Ilya Somin: And the Kibbutzim did work. It is highly unlikely that Israel would exist today without their early contributions. I call that a success.They did not work in the sense of creating a viable alternative way of life anywhere near as good as private property. Since Kibbutzim never contained more than a tiny fraction of the Israeli population, it’s highly likely that the state could have survived without them. yes, some Israeli elites came from kibbutzim. But these people could have contributed to their society as much or more had they grown up in more normal settings.

Perhaps change the word viable to sustainable. It certainly was a viable, extraordinarily fullfilling way of life for thousands of people for decades. Then the society outgrew it. Maybe kibutzim show that socialism works best in small, close knit societies with little material wealth. And I agree with MC. Kibbutzim gave Israel the social/military ability to survive its early wars. Israel won because the people came and fought for a dream. Some fought for religious reasons, others for secular reasons. The secularists were mostly fighting for the kibbutz lifestyle. The country would not have survived the fight without either group.

I know there are many political, philosophical and historical links between socialism and fascism, and similar fundamental aspects [big government]…but I’m not so sure that fascism is simply a subset of socialist theory. Some aspects of fascism, especially casteism and class collaboration, are so diametrical to basic tenets of socialist theory that it should be considered outside of the umbrella of (liberal or radical or revolutionary or normative) socialist theory. However, in practice, such as Titoism, we can see class collaboration: the Communist master class, and the underclass (everybody else)…

So government-owned corporations don’t count as means of production owned by the government? Certainly a novel definition of socialism

not all that novel, read the the socialist theoreticians of the late 19th and early 20th century and many point this out. ownership of the means of production is a hallmark of some socialist systems but not it is not an end unto itself instead it is is a means to reach the goal of having the means of production used to directly benefit the members of society. a great number of ownership-control schemes have been proposed by socialist theorists and some have even been used. we use the ownership&control formulation as the definition of socialism because “socialist” governments and their apologists have insisted upon it to distinguish themselves from impure brands of socialist theory, especially fascism. the system of state-owned businesses being run as private industry is usually termed state-mercantilism (although in the particular case of China the -mercantilist label is of contestable applicability).

the purpose of government ownership leads us to the next point you object to “[I]n a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on. this is almost inevitable, since the only legitimate purpose of industry is to benefit the members of society (under socialist theory) most of industry will be devoted to social spending. there is a trend away from this in some socialist theories (syndicalism being the best example, having actually been used on a small scale) but most socialist theories (and all systems implemented on a national level) start with the assumption that all people have the same wants and needs and that someone other than the recipient can determine what those are. if one can actually determine what the wants and needs of the persons in aggregate are then it is more efficient to meet those wants and needs directly (government spending) than to use a non-centralized allocation system. note the qualifiers though, in Ilya’s original there was the word “generally” and in this post I point out that it is “almost inevitable”.

This isn’t a useful definition of a socialist state. It’s surprising that for all your dedication to criticizing socialism, you haven’t been able to come up with a decent workable definition. As pointed out, under your definition China would not be a socialist state at all, whereas Iraq, which leads all states in “government spending as a percentage of GDP,” would be the paradigm of a socialist state. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam spending accounted for about 28% of the GDP in 2009. Qatar, which has the lowest tax rates in the world, second highest GNI per capita, and second highest GDP per capita, is almost a “real socialist state” under your definition. The means of production are controlled almost exclusively by individuals of the Al Thani family (specifically the Emir) but still under your definition Qatar would be more than twice as socialist as Vietnam.

It also doesn’t explain things like the socialist Indian state of Kerala or the Kerala Phenomenon. [As an aside, Himachal Pradesh and Kerala are two of the Indian states with the most government spending per GDP, and two of the states with the highest quality of life.]

In 2007, Israel’s spending as a percentage of GDP was 43.7. In 2009 it was 46.4. That doesn’t mean that Israel is creeping toward socialism. It could just mean that the government bought a dozen fighter planes.

geokstr:
Right. Just another “progressive”, I suppose, whose views are, coincidentally, to the left of Bernie Sanders, whose voting was to the right of Sen. Obama.Seems that conservatives are proud to hold to that philosophy, but those on the left are very, shall we say, circumspect in wanting others to know theirs. Why is that anyway?If socialism, or liberalism, or even communism is so freaking wonderful, why not just say so? Be proud of who you are and what you believe. So what if all us troglyditic retards here in flyover country are too stupid to agree with you, right?We do have enough booklarnin’ to know that two negatives equals a positive though. That one will have to be added to my list of favorite Freudian slips.

All I can say is give me a break here. Can’t you leave well enough alone, or must everything be some bizarre fight? Are you some kind of quasi-Freudian? You can call me a First Century Acts 2 Christian and leave it at that.

