KIBBUTZIM AND SOCIALISM ?
Dvora
UP IN A FORM OF SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ?
-
FROM THE TIME I WAS A TEENAGER I THOUGHT COMMUNAL WORKING AND -LIVING
WAS MY IDEAL--
-
TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS -- AND FOR WORK -- EACH ACCORDING TO HIS
ABILITIES --
Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> i WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE KIBBUTZ FORMATION IN ISRAEL
> WERE SET UP IN A FORM OF SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ?
Correct. Some even hung a picture of Stalin YM"SH in their communal
dining room.
> -
> FROM THE TIME I WAS A TEENAGER I THOUGHT COMMUNAL WORKING AND -LIVING
> WAS MY IDEAL--
For an idealistic teenager, it may be. As I said, It _sounds_
fantastic...
> -
> TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS -- AND FOR WORK -- EACH ACCORDING TO HIS
> ABILITIES --
The trouble is, you need tremendous motivation for that. The early
pioneers had that motivation so it worked for them. But the second
and third generations are changing the kibbutz rules. Because for
"normal" human nature, it doesn't work.
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Dvora
-
THE PEOPLE SHARED WORK - WE ATE IN A DINING HALL TOGETHER --
-
THERE WAS WAS A TV FOR THOSE WHO WANTED TO WATCH IN A TV ROOM --
-
OUR OWN SPACES FOR LIVING WERE VERY BASIC -- A ROOM -- A BED A TABLE A
CHAIR -- A LAMP AND A RADIO --
A BATHROOM OUT ON THE PORCH WITH A CURTAIN -- A PLACE TO GO ASK IF WE
NEEDED SOAP OR A TOWEL TO EXCHANGE --
--
I HAD MY TABLE AND CHAIR ON THE PORCH -- AND TREES WITH WONDERFUL
SONGBIRDS RIGHT NEXT TO ME ---
-
MY ROOM WAS ON A CORNER OF A PATH FROM THE DINING HALL -- SO CHILDREN
COULD SAY HELLO AS THEY WENT BY --
-
I AM RAMBLING -- SORRY -- WHENEVER I THINK OF THE KIBBUTZ MY HEART
OVERFILLS WITH LOVING MEMORIES --
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Nov-2009, Shalomf...@webtv.net (Dvora) wrote:
> i WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE KIBBUTZ FORMATION IN ISRAEL WERE SET
> UP IN A FORM OF SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ?
> -
Yes - & this is what I meant when I said that it doesn't
work "en masse". It has only been shown to work in Israel -
in small, concentrated areas where everyone knows each o
ther & is truly working toward a common goal.
> FROM THE TIME I WAS A TEENAGER I THOUGHT COMMUNAL WORKING AND -LIVING
> WAS MY IDEAL--
> -
Because you had a good example!
> TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS -- AND FOR WORK -- EACH ACCORDING TO HIS
> ABILITIES --
>
> Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
And you also.
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
For sure. Because you had the _exceptional_ dedication. But it
doesn't last. People are built to want their _own_.
lee
I remember arguing about the Spanish civil war & the anarchist
collectives with nonplussed kibbutniks, smoking Noblesse & sitting
around in their banana fields. imho kibbutzes urban & agrarian, & not
Stalin or Mao, are exactly the end result we envision when we talk
about socialism or anarchism. it might not be efficient but what
better way is there to live & work. & most importantly bring up
children. especially, for me, in an informal jewish setting. As imho
socialist came partially from us, if not from the Torah, then by the
experience of diaspora where we had to use mutual aid to survive &
prosper.
mm
(Dvora) wrote:
>BUT MOSHE -- IT SEEMED VERY MUCH LIKE THIS ---
>-
>THE PEOPLE SHARED WORK - WE ATE IN A DINING HALL TOGETHER --
>-
>THERE WAS WAS A TV FOR THOSE WHO WANTED TO WATCH IN A TV ROOM --
I remember listening to someone somewhere, who said that one problem
occurred sometimes when Americans moved to the kibbutz. They were
willing to work as hard as anyone and have as little as anyone, but
then their parents would send them a tv or something. Just for them.
>-
>OUR OWN SPACES FOR LIVING WERE VERY BASIC -- A ROOM -- A BED A TABLE A
>CHAIR -- A LAMP AND A RADIO --
>A BATHROOM OUT ON THE PORCH WITH A CURTAIN -- A PLACE TO GO ASK IF WE
>NEEDED SOAP OR A TOWEL TO EXCHANGE --
I wish I had spent more time in Israel much earlier, so I have no
first hand ovservation, but it does seem like something more likely to
work well when people are poor. And they can only get by by sharing.
Thank G-d Israelis are not so poor anymore.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
lee
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:47:10 +0000 (UTC), ShalomfromDv...@webtv.net
On Kibbutz Afikim, where I was a volunteer in the mid 80's nearly all
the old people had those electric carts, something I'd actually never
seen before for the elderly in Britain. So not really that poor.
jos boersema
>
> On 23-Nov-2009, Shalomf...@webtv.net (Dvora) wrote:
>
>> i WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE KIBBUTZ FORMATION IN ISRAEL WERE SET
>> UP IN A FORM OF SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ?
>> -
> Yes - & this is what I meant when I said that it doesn't
> work "en masse". It has only been shown to work in Israel -
> in small, concentrated areas where everyone knows each o
> ther & is truly working toward a common goal.
Correct, and perhaps you know but the reason is rather banal:
when all know all, you can "trade in your head" instead of
trade in real life. When all know all ''that guy cleaned the
toilets ... times ..., so he earns ... a spot on the table
and not being yelled at'' ... ''but that other guy has been
slacking since ... and needs a good ear washing ... or we'll
kick his sorry ... out of here.'' So what is actually taking
place is a computation of trade in each person its head. A
little discussion evens out the disagreements ''but I saw
him work for hours on ... and now you say he's slacking but
wheren't you elsewhere doing ...'' and so on. It can be resolved
if people mean well and there are not too many. The more people
mean well, the larger the group can be. The more people everyone
can keep in their heads counters for (the better their memory
and clear-headedness is), the larger the group can be.
The communists never understood this, they never understood that
what they where going to do was "trade in the head."
In practical terms for one individual this easily becomes impossible
above, say, 10 persons. But you can use the contagion-effect where
''you know that guy who you trust because ... and that guy says
the other persons did well there/there, and trusts there/that...''
That way you can build a network of trust that is larger. My guess
it still starts to wobble and eventually collapse at several
hundred to above 10.000 persons.
The obvious solution: trade. Make sure theft is outlawed so that
in principle 'what you carry in your hand, you either made that,
or you traded for it with something you did make.' If theft is
outlawed, trade can work over ... millions, billions even.
Then, that's all ? Nope, if only that where true. Notice the key
word: 'what you made' ? That not being theft, it being effort.
Land, did we make the land ? No we did not, it is there and every
year it kind of recreates its own vertility again. You can work
*on* land or *at* land, but the land itself is there (even if it
is ocean). To hoard all land under one boss, that boss can then
rent land out for money. This is where things become a little
subtle (apparently). Because isn't the land properly sold ? Don't
seller end buyer agree and conform to the sale rituals (agreeing
a price & paying for it) ?
It becomes even more subtle when it comes to investment credit.
The truth is: the Torah has an economic system, which is adequate.
Minimal, but adequate. The Kibutzim people (socialists), and the
Torah religious people, they should have come together and work
it out. The Torah has the correct economic model, and the kibutzim
people possibly had the critical eye to cut away the mistakes that
the Rabbis still teach today that break down the Torah finance
system (heter iska, prozbul, see Shulchan Aruch chapters 66 & 180).
Together, they could have worked it out in theory. The Kibutzim
could then have learned that trade is not bad at all, it is a help.
Fair trade in particular of course. Land could be distributed, and
investment in businesses be done in the common interest, while
*prohibiting* a free market for capital (aka capitalism.) It could
have worked, it may have been enough to save the jewish people.
>> FROM THE TIME I WAS A TEENAGER I THOUGHT COMMUNAL WORKING AND -LIVING
>> WAS MY IDEAL--
>> -
> Because you had a good example!
>
>> TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS -- AND FOR WORK -- EACH ACCORDING TO HIS
>> ABILITIES --
>>
>> Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
>
> And you also.
>
> Susan
mm
wrote:
>On Nov 23, 4:27 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:47:10 +0000 (UTC), ShalomfromDv...@webtv.net
>>
>> (Dvora) wrote:
>> >BUT MOSHE -- IT SEEMED VERY MUCH LIKE THIS ---
>> >-
>> >THE PEOPLE SHARED WORK - WE ATE IN A DINING HALL TOGETHER --
>> >-
>> >THERE WAS WAS A TV FOR THOSE WHO WANTED TO WATCH IN A TV ROOM --
>>
>> I remember listening to someone somewhere, who said that one problem
>> occurred sometimes when Americans moved to the kibbutz. They were
>> willing to work as hard as anyone and have as little as anyone, but
>> then their parents would send them a tv or something. Just for them.
>>
>> >-
>> >OUR OWN SPACES FOR LIVING WERE VERY BASIC -- A ROOM -- A BED A TABLE A
>> >CHAIR -- A LAMP AND A RADIO --
>> >A BATHROOM OUT ON THE PORCH WITH A CURTAIN -- A PLACE TO GO ASK IF WE
>> >NEEDED SOAP OR A TOWEL TO EXCHANGE --
>>
>> I wish I had spent more time in Israel much earlier, so I have no
>> first hand ovservation, but it does seem like something more likely to
>> work well when people are poor. And they can only get by by sharing.
