Since the collapse first of the Warsaw Pact, then of the Soviet Union itself, there has been a hotly debated argument about whether or not communism/socialism as a political/economic model had any validity or not. Many folks, myself included, have maintained that the Soviet bloc's implosion, as well as the dire conditions in North Korea and Cuba, demonstrate the hollowness and fundamentally unsound nature of socialism. Others, including luminaries here on 
such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc. The upshot of their objections is that we haven't had a valid test yet, so the form of socialism generally known as communism (to be differentiated from Western European welfare states) is still worthy of pursuit.
From The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc. The upshot of their objections is that we haven't had a valid test yet, so the form of socialism generally known as communism (to be differentiated from Western European welfare states) is still worthy of pursuit.From The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
There was common sense here, and a great deal of validity, but I sure wish they hadn't thrown in "evolutionary pressure" in at the end. Biological determinism is the new social Darwinism. To be sure, we are animals, and our biology very broadly sets limits on how we behave, but it doesn't determine everything about human behavior, which is extraordinarily complex.
But, yeah, I'll agree that communism (let's avoid the word "socialism," which is so vague a term that many people genuinely think that the USA is a socialist nation) doesn't work very well for very long in a technological society of any appreciable size.
Which doesn't mean we leap over to the other extreme of dog-eat-dog unfettered capitalism.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
You mean "communism." Well, I suppose the optimal conditions would be a very small, low tech society of folks. A Kibbutz is fairly small, but it's hardly low tech. For a better model, we might look at religious communes of the past or "hippie" communes of the present. If they're small enough to be a large "family" things can work out fairly well. I sure as heck don't want to live a low tech life -- I'm too fond of my creature comforts -- and I don't like to be intimate with more than a very small number of people, but other people enjoy that kind of life. More power to them. (Of course, everybody involved has to want to live that way, or be allowed to leave.)
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
You mean "communism." It implies that anything remotely resembling a technological nation, or even a large technological town, can't function very well in the modern world that way.
Somewhat similar things might be asked about the kind of extremely uncontrolled capitalism of, say, Victorian England, where the disastrous effect on the common folk of industrialization has been well-documented by -- guess who? -- Karl Marx in Capital. The fact that he came up with a horribly wrong-headed solution for the problem (one made even worse by those who followed in his footsteps) doesn't mean the problem didn't exist.
There was common sense here, and a great deal of validity, but I sure wish they hadn't thrown in "evolutionary pressure" in at the end. Biological determinism is the new social Darwinism. To be sure, we are animals, and our biology very broadly sets limits on how we behave, but it doesn't determine everything about human behavior, which is extraordinarily complex.
But, yeah, I'll agree that communism (let's avoid the word "socialism," which is so vague a term that many people genuinely think that the USA is a socialist nation) doesn't work very well for very long in a technological society of any appreciable size.
Which doesn't mean we leap over to the other extreme of dog-eat-dog unfettered capitalism.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
You mean "communism." Well, I suppose the optimal conditions would be a very small, low tech society of folks. A Kibbutz is fairly small, but it's hardly low tech. For a better model, we might look at religious communes of the past or "hippie" communes of the present. If they're small enough to be a large "family" things can work out fairly well. I sure as heck don't want to live a low tech life -- I'm too fond of my creature comforts -- and I don't like to be intimate with more than a very small number of people, but other people enjoy that kind of life. More power to them. (Of course, everybody involved has to want to live that way, or be allowed to leave.)
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
You mean "communism." It implies that anything remotely resembling a technological nation, or even a large technological town, can't function very well in the modern world that way.
