A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement [Paperback ed.] 1904859925, 9781904859925

Citation preview

REVOLUTION Anarchismin the KibbutzMovemen

Forewordby UriGordon

A Living Revolution Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement

A Living Revolution Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement

B y James Horrox

A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement © James Horrox 2009 This edition © 2009 A K Press (Edinburgh, Oakland, Baltimore)

ISBN-13 978-1904859925 Library of Congress Control Number: 2009922504

AK Press 674-A 23rd Street

AK Press PO Box 12766

Oakland, C A 94612

Edinburgh, E H 8 9YE

USA www.akpress.org [email protected]

Scotland

www.akuk.com [email protected]

The above addresses would be delighted t o provide you with the latest AK Press distribution catalog, which features the several thousand books, pamphlets, zines, audio and video products, and stylish apparel published and/or distributed by AK Press. Alternatively, visit o u r web

site for the complete catalog, latest news, and secure ordering.

The production o f this book was made possible i n part b y a generous donation from the Anarchist Archives Project.

Printed i n Canada o n 100% recycled, acid-free paper with u n i o n labour.

Cover design by Chris Wright | seldomwright.com

Interior by Kate Khatib

Table o I Contents

Foreword

by Uri Gordon

iii

Acknowledgements

vii

Introduction

1

Chapter 1 The Beginnings o f the Kibbutz Movement Chapter 2

11

Diggers

and Dreamers

Chapter 3 Realising the Revolution Chapter 4 The Kibbutz

23 39 61

Chapter 5 A N e w Kibbutz Movement?

87

Chapter 6

The Kibbutz Movement and Israeli Anarchism

111

Epilogue

123

Appendices

131

Notes

139

Bibliography

155

Index

163

Foreword

Fierce opposition t o Z i o n i s m , a n d t o t h e capitalist-military

millions under its flag, is o n l y emboldened dreams o f liberation a n d solidarity

machine oppressing

by the encounter with the betrayed

that l i e shattered i n its d u s t b i n . For there is n o differently i n this l a n d , had the

question that things c o u l d have turned o u t very

designs o f the young Jewish m e n a n d w o m e n w h o landed o n these shores d u r i n g the first decades o f the twentieth century come t o fruition. The communards o f the early k i b b u t z settlements i n Palestine hardly shared

what E m m a G o l d m a n called “the dream o f capitalist

Jewish state machinery

Jewry the world over for a the many.” What

t o protect t h e privileges o f the-few against

carried them t o Palestine was the desire t o build a classless society, a “commune o f communes’ based o n self-management, equality, a n d Jewish-Arab cooperation. A t

the opportunity t o transform the Jewish mobilization the social liberation o f all peoples, a project be achieved u n d e r the banner of stateless socialism.

stake was n o t h i n g less than

around Palestine i n t o a project for that c o u l d only

Yet the defining influence o f anarchist currents i n the early kibbutz movement

has been o n e o f official Zionist historiography’s best-kept secrets. I n the retroactive absorption o f the communards’ experience i n t o Israel’s n a t i o n - b u i l d i n g myth,

only a few selective manoeuvres were necessary i n order t o obliviate its aspects that would have proved too subversive for the n e w state’s unifying republican ethos.

their their revival of Hebrew as a spoken language were all played u p as paragons o f dedication, a n d mobilised t o generate a sense o f historical debt. B u t other elements—especially their antagonism towards private capital, their calls for binationalism, a n d the feminist struggles of w o m e n i n the communes—were all left o u t o f t h e historical accounts, school textbooks a n d public rituals, a n d excluded from the packaged narrative served u p t o subsequent generations.

Thus, the first kibbutzniks’ personal sacrifices, the emotional intensity o f relationships a n d

I t is against this background o f induced collective amnesia that A Living

Revolution makes its vital contribution. James Horrox has drawn on archival research, interviews, a n d political analysis t o thread together the story o f a period

all b u t gone from living memory, presenting i t for the first time t o an Englishreading audience. These pages b r i n g t o life the most radical a n d passionate voices that shaped the second a n d third waves o f Jewish i m m i g r a t i o n t o Palestine, a n d

spirit o f the of, their predecessors’ fate.

also encounter those contemporary projects working t o revive the kibbutz as i t was intended t o be, despite, a n d because

iv

A LIVING REVOLUTION

The early kibbutz experience is o f special interest t o anarchists today, since

the

early

twentieth-century communes

were the first large-scale movement

emphasizing the constructive, creative a n d spiritual aspects o f anarchism—aspects

that have become central to the movement i n recent decades. Class antagonism was certainly present between

the bourgeois Jewish owners o f the first-wave colonies initially sought work there. But the first

a n d the young n e w immigrants w h o

c o m m u n e s were founded precisely i n a n attempt t o carve o u t autonomous spaces

o f production that would subvert

the initial

stages o f capitalist accumulation

i n Palestine. Rather than building u p t o a n insurrection o r a general strike—a strategy relevant t o revolutionizing existing, mature capitalist societies—the

communards sought to n i p capitalism’s emergence i n the b u d b y constructing alternatives that would snatch the ground from under capitalist

Jewry a n d take

the lead i n shaping the n e w society’s economic and social structure. The period between

1904 a n d 1924 marked a unique historical crossroads i n

which such a

manoeuvre made perfect sense.

With

this perspective i n mind, there is a p o i n t t o b e made concerning the

ambivalent response that A Living Revolution, by i t s very premise, m a y raise among

those who (like ourselves) are committed and

social injustice i n

to

ending all occupation, militarism

Israel/Palestine today. Unfortunately, the Zionist account

has become so pervasive that the early kibbutzim are almost universally seen as nothing but predecessors o f the Israeli state, and therefore as fully partaking i n responsibility for its eventual crimes against Palestinians and Jews alike. According t o s u c h a view, the idea o f holding t h e m u p t o the light o f Kropotkin a n d Landauer

takes on an incongruous, even disingenuous air. Yet this view only makes sense if one accepts the premises o f black-and-white political correctness that pervade the contemporary Left. There is certainly room to question

the validity

of

applying anti-colonial

h i n d s i g h t t o p e o p l e that a n y

progressive would otherwise consider economic migrants or refugees. Why is the search for anarchism i n the early kibbutz movement any more objectionable t h a n , say, p o i n t i n g t o t h e N e w England t o w n meeting as a source o f anarchist

inspiration—as

if

colonized lands? I n

did n o t take place o n indigenous peoples’ the same way, resistance t o the premise of A Living Revolution

those meetings

seems t o have n o t h i n g t o d o with historical impartiality,

a n d everything t o d o

with the fear o f tarnishing anarchism’s good name (an oxymoron if there ever was one) through its association with early Z i o n i s m . Yet i t is a grave mistake t o interpret, l e t alone pass judgment o n , the efforts o f the past i n light o f the injustices o f the present. Such a n approach partakes o f a retroactive historical fatalism, one that has n o place i n the analysis o f a movement that declares that “Anything

never deterministic.

c a n h a p p e n . ” Historical

movement

is

There is never a single, linear and inevitable course o f affairs

charted o u t i n advance. W h a t would have happened i n Palestine had the October

Revolution been more successful i n spreading to central Europe? O r i f Jewish

FOREWORD

workers

\%

had more effectively resisted the British-sponsored takeover of their by Ben-Gurion a n d his men? Or, for that matter, if H i t l e r had been

institutions

killed i n the Great War? Anything could have happened, just as i t can today. Acknowledging this is crucial i f w e are t o encounter and assess the early kibbutz movement o n i t s o w n t e r m s , from the perspective o f i t s o w n protagonists, as A

Living Revolution so successfully does. Let

their story a n d

the sense o f a n open

future inspire all those w h o struggle for freedom a n d justice o n

Uri Gordon Kibbutz Lotan, M a y Day 2008

this Earth.

Acknowledgements

This b o o k was written o n three continents, over the course o f t w o a n d a half years. The number of people w h o have contributed their ideas, comments and o p i n i o n s along the w a y seems virtually infinite, a n d m y sincere thanks g o t o everyone who's shared with m e their knowledge and experience. Much

of the research

that went i n t o A Living Revolution was drawn from

interviews and conversations with kibbutz members, former members, researchers, scholars and activists i n Israel,

Europe a n d

North America. Some are directly

quoted, b u t those w h o are n o t mentioned also contributed enormously t o the development o f

the ideas i n this book, and t o them I a m extremely grateful. I ' m Walker a t t h e University o f Newcastle-upon-Tyne a n d

especially i n d e b t e d t o David

Mike Tyldesley at Manchester Metropolitan

University for their support d u r i n g

the early stages o f the project, and t o Uri Gordon, Menachem Rosner, Yuval Achouch, Anton Marks, Duncan Riley, James Wake, Yiftach Goldman, Nomika Z i o n , Yuvi Tashome, Marianne Enckel, Yaacov Oved and Avraham Yassour, each o f w h o m has played their o w n invaluable role i n shaping the subsequent direction o f the research.

This p r o j e c t ,

however, c o u l d n o t have h a p p e n e d a t a l l w i t h o u t

the unwavering commitment a n d enthusiasm o f m y friend Rachel Purvis,

who,

frankly, never ceases t o amaze me.

My editor, Joel Schalit, has devoted a n enormous amount o f time and energy to this book, painstakingly sifting through successive drafts o f the manuscript,

his valuable comments a n d Joel's patience and devotion, A Living Revolution would never have seen the light o f day, a n d t o h i m I extend m y sincerest gratitude and

correcting m y mistakes and supplying m e with suggestions. Without

appreciation. T o all m y friends w h o have been there for m e d u r i n g the difhcult a n d frustrating

process o f writing this book I also give m y heartfelt thanks. M y ultimate debt o f

gratitude, however, is

to

my parents, Keith and Maureen Horrox, and

to

partner, A n n a Smith, for their unconditional love a n d support throughout.

my

Introduction “As m a n seeks justice i n equality, so society seeks order i n anarchy. Anarchy—the absence o f a master, o f a sovereign—such is the form o f government t o which w e are every day approximating.”

— PierreJoseph Proudhon, 1840

O fall the “utopian” social experiments i n recent history, Israel's kibbutz movement is at once the archetype and a unique exception. From a n unprepossessing collection o f m u d h u t s o n the bank o f the river Jordan, the simple idea o f a communal society, free o f exploitation and domination, quickly took root i n Palestine and blossomed i n t o a nationwide network o f egalitarian communities. Through good times

(and unfortunately through bad), these communes have n o t

merely existed, b u t have persisted i n different forms for nearly a century. Unlike other “utopian” projects, m o s t o f which have historically been shortlived, ostracised

by

their host societies and generally regarded

with

suspicion

and mistrust, the kibbutzim played a pivotal and decisive role i n the founding

earliest days the kibbutzim took o n the vast multitude of tasks that the Jewish renaissance demanded: They helped build Israels infrastructure a n d lay the foundations for a national economy, took responsibility for the mass o f a nation a n d the reconstruction o f a n entire people. From the o f their existence

absorption o f countless thousands o f immigrants, created a national trade union incorporating m o r e than three-quarters

of the

country’s total workforce a n d

provided a n industrial and agricultural contribution t o the country that continues t o far outweigh the percentage o f the population they house.

In no

other state have communes played such a central role i n

national

life.

Yet, o f the countless academic studies that have been carried o u t o n this most famous

of communal

movements, few have successfully found a paradigmatic

of organisation. Most have tended t o settle for “communism” o r “socialism i n miniature.” The like labels ambiguous, catch-all system that has served the kibbutz communities so well for so long, however, is actually a politico-economic model as far removed from state-based forms of socialism as from market capitalism. While only a few mainstream observers have conceded that the kibbutzim embody even “an anarchist element,” there is a m u c h stronger case t o be made for the kibbutzim being the ideological progeny o f the anarchist tradition than the state-socialist one. ! I t is this case that this book precedent for its unique mode

intends t o examine.

2

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Anarchism’s Social Vision Ever since 1840, when Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used “anarchy” for the first time t o denote a positive social doctrine, the term has been so consistently misrepresented that its meaning has been almost completely lost. T o m o s t , “anarchism” speaks

the utopian philosophy i t actually is, and, as the ideology has largely been denied the attention i t deserves as a political

more o f a dystopian nightmare than a result,

a n d economic theory. Far from being the advocacy o f disorder m a n y believe i t t o be, anarchism is essentially a n anti-authoritarian form o f socialism. Based o n the belief that hierarchical forms o f politics are both undesirable and unnecessary, i t proposes the dismantling o f all authoritarian, coercive a n d exploitative institutions within

society and advocates

their replacement with alternative institutions o f voluntary,

non-governmental cooperation. Whereas state-socialism seeks t o impose a traditionally hierarchical social order

by means o f centralised, top-down political the assumption

a n d economic structures and processes, anarchism starts o u t from that

people are capable o f governing themselves without such institutions o r the

kinds o f power relationships they necessarily require.

By “ruling from below,”

anarchists believe, at the level o f localised, self-governing communities, society

will be able t o transform itself into a self-managed, directly democratic and ecologically sustainable system, devoid o f the exploitation a n d inequality intrinsic i n the state-socialist model found i n the former

USSR a n d contemporary China,

t o n a m e t h e m o s t o b v i o u s examples.”

Peter Kropotkin

Anarchist ideas first began t o emerge during the early 1800s, and, throughout that century,

they rapidly crystallised into

a coherent current o f social thought

with clearly defined objectives, highly developed n o t

only i n

its critique o f the

capitalist state b u t i n its conception o f a future, post-capitalist alternative. This

book focuses primarily o n the political legacy, i n the form o f Israels kibbutz movement, o f Russian-born philosopher Peter Kropotkin (1842—-1921)—one o f

the m o s t

influential

anarchist theorists

of the n i n e t e e n t h

century, w h o s e theory

o f anarcho-communism (variously known as anarchist communism, libertarian socialism o r communitarian anarchism) has

left

perhaps

the greatest

legacy t o

subsequent anarchist thinking.

Kropotkin’s anarchism was based o n

the conviction

that human progress is

dependent o n mutual aid a n d cooperation, rather than competition. The vision o f a future post-capitalist society h e described was o n e i n which the coercive a n d exploitative institutions o f the centralised capitalist state would b e replaced by a freely-federated network

of voluntary,

agro-industrial communes, administered

democratically by the members, with no hierarchical authority framework o f legal sanctions.

structures

or any

INTRODUCTION

3

Within these decentralised communities, people would live i n equality as b o t h producers a n d consumers,

with the d i s t r i b u t i o n

o f goods a n d resources taking

place i n accordance with the communistic principle o f “from each according t o

his ability t o each according t o h i s need.” Property a n d the means o f production w o u l d be owned i n c o m m o n , the wage system abandoned and the capitalist division o f l a b o u r replaced by the integration o f manual a n d white-collar work through systematic rotation of work roles. With self-management a n d direct democracy taking the place o f centralised decision-making structures, this system, Kropotkin believed, would ensure a free, classless society. According t o Kropotkin, the capitalist economic model is only a logical a n d

desirable o n e

unpaid, or

to

i f personal gain a n d surplus value (economic growth created by put i t i n Marxist terms, “exploited” labour) are taken as the starting

p o i n t o f o u r economic activities. Should the needs o f the individual be taken as

the starting p o i n t , o n the other h a n d , w e cannot fail t o reach “communism,” a of o r g a n i s a t i o n t h a t , h e s a i d , enables u s t o satisfy a l l needs i n the m o s t

mode

thorough a n d economical way.

Viewing labour as a social activity dependent o n collective cooperation rather than solitary effort, Kropotkin

held that the wealth

produced

by this labour

should b e owned i n common and used t o promote the collective good. Having

been created by the collective efforts of all, property, the means of production a n d

the requisites for the satisfaction of society’s needs must be at the disposal of all. I n Kropotkin’s future society, all property—including the means o f production—would b e owned communally by the collectives members. With the means of p r o d u c t i o n owned by all, products manufactured would be a t the disposal o f all. The abolition o f private property, Kropotkin believed, a n d the passage o f the means o f production i n t o common ownership w o u l d mean

that

the wage system c o u l d n o t b e maintained i n any form. A s far as possible, all goods a n d services s h o u l d b e provided free o f charge, with goods available i n abundance accessible w i t h o u t l i m i t . Anything i n short supply would simply b e rationed.’ For Kropotkin, the integration o f manual a n d white-collar labour was crucial t o creating circumstances i n which the individual would n o t b e forced

the p r o m i s e of r e m u n e r a t i o n . Quite apart the social stratification resulting from the division of labour (where job role determines social status a n d level of material reward), Kropotkin found the idea t h a t w e should s p e n d our lives confined t o a single, repetitive activity “ a horrible t o work, e i t h e r through c o e r c i o n o r

from

principle, so noxious t o society, so brutalising t o the individual.”* B y putting an end to

the separation

o f manual a n d cerebral work, h e argued, “work

longer appear a curse o f

fate: i t will become what i t

will

no

should be—the free exercise

o f all the faculties o f m a n . ”

Although remaining a self-governing entity, Kropotkin’s “free commune” would exist w i t h i n a federated network o f similarly decentralised organisations,

each o n e a productive unit i n a n economy built o n the specialisation o f functions.

4

A LIVING REVOLUTION

The many and varied needs o f society would make interdependence between communes inevitable, and they would thus grow together into a complex,

fluid, decentralised society,

the federations

i n which voluntary associations within a n d between

o f communities would replace the hierarchical and centralised

productive centres o f the capitalist s t a t e . With federal power kept to a n absolute m i n i m u m a n d kept strictly under the control o f each communities’ delegates, the economy would b e coordinated through this interwoven network o f local,

regional, and national groups and federations.

The No-Government System Like Marx, Kropotkin believed that the w a y economic activity is organised determines all other aspects o f social life; the “non-economic superstructure” of a community—its social, cultural and political norms—reflects the character o f the economic base. The particular system o f government employed i n a given society is thus the expression o f the economic regime that exists i n that society, a n d vice versa. I n Kropotkin’s

ideal society, where the antagonism between employer

a n d employee has been replaced with voluntary, cooperative labour, there is n o

need for government a t all. “The no-capitalist system,” he wrote, “implies the nogovernment system.”

This does n o t mean that a n anarchist community w o u l d n o t have rules, b u t the rules and behavioural norms that ensure social harmony would b e arrived at collectively, and maintained voluntarily by agreeing parties without rather that

mechanisms o f coercive authority—no police, courts o r penal system—to enforce them.

Social cohesion would b e ensured as people replaced the competition and typify market-driven societies with cooperation, solidarity a n d

antagonism that mutual aid.

Once the inequalities built i n t o the state-capitalist model have been eliminated, so would the need t o redress them, making crime a t h i n g o f the past. T h e threat o f legal sanctions imposed by any form o f governmental authority would therefore

be rendered

superfluous, with unwritten social mores perfectly satisfactory t o

ensure social harmony. Fulfilment

of the individual's obligations t o society w o u l d

b e assured by one’s o w n social habits and “the necessity, which everyone feels, o f finding cooperation, support, and sympathy a m o n g his neighbours.”

Anarchism and the Kibbutz Movement Kropotkin’s influence o n the nineteenth century anarchist Left was so profound that his theory of mutual aid a n d decentralised, cooperative production has come t o u n d e r p i n m o s t s u b s e q u e n t forms o f communitarian

anarchism.? I t is entirely

fitting, given his prominence and prolificacy w i t h i n the European socialist circles

of his day, t h a t many of those m o s t influential i n shaping both the philosophy a n d the practical character o f early socialist Z i o n i s m were n o t o n l y aware o f

INTRODUCTION

5

Kropotkin’s ideas, b u t viewed them as a n important source o f inspiration for the n e w society

they hoped to create i n Palestine.

Kropotkin himself documented anti-Semitism and identified greatly with Jewish workers during the years he lived i n England and the United States. Fluent in

Yiddish, he spoke with Jewish workers a n d m e t and corresponded with m a n y figures i n the plans for cooperative settlement

o f those w h o would g o o n t o b e key

i n Palestine, i n c l u d i n g Franz Oppenheimer, architect o f the very first Palestinian-

Jewish cooperative at Merhavia.” Kropotkin’s books subsequently were some o f the first t o b e translated i n t o Hebrew and distributed i n Palestine, and his articles were reprinted i n the journals o f m a n y o f the groups and organisations involved i n

the early Jewish labour

movement. According t o h i s t o r i a n a n d kibbutz m e m b e r Avraham Yassour,

The idea o f building the future through independent communal creation

the pioneers... [Kropotkin's] doctrine, which was based the absolute need for freedom o f the individual and consequently

appealed t o m a n y o f primarily o n

o n the absolute need for voluntary a n d non-governmental organisations, was eminently suitable t o

the reality

that came i n t o b e i n g w i t h the kibbutz

movement. ' °

the

first

state structures except

the

The young m e n and w o m e n w h o arrived i n Palestine d u r i n g three decades o f the twentieth century,

finding n o

colonial artifices o f the Ottoman Turks, and later the British Mandate, found a n unprecedented vacuum, which they attempted t o

fill with

a combination o f

ideologies. W i t h i n this ideological ferment, anarchism exerted a much more d o m i n a n t influence than is often believed. According t o kibbutz historian Yaacov Oved, “anarchist influences were prevalent” among the founding generation o f communards, a n d every strand o f the kibbutz movement felt the impact o f Kropotkin’s anarchism t o some degree. Gustav Landauer

The list

o f Kropotkin’s admirers i n the

Jewish labour movement at that Zionist history. The

time includes some o f the most famous names i n socialist

m a n perhaps most singularly responsible for introducing Kropotkin’s ideas i n t o

this milieu was German anarchist intellectual Gustav Landauer (1870-1919). Through Landauer’s close friendship with Jewish theologian Martin Buber, his ideas regarding social transformation became central t o

the youth

movements that

the thinking o f m a n y o f

came t o Palestine and established kibbutzim i n the

early 1920s, and i n particular t o Hashomer Hatzair (the Young Guard), whose communities later became the Kibbutz Artzi federation.

