Andrew_Zito
2nd March 2016, 00:42
Practicalities space aid work live
Practically on the sharing of resources in most recent times many do not find much cooperation and in fact are suspicious of those they have the most casual of relations. Those on the Political "fringes" perhaps are more inclined to take risks perhaps not as people have many rationalizations.
Generally I am disappointed in people and the very narrow intolerant sectarian natures of many who consider themselves progressively and alternative to the current mainstreams of society where the allegedly inclusive principled basis for in importance in many peoples lives is also what segregated them form much of the rest of society.
Amazingly or maybe not:
Where those with resources are not and should not be inclined to be open to such cooperative efforts for many obvious good reasons that arguments often develop over the most absurd points where to begin with on those matters people are generally not equal in many ways both in resources, ability, and in the propensity to learn, acquire skills et cetera when there are immediate needs in living; and in what none the less pits young and old skilled and unskilled, religious less religious or nonreligious, secular and not secular.
Today where does one begin? Where yesterday:
"How did Labor in Israel begin on the road of the ownership and control of industry? What factors aided its growth?
What gave rise to the spurt of the last decade?
Here too, we find a meeting of necessity, improvisation and ideology. The first steps were taken, to form a contracting organization, in order to provide work for members of the Histadrut. [1] “Building the country” was and is the main aim of the Histadrut. How better could this be done than by entering into the actual work of farm settlements, contracting etc. Then came the depression of the 1930s. Some factories failed. Histadrut members would be unemployed, Jewish immigration would fall off. Unlike the US where the Hatters’ Union and the ILGWU finance the private employer to open a factory or remain in business – the Histadrut bought a controlling interest in Vulcan (1936), Phonecea (1940) – two bankrupt factories. Did not the Histadrut stand for labor’s ownership of the means of production?" (The New International, Spring 1956, Albert Findley, Israel’s Laboristic Economy, A Discussion of its Strength and Weakness, From New International, Vol.XXII No.1 (Whole No.171), Spring 1956, pp.29-39. Transcribed by Ted Crawford. Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.).
"The economic organizations of the Histadrut show a great variety as to form, size and principles of organization. They include the world known Rochdale type consumer co-operatives, producer co-operatives, agricultural settlements varying in degrees of cooperation from joint marketing to communal living, banks and factories organized on conventional private enterprise lines but owned by Histadrut, and last but not least the mixed companies. It is these last categories, and particularly the mixed companies that have had the most spectacular growth.
In the Histadrut affiliated co-operative settlements land is owned by the Jewish National Fund, leased to the individual farmer, but the members are not allowed to employ hired labor, and they usually buy and sell through co-operatives. These are known as Moshavim.
In addition there are the Kibutzim, about whom a great deal has been written. They are agricultural settlements where all economic activities are joint ventures. Land is leased from the Jewish National Fund to the group, not to the individual, and is cultivated in common. The harvest is divided in complete equality. In most of the Kibutzim there is communal living, eating, child rearing, etc., depending on the principles of the political group that runs the Kibutz. Recently, there has developed a new form of Kibutz, the Kibutz Shitufi which retains the economic features of a Kibutz, but has abandoned communal living. The growth and development of the Kibutz is due to the meeting of two currents. On the one hand, Zionism needed to settle people in Palestine as economically as possible, to utilize people who did not have the ability to farm on their own." (ibid)
In what today exists in varying degrees by means of many diverse peoples or varied rights privileges and worth.
Practically on the sharing of resources in most recent times many do not find much cooperation and in fact are suspicious of those they have the most casual of relations. Those on the Political "fringes" perhaps are more inclined to take risks perhaps not as people have many rationalizations.
Generally I am disappointed in people and the very narrow intolerant sectarian natures of many who consider themselves progressively and alternative to the current mainstreams of society where the allegedly inclusive principled basis for in importance in many peoples lives is also what segregated them form much of the rest of society.
Amazingly or maybe not:
Where those with resources are not and should not be inclined to be open to such cooperative efforts for many obvious good reasons that arguments often develop over the most absurd points where to begin with on those matters people are generally not equal in many ways both in resources, ability, and in the propensity to learn, acquire skills et cetera when there are immediate needs in living; and in what none the less pits young and old skilled and unskilled, religious less religious or nonreligious, secular and not secular.
Today where does one begin? Where yesterday:
"How did Labor in Israel begin on the road of the ownership and control of industry? What factors aided its growth?
What gave rise to the spurt of the last decade?
Here too, we find a meeting of necessity, improvisation and ideology. The first steps were taken, to form a contracting organization, in order to provide work for members of the Histadrut. [1] “Building the country” was and is the main aim of the Histadrut. How better could this be done than by entering into the actual work of farm settlements, contracting etc. Then came the depression of the 1930s. Some factories failed. Histadrut members would be unemployed, Jewish immigration would fall off. Unlike the US where the Hatters’ Union and the ILGWU finance the private employer to open a factory or remain in business – the Histadrut bought a controlling interest in Vulcan (1936), Phonecea (1940) – two bankrupt factories. Did not the Histadrut stand for labor’s ownership of the means of production?" (The New International, Spring 1956, Albert Findley, Israel’s Laboristic Economy, A Discussion of its Strength and Weakness, From New International, Vol.XXII No.1 (Whole No.171), Spring 1956, pp.29-39. Transcribed by Ted Crawford. Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.).
"The economic organizations of the Histadrut show a great variety as to form, size and principles of organization. They include the world known Rochdale type consumer co-operatives, producer co-operatives, agricultural settlements varying in degrees of cooperation from joint marketing to communal living, banks and factories organized on conventional private enterprise lines but owned by Histadrut, and last but not least the mixed companies. It is these last categories, and particularly the mixed companies that have had the most spectacular growth.
In the Histadrut affiliated co-operative settlements land is owned by the Jewish National Fund, leased to the individual farmer, but the members are not allowed to employ hired labor, and they usually buy and sell through co-operatives. These are known as Moshavim.
In addition there are the Kibutzim, about whom a great deal has been written. They are agricultural settlements where all economic activities are joint ventures. Land is leased from the Jewish National Fund to the group, not to the individual, and is cultivated in common. The harvest is divided in complete equality. In most of the Kibutzim there is communal living, eating, child rearing, etc., depending on the principles of the political group that runs the Kibutz. Recently, there has developed a new form of Kibutz, the Kibutz Shitufi which retains the economic features of a Kibutz, but has abandoned communal living. The growth and development of the Kibutz is due to the meeting of two currents. On the one hand, Zionism needed to settle people in Palestine as economically as possible, to utilize people who did not have the ability to farm on their own." (ibid)
In what today exists in varying degrees by means of many diverse peoples or varied rights privileges and worth.