Somewhat similar things might be asked about the kind of extremely uncontrolled capitalism of, say, Victorian England, where the disastrous effect on the common folk of industrialization has been well-documented by -- guess who? -- Karl Marx in Capital. The fact that he came up with a horribly wrong-headed solution for the problem (one made even worse by those who followed in his footsteps) doesn't mean the problem didn't exist.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 8 2007, 04:43 AM) 
Since the collapse first of the Warsaw Pact, then of the Soviet Union itself, there has been a hotly debated argument about whether or not communism/socialism as a political/economic model had any validity or not. Many folks, myself included, have maintained that the Soviet bloc's implosion, as well as the dire conditions in North Korea and Cuba, demonstrate the hollowness and fundamentally unsound nature of socialism. Others, including luminaries here on such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc. The upshot of their objections is that we haven't had a valid test yet, so the form of socialism generally known as communism (to be differentiated from Western European welfare states) is still worthy of pursuit.
From The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc. The upshot of their objections is that we haven't had a valid test yet, so the form of socialism generally known as communism (to be differentiated from Western European welfare states) is still worthy of pursuit.From The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
But collectivism [socialism, communism, state supremacists, the tribe, society, the gang, progressivism, fascism, etc] will always be dictatorial/tyrannical. Humans are naturally selfish. In a collectivist society the rulers will try to impose their will upon its constituents in the name of the state or god. If that fails then they will use the Carbines. The rulers will kill, maim, and cause suffering in the process of imposing their will.
"It is the nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary power, granted at particular times, and upon particular occasions, into an ordinary power, to be used at all times, and when there is no occasion; nor does it ever part willingly with any advantage.
Cato's Letters, London , 1720
The ONLY system that conforms to the nature of man is Capitalism - Free Enterprise.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. "
George Santayana
Communism/Capitalism, choose your poison. Power corrupts regardless of where it comes from. In the end,certain people decide they know better than anyone else and try and run every one else's lives. Communism is an attempt to be fair to everyone and do the best by everyone. A noble goal but doomed to failure for many reasons based on the flaws of the human character. Capitalism/Free Markets try the same thing from the other end by leaving it up to those with the drive and determination to build it ground up--again this fails for the same reasons as Communism, human failures like Overwhelming Greed and Powertrips lead to the same tyrannical result of communism.
Like Communism I would state that Free Markets have never been given a real chance since the power brokers simply buy their power wholesale from the politicians (example: the whoring of the GOP) and give lip service to the idea of Free Markets.
Either end up just as bad. Maybe a better question might be how to avoid or defend from those problems resulting from the dangers of human failings.
the opiate of the intelligentsia? Oh so subtle
BUT it is your best attempt yet BD.
Like Communism I would state that Free Markets have never been given a real chance since the power brokers simply buy their power wholesale from the politicians (example: the whoring of the GOP) and give lip service to the idea of Free Markets.
Either end up just as bad. Maybe a better question might be how to avoid or defend from those problems resulting from the dangers of human failings.
the opiate of the intelligentsia? Oh so subtle
BUT it is your best attempt yet BD.
First of all I feel a stereotypical "socialism is bad (see USSR), hooray for free enterprise and freedom (U.S)" discussion will result from these questions. Almost everytime I read or participate in a thread that focusses on socialism I am amazed by the ignorant views many Americans have about this topic. For many Americans, also on this board, socialism equals communism equals former arch-enemy USSR, North-Korea and Cuba equals dictatorship equals social and economic disaster. This is simplistic reasoning, but none the less very alive today in the U.S. Perhaps the indoctrination during the Cold War and the glorification of U.S. liberalism and free enterprise has blinded many Americans from the many differences, nuances and ideologies that encompasses socialism.
The socialistic ideology Marx introduced in the late 19th century has evolved in many different political philosophies and movements. The most extreme views (communism, maoism etc) although embraced by the poorest parts of society in the beginning in almost every instance have resulted in more or less a failure / disaster / dictatorship. But the more moderate, pragmatic and democratic views (like the Social democratic movement) have been very succesfull (take Europe for example). The introduction of the ideal of social solidarity can be seen as a huge benefit to every society that embraced it. I would even go a step further and argue that a sense of social solidarity is as important for society as democracy and individual freedom. Any society should try to reach a good balance between these three important elements.