Landauer rose t o prominence w i t h i n the European Left during the 1890s with

the radical student group, the Berliner Jungen (Berlin Youth). As editor o f the

6G

A LIVING REVOLUTION

group's newspaper, Der Sozialist (The Socialist), Landauer became something of a figurehead among the young, middle-class revolutionaries o ffin de siécle Berlin, a n d h e quickly made a name for himself further afield. By the turn o f the century, Landauer h a d established a Europe-wide reputation as a n essayist, lecturer,

playwright, novelist, journalist, theatre critic and political theorist. Though his middle-class background a n d opposition t o

the class war

often p u t h i m at

odds

w i t h the mainstream workers’ movement, h i s contribution t o fin d e siécle German

culture was such that his list of admirers included some of Germany’s most highly

esteemed literary and philosophical figures. Influenced by the ideas o f Friedrich Nietzsche, Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy

well as by the German Romantics and EnglishWilde, Walt Whitman a n d William Shakespeare, Landauer’ political outlook went firmly against the materialist grain of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century European anarchist Left. His pacifistic, non-doctrinaire form of anarchism was defined by his belief that the

a n d Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, as

language literary icons such as Oscar

state i s n o t a n abstract entity existing beyond the reach o f h u m a n beings, a n entity

that could be “smashed” b y violent revolution, b u t a n intricate and complex living organism composed o f a variegated multiplicity o f direct, living, interpersonal relationships between individuals. As Landauer famously wrote i n 1910,

The State is a condition,

a certain relationship between h u m a n beings, a m o d e

o f behaviour; w e destroy i t

by

other relationships, by behaving the State a n d w e shall continue t o b e

contracting

differently toward o n e a n o t h e r . . . W e are

the State until w e have created the institutions that form a real community." For Landauer, i t is the corruption o f the human spirit (Geist) that keeps human beings locked i n t o the competitive, mutually antagonistic relationships that perpetuate capitalism and the state. Should people step o u t

construct, rejuvenate the communal

spirit that had, i n

of this artificial social

premodern times, bound

society i n t o a cohesive spiritual whole, a n d enter i n t o a n e w set o f relationships

with each other, then capitalism and the s t a t e could n o t survive. Revolution must therefore b e a process o f wholesale regeneration, a spiritual

overhaul beginning with the individual and extending to the entire life o f society. Rather than aiming for the revolutionary overthrow o f bourgeois state-capitalist institutions, Landauer believed that t o overcome capitalism a n d the state

individuals must unite i n t o community, “come together, grow i n t o a framework, a sense o f belonging, a

body with

countless organs a n d sections.”*®

If

this were

t o happen, the “creation and renewal o f a real organic structure” could begin, a n d i t is this organic structure that i n time “‘destroys’ the State

it.”'* With

by displacing

the growth o f individuals i n t o families, families into communities,

a n d communities i n t o associations, a n entire alternative infrastructure would rise

INTRODUCTION

7

the bosom o f the state, eventually t o outgrow the existing order with a voluntaristic, freely-constituted “society o f societies.”

and

u p within replace i t

Landauer argued that the anarchist movement should therefore focus its efforts o n restructuring o f society

from below, o n constructive self-emancipation

through

the establishment

ventures

as the seeds o f a non-alienated future. Ultimately, this future would see

o f peaceful, self-managed, self-sufficient cooperative

interlaced alliances a n d interalliances o f agro-industrial gemeinschaft settlements freely woven together i n t o a “society o f societies.”

Within

these communes, the

artisanal forms o f production a n d rural communal traditions o f pre-modern

societies would be restored i n tandem with small-scale industry, and the organic unity between agriculture, industry and crafts, and between manual and cerebral work, re-established.

With clear echoes o f Kropotkin, Landauer described such a community as a “socialist village, with its workshops and village factories, with meadows, fields a n d gardens, with great and small cattle and fowl—you urban proletarians, get used t o this thought, however foreign and strange i t m a y appear at first, for that is the only beginning o f true socialism that remains.”

The Kibbutz Landauer’s belief that individual self-realisation is the key t o human progress, along

with his conviction that this could be achieved a t any time, means utopia, for h i m , exists i n the eternal presence, rather than at a future stage o f human development.

This idea was profoundly appealing t o the generation o f Jewish youth responsible for the foundation o f the kibbutz movement. I t is n o coincidence that m u c h o f Landauer’ social theory, itself rooted firmly i n the ideas o f Kropotkin, would end

u p being p u t i n t o practice i n the kibbutzim.

The kibbutz is a voluntary, self-governing community, administered democratically b y its members with neither legal sanction n o r any framework o f coercive authority t o ensure conformity t o its collectively-agreed u p o n behavioural

norms. The source o f political authority i n the community is the general assembly

all members (the asefz) i n which every member has a n equal vote o n every kibbutz life, w i t h decisions m a d e by majority v o t e . Until very recently, private property was nonexistent o n the kibbutz, with all property, of

matter relating t o

including the means o f production, owned communally a n d with production

carried o u t collectively, without individual remuneration.

Built around a participatory economy, with the principle of job rotation ensuring that n o social distinction exists between manual a n d white-collar labour,

“the community's structural arrangements,” as one writer puts i t , “are unilaterally b u i l t for social fellowship, mutual aid, economic cooperation, diffuse power, informational networks and visible, nonexploitative l a b o u r . ” ' Goods and services

8

A LIVING REVOLUTION

within

the commune

are provided o n a basis o f

the Marxian

formula “to each

according t o their needs.”

As a self-contained social and economic entity, the kibbutz is what Martin B u b e r famously termed a

“Full

o r other specific purpose—the kibbutz

This

being

the

This means that, i n contrast t o which people came together for some embraces the whole life o f its society.

Cooperative.”

traditional co-ops—organisations w i t h i n

case, i t is more correctly described as a gemeinschaft-type

society, a community

built

o n strong primary relationships, norms a n d social

control i n which individuals are related t o each other i n a n “all-embracing mutual c o n d i t i o n i n g . ” ' ” A s such, the kibbutz is founded o n a n amalgamation o f production a n d consumption that requires the community’s direct involvement

i n , and catering for, every sphere o f life—political, economic,

social and cultural

activity alike. The membership o f the settlements today ranges from

50 to 2,000 people 400 a n d

per community, with the average population o f each standing between

500.'® While each kibbutz is a n autonomous entity, its general assembly retaining sovereignty and autonomy over its internal affairs a n d responsibility for its o w n social, political, cultural and economic development a n d decision-making, i t exists as part

of a federated structure o f similar

communes.

The 269 settlements

currently i n existence are linked i n a federative structure with a secretariat i n

by the general of a given kibbutz, the secretariat has little o r n o power of coercion t o

Tel Aviv." Should a decision o f the secretariat n o t b e accepted

assembly

change the outcome.

The Kibbutzim and Zionism In

his postscript

to a

1974 edition

o f Kropotkin's b o o k Fields, Factories a n d

Workshops, British anarchist Colin Ward cites the kibbutz as one o f the few examples i n history where Kropotkin’s social theory has found successful practical expression.

With this

statement

however, comes one caveat: “ I n citing the Jewish collective

settlements as a n exemplification

of Kropotkin’s ideal commune,” he writes,

“we

have t o c o n s i d e r t h e m w i t h o u t reference t o the functions they have performed i n

the last decades i n the service o f Israeli nationalism and imperialism.”

For some, this will be quite a caveat. The kibbutz movements post-1948 link Left,

t o t h e state o f Israel—a c o u n t r y whose n a m e has, t o the contemporary global

become synonymous with apartheid a n d contemporary colonialism—including the n u m b e r o f i t s members w h o

join

the security services, the Israel Defense

Force (IDF) a n d the political elite, certainly goes a l o n g w a y towards explaining w h y the kibbutzim have generally n o t been perceived by anarchist movements as partners i n

their struggles. M a n y see the kibbutz’s very existence as predicated o n

the forcible displacement a n d subjugation o f the region’s native Arab population, a n d would consider any progressive ideals o f equality and social

justice that

INTRODUCTION

the kibbutzim

9

hold nullified by the massive inequality o n which the has come t o b e based. n o commune that is officially loyal t o any state can be viewed

profess t o

practical manifestation o f these ideals

By definition,

as a n anarchist entity. However, that does n o t mean that w e cannot identify a n d

learn from the political precepts actualised within that commune. London’s anarchist newspaper Freedom i n

[The kibbutz]

An article i n

1962 observed h o w

is o n e o f the best examples of democracy and certainly

the nearest

thing t o practising anarchism t h a t exists. Every pet theory o f anarchism, like decentralisation, minority opinion, “law” without government, freedom and n o t license, delegation o f representation are all part o f the daily pattern o f existence. Here i n microcosm m a y b e seen the beginnings o f what m i g h t happen i n a genuinely free society.”

Throughout history, all projects attempting t o self-organise have been caught i n different types

of power

kibbutz is no different.

networks that have complicated

their existence. The

Chapter 1

The Beginnings of the Kibbutz Movement Thefoundations o fcooperative settlement 1880-1919

.

[44

O u r community

.

.

.

»

.

.

does n o t desire revolution, i t is r e v o l u t i o n .

—Martin Buber

The kibbutz movement is the product o f a n exceptional set o f circumstances. A t a specific t i m e and a specific place, a host o f different factors came together i n a chance

convergence without which the kibbutzim would not, a n d could not, have come into being.

The uniqueness of the k i b b u t z e x p e r i m e n t c a n n o t be fully appreciated with the forces that shaped the movement's early

w i t h o u t first c o m i n g t o terms

development, a n d the context i n which the kibbutzim emerged.

The story of the kibbutz begins i n the shtetls of Eastern Jewish population h a d

late-nineteenth century. Russias

Europe d u r i n g

the

faced anti-Semitic

discriminatory policies and state-sanctioned persecution i n varying degrees since the 1400s, b u t , under the rule o f Tsar Alexander I I i n the late 1800s, the country became a n increasingly hostile environment for the thousands o f Jews w h o lived there. From the

1850s onwards,

the Tsarist regime enacted a string o f policies

designed t o destroy independent Jewish life w i t h i n the Pale o f Settlement (the area

o f land including Poland, Belorussia, the Crimea, Bessarabia, and the Ukraine t o

which the country’s Jews had b e e n confined since 1791). With anti-government sentiment taking r o o t a m o n g Russias peasantry—and with i t radical political

by the r u l i n g e l i t e as p o t e n t i a l l y threatening t o the existence of the regime—the Tsarist authorities deliberately popularised anti-Semitism as a political weapon, with the assumption t h a t m a n y of the radicals were of Jewish doctrines seen

origin. Portraying Jews as “Christ-killers” and the oppressors o f Slavic Christians,

the

Tsar a n d

his

establishment increasingly stoked

the

fires

of

religious a n d

their with the regime o n t h e i r Jewish compatriots. The last t w o decades of the century marked the z e n i t h of state-sanctioned persecution. I n 1881, a wave

nationalistic x e n o p h o b i a a n d encouraged d i s g r u n t l e d peasants t o v e n t frustrations

o f bloody pogroms swept through 166 towns i n the southern part o f the country,

Jews dead o r i n j u r e d a n d thousands more i n extreme the aftermath of Alexander I I ' s assassination i n March that year, Russia's Jews found themselves o n the receiving e n d of a s t r i n g of state-enforced

leaving large numbers o f poverty. I n

12

A LIVING REVOLUTION

anti-Semitic legislation designed, according t o Alexander

Konstantin Pobedonostsev, t o cause one-third t o Christianity

to

IIIs friend a n d advisor

emigrate, one-third

t o convert

a n d one-third t o starve.*

A staunch reactionary a n d firm adherent t o the maxim “Autocracy, Orthodoxy

and Nationalism,” Alexander I I I placed the blame for the 1 8 8 1 upheaval squarely on

the shoulders of his country’s Jews, and, the following year, issued the now-

notorious “Temporary Regulations,” which further legitimised oppression o f Russian Jewry. T h e Temporary Regulations, o r “ M a y Laws” as they became known, included residency restrictions, which prohibited

Jews from

living i n towns o f

fewer than 10,000 inhabitants—even within the Pale o f Settlement—restricted basic rights, made freedom o f movement increasingly difficult and systemised

Russia's already strict anti-Jewish education quotas, which resulted i n thousands being excluded from professions a n d denied a university education. The M a y Laws,

which were

subject t o repeated revisions over the following

years, represented the beginning o f a string o f similarly oppressive legislation that

solidified the Jews’ legal status as inferior citizens in Russia. I n 1892, for example, Jews were banned from voting o r standing i n local elections, which i n many towns

with large Jewish populations resulted i n

reverse proportional representation, the

majority forcibly subjugated t o openly hostile minority governance. o f this, together with ensuing legislation, hundreds o f thousands o f

As a

result

Jews were

driven o u t o f towns and villages across Russia, with m a n y o f the country’s major urban areas—including Kiev and Moscow-—completely cleansed o f

their Jewish

inhabitants.

I n addition

to

the dire humanitarian crisis forced upon Russias Jewish

population, the escalation o f persecution had t w o

Jewish intelligentsia began

to turn

key effects: First, the country’s

their attention

to

political activism. The

century had given them m u c h t o draw on, for Russia h a d witnessed the domestic emergence o f a wide variety o f radical left-wing political doctrines, the latter

half

o f the 1800s seeing numerous shades o f socialist, anarchist, nihilist, liberal and syndicalist ideologies all beginning t o take r o o t . The ideas o f Marx, Kropotkin,

Tolstoy, Proudhon and Bakunin were entering the political spectrum and these ideologies, together with the rise o f the Populist movement a n d the Tolstoyan agricultural communes, provided inspiration t o a generation o f persecuted Jews

seeking a solution t o their o w n increasingly desperate situation.

Aliya The second

major consequence o f the upheaval was mass

Jewish emigration.

While the vast majority o f the 20,000 or so Jews who fled Russia i n 1881— 1882 emigrated t o the United States a n d Argentina, a few hundred headed for Palestine. Along

with a small group

o f Yemenite

Jews w h o began arriving from

BEGINNINGS O F T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT

13

Sanaa i n 1881, these immigrants became the first o f the six Aliyot (waves o f immigration) t o the country. A t the time, Palestine was a province o f the Ottoman Empire under Turkish rule. The few Diaspora Jews w h o moved there before the advent o f Zionist-inspired immigration had typically done so either t o study at local yeshivas, o r t o live o u t

the last years of their life and be buried i n their ancestral homeland. A t the start of the 1880s, Palestine’s incumbent Jewish population, concentrated mainly i n the

religious centres of Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron, numbered somewhere between 13,000 and 20,000. While these Jews devoted their attention t o religious activities and lived off the proceeds of charity raised i n Europe (the Halukka), the n e w immigrants w h o began arriving i n the early 1880s were the first t o do so

with aspirations o f economic independence, aiming t o cultivate the land i n order t o create the necessary socio-economic conditions for large-scale Jewish national revival i n the country.

A small number o f these First Aliya Jews (or Biluim,? as they became known)

the first “new” Jewish Yaakov, Gedera a n d Petah

began t o settle i n Palestine as early as 1880, founding settlements at Rishon Le-Zion, Rosh Pinah, Zichron

Tikva. These newcomers, and the stream of Jews that followed them t o Palestine during the next few years, were treated with a certain degree o f suspicion b y

the Turkish

authorities. T o them, the n e w immigrants were potential agents o f

a hostile power that threatened

the existence o f

their country, a n d the Ottoman

government accordingly made Jewish immigration as difficult as possible. T h e early B i l u i m found themselves u n a b l e t o o b t a i n official permission t o

establish settlements i n Palestine, which would support mass immigration, a n d

i n 1883, the Turkish authorities banned Jewish immigration from Russia and

Jewish land

purchases

altogether. Immigration

continued, however, a n d the

laws regarding Jewish acquisition o f land were circumvented by registering land purchases i n the name o f

Jews from Western Europe and distributing

baksheesh

(bribes) among the local administration. By the early 1890s, upwards o f 20,000 more olim

(immigrants)—the majority

o f them from southern Russia—had

arrived i n the country.

The SecondAliya a n d

the Birth o f the Kibbutz

Unlike their immediate predecessors, these n e w émigrés explicitly propounded

Zionist ideology, exhorting the “encouragement and strengthening o f immigration a n d colonisation i n Eretz Yisrael through the establishment o f a n agricultural

colony

built

o n cooperative social foundations” a n d

the “politico-economic

and

national spiritual revival o f the Jewish people i n Palestine.”

T h e few communities that were established i n Palestine d u r i n g the 1880s a n d 1890s, however, were n o t nearly enough t o lay the foundations for the national revival the

Zionists were h o p i n g for. According t o historian Walter Laqueur,

the

enthusiasm and industriousness of the Biluim was matched only by their lack of

14

A LIVING REVOLUTION

preparedness. “They knew nothing about agriculture,” Laqueur writes, “and found

the work

i n unaccustomed climactic conditions almost unbearable. Above

all,

they h a d n o money t o b u y land a n d equipment, and there were n o funds for the construction o f houses. Since. ..they had neither horses n o r oxen nor agricultural implements, they h a d t o work the stony land with their bare hands.”” Having

headed t o Palestine with the intention of being the harbingers of Jewish national revival, within a short time o f their arrival, the Biluim had become almost entirely dependent o n charity. on

the financial i n p u t

By the

turn o f the century,

their projects

were surviving

o f foreign investors such as French Jewish philanthropist

Baron Edmond James de Rothschild.? While these First Aliya settlements could be considered the early forerunners o f the kibbutzim, i t was the immigrants o f the Second Aliya w h o were instrumental i n establishing the first kvutzot, o r “proto-kibbutzim.” This wave o f immigration was, again, directly l i n k e d t o events i n Russia. Between 1903 a n d 1906, a second, m u c h more devastating wave o f pogroms broke o u t across parts o f the country,

leaving around 2,000 dead and resulting i n a dramatic escalation i n the numbers fleeing the country.

With

the concurrent rise o f

the

Zionist Organisation,

founded by Herzl i n 1897, the idea of the permanent settlement of Palestine was

Jewry, and, as a result, Palestine was rapidly becoming the destination o f choice for Jewish refugees.

beginning t o gain popularity among world

Although this wave o f immigration was far from homogenous, almost all

The main contingent came from from eastern Poland a n d Lithuania. These a traditional Jewish environment a n d spoke

were young, unmarried a n d came from Russia. what was then known as White Russia,

n e w immigrants h a d been raised i n

Yiddish, b u t all h a d

at least a basic understanding o f Hebrew. I n addition t o

these, and a small group

from Yemen,

there were also substantial numbers

from

southern Russia. Settlers from largely assimilated, affluent families, they spoke only Russian.” These Second

Aliya o l i m

by what their arrival

arrived i n Palestine o n l y t o b e shocked

they found. T h e harsh climactic conditions that greeted them o n

caught them unawares: searing heat, deserts i n the south, and swamps and rocky l a n d i n the north combined t o create a n environment that bore little resemblance to

the Biblical land of milk and honey that many of them had been led t o and took a heavy toll o n the

expect. Diseases such as malaria were widespread

immigrants. However, the inhospitable conditions were n o t the only source o f

disappointment for these young, radicalised pioneers. They were equally taken aback by the economic situation o f

the First Aliya Jews already living a n d working

i n the country.

By this point, as noted earlier, the First Aliya settlements were being propped up almost entirely by Zionist philanthropists like France’s Rothschild family. But even more distressing t o

the newcomers

was

the fact that the First Aliya Jews their settlements. While cheap,

h a d resorted t o h i r i n g Arab workers t o help build

BEGINNINGS O F T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT

experienced Arab labour was the natural preference o f the First

15

Aliya farmers, it

had certainly n o t been the intention o f many Second Aliya halutzim (pioneers) to establish a class

of bourgeois Jewish landowners

exploiting

the indigenous

Arab

population.

“This was n o t the w a y w e hoped t o settle the country,” wrote o n e Second Aliya immigrant working at Zichron Ya'akov. “This o l d w a y with Jews o n top a n d Arabs

working for them.”? From a nationalistic p o i n t o f view, stratifying economic life along ethnic lines also threatened t o subvert autonomous

Jewish economy,

the emergence of a self-sufhcient a n d

which w a s seen as a non-negotiable imperative for

the reconstruction of the Jewish nation in Palestine. I n any case, First Aliya farms performed badly, with low profitability, and the Diaspora Z i o n i s t movement's emissary Arthur Ruppin soon h a d cause t o report that private infrastructure alone would b e incapable o f supporting large-scale

Jewish immigration. I n his address t o the Jewish Colonisation Society i n Vienna following a six-month visit t o Palestine i n

the s p r i n g

and s u m m e r o f 1907,

Ruppin delivered a grim prognosis o f the First Aliya enterprises, underlining the inadequacies o f

the floundering Rothschild colonies, and instead spoke positively

o f economic diversification based o n cooperative principles.

Although h e acknowledged that Rothschilds philanthropy had achieved m u c h during the early period o f immigration

different from what i t

(“Our position today,” h e declared, “ i s very

would have been

if w e had had t o

start o u r colonisation

work from the beginning”), Ruppin insisted that i t was n o t enough. ? * The single-

crop farming of the First Aliya settlements was too great a n economic risk under

the circumstances, h e reported, and the system o f administration employed i n

the Rothschild colonies

“blocked the development o f a

spirit o f

independence”

among the workers.>® Rothschild did n o t trust the abilities o f the colonists, a n d h e insisted o n direct supervision o f workers a n d complete managerial control

by his

agents. The commands o f the administrators a n d agricultural experts appointed t o oversee every group o f colonies were binding, b u t , from a formal and legal

standpoint, the risk was still carried b y the worker.

“ A situation like this is impossible i n the long run,” Ruppin declared. “ I t is hard for m e t o imagine a system under which the farmer must bear the responsibility while

[merely] following

the instructions o f the administrator.”

A s Ruppin

saw i t , workers i n the capitalist enterprises simply did n o t feel the same sense o f personal responsibility as the farmer w h o takes the risk for his o w n decisions, a n d this feeling o f alienation h e viewed as a significant contributory factor t o the inefficiency o f the First Aliya farms.

