Mamdani’s New York kibbutz experiment

The closest thing to the implementation of the socialist system in Israel, is the kibbutz.  Originally established, even before the founding of the modern state, in 1948, it was designed to fulfill the Zionist vision, requiring every member to fully contribute their efforts “for the good of the collective.”

Once Israel became an independent state, the kibbutz system was able to absorb many Holocaust survivors who arrived with virtually nothing but the clothes on their back. 

For them, it was a godsend, because it provided for their every need – housing, food, clothing, medical care and basic necessities. In exchange, each member received a small monthly stipend to help them buy extras or even put some money away.

It worked great, because most of these kibbutz communities were only comprised of a few hundred people at the most. It maintained an even-based economic level while everyone benefitted in many ways. Those communities are still in existence, although most have abandoned the original collective, socialist aspect, for a more merit-based way.

Incoming NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani is about to embark on the very same experiment, but what worked for a small handful of people will, in no way, be successful for a city whose population exceeds 8.5 million people.

That is because everyone is not starting out on a level playing field, as was true for kibbutz members. Nonetheless, Mamdani, in part of his inaugural address enthusiastically stated: 

“Today begins a new era…I was elected as a Democrat socialist, and I will govern as a Democrat socialist. We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” 

Although those three sentences are a tiny fraction of his lengthy speech, they represent the vision of one enormous kibbutz. 

Already doomed from the start, the greatest asset of America, its “rugged individualism,” which forged the world’s greatest superpower, is being marginalized and abandoned for “collectivism,” whatever that means to the Ugandan-born mayor.

How will Mamdani pull off a collectivism which is dependent upon well-off New Yorkers, parting with their wealth in order to create the economic level-playing field which is the centerpiece of the mayor’s Utopian paradise?

Unlike the kibbutz system, which relied upon its particular industry as the main source of income, to keep each member housed, fed and clothed, New York is already a collective, but not in the definition of Mamdani.  

Within the five boroughs which make up the City of New York, is a highly diverse cross-section of people, comprising everything from billionaires to the marginally wealthy, to the middle-class and to the penniless and homeless. In what galaxy does such a varied assortment amalgamate to form a “collectivism” resulting in equal outcomes?

And why would any person with drive, talent, motivation, dedication and determination feel compelled to earn less for themselves and their family in order to enable others who are lazy, uninspired or unwilling to invest the hard work which yields success?

Mamdani’s ill-advised experiment is wholly built upon lowering one segment of society in order to lift up the other. But even if such a thing could happen, complete equality, based on one single starting point cannot work, simply because people are not the same.

There will always be someone smarter, richer, thinner, wittier, more charming and more talented. It is why certain people rise to the top and others don’t. In many cases, it has nothing to do with monetary advantage received from one’s youth.  

It has everything to do with a person’s creative juices, unique talent, insatiable drive and how they take advantage of even the smallest opportunities which come their way. That’s why there are so many rags to riches stories, because some were determined to pull themselves up from their humble or impoverished beginnings, in order to attain all that life has to offer.  

Those people, once at the top, may desire to help the down and outers of society, but they will not be ready to turn over all they have achieved to those who neither worked for it nor would even know how to preserve it or better it.

Regrettably, these are the lessons Mamdani has yet to learn. In order for his plan to work so as to ensure that “no New Yorker is priced out of any one of the basic necessities,” coercion would have to be employed, and no successful New Yorker will put up with that – even those who voted for this socialist dream. Because, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism works well until you run out of other people’s money.” 

The beauty of the free-market, capitalist, merit-based system is that the very successful, wealthy and talented are often the ones whose hard investment provides a good living for so many. As workers prove themselves, they, too, can move up the ladder of success, likewise paying it down to those less fortunate.

Other sectors of society, such as service-oriented organizations, non-profits and even faith-based charities or entities, such as churches or synagogues, are a great lifesaver for those unable to help themselves for a variety of reasons – albeit not the unwillingness to work if they can. Those private resources must never be replaced by government which has proven itself to be mostly inept and corrupt.

So, while all of Mamdani’s lofty goals and promises of free stuff may sound attractive and enticing to the constituents who are hoping to get a piece of the pie, without having worked for it, they may be disappointed to discover that it’s just pie in the sky. Because socialism has not yet provided a blueprint for success anywhere it’s been tried – perhaps, with the exception of Israel’s kibbutz system.

But, as previously mentioned, most of these collective communities have had to adopt a radically different framework from the way they began. In order to survive, privatization, accompanied with differential pay, had to be implemented to avoid the economic crisis which many saw coming. 

Consequently, around 85% of all kibbutz communities decided to pay members based on the value of their work, their skills and individual responsibilities taken on, shifting from “work as a value to the value of work.”

Undoubtedly, Mamdani will figure this out along the way, but not before many become disillusioned by his failed kibbutz experiment in the Big Apple.