Now for the questions:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes. Although it was a nice and admirable effort, it seems that on a whole experiments of true collectivism ("communism") have failed in the long run. I more or less agree with the authors that human character and behaviour itself can be seen as the biggest obstacle for these social experiments to succeed.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
Small groups of people with the same ideology are probably the best conditions for such a social experiment.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
None. Kibbutzes are only one form that evolved from socialism. Some forms have been unsuccesfull others have been succesfull.
Editted:
what do you mean by opiate of the intelligentsia? Is this some sort of stab against liberals? If it is, it is a childish thing to do in my opinion.
The socialistic ideology Marx introduced in the late 19th century has evolved in many different political philosophies and movements. The most extreme views (communism, maoism etc) although embraced by the poorest parts of society in the beginning in almost every instance have resulted in more or less a failure / disaster / dictatorship. But the more moderate, pragmatic and democratic views (like the Social democratic movement) have been very succesfull (take Europe for example). The introduction of the ideal of social solidarity can be seen as a huge benefit to every society that embraced it. I would even go a step further and argue that a sense of social solidarity is as important for society as democracy and individual freedom. Any society should try to reach a good balance between these three important elements.
Now for the questions:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes. Although it was a nice and admirable effort, it seems that on a whole experiments of true collectivism ("communism") have failed in the long run. I more or less agree with the authors that human character and behaviour itself can be seen as the biggest obstacle for these social experiments to succeed.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
Small groups of people with the same ideology are probably the best conditions for such a social experiment.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
None. Kibbutzes are only one form that evolved from socialism. Some forms have been unsuccesfull others have been succesfull.
Editted:
QUOTE
Socialism nee Communism, the opiate of the intelligentsia?
what do you mean by opiate of the intelligentsia? Is this some sort of stab against liberals? If it is, it is a childish thing to do in my opinion.
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes, for the most part. Collective ownership and collective decision-making can work for some things, in some circumstances, but when collectivism (and denial of "selfish" individualism) is used as an overarching principle for organizing society, it fails.
People want to take care of themselves and their families. That's not a bad thing. That kind of "selfishness" can be tamed and harnessed by a society that recognizes individual rights. When it works well, the result is a society that's richer and more free than we've seen (or can expect) from these communist experiments.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
Pretty much... Smaller is better, since consensus-based collective decision-making doesn't scale very well.
External threats to the group can also lead to greater solidarity and cooperation. ("We're all in this together," or "We must all hang together or we shall surely all hang separately.") Think of war, or better, the way people respond to disasters, natural or man-made. You see volunteer rescuers taking tremendous risks for the sake of complete strangers. Adversity can have that effect in the short term, but a society based on a "permanent emergency" sounds like hell.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
I think there's a deeper question here that might need a separate thread. Where does collectivism work, and where does it fail? You could further distinguish between collectivized ownership and collectivized decision-making.
Water, air and roads are classic cases for collective ownership. Collective housing and agriculture are generally worse than the privatized alternatives.
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes, for the most part. Collective ownership and collective decision-making can work for some things, in some circumstances, but when collectivism (and denial of "selfish" individualism) is used as an overarching principle for organizing society, it fails.
People want to take care of themselves and their families. That's not a bad thing. That kind of "selfishness" can be tamed and harnessed by a society that recognizes individual rights. When it works well, the result is a society that's richer and more free than we've seen (or can expect) from these communist experiments.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
Pretty much... Smaller is better, since consensus-based collective decision-making doesn't scale very well.
External threats to the group can also lead to greater solidarity and cooperation. ("We're all in this together," or "We must all hang together or we shall surely all hang separately.") Think of war, or better, the way people respond to disasters, natural or man-made. You see volunteer rescuers taking tremendous risks for the sake of complete strangers. Adversity can have that effect in the short term, but a society based on a "permanent emergency" sounds like hell.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
I think there's a deeper question here that might need a separate thread. Where does collectivism work, and where does it fail? You could further distinguish between collectivized ownership and collectivized decision-making.