Ruppin was n o t alone in recognising the impotence of the First Aliya enterprises. D u r i n g the first

few years

o f the twentieth century, the idea o f

cooperative settlement had become a widely respected o n e among world

Jewry,

thanks, i n part, t o the First Zionist Congress i n August 1897, and the emergence o f influential treatises such as Nachman Syrkin’s TheJewish Problem a n d theJewish

16

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Socialist State, which was published

the following

year. Active i n revolutionary

circles i n Russia, Syrkin fiercely opposed “bourgeois” elements within the Zionist Organisation a n d propounded the n o t i o n that Z i o n i s m should b e achieved

Jewish working classes i n Palestine. the needs of the Jewish immigrants, the proposed character o f a cooperative settlement, and the essential through the cooperative settlement o f the

By 1898 h e

h a d p u t forward a systematic analysis o f

infrastructural foundations necessary t o synthesise the two.

As the

influence o f the Zionist Organisation mushroomed d u r i n g the early

years o f the twentieth century, a broad consensus developed within the organisation

that the way forward i n Palestine lay i n the establishment o f collectivist structures, cooperative settlements a n d collaborative economic institutions, rather than i n

injecting private capital. B y the time o f the Second Aliya, Syrkin, Ruppin and other p r o m i n e n t

Zionists h a d reached a general agreement that “the answer t o the

problem o f Jewish labour lies i n cooperation,” concluding that Future settlements must entirely eliminate t h e antagonism between employer

and employee, between the rich colonist farmer and his slaves, exploiter and exploited. I n the cooperative settlement

the worker owns the capital, and the the drudgery o f toil a n d lifts the age-

cooperative character o f the work sweetens

o l d curse a n d stigma i t bears everywhere. I n the planned cooperative settlement, the question o f

Jewish l a b o u r will find a s o l u t i o n , because

the m a i n p r o b l e m ,

that o f labour and capital, will be solved.

The early

years

of the

century, therefore, saw mainstream Zionist

busying themselves raising the necessary funds t o finance

of cooperative

bodies socio-

economic institutions capable o f settling large numbers of immigrants, rather than turning t o capitalist investors like Rothschild. Ruppin himself would become a n important advocate o f collective settlement, and, i n 1908, established “The Palestine Office” i n Jaffa, which administered and coordinated all settlement

projects i n Palestine on behalf o f the Zionist movement. Degania I t was within this c o n t e x t that the first fvutza (communal settlement) emerged. B u t unlike the other cooperative structures a n d agricultural training farms b e i n g

set u p i n Palestine at the time, its emergence was n o t d o w n t o any premeditated social o r economic planning o n

the part of the Z i o n i s t Organisation. 1910 by a group o f young immigrants from the

The first kvutza was founded i n

Romni C o m m u n e i n Russia, w h o had been traveling around Palestine working i n the various collective and quasi-collective settlements established throughout the country. O n

their arrival, members o f the Romni had found employment at o n e

o f the First Aliya enterprises, Rishon LeZion, and had been “morally appalled” by what they saw i n the Jewish settlers there, disgusted by the way i t and other

BEGINNINGS O F THE KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT

17

farms like i t were run “with their Jewish overseers, Arab peasant labourers, and Bedouin guards.” Instead of the beginnings of a n egalitarian society, founded o n principles o f equality and self-sufhiciency, the group felt that

had succeeded merely i n

the First Aliya Jews

replicating the exploitative socio-economic structure o f

the Pale o f Settlement, where Jews worked i n clean jobs, far from the p o i n t o f production, and relied o n other groups t o d o the so-called dirty

work.

Their subsequent experiences i n the other First Aliya enterprises did little t o alleviate

their i n i t i a l disillusionment. O n e m e m b e r of the group, Joseph his t i m e working at the settlement o f Zichron Yaakov: “ W e

Baratz, wrote o f

knew more and more certainly that the ways o f the o l d settlements were not for

us... We thought t h a t there shouldnt be employers and employed a t all. There must b e a better at

way.”** T h e

group eventually e n d e d u p a t the Kinneret F a r m

the foot o f the Sea of Galilee (also called Lake Tiberias and Lake Kinneret), a

large settlement comprising numerous different groups engaged i n the process o f land cultivation. R u n

by a n appointed manager

a n d functioning

by means

of a

hierarchical-managerial structure, the farm’s system did n o t sit comfortably with the egalitarian aspirations o f m a n y o f the immigrants w h o worked there. O n e o f the workers’ major complaints—Dboth at Kinneret a n d other farms

the country—was that they were under constant supervision and scrutiny from managers and overseers. This resulted i n endless squabbles and even strike action. However, the workers of the Romni group were also reluctant t o accept the obvious alternative offered by the existing system, which was that they should accept promotions a n d become managers themselves. M a n y workers did find a way o u t through such channels, b u t Baratz and his comrades saw this as a betrayal across

o f the m o s t fundamental conviction underpinning all their values a n d ideas: “The belief i n the moral superiority o f a life o f work” records kibbutz historian Henry

Near, “and i n their own obligation (and desire) t o continue i n this way o f life.” Baratz and his associates considered the alternative t o be synonymous with

built o n the they would have

their original ideological vision: the creation o f a n e w social system principle o f voluntary cooperation. I t would n o t b e l o n g before

the opportunity

t o test t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n . I n O c t o b e r

1909,

a strike broke o u t

when Kinneret’s Jewish workers decided they could n o longer p u t u p with

the

oppressive, arbitrary administration a n d the use o f hired Arab labour. Following a

fiery dispute with the settlements authorities, the Romni group, t e n m e n and t w o w o m e n still i n

their teens, left the

farm with the intention o f settling their o w n

piece o f land according t o their o w n principles.

Like many o f the other immigrants, the Romni group had lived communally for some t i m e i n their pre-Aliya life back i n Russia. Since

their arrival i n Palestine,

the idea o f establishing a permanent commune had begun to develop within the group.

As Joseph Baratz recalls,

18

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Thanks to o u r communal life, a feeling o f intimacy between the members grew

up. We talked a great deal about the “commune”; for a certain time, this was the main idea [which was discussed]: communal life n o t just for a chosen few, b u t as a permanent social system, at any rate for

the bulk of the pioneers w h o were

i m m i g r a t i n g t o Palestine.?®

Having made the decision t o stop travelling a n d establish a permanent settlement, the Romni communards were approached

by

Arthur Ruppin.

According t o Baratz, Ruppin “saw that the administrative methods at Kinnereth

[sic] were unsatisfactory and he decided that a

tract

of land should be handed

over t o the halutzim t o develop o n their o w n responsibility.” Ruppin proposed that

they s t a r t work o n a piece of land o n the bank of the Jordan River called Juni, which h a d recently been bought by the Palestine Land Development

Umm

Company from the Jewish National Fund (JNF).?® So, i n October

1910 the

first kvutza was b o r n . T h e settlement, which they

named Degania (Cornflower) after the crops they grew there, would come

to

represent a turning p o i n t i n the Jewish settlement o f Palestine. As kibbutz historian Avraham Yassour puts i t , Degania represented “the founding o f a permanent

social system i n which the group assumed complete responsibility for the farm a n d developed i t according t o its o w n principles.”

These principles can b e summarised succinctly i n the words of the groups 1910 letter t o Ruppin, as “a cooperative community without exploiters o r exploited.” Degania’s founders went t o great lengths t o ensure that their n e w farm operated i n a manner as far removed as possible

They decided o n mixed-crop

from that

o f the First Aliya settlements.

farming a n d intensive cultivation, as this was more

labour-efhcient a n d promised a more sustainable economic existence than

the

single-crop farming of the First Aliya settlements, which largely depended on global market prices and seasonal/weather conditions. T h e lifestyle they created

was based o n political and material equality, freedom and democracy, the cardinal principle o f the community being the elimination o f all forms o f hierarchy a n d

rank. I t was, i n their o w n words, t o be a n exemplary society with “no managers and n o underlings.”

A t Degania, private property was nonexistent, with everything from livestock a n d agricultural machinery t o t h e contents o f m e m b e r s ’ rooms o w n e d

collective. Such a society, the kibbutz’s founders

dignity o f the individual

felt,

by

the

would “increase the

a n d would free energy and independence for spiritual

creation.”** The group was adamant that n o

kind o f work

should b e considered

more important than any other, n o r any kind o f work looked d o w n o n as inferior. Its members organised the farm’s production a n d consumption o n a communal

basis, with

all managerial decisions taken collectively, management based purely

o n direct democracy and informal debate. The members’ meeting was seen as

BEGINNINGS O F T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT

19

the “supreme institution,” and in i t “every m a t t e r was t o be discussed and every d e c i s i o n w a s t o b e taken according t o t h e majority o p i n i o n . ”

Each kibbutz member received a m o n t h l y i n c o m e o f

fifty

francs from the

Z i o n i s t Organisation, a n d the group pooled these wages, m a i n t a i n i n g a common

household and a communal purse. Believing firmly i n equality i n the fulfilment of needs, they thus succeeded i n eliminating any connection between contribution and reward, with each giving according t o

his ability a n d receiving according t o

his needs. I n marked c o n t r a s t t o the ailing farms o f the First Aliya immigrants, less than a year

after its establishment, Degania was already showing a fiscal profit.

T h e concept o f communal groups o f workers cultivating publicly-owned land was o n e that evidently caused a c e r t a i n a m o u n t

of excitement

throughout

the

country. Following the success o f Degania, the idea began t o spread throughout the Yishuv** a n d a m o n g

Socialist Z i o n i s t

youth movements abroad, a n d soon

other groups began trying t o farm the land i n a similar way. Before long, kvutzot were being set u p wherever land c o u l d b e b o u g h t , more often than n o t d u r i n g

this early stage o n desolate wasteland o r

swamps, which the pioneers quickly set

a b o u t cultivating.

Conditions were n o t

easy; malaria, typhoid and other diseases were

commonplace among the settlers, and many h a d difhculty adjusting t o a

hard physical

labour. Throughout

the Second Aliya, the

life o f

development o f these

settlements was sporadic, atomistic a n d based largely o n trial a n d error, b u t before

By the e n d 1914, 28 kvutzot with a combined total o f 380 permanent

l o n g , t h e structure o f t h e k i b b u t z h a d b e g u n t o coalesce a t Degania.*®

o f the Second Aliya i n members to

had been set u p , each community r u n n i n g o n principles broadly similar

the Degania farm.*

Although Ruppin e t al. were n o t w i t h o u t t h e i r m i s g i v i n g s , there w a s general from a n early stage that this was a project that should be pursued

agreement

o n a wider scale. Every o n e o f the kvutza settlements provided a better return o n capital invested than the market-driven farms o f the First Aliya immigrants,

what started o u t b e i n g viewed as l i t t l e m o r e than a n interesting rapidly became a n i m p o r t a n t a n d respected e l e m e n t of the Jewish

and, as a result, experiment

labour movement i n Palestine, a n d a project whose success quickly garnered the attention o f onlookers abroad.*®

Settlement: Variations o n a Theme Throughout the Second Aliya there existed a wide

Cooperative

range o f different social,

cooperative and communal organisations throughout Palestine. There were already numerous cooperative enterprises, a variety worked

the countryside a n d communal-living

the Yishuv.

of

collective l a b o u r groups

associations operated throughout

A LIVING REVOLUTION

20

The extent to which immigrants had been living communally and pooling resources, before the establishment o f the first kvutzot, is often forgotten i n

Jewish communes had 1904 onwards, and egalitarian ideals h a d been actualised

discussions o f the origins o f the kibbutz movement. existed i n Palestine from

i n varying degrees i n the other models o f cooperative agricultural settlement that

existed prior t o , and eventually alongside, the kvutzot. The cooperative settlement a t Merhavia w a s a second model, although n o t as collective i n nature as t h e kvutza

communes (the settlement functioned by means of a more hierarchical managerial structure a n d differential p a y m e n t according t o individual

c o n t r i b u t i o n ) . Less

rigid theoretical plans drawn u p years before 2), Merhavia would serve as the prototype for the

organic i n its origins and based o n

its foundation

(see Chapter

moshav settlements. A third social model can b e seen i n the Kinneret farm where the Degania members, trained a l o n g w i t h m a n y w h o w o u l d g o o n t o set u p O t t o m a n Palestine’s

other

kvutzot. As is

clear

from the

origins o f Degania, Kinneret’s hierarchical

management structure a n d oppressive administrative methods collided

with

the

egalitarian principles o f m a n y o f its workers, and this would eventually contribute t o Kinneret’s later evolution into a collective-style kvutza. A fourth model, and another major source for collective settlement during the earliest years, was the

Bar Giora organisation.

This group

grew o u t

of a n organisation

known as

the

Hashomer (the Watchmen), whose members were, from an early stage, “motivated

by a conviction that the commune was the best w a y o f life for themselves and their families.”

This group developed a n “alternative model based o n cooperative settlement, having i n m i n d the elimination o f exploitation a n d bourgeois relationships.”

Its members would later

become instrumental i n the establishment o f the m a n y

n e w collective settlements set u p following

the success

of

the earliest

kvutzort,

including Tel Adashim, Kfar Gila’adi, Ayelet HaShachar, and the kvutzot Haroim a n d Tel Hai.

Thus, the

Second

Aliya i m m i g r a n t

groups developed i n t o a wide variety o f

the (the Young Worker), t o which the Romni group were affiliated, a n d the more orthodox Marxist different collective a n d quasi-collective economic organisations. However, o n

political front, there existed

just t w o

main groups, Hapoel Hatzair

Poalei Z i o n (Workers o f Z i o n ) . The t w o groups would later combine t o form Ahdut HaAvoda

(Unity o f Labour). A t this stage, these organisations deliberately

kept their distance from mainstream party politics, distrustful o f political parties’ ability (or even inclination) t o promote the interests o f the workers o n the ground. Instead they supported what Israeli historian Avraham Yassour terms “innovative

social organisation,”'

which, i n practice, involved organising at a grassroots level, aid societies,” whose

setting u p various trade a n d cultural associations as “mutual

goal was “supplying basic necessities i n times o f n e e d . ”?

21

BEGINNINGS O F T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT

I n an article published i n the journal HaAhdur i n 1914, the final year of the Second Aliya, Nachman Syrkin saw fit t o assert that “colonies established i n

the country

without regard t o

social concepts

a n d based o n

the d o m i n a t i o n

of

one person b y another, exploitation o f the many for the benefit o f the few, will continue to stew i n squalor and iniquity.” While differences existed between the

various groups of settlers during this early period, there is little doubt that leftist ideas were the dominant force i n shaping the political landscape o f the Yishuv. Ultimately though, i t would b e the kvutzot that emerged as the pre-eminent

mode o f organisation

from that

period, and, as the idea gained a foothold i n

Palestine, they gradually began t o absorb increasing numbers o f workers from

other collective-style settlements o f the Second Aliya.

the

Chapter 2

Diggers and Dreamers Ideology i n

the SecondAliya

“As w e n o w come t o re-establish o u r path a m o n g the ways o f living nations o f the earth, w e m u s t make sure that w e

find the right path. W e

m u s t create a n e w people, a h u m a n p e o p l e whose a t t i t u d e toward o t h e r

peoples is informed with the sense o f h u m a n brotherhood and whose attitude toward nature a n d all w i t h i n i t is inspired life-loving creativity.

All

by n o b l e

urges o f

the forces o f our history, all the pain that

has

accumulated i n o u r national soul, seem t o impel us i n that direction... w e are engaged i n a creative endeavour

the like o f which is itself n o t

to

b e found i n the whole history o f mankind: the rebirth a n d rehabilitation o f a people that has been uprooted and scattered t o

the winds.”

—A.D. Gordon, 1920

M o s t historians believe t h a t

the

immigrants responsible for

the kibbutz

movement's foundation did n o t arrive i n Palestine w i t h any preconceived ideas for the settlement o f the country. Martin B u b e r himself wrote that the k i b b u t z “owes

but t o a s i t u a t i o n , t o t h e needs, t h e stress, a n d t h e of t h e s i t u a t i o n ” a n d his analysis has tended t o b e accepted virtually a t face value.> The early years of the movement's development, according t o Buber,

i t s existence n o t t o a d o c t r i n e , demands

merely show the Jewish immigrants “responding

to

circumstances as they

t h e m , without clearly defined practical plans o r established principles.”

met

For

members o f the earliest kvutzot, h e claims,

The p o i n t was the Palestinian conglomeration

of w o r k a n d construction which the settlers, by c o l l a b o r a t i n g . W h a t a loose

t o solve certain p r o b l e m s reality forced o n

of

i n d i v i d u a l s c o u l d n o t . . . h o p e t o overcome, o r even try t o

overcome, things b e i n g what they were, the collective c o u l d try t o d o a n d actually succeeded i n d o i n g . >

The writings of many of the earliest settlers underline the organic way the first kvutzot came i n t o b e i n g ;

the p o i n t

the “The did n o t

was t o solve i m m e d i a t e p r o b l e m s , a n d

efficacy of cooperative l a b o u r i n solving these p r o b l e m s was quickly proven. Kommuna, p e r se, was n o t a d o c t r i n e , ” wrote Degania’s Joseph Baratz. “ I t

24

A LIVING REVOLUTION

from the outside, from

come t o us

other people, from strange countries. W e

did

n o t read any books about the kvutza; i t is a local creation o f Eretz Israel. Its source

the national and moral ideology.” Elsewhere, Baratz recalls h o w “did n o t arrive a t [ t h e kibbutz] i d e a by a process o f objective thought a n d consideration. I t was more a matter o f natural feeling: “What is the difference between m e a n d m y comrade, a n d why should each o f us have a ’ His wife Miriam later recorded a similar sentiment: “ I t is n o t separate a c c o u n t ?”®

a n d root is

the R o m n i

group

a theoretical approach,” she wrote. “ W e h a d n o t read about Kommunas i n action.

W e had n o examples.” But

t o leave i t

there a n d a t t r i b u t e t h e kvutzots

emergence purely

to

circumstantial necessity is t o underestimate the extent o f the ideological factors

involved i n the movements inception. W e know that a wide range o f political ideas were i n circulation among the

Zionist youth i n

social and

Russia w h o would

arrive i n Palestine d u r i n g the Second Aliya. A s noted i n Chapter 1, this wave o f

1903 a n d 1908, a the country was a hotbed o f ideological ferment a n d a fertile breeding

i m m i g r a t i o n w a s directly linked t o events i n Russia between

t i m e when

ground for radical political doctrines. Most o f the rank-and-file newcomers already had some knowledge o f the basics o f alternative ways o f

life, a n d m a n y

brought with them direct experience o f various different political subcultures. Some

had also

taken a n active part i n

the abortive revolution o f 1905, a n d had of social justice with

arrived i n Palestine h o p i n g t o synthesise their aspirations

those of building a Jewish homeland i n Palestine.

While Baratz

m a y have h a d n o concrete examples o n which t o draw,

the

early development o f the kvutzot also saw m a n y o f the communards paying close attention t o other experiments abroad. I m p o r t a n t templates were found i n

the

religious communes i n the United States, the Russian artels, a n d the agricultural communities set u p by followers o f Tolstoy i n the Northern Caucasus o f Russia, o f

which some o f the earliest settlers had h a d direct experience prior t o emigrating. Kibbutz historian H e n r y Near describes h o w the generation instrumental i n the formation o f the kibbutz was, i n fact, “subject t o the conflicting claims o f almost every doctrine a n d dogma, from extreme orthodoxy i n a variety o f forms, through

half a dozen

variants o f Z i o n i s m , t o enlightenment a n d assimilation.”

According t o Near, Virtually every variety o f social doctrine. ..struggled for ascendancy a m o n g the Russian intelligentsia [ i n Palestine]: p o p u l i s m a n d Tolstoyan thought, every type o f anarchism from n i h i l i s m t o the communalism o f Kropotkin, social democracy o f the Bolshevik a n d Menshevik varieties, liberalism and more.

The n o t i o n that the emergence o f the kvutzot was the accidental result o f

“ideal motives join[ing] hands with the dictates o f the hour,” downplays the extent t o which these

“ideal motives”

actually came i n t o

play d u r i n g this time.®> Though

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

25

the kvutzot founders certainly came t o understand what Buber calls the “needs, stress,

and the demands o f the situation,” they did so only through the prism o f

the theories and values that they had absorbed i n their youth. I n seeking holistic solutions to both their o w n immediate problems, and t o those o f the Jewish nation as a

whole, the young m e n and women o f the Second Aliya attempted t o the various socialist and anarchist ideals that they had acquired,

put into practice

a n d incorporate them i n t o a new, permanent social model. I n a n environment where so m a n y conflicting shades o f socialist ideology struggled for pre-eminence, the o n e accepted ideal was the concept o f revolution.

B u t this was a unique kind o f revolution, i n

that i t d i d n o t have an antagonist.

