Socialism Vs Kibbutz

1730 Words7 Pages
Happiness cannot easily be found, as perspectives of happiness differ from one person to another. One of the ways in which happiness can be attained, is by constructing a utopia based on political and economic systems that work for everybody. Two main economic and political systems are capitalism and socialism. People developed both of these systems in an attempt to obtain peace, order and establish a better place for living. However, people have different views on which system is more successful. Capitalism is a system whereby a country's trade and industry are privately owned, and the distribution of goods is determined by the free market. Socialism on the other hand is a system where the distribution of goods is made by the community as…show more content…
In the kibbutz, there was no central government. People did everything together which included major decisions and discussions. They did not believe in having one person in authority. It was a government by the people, for the people. They wanted everyone to have a voice. They believed that majority decisions were the best ones. For instance, as stated in the Israeli kibbutz, "In all branches of the kibbutz economy, decisions concerning the daily running of the branch were made by the members working in the branch." (Zilbersheid 11). This gives everyone equal opportunity and opens up place for discussion and decision making. Moving to ownership, everyone had equal shares. Land, in the kibbutz, was equally disturbed among all members. Everything was basically owned and shared by everyone in the socialist communities. There were also collective payments for basic needs. Zilbershei states, "there are co-operatives in which the ownership of the means of production and of the means of distribution is entirely common" (8). This gives people a sense of equality and prevents the rise of social classes because all the people get equal…show more content…
There has to be a person in control to ensure that everything was going. The idea of having no central government may work for a small community. However, there are many countries, such as Egypt, with elected officials that are going on well. With this being said, having elected officials does not always ensure a stable country. Egypt, as an example, does not have that much freedom that was present in the kibbutz society. Moreover, common ownership can also have disadvantages. Some people might receive lands for farming and other lands for building a house. This is why as Zilbersheid states, "Common property, if not legally defined and really managed as property equally owned and controlled by all community members, can easily become a means of exploitation" (13). This means that common ownership should be dealt with carefully to prevent
Open Document