Water, air and roads are classic cases for collective ownership. Collective housing and agriculture are generally worse than the privatized alternatives.
Okay- my question to BD then is this- is Israel a failed state then? It is possibly the most truly socialistic state on the planet- 98% of the land is owned by the goverment, universal healthcare- all the boogeymen that you love to hate-
so BD- is Israel a failed state?
so BD- is Israel a failed state?
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 8 2007, 11:39 AM)
Communism/Capitalism, choose your poison. Power corrupts regardless of where it comes from. In the end,certain people decide they know better than anyone else and try and run every one else's lives. Communism is an attempt to be fair to everyone and do the best by everyone. A noble goal but doomed to failure for many reasons based on the flaws of the human character. Capitalism/Free Markets try the same thing from the other end by leaving it up to those with the drive and determination to build it ground up--again this fails for the same reasons as Communism, human failures like Overwhelming Greed and Powertrips lead to the same tyrannical result of communism.
Like Communism I would state that Free Markets have never been given a real chance since the power brokers simply buy their power wholesale from the politicians (example: the whoring of the GOP) and give lip service to the idea of Free Markets.
Either end up just as bad. Maybe a better question might be how to avoid or defend from those problems resulting from the dangers of human failings.
the opiate of the intelligentsia? Oh so subtle BUT it is your best attempt yet BD.
Like Communism I would state that Free Markets have never been given a real chance since the power brokers simply buy their power wholesale from the politicians (example: the whoring of the GOP) and give lip service to the idea of Free Markets.
Either end up just as bad. Maybe a better question might be how to avoid or defend from those problems resulting from the dangers of human failings.
the opiate of the intelligentsia? Oh so subtle
BUT it is your best attempt yet BD.Can you identify the source upon which you relied for the assertion that "Capitalism/Free markets "try the same thing from the other end". Can you elaborate, can you identify your premises?
Thanks.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 8 2007, 03:01 PM)
Okay- my question to BD then is this- is Israel a failed state then? It is possibly the most truly socialistic state on the planet- 98% of the land is owned by the goverment, universal healthcare- all the boogeymen that you love to hate-
so BD- is Israel a failed state?
so BD- is Israel a failed state?
But of course.
The Talmudist State receives 6-8 BBBBBBillion dollars annually from American Taxpayers. Close to 100 BBBBBillions since 1948. Without the American Taxpayers as a benefactor the Israeli economy would collapse.
I did not count the 10 BBBilion dollars per month that we are spending in Iraq in order to defend its sovereignty.
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes, definitely.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
No. The examples that I can think of which are 'optimal conditions for socialism' are things which most don't tend to think of as socialism at all. But in practical application, they are socialist in nature and they work, and have for centuries. Religious communes. IN those cases, individuals go into the experience willingly and sacrifice everything they have and often share everything they will make. They do so not for the benefit of the whole, however, but for the religious experience (spiritual enlightenment, salvation, ect). In those cases, the participants willingly submit in exchange for something they desire more than money. I suppose in theory if a group believes in submission to the community as much as a monk believes in his submission to the Spiritual life, the concept could work for those people.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
The chances for success are not very good. Humans aren't inherently selfless or generally motivated by the betterment of others to their own detriment (unless those 'others' are their own children). I'm not so sure we would have survived as a species in the first place if that were the case....kind of violates that 'survival of the fittest' principle.
Yes, definitely.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
No. The examples that I can think of which are 'optimal conditions for socialism' are things which most don't tend to think of as socialism at all. But in practical application, they are socialist in nature and they work, and have for centuries. Religious communes. IN those cases, individuals go into the experience willingly and sacrifice everything they have and often share everything they will make. They do so not for the benefit of the whole, however, but for the religious experience (spiritual enlightenment, salvation, ect). In those cases, the participants willingly submit in exchange for something they desire more than money. I suppose in theory if a group believes in submission to the community as much as a monk believes in his submission to the Spiritual life, the concept could work for those people.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
The chances for success are not very good. Humans aren't inherently selfless or generally motivated by the betterment of others to their own detriment (unless those 'others' are their own children). I'm not so sure we would have survived as a species in the first place if that were the case....kind of violates that 'survival of the fittest' principle.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 8 2007, 04:43 AM)
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Of course.