Class differences were essentially nonexistent among the émigrés o f the Second

Aliya i n

Palestine, a n d this meant that i t was n o t a question o f proletariat versus

bourgeoisie,

but, instead, the building o f a completely n e w kind o f society

from

scratch—a society free o f the evils the young Jewish immigrants h a d seen around them i n their Diaspora countries. Central t o this revolution was the idea o f inverting the Jewish social pyramid of

the Diaspora,

the regeneration

of their selves, and the creation o f a n e w kind

o f human being. As one veteran o f the Second Aliya put i t , those who arrived i n Palestine between

1904 and 1905 “directed their actions

t o changing existing

reality... They attempted behavioural norms directly opposed t o those i n

existence,”® their intent being t o “determine both the political agenda i n Palestine

and the Jewish condition world-wide.”®

A.D. Gordon Even at this early stage, the Second Aliya kvutza pioneers had their intellectual mentors i n w h o m w e c a n see e m b o d i e d precisely the kind o f ideological c o n v i c t i o n s from which the kvutzot were b o r n . Nowhere has the philosophy o f the early halutzim found fuller expression than i n the figure o f Hapoel Hatzair leader Aaron David G o r d o n , whose influence i n gives

lie

to

the idea

that

the w a y of life a t

the formative

years

of the movement

Degania a n d i t s contemporaries was

purely the result o f accident o r circumstantial necessity. I n Gordon’s work, b o t h the ideological and practical objectives o f the pioneers came together, a n d i t is

from the content o f his writings, b u t from the esteem i n which he was held by the Palestinian Jewish workers’ movement, that the ideological convictions with which the early halutzim approached the kibbutz w e n t far beyond the practicalities of land settlement. clear n o t only

Born i n t o a middle-class, orthodox Jewish family i n Podolia i n 1856, Gordon o f the Ukrainian countryside where his father the

had been brought u p i n

heart

worked i n the management o f agrarian estates. A n early m e m b e r o f the H i b b a t

Tziyon (Love of Zion)

movement,

Gordon had proven himself a charismatic 1904,

teacher a n d local community activist. By the t i m e he arrived i n Palestine i n at

the age of forty-eight, thanks t o his father’s profession he had a knowledge of

26

A LIVING REVOLUTION

agriculture and the natural world unusual among the immigrants at that time, most o f w h o m came from sedentary, urban lifestyles.

Upon

his arrival i n

Palestine, G o r d o n worked at the First Aliya settlements

at Petah Tikvah a n d Rishon Le-Zion before eventually settling at Degania.

his of his

Although h e was never actually a permanent member o f the community, name has today become firmly entwined with Degania. H e spent m u c h

life i n

Palestine working there, a n d he was fondly described

“the most strange and wonderful figure i n o u r kvutza.”® I n

by Joseph Baratz as his memoirs Baratz

tells h o w Gordon had a great love o f manual labour, a n d h e thought everybody s h o u l d work with h i s hands—teachers, writers, administrators. O n e day, h e was explaining this t o

[Chaim] Arlosoroff, the President of the National Fund, who had come t o see h i m . H e was spreading manure

with a pitchfork

in a

field. “You see,” he said,

“when you stand i na field and you use your pitchfork like this...and this...you feel

well a n d y o u

feel y o u have a right t o live.” H e used t o say that

by work

a

m a n is healed.

This love o f manual labour a n d the natural world became a distinguishing feature o f Gordon's writings, and i t was t o b e a n important influence o n the generation o f young, middle-class, urban

Jewish youth

attempting t o metamorphose i n t o

hardened, rural labourers i n Palestine. Influenced particularly b y Kabbalistic and Hassidic mysticism, as well as b y the existentialism o f Nietzsche a n d the agrarian anarchism o f Tolstoy, Gordon believed that manual labour was n o t only essential for the regeneration o f the Jewish people (it is through labour, he argued, that “a

people becomes rooted i n its soil and culture”), b u t also that i t held a more holistic

value.®”” Gordon believed that physical and, i n particular, agricultural work enabled human beings t o c o n n e c t with nature through creativity, and that it was through a return t o nature that individuals, peoples a n d humanity as a whole would b e able to

find spiritual succour and a more meaningful w a y of life: Man’s life has been c u t away from its source. Naturally, i t has become narrowed, impoverished, meagre, hollow, empty, uninteresting, vain. O n the o n e hand, this results i n a feverish pursuit o f a life o f pleasure, o f sickly passion, o f grasping

a t anything i n the dregs o f

life

there follow perplexities, barren

that s t i l l has pungency... O n the o t h e r hand,

spiritual confusion,

sterile scepticism, aimless

wandering, vacillation, mystic fancies, useless despair. The light i n

life has been

lost; its zest has gone; the talent for understanding life is wasted; i n short, the talent t o live has been destroyed.

Gordon's outlook echoed the Tolstoyan belief

that

humans, themselves

basically natural beings, are best when and if they reject the mechanical artifices

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

of civilisation a n d live their life i n

a n organic relationship

27

with other people a n d

nature. I n c o n t r a s t t o m o d e r n urban c u l t u r e , G o r d o n perceived n o hierarchy i n the

natural world. T o h i m , the

cyclical characteristics o f nature provideda

replicable

model for human society, a n d i t was largely through his influence that physical, agricultural labour a n d closeness t o nature came t o be seen by the settlers not

just

as a means for the satisfaction o f human needs, b u t as a n e n d i n its o w n right. I t has been suggested that

this so-called “religion o f labour” that Gordon preached for the kibbutz pioneers, akin t o Tolstoy's

acted as a “surrogate moral code”

secular religiosity, the n o t i o n o f “seeking the Kingdom o f G o d n o t without, b u t within ourselves.”

Gordon certainly saw himself as part o f the Zionist movement, b u t his Zionism was staunchly pacifistic a n d anti-militarist, a n d the idea o f creating

a Jewish state is never mentioned once i n his entire body o f work. While h e believed i n the Jews’ historical right t o live i n Palestine, Gordon viewed the Arabs as a n example o f a n organic nation living i n harmony the

Jews should

with the land, from which

take a n example. A t the same t i m e , h e was anything b u t naive

about Arab resistance t o Zionism, which h e viewed as a perfectly understandable reaction t o Jews westernised a n d rootless lifestyle. H e thus envisaged the future o f Jewish-Arab relations as one o f peaceful competition at best—at least until the Jews fully reconnected with the land and earned the respect a n d cooperation o f their neighbours.

While strongly opposed t o capitalist forms o f labour exploitation, Gordon also —by which he always meant Marxism—with its emphasis o n the class struggle for different economic relationships as the key t o overcoming

rejected “socialism”

capitalism and alienation. I n Marxism, Gordon saw a continuation o f the

reigning mechanistic conception o f the h u m a n being a n d society, a n expression o f alienated thought rather than a response t o i t . Since class was itself a n artificial o r g a n i s a t i o n o f h u m a n b e i n g s , the p r o l e t a r i a t c o u l d n o t b e expected t o serve as a n

agent o f human transformation. Instead, h e believed that the nation—an organic collection o f individuals based o n

the principles

o f kinship a n d shared cultural

values—was the o n l y agent capable o f heralding such change.

Furthermore, Gordon viewed the Marxist emphasis o n changes i n economic organisation as a privileging o f form over content. T h e understanding that society would n o t change unless the individual changed was as central for Gordon as i t was for Landauer and Tolstoy. I t was therefore through the self-improvement

o f each and every individual, within the context o f a revival of organic national life, by which mankind—and i n this setting Diaspora Jewry—would be able t o achieve national renewal.

I t is i n

this context that Gordon emphasises the spiritual value of labour. Since

human beings were deteriorating i n proportion t o the degree that they became alienated from the natural world, a n d since the Jewish people i n the Diaspora h a d been affected more than any other i n this respect

(doubly detached from what

28

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Gordon saw as

the cosmic flow of creativity, by being both away from their land

and occupied primarily i n trade and liberal professions, rather than i n agriculture), G o r d o n viewed a return t o nature and a life o f physical, a n d especially agricultural, work as essential.

This reconnection between m a n a n d l a n d through agricultural

labour was, for h i m , the sine qua n o n o f the spiritual a n d political reawakening

of humanity.” Due i n part

to

his refusal t o discuss his own philosophy i n

terms

of labels

like socialism o r anarchism (“or any other isms”),”” Gordon has been the subject of varying and often radically conflicting interpretations. O n the one hand, he has come t o occupy a central place i n modern leftist historians’ explanation o f w h y Z i o n i s m , irrespective o f its secular claims, is indeed religious, a n d even a

classically nationalist concept. According t o British academic

Jacqueline Rose,

i t was para-religious spiritual socialisms like Gordon's that laid the ideological groundwork for the reconciliation o f

Judaism and

Z i o n i s m , and ultimately for

the contemporary right-wing national-religious ideology espoused

by

Israel’s

settlement movement. Israeli political scientist Ze'ev Sternhell similarly argues that naturalism o f the kind Gordon espoused, European romanticism a n d hostility towards modern

industrial capitalism, converge i n

a Zionist context t o become compatible with

a classical nationalist outlook. Attempting t o d e b u n k the idea that a synthesis o f

socialism and nationalism was ever even o n the agenda for the kibbutz pioneers, Sternhell suggests that the ideologues o f Labour Zionism realised early o n that

the t w o

The pursuit o f egalitarianism, he argues, alibi that sometimes permitted with the c o n t r a d i c t i o n between socialism

objectives were incompatible.

was o n l y ever a “mobilising myth...a convenient t h e m o v e m e n t t o avoid g r a p p l i n g

a n d n a t i o n a l i s m . ” I n Gordon, Sternhell sees the archetypal embodiment o f

this c o n t r a d i c t i o n , a n d he draws

on

the particular

form

of nationalism

Gordon

preached t o portray h i m as a n almost fascistic figure: “ I n his rejection o f the

materialism o f socialism,” Sternhell writes, “[Gordon] employed the classic terminology

of romantic,

volkisch nationalism.””*

F o r Sternhell, as for Rose,

the

religious component t o Gordon's organic,

cultural conception of n a t i o n h o o d i s indicative of the w a y that Z i o n i s m expressed

its religious character, undermining its portrayal o f itself as a secular endeavour

opposed t o the “slave morality” o f Diaspora Judaism. Gordon's positive attitude

towards “the traditional requirements of religion: its beliefs, its rituals [and] its commandments,” speaks t o Sternhell o f the consonance between his worldview a n d European integral nationalism,

which also

regarded religion, tradition a n d

ritual as essential components o f national identity. Gordon’s “religiosity without

belief i n

God”

is thus deemed confirmation

nationalisms “affirmation

of

of his of

r e l i g i o n as a source

connection with metaphysics.”””

with integral [which] had n o

consistency

identity

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

29

There is little doubt that Gordons nationalism, with its volkisch and cosmic, materialist, Marxist socialism. Less well examined i n mainstream historiography, however, is spiritual c o m p l e x i o n , flew i n the face o f the fundamental values o f

its clear congruity with certain forms o f anarchism prevalent w i t h i n the libertarian romantic-revolutionary circles o f fin de si¢cle

Central- a n d Eastern Europe. An

alternative interpretation o f G o r d o n t o that proffered by his latter-day detractors

that i t is, i n fact, the left-wing, democratic and humanitarian school o f kind o f nationalist outlooks endorsed by figures like Rudolf Rocker, Mikhail Bakunin a n d Gustav

holds

volkisch romanticism—the same school that informed the

Landauer—to which Gordon actually belongs.” The imbrication o f romanticism,

volkisch nationalism, anti-capitalism, secular spiritualism a n d mystical emphasis o n land as the source o f creativity embodied i n Gordon's thought was central t o Landauer’s anarchism i n particular, a n overlap that was acknowledged by G o r d o n

himself. I n 1920, h e returned t o Palestine from a conference i n Prague excitedly

his ideas” i n Landauer’s w r i t i n g s . ” Gordon's pacifism, communitarianism and silence o n the question o f a Jewish

claiming t o have “found

state have led those contemporary Israeli radicals familiar w i t h h i s w o r k t o view

h i m as o n e of the first and most influential anarchists i n

the early kibbutzim. The

anti-authoritarian, anti-Marxist critique o f bourgeois capitalist modernity G o r d o n introduced t o the founding generation o f communards has often singled h i m o u t as a n early ideological forerunner o f contemporary eco-anarchism i n particular. N o t o n l y did h e promote m a n y o f the key themes that are today encompassed w i t h i n

the eco-anarchist school (primitivism, bioregional democracy, pacifism, secession, intentional community and so o n ) , G o r d o n was a m o n g the m o s t p r o m i n e n t a n d prolific ideologues o f a project that, for a time, actually translated these values into a working social model. For

this reason, some see h i m

as a n especially important

figure w i t h i n the ideological heritage o f eco-anarchism: “Gordons kibbutz,”

writes Hune Margulies o f The Martin Buber Institute for Dialogical Ecology, was “founded o n strong anarcho-socialist a n d ecological principles... H e was close t o Buber i n

his espousal of anarcho-socialist communitarianism,

a n d he was close t o

Spinoza i n his secular spirituality. Current ecological thought will be best served

by re-examining G o r d o n . ” ® Gordon a n d the Kibbutz I n 1905, along with Yosef Ahronowitz a n d Yosef Sprinzakand, Gordon founded Hapoel Hatzair

group dedicated t o

(The Young Worker), a pacifistic, anti-militarist Zionist

the idea

o f communal

land settlement.

H i s writings were

published regularly i n Hapoel Hatzair’s magazine, alongside articles by a n d about other well-known anarchists o f the time, including Kropotkin, Proudhon a n d Hapoel Hatzair theoretician C h a i m Arlosoroff. A m o n g the

Jewish pioneers at kind o f

that t i m e there was abroad agreement that attempting t o create a n e w

polity m e a n t the creation o f a new kind o f person, and it is n o t hard t o see why

30

A LIVING REVOLUTION

the young idealists o f the Second Aliya had little difhculty i n identifying with the Nietzschean/Tolstoyan ideas o f spiritual renaissance Gordon preached. B u t as well as laying the philosophical groundwork for the movement, even a t this early stage, G o r d o n and his followers evidently had very clear ideas about the

practical dimensions of the kibbutz and its role i n the regeneration of the Jewish people. According t o Gordon, the basic idea o f the kvutza is t o arrange its communal life through

the strength

of the communal idea, through aspiration and the spiritual life, and through

will be interdependent and will influence other along their positive qualities... T h e kvutza...can and m u s t work o n

communal work so that the members each

t w o fronts. O n o n e side—that o f work a n d nature, the person must be free a n d must

reform him or herself through work and through n a t u r e . The individual

must associate w i t h the very work and the very nature wherein h e o r she labours

and lives. O n the other front, there is the life of the family i n the kvutza. The kvutza must serve as a family i n the finest m e a n i n g o f the term. I t m u s t develop its members through the strength o f t h e i r mutual, positive influence...

as

[individuals] draw

together a n d begin t o associate

with

As soon

o n e another, they

become a family as though they had already passed through the sacred rites o f marriage.

This passage contains two important ideas: First, the emphasis o n the individual having a direct relationship with the work s/he undertakes reiterates that the kvutzot, from

the outset, explicitly sought t o avoid the alienation inherent

i n the capitalistic production process. Second, and perhaps more significant at

this stage,

i s Gordon's a l l u s i o n t o t h e i d e a o f family, r e m i n i s c e n t o f Tolstoy’s

belief i n the importance o f universal brotherhood, the hope that familial bonds could b e extended i n t o the wider fraternity o f mankind as a

whole, which is also

found i n Landauer’s anarchism. Gordon is essentially introducing the anarchist argument that humanity’s natural bonds

of empathy a n d fraternity, corrupted by

the influence of the capitalist s t a t e and the trappings of modernity, need t o be restored i n order t o create a new kind of society. Gordon's is a philosophy that would continue t o underpin the ideas a n d actions o f certain sections o f t h e m o v e m e n t for m a n y years t o come. Hapoel

Hatzair continued t o l o o k t o h i m as their spiritual leader, a n d the early groupings o f Hashomer Hatzair that arrived i n the country from 1919 (and subsequently evolved i n t o the Kibbutz Artzi federation) initially expressed a great affinity t o his

1923-24, the year after Gordon's death, Hapoel Hatzair supporters i n Galicia, led by Pinhas Lubianker, s e t up the Gordonia youth m o v e m e n t , which

ideas. I n

adopted Gordon's existential

philosophy and acted as a counterbalance t o the by then, beginning t o appear i n the politics o f

Marxist influences that were,

other pioneering groups. However, i n the decades following his death, Gordon’s

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

31

subversive ideas would b e muddled and eventually forgotten i n the process o f Z i o n i s t mythmaking, retaining only h i s personal example o f dedication t o

agricultural labour and Jewish renewal for the Israeli historical narrative.

Franz Oppenheimer While Degania a n d

its immediate successors originated spontaneously and

organically as anarchical settlements, they were certainly n o t without

their

principles. Moreover, some o f those early immigrants also actually came t o Palestine armed with “clearly defined practical plans.” There, i n fact, existed i n the Diaspora a variety o f

highly

detailed, codified blueprints for cooperative

settlement pre-dating the establishment o f Degania by many years, some o f which drew

directly o n

Kropotkin’s ideas. Ironically, some o f the earliest evidence o f

the Russian anarchists influence o n such plans is found i n the work o f Franz

Oppenheimer, w h o collaborated with Theodor Herzl i n the economic planning

of the World Zionist movement a n d was the principal architect o f the cooperative a t Merhavia i n the Jezreel Valley (prototype of the moshav model). Despite h o w well known:they were, Oppenheimer’s plans for the settlement o f Palestine still often tend to b e overlooked by the p o p u l a r tendency t o ascribe the emergence o f the early communal settlements merely t o prevalent c o n d i t i o n s a n d hardships. Although i t represents the beginning o f a form o f social organisation distinct

from

the kibbutz,

the

Merhavia cooperative’s background can b e

identified as among the first signs o f Kropotkinite ideology amongst Palestine’s Jewish settlers. The theoretical foundations o f the model O p p e n h e i m e r proposed were published i n

his 1896 book, The Cooperative

Settlement: A Positive Attempt to

Overcome Communism by Solving the Social a n d Agrarian Problems, i n which he drew heavily o n the ideas o f Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and also o f Kropotkin

(with w h o m h e m e t and corresponded). Oppenheimer’s social theory centred o n principles of mutual aid, the abolition of private land ownership and the peaceful subversion of capitalism as part of a n attempt t o “change the very economic basis o f society and its ‘government.””® The future h e envisaged for the Jewish nation was o n e “free o f oppression and private ownership,”® a n d it is broadly i n such terms

that he describes the foundation on which the Jewish homeland was t o be

based: “Self reliance a n d mutual aid as perceived by socialist cooperative thought.

Agriculture (because a nation that is n o t rooted i n its land c a n n o t exist). Land as common property (to foster cooperative settlements that provide all needs honourably a n d In

his

justly).”®

subsequent work,

characterised

the

7he State,

published i n

1907, O p p e n h e i m e r

of

o n e class domination

capitalist state as “an organisation

over the other classes. Such class organisation can come about i n one way only,” he wrote, “namely through conquest and subjugation of ethnic groups by the dominating group.”® H e was, according t o one writer, firmly committed t o

32

A LIVING REVOLUTION

voluntarism, individualism and mutualism, and “projected a systematic program o f anti-statism, peaceful land appropriation and ‘reassignment,’ abolition o f

ground rents... [and] cooperative colonisation and settlement.” Oppenheimer’s proposals were peppered with Tolstoyan and Gordonite

themes, and, like Gordon, he would later profess a deep athnity with the ideas

o f Gustav Landauer.” While obvious anarchistic traits permeated his thinking, however, Oppenheimer’s ultimate goal was “a mixed community composed o f

of persons of independent means—indistinguishable from any other community, except that the land doesnt belong t o individuals, but is possessed by the community.” His blueprint also involved differential payment according t o work performed, a n d administrative management, albeit farmers, artisans—even

as a “transitional stage.”®

|

Oppenheimer’s plans were treated positively by Zionist leaders a n d actualised

they m e t with from the Jewish workers’ movement i n the kvutzot, and

t o a certain degree i n the short-lived Merhavia cooperative. Yet

wholehearted opposition

i n the context o f this discussion i t is important to note w h y this was so. O n November 11, 1911, Degania made plain its reasons:

[at Degania] perceive u t t e r freedom of work and initiative as a n imperative t o their existence as a group and reject any form of coercion from above. They also reject t w o of Oppenheimer’ principles: different p a y levels,

The workers

and the appointment o f a n administrator t o supervise a group o f experienced workers.”

Degania’s Joseph Bussel wrote at the time:

Only free a n d collective work will revive the workers

as

well as the country... that children are

W e reject a n y form o f government... O n c e w e begin t o believe

private property, that gardens are private property, that talent is private property, what will follow?... The idea o f a kvutza is a new one; our way o f life presents a

big r e v o l u t i o n . . . W e have set

o u t t o establish a n e w collective w a y

of life for

everyone.”’!

A council o f agricultural workers from Hapoel Hatzair, which convened a t Kinneret Bussel i n 1919, furthered opposition t o Oppenheimer’s moshav concept

i n much the same terms: We have seen how the moshavot [sic] exist by exploiting others. We are determined t o create a w a y

of life

that forces us t o perform o u r o w n work

w i t h o u t any external administration. W e m u s t conquer work and d o i t w i t h o u t

supervisors. T h e kvutza should provide modern forms o f work. W e m u s t create economic equality, a life o f social equality between men a n d w o m e n . ”

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

While

Oppenheimers plans clearly bear

influence, o f m o r e interest within the context o f

they were opposed here by the

33

the hallmarks o f Kropotkin’s this study are the terms i n which

workers at Degania. From these early exchanges,

w e can see that a virulent anti-authoritarian ideology

did play a

central role i n

the Jewish workers’ movement i n Palestine, even among Degania’s founders. I f we can identify proto-anarchistic elements i n Oppenheimer’ thinking, they were evidently n o t radical enough for Degania’s members.

The terms i n which Degania highlight just h o w

and Hapoel Hatzair opposed Oppenheimer’s ideas further close the ideology that motivated the rank and

file workers i n

the kvutzot was t o

anarchism. As early as 1911, the Degania pioneers were already consciously seeing

their settlement as a revolutionary one, and o n e that they “set out” for a future collective society.

t o establish as

a blueprint

Josef Trumpeldor Franz Oppenheimer was by no means the only one t o draw up plans for the settlement o f the country. His ideas, o f course, ultimately had nothing directly t o

d o with the foundation o f the kvutzot themselves, but codified programs for the establishment o f anarchistic communes i n Palestine, programs that consciously pointed t o Kropotkin’s influence, played a part even i n the establishment o f

the

earliest Second Aliya kvutza communes.