>>
>> Thank G-d Israelis are not so poor anymore.
>>
>On Kibbutz Afikim, where I was a volunteer in the mid 80's nearly all
>the old people had those electric carts, something I'd actually never
>seen before for the elderly in Britain. So not really that poor.
Though not rich then or now, I wasn't referring to the 80's as poor,
but to the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> On Nov 23, 2:04=A0pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 23-Nov-2009, ShalomfromDv...@webtv.net (Dvora) wrote:
>>
>> > i WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE KIBBUTZ FORMATION IN ISRAEL
>> > WERE SET UP IN A FORM OF SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ?
>>
>> work "en masse". It has only been shown to work in Israel -
>> in small, concentrated areas where everyone knows each o
>> ther & is truly working toward a common goal.
>>
>> > FROM THE TIME I WAS A TEENAGER I THOUGHT COMMUNAL WORKING AND
>> > -LIVING WAS MY IDEAL--
>>
>>
>> > TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS -- AND FOR WORK -- EACH ACCORDING
>> > TO HIS ABILITIES --
>
> collectives with nonplussed kibbutniks, smoking Noblesse & sitting
> around in their banana fields. imho kibbutzes urban & agrarian, & not
> Stalin or Mao, are exactly the end result we envision when we talk
> about socialism or anarchism. it might not be efficient but what
> better way is there to live & work. & most importantly bring up
> children. especially, for me, in an informal jewish setting. As imho
> socialist came partially from us, if not from the Torah, then by the
> experience of diaspora where we had to use mutual aid to survive &
> prosper.
Oh make no mistake, the Torah demands mutual aid. It's the prohibition
against individual ownership that distances Socialism from Torah.
lee
There isnt a prohibition on owning things, personal possessions in
socialism, theres a prohibition of individuals or classes owning or
controlling the means of production, ie an extremely wealthy class
owning the coal mines or the railways, & keeping all the benefits for
themselves rather than the community or socialism as a whole.
jos boersema
Actually that seems to be a contested issue with socialists. I've
noticed and heard socialists say they object only to "mass concentrated
ownership of 'the means of production'". Such as owning large estates
or whole factories and enormous amounts of money privately. But they
would not object to people owning personal belongings, like table ware,
clothing etc.
To the degree that is true, it is an exact match for the Torah, who
also decries people combining decries people combining arrible land
until they own much more then the others (a hint of the feudal system ?
which was one of the worst periods in Europe, where 'landed nobility'
owned everything in a network of private ownership enforced by armies
payed for by the rent sucked out of the peasantry). The Torah also
warns about the abuses that Kings would commit on the people, abuses
that center about apropriating other people their time/effort (take
your sons for war ...). The Torah is against Monarchy and Kings, the
socialists also.
The difference socialists / Torah seems to be primarily in the trade
of labor, services and products. The Torah is never against it, while
the socialists main issue is to do away with all free trade and install
a planned economy. Everyone was to be given by direct application of
conscious planning what they needed, and was required to give what
they could (reasonably). This also implies a sense of personal
ownership, or how can you be given anything.
Another difference is the use of soil: the Torah distributes it and
keeps it distributed, while the socialists wanted to put it all under
the power of 'the collective' collectivily (meaning the Government,
which they hoped would be absolutely democratic, but they never managed
to achieve that.)
Another difference is that Torah clearly is pro-law (the concept of law),
while the socialists are basically anti-law (which is actually quite
remarkable considdering that the French Revolution was a period of
great 'social' law making, such as the Bill of Rights in the USA and
the Declaration des droits l'homme et du citoyen, which echo the
requirenment of the Torah to judge all equally before the law, both
rich and poor.)
To reduce socialism to "no private ownership" is too simple, imho.
There are more important issues, some do and some don't line up
with the Torah.
Also ... in practical terms the people where very heavily abused by
the capitalist system (which crossed Torah money law completely, and
still does), after having been abused by the feudal system (which
major crossing with Torah law was the ownerhip of land). Then the
socialist revolutions also ended up causing abuses, and they crossed
the Torah on the free trade issue. Every big movement that happened,
they all caused major abuses of people, the abuse always being linked
to a certain major area of society where they are breaking the Torah
law. Soil / Money / trade services-products / Government.
Broken: Feudal / Capitalist / Socialist-Marxist / Monarchy.
Torah: distribute / non-profit / allowed / <Neviim>
Work? A given / Power / work / Power
(By the way: what thinks/claims it is now following the Torah, could be
taken to be in the 'capitalist' camp, because the heter iska and prozbul
"laws," which allow effectively free trade in business credit, which is
turning the Torah model into a capitalist model, imo.)
--
http://www.socialism.nl (Free trade, anti-capitalist, land-distributive
socialism, not marxist.)
lee
> socialism, not marxist.)
The planned economy isnt a requirement of socialism. The soviet union
just ended up that way so the party could keep control of the economy.
They called it Marxist Leninism, However I cant really see that much
relation between Marxism & what the soviets ended up with. Nor any
relation with kibbutzim which I would still content is what most grass
roots socialists, anarchists, see as the desired end way to live &
work, in some sort of federal structure. I myself see no problem with
trade, as long as its mutually satisfying to both parties, its trading
purely on the profits from trade that leads to the problem.
Don Levey
Ah, that would explain it - I'm still in my 40s. So I can look forward
to my 80s, then?
;-)
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
mirjam
At the time it was a very good solution to loads of problems the
pioneers had.
Most were yong people who either lost their parents or lived far away
from them, The Kibboets was a subsitude family for many people.
As a chid i loved it . it was the perfect background to grow up in .
These last years sees a revival of some of the Kieboetziem in some
places [many young families join again. and some kieboetziem have
become Joined Community villages.
mirjam
jos boersema
> On Nov 24, 9:44 am, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>On 2009-11-24, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>> lee <schotn...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Nov 23, 2:04=A0pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>>> On 23-Nov-2009, ShalomfromDv...@webtv.net (Dvora) wrote:
>>
>>>>>> i WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE KIBBUTZ FORMATION IN ISRAEL
>>>>>> WERE SET UP IN A FORM OF SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ?
>>
>>>>> Yes - & this is what I meant when I said that it doesn't
>>>>> work "en masse". It has only been shown to work in Israel -
>>>>> in small, concentrated areas where everyone knows each o
>>>>> ther & is truly working toward a common goal.
>>>> I remember arguing about the Spanish civil war & the anarchist
>>>> collectives with nonplussed kibbutniks, smoking Noblesse & sitting
>>>> around in their banana fields. imho kibbutzes urban & agrarian, & not
>>>> Stalin or Mao, are exactly the end result we envision when we talk
>>>> about socialism or anarchism. it might not be efficient but what
>>>> better way is there to live & work. & most importantly bring up
>>>> children. especially, for me, in an informal jewish setting. As imho
>>>> socialist came partially from us, if not from the Torah, then by the
>>>> experience of diaspora where we had to use mutual aid to survive &
>>>> prosper.
>>
>>> Oh make no mistake, the Torah demands mutual aid. It's the prohibition
>>> against individual ownership that distances Socialism from Torah.
>>
>> Actually that seems to be a contested issue with socialists. I've
>> noticed and heard socialists say they object only to "mass concentrated
>> ownership of 'the means of production'". Such as owning large estates
>> or whole factories and enormous amounts of money privately. But they
>> would not object to people owning personal belongings, like table ware,
>> clothing etc.
>> The difference socialists / Torah seems to be primarily in the trade
>> of labor, services and products. The Torah is never against it, while
>> the socialists main issue is to do away with all free trade and install
>> a planned economy. Everyone was to be given by direct application of
>> conscious planning what they needed, and was required to give what
>> they could (reasonably). This also implies a sense of personal
>> ownership, or how can you be given anything.
>> Broken: Feudal / Capitalist / Socialist-Marxist / Monarchy.
>> Torah: distribute / non-profit / allowed / <Neviim>
>> Work? A given / Power / work / Power
>
> The planned economy isnt a requirement of socialism. The soviet union
> just ended up that way so the party could keep control of the economy.
Ah ok, I thought they always where on that planned-economic idea.
I thought they always said trade was never going to work, because
even if you did self-rule in companies by labor, the consumer
competition would always pressure for lowest price and that would
mean 'self exploitation by labor.'
In my opinion that was a big mistake: they assumed that consumption
can only be for cheapest price, which isn't actually true, you can
do activism in trade: fair trade. Secondly, if you have most/all
corporations under self-rule, then you don't have to compete against
'slave' labor in tyranical businesses that the capitalists control
(their finance over-lords and their company-lords). Put a trade
barrier on the border to protect it some more. Even if consumers
seek cheapest price, at some point corporations would simply say
we don't do it for less. If they still want lower prices, they'd need
to go over the border, which entails paying the tarrif, thus it does
not solve their want of going for cheapest at all (social) cost.
Note that under labor-self-rule, particularly under non-profit finance,
most/all consumers are not only consumers but also business owner/labor.
They know that if their costumers pressure for lowest price, that
this costs them wages. Therefore they may (come to) understand, that
if they turn around to be consumers and pressure for low wages (and
succeed), that they are erecting the type of economy that would wreck
their own income eventually.