The form of collectivism known as socialism has always and will always fail:
"Time Magazine reports on the Degania kibbutz' decision to abandon socialism and allow the private ownership of property, a move many kibbutzim in Israel have been making in response to low productivity and the abandonment of their youth.The kibbutz was a socialist dream. But Degania's manager, Tzali Koperstein, says, "From the start, it was never equal. It was a fake equality." Some toiled hard in Degania's diamond-cutting tool factory and in the fields; others slacked off. And as Israeli society began to value creativity and free enterprise over socialism, Degania lagged behind.
Remember my friend Capitalism - Free Enterprise - is the ONLY system that conforms to the inherent nature of man.
Remind your friends that these USA are not a kibbutz or a commune.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes
Yes and no. Yes because if you fail at the very basic level of a Kibbutz, and its limited numbers etc. certainly a large scale version will be far harder to accomplish.
Socialism is as dead as a philosophy can be in the heats and minds of the vast majority in of the world. After killing 80 million people,In attempts to bring about the change to Socialism, it is clear that you cannot force people to accept this philosophy.
The “Social Democrats” of Europe are not real “socialists” at all in the classis sense. They are merely capitalist societies that have to a greater or lesser extent chosen to spread the fruits of capitalism more evenly through their societies. They are generally less efficient, productive and wealth. Some seem to be acceptable to the populous (Scandinavia) and others like Italy and France less so. France has recently moved right as people become fed up with the failed socialist policies and all “Social Democrat” societies see higher unemployment than the US.
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
Yes
QUOTE
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
Yes and no. Yes because if you fail at the very basic level of a Kibbutz, and its limited numbers etc. certainly a large scale version will be far harder to accomplish.
QUOTE
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
Socialism is as dead as a philosophy can be in the heats and minds of the vast majority in of the world. After killing 80 million people,In attempts to bring about the change to Socialism, it is clear that you cannot force people to accept this philosophy.
The “Social Democrats” of Europe are not real “socialists” at all in the classis sense. They are merely capitalist societies that have to a greater or lesser extent chosen to spread the fruits of capitalism more evenly through their societies. They are generally less efficient, productive and wealth. Some seem to be acceptable to the populous (Scandinavia) and others like Italy and France less so. France has recently moved right as people become fed up with the failed socialist policies and all “Social Democrat” societies see higher unemployment than the US.
Ted- you do realize that Israel is possibly the most purely socialist state on the planet- right?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 9 2007, 07:59 PM)
Ted- you do realize that Israel is possibly the most purely socialist state on the planet- right?
Well CR I have been there 4 times and never saw a “collective” anything. While there I visited some very significant private (that is non government) companies.
Please look up the word “socialism” and then try to convince me Israel is a socialist state.
Free enterprise, private property, and profit motive are very strong in Israel. They are some of the most “competitive” people on earth as are their independent companies.
LOL
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 8 2007, 02:43 AM)
Since the collapse first of the Warsaw Pact, then of the Soviet Union itself, there has been a hotly debated argument about whether or not communism/socialism as a political/economic model had any validity or not. Many folks, myself included, have maintained that the Soviet bloc's implosion, as well as the dire conditions in North Korea and Cuba, demonstrate the hollowness and fundamentally unsound nature of socialism. Others, including luminaries here on such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc. The upshot of their objections is that we haven't had a valid test yet, so the form of socialism generally known as communism (to be differentiated from Western European welfare states) is still worthy of pursuit.
From The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc. The upshot of their objections is that we haven't had a valid test yet, so the form of socialism generally known as communism (to be differentiated from Western European welfare states) is still worthy of pursuit.From The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they 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. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.