O f particular interest is the figure o f the Russian war hero Josef Trumpeldor. Remembered today as a hero

of the Israeli

right i n connection t o

Revisionist

Z i o n i s m , Trumpeldor is a complex figure, and some would say paragon o f a

uniquely Zionist paradox: a n anarchist-influenced right-winger involved i n the creation o f a n anarchist-socialist project. Having achieved recognition for

his

military service after being drafted into the Russian army i n 1902, Trumpeldor was decorated by the Tsar for bravery i n the Russo-Japanese war. H e was friends

with Revisionist Zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and, together, the two founded the first

Jewish military organisation, the Jewish Legion (also known as the Zionist Mule Corps), which fought with British forces i n World W a r I . Unfortunately, history

has seen Trumpeldor’s having become synonymous

with

fascist elements i n the

Zionist project; following his death i n an armed skirmish a t Tel Hai i n 1920, his name was taken

by Jabotinsky for

the Revisionist youth movement Beitar—an

acronym for “The Josef Trumpeldor Alliance.”

However, during the early part o f his life, Trumpeldor was n o t o n l y voraciously anti-capitalist, but very close i n his ideas t o anarcho-syndicalism. H e was educated i n Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism while a student at the University o f

Petersburg, and was heavily influenced

by the Tolstoyan

practised by settlers near his hometown of Piatigorsk i n

St.

communal anarchism

the Northern Caucasus of

Russia. During the early 1900s, h e began t o connect the activities o f the Tolstoyan

settlements with his own ambitions of moving

to

Palestine, and this synthesis

34

A LIVING REVOLUTION

would later

find expression i n

his declaring himself “an anarcho-communist a n d

a Zionist.”

By 1908, Trumpeldor

had drawn u p a detailed program for

the settlement

o f communal groups i n Palestine. Predating the establishment o f the Degania

by at least half a decade, Trumpeldor’s programme is o u t l i n e d i n a series the first written t o h i s parents while h e was being held as a prisoner o f war d u r i n g the 1904 Russo-Japanese war, a n d following h i s repatriation i n 1906, t o his friends i n Russia and t o those w h o had already moved t o Palestine. M a n y farm

o f letters,

o f the recipients o f his letters, including figures like Zvi Schatz, would become major players i n the early kibbutz movement. Trumpeldor’s letters outline

his

idea o f establishing a n anarchistic commune, first i n Russia, and then Palestine,

a n d lay o u t

the beginnings of a highly detailed theoretical programmatic plan for

settlement. I n developing this social program, Trumpeldor attempted t o c o m b i n e a strategy for

the development

o f these communes

with a n

ideology designed t o

overcome the inherent weaknesses o f Zionism, Jewish youth and socialism, and i n d o i n g so, h e refers repeatedly Kropotkin a n d Tolstoy's ideas, and encourages his friends t o draw

their i n s p i r a t i o n from such thinkers.”

As well as his direct experience of the Tolstoyan communes i n Russia, Trumpeldor h a d thoroughly studied the theoretical basis o f socialism a n d anarchism a n d the practical communal experiments launched each. The reading lists h e drew u p

for his friends

by proponents

of

span virtually every form o f

socialism through p o p u l i s m and anarchism, i n c l u d i n g works

like

Kropotkin’s

Conquest o fBread (“written i n very easy language,” Trumpeldor observes, “suitable for everyone”).” The

kind

o f communist community Trumpeldor described was essentially

“Life i n the settlement is will b e impossible w i t h o u t industry since otherwise i t will b e badly exploited by the capitalist world.”*® Built around a participatory e c o n o m i c system, the commune w o u l d be capable of providing a collectively-organised agro-industrial commune. founded o n agriculture,” h e wrote, “ b u t

“everything necessary for a comfortable life”;”” all property would be owned communally a n d profits distributed “according t o the needs o f the m e m b e r s . ” *

Job rotation and combined, integrated labour would allow for a full and

the problems encountered by previous “The earlier s e t t l e m e n t s , ” Trumpeldor wrote i n 1908, “could n o t have

balanced existence, circumventing experiments.

succeeded because o f 1) lack of substantial material base, 2) t o o much physical work, 3) the absence of adequate intellectual satisfaction, 4) a lack of conditions for cultural progress, 5) a lack of practical skills, 6) the fact that members w o u l d have found n o satisfaction i n t h e i r work.”

Trumpeldor would become one o f the m o s t p r o m i n e n t figures i n the early

Jewish workers’ movement i n Palestine. I n 1913, h e brought a group of Russian Jews t o Palestine a n d worked i n various l o c a t i o n s throughout the country,

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

35

including the Degania settlement. “ H e himself never really stayed i n one place long enough t o live the collective life,” writes Avraham Yassour, whose translations

o f Trumpeldor’s letters were published i n 1995, “[but his] writings identified m a n y issues

which were later

t o confront

the kibbutz movements, such as urban blue collar, progress

versus rural, industry versus agriculture, white collar versus

versus simplicity, a n ideological motivation centred o n individual self-realisation versus sacrifice for

the n a t i o n . ” ! ®

Trumpeldor’s thinking would be influential i n the establishment o f the Gedud

HaAvoda (Labour Brigade), the organisation t h a t would evolve into the Kibbutz Hameuhad stream o f the movement.

“Like Kropotkin,”

h e wrote i n 1908,

“I

believe that only a very large, territorially extensive commune leads t o anarchy.”!!

As will be shown i n Chapter 3, i t was o n this basis that Hameuhad would later evolve. Moreover, the path Trumpeldor was p l o t t i n g was n o t just for a handful o f idealists, b u t w a s t o b e a p e r m a n e n t a n d a l l - e m b r a c i n g social system—“We w a n t to

find a s o l u t i o n

t o the p r o b l e m

that faces a l l Jews,” h e w r o t e , “and also—at least

t o s o m e extent—all h u m a n k i n d . ” ' * > W h e n Trumpeldor

returned t o Petrograd,

Russia i n 1918, h e established the HeHalutz, a n organisation designed t o prepare

Jewish immigrants for emigration

Palestine. He later returned

to

to

Palestine

himself. Community-building i n the SecondAliya

While Trumpeldor’s ideas

the t h i n k i n g o f that the plans drawn relevance i n the early years.

would have a lasting influence o n

the Jewish labour movement i n Palestine, i t has been argued up

by individuals like him Near suggests that i t

Henry

were

of little

practical

was the groups that arrived i n the country with /Jess

clearly defined plans w h o were more readily able t o reconcile their practical actions

with

their principles.

Near “Within this

What the founders o f the successful kvutzot shared,

believes, was simply a positive attitude t o the idea o f community.

framework o f basic values,” h e suggests, “they could approach the actual details o f

community building with a high degree of flexibility.”'® W e k n o w that m a n y o f the Second

Aliya o l i m

arrived i n Palestine with clear

their lives. Near is right i n saying t h a t the range o f ideologies t h a t abounded during the early years ideas concerning socialist Z i o n i s m and the reconstruction o f

typically centred

o n a positive attitude t o communal living. However, integral

to their particular conception o f “community,” t o the “basic values” o f which

Near speaks, were an opposition t o centralised power structures, private property, the wage system, hierarchical managerial s t r u c t u r e s and state authority. While

the

ideas

of

anarchist theoreticians

like

Kropotkin

were b e i n g incorporated

i n t o the programmatic proposals for the settlement o f Palestine that were being drawn u p abroad, m a n y o f these same ideas were also already finding expression spontaneously i n the kvutzot.

36

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

The first kvutza communities arose organically as anarchical grassroots

organisations, the products o f “sociological and political imagination wielded through transformative actions,” rather than from a thought-out blueprint labelled “anarchism” (or “socialism,” o r anything else for that matter)

But

although their

by the founders.'®

communities would clearly n o t have come into b e i n g had it

n o t been for the peculiarities o f the situation, as w e have seen i n this chapter, Palestinian

Jews already had a

clearly defined

philosophy that

went far beyond

dealing with the practical problems o f land settlement. Sure, n o t all the early supporters o f the kvutza idea

had such far-reaching his followers, although the latter did constitute a sizable a n d important part of the movement and would set the tone for the subsequent development of the kibbutzim. F o r many i n the upper echelons of

ambitions as Gordon a n d

global Z i o n i s m , the pattern o f organisation employed i n the kvutza was simply expedient w a y of o r g a n i s i n g agricultural p r o d u c t i o n . B u t even a cursory the historical testimonies o f those responsible for establishing the earliest communities reveals the popular assumption that “no clear social program had

the m o s t

glance at

evolved, other than t o transplant life to another land” t o be highly questionable.'® N o one single social program h a d evolved, b u t the goal o f the kvutza pioneers was certainly not simply to transplant

life t o

another

land.

The kibbutz founders had clearly-defined ideological objectives, and the communities they established began, a n d survived, o n

the strength of their

ideological convictions.” Anarchism’ role i n shaping these convictions m a y have been more o f a “subideational” o r subconscious one, but that broad philosophical

had their youth, laid o u t the ethical foundations of the kibbutz. The

framework, woven from the values a n d theories that the communards absorbed during

early development o f the movement cannot realistically b e understood separately

from those values a n d theories. Examining the conversations that took place at Degania during those early years—its members’ opposition t o Oppenheimer’s proposals, for example—it becomes clear that the group’s ideological convictions had m u c h greater importance

the community's survival. this, showing that expediency, but often o n the basis

than is often assumed i n the key decisions that assured Minutes

from Degania’s

General Assembly meetings support

just o n

decisions were made n o t

the basis o f

o f what members thought they should be doing o n principle.'”” Often, i t seems, ideological factors exercised the d o m i n a n t influence. The debates a n d ideologies o u t l i n e d i n this chapter demonstrate

thar,

regardless o f whatever other ideas the upper echelons o f the Z i o n i s t Organisation o r the Western colonialist powers had i n m i n d , the workers o n the ground were deliberately viewing

their settlements

as cells o f a new, anarchistic society

b u i l t around a participatory economy, free administration.

While i t

from

government and external

has been suggested that anarchism was the “prevalent”

ideology during this early period, at this p o i n t these ambitions were finding

D I G G E R S A N D DREAMERS

37

expression i n practice more that i n the pioneers’ rhetoric.'”® The founders o f Degania and their contemporaries anarchists—they lived it.

did

n o t g o around proclaiming themselves

Chapter 3

Realising the Revolution The Pioneering Groups o f the

ThirdAliya

“ W e are a t present undergoing t w o great efforts a t h u m a n renaissance:

one i n Russia where they wish t o change human existence through the state, t h e machine, status, terror a n d organisation, a n d

the other, here, difhcult. I t

i n this country where the effort is qualitative, small, a n d is the path t o

the natural cooperation o f

small human units towards a

n e w community... There i n Russia, everything is determined through norms. Here w e are guided by real life a n d freedom. There a state, here a community.”

— Meir Yaari, 1920

The Polish-Soviet War and the Russian Civil War brought with them a fresh outbreak o f pogroms i n Russia between 1918 a n d 1920, far more devastating than those that preceded them i n the 1880s a n d early

1900s. This n e w

wave

o f ethnic cleansing left an estimated 70,000 t o 250,000 Jews dead, and more than half a million homeless.

This period o f upheaval, coupled with

the

Balfour

Declaration i n 1917, which promised the Jews their o w n homeland i n Palestine, resulted i n a dramatic increase i n immigration t o Palestine.

1919 and 1923, Third Aliya, the majority

Between the

about 35,000 n e w immigrants arrived as part o f o f them from Russia and Poland with a smaller

contingent from Lithuania, Romania and Germany. With

this influx o f settlers, the

development o f the kibbutz movement entered a new phase. During the 1920s, the kibbutzim underwent a process

of institutionalisation as n e w communities were

built, federations were formed, ideas, structures and practices began t o crystallise, and the settlements o f each group strengthened ties with their neighbours.

The pioneers at the forefront o f

this process arrived i n Palestine m u c h better

prepared than their SecondAliya predecessors. M a n y hadreceived some agricultural training prior t o

their arrival, they spoke better Hebrew and, generally, they came well as Hapoel Hatzair a n d

i n organised groups rather than as individuals. A s

the G e d n d HaAvoda, several European halutzo-Zionist youth movements would

contribute significantly t o the kibbutzim o f this period. From Poland, Hashomer Hatzair was o f particular importance, as were a number o f youth groups from

Germany—including Blau-Weif3, the Jung-Jiidischer Wanderbund (JJWB), the

40

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

Brith Olim, the Werkleute and later the Habonim.!®/'"® Members of these and

the progress o f the earliest what t h e i r forerunners had created. Throughout the 1920s a n d 1930s, they t o o k the kvutza concept, built o n i t and turned what had previously been a loose, experimental network of communal agricultural other organisations arrived i n Palestine familiar with

kvutzot and aimed t o further

settlements into larger, more permanent institutions

that

we now recognise as

kibbutzim.

Already having the example of the Second Aliya kvutzot t o draw upon, the kibbutz pioneers of the post-Great W a r p e r i o d were also significantly more radicalised than their Second Aliya predecessors. The years immediately following the First World War had seen a wave o f revolutionary activity across Europe with widespread social a n d political upheaval altering the complexion o f m u c h o f the c o n t i n e n t . D u r i n g this period, radical left-wing doctrines experienced a rapid upsurge i n popularity among a generation o f disenfranchised Jewish youth. M a n y o f those who headed for Palestine i n the wake of the First World War did so with the memory o f the various European revolutions fresh i n their m i n d s . Some had

been directly involved i n the various uprisings in Europe and m o s t brought with them

highly d e t a i l e d conceptions

o f the

kind o f

society they wanted t o create i n

their n e w homeland.

Among this n e w generation o f kibbutz pioneers there was a “great i n t e r e s t ” ! i n anarchism, a n d , according t o Avraham Yassour, many w h o arrived i n Palestine as part o f the Third Aliya did so with their o n e “major aspiration

[being] t o establish

a n anarchistic community.”'"? Kropotkin’s article, “Anarchist C o m m u n i s m , ”

was published i n the Hapoel Hartzair anthology Maabarot 3 i n 1920, alongside a n essay about h i m

by Hapoel

Hatzair’s leading intellectual, Chaim Arlosoroft.

I n 1923, Kropotkin’s Mutual A i d became one o f the first books translated into Hebrew and distributed among the immigrants i n Palestine, a n d

7he Great French

Revolution followed soon after.!!3 Gustav Landauer The m a n most responsible for introducing anarchist ideas into the kibbutz o f the 1920s and 1930s was Gustav Landauer, a figure today largely forgotten outside

the German- and Hebrew-speaking world, but whose “anarchist form of Jewish

Jewish groups involved i n the building o f kibbutzim d u r i n g this period."'* Landauer’s anarchism was brought t o Socialist Zionist circles b y Jewish scholar and theologian Martin Buber, with messianism” was central t o the thinking o f m a n y

w h o m h e h a d b e e n close friends s i n c e they m e t a t a n early gathering o f the Berlin-

1900. Although Buber’s v i s i o n of future society was more concerned with the state

based bohemian group N e u e Gemeinschaft ( N e w Community) i n

being reduced t o its “proper function” than its wholesale elimination, h e was nevertheless close i n his ideas t o Landauer, envisaging a n ideal society composed o f a decentralised pattern o f federally-connected associations, a “communitas

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

41

communitatum, the u n i o n o f communities i n t o community, w i t h i n which ‘the proper and autonomous common

life’

of

all

the members can unfold.”

The

chapters o n Landauer, Kropotkin and Proudhon i n Buber’s seminal work, Paths i n Utopia, illustrate the degree t o which h i s o w n u t o p i a n social theory was informed

by the ideas o f these figures. Landauer h i m s e l f had broken with the Jewish community at a young age and had little exposure t o Judaism during the early part of his life. His early works tend t o refer t o the Christian-mystical tradition, a n d very few references t o Judaism are found i n a n y of his writings o r letters p r i o r t o 1908. W h e n he met

Martin Buber, however, this changed. I n Buber’s work, particularly 7he

Legend o f the Baal-Schem (1908), Landauer discovered a conception of Jewish spirituality with which h e quickly expressed a clear affinity. The Hasidic legends

which Buber introduced him appeared t o fulfil Landauer’s messianic vision o f Volk signifying ‘living growth, the future within the present, the spirit within history, the whole to

a n egalitarian society, representing t o h i m “the collective work o f a

within the individual... The liberating and unifying G o d within imprisoned and lacerated m a n ;

the heavenly within

the earthly.””!'¢

I n a 1908 review o f TheLegend of theBaal-Schem, Landauer noted t h a t “Judaism is n o t an external accident, b u t a lasting internal quality, and identification with i t unites a number o f individuals w i t h i n a gemeinschaft. I n this way, a common ground is established between

the person

writing

this article

and

the author of

the book.” Landauer a n d Socialist Zionism

Although his friendship with Buber led t o his developing a close attachment Judaism, Landauer remained deeply suspicious o f political Z i o n i s m . While never explicitly “anti-Zionist,” he saw attempts at the territorial concentration of the Jewish nation i n Palestine as missing the true purpose o f Judaism. I n his essay, to

“Are These the Ideas o f a Heretic?,” which appeared i n a collection published by a Zionist student organisation i n Prague i n 1913, h e chastised the factions within Z i o n i s m that were m o r e concerned with creating a Jewish state than embracing what he felt t o be the t r u e c a l l i n g p r e s e n t e d t o t h e m by the u n i q u e circumstances of t h e i r Diaspora existence. While other nations are contained w i t h i n the stifling artificial restrictions of state boundaries, Landauer believed that the Jews’ dispersal across the world put

them i n a unique position inasmuch as they, as a nation, already transcend state Zionist group i n B e r l i n i n 1913, h e argued that,

divisions. I n a speech t o a socialist

being “less addicted to the cult o f the state” than other nations, the Jews’ historical calling—and particularly that

of Eastern European Jews, w h o

were generally less

assimilated than t h e i r Central- a n d Western European brethren—was t o construct s o c i a l i s t communities

separate f r o m

the state.''®

help

42

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

His views o n the Zionist project notwithstanding, Landauer, through Buber, became extremely interested i n the progress o f the earliest kvutzot i n Palestine.

Buber had been active i n European Zionist circles since 1898, and, during the first decade of the century, h e noted h o w m u c h o f the anarchist philosophy Landauer had t r i e d t o i n t r o d u c e t o the E u r o p e a n workers’ movement had b e e n actualised i n the early Jewish settlements. Recognising that the absence of permanent power structures i n Palestine a t that t i m e meant t h a t the kvutzot were of great importance i n building this n e w kind o f society, B u b e r came t o see these Jewish communities as potentially heralding a socio-political structure patterned along

the lines o f his friend’s anarchism.

Unlike Buber, Landauer’s o w n interest i n the movement was almost certainly

for its potential as a radical n e w form o f social organisation than for its Jewish character. Within the fertile ideological climate that contributed t o the kibbutz of the 1920s a n d 1930s, his anarchism carried considerable intellectual clout. By 1913, his influence was being strongly felt within Zionist

more

particularly

circles, and over the following years he delivered numerous lectures t o Europe’s

Jewish youth groups, many of whose members would immigrate t o Palestine as part of the Third Aliya. W e can tell something o f the importance a n d influence of Landauer’s ideas from a n exchange of letters—republished as a n appendix t o this book—that took place i n the spring o f 1919 between Landauer a n d Dr. Nachum Goldman. I n March that year, Germany's socialist Zionist organisations called a conference i n Munich t o “clarify their relation t o socialist settlement i n Palestine,1 9 40d G o l d m a n , w h o later rose t o prominence as president o f the World Zionist Organisation, invited Landauer t o present a paper o n several issues relating t o the

development One

of

of the kibbutz movement. Landauer’s

biographers,

correspondence as “an indication

Ruth

of the

Link-Salinger,

identifies

this

seriousness with which Landauer’s

by those i n Jewish build i n modern Palestine a

‘utopianism’ as a program a n d a blueprint was treated socialist circles o f the time, w h o were attempting t o

voluntaristic, mutualistic, ‘free’ society” [ m y italics].'?®

As Link-Salinger remarks,

When...one reads closely i n the letter—and between the lines o f the letter— inviting Landauer, o n e realises that the very “utopia” about which these intellectuals were d r e a m i n g

had a

close affinity t o

the social

constructs

with

which Landauer’s name had been associated b o t h i n Germany a n d abroad as a

result o f h i s writings and his political activities.'*!

A s significant as the fact that G o l d m a n sought h i s advice i n the first place

(Landauer’s o w n position o n Z i o n i s m might make h i m seem a n unusual choice for the conference), is the topic assigned t o Landauer for discussion. matter o f

his l e c t u r e w a s t o

The subject

i n c l u d e the p r o b l e m o f centralised a n d decentralised

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

43

society, the nationalisation o f land a n d natural resources, the nature o f industry

a n d the question o f international exchange i n the n e w society the Socialist

Zionist groups hoped t o create i n Palestine. A s Link-Salinger observes, the points

his letter provide a valuable insight into just h o w closely their the kibbutzim related t o Landauer’s future anarchist order. Those w h o

Goldman raises i n plans for

were drawing u p plans for the n e w society wanted i t to be based o n exactly the

kind o f “decentralised community system” that Landauer had been advocating, with the emphasis o n the community as a u n i t “ i n which the people have a direct relationship with one another.” Economic a n d political centralisation was t o be avoided a t all costs. Particularly interesting, considering the t i m i n g o f this exchange, is the insight Goldman's letter gives us into

the debates

regarding the industrialisation o f the

settlements that h a d evidently been taking place among the groups.

Until this

stage, the kvutzot had been farming communities, their primary aim being t o invert the

Jewish s o c i o - e c o n o m i c

by t u r n i n g t o talk of consolidating the

structure o f the Diaspora

agriculture. However, within Europe there was already

movement into a permanent agro-industrial social system. Reading between

the lines o f Goldman's letter, he was essentially asking Landauer h o w t o build a

functioning participatory

economy a n d a socio-economic model that would

subvert the emergence o f a “new, petit-bourgeois, capitalistic working class.”

“Only a

few amongst us are Marxists i n the sense that w e demand socialisation

o f the means o f production,” Goldman wrote. “Before o u r eyes is

factory organised o n the

basis o f association i n

the image o f a

which the workers participate as

owners a n d have equal rights concerning all problems o f distribution o f profits, administration, etc.”'%?