> They called it Marxist Leninism, However I cant really see that much
> relation between Marxism & what the soviets ended up with. Nor any
> relation with kibbutzim which I would still content is what most grass
> roots socialists, anarchists, see as the desired end way to live &
> work, in some sort of federal structure. I myself see no problem with
> trade, as long as its mutually satisfying to both parties, its trading
> purely on the profits from trade that leads to the problem.
Note that if you have the social inclination enough to erect a
federation of kibbutzim (which is actually a large plan-economy ?
or how would you envision that ?), that you then also have the
social inclination to do a labor-owned non-profit finance free
trade economy. Considdering the latter is more defended against
abuses of power (power is distributed to every instance of a trade),
and trade even works where greed and anti-social inclinations are
high, I'd say the answer to the economic question seems obvious:
trade (within mentioned context: no free trade in investment credit,
no free trade in soil, and no tyranical ownership of corporations.)
Basically, every corporation would become a Kibbutz of sorts.
The traditional make-up of a Kibbutz would perhaps be 'larger farming
corporations,' but that would only be one type of labor owned
corporation in the economy then. It would be something like a free
trade, free enterprise (free startup) economy, where labor contract,
services and products are freely traded around, and the defining
element in these markets would be the type corporation-Kibbutzim.
These Kibbutzim would be run by the majority vote of the employees.o
That's a little different from the traditional vision of Kibbutzim
I guess, which where to be agricultural communities that engaged
in other activities (?), at least that's how it often ended up.
It isn't much of a difference I think, because if you did such
a vision, no doubt you would get free trade all around, whether
that was in the original idea or not. People will trade, it is normal
and helpful (services/products).
The finance-kibbutzim-corporations, who do investment credit, these
would not be regular corporations, they would either be Government
owned, or need a license from the common good. They should never
invest for profit, because that is most profitable where labor is
squeezed.
I'm not really sure what you mean with profit being a problem in trade.
The essence of trade is that it is profitable for both partners to
do so. If I have 60 loafs of bread and you have something I want,
then we can trade and even if the value exchanged appears equal
to someone else, for us who want to trade, we both end up with a
profit, an advantage. Say I need money and you need break. We
trade, thus we end up with profit both. I guess that is what you
meant. Or do you mean a sort of price fixed economy ?
--
http://www.jhwh.be/gov.html <<--- Government system proposal.
http://www.jhwh.be/party/nl/david-we <<--- Reform.
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/sheet3.txt <<--- Revolution.
Sorry to use a lot of words for a simple issue, but nobody seems to
understand (yet).
lee
> Sorry to use a lot of words for a simple issue, but nobody seems to
> understand (yet).
imho we, as jewish refugees were responsible for exporting some of
these ideas from Russia to the UK & USA
I think this pretty much sums it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
with some sort of federal/democratic decision/planning structure most
likely based on union structures. Or similar to the (I hesitate to say
soviet with a small S, as that would be misconstrued) autonomous
decision making of the Kibbutz federation before the state became more
involved in planning. If you start saying exactly how its got to be
then you get dogma & stalinists, these decisions should be made
democratically & pragmatically
My objection isn't to a little profit from transactions per se, as
long as people don't feel cheated. Its to the trading purely in
profit
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>mm wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:46:37 +0000 (UTC), lee <scho...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Kibbutz Afikim, where I was a volunteer in the mid 80's nearly all
>>> the old people had those electric carts, something I'd actually never
>>> seen before for the elderly in Britain. So not really that poor.
>>
>> Though not rich then or now, I wasn't referring to the 80's as poor,
>> but to the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
>
>Ah, that would explain it - I'm still in my 40s. So I can look forward
>to my 80s, then?
If you work as hard in your 60's and 70's as Israelis did.
>;-)
Micha Berger
its requirements de facto rule out a few of the more exteme from either
end. The laws that require charity, prohibit giving away more than 1/5,
the prohibition against underpaying or overpricing by more than 1/6,
etc... The city elders have the authority to fix market prices on
commodities, but they have no obligation to do so.
IOW, I think halakhah realizes that different times, places and
communities would be best served by different economic systems -- as
long as they are conducted within morality and within reason.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach
lee
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:02:16 +0000 (UTC), Don Levey
>
> >mm wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:46:37 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Kibbutz Afikim, where I was a volunteer in the mid 80's nearly all
> >>> the old people had those electric carts, something I'd actually never
> >>> seen before for the elderly in Britain. So not really that poor.
>
> >> Though not rich then or now, I wasn't referring to the 80's as poor,
> >> but to the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's.
>
> >Ah, that would explain it - I'm still in my 40s. So I can look forward
> >to my 80s, then?
>
> If you work as hard in your 60's and 70's as Israelis did.
>
> >;-)
>
> --
>
> Meir
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
I'd quite like my 20's back, on reflection now, I don't think I
enjoyed them enough
jos boersema
>>> just ended up that way so the party could keep control of the economy.
>>
>> Ah ok, I thought they always where on that planned-economic idea.
>> I thought they always said trade was never going to work, because
>> even if you did self-rule in companies by labor, the consumer
>> competition would always pressure for lowest price and that would
>> mean 'self exploitation by labor.'
> imho we, as jewish refugees were responsible for exporting some of
> these ideas from Russia to the UK & USA I think this pretty much sums it up
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
> with some sort of federal/democratic decision/planning structure most
> likely based on union structures. Or similar to the (I hesitate to say
> soviet with a small S, as that would be misconstrued) autonomous
> decision making of the Kibbutz federation before the state became more
> involved in planning. If you start saying exactly how its got to be
> then you get dogma & stalinists, these decisions should be made
> democratically & pragmatically
That is exactly one of the big issues I have against everything
Marxist, socialist, communist, anarchist, syndicalist, or all the
other flavors of progressive politican thought: vague. It is all
so vague, that it is all never going to be something, imho. In
reality you can't maintain a nation, an economy, production, justice,
on ''we roughly have a state or maybe we don't it isn't exactly clear.'
I would like to have it absolutely crystal clear what it is going to
be, how exactly it is going to be done and how basically down to the
last molecule vibration it is supposed to work and will work. Can't
show that, then imho it just won't be done, and when it's done it
will probably be confusion, leading to chaos imho.
Then, once it is absolutely crystal clear how it is going to function,
why it will function been shown, and you then actually do it, then
you have loads and loads of room for the fuzzy element of real life
to come back in. If a system can not even on paper show what it is,
then imho in actual life it will merely be chaotic, and that would
most likely degenerate into criminal rule.
BTW, i disagree that the state always has to be hostile, as a dogma
it is just that: a dogma. What creates a class economy is power
difference. An engine to create power difference over time (centuries)
is the free trade in investment capital.
If I'm saying exactly how it is going to be done - which I definitely
am, with extreme detail and if need be I'll show it to the last
molecule (time/energy permitting) - then imho that will lead exactly
to the opposite of stalinism/dictatorship, provided the system is
not a dictatorial system of course (which it isn't, it is of course
/designed/ not to end up like stalinism/dictatorship). I assume you
are accusing me of being too precise, but who am I to dictate what
should be done ? I'm merely one of the people who voices his opinion,
looking for debate on what we should do. I'm precise because otherwise
nothing will happen, that's for sure. When not precise, who will fill
in the blanks, good people ? Of course not, good people tend to be
lazy with these issues of governance. No it'll be the bad and bold,
they'll put themselves ahead, put up a big mouth, and make sure the
system will primarily service them.
> My objection isn't to a little profit from transactions per se, as
> long as people don't feel cheated. Its to the trading purely in
> profit
I don't understand. If someone feels cheated, he shouldn't close
the trade. The key is power: distribute power as much as possible,
that will even the playing field of power. Then merit in the markets
will make sure merit gets rewarded. Then on top of that you can
build a welfare state (to the degree you wish to pay for it, which
is in no small matter an issue of mass insurance).
If you do all that, imho you get the kind of society that both the
socialists and anarchists (etc) want. You start with something extremely
precise, a set of laws, a large set of laws. That kind of provides
a ship, the national ship. In the security and features of that ship,
people can build their lives in freedom.
Example: you wish to be a kibbutz ? Today you'd have to somehow get
land. In my model you get land for free, no better you already have
land for free and you can't even get rid of it. You own land, whether
you want to or not. You can swap that around if you want, you can
convert a crop-growing land-use right into a logging or fishing
right, etc etc. Say there is 50 persons who want to do a Kibbutz.
After a bit of work, they manage to combine 40 plots of land all
next to each other, most of it crop use right land and some of it
to build something on as well (considdering the Government is a
people's government, it's only interest is that the soil is not
permanently destroyd through poisons). Then you just do your thing
there, great. You want to be a 'socialist' effort, no problem.
And it'll not be attacked by the finance powers, as it always has
been in the past. You can now call on finance powers to protect
you, rather then to figth them.
Then you can of course make a network of 'cooperative Kibbutzim'
exactly how you wanted. Not the whole economy may have to engage
in that, but if you want to that is not a problem. There is no
rule against larger networks or businesses, only a rule against
monopolies.
But maybe the essential reason to do Kibbutzim networks of solidarity
is more or less superfluous, because there is no 'evil, angry,
vicious outside capitalist system' to find refuge from anymore.
