, 2010, 7:12 pmMC says:
Lior is partially correct, as is Prof Somin. Having lived on a Kibbutz for about a year, I can only testify to my own anecdotal evidence. However, the kibbutz I was on (Revivim, 30 km south of Beer-Sheva) was one of the more “flexible” kibbutzim, which was willing to compromise on more of its socialist principles in the name of pragmatism, and is thus one of the few remaining kibbutzim that was able, by compromising, to retain socialized systems that they felt were the most important, such as a fully communal laundry, kitchen, and vehicle system. The kibbutzim that were very rigid and “pure” in their socialism (mostly kibbutzim that were part of Hashomer Ha-Tzair) are the ones that are currently either fully privatized or on the way (for instance, Kibbutz Shamir in the upper Galil, now has an optical something or other company listed on NASDAQ)
However, even the people that live on the more moderate kibbutzim seem ideologically broken. Out of nearly 100 15–30 year olds that I met on the Kibbutz, not a single one stated their desire to permantly reside in the Kibbutz. They all had plans to move out to Beer-Sheva or Tel-Aviv. And every single person complained about everyone else for “not pulling their fair share of the load.” Free-riding was rampant, and there were very few people who took any pride in their work.
Kibbutzim were very useful back before the founding and maybe even up until 1973. But since then, Kibbutznikim have become, to paraphrase Begin, middle-class suburbanites with swimming pools.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 7:25 pmMarco says:
My guess is a reference to Acts 2
44And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common.
45Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.
46And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;
Quote
January 26, 2010, 8:07 pmerp says:
If socialism cannot work under the highly favorable circumstances of the Israeli kibbutz, it almost certainly cannot work anywhere.
I believe that is the absolute last word on the subject.
To paraphrase the old Frank Sinatra song, “If you can’t make it there, you can’t make it anywhere.”
Quote
January 26, 2010, 8:41 pmRicardo says:
Government-run firms are still present in many European countries as well as oil states like Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates. For that matter, Singapore still has a few government-run enterprises as well and almost all land in the city-state is owned by the government.
China is only socialist if you want to label lots of other countries socialist as well, including several countries that tend to score highly on various measures of economic freedom. Which some may well want to do here. But in the way most people use the term, China is no longer socialist in any meaningful sense. It is easier to open a private business in China than it is in some other nominal market economies.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 8:55 pmLior says:
Scott: the kibbutz most definitely did not go against the nature of its founders.
Today’s kibbutz, consisting of people who belong there by accident of birth, suffers from all the problems of involuntary socialism (lack of enterprise, lack of personal responsibility, free-riding). The original kibbutz (situated at the same location, but a completely different group of people) didn’t have this problem, since all members were there by choice. The failure was thus in convincing the next generation that socialism is the best system to live under.
Thus the lesson should be slightly different from Ilya’s: even highly committed socialism, free from the evils of totalitarianism, will not be able to self-propagate over generations — even among those born to the system too few actually believe in it [snarks would say: especially among those born to the system]. Indeed, Eastern European socialism failed in two to three generations. Chinese socialism was instituted around 1950 and is being scaled back as we speak. Indian socialism has failed and so on.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:53 pmPerseus says:
I believe that the phrase “socialism with Chinese characteristics” more or less accurately, if unwittingly, describes the current regime’s oligarchic rule and peculiar blend of socialism and capitalism.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:55 pmorca says:
I think this more about “Ronald Reagan defeated Communism, so China can’t possibly be Communist.”
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:00 pmreadery says:
Following up on MC’s comment, the take-home message is not necessarily that socialism doesn’t work, but that rigidly ideology-based systems don’t work.
Perhaps the reason why the U.S. preserves capitalism is not necessarily because capitalism is the best ideology, but because the U.S.‘s brand of capitalism also isn’t especially ideological pure and is either watered down or fortified (depending on ones point of view) by a streak of pragmatism similar to that shown by the kibbutzim which preserve watered-down (or fortified) socialism.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:07 pmDG says:
{I think this more about “Ronald Reagan defeated Communism, so China can’t possibly be Communist.”}
Orca, you seem to be a troll, just here looking for a fight from some “conservatives”. Sadly, this isn’t really a good spot for such a fight — you won’t get your red meat here. Perhaps you should move along?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:19 pmorca says:
Calling someone a troll, the last refuge of the desperate.