Landauer never made i t t o the meeting. A t the t i m e o f their letter exchange, he found himself at the epicentre o f the Bavarian Revolution. I n the final days o f

April 1919, the Bavarian Soviet was overthrown by counterrevolutionary troops

from the right-wing

Freikorps militia, a n d o n M a y 1, Landauer was arrested.

T h e following morning, as h e was being transferred t o Stadelheim Prison, h e was beaten a n d shot t o death by a m o b

of soldiers.

Landauer’s untimely demise would d o nothing to lessen the continued impact

o f his ideas, however. B y the end o f his life, according t o Link-Salinger, Landauer’s unique form o f anarchism had become “the most suggestive ‘blueprint’ for u t o p i a since Hertzka’s Freiland o f the nineteenth century.”'?® I n a speech t o a Hapoel

Hatzair conference i n Prague i n 1920, Buber referred t o h i m as “the secret spiritus rector” and “the designated leader of the n e w Judaism.” According t o Buber, Landauer’s idea was our idea. This is recognition o f the fact that the main t h i n g

life a n d this idea,

is n o t a change o f order a n d institutions, b u t a revolution i n Man’s the relations between M a n a n d

his f e l l o w . . . a n d

i n accordance w i t h

44

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Landauer was

to

have participated in the building of a new land and a

new

society as a guide a n d mentor.'*

Active i n Palestine and central Europe, and i n Berlin and Prague i n particular, Hapoel

Hatzair taught

a program o f

Jewish rejuvenation based o n

community,

self-labour, religiosity and spiritual nationalism, and its outlook contained m u c h o f the p o p u l i s m a n d anti-statism that was central t o Landauer’s anarchism. The

June 1920 edition of Die Arbeit, the organ of Hapoel Hatzair published i n Berlin, was entitled Gustav Landauer Gedenkheft, a n d carried republications o f some o f

Landauer’s essays concerning the Jewish experience and

the need for

communal

land settlements.

I n addition t o their impact o n organisations like Hapoel Hatzair, as part o f a counterculture that swept across the continent i n the years immediately following World

War I , Landauer’s

ideas exerted a near-programmatic influence o n m a n y

o f the youth groups that arose

The left

from the

ideological crises o f post-war Europe.

wing o f the Wandervogel, a neo-Romantic youth movement, at that

time contained important

identified

Jewish, Zionist

a n d socialist groups whose members

with Landauer’s neo-Romantic communitarian anarchism, a n d a

n u m b e r o f groups originating

from the Wandervogel

movement w o u l d b e i m p o r t a n t i n kibbutz-building

and the German youth

d u r i n g the inter-war years.

The early grouping ofBlau-Weif3, the JJWB, the Brith Olim, the Werkleute and

the Habonim would all contribute t o the kibbutz of the 1920s and 1930s. Poland was also significant i n that i t would produce the Gordonia youth movement, and

also, perhaps m o s t importantly o f all, Hashomer Hatzair.

Hashomer Hatzair

All of the groups mentioned here felt Landauer’s influence i n some w a y o r another, the ranks o f Hashomer Hatzair.'® Members of this group (shomrim, as they were known) would be a t the forefront b u t i t was felt particularly strongly w i t h i n

o f the process o f kibbutz-building during this period, and the federation they established, Kibbutz Artzi, would subsequently become the ideological backbone

of

the kibbutz

movement.

By

the e n d o f

the century,

Artzi would comprise

85 kibbutzim, numbering around 20,000 permanent members, with a total population o f approximately 35,000.

This equates

t o around

32 percent

o f the

entire contemporary kibbutz movement.

Hashomer Hatzair formed i n the Polish province o f Galicia i n

a merger of

two

1913 from

earlier groups—Hashomer (The Guard), a Zionist scouting

organisation, and a majority faction o f the ideological study circle Ze’irei Z i o n

(The Youth of Zion).'?® The group’s early inspirations came from the likes of Baden Powell, Gustav Wyneken a n d the philosophies

of Nietzsche, Buber, A.D. G o r d o n

and the Wandervogel. They also had close ties with the German youth movement.

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

45

From the earliest days o f its existence, the organisation expressed itself i n the same

kind o f quasi-religious, ethical-idealist language as Landauer, a n d would b e deeply influenced by his ideas when i t came t o the question o f kibbutz-building. I n a recent interview, kibbutz veteran and former Habonim member H a i m Seeligman commented that, o f all the groups arriving i n Palestine d u r i n g the Third

Aliya, i t

was Hashomer Hatzair w h o

did the most careful reading o f Landauer.’

I n his memoirs, From Berlin to Jerusalem, Gershom Scholem recounts how Gustav Landauer’s book, Aufruf zum Sozialismus (A Callf or Socialism), left a deep impression n o t o n l y o n me, b u t also o n n o small number o f young Zionists...

The social a n d moral perception o f anarchists like Tolstoy a n d Landauer was o f inestimable importance i n the building o f the n e w life i n Eretz Israel.'?®

As the first groups o f shomrim began to arrive i n Palestine i n 1919 i n the wake o f the Balfour Declaration,

they did so with highly developed conceptions

o f the direction that the country should take i n terms o f its social, economic

play i n this their revolutionary aspirations were given impetus by the

and political dimensions, and the role they wanted the kibbutz t o n e w society. Although

October Revolution i n 1917, and b y the creation o f the Soviet Union, i t would be some years before Marxism would become a serious influence o n the group.

the organisation’s existence, i t was the anarchisms the basis of its members’ social a n d political ambitions. Manes Sperber, w h o was a member of Hashomer Hatzair a t the time, recalls h o w the Russian Revolution “ n u r t u r e d o u r interest i n the Social Revolutionaries. . . a n d i n the anarcho-communist theory o f Kropotkin, the For the first decade o r so o f

of

Landauer and Kropotkin that formed

revolutionary prince, far more than i n Marxism.”'® Regardless o f what m a y have been discussed i n the upper echelons o f the Zionist Organisation at the t i m e , the early groupings o f Hashomer Hatzair certainly

did n o t

arrive i n Palestine t o lay the foundations for a state—Jewish,

socialist o r a n y o t h e r

kind. O n the contrary, they “dreamt

o f a state that w a s n o t

1940, o n e o f the of the organisation, Meir Yaari, p u t i t slightly more bluntly when he

a state, b u t rather a large confederation o f communes.”'* I n early leaders

affirmed that “the Hashomer Hatzair road t o the kibbutz was anarchistic.”!?' [In

the movement's early years] w e were what is known

as anarchists; w e believed

i n the establishment o f a n e w society i n Eretz Israel, w e lived i n a t i m e o f

big

hopes and dreams... W e believed i n a prototype o f future society i n which the individual’s life w o u l d be free o f coercion, while b e i n g autonomous.'*

Central t o

this prototype for the future society was the kibbutz. The shomrim

were openly hostile

to

the political parties already i n existence i n the Jewish

46

A LIVING REVOLUTION

settlement i n Palestine, a n d Sperber recounts h o w the group “ d i d n o t want t o exert

power within

the State, b u t rather t o make the State a n d power superfluous.”!?? “What stirred

The shomrim saw their o w n role as a n almost messianic one:

them was a deep sense o f historical mission,” writes Yassour, “of returning t o a homeland which waited t o

be replenished a n d

t o a culture which waited t o

be

revived. A t the same time, they envisioned their revitalised homeland as a society shaped i n the spirit o f [the] anarchist ideals then widespread i n Europe.”'**

Betanya For some, including Yaari, this road began a t Betanya I l l i t , one o f several small, tented encampments i n the hills above Lake Galilee where the n e w immigrants

1919. The Betanya members saw the country t o lay the groundwork

began t o settle when they arrived i n Palestine i n themselves as a “prophetic e l i t e , ” ' * arriving i n

for the revival o f the Jewish people. I n a letter to his comrades i n 1920, Yaari wrote that the shomrim’s main ambition at that time was t o establish “an anarchic community” i n the country. “ O u r communities,” Yaari argued i n a n article published i n the Hapoel Hartzair newspaper i n

January 1921, “do not tolerate government; they are forming joining together.”'*® According t o one historian,

an

anarchic tissue by their free

The kibbutz was t o be a n integral unit i n which the link between the individual and the group would n o t o n l y

be economic.

The m a i n objective...was the

establishment of a network of autonomous groups b o u n d together by economic, educational a n d social ties.

The focus of this concept was t o be the human and

his o r her intrinsic value.'?’

The shomrim’s camp at Betanya would become legendary n o t

just within

the Hashomer Hatzair kibbutzim, b u t throughout the entire movement, for the

collection of its members’ diaries, Kebhillatenu (Our Community), which was published a n d distributed i n Palestine during have a great impact o n

the subsequent

the Third Aliya. Kebillatenu would of the kibbutz movement,

development

a n d the sentiments recorded within its pages show that Landauer’s advocacy o f

“not state, but society, i . e . a u n i o n which i s n o t the result o f coercion but emerges from the spirit o f free, self-determined individuals” was fresh i n the minds of Betanya’s members.'* Having seen the various revolutions i n Europe fall short o f success, a n d having watched

group

at

with interest

the progress o f the Second Aliya kvutzot from abroad, the

Betanya evidently shared Landauer and Buber’s optimism about the

this communal, post-capitalist order.'*® I t was i n Palestine the young idealists a t Betanya believed the revolution would come about.

kvutza as a prototype for that

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

47

Are n o t the kvutzot...[the] very frames in which the revolution will realise itself? The kvutza is like the shallow pit dug around the gathered during

the storm;

tree

a n d there, discreetly, drop

i n which rainwater is

by drop, the process

of

renewal comes about... The thousands of individuals who will come down like plentiful rain from the clouds o f the world-storm will realise revolution i n

life.

The ancient ways o f life shall be forged white-hot, and o u t o f the fire shall come a n e w formation.!4°

For the Betanya members, as for Landauer, the foundations o f this “new formation” lay i n

the spiritual dimensions of community. Landauer held that “the

main thing is n o t a change o f order and institutions, b u t a revolution i n Man’s life a n d the relations between M a n a n d his fellow,” as Buber p u t i t , and this belief was

the central pillar o f Betanya. I n m a n y respects, this was at the heart o f Landauer’s this generation of pioneers. F o r them, as for Landauer, the creation of a the creation o f a n e w human being. The conversations that took place at the camp were meandering philosophical discussions of the cosmos a n d metaphysics. Instead of having a formal meeting appeal t o

n e w society must be rooted i n

i n a dining room, confined i n c o n t e n t strictly t o practical matters, Betanya’s

the form of animated discussions around campfires, and i n them break d o w n what they felt t o b e the false values them b y their upbringing i n bourgeois capitalist society. As one

meetings took

the members imbued i n

w o u l d attempt t o

member wrote,

Each individual within o u r circle who had filled his o r her mind with all sorts of spiritual values arose a n d denounced these values. ..as illusions having n o basis i n the soul o f the essential person. There was o n l y o n e real value which gave weight and real content t o the individual and the cosmos and i n society. Love could shake the spirit u n t o its foundations. W e knew then that n o idea could b e realised before that positive m o m e n t when the past is negated and the whole

person, n o t

just a part, is rebuilt."

According t o o n e member o f the settlement, “the idea o f renewal was crystallised within us o n the very first day o f o u r arrival”;'*? the diary entries intimate that the Betanya members viewed a “direct relationship between people +

[as] the first condition i n forming a community”: I n order that o n e understand

his o r her fellows,

and forgive, o n e must k n o w

them. This is a psychological rule that cannot be erased from the human soul.

I f the social life

is t o be beautiful, profound a n d pure, i n order that a n e w

society can b e created, then i t is necessary that people understand

their daily

lives, their petty deeds, and their o w n primitive nature. The society which lives a complete, full life cannot ignore this dailyy existence. ..even i f i t should so desire. p g

48

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

You must first understand, for o n l y then can y o u believe, forgive, and love your

brothers a n d sisters. I t was here that w e found o u r n e w way! W e drew i t u p

from

the depths o f our souls. Each o f us revealed his o r her t r u e self t o the others, including that w h i c h was ugly, o r venomous. I n this way, w e w o n the hearts and understanding o f o u r fellow members.!4

I t is perhaps only when seen through the prism o f Landauer’s anarchism that o n e realises h o w crucial this p e r i o d of “spiritual” regeneration was i n the anarchistic vision of the early s h o m r i m . I t was this breaking d o w n of interpersonal barriers and

of a spiritual connection between individuals that provided the bedrock which the kibbutzim would be built. Yaari would later describe the camp at Betanya as “the well-spring o f collective life i n o u r movement,”'** emphasising h o w “Betanya emanated the spiritual content that shaped the kibbutzim.”'*> O u t nurturing on

o f the small nucleus o f anarchists at Betanya w h o arrived i n Palestine with dreams

of self-realisation a n d spiritual revolution, there w o u l d develop, within the next half century, a network o f more than eighty kibbutzim. The first Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz from the Kehillatenu group was set u p at Beit Alpha i n 1922, and, over the course o f the decade, the organisation would establish four more settlements—Mishmar Ha’Emeq, Merhavia, G a n Shmuel and Ein Shemer. I n

April 1927, the Council o f Hashomer Hatzair collectives unified

the settlements established by the group i n t o a nationwide federative structure, the

Kibbutz Artzi Hashomer Hatzair Federation (National Kibbutz Movement o f the Young Guard), and laid down a number of principles by which they envisaged the kibbutzim o f

their federation functioning. The kind o f community

described at

the 1927 meeting, codified i n the “Program o f the National Kibbutz Movement,” was a n integral community embracing

the economic, social a n d cultural spheres

of life, a community they saw as “pioneer nuclei o f the new society”: Each kibbutz within the Kibbutz Artzi is an organic unit... I t is a n autonomous way

of life, serving b o t h as a prototype for the...society o f the future and as political a n d ideological collective. The nature o f the kibbutz

a n independent

stems from its very social life, which aims at integrating the individual w i t h the community for vital communal tasks. I t creates the conditions for a free unfolding a n d development o f the personality. I t establishes a n e w social morality, a n d tries t o

find liberating solutions

t o the problems o f the family,

women a n d childrearing.'*

Within each Artzi

kibbutz, great emphasis was placed o n tight

social cohesion

a n d “ideological collectivism.” A s Near explains, this ideological collectivism was seen as ‘ a framework for continuous ideological action and discussion: a constant search for consensus, a reluctance t o reach decisions opposed

by

a

substantial minority, a n d a readiness t o defer the resolution o f conflicts o r t o reach

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

compromises for the sake o f movement unity—all this backed

49

by unanimous

support for the general movement l i n e once a decision had been m a d e . ” ' * ’

According to one insider, “since o u r lives were collective i n every way, i t seemed quite natural t o hold c o m m o n ideological beliefs which strengthened o u r

social, economic and cultural cohesion.”'*® Throughout the 1920s, this emphasis o n a tight cohesion i n all areas o f kibbutz life can b e seen t o permeate Hashomer Hatzair’s activities; direct individual involvement in the social, economic, cultural,

and political arenas, the strengthening of inter-kibbutz activities, mutual aid and

the development of joint

enterprises were

all

seen as basic imperatives

of the

Hashomer Hatzair communities. Emphasis was placed o n egalitarianism and the belief i n the organisation as a revolutionary body, o n the importance o f the active participation o f kibbutz members i n matters affecting internal social problems a n d the overall social,

economic and political direction o f the kibbutz, and o n the exercise o f direct democracy.

The anarchist

idea o f a neighbourhood community—a group

of

neighbouring settlements practising mutual aid with each other, i n order t o ensure equality a n d cooperation—would continue t o b e a pervasive motif o f the

Hashomer Hatzair settlements’ way o f life, as well as o f the kibbutz movement i n general. A s a youth movement, the organisation remained active i n the Diaspora as well, and, by the late 1920s, had, i n addition t o its four kibbutzim, around 38,000 members i n Eastern Europe. The foundation o f Kibbutz Artzi i n 1927 led t o

expansion into new territories, including Hungary, France and the United States, a n d by 1939 the movement numbered 70,000 members worldwide. The Diaspora youth movement continued t o serve as a reservoir from which the kibbutzim of

Kibbutz Artzi gained a fresh

influx o f immigrants

every year. Educational ideas

continued t o play a key role i n the Hashomer Hatzair and Kibbutz Artzi groups’ activities, and i t is important t o note that Landauer and Kropotkin remained o n

the syllabus. As for the groups national intentions, Artzi saw the kibbutz achieving

the “historical

a n d constructive aims

of the Jewish working

class

by founding

economic enterprises i n the country and i n town, extending its activities as much as possible i n t o all branches o f production, a n d preparing the working class for economic self-management”: Constructive activities o f the working class should n o t b e regarded as the main avenue for resolving class antagonism. the economy as a

justice a n d

whole by the

The organisation

o f production and o f

working people based u p o n the principles o f

equality, can o n l y b e achieved with the extinction o f the present

regime through social r e v o l u t i o n . ' ®

50

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Changing Direction

At the Hashomer Hatzair conference held a t Kibbutz Beit Alpha i n 1924— three years before the establishment o f Artzi—VYaari argued that Landauer and

Kropotkin’s ideas

were “no longer suitable” for the developing kibbutz

m o v e m e n t . H e argued against the proposal t o call the federation o f Hashomer

Hatzair settlements Marxist ideas."°

“communal anarchism,” a n d instead spoke positively about

The fact that this proposal was made at all is obviously significant i n itself, but this conference has been identified as the turning point a t which a “shift from the s p i r i t o f anarchism t o movement institutionalisation” o c c u r r e d . ” ' Certainly Hashomer

Hatzair’s rhetoric began to take o n a Marxist complexion around that 1927 meeting, h i n t at a n incipient

time—the passages quoted above, from the

n o t i o n o f “class antagonism” that Landauer, for one, would doubtless have been uncomfortable w i t h . Even after Hashomer Hatzair adopted its supposedly “Marxist” stance, however, members o f the organisation

still studied the works o f Landauer and by Landauer’s friend a n d

Kropotkin closely, and would regularly attend lectures

executor, Martin B u b e r . Conversations with former H a s h o m e r Hatzair members

a n d their contemporaries i n other youth movements active i n

the kibbutzim

suggest that, while the rhetoric became Marxist, i t was the anarchistic ideas o f Landauer a n d

Kropotkin that

formed the bedrock o f their thinking for some

years t o come. >? Hashomer Hatzair remained politically unafhliated t o any o f the existing socialist-Zionist parties i n Palestine until the mid-1930s, when i t officially aligned itself with the left-wing socialist international, the International Revolutionary

(as opposed t o the more mainstream Labour and Socialist 19306, i t found a n urban political ally i n the Socialist League o f Palestine, and, after a lengthy process o f debate, the Hashomer Hatzair

Marxist Centre

International). Beginning i n

party was ofhcially formed i n 1946. Nevertheless, while the ofhcial Hashomer Hatzair stance h a d taken o n a Marxist complexion

by

pioneering groups involved i n the establishment o f the

the mid-1920s, other Third Aliya kibbutzim

still rejected Marxist-socialist theories. M a n y within the kibbutzim a t that time

the Marxist, class-based concepts of socialism, which were b e g i n n i n g Hatzair rhetoric, were inappropriate t o the reality of the reconstruction of the Jewish people i n Palestine, a n d instead c o n t i n u e d t o align argued that

t o characterise H a s h o m e r

themselves with anarchistic ideologies.

Arlosoroff

of the

and Hapoel Hatzair

of the era for w h o m this c o n t i n u e d of anarchistic ideas is certainly true is the Hapoel Hatzair workers’ party. Hapoel Hatzair existed i n Palestine since 1905 and, following the teachings One

endorsement

o t h e r m a j o r organisations

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

of

A.D. Gordon, h a d provided

51

the libertarian alternative t o the more orthodox

Marxist Poalei Zion during the early years o f settlement. Significant elements w i t h i n Hapoel

Hatzair

retained this anti-Marxist stance

well after

Hashomer

Hatzair had officially turned t o Marxism, a n d as a n organisation, i t generally remained m u c h closer i n its o u t l o o k t o the ideas o f G o r d o n , Landauer a n d Russian p o p u l i s m throughout the

1920s. Kropotkin

himself was also a significant

influence o n the group. A s noted earlier, his “Anarchist Communism” article h a d appeared i n the Hapoel Hatzair anthology Maabarot 3 i n 1920, alongside a n essay about h i m

by o n e o f the party’s main ideologues, Chaim Arlosoroff.

Arlosoroff was very m u c h a disciple o f Kropotkin and h a d been since

his

t i m e studying economics at Berlin University. Before moving t o Palestine, h e was

acquainted with Martin Buber, who was active i n Jewish circles i n Berlin

at

the

time, and through Buber, Arlosoroff became familiar with the writings o f Gordon a n d Landauer.