So government-owned corporations don’t count as means of production owned by the government? Certainly a novel definition of socialism.

In a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on.

So in Iraq, where government spending accounts for 83.5% of GDP, America is spending a trillion dollars to create a socialist paradise?

The glorious revolution lives on!

Ilya Somin: <In a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70–80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on.

So in Iraq, where government spending accounts for 83.5% of GDP, we are creating socialist paradise for our trillion dollars?

Ilya Somin: And the Kibbutzim did work. It is highly unlikely that Israel would exist today without their early contributions. I call that a success.They did not work in the sense of creating a viable alternative way of life anywhere near as good as private property. Since Kibbutzim never contained more than a tiny fraction of the Israeli population, it’s highly likely that the state could have survived without them. yes, some Israeli elites came from kibbutzim. But these people could have contributed to their society as much or more had they grown up in more normal settings.

I must respectfully disagree with you Professor Somin. Although they “did not work” in the sense of creating an alternative way of life, they did, in fact “work,” if you look at the overwhelming correlation between Kibbutz residency and the make-up of the early Zionist and then Israeli governments and military–not simply the elites, but literally the backbond of Israeli society. I know that correlation is not causation, and that perhaps the kibbutzniks were merely retaining their own power in a self-perpetual cycle, however there is something to be said for the fact that the Kibbutz always provided an important ideological symbol for both Israelis, but more importantly, for diaspora jews with deep pockets and political connections.

Although there is no empirical evidence of this, it seems fairly reasonable to assume from historical anecdotes that the romantic image of the pioneer Jew working the Land on the kibbutz was one of the primary reasons why Diasporan Jews were so willing to use their political and monetary wealth for the benefit of Israel.

Had there been no kibbutzim, and all of mandatory Palestine was just groups of Rothschild funded Petach Tikvas with Jewish aristoracts and Arabs doing the actual work on the Land (since only the ideological underpinnings of kibbutz socialism could convince the largely urbanized Jews to do this backbreaking, but necessary, agricultural work), I don’t think Israel would have survived, at least in the sustainable form in which it exists today.

I highly doubt these figures are accurate, given that published data by the World bank and others shows Chinese govt spending as about 20% of GDP (including that on govt-owned firms). also, many chinese firms taht are government-owned on paper function as private firms in practice (keeping their own profits, and not depending on state subsidies).

Perhaps Ilya Somin can state his definition of socialism that somehow doesn’t include China?

Glad to. Socialism is government ownership and control of the overwhelming majority of the means of production. In a real socialist state, government spending generally accounts for at least 70-80% of GDP, as it does in Cuba, North Korea, pre-1990 Eastern Europe, and so on.

They did not work in the sense of creating a viable alternative way of life anywhere near as good as private property. Since Kibbutzim never contained more than a tiny fraction of the Israeli population, it’s highly likely that the state could have survived without them. yes, some Israeli elites came from kibbutzim. But these people could have contributed to their society as much or more had they grown up in more normal settings.

You can’t change human nature. You can’t idealize it away, or legislate it away, or train it out of people. Political philosophies that work may not be pretty, and they may not appeal to our finer natures, but they take into account how we are.

DG: Orca, you seem to be a troll

Calling someone a troll, the last refuge of the desperate.

Chinese government spending plus revenue from wholly owned government companies account for 60% of China’s GDP. The government also owns a big chunk of the remaining 40% of China’s GDP.

Perhaps Ilya Somin can state his definition of socialism that somehow doesn’t include China?

Orca, you seem to be a troll, just here looking for a fight from some “conservatives”. Sadly, this isn’t really a good spot for such a fight – you won’t get your red meat here. Perhaps you should move along?

Perhaps the reason why the U.S. preserves capitalism is not necessarily because capitalism is the best ideology, but because the U.S.’s brand of capitalism also isn’t especially ideological pure and is either watered down or fortified (depending on ones point of view) by a streak of pragmatism similar to that shown by the kibbutzim which preserve watered-down (or fortified) socialism.

Perseus: I believe that the phrase “socialism with Chinese characteristics” more or less accurately, if unwittingly, describes the current regime’s oligarchic rule and peculiar blend of socialism and capitalism.

I think this more about “Ronald Reagan defeated Communism, so China can’t possibly be Communist.”

Ilya Somin:A regime can have political prisoners without being socialist. I didn’t say that China today is a liberal democratic paradise, merely that it isn’t socialist anymore.

I believe that the phrase “socialism with Chinese characteristics” more or less accurately, if unwittingly, describes the current regime’s oligarchic rule and peculiar blend of socialism and capitalism.