Even so, you can do that Kibbutzim thing you want, and experiment,
live and do what you want. Strict rules make sure the Government
won't corrupt (as easily, if done right of course, a rule that says
Government can keep secrets for example would help corruption;
and not having a rule about transparency of government would help
corruption in the same way because then any corrupt person will
choose secrecy.)
Take a pen & paper and draw your system, show exactly how it is
going to function. Why should we wait on "later" ? I never understand
that, why must we wait until 'after the revolution' ? We are here
now ! In the old days, all people worked themselves to pieces all
day, they had no time. Then it made sense to wait after the revolution,
when the public would at long last have some respite and time from
the violent exploitation engine. Today is not then, we have oceans
of time to do all kinds of things. If we can't make a precise system
that will work now, we surely won't after a revolution, when the
problems will mount quickly and overwhelmingly. Now is the time to
think calmly and reasonably.
--
http://www.jhwh.be/law
jos boersema
> I don't think the Torah specifies a particular economic model, although
> its requirements de facto rule out a few of the more exteme from either
> end. The laws that require charity, prohibit giving away more than 1/5,
> the prohibition against underpaying or overpricing by more than 1/6,
> etc... The city elders have the authority to fix market prices on
> commodities, but they have no obligation to do so.
>
> IOW, I think halakhah realizes that different times, places and
> communities would be best served by different economic systems -- as
> long as they are conducted within morality and within reason.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
The Torah has a very clear, well somewhat clear at least, economic
model. Do not sell money on interest to a brother, it is all over the
Tanach. The laws about land ownership returning in the 50th year is
also clear, a sale was only going to be done on the crops until the
50th year.
You can contrast that with the other economic models of history:
- The feudal system.
- Capitalism (and its Rabbinical form heter-iska & prozbul).
- Plan-economy.
It is absolutely crystal clear that the Torah does not promote
a feudal system. The land i not all to be hoarded by a few 'noble'
men, who are then going to rent it to the peasantry.
It is absolutely crystal clear that the Torah disallows capitalism,
the laws against rent seeking are there and they do not say rent
seeking is ok. It is not ok, period. End of conversation.
The Torah does not specify a command and plan economy.
What happens in individual cases, a bit of charity, a bit of land
sale (maybe with other tribes), that doesn't detract from what
'the nation as a whole' is about, what it's main economic system is.
In economic terms: the Rabbinical rules about heter iska and prozbul
are simply wrong, there is no question about it. In Torah legal
terms the Rabbi never had the authority to change the Torah law either.
Look at you jews, in exile for nearly 2000 years. Maybe it's time
to acknowledge that breaking the Torah as at the root of that exile.
Because it is !
You say "the Halakah realizes that it can change the Torah law."
That's one daring assertion, isn't it. Who is the Halakah to break
the Torah ! What doe the Torah say ? You can to change the law.
It didn't say that for nothing, because you did change it, and the
results where catastrophic and continue to be catastrophic.
Economics is a science, and at times it can be complicated and
subtle. To understand you really have to get into it. I think I did,
and I found that the Torah has it right, pure and simple (logic
already posted (a few hundred times now ;)). Scientifically
speaking the Torah is right and the heter iska and prozbul are wrong.
Let's not waste time arguing about those fact, but spend the energy
on reforming Israel back to the proper Torah economy.
--
http://www.jhwh.be
Micha Berger
> The Torah has a very clear, well somewhat clear at least, economic
> model. Do not sell money on interest to a brother, it is all over the
> Tanach. The laws about land ownership returning in the 50th year is
> also clear, a sale was only going to be done on the crops until the
> 50th year.
Except that the whole bit about land ownership is specific to the land
divied up by Joshua upon the conquest of Israel. That's not fiscal law,
because if it were, it would have been extended when David extended the
boundries of Israel, it would apply even in exile, etc...
The problem is that we're discussing two things. I'm discussing the
Torah, you're discussing some Qaraite equivalent. I didn't realize until
you distinguish between the Torah and the rabbinic heter iska. Which
isn't even true -- since the Torah (neither text nor tradition) does
not prohibit making profit at business. That wouldn't even be Qaraitic,
it would be an R extrapolation of values from the law. (And IMHO, an
incorrect attempt at doing so.) You're insisting we close up a legal
loophole because it defines what you believe is the implied moral
value behind prohibiting interest. That leaves the realm of strict
interpretation of law.
Yes, halakhah limits your options. But you could get pretty capitalistic
without violating halakhah AND you can plan nearly all of the economy
without violating it.
Joe Bruno
I believe that some early Israeli pioneers were Socialists. I think
David Ben-Gurion was one.
Perhaps the abandonment of socialism by the Russians and all of
Eastern Europe and the Chinese has made some people realize it doesn't
work in the real world..
Don Levey
> jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> The Torah has a very clear, well somewhat clear at least, economic
>> model. Do not sell money on interest to a brother, it is all over the
>> Tanach. The laws about land ownership returning in the 50th year is
>> also clear, a sale was only going to be done on the crops until the
>> 50th year.
>
> Except that the whole bit about land ownership is specific to the land
> divied up by Joshua upon the conquest of Israel. That's not fiscal law,
> because if it were, it would have been extended when David extended the
> boundries of Israel, it would apply even in exile, etc...
>
> The problem is that we're discussing two things. I'm discussing the
> Torah, you're discussing some Qaraite equivalent. I didn't realize until
> you distinguish between the Torah and the rabbinic heter iska. Which
> isn't even true -- since the Torah (neither text nor tradition) does
> not prohibit making profit at business. That wouldn't even be Qaraitic,
> it would be an R extrapolation of values from the law. (And IMHO, an
> incorrect attempt at doing so.)
>
the conclusions the poster seems to think are appropriate. So, while it
may technically follow a R approach to interpretation, I don't know of
any school of thought within R which finds it valid.
jos boersema
>> The Torah has a very clear, well somewhat clear at least, economic
>> model. Do not sell money on interest to a brother, it is all over the
>> Tanach. The laws about land ownership returning in the 50th year is
>> also clear, a sale was only going to be done on the crops until the
>> 50th year.
>
> Except that the whole bit about land ownership is specific to the land
> divied up by Joshua upon the conquest of Israel.
Joshua conquered the holy land, and divided it up between the families.
Then laws where enacted that caused effectively that land to remain
in those families. If a family became so poor it had to sell anything
they had, they still could not sell their land. It could only be sold
until the 50th year. Then that family got it back.
So, let's not forget that actually happened, and that iirc the Torah
contains already the laws for land-distribution: Bemidbar Masee 34:16,
Wajicra 25:23 Behar.
Pay particular attention to Behar: at Sinaii these laws are already
proclaimed. They are in the Pentateuch, and not merely an innovation
by later Neviim. They are in the form: "THE ETERNAL*} said to Moshe:
...". (*} that is how my Tanach here translates it to Dutch.)
At Masee Jehoshua is called to do the division, but the law to divide
it and litterally not to allow land sale, existed already.
So I think it seems clear what the intention of the Torah is.
23:24: "In your whole nation, the 'release right' must always be
respected." That refers to the laws of 50th year return.
Note: "your whole nation" (in Dutch in my Tanach, at least).
It is what the Torah wants.
What happens when Israel asks for a King ? Your God says you have
rejected him. You where not supposed to ask for a King, your God
is your King. You had Samuel. What is King David ? He is a King.
If he conquered land for Israel, and did not distribute that and
do the distributive system, he broke the Torah law. Is that
inconsistent with Torah/Tanach: absolutely not, because you broke
with your God already. It was predicted that when you would have
Kings, these would cause havoc.
King David does not have the authority to change the Torah law.
I note, as a general observation: the risk of a birth war. Families
that where going to have many babies, could attain a lot more land
over time if every generation the land was again divided up. So if
you make a really objective distribution rule, there is a potential
risk. If you keep the crops per family, a family that gets a lot
of children may face smaller lands. Unfortunately I'm not aware
of more precise crop land distribution laws, and fwik the Talmud
on this issue is completely forgotten.
> That's not fiscal law,
> because if it were, it would have been extended when David extended the
> boundries of Israel, it would apply even in exile, etc...
You assume what King David did, that that was therefore the Torah.
While in fact there should not even be a King David or any King
of Israel, the whole notion of a King is breaking the Torah law
(see Samuel). Before Sjaul becomes King, the Tanach records that
Israel had rejected the Torah. What they did later, at least if
it wasn't by recognized Neviim, is distrusted at best, and to be
ignored more likely. imho.
Can't put the actions of King David above the Pentateuch, the very
words of the God of Israel himself.
> The problem is that we're discussing two things. I'm discussing the
> Torah, you're discussing some Qaraite equivalent.
I'm discussing the *written* law, yes. I know very little to nothing
about Quaraite. I did attempt to find out if they cross the Torah
finance laws, and iirc my attempt to find out resulted in that they
do in fact cross these laws also (that Quarate person I asked).
> I didn't realize until
> you distinguish between the Torah and the rabbinic heter iska. Which
> isn't even true -- since the Torah (neither text nor tradition) does
> not prohibit making profit at business.
There is no problem with making profit from business, you could even
say it is the essence of business to profit. At the end of turn over
and costs, you need something to live from.
> That wouldn't even be Qaraitic,
> it would be an R extrapolation of values from the law. (And IMHO, an
> incorrect attempt at doing so.) You're insisting we close up a legal
> loophole
haha, you think the Torah has a loophole on finance ? It has no
loophole. Rent seeking is prohibited, plain and simple. Heter iska
and prozbul are prohibited by the Torah.