Question for Debate:
1) Do you agree with the author's assessment as to why the Kibbutz movement as an expression of socialism has essentially failed?
I do know a lady who lived and worked in a Kibbutz in the 30s who loved it but her husband couldn't stand it so they left. I'm somewhat inclined to agree with the author about one important reason for its decline although, besides personal and family self-interest, I would also suggest small tribal identification as part of our evolutionary heritage.
2) Would you agree that the Kibbutz presented the optimal conditions for socialism?
I haven't a clue.
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
The experiment suggests that full scale group socialism requires some kind of strong relation to higher authority to be sustained. An example of successful models would be the Marines and Catholic monasteries.
Speaking of authoritarian socialism, I don't agree at the present time that Cuba can be considered a failure. Having the best medical system in Latin America and exporting their model to other 3rd world countries is quite impressive in my book. I think being an island country and having a strong smart charismatic leader and dealing with a looming hostile collosus on their door step has helped. All countries when under a condition of threat, including the US, tend to readily adopt a more socialistic mode of management quite naturally. It's simple. Like other animals, humans tend to unite under a condition of threat. Bottom line profits become less of a priority.
Just a thought. If humans tend to identify along narrow family lines how come big capitalist corporations are a success? Wouldn't they be unnatural to our genetic heritage? My guess is they are and are sustained by a community of junkydom. It mainlines flashy stuff and provides to a critical mass of beneficiaries sufficient payoffs to guarantee its support. Big C Capitalism is a fairly stable evolved form, unlike the more recent ersatz highly reactive communist models, and along with technology has redefined the landscape. I think, in part, utopian socialism was an attempt to recover the natural community that had been taken away by the corporate capitalist powers with their often deeply alienated work force. To offer a counter force socialism quite naturally evolved into an authoritarian corporate state where a union based proletariat was going to be the powerful alternative to the capitalist oriented, community destroying state. But the proletariat was interested in their local jobs, not the jobs of proletariats 8 thousands miles away or broader community considerations. Genetics struck and international socialism collapsed.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 10 2007, 08:53 PM)
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
The experiment suggests that full scale group socialism requires some kind of strong relation to higher authority to be sustained. An example of successful models would be the Marines and Catholic monasteries.
The experiment suggests that full scale group socialism requires some kind of strong relation to higher authority to be sustained. An example of successful models would be the Marines and Catholic monasteries.
The military is a good example that I hadn't thought of (strangely), but I would argue it isn't exactly representative because it is roughly a meritocracy (at least in principle though not often in reality). There is ascension in paygrade, and a very large income disparity between lowest to highest rank.
(Must go...will finish my thoughts later...)
Edited to add: Now that I'm back, I can't remember what I was going to say this morning. Hm. Damn...need less blonde rinse...something about the necessity of an underlying availability of choice. Ah, well.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 8 2007, 09:43 AM)
Others, including luminaries here on such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc.
such as Vladimir, have argued that the Soviet Union doesn't constitute a valid test because of its totalitarian nature, Cuba's not valid due to the outside pressures, North Korea's totalitarian nature and constant war footing render it invalid, etc.It certainly is not the case that I ever said that the Soviet Union, Cuba or North Korea were not "valid tests" of socialism due to anything. I have said, on the contrary, that Cuban socialism has been notably successful in key areas, and would have been much more sucessful across the board had this little island economy not been embargoed by the United States (and, for that matter, kept under constant threat from essential terrorists harbored here). I don't recall having said anything remotely similar here about the Soviet Union or North Korea. I think I do once recall saying that it was a Soviet error not to rely more on markets for the distribution of many goods and services.
I will perhaps return and address the points raised in this thread, but in any case, you should not associate statements with me that I have not made.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 11 2007, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 10 2007, 08:53 PM)
3) What are the implications of the failure of the Kibbutzes for socialism?
The experiment suggests that full scale group socialism requires some kind of strong relation to higher authority to be sustained. An example of successful models would be the Marines and Catholic monasteries.