Chinese government spending plus revenue from wholly owned government companies account for 60% of China’s GDP. The government also owns a big chunk of the remaining 40% of China’s GDP.
Perhaps Ilya Somin can state his definition of socialism that somehow doesn’t include China?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:30 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Scott said what I was going to say, and MC backed it up.
You can’t change human nature. You can’t idealize it away, or legislate it away, or train it out of people. Political philosophies that work may not be pretty, and they may not appeal to our finer natures, but they take into account how we are.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:48 pmJT says:
What Lior said. And the Kibbutzim did work. It is highly unlikely that Israel would exist today without their early contributions. I call that a success.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:13 pmIlya Somin says:
And the Kibbutzim did work. It is highly unlikely that Israel would exist today without their early contributions. I call that a success.
They did not work in the sense of creating a viable alternative way of life anywhere near as good as private property. Since Kibbutzim never contained more than a tiny fraction of the Israeli population, it’s highly likely that the state could have survived without them. yes, some Israeli elites came from kibbutzim. But these people could have contributed to their society as much or more had they grown up in more normal settings.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:19 pmIlya Somin says:
Chinese government spending plus revenue from wholly owned government companies account for 60% of China’s GDP. The government also owns a big chunk of the remaining 40% of China’s GDP.
I highly doubt these figures are accurate, given that published data by the World bank and others shows Chinese govt spending as about 20% of GDP (including that on govt-owned firms). also, many chinese firms taht are government-owned on paper function as private firms in practice (keeping their own profits, and not depending on state subsidies).
Perhaps Ilya Somin can state his definition of socialism that somehow doesn’t include China?
Glad to. Socialism is government ownership and control of the overwhelming majority of the means of production. In a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:22 pmMC says:
I must respectfully disagree with you Professor Somin. Although they “did not work” in the sense of creating an alternative way of life, they did, in fact “work,” if you look at the overwhelming correlation between Kibbutz residency and the make-up of the early Zionist and then Israeli governments and military–not simply the elites, but literally the backbond of Israeli society. I know that correlation is not causation, and that perhaps the kibbutzniks were merely retaining their own power in a self-perpetual cycle, however there is something to be said for the fact that the Kibbutz always provided an important ideological symbol for both Israelis, but more importantly, for diaspora jews with deep pockets and political connections.
Although there is no empirical evidence of this, it seems fairly reasonable to assume from historical anecdotes that the romantic image of the pioneer Jew working the Land on the kibbutz was one of the primary reasons why Diasporan Jews were so willing to use their political and monetary wealth for the benefit of Israel.
Had there been no kibbutzim, and all of mandatory Palestine was just groups of Rothschild funded Petach Tikvas with Jewish aristoracts and Arabs doing the actual work on the Land (since only the ideological underpinnings of kibbutz socialism could convince the largely urbanized Jews to do this backbreaking, but necessary, agricultural work), I don’t think Israel would have survived, at least in the sustainable form in which it exists today.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:45 pmorca says:
So in Iraq, where government spending accounts for 83.5% of GDP, we are creating socialist paradise for our trillion dollars?
Quote
January 27, 2010, 1:11 amorca says:
many chinese firms taht are government-owned on paper function as private firms in practice
So government-owned corporations don’t count as means of production owned by the government? Certainly a novel definition of socialism.
In a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on.
So in Iraq, where government spending accounts for 83.5% of GDP, America is spending a trillion dollars to create a socialist paradise?
The glorious revolution lives on!
Quote
January 27, 2010, 1:26 amrpt says:
All I can say is give me a break here. Can’t you leave well enough alone, or must everything be some bizarre fight? Are you some kind of quasi-Freudian? You can call me a First Century Acts 2 Christian and leave it at that.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 2:35 amCrisisMaven says:
Great story! Thanks ... What’s wrong with Economics?