You can of course make up a separate religion loosely based on the
Torah, taking some parts maybe even expanding them a lot, and ignoring
other parts. There is no loophole in the Torah, and it records attempts
of the Neviim where Israel is breaking the rent-seeking law.
There is a difference between a loop-hole, and bashing a hole into a
ship. A ship can be build with a gap between the beams (which you
then would need to cover over!!), or a ship can be build air tight.
But both ships you could approach with an axe. And that's what the
Rabbis did. They don't even deny it, so why would you. They say,
and I have this directly from a chat with a Rabbi as well as it is
widely written about: the Rabbis instituted (Torah breaking) rules
to allow for profit investment (prozbul), in order to deal with
an economic crisis. You also see how the Rabbis attempt to prove
they have the authority to change the law ? They say it is derived
from a (specious) claim of oral tradition ? Why would they need
to claim separate authority to make law bypassing and even overruling
the Torah ? Why did you yourselve (?) just say, that the Halakkah
recognizes the need to different economic systems, while there is
only one system in the Torah ?
The reason is clear: you know you are breaking the Torah rules, and
therefore you want to claim a separate authority for doing so outside
the written Torah.
At the *same time* you also attempt to show *that* it suposedly is
not breaking the law or a separate authority at all ! You try to
win both ways: both you want to 'prove' that it is Torah and that
there is a 'loop-hole' (where in fact there is none, although I
see a big gaping hole and several axes lying near it, must be a
coinsidence then ...), and both you want to claim authority beyond
exactly following the Torah (from this 'Oral tradition' which the
Quarate deny exist, for which they have good arguments indeed.)
> because it defines what you believe is the implied moral
> value behind prohibiting interest. That leaves the realm of strict
> interpretation of law.
haha, so now *I* am breaking the Torah law, while I argue the case
against heter iska and prozbul, about which you - do notice !!! -
say that it is comprised from a ''loophole.'' Look at that work
'loophole' ! Is that following the Torah, crawling along through
'loop holes' ??
> Yes, halakhah limits your options.
Torah limits your options to make up Halakah, sorry. And *if* you
want to break the Torah law, then just go ahead but don't be so
... 'loopholish' about it. Just say so in the open: we made up
laws that break the Torah finance law, and we're proud of it !
That would be far less damaging, imho. Becuase it would be clear
to all, that you're not doing the Torah.
It clears the vision of the non-jews about what Torah law is,
about what the Torah economy is.
> But you could get pretty capitalistic
> without violating halakhah AND you can plan nearly all of the economy
> without violating it.
That shows how closely you try to follow the Torah.
I'm sorry, but what was wrong will have to fall, or the exile will
never end.
There is a law in the Torah which deals with the 'economic crisis'
that occured, for which the Rabbis made up the prozbul: the jews
where supposed to lend to a brother. That's not just a friendly
question, it is the Torah. If need be, it needs to be enforced.
Then credit would flow again, or indeed many thousands of people
would reject the Torah. Both sound like solutions rather then
problems. Let them go, let them leave the torah if they do not
want to live it.
Then when the economic crisis ravanges the non-jews, there are
those special people, ... that light, unto the nations.
--
Micha Berger
>> Except that the whole bit about land ownership is specific to the land
>> divied up by Joshua upon the conquest of Israel.
>
> Joshua conquered the holy land, and divided it up between the families.
> Then laws where enacted that caused effectively that land to remain
Umm... I said that too. However, when biblical Israel was at its largest,
that was only 1/3 of the territory.
...
> So I think it seems clear what the intention of the Torah is.
So, you would never buy or sell real estate in Amsterdam, only lease for
periods of less than 50 years? As I wrote in my previous post, if this
were about finance rather than Israel and tribal structure, wouldn't it
apply everywhere?
jos boersema
>>> Except that the whole bit about land ownership is specific to the land
>>> divied up by Joshua upon the conquest of Israel.
>>
>> Joshua conquered the holy land, and divided it up between the families.
>> Then laws where enacted that caused effectively that land to remain
>> in those families...
>
> Umm... I said that too. However, when biblical Israel was at its largest,
> that was only 1/3 of the territory.
>
> ...
>> So I think it seems clear what the intention of the Torah is.
>
> So, you would never buy or sell real estate in Amsterdam, only lease for
> periods of less than 50 years? As I wrote in my previous post, if this
> were about finance rather than Israel and tribal structure, wouldn't it
> apply everywhere?
A very good issue, thanks ! Yes, absolutely it applies everywhere, or
should. Amsterdam, by the way, is inside a city and there are some
special rules for that (you are allowed to sell homes in perpetuity
iirc, including the soil upon which these homes in the cities stand).
Yes, absolutely does every economy need a distributive land system.
Around A'dam (common shorthand for Amsterdam, isn't that funny ?? No
i don't mean nothing by it, merely noticed it...), around Tel Aviv,
Around Capetown, around Guiyang (that's China). Everywhere !
Because land is not the product of human labor. It does not follow
the logic of a market economy. Everyone needs the same power in the
economy, a chance, but also a power-base, litterally. That way the
economy will work more fairly, the nation is at far lesser risk of
being torn apart between rich and poor. That's the reason imho.
I'm not saying we need to do exactly the Torah model. I'm not a jew
so I'm not even obligated to do the Torah, and don't claim to do the
Torah when I propose my own different soil distribution system on
my site ( http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/constitution-short.html#toc.9 )
And different non-profit finance system (IMHO a more powerful verion
of the simple prohibition on rent seeking using the power of taxation
and democratic power formation
http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/constitution-short.html#toc.8 )
In terms of Torah: Israel must do the Torah, and that means land
distribution including 50th year return, 7th year loan cancel, and
non-profit loans of money. Simple, either do it, or quit claiming
to do the Torah I guess.
In terms of secular science of economics: you could try to use a
different land distribution system, as long as it effectively
accomplishes the same aims, as long as everyone ends up with land
in its power all the time. That's the key imho. In terms of Torah
that may be irrelevant, you just have to do the Torah, period.
But, it terms of Torah, I guess its provisions might end at the
point where 'the final redemption' happens, since there is at least
one reference to a new Covenant (??). But until then: all you have
to do is the Torah, according to the Torah, and not change its laws.
I'm arguing for you to get back to the Torah, to quit heter iska and
prozbul, to go back to the land distribution laws. Or indeed to just
give up on the Torah altogether. That way the nations, when they
are in chaos again, and they ask jews how they do it, then they find
those that really do it.
It would not be a bad thing, to do the Torah land distribution system
in Holland, compared to what we have now I am for it.
Why do you try to turn this into the question what *I* do ? I have
no money to own any land, all I own in about 2 meter square on a
rented balcony. Did I hit a nerve, so now the attention must be
quickly diverted from all of Israel crossing the major Torah laws ?
I have schemes on my site to obtain eventually all land, and to
start a distributive scheme right away with what we own (see 'fund').
--
http://www.socialism.nl
sheldonlg
grains of salt. Those commands were for a TRIBAL economy. They just
don't work in a GLOBAL economy. They have outlived their usefulness.
The best they can do is try to understand the "why". Remember, it is
really talking about dynamics within a family -- for the tribe was
really little more than that.
Micha Berger
>> So, you would never buy or sell real estate in Amsterdam, only lease for
>> periods of less than 50 years? As I wrote in my previous post, if this
>> were about finance rather than Israel and tribal structure, wouldn't it
>> apply everywhere?
>
> A very good issue, thanks ! Yes, absolutely it applies everywhere, or
So then you're discussing a position outside of Jewish culture, and off
topic for this group.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
lee
Actually that was Jos saying that
I base my politics on just that politics
The issue of Torah & banking or economics is just too contentious for
me
I've often thought I feel more for Israel than Judaism itself
I'll just stick to the politics (& before you say it) idealism
lee
Don't we want the Torah to be followed by gentiles too?
Micha Berger
>> So then you're discussing a position outside of Jewish culture, and off
>> topic for this group.
> Don't we want the Torah to be followed by gentiles too?
If you mean the 7 mitzvos of the covenant with Noah, yes. But that
doesn't mean having each person interpret the text for themselves and
argue the merits of their non-Jewish interpretation.
IOW, in Judaism, "following the Torah" doesn't mean what it does to
Saducees, Qaraites or Fundamentalist Christians.
Steve Goldfarb
>IOW, in Judaism, "following the Torah" doesn't mean what it does to
>Saducees, Qaraites or Fundamentalist Christians.
In other other words, those who follow the Torah a certain way say that
following the Torah in that certain way is the way in which the Torah says
it ought to be followed... :-)
--s
--
mm
wrote:
You seem to just ignore what Dvora said about how well it worked for
her. It worked well not just for Dvora but on kibbutsim in general
for a long time. When it stopped working so well, they changed it,
recently. If it were expected to work well again, they could change
back.
And iirc there are socialist elements in Israel society that have
worked well too.
Those are the real world.
And Israel is by any standard I can think of, other than solving its
problem with the Arabs on the west bank (which is unrelated to its
economics), a big success.
For that matter there are socialist elements to the Scandinavian and
some other countries, which work well.
Things are not as simple as you make them sound.
mirjam
And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
mm
wrote:
>
>And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
Good point. So are they both religious and socialist?