By the t i m e he reached

university, Arlosoroff was already o n e

of the main journal,

leaders o f Hapoel Hatzair i n Germany. A s e d i t o r o f the movements

well as essays on, Kropotkin. The social program

Die Arbeit, Arlosoroff published his first political articles as a n d excerpts from, the likes o f Proudhon a n d

h e introduced t o Hapoel Hatzair was closely modelled o n the ideas o f these

thinkers—a humanistic, communitarian brand o f anarchism based o n “a r e t u r n t o nature a n d agriculture as

the only alternative t o the v i o l e n c e o f m o d e r n , industrial

a n d bureaucratised life.”"*?

the bestfrom within the international socialist movement, leaves little d o u b t as t o where i t s author’s allegiances lay. Kropotkin’s impact was also plain t o see i n Arlosoroff’s first major piece o f work, Der Jiidische Arlosoroff’s

1920 essay

o n Kropotkin, often described as o n e o f

written articles o n the Russian prince

Volkssozialismus (Jewish People’s Socialism), which was published i n 1919. The voluntaristic, non-statist socialism

he advocates

for i n

the Jewish

settlement o f

Palestine can b e seen as a non-doctrinaire amalgamation o f anarchist a n d

social-

democratic ideas, and, as well as showing clear parallels with Kropotkin, bears all

the hallmarks o f Landauer’s influence. I n fact, as one historian put it,

Der Jiidische Volkssozialismus is so full o f such Landauer chestnuts as r e t u r n t o nature, the land as a source of creativity, the importance o f producer-consumer collectives, the importance o f “Gemeinschaftsgesinnung” over class-hate or class rule, the importance o f spiritual a n d cultural creativity for the Jewish masses i n

Palestine, the importance o f an inner sense o f socialism which transforms the work o f all i n t o the work for all, that one can o n l y marvel at the common core

o f their thinking.'>* Arlosoroff’s belief i n the possibility o f social renaissance o f modern culture

through a back-to-the-land, back-to-nature movement certainly united h i m with

52

A LIVING REVOLUTION

the same aspirations o f ideologues like Gordon and Landauer, a n d his plan for the Jewish settlement o f Palestine bears testimony t o the impact o f these thinkers. I n his o w n words, socialism “will have t o be a socialism o f freedom, an anti-etatist

socialism, an anarchist socialism—or the socialist idea will never succeed.”!*> Arlosoroff was close t o the kibbutz movement, for although never a kibbutz member himself, the kibbutz was central t o this “anarchist socialism.” He viewed i t as playing a key role i n the creation o f this new society. During the early Mandate

period he proposed a vision of “the nation as a great federation o f free, communist '*® of which settlements like the kibbutz would be the basic social associations” units. In the vision of the future Arlosoroff envisaged, will freely join another, o r a group o f communes...if i t sees for its o w n existence. I n such a free league o f communes, the communes will regulate their joint affairs through cooperation. Out o f this a harmonious associated future society will emerge." O n e commune

i t as necessary

Arlosoroff’s vision o f the kibbutz i n the context o f socialist Zionism sees the settlements “within the wider horizon o f a communitarian, voluntaristic society where state power is supplanted by the free association o f human groups.”'*®

This

is the n e w and free society o f universal welfare; a society without

government, a society o f communist anarchism... o n power,

neither is i t

[This] society is n o t founded

a dictatorship o f a minority o r a majority, n o r is i t seen

as a n external necessity, whether appearing as a title to property o r a policeman’s

baton, whether it is a military command o r a government regulation. The basis

of society is founded o n free will, o n a n association without government, o n the élan vital which anarchist terminology calls Libre Entente.'> Arlosoroff’s o w n vision for

the kibbutz movement was thus rooted very m u c h his student

i n the Kropotkinite idea o f free association a n d voluntarism. Since

days, and well after his arrival i n Palestine, Arlosoroff consistently rejected Marxist, 1920s attempting

class-struggle-based theories o f socialism a n d spent most o f the

t o steer the Jewish workers’ movement away from these kinds o f ideas, which had

begun t o creep into socialist Zionist discourse.

I n a speech t o the 1926 conference o f Hapoel Hatzair i n Palestine, Arlosoroff hammered h o m e the message Palestinian Jews’ situation.

that class struggle simply h a d n o relevance t o the “state” i n Palestine was the British Mandatory

As the

authority, h e argued, its political character was a reflection o f the class forces o f British society rather than o f indigenous class forces and relations. As a binational

society, the horizontal cleavages o f class, such as they were, were c r o s s - c u t and undercut by the vertical national cleavage between Jews and Arabs.'*® More importantly though, this wasn’t even a capitalist society—the Yishuv was still a

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

society-in-the-making, and its economy was creation.

With

“no normal

cycle o f

53

still very m u c h i n the process o f self-

production o r division o f national i n c o m e

within a cycle,”'®' and with “no struggling classes within the Jewish people as a whole and among the Jews i n the Land o f Israel, i n particular,”'¢? there was simply n o place for Marxist theories o f class

warfare.

The public standing o f the worker i n our culture is w i t h o u t parallel: the organised l a b o u r movement i n Eretz Israel is n o t a movement o f “the proletariat.”

The

Histadrut is the aristocracy... The organised worker is the hegemonic group i n

the first Representative Assembly [of Palestinian Jews], 48 percent of t h e delegates were workers.'®?

society—in

This speech,

entitled “Class

War i n

the Reality o f the Land o f Israel,” was,

according t o Arlosoroff’s biographer, “as m u c h a polemic against the attempts

by

Zionist Marxists t o transfer t o Eretz Israel the materialistic class concepts

o f Marxism, as h i s essay o n Kropotkin was similarly a n attempt t o present a n

alternative t o a rigid, class-ridden view o f socialism.”'** Arlosoroff’s notion that this was a society unsuited t o Marxist class-war theories was o n e t o

which Hapoel

Hatzair, o n the whole, continued to adhere. M a n y believe that whatever anarchist ideologies existed d u r i n g the early

years were dead i n the water b y this p o i n t , b u t Arlosoroff’s writings, influential throughout the Yishuv, deliberately present anarchism as an alternative t o the emergent

Marxist

influences which were based o n the

kind

of

rigid

class

polarisation that m a n y viewed as irrelevant i n the context o f Palestinian reality. Arlosoroff’s voice w a s by n o means a marginal one at this stage. Oved records how

his ideas “gave expression t o

the

spirit o f

the times,”'®> a n d Shlomo Avineri

eulogises h i m as “very m u c h a star—a Wunderkind i n h i s m o v e m e n t . ” ' *

According t o Avineri, “Arlosoroff’s writings...made h i m one o f the major

thinkers o f the modern Jewish national renaissance and its social reconstruction, c o m b i n i n g theory and practice i n a synthesis rarely found i n either theoreticians o r practitioners. Probably can o n e

only i n

the formative years o f

the Russian Revolution

find his counterparts.”

I n 1930, Arlosoroff was instrumental i n bringing about the unification o f Poalei Zion and Hapoel H a t z a i r t o form the Mapai Labour Party, and he subsequently edited the party’s intellectual journal Achdut Haavoda. At the 1931 Zionist Congress he was elected t o the Zionist executive and was later appointed Head of the Political Department o f the Jewish Agency for Palestine, a p o s i t i o n h e held until his assassination i n 1 9 3 3 . ' ¢

Gordonia I t is worth noting a t this point strongly felt w i t h i n

the

that

the influence of A.D. Gordon was still

earlier kvutzot too.

While the m a n himself m a y

have

54

A LIVING REVOLUTION

been dubious about tightening “ideological definitions,”

by 1923, the Congress

of kvutza members had decided that: The basic principles o f the kvutza pattern o f life, the purpose o f which is t o change the pattern o f society, can b e made effective by the implementation o f principles o f equality, mutual a i d and mutual responsibility.’

Gordon

died i n 1922, but his influence lived o n

within

the movement. As

noted above, the early Hashomer Hatzair groups looked t o h i m for inspiration, and he, i n turn, admired them for their enthusiasm, sincerity and idealism. I n 1 9 2 3 - 2 4 , Hapoel Hatzair supporters i n Galicia established the Gordonia youth movement i n a n a t t e m p t t o keep alive

the philosophy A.D. Gordon had brought

t o the early kvutzot. Gordonia would come t o be characterised b y its adoption o f its namesake’s Tolstoyan, back-to-the-land anarchism and its rejection o f the Marxist programs being taken u p b y other movements at the time. Dismissing abstract social blueprints, Gordonia further distinguished itself from the other movements with its decision not t o have anything t o d o with party-political activities. I t is also significant, considering the increasing level o f hostility between Jews

and Arabs during the late 1920s, that Gordonia continued t o follow Gordon's pacifist outlook, refusing t o have anything t o

do with

any groups o r movements

whose outlook smacked, however faintly, o f militarism. Gordonia continued t o promote Gordon's emphasis o n the agricultural commune, and tended t o align itself with the smaller, Degania-inspired kvutza settlements that, i n 1925, unified t o form

the first

cohesive federation, Hever Hakvutzot.

Gedud HaAvoda So far w e have seen h o w anarchistic ideas and mindsets were common fare at the roots o f t w o o u t o f the three early kibbutz federations—Hever Hakvutzot

and

Kibbutz Artzi. The third major political force i n the formation of the kibbutzim during this period was Gedud HaAvoda, the organisation that grew

out

o f the

ideas of self-identified “anarcho-communist” Josef Trumpeldor. As noted i n Chapter 1, Trumpeldor h a d been drawing u p

plans for the

establishment o f anarchistic communes i n Palestine as early as

1904, a n d his

group o f pioneers arrived i n Palestine i n

1913. During the early 1920s, the Gedud

evolved i n t o a major force i n the settlement o f the country, later becoming the third (and, i n the pre-state years, largest) kibbutz stream, Kibbutz Hameuhad. Alongside Trumpeldor, w h o was

killed i n March 1920 at Tel Hai, the m a n most the group was Yitzhak Tabenkin,

responsible for introducing Kropotkin’s ideas t o the “spiritual leader’'® o f Hameuhad.

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

I t is testament either t o

the complexity

o f Trumpeldor’s

55

politics, o r perhaps

just t o the selective memory o f the Israeli establishment, that Trumpeldor is today a hero o f Israel's right more than i t s left. I n m a n y respects, Tabenkin is n o more straightforward a figure. Although h e repeatedly insisted h e was not

an anarchist per se, Tabenkin was close i n his ideas t o anarcho-communism and acknowledged

“I

his admiration

for anarchism’s contribution t o socialist thought:

a m sympathetic towards anarchism,”

he wrote. “ I

revolutionary i n anarchism and what is ethical i n

a m conscious o f

what is

it.”!7

While Tabenkin recognised the danger of political government, however, he also believed that the workers’ movement needed t o use state institutions t o achieve their ends, and, according t o Oved, he doubted whether the state was simply a stage that could (or should) be “leapfrogged or negated in a one-time action.”'”! Nevertheless, he saw that the particular conditions o f the Jewish workers’ movement i n Palestine provided a n opportunity

t o create a society w i t h o u t the

need for government, a n d recognised that this was a n opportunity that should

be ignored. Stressing the i m p o r t a n c e of anarchist ideologies i n the context of the settlement o f Palestine, Tabenkin thus argued that the kibbutz pioneers “must

not

become familiar with the main points o f anarchist thought,” for its “social morals,

critical approach t o bureaucracy and political rule.”!”2 Building o n Trumpeldor’s idea of a communal labour force (“metal that can be

a n d its

molded t o whatever is needed”),'”? the Gedud HaAvoda was conceived with the idea o f moving people quickly according t o economic necessity, a n d so took the

form of small units that could be sent anywhere they were needed i n the Yishuv. T h e idea w a s ultimately t o create a “general c o m m u n e o f workers,” a nationwide,

continuously expanding commune with a communal treasury t o satisfy the needs

of all its members, rather than a federated alliance of smaller, intimate settlements

like the early kvutzot and the Hashomer Hatzair communities. Despite continual squabbles over structure, ideology and so o n , the vision o f a

communal, egalitarian society was unanimously seen as a paramount commitment, a n d as time wore o n , the basic aims a n d general framework o f the Gedud began t o

take shape, institutionalised i n the form o f the Brigade’s main camp a t Migdal. The Migdal camp served as “living proof t o other settlers that a large group o f people could indeed live i n a communal society with a common treasury.”'’* I n terms o f its actual work assignments, the organisation and groups afhliated t o i t branched out i n t o a number o f different areas. Within a year o f its inception i t had

units o f workers engaged i n communally-run construction projects all over the country, building roads, railways and infrastructure a n d draining swamps. Living

i n tented camps, they shared everything o n a communal basis, and although representing the beginning o f another tradition distinct from the small

kvutza,

the t w o models held m a n y basic ideas and ideals i n common. Unlike both the Hever Hakvutzot and Hashomer Hatzair groups, the Gedud rejected any sort o f selective approach i n terms o f taking o n n e w members, its

56

A LIVING REVOLUTION

ultimate objective essentially being

the transformation of the entire Yishuv i n t o

one b i g kibbutz whose only l i m i t i n terms o f size would be economic viability.

Not as concerned with personal suitability and ideological solidarity as Hashomer Hatzair—which placed heavy emphasis o n shared cultural values and

ideals as

a means o f achieving a maximal degree cohesion'’>—the idea b e h i n d the

big

kibbutz was that the framework they created would cause the members’ different

“melt” within i t , a n d thus create a n exemplary society.'’® While this notion o f a “general commune o f workers’ m a y b e seen as the Gedud’s

viewpoints t o

general approach, within the organisation there existed a broad range o f political

The diversity o f views led life, by a series of arguments

opinions and differing ideas as t o h o w t o settle the land. t o the G e d u d b e i n g plagued, throughout its nine-year

and splits, one o f the main struggles being between this centralist conception and

a n autonomous, independent conception inspired by the smaller kvutzot.

By the

t i m e o f Gedud’s demise

(which was inevitable after the second major

rift i n 1926), the organisation had formed 4 4 sub-units scattered throughout

the country,

a n d trained over 3,000 immigrants. Gedud’s major legacy t o the

kibbutz movement came i n the form o f the Kibbutz Hameuhad federation.

One of the key figures in the organisation, Shlomo Lavi, and a small group of

his adherents, had worked i n several of the kvutzot communes and reached the c o n c l u s i o n that the kvutza w a s t o o small a n d too introverted i n i t s n a t u r e t o be either desirable, useful o r practicable as a viable tool i n the project of nationbuilding. Lavi doubted whether the kvutza model was economically feasible and proposed the n o t i o n o f a larger framework that would incorporate a synthesis o f industry a n d agriculture—in essence, extending the principles o f the Gedud into a more permanent w a y o f settling the l a n d .

I n 1921, Lavi and Tabenkin established a model o f the large, open kibbutz community along these principles a t E i n Harod i n the Jezreel Valley. Ein Harod, as well as Kibbutz Tel Yosef, which was established soon afterwards,

the paradigm for Hameuhad, which has historically sought t o the large a n d continually growing type of kibbutz advocated by Lavi a n d Tabenkin, intended for thousands a n d based o n a n amalgamation of agriculture would become

establish

a n d industry. Irrespective o f Tabenkin’s complex attitudes towards anarchism, Hameuhad, according t o its founders, regarded Kropotkin as “the closest t o us

o f them all,”'”7 recognising the absolute need for voluntary, non-governmental organisations as “eminently suitable t o

the reality

that came i n t o being

with the

kibbutz movement.”'”® According t o Oved,

At the time there was a certain appeal i n Kropotkin’s ideas o n the dominance o f mutual aid, the combination o f village a n d city, agriculture a n d industry a n d the establishment o f a network o f new, federatively-connected communities, a l l o f which found s o l i d expression i n the theories o f “the big kvutza” w h i c h was t o

REALISING T H E REVOLUTION

57

replace the small, intimate kvutza with the onset o f the big wave o f immigration that

came i n the wake of World War 1.'7

I n reality the b i g kibbutz d i d n o t immediately “replace” the small kvutza, b u t

i t did represent the beginnings o f a new kibbutz stream. HaKibbutz Hameuhad existed alongside the kvutzot until a series o f mergers that began i n the early

1950s.

State-Building As Jewish settlement

1920s and 1930s, the global Jewish community of the moral a n d political quandaries raised by the creation o f a Jewish state.'®® I n March 1919, United States Congressman Julius K a h n delivered a petition t o President so too

i n Palestine gathered pace during the

did recognition

among sections o f

Woodrow Wilson, shortly before his departure for the Paris Peace Conference, i n which concerns a b o u t the idea o f statehood were voiced. Signed

by a

long

list o f prominent American Jews, the petition protested “the re-establishment i n

distinctively Jewish State as utterly opposed t o the principles of which i t is the avowed purpose of the Worlds Peace Conference t o

Palestine o f a

democracy

establish.”'®!

Albert Einstein was among the countless Jewish luminaries who voiced similar sentiments. I n January 1946, he made a presentation t o the Anglo-American Committee o f Inquiry, which was examining the Palestine issue, i n which he articulated

his concerns

about

the prospect of the monopolisation

o f power

by

the Palestinian Jewish community. Four years later h e expressed his preference t o “see reasonable agreement with the Arabs o n the basis o f living together i n peace

[rather] than the creation of a Jewish state.”!82

The Z i o n i s m of the early kibbutz communards had never imagined a national revival taking the form o f a state-building enterprise. For them, the Balfour Declaration i n

1917, promising a “national home” for the Jews, meant a n

opportunity t o establish a completely n e w form

of society

a n d a chance t o p u t

their dreams and visions i n t o practice. Collective settlement was n o t seen simply as the most efficient w a y o f colonising the land i n order t o create a Jewish state and install a market-capitalist economy, as some have since argued.'®®> Though the later centrality o f the movement t o the creation a n d defence o f Israel is clear, the n o t i o n that the pioneers resorted t o collectivism simply i n order t o create suitable

conditions for the institution o f

that state is largely a myth. Even the founders o f

Degania were strictly opposed t o the notions o f government a n d state, a n d by the t i m e the Third Aliya groups arrived, the idea o f building a stateless society o n the back o f the n e w social model they h a d created was o n e that was widely embraced. T h e idea held i n c o m m o n by m a n y o f the groups arriving i n Palestine during the

58

A LIVING REVOLUTION

1920s was t o transform the Yishuv into a stateless commonwealth o f autonomous communities that would include

few, if any, non-collective alternatives.

Anarchism i n the Kibbutzim T h e rhetoric o f Palestinian Jewish anarchism

did n o t

simply die o u t after the

initial stages o f development. Although i t became less o f a force, anarchism has continued t o appear sporadically as a n intellectual current w i t h i n the kibbutzim

throughout the movements history. D u r i n g the Spanish Civil War, there was great interest

from w i t h i n the kibbutz movement i n

the activities o f the anarchist

militias i n Spain. In the late 1930s, a group o f youngsters, including some from the movement a n d some from outside i t , formed under

the spiritual leadership

of Yitzhak Tavori from Kibbutz Afikim i n the Jordan Valley. Under the moniker o f “The Free Socialists,”

they published

a newspaper i n which they reprinted

excerpts from the works o f classical anarchist thinkers, alongside articles o n the Spanish anarchist groups fighting Franco's fascists. Tavori also published articles

i n Afikim’s newsletter o n the history o f anarchism.'®* During the 1930s, many

the kibbutz movement travelled t o S p a i n themselves t o join the CNT-FAI militia. Around the time the state o f Israel was founded, the country experienced a n influx o f western European survivors o f Nazism, among w h o m anarchism had a “specific a n d visible presence.7 1 8 M a n y o f these n e w immigrants joined the anarchists from within

existing kibbutz settlements, some established n e w ones, while others began t o sow the seeds o f the antiauthoritarian organisations that were beginning t o take

root i n the country, unconnected to the kibbutz movement (see Chapter 6). Later,

i n the years immediately following 1967’s Six D a y War, groups within the kibbutz movement began a p e r i o d

of ideological

q u e s t i o n i n g that s a w a renewed afhnity

with B u b e r a n d Landauer developing among the kibbutzim’s intellectual circles. During that period there was a significant difference between what was happening i n intellectual echelons a n d wider trends across the rest o f the movement, a n d

this shift i n

within the kibbutz

o r i e n t a t i o n w a s n o t necessarily emblematic

movement

of change

as a whole. Nonetheless, as disillusionment with

Marxist socialism grew (due t o experience o f its perceived realisation i n totalitarian regimes abroad), so too did a renewed athnity with anarchism. Although, by this time,

i t w a s t o o l a t e t o t u r n back the clock, figures

like Landauer

o n c e again

came t o provide intellectual inspiration for m a n y kibbutzniks, a n d the kibbutzim gradually began t o acknowledge the historical

its anarchist forebears.

debt o w e d by t h e i r

movement t o

Chapter 4

The Kibbutz The Dynamics

o f a Free Commune

“We are communists. But our communism is n o t that of the authoritarian school: i t is anarchist communism, communism without government,

by

free communism. I t is the synthesis o f the t w o chief aims pursued

humanity since the dawn o f its history—economic freedom and political

freedom.” ~— Peter Kropotkin

The previous three chapters a i m t o give some idea o f h o w anarchist ideologies filtered into the thinking o f those responsible for establishing the kibbutz movement. W e k n o w that the works o f Kropotkin, Proudhon, Gordon, Tolstoy a n d Landauer were widely read a n d respected among the kibbutz pioneers, and w e can b e sure too that m a n y figures influential i n shaping the direction o f the movement embraced the ideas o f these thinkers and actively promoted the realisation o f

their ideology i n Palestine. The wealth o f documentary evidence leaves little room for d o u b t as t o the e x t e n t t o which anarchist ideas were i n circulation

the founding generation of kibbutzniks. The question of whether o r

among

not

the

theoretical influence o f anarchism translated i n t o the practical development o f

the communities, however, necessitates a n examination of the day-to-day r u n n i n g i n order t o establish the points of convergence between the

of the settlements,

kibbutz model a n d the various streams o f anarchist ideology circulating among

Palestine’s Jewish settlers. Before going o n t o discuss h o w the kibbutz works i n more detail, we might first want t o consider some o f the main features o f the movement and look at

what would constitute a typical kibbutz settlement. B u t first, we need t o ask whether o n e can even speak

of a “typical”

kibbutz?

The previous chapters explain Jewish

h o w ideologically diverse Palestine was d u r i n g the first three waves o f

immigration a n d indicate h o w this diversity translated i n t o the praxis o f the first

settlements. While the political motivations of the founding generation ofkibbutz communards were arrived at from c o m m o n ideological a n d historical sources— with the ideals o f egalitarianism, communitarianism, direct democracy and selflabour widely shared—the movement's subsequent pattern o f development was

characterised

by

a constant pattern o f squabbles, disagreements, schisms and

62

A LIVING REVOLUTION

mergers, with every merger leading t o a split, and every split t o the formation o f

a new union.

The ideological

disputes that punctuated

the movement

during the years

leading u p to independence from Great Britain i n 1948 frequently amounted to the splitting o f terminological hairs, and took place i n spite o f a general consensus about h o w t o build the kibbutz and establish its way o f life. During the early years o f the kibbutz movement, factional infighting resulted i n the development o f the different federations, each o f which came t o b e distinguished

by certain

unique qualities.