The experiment suggests that full scale group socialism requires some kind of strong relation to higher authority to be sustained. An example of successful models would be the Marines and Catholic monasteries.
The military is a good example that I hadn't thought of (strangely), but I would argue it isn't exactly representative because it is roughly a meritocracy (at least in principle though not often in reality). There is ascension in paygrade, and a very large income disparity between lowest to highest rank.
(Must go...will finish my thoughts later...)
Edited to add: Now that I'm back, I can't remember what I was going to say this morning. Hm. Damn...need less blonde rinse...something about the necessity of an underlying availability of choice. Ah, well.
I'm not aware that socialism or even communism in the early stages can't be structured around a meritocracy that scales up salaries. What makes it socialistic is the public character of the enterprise. It's not structured to make a profit, except perhaps on paper as a kind of quality control feedback mechanism. There is no capital owner to cash in. If revenue is generated, it flows back into the public coffers.
There is also nothing inherent to socialism that would preclude customer choice in products or or a work seeker freely choosing his job in many instances. Intelligently handled, it could be a mechanism for adjusting product change or salary and work place conditions. One could make the argument that full bore democratic socialism is more democratic than democratic capitalism because economic decisions are more directly accountable to an elected leadership; whereas in democratic capitalism private corporations can make societal changing economic decisions that have much less direct input from public representatives.
I'm frankly a pragmatist on the whole matter. What works the best overall for the longest period of time is my interest.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 11 2007, 07:40 AM)
The military is a good example that I hadn't thought of (strangely), but I would argue it isn't exactly representative because it is roughly a meritocracy (at least in principle though not often in reality). There is ascension in paygrade, and a very large income disparity between lowest to highest rank.
Actually, the military is a lousy example. The military possesses no means of production.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 12 2007, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 11 2007, 07:40 AM)
The military is a good example that I hadn't thought of (strangely), but I would argue it isn't exactly representative because it is roughly a meritocracy (at least in principle though not often in reality). There is ascension in paygrade, and a very large income disparity between lowest to highest rank.
Actually, the military is a lousy example. The military possesses no means of production.
Actually the term socialism has been expanded to include public services. Ever hear of socialized medicine? Just about anything associated with public welfare is considered socialistic, why not the military?
Actually technically it's "the means of production and distribution". Taking that in the broadest sense that covers just about everything.
QUOTE
Dingo
. Actually the term socialism has been expanded to include public services. Ever hear of socialized medicine? Just about anything associated with public welfare is considered socialistic, why not the military?
Actually technically it's "the means of production and distribution". Taking that in the broadest sense that covers just about everything.
. Actually the term socialism has been expanded to include public services. Ever hear of socialized medicine? Just about anything associated with public welfare is considered socialistic, why not the military?
Actually technically it's "the means of production and distribution". Taking that in the broadest sense that covers just about everything.
Lets not confuse the term Socialism with ‘socialized”. Socialism is clearly a political system under witch the government “owns” everything including the “means of production” and all “land” and other forms of property. As such all “products” and “services” are provide by the government. Thus there would be one “computer” company one grocery store etc. The design for the “computers” would be government directed and the products would be built in government owned “factories”.
Obviously this means no competition. This system is nearly unworkable as evidenced by the Soviet Union and other “socialist” countries. The incentives are wrong and the idea that any “government” could design all products and fill all needs is ludicrous.
Now the military in the US, as pointed out, does not design or manufacture much. They will derive the “specification” based on the Pentagons assessment of their needs and then private companies will be asked to ‘bid” (compete) based on the specifications. In some cases the government will fund 2 companies to build a product (like a jet fighter) and then have a “fly-off”. This was done on the ATF and JSF programs. Thus market capitalism gives us out military equipment and the government gives us the manpower.
Socialized medicine is a system whereby the government is the single payer and responsible for setting the standards and determining what will be covered and how mush a doctor or hospital will be paid to provide medical care. This is not Socialism but a strong step in that direction since their could be little or no competition. Some schemes allow for more competition.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.