Or at least were they?
Micha Berger
> You seem to just ignore what Dvora said about how well it worked for
> her. It worked well not just for Dvora but on kibbutsim in general
> for a long time. When it stopped working so well, they changed it,
> recently. If it were expected to work well again, they could change
> back.
It is very hrd to maintain an Ism for three generations. The first
generation are idealists. To some extent, their children who were
raised with it share those ideals, but they also get loyalty from
the group feeling of otherness. By the time you reach the third
generation, though, it's just a lifestyle imposed on them by the
environment, and things start unravelling.
I invite Moshe to compare the Chassidus of those who knew the Baal
Shem Tov to those of the third and fourth generation. Breslov is now
enjoying a rebirth -- how idealistic are the newcomers, compare them to
n-th generation adherents.
Mussar didn't go there, since the Holocaust was a bigger factor in its
third generation than the movement's internal dynamics. But those who
survived to build Torah in Israel and the US did not build much if any
mussar into those yeshivos. Chafeitz Chaim has some programming, but how much
mussar is in Lakewood's program? Or Ponovezh, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vadaas,
Ner Yisrael, Slabodka, Chevron, or any of the other yeshivos started by
Slabodka alumni? "Mussar" means a 15 minute session in the laws of
speech (lashon hara et al) while students are getting back to the beis
medrash after breakfast -- if they return punctually.
MO in its third generation is splitting -- the majority are tending
toward something that isn't far from "yeshivish", the counter-reaction
heading left (see the YCT discussion).
The USSR made it three generations and then the ideology ran out. It
collapsed without a revolution even. Amazing.
So why would we expect differently for the kibbutz movement? Without the
passion to share work, profits, and camaraderie (word chosen with care)
with a large group, why would anyone make those sacrifices?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Micha Berger
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:36:46 +0000 (UTC), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
> wrote:
>>And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
> Good point. So are they both religious and socialist?
> Or at least were they?
They are. You can find Tir'at Zvi meat in American stores, admittedly
ones that cater to a kosher market. Cold cuts, fish and other meat
produced by an O qibutz up north. I have cousins there.
You forget how central kibbutz was to early Israeli identity. The mental
image of the guy in shorts and kova temble (pointy hat) working the
fields...
In my father's day, Bnei Akiva taught communism. They even had a kibbutz
summer program in Farmingdale, Long Island (IIRC).
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> You seem to just ignore what Dvora said about how well it worked for
>> her. It worked well not just for Dvora but on kibbutsim in general
>> for a long time. When it stopped working so well, they changed it,
>> recently. If it were expected to work well again, they could change
>> back.
>
> It is very hrd to maintain an Ism for three generations. The first
> generation are idealists. To some extent, their children who were
> raised with it share those ideals, but they also get loyalty from
> the group feeling of otherness. By the time you reach the third
> generation, though, it's just a lifestyle imposed on them by the
> environment, and things start unravelling.
Interesting point. Now JudaISM is _also_ an ISM yet it's lasted three
_hundred_ generations. Give the credit to Avraham Avinu. Actually,
the Torah _does_ give him the credit. See Genesis 18:18-19 and 26:3-5.
> I invite Moshe to compare the Chassidus of those who knew the Baal
> Shem Tov to those of the third and fourth generation. Breslov is
> now enjoying a rebirth -- how idealistic are the newcomers, compare
> them to n-th generation adherents.
Like newcomers to any group, more intense as a rule. Isn't that true
of BT's?
> Mussar didn't go there, since the Holocaust was a bigger factor in its
> third generation than the movement's internal dynamics. But those who
> survived to build Torah in Israel and the US did not build much if any
> mussar into those yeshivos. Chafeitz Chaim has some programming, but how much
> mussar is in Lakewood's program? Or Ponovezh, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vadaas,
> Ner Yisrael, Slabodka, Chevron, or any of the other yeshivos started by
> Slabodka alumni? "Mussar" means a 15 minute session in the laws of
> speech (lashon hara et al) while students are getting back to the beis
> medrash after breakfast -- if they return punctually.
You are very observant.
> MO in its third generation is splitting -- the majority are tending
> toward something that isn't far from "yeshivish", the counter-reaction
> heading left (see the YCT discussion).
>
> The USSR made it three generations and then the ideology ran out. It
> collapsed without a revolution even. Amazing.
>
> So why would we expect differently for the kibbutz movement? Without the
> passion to share work, profits, and camaraderie (word chosen with care)
> with a large group, why would anyone make those sacrifices?
That word "passion" is very important.
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
lee
I suppose the essential ingredient is community
http://makom.haaretz.com/blog.asp?bId=183
lee
mirjam
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:36:46 +0000 (UTC), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
>
> Good point. So are they both religious and socialist?
>
they call them selves
HaKieboets HaDati ,, =the religious Kieboets , they found the way to
combine both ,,
mirjam
Dvora
Re: KIBBUTZIM AND SOCIALISM ?
Group: soc.culture.jewish.moderated Date: Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 4:43pm
(EST+5) From: scho...@gmail.com (lee)
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:36:46 +0000 (UTC), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
wrote:
And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
Good point. So are they both religious and socialist?
Or at least were they?
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
I suppose the essential ingredient is community
http://makom.haaretz.com/blog.asp?bId=183 lee
YES THERE ARE ALSO VERY RELIGIOUS KIBBUTZIM BECUSE MY FATHER TOOK
SEVERAL BUSSES AND A WHOLE TO GO TO BUY CHASSIDIC KOSHER RELIGIOUS
ARTICLES TO BRING FOR MY BROTHERS FAMILY --
-
MY KIBBUTZ MADE SHABBOS MEAL AND CANDLES -- BUT I WAS NOT AWARE OF A
SHUL THERE -- NO WORK IN THE FACTORY OR FIELDS BUT - THE ANIMALS WERE
TAKEN CARE OF --
-
NO ONE EVER SPOKE TO ME ABOUT POLITICS -- BUT I HAD WONDERFUL
CONVERSATIONS WITH ONE OF THE MEN WHO HELPED PERFECT DRIP IRRIGATION IN
THE NEGEV --
-
MY KIBBUTZ WAS REVIVIM IN THE NEGEV --
Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
Hope You and Yours Have a Blessed Thanksgiving
mm
Berger) wrote:
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:36:46 +0000 (UTC), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
>> wrote:
>>>And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
>
>> Good point. So are they both religious and socialist?
>> Or at least were they?
>
>They are. You can find Tir'at Zvi meat in American stores, admittedly
>ones that cater to a kosher market. Cold cuts, fish and other meat
>produced by an O qibutz up north. I have cousins there.
Are they identical cousins?
"What a crazy pair"
>You forget how central kibbutz was to early Israeli identity. The mental
>image of the guy in shorts and kova temble (pointy hat) working the
>fields...
>
>In my father's day, Bnei Akiva taught communism. They even had a kibbutz
>summer program in Farmingdale, Long Island (IIRC).
Very interesting. More later.
>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha
--
Meir
mm
(Dvora) wrote:
>
>http://makom.haaretz.com/blog.asp?bId=183 lee
>-
>YES THERE ARE ALSO VERY RELIGIOUS KIBBUTZIM BECUSE MY FATHER TOOK
>SEVERAL BUSSES AND A WHOLE TO GO TO BUY CHASSIDIC KOSHER RELIGIOUS
>ARTICLES TO BRING FOR MY BROTHERS FAMILY --
>-
>MY KIBBUTZ MADE SHABBOS MEAL AND CANDLES -- BUT I WAS NOT AWARE OF A
>SHUL THERE -- NO WORK IN THE FACTORY OR FIELDS BUT - THE ANIMALS WERE
>TAKEN CARE OF --
>-
> NO ONE EVER SPOKE TO ME ABOUT POLITICS -- BUT I HAD WONDERFUL
>CONVERSATIONS WITH ONE OF THE MEN WHO HELPED PERFECT DRIP IRRIGATION IN
>THE NEGEV --
There was a segment of news, on network tv or NPR, in the past 3 days
about Yemen, maybe, where they are running out of water. They used to
use rain water for agriculture, but somehow they got started drilling
and using the aquifer, which is going down. They've made it illegal
to drill new wells but farmers still do. They have to go maybe it was
a thousand feet now because the higher aquifer is pumped out.
But part of the story was about how much gets wasted by evaporation
when they water the crops. No mention of drip irrigation, which is
just what they need. Now they even sell drip irriation at home
improvement stores in the US, although I don't think Israel get the
credit. :)
>MY KIBBUTZ WAS REVIVIM IN THE NEGEV --
>
>Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
>Hope You and Yours Have a Blessed Thanksgiving
--
Micha Berger
>> It is very hrd to maintain an Ism for three generations. The first
>> generation are idealists. To some extent, their children who were
>> raised with it share those ideals, but they also get loyalty from
>> the group feeling of otherness. By the time you reach the third
>> generation, though, it's just a lifestyle imposed on them by the
>> environment, and things start unravelling.
>
> Interesting point. Now JudaISM is _also_ an ISM yet it's lasted three
> _hundred_ generations. Give the credit to Avraham Avinu. Actually,
> the Torah _does_ give him the credit. See Genesis 18:18-19 and 26:3-5.