While

some groups proposed a micro-utopian strategy, aiming t o create

a network o f small communes within the Yishuv, as

the m o s t

efhcient w a y o f

institutionalising their ideology, others like Hameuhad, proposed a n approach that

would transform the entire Yishuv itself into one big, all-embracing commune.

Hever Hakvutzot—which formed the [hud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim (the Union of Collective Settlements) with a section of Hameuhad i n the 1950s, which would later combine with the rest of Hameuhad t o form TAKAM (the United Kibbutz Movement)—adhered t o the idea o f a small, intimate, primarily agriculturallyorientated group. Kibbutz Artzi was guided b y its principles o f organic growth a n d selective a b s o r p t i o n , a n d c o n t i n u e d t o insist that i t s members subscribe t o a

collectivist ethos and a common ideology.

B u t as the century wore o n , these gaps began to narrow, and historical

the ideological a n d structural differences between the kibbutzim of the different movements became less and less distinct. When i t became clear

processes meant

that statehood was imminent, rapid a n d sustained acceleration o f the country’s

the movement. The late 1930s and early 1940s saw the necessity o f building a n economy capable o f coping

economic development became a n urgent imperative for

with the technological demands o f industry and agriculture, i n practice, resulting i n a uniformisation

of

ideas and practices throughout

the movement.'®® The

union of Thud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim and Hameuhad as TAKAM, i n 1973, is seen as illustrative

of a n almost complete evanescence o f whatever conflicting of a “narrowing of ideological p o i n t s of conflict i n the

concepts remained, a n d

socio-economic a n d political spheres.”'*’

The Kibbutz While the structure

a n d culture o f

the kibbutz has always

been

fluid

and

dynamic, i t is still feasible t o talk about “the kibbutz” i n broadly generic terms and identify features a n d practices common t o all the settlements.

As noted i n the first chapter, the Romni group’s 1910 letter t o Ruppin described the kibbutz as “a cooperative community without exploiters o r exploited.”'®® This remains the m o s t concise definition of the pre-1948 kibbutzim. Based o n ideals o f political and material equality, freedom and direct democracy, the kibbutz began as a social u n i t predicated o n the elimination o f all hierarchical, exploitative

THE KIBBUTZ

a n d authoritarian political structures. Private property was nonexistent, and

063

all

property, including the means o f production, was owned i n common. Production

a n d consumption were organised o n a communal basis with all managerial decisions arrived at collectively, via a process o f direct democracy and informal debate, and systematic rotation o f work roles ensured that members shared i n

job carried equal social status. The supreme institution o f collective governance was the general assembly, a meeting o f all the community’s members i n which every matter pertaining t o the kibbutz’s life was discussed a n d where decisions were made by majority vote. All income was pooled into a communal purse from which all members were free t o take as much as they saw fit. Thus, the founders succeeded i n eliminating any connection between contribution a n d reward, with each giving according t o his ability and receiving according t o his needs. I t was from this kernel that the kibbutz model would take shape, evolving within a very short space o f time into a permanent social system built o n the every kind o f work a n d that every

alliance o f similar communes i n confederation, thus overcoming the problems o f isolation. The definition o f what constitutes a kibbutz presented i n the Kibbutz Society Regulations gives some idea o f h o w these original ideals crystallised:

The Kibbutz is

a free association

of

persons for the purposes o f settlement,

absorption, maintenance o f a collective society organised o n

of joint

the principles

ownership o f property, self l a b o u r and cooperation i n a l l areas o f

production, consumption and education... T h e Kibbutz shall provide all the material, social a n d cultural needs o f its members... The satisfaction o f these needs shall b e implemented i n a n attempt at realising the principles o f cooperative consumption a n d equal rights under equal conditions, i n accordance

with the

rules and procedures for implementation determined by the k i b b u t z . ' ®

T h e values a n d practices underlying the kibbutz as i t would develop over the course o f the century therefore include communal ownership o f

all property,

including the means o f production and consumption, mutual responsibility and mutual aid, communal production a n d consumption, a n d directly democratic

With the strictly according t o

self-management, both i n the economic and socio-political spheres.

distribution o f goods, services a n d resources taking place

need, all members benefited from (or suffered) the accumulation of the full product o f surplus l a b o u r . "

The collective, i.e. the entire kibbutz community, had ultimate authority over every aspect its o w n running, including the settlement’s economic/industrial activity, and decision-making power rested with the general assembly of all members. The fact that

the collective formed the basis of all social, economic a n d

political activity meant that political and economic decision-making overlapped significantly, with the settlement’s economic base (its means o f production) a n d

64

A LIVING REVOLUTION

non-economic superstructure

(the remaining cultural and political aspects of

society) i n the hands o f the same individuals and groups. F o r most o f the movement's lifetime, the kibbutz’s economy has been based

o n a n amalgamation

of industry

still often referred t o

and agriculture. Although

as “communal

the settlements

are

farms”—which is what they were during

their very early years—today, industry has l o n g since replaced agriculture as

the primary m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . Almost all o f Israel's kibbutzim have n o w established industrial projects of o n e kind o r another, partly t o vary a n d increase occupational opportunities within the

movement

(providing suitable jobs for

older members a n d those with disabilities, o r for those for w h o m agricultural

the impossibility o f making a living from agriculture, thanks t o increased competition from world markets. While the contemporary movement's industrial projects are often connected agriculture (they remain a t the forefront of Israel's research a n d production i n

work is too strenuous), b u t also because o f purely to

irrigation methods, food processing, plastic crop coverings, wine-making and so on),

the kibbutzim lead the field in high-tech enterprises as diverse as they are numerous, including production of health products, diamond-tipped tools, printing, television

and defence products." Though only around 15 percent o f the contemporary kibbutz movement's adult population still works i n agriculture (the kibbutzim still provide around 40 sets, quality glass, furniture, toys, musical instruments

percent o f the gross added value o f Israels agricultural o u t p u t ) , ' ” * at the outset o f

the twenty-first century there were 327 kibbutz industrial plants across Israel, and

11 regional corporations comprising about 50 industrial units. These currently make u p around

8.5 percent o f Israels

total industrial income, with production

concentrated i n three main areas—plastic a n d rubber products (37 percent), metals a n d machines (17 percent) and food (15 percent). Today, industry accounts

for

roughly 70 percent o f total kibbutz production a n d comprises around 25 percent

of the kibbutz adult population.'”? A Participatory Economy

A t i t s m o s t elemental level,

the economic

model

of the kibbutz can be seen

as being built o n several interrelated ethical imperatives: the abolition o f private property,

the absence of a wage

system,

the integration of manual

a n d cerebral

work, and a belief i n the fundamental value o f labour. I n m a n y ways, these basic

ideals are intrinsically interdependent, and c a n n o t realistically be disentangled

from each another, i n

terms o f both

their ideological origins

and

their practical

ramifications for the kibbutz way o f life. Communal ownership was seen as a priority from

day one, primarily

o n the

grounds that i t promotes solidarity and social cohesion, precluding the emergence

o f anti-social instincts o f selfishness, greed, possessiveness and competition which, i t was felt, would rupture the bonds o f fraternity that the kibbutz pioneers nurtured

i n their n e w society.” Within the commune, the individual had nothing other

T H E KIBBUTZ

65

than small personal effects. Everything—from housing and agricultural/industrial machinery t o clothes a n d food—was owned communally

by kibbutz

members.

The land o n which each kibbutz is built is owned by the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet)—a national agency, founded i n 1901, that rents the land t o the kibbutz o n a ninety-nine-year renewable lease, with a (nominal) annual rent o f 2 percent o f the original cost of the land plus improvements, paid after its fifth year. Until 2007, legislation existed t o prevent the legal possibility of a kibbutz selling off its assets and liquidating itself, which ensured that i f a kibbutz did disintegrate, its assets w o u l d b e distributed among other movement settlements, thus further preventing the possibility o f individual accumulation. The first p r i n c i p l e o f the kibbutz’s economic model is therefore that property used a n d produced

by

all

the kibbutz belongs t o the entire community

as a communal asset. The second is that

all

work i n

the kibbutz takes place this is still the

voluntarily and w i t h o u t remuneration. A t the time o f writing

case for the majority o f the kibbutzim, b u t i t is changing. The introduction o f

differential payments into kibbutz praxis i n the early 1990s marked the beginning o f o n e o f t h e m o s t controversial issues i n the recent

history o f the movement, Until that point,

a n d i t represents a n i m p o r t a n t t u r n i n g point for the kibbutzim.

there h a d existed n o wage system i n any o f the settlements. Dissociation between c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d effort and the distribution o f rewards resulted i n a n economic culture i n which p o s i t i o n and status had n o bearing o n material rewards—with

a n egalitarian d i s t r i b u t i o n o f resources a n d services regardless o f individual labour c o n t r i b u t i o n meaning a total divorce between remuneration a n d effort.'”’

The third principle on which the kibbutz’s economy and value system rests is the moral value o f labour. As discussed i n previous chapters, this

the concept o f

has its roots i n halutzim

not

The by the early

a very specific historical source peculiar t o Labour Zionism.

Gordonite elevation o f manual labour meant that work was seen

only as a means t o an end, but as an end i n itself, and this has

kibbutz life since the very earliest settlements. As o n e the Betanya commune commented d u r i n g the 1920s:

been a n elemental part o f

member o f

Work is a part o f [our] life and [our] common creation. Through love for society, a positive attitude towards work is formed, a m o m e n t o f communality between

the workers. I n work, the individual realises all of his o r her abilities and strengths and sees h i m o r herself independently o f creating a community. All

work, even the most basic, is t h e n a sacred means for establishing and fortifying the community. This gives it its full c o n t e n t , and i t ceases being attached or inferior.!%¢

This ethos

o f labour is perhaps the most enduring legacy o f the founding

members, remaining dominant i n the kibbutzim even t o this day. Although derived from a very specific ideological source, bound u p with the peculiarly Jewish character

66

A LIVING REVOLUTION

o f the kibbutz settlements, this ethos also clearly has a pragmatic dimension—albeit

than the cosmic qualities attributed to i t b y A.D. Gordon. Communal ownership o f property, equal distribution o f resources and services irrespective o f individual contribution, and equal consumption o f goods can only exist based o n the willingness o f each and every member o f that

perhaps a rather more pedestrian one

society t o w o r k voluntarily. Without universal commitment t o this w a y o f thinking,

n o economic model based o n voluntary participation would be able t o function. T h e motivation o f each and every individual t o

do his o r her best a t every economic

branch is the sine qua non o f the viability o f the kibbutz system. Intertwined with

this is

the integration o f manual a n d white-collar work.

the pioneers set full and balanced life, a n d sought t o ensure that their model o f collective living guaranteed that the individual was free t o undertake all different kinds o f w o r k . " ” ” The unique economic model they created falls somewhere between the Fair-Share labour system a n d the Anti-

Keenly aware that work has so often become “a curse o f fate,” o u t with a recognition o f the necessity for a

Quota model;'”® members occupy work positions for varying lengths o f time, with routine daily jobs such as kitchen and d i n i n g hall duties performed o n a rotation

basis. I n the early years, for example, members would work i n the kitchen every

few months,

i n the cowshed every

half year,

i n the vegetable garden and with

animals by seasons a n d i n the fields, while also taking o n whatever administrative

jobs needed d o i n g . Ensuring that all members fulfilling and rewarding work

shared i n every that,

kind

o f work was felt t o create

as the Betanya member says, “ceases being

attached o r inferior”—that is t o say,

all

work has equal

social value,

with n o

d i s t i n c t i o n existing between “respectable” a n d “degrading” work roles.

With

a

member working i n the dairy one week, i n the factory the next, i n the fields the next, and so o n , the system o f rotation m e a n t that work was arranged i n such a

with specialised from unpleasant o r dull tasks, n o r conferring

w a y that n o o n e was expected t o spend all his time i n drudgery, abilities giving n o o n e exemption

any right t o greater share i n the amenities o f the community. A s Maurice Pearlman observed i n a n article i n Community Overseas—a p a m p h l e t produced

by the

Community Service Committee i n the 1950s—despite a degree o f specialisation i n health a n d education services,

by all w i t h o u t the heaviest o f the men’s traditionally are the l o t o f the

drudge work such as serving table [and] washing up...is d o n e class consciousness. N o t only d o women share all b u t

work, b u t m e n also share

the kitchen

tasks that

woman. A doctor is o n the same footing as a dustman, and a lecturer o f high educational a t t a i n m e n t m a y

tables after a meal.”

be found

prefacing

his lecture by clearing u p the

THE KIBBUTZ

G7

the belief that their communities should all the workers, whether they employ muscle o r b r a i n , provided that they derive their livelihood from their o w n labour, a n d n o t from the exploitation o f o t h e r s . ” The central tenet o f the kibbutzs economic activity is the idea that a The kibbutz pioneers set o u t with

“unite

socio-economic model that holds particular kinds o f work i n higher esteem than others is less logical and

By

fair than o n e that holds them all i n equal regard.

the same token, within the kibbutz system, h u m a n attributes were

considered equal, intellectual acumen respected n o more than manual dexterity, o r physical ability n o more than organisational o r administrative skills.?!

With

the m e t h o d by which they

carry

workers deciding their o w n specific tasks a n d o u t these tasks,

the kibbutz,

t o t h i s day, e x h i b i t s “ a unification o f c o n c e p t i o n a n d

execution i n the labour process such that n o differentiation exists between mental a n d manual labour.”%%?

Kibbutz Industry:Management

Without Authority

by the kibbutz the settlements have been i n a continual process o f evolution

T h e system described above was, quite literally, created

founders. Although

their inception, i t is this system that has underpinned the organisation o f life throughout the movements history. Even though the small kvutzot a n d kibbutzim o f the Second and Third Aliyot evolved i n t o large-scale agro-industrial enterprises d u r i n g the 1930s a n d 1940s, the kibbutz managed t o ensure that their values a n d practices were translated a n d adapted as the basis for since

their economic

the organisation o f large-scale industrial activity.

Until the 1930s, agriculture had been the mainstay of the kibbutz’s economic with kibbutz industry a m o u n t i n g t o little more than a “workshop economy.” The kibbutz pioneers’ early hostility t o the idea o f industrial enterprise activities,

stemmed from their aspirations of inverting the Jewish socio-economic s t r u c t u r e

of the

Diaspora

by

rejecting bourgeois, industrial u r b a n i s m i n favour

of

an

organic, agricultural existence. Industry was seen as a n anathema t o those w h o subscribed to

A.D.

Gordon's ideas a b o u t taking r o o t i n the l a n d a n d spiritual

renewal through reconnection with nature. Nevertheless, the second half o f the century saw the process o f industrialisation becoming the focus o f the movement's attention. Around the t i m e the state o f Israel was created, the movement began devoting i t s energies t o b o t h rationalising a n d a d a p t i n g t o

this t r a n s i t i o n ,

with

adoption o f n e w technologies a n d the acquisition o f necessary industrial skills becoming the key priorities for the kibbutzim’s economic development. Industrial expansion gave rise t o n e w challenges for management a n d ‘organisation, making i t more difficult t o maintain the

high

degree o f direct

democracy, self-labour and workers’ decision-making that h a d been possible i n the smaller settlements

of the early years of the kibbutz movement. Participatory self-

management and workplace democracy i n the early kvutzot were facilitated n o t only

by the small size a n d intimate nature o f

the communities, b u t

by universal

68

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

comprehension

of the urgency of the tasks facing the early communards a n d the

pioneering spirit, o r élan, which one Degania member described as “our feeling o f inner strength that urged u s t o p o o l o u r forces i n order t o create something o f

value i n o u r communal work, something different from the existing patterns.”?%

As

the settlements grew larger a n d as projects became more ambitious,

with the reality that such work requires from general meetings a t Degania a t that time record h o w members were “unable t o divide ourselves into managers and the managed.”*® As a means o f rectifying the situation without having t o stratify the settlement into managers a n d underlings, the Degania members decided t o divide

members found themselves presented

s o m e kind o f management, a n d records

their settlement into two separate kibbutzim i n order t o restore what they felt t o b e the constructive atmosphere achievable only i n a small group.

Traditionally, the smaller kvutzot tended t o adopt this approach, deliberately trying to keep the population o f each o f their settlements t o a m i n i m u m , with the

assumption that for direct face-to-face democracy t o function properly, settlements

the necessity of building a n economy capable o f supporting mass immigration, the demands of demographic increases and, later, the prospect o f i m m i n e n t statehood, all the kibbutzim had t o expand. Although industrialisation a n d demographic expansion h a d t o b e as small a n d i n t i m a t e as p o s s i b l e . B u t ultimately, d u e t o

made i t harder t o maintain as high a level o f direct democracy as i n the intimate agricultural settlements o f the early years, n e w mechanisms developed within the

communities that allowed the kibbutz t o ensure that i t imposed its o w n economic culture o n the industrial enterprises i t created. An “ideological conformity” t o the original values a n d practices was maintained, thus enabling the kibbutz t o sustain

“a form o f industrialism that is free, working and classless.” Such a n ideological environment was achieved through

the development

o f a “horizontal” management structure composed o f a network o f managerial committees, democratically elected

by the general

assembly o f members a n d

operating via a system o f regular rotation. T o each branch was assigned a branch manager, with each branch consisting o f several autonomous units operating independently—the factory,

fields, avocado

a n d apple groves i n

the production

branch, for example, and the laundry a n d kitchen i n the consumption branch. Each o f these h a d separate work groups with their o w n supervisor and a coordinator

from the planning a n d the coordinator worked with the

w h o set overall objectives for the various teams. Aside

administrative functions h e o r she carried out, team

just the same as a n y o t h e r member.

W o r k teams develop camaraderie a n d

According t o Rosner,

high

esprit d e corps. Six t o twelve

members work together side by side i n the fields. .., workshops o r factories. They eat breakfast and l u n c h together and have regular meetings... I n a n atmosphere

of

mutual trust and responsibility close relationships are forged a n d often carry

over to social life.2%

THE KIBBUTZ

(9

Decision-making within these groups was carried o u t o n a directly democratic basis, with each team free t o choose a supervisor responsible for the day-to-day operations o f

the team. The supervisor divided tasks among team members w h o

then decided for themselves h o w t o perform the work, and kept a n overview o f the work process. C o n t i n u e d adherence t o the

principle o f

systematic rotation ensured

that

employment i n the kibbutz’s industrial sector was never a permanent occupation,

dividing their working life between the factory and other work Who worked where o n any given day was usually decided the night by a n elected committee, b u t the allocation o f jobs would often

with members branches.” previous

be decided more openly and informally, with a dozen o r more members assisting the committee every night to ensure that individuals’ work preferences were taken i n t o a c c o u n t .

The a l l o c a t i o n

jobs had, t o the greatest

of

extent possible,

always taken individual members’ preferences i n t o consideration, ensuring

that

everyone was free t o follow their o w n particular strengths and interests. Economic diversification obviously meant that a great deal o f logic also came i n t o play, i n

still the of the people involved that more often than not remained the dominant determinants of work allocation.?®® Before settling i n t o a job, members would work i n various branches t o find t h e o n e that s u i t e d t h e m best, a n d were free t o request a change o f w o r k unit a t any t i m e . Although, for a short period, every member m i g h t find himself sent terms o f matching labour assignments with personal aptitude, b u t i t was

personalities, wishes a n d desires

to

work i n an area where he was m o s t needed, after a while everybody would be

doing what he chose t o do.?” This system survived virtually

intact well i n t o the 1980s, a n d i t is essentially the system that the kibbutzim use t o this day, although recent developments have

led t o a n increased complexity i n the network o f committees a n d administrative

bodies. Having said that, widespread bureaucratisation across

the movement a n d

the increasing use o f full-time managers (a very recent phenomenon a n d o n e not

yet common t o all kibbutzim) has attracted accusations o f the

movement

abandoning its original values. I f Christopher Warhurst’s study o f Kibbutz Geffen

i n 1999 is anything t o go by, although the management structure h e encountered there reflects the increased complexity o f economic organisational structures,

kibbutz

industry, even

then,

retained

the

principles

a n d self-management visible i n the early settlements,

economic scale. Each work branch, according

to

of workplace democracy just extended t o a larger

Warhurst, organises a committee

to

take

responsibility for each production branch, all o f which are ultimately subordinate t o t h e e c o n o m i c affairs committee. Participation i n t h e economic affairs committee

is carried o u t o n a voluntary basis a n d is supplementary t o normal day-to-day work. The factory committee represents a

joint

kibbutz-factory management

group acting as a form o f supervisory board discussing policy related t o the factory.

70

A LIVING REVOLUTION

The board

consists

of

senior managers, departmental managers,

the kibbutz

secretariat, t w o o r three workers from the factory and one kibbutz member not from the factory (“to give a non-official view from the kibbutz membership”).?'? Even with

this

managed t o prevent

complex w e b o f committees a n d managers, the kibbutz

the emergence

o f a managerial hierarchy o f “managers a n d

managed,” as the members o f kibbutz Degania h a d once feared. Even

today, the

function o f managers o n m o s t kibbutzim remains far removed from those i n a

capitalist business,

their role entailing “the co-ordination and not

the control o f

workers o r work i n progress.”?!! Neither the work coordinator, supervisor, n o r anyone else i n a managerial position has the power t o dismiss a worker. Decision-

takes place o n a participatory basis, and any conflict that arises i n the talk i t over collectively. Warhurst recounts that one kibbutz worker said of his line-manager: “ H e

making still

workplace must b e brought before the work group w h o

is the manager b u t h e can only ask m e t o d o things, h e cannot tell me.”?'? The manager i n question confirms that, Its n o t m y j o b to impose discipline o n the line. I f I ' m working with other

my j o b t o teach them discipline from the members themselves—self-

members there’s n o difference between us. It’s n o t

o r responsibility. Discipline should come

discipline. It’s n o t something that I ' m supposed to do.?'?

So, by virtue of his position, a manager is afforded n o greater degree