Kibbutz & currency by befurther ..... Terrorism Debate Forum
Date: 2/27/2012 10:41:53 AM ( 12 y ago)
Hits: 3,558
URL: https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1913060
2 of 2 (100%) readers agree with this message. Hide votes What is this?
A kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ, קִבּוּץ, lit. "gathering, clustering"; plural kibbutzim) is a collective community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises.[1] Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism. In recent decades, some kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle. A member of a kibbutz is called a kibbutznik (Hebrew: קִבּוּצְנִיק).
In 2010, there were 270 kibbutzim in Israel.
The greater issue with Communism is making it enforced on those who do not necessarily have the same values as the "Collective"
"Kibbutz members were not classic Marxists though their system partially resembled Communism."
Collectivism on a large scale creates a system which tends to be authoritarian or totalitarian in nature.
"In Communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."[4]"
The question is should we force people to be part of "society"?
"George Orwell, a dedicated democratic socialist,[28] believed that collectivism resulted in the empowerment of a minority of individuals that led to further oppression of the majority of the population in the name of some ideal such as freedom.
It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.[29]
Yet in the subsequent sentence he also warns of the tyranny of private ownership over the means of production:
... that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state.[29]
Marxists criticize this use of the term "collectivism," on the grounds that all societies are based on class interests and therefore all societies could be considered "collectivist." The liberal ideal of the free individual is seen from a Marxist perspective as a smokescreen for the collective interests of the capitalist class.[citation needed] Social anarchists argue that "individualism" is a front for the interests of the upper class. As anarchist Emma Goldman wrote:
'rugged individualism'... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling] classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality. ... [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.' ... Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretenses the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political extortion.[30]
In response to criticism made by various pro-capitalist groups that claim that public ownership or common ownership of the means of production is a form of collectivism, socialists maintain that common ownership over productive assets does not infringe upon the individual, but is instead a liberating force that transcends the false dichotomy of individualism and collectivism.[31] Socialists maintain that these critiques conflate the concept of private property in the means of production with personal possessions and individual production."
-------------
Whatever the system, there will always be those that abuse the power granted to them by the system. What we do know is that communism has moved beyond the scope of Marx, the worst parts of Capitalism and Communism are being fused, that relatively new form is communitarianism.
Here is what Marx.org has to say about communitarianism.
"Communitarianism
Communitarianism is the social/political current which emphasises the strengthening and importance of community or neighbourhood — a kind of property-owners’ collectivism.
In bourgeois society, the values of Liberalism, are the dominant values: individualism (autonomy) and democracy (bourgeois right). Liberalism is by no means the only ethical system of bourgeois society however, and communitarianism, whose central values are community and social equality, is an important counter to liberalism.
Although communitarianism de-emphasises social class as a potentially divisive factor in building community, where it takes root in working-class neighbourhoods, communitarianism is an important ally of socialism. The neighbourhood movements of the 1960s/70s in the US, the Reclaim the Streets movements of the 1980/90s, and the Save Our Suburbs movement in Australia are examples of communitarianism."
Ultimately all of this boils down to economics. Economics is the method of enslavement, It acts as the chains that bind individuals to society and society to the state. The sound of the word itself is slavish. ECHO-nomics.
echo
noun
- Repetition of sound via reflection from a surface: repercussion, reverberation. See sounds
- Imitative reproduction, as of the style of another: imitation, reflection, reflex, repetition. See same
- One who mindlessly imitates another: imitator, mimic, parrot. See same
ECHO-nomics as a binding mechanism is the currency of the MAchine-nations of power. It is contrived for expediency of social engineers/technocrats to utilize the levers for an intended purpose. In other words it is a means to an end.
Especially "inclined towards methods or means that are advantageous rather than fair or just."
Such is the nature of a conductive(conducive) relationship. Currency(money) is the method to harness the vessel(live-stock=vital-supply) through Elect-trick transfer.
Marx mimic the scriptures "each according to his ability to each according to his need" with the intent to counter capitalism, Of course he made it sound good he would be a fool to present an idea that did not at least look good on the surface. What is not included in the communist Ideal is the following.
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)"
The people were together by choice.. at that time they most likely were not forced to be Christians.
Marx emphasized the Communism as a countering force.
"This "alienation" [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.
Without this:
(1) communism could only exist as a local event;
(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and
(3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism.
Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers — the utterly precarious position of labour — power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life — presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
From the passage above we can derive that Communism as Marx laid out was a means to an end.
That means that once communism was fully in place it would cease to exist according to Marx' statement.
What was Marx true intent?
I present the following as evidence that stating that Marx intentions were noble is disingenuous.
And like Hitler, Marx believed in a "New Man"
<< Return to the standard message view
fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1913060