As I noted, though, it did so by being capable of continually spawning
new ways of looking at the Torah. So, when the Chassidim haRishonim
petered out shortly after the events of Chanukah, the Pharasees arose,
and then the Rabbinates -- and even within the Rabbis, multiple schools
of thought. And so on through until all the Isms I listed in my earlier
posts.
>> I invite Moshe to compare the Chassidus of those who knew the Baal
>> Shem Tov to those of the third and fourth generation. Breslov is
>> now enjoying a rebirth -- how idealistic are the newcomers, compare
>> them to n-th generation adherents.
> Like newcomers to any group, more intense as a rule. Isn't that true
> of BT's?
Also in the reverse. Two of the people who advocate for R here on scjm
also repeatedly invoke their O histories.
...
>> So why would we expect differently for the kibbutz movement? Without the
>> passion to share work, profits, and camaraderie (word chosen with care)
>> with a large group, why would anyone make those sacrifices?
> That word "passion" is very important.
See the book "Passionate Judaism" by R' Moshe Meir Weiss.
http://www.judaicapress.com/product_info.php?cPath=23_46&products_id=258
...
Based on the Talmudic adage that G-d primarily desires the feelings
of our hearts, Rabbi Weiss demonstrates ways to avoid superficial
prayer and delve into the inner spiritual sweetness of the Shabbos.
He unlocks some of the deeper pleasures of the Torah, and guides
us through the challenges that we face in our daily lives revealing
the beauty and sparkle behind Jewish observances and customs.
This book includes his innovative list of fifty-two ways to improve
one's life, plus great techniques for learning how to deal with fear,
cope with stress and raise children to be happy and fulfilled Jews,
and many other lessons of the heart. Rabbi Weiss offers both recipes
for combating habitual religiosity and a path to a more meaningful
and worthwhile religious existence. This book is sure to uplift your
spirits and elevate your life.
R' Weiss teaches what I would call lower-case-m "mussar". His approach is
primarily drawn from chassidus, so it's not cap-M "Mussar". But he gives
the real, the ideal, and a concrete incremental plan for getting there.
I met the author once, shopping for a bungolo in a coop colony where
he already purchased. It was a while back, Shuby (my son with Downs who
is now 11) was toddler size. Anyone who instinctively picks him up, and
who meets Shuby's more instinctive approval gets a high grade in my book.
Abe Kohen
news:hej55r$uhg$2...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:36:46 +0000 (UTC), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
>> wrote:
>>>And don`t forget that are quite some Religious Kieboetziem ,,, mirjam
>
>> Good point. So are they both religious and socialist?
>> Or at least were they?
>
> They are. You can find Tir'at Zvi meat in American stores, admittedly
> ones that cater to a kosher market. Cold cuts, fish and other meat
> produced by an O qibutz up north. I have cousins there.
And for Thanksgiving don't forget Tirat Zvi turkey and turkey products.
Be that as it may, and as nice as individuals are at both Tirat Zvi and
Shluchot, I have to wonder why as high school students in a religious co-ed
agricultural school in Israel we were compelled to work for free on both
kibbutzim Tirat Zvi (where I tended to the turkeys) and Shluchot (where I
tended to the farmed fish). It left a bad taste in my mouth. Don't like
communism. Don't like socialism. Don't like kibbutzim.
How would someone feel if they were forced to work for IBM corporation and
were paid bubkes?
Happy Thanksgiving (USA),
Abe
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>
>>> It is very hrd to maintain an Ism for three generations. The first
>>> generation are idealists. To some extent, their children who were
>>> raised with it share those ideals, but they also get loyalty from
>>> the group feeling of otherness. By the time you reach the third
>>> generation, though, it's just a lifestyle imposed on them by the
>>> environment, and things start unravelling.
>>
>> Interesting point. Now JudaISM is _also_ an ISM yet it's lasted three
>> _hundred_ generations. Give the credit to Avraham Avinu. Actually,
>> the Torah _does_ give him the credit. See Genesis 18:18-19 and 26:3-5.
>
> As I noted, though, it did so by being capable of continually spawning
> new ways of looking at the Torah. So, when the Chassidim haRishonim
> petered out shortly after the events of Chanukah, the Pharasees arose,
> and then the Rabbinates -- and even within the Rabbis, multiple schools
> of thought. And so on through until all the Isms I listed in my earlier
> posts.
That just shows the multi-facetedness of the Torah. The boundaries
are solid and immutable. But _within_ the box there is _lot's_ of
room. Enough for _every_ person to be unique. Which is exactly what
G-d wants. He doesn't "need" _clones_. _Everybody_ has to make hir
unique contribution.
>>> I invite Moshe to compare the Chassidus of those who knew the Baal
>>> Shem Tov to those of the third and fourth generation. Breslov is
>>> now enjoying a rebirth -- how idealistic are the newcomers, compare
>>> them to n-th generation adherents.
>
>> Like newcomers to any group, more intense as a rule. Isn't that true
>> of BT's?
>
> Also in the reverse. Two of the people who advocate for R here on scjm
> also repeatedly invoke their O histories.
Intersting.
>>> So why would we expect differently for the kibbutz movement? Without the
>>> passion to share work, profits, and camaraderie (word chosen with care)
>>> with a large group, why would anyone make those sacrifices?
>
>> That word "passion" is very important.
>
> See the book "Passionate Judaism" by R' Moshe Meir Weiss.
> http://www.judaicapress.com/product_info.php?cPath=23_46&products_id=258
Many thanks for that URL. There is even a "free" glimpse inside.
> Based on the Talmudic adage that G-d primarily desires the feelings
> of our hearts, Rabbi Weiss demonstrates ways to avoid superficial
> prayer and delve into the inner spiritual sweetness of the Shabbos.
> He unlocks some of the deeper pleasures of the Torah, and guides
> us through the challenges that we face in our daily lives revealing
> the beauty and sparkle behind Jewish observances and customs.
>
> This book includes his innovative list of fifty-two ways to improve
> one's life, plus great techniques for learning how to deal with fear,
> cope with stress and raise children to be happy and fulfilled Jews,
> and many other lessons of the heart. Rabbi Weiss offers both recipes
> for combating habitual religiosity and a path to a more meaningful
> and worthwhile religious existence. This book is sure to uplift your
> spirits and elevate your life.
>
> R' Weiss teaches what I would call lower-case-m "mussar". His approach is
> primarily drawn from chassidus, so it's not cap-M "Mussar". But he gives
> the real, the ideal, and a concrete incremental plan for getting there.
>
> I met the author once, shopping for a bungolo in a coop colony where
> he already purchased. It was a while back, Shuby (my son with Downs who
> is now 11) was toddler size. Anyone who instinctively picks him up, and
> who meets Shuby's more instinctive approval gets a high grade in my book.
I'm sure. He got a high grade in my book when he advised very strongly
against marrying someone who smokes!
Joe Bruno
> mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > You seem to just ignore what Dvora said about how well it worked for
> > her. It worked well not just for Dvora but on kibbutsim in general
> > for a long time. When it stopped working so well, they changed it,
> > recently. If it were expected to work well again, they could change
> > back.
>
> It is very hrd to maintain an Ism for three generations. The first
> generation are idealists. To some extent, their children who were
> raised with it share those ideals, but they also get loyalty from
> the group feeling of otherness. By the time you reach the third
> generation, though, it's just a lifestyle imposed on them by the
> environment, and things start unravelling.
The same change happened in the USSR. For the first few years
following Stalin's implementation of his Five Year Plan,
all the Russians were enthusiastic and eager to work together to help
build the Soviet infrastructure.
Later on, they began to grumble about the shortages of food and
consumer goods.In the late 1930s, the rebellion began against the
Communist Party. We in the West didn't know about it because the NKVD,
the forerunner of the KGB, used fear to keep everyone quiet and
isolated from the western media.
> mi...@aishdas.org even with himself.http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
Joe Bruno
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:20:11 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com>
more or less mixed, with capitalism being the primary policy, but with
some elements of social economics like national health care and social
security.
The key factor( is who controls the means of production.
If the government controls production with quotas, it's socialism.
If private industry is allowed to operate on the profit motive, it's
capitalism.
If you doubt that, look up socialism in the dictionary.
lee
The workers are supposed to control the means of production
if the party & the state control it its marxist leninism
if a democratic government regulates it its often called socialism but
is really better called social democracy
Anarchism as epitomised by these events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
in particular the section "1936 Revolution", I wont bore you with more
I would contend is very similar to kibbutzim
in organization style & also in that they tried to go straight to the
collective communal stage
I dont know if the Primo Levi title is relevant but "If not know,
when?" certainly springs to mind
mm
wrote:
>On Nov 24, 11:06 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Do you mean if I used different terminology, things would be as simple
as you make them sound?
> All economies the world over are
>more or less mixed, with capitalism being the primary policy, but with
>some elements of social economics like national health care and social
>security.
>
>The key factor( is who controls the means of production.
>
>If the government controls production with quotas, it's socialism.
>If private industry is allowed to operate on the profit motive, it's
>capitalism.
No. It's not that simple.
>If you doubt that, look up socialism in the dictionary.
Do you think Ben Gurion and the kibbutzim are bound by your
dictionary. You look up socialism in an encylcopedia or a book on the
topic, and you'll see it's not that simple.
mm
To weaken this a little, Joe, you are not the only one who thinks that
communisim and socialism are the same thing. Maybe at one period of
time they were, and for some they still are. But even if so, for a
long time now, socialism has more than one meaning, and if you want to
use the meaning that is equivalent to communism, you should either
point that out or just use the word communism.