Today’s kibbutz, consisting of people who belong there by accident of birth, suffers from all the problems of involuntary socialism (lack of enterprise, lack of personal responsibility, free-riding). The original kibbutz (situated at the same location, but a completely different group of people) didn’t have this problem, since all members were there by choice. The failure was thus in convincing the next generation that socialism is the best system to live under.

Thus the lesson should be slightly different from Ilya’s: even highly committed socialism, free from the evils of totalitarianism, will not be able to self-propagate over generations — even among those born to the system too few actually believe in it [snarks would say: especially among those born to the system]. Indeed, Eastern European socialism failed in two to three generations. Chinese socialism was instituted around 1950 and is being scaled back as we speak. Indian socialism has failed and so on.

Mark N.: Aren’t a lot of those nominally privatized companies actually still controlled by the government, though, at least when it comes to major decisions? And many of the largest and most critical parts of the economy aren’t even nominally privatized. For example, the financial sector is almost entirely government-owned.

Government-run firms are still present in many European countries as well as oil states like Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates. For that matter, Singapore still has a few government-run enterprises as well and almost all land in the city-state is owned by the government.

China is only socialist if you want to label lots of other countries socialist as well, including several countries that tend to score highly on various measures of economic freedom. Which some may well want to do here. But in the way most people use the term, China is no longer socialist in any meaningful sense. It is easier to open a private business in China than it is in some other nominal market economies.

I believe that is the absolute last word on the subject.

To paraphrase the old Frank Sinatra song, “If you can’t make it there, you can’t make it anywhere.”

RPT:
HL:What do you mean by this comment? Do you mean re scripture references or something else? P.S. I am not neither a kibbutznik nor a socialist, but I have read Acts a few times.

My guess is a reference to Acts 2
44And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common.
45Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.
46And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

However, even the people that live on the more moderate kibbutzim seem ideologically broken. Out of nearly 100 15-30 year olds that I met on the Kibbutz, not a single one stated their desire to permantly reside in the Kibbutz. They all had plans to move out to Beer-Sheva or Tel-Aviv. And every single person complained about everyone else for “not pulling their fair share of the load.” Free-riding was rampant, and there were very few people who took any pride in their work.

Kibbutzim were very useful back before the founding and maybe even up until 1973. But since then, Kibbutznikim have become, to paraphrase Begin, middle-class suburbanites with swimming pools.

geokstr: Not at all. Just trying to make ol’ rpt feel comfortable by mirroring his, and probably your, views.

Anyone got any spare tinfoil? I need a way to block geokstr’s telepathic mind-reading powers.

Martinned says:

geokstr: So what if all us troglyditic retards here in flyover country are too stupid to agree with you, right?

Inferiority complex much?

Not at all. Just trying to make ol’ rpt feel comfortable by mirroring his, and probably your, views.

By the way, you claim to not be on the left, like another commenter here, but you are always critical of the right and always agree with the left. Is this a case of there being a totally different political direction, at right angles to left/right, or something? I sincerely doubt that moderate or centrist would fit, would it?

geokstr: So what if all us troglyditic retards here in flyover country are too stupid to agree with you, right?

Inferiority complex much?

RPT says:
I am not neither a kibbutznik nor a socialist…

Right. Just another “progressive”, I suppose, whose views are, coincidentally, to the left of Bernie Sanders, whose voting was to the right of Sen. Obama.

Seems that conservatives are proud to hold to that philosophy, but those on the left are very, shall we say, circumspect in wanting others to know theirs. Why is that anyway?

If socialism, or liberalism, or even communism is so freaking wonderful, why not just say so? Be proud of who you are and what you believe. So what if all us troglyditic retards here in flyover country are too stupid to agree with you, right?

We do have enough booklarnin’ to know that two negatives equals a positive though. That one will have to be added to my list of favorite Freudian slips.

Those “[who] wanted more control over their own lives … [who] wanted to make their own decisions, and have their own car and their own telephone.” are not the same people who founded the kibbutz, but rather their children and grandchildren who were born into the system and didn’t like it. The founders were happier in the commune (they had the choice to live otherwise and chose not to, after all) and didn’t want the system to change.

What this shows is that forcing socialism on people doesn’t work. But it doesn’t show that a voluntary commune can’t work.

Ilya Somin: No, the privatization of the vast bulk of the economy=no more socialism.

?????

The Chinese government owns a considerable percentage of all those “privatized” companies.

Ilya Somin: A few cosmetic changes = no more socialism?
No, the privatization of the vast bulk of the economy=no more socialism.

Aren’t a lot of those nominally privatized companies actually still controlled by the government, though, at least when it comes to major decisions? And many of the largest and most critical parts of the economy aren’t even nominally privatized. For example, the financial sector is almost entirely government-owned.