Quote
January 27, 2010, 10:01 amStrict says:
“In a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP”
This isn’t a useful definition of a socialist state. It’s surprising that for all your dedication to criticizing socialism, you haven’t been able to come up with a decent workable definition. As pointed out, under your definition China would not be a socialist state at all, whereas Iraq, which leads all states in “government spending as a percentage of GDP,” would be the paradigm of a socialist state. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam spending accounted for about 28% of the GDP in 2009. Qatar, which has the lowest tax rates in the world, second highest GNI per capita, and second highest GDP per capita, is almost a “real socialist state” under your definition. The means of production are controlled almost exclusively by individuals of the Al Thani family (specifically the Emir) but still under your definition Qatar would be more than twice as socialist as Vietnam.
It also doesn’t explain things like the socialist Indian state of Kerala or the Kerala Phenomenon. [As an aside, Himachal Pradesh and Kerala are two of the Indian states with the most government spending per GDP, and two of the states with the highest quality of life.]
In 2007, Israel’s spending as a percentage of GDP was 43.7. In 2009 it was 46.4. That doesn’t mean that Israel is creeping toward socialism. It could just mean that the government bought a dozen fighter planes.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 11:38 amrequired says:
orca:
not all that novel, read the the socialist theoreticians of the late 19th and early 20th century and many point this out. ownership of the means of production is a hallmark of some socialist systems but not it is not an end unto itself instead it is is a means to reach the goal of having the means of production used to directly benefit the members of society. a great number of ownership-control schemes have been proposed by socialist theorists and some have even been used. we use the ownership&control formulation as the definition of socialism because “socialist” governments and their apologists have insisted upon it to distinguish themselves from impure brands of socialist theory, especially fascism. the system of state-owned businesses being run as private industry is usually termed state-mercantilism (although in the particular case of China the –mercantilist label is of contestable applicability).
the purpose of government ownership leads us to the next point you object to “[I]n a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on. this is almost inevitable, since the only legitimate purpose of industry is to benefit the members of society (under socialist theory) most of industry will be devoted to social spending. there is a trend away from this in some socialist theories (syndicalism being the best example, having actually been used on a small scale) but most socialist theories (and all systems implemented on a national level) start with the assumption that all people have the same wants and needs and that someone other than the recipient can determine what those are. if one can actually determine what the wants and needs of the persons in aggregate are then it is more efficient to meet those wants and needs directly (government spending) than to use a non-centralized allocation system. note the qualifiers though, in Ilya’s original there was the word “generally” and in this post I point out that it is “almost inevitable”.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 12:23 pmStrict says:
“we use the ownership&control formulation as the definition of socialism because “socialist” governments and their apologists have insisted upon it to distinguish themselves from impure brands of socialist theory, especially fascism.”
I know there are many political, philosophical and historical links between socialism and fascism, and similar fundamental aspects [big government]...but I’m not so sure that fascism is simply a subset of socialist theory. Some aspects of fascism, especially casteism and class collaboration, are so diametrical to basic tenets of socialist theory that it should be considered outside of the umbrella of (liberal or radical or revolutionary or normative) socialist theory. However, in practice, such as Titoism, we can see class collaboration: the Communist master class, and the underclass (everybody else)...
Quote
January 27, 2010, 1:21 pmJT says:
Perhaps change the word viable to sustainable. It certainly was a viable, extraordinarily fullfilling way of life for thousands of people for decades. Then the society outgrew it. Maybe kibutzim show that socialism works best in small, close knit societies with little material wealth. And I agree with MC. Kibbutzim gave Israel the social/military ability to survive its early wars. Israel won because the people came and fought for a dream. Some fought for religious reasons, others for secular reasons. The secularists were mostly fighting for the kibbutz lifestyle. The country would not have survived the fight without either group.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 3:13 pmReasonAndJest.com » Israel (and the U.S.) Should Decentralize says:
[...] a change of decentralization, in addition to privatization and capitalization, is exactly what Israel needs, setting an example for the people of Iran, Iraq, and other countries [...]
Militant Libertarian » Note to Israel (and the U.S.) From an Anguished Jewish American: Decentralize says:
[...] a change of decentralization, in addition to privatization and capitalization, is exactly what Israel needs, setting an example for the people of Iran, Iraq, and other countries [...]
FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » Note to Israel (and the U.S.) From an Anguished Jewish American: Decentralize says:
[...] a change of decentralization, in addition to privatization and capitalization, is exactly what Israel needs, setting an example for the people of Iran, Iraq, and other countries [...]