Here there is an additional problem. If one reads that Ben Gurion and
other pioneers were socialists, one can ask himself, Why didn't the
writer call them communists? There is a very substantial chance that
he didnt' mean communist, he meant another meaning of socialist, and
withoutknowing that the sources one has read claim they were
communinist, in citing those sources, one can only repeat what one has
read and say they were socialists.
Then there is the additional problem that some add to the idea of
communism, totalistarianism, imperialism, and enforced atheism.
I don't know what all people might add to the definition of socialism,
that isn't actually a part of it.
Joe Bruno
> in particular the section "1936 Revolution", I wont bore you with more
> I would contend is very similar to kibbutzim
> in organization style & also in that they tried to go straight to the
> collective communal stage
> I dont know if the Primo Levi title is relevant but "If not know,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Name one country where the workers actually controlled production,
The Soviets said they did so in the name of the people, but it was a
sham-the USSR was a military dictatorship.
lee
Thats the point Joe, thats why those countries were not Communist,
like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic
mirjam
complicated .
the first real system was made by the Ottoma Turkish rulers , who
divided the whole country into several catagories , King `s land ,
[owned by country] princes`s land' Holy institutions etc...
the possibilty to Use the land was than given according to this
sataus , private land was for ever , King`s =state was only given for
99 years used etc...
The mandate left most of the categoriers in place but changed some of
the ways they were allowed to be used.
The system we have now is leaning more on the British Land Ownership
rules .. with some leftovers from Ottoman rules and some more modern
adjustments.
Having written that i must say that i don`t like it that most
beautiful spots here, Like `The Stella Maris` in Haifa were `GIVEN `,
or big parts of Yrushalayim,were `GIVEN by Several European
monarchs , during the Crusaders time , to all kinds of `Orders` for
their use. By doing this they have in fact decided for Us, how many
parts of our land look, and in fact taken away from us much of our
ability to decide how to distribute our land.
Thus before somebody, jumps and preaches to us about, land ownership
etc... he better checks the facts, and shouldn`t accuse so much, for
things we can`t change.
mirjam
mm
wrote:
Very well put.
So they don't prove that communism doesn't work.
Also, the mere fact that the rulers were living like kings is enough
to make the workers lose interest in working, because they also know
that the fruits of labor are not shared equally or according to need,
or any other fair way. One sees this complaint and the corresponding
reluctance to work even in happy families: "Why do I have to do
chores when Timmy barely does anything?"
Plus all the murders by the Soviet Union were not good for the morale
of its residents.
This doesn't mean I want a communist economic system. I don't. I
don't want it, and I want to not have it. (Those are different.) But
I want a fair discussion of it.
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Communist is the name of a political party.In 1923, at their
convention, the Bolsheviks changed the name of their party to
Communist.
The economic system they installed is called "socialism".
The acronym USSR stands for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".
lee
If I change my name to The Wonderful Lee Schotness am I wonderful? &
must all other definitions of wonderful reference me?
mm
wrote:
>On Nov 26, 8:50 am, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see why it has to be a country. The members of kibbutzim
controlled production.
In fact, although there have been changes in kibbutz structure in the
last five years, the members still control production. Don't they?
>The Soviets said they did so in the name of the people, but it was a
>sham-the USSR was a military dictatorship.
Bad examples don't mean there can't be good examples.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Mirjam. if you're gonna complain about "given", I think a much bigger
complaint was the 80% of the Palestine Mandate that was GIVEN to the
Jordanians. :-(
mm
wrote:
>On Nov 27, 1:58 am, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's also the adjective form of communism**, but Lee shouldnt have
capitalized it. I figure that was a typo.
**Just like democratic is the adjective form of democracy. This is
why some snots in the USA Republican Party won't call the party of the
Democrats the Democratic Party. Because they think it will sound like
some sort of compliment.
>In 1923, at their
>convention, the Bolsheviks changed the name of their party to
>Communist.
>The economic system they installed is called "socialism".
They didn't install socialism either. That was part of his point.
> The acronym USSR stands for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".
Yes, but that doesn't make it socialist any more than the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea is democratic or the best meaning of
republican.
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
mirjam
> > The acronym USSR stands for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".
>
> Yes, but that doesn't make it socialist any more than the Democratic
> People's Republic of Korea is democratic or the best meaning of
> republican.
> --
>
> Meir
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The `soviet` in this name was the equivalent to Committee and/ or
assembly , Every Factory and every Kolhoz had a Committee that was
responsible for manginmg production etc,,, the USSR was ther MAIN
Committee /assembly that represented and managed all those smaller
Assemblies .
mirjam
Yisroel Markov
>On Nov 27, 4:37 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 8:50 am, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > The workers are supposed to control the means of production
>> > if the party & the state control it its marxist leninism
>> > if a democratic government regulates it its often called socialism but
>> > is really better called social democracy
>> > Anarchism as epitomised by these eventshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
>> > in particular the section "1936 Revolution", I wont bore you with more
>> > I would contend is very similar to kibbutzim
>> > in organization style & also in that they tried to go straight to the
>> > collective communal stage
>> > I dont know if the Primo Levi title is relevant but "If not know,
>> > when?" certainly springs to mind- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Name one country where the workers actually controlled production,
>> The Soviets said they did so in the name of the people, but it was a
>> sham-the USSR was a military dictatorship.
>
>Thats the point Joe, thats why those countries were not Communist,
>like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic
Correct. Even according to the official ideology (which we all had to
learn, both in school and college), the USSR was Socialist. The party,
as a representative of the working class (hah!), controlled
everything.
Communism is an unattainable utopia. (Distopia, actually - I wouldn't
want to live in such a collectivist society even if it was feasible.)
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> said:
>> Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>> Name one country where the workers actually controlled production,
>>> The Soviets said they did so in the name of the people, but it was
>>> a sham-the USSR was a military dictatorship.
>>
>>Thats the point Joe, thats why those countries were not Communist,
>>like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic
>
> Correct. Even according to the official ideology (which we all had to
> learn, both in school and college), the USSR was Socialist. The party,
> as a representative of the working class (hah!), controlled
> everything.
>
> Communism is an unattainable utopia. (Distopia, actually - I wouldn't
> want to live in such a collectivist society even if it was feasible.)
I think _that_ is the reason it's "unattainable". People would _not_
want to live in such a society.
Joe Bruno
The Russians and all of Easten Europe abandoned the system after 70
years of trying it.
The Chinese abandoned it after 40 years.
The theory is unworkable.
Yisroel Markov
Berger) said:
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> You seem to just ignore what Dvora said about how well it worked for
>> her. It worked well not just for Dvora but on kibbutsim in general
>> for a long time. When it stopped working so well, they changed it,
>> recently. If it were expected to work well again, they could change
>> back.
>
>It is very hrd to maintain an Ism for three generations. The first
>generation are idealists. To some extent, their children who were
>raised with it share those ideals, but they also get loyalty from
>the group feeling of otherness. By the time you reach the third
>generation, though, it's just a lifestyle imposed on them by the
>environment, and things start unravelling.
>
>I invite Moshe to compare the Chassidus of those who knew the Baal
>Shem Tov to those of the third and fourth generation. Breslov is now
>enjoying a rebirth -- how idealistic are the newcomers, compare them to
>n-th generation adherents.
Hasidut started out as a reform movement, but has institutionalized by
now.
>Mussar didn't go there, since the Holocaust was a bigger factor in its
>third generation than the movement's internal dynamics. But those who
>survived to build Torah in Israel and the US did not build much if any
>mussar into those yeshivos. Chafeitz Chaim has some programming, but how much
>mussar is in Lakewood's program? Or Ponovezh, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vadaas,
>Ner Yisrael, Slabodka, Chevron, or any of the other yeshivos started by
>Slabodka alumni? "Mussar" means a 15 minute session in the laws of
>speech (lashon hara et al) while students are getting back to the beis
>medrash after breakfast -- if they return punctually.
>
>MO in its third generation is splitting -- the majority are tending
>toward something that isn't far from "yeshivish", the counter-reaction
>heading left (see the YCT discussion).
>
>The USSR made it three generations and then the ideology ran out. It
>collapsed without a revolution even. Amazing.
>
>So why would we expect differently for the kibbutz movement? Without the
>passion to share work, profits, and camaraderie (word chosen with care)
>with a large group, why would anyone make those sacrifices?
Those sacrifices, by and large, didn't yield much. I've looked up some
numbers. Israel has 259 kibbutzim, of which only about 30 break even
or better. Most of those have some light industry or another
non-farming income source. The rest have run up a total debt of some
$6 billion (over $35,000 per member) even after a debt restructuring
and forgiveness in the 90s. Many have changed their ways over time -
e.g., they found that providing water and electricity unmetered to the
members led to serious waste.
Yisroel Markov
said:
Not quite. "Soviet" means "council", and there were "Soviets of
Workers' and Peasants' Representatives" that acted as legislative
bodies. After 1920s, they were elected by district (rather than by
factory) and were rubber-stamps for whatever the Communist Party
decided. Each of the fifteen republics had its own Supreme Soviet, and
then there was the federal Supreme Soviet. In my time, nobody paid
much attention to any them.
The Party did have cells and committees reaching down much further, to
the factory level, but the rank-and-file didn't have much influence
over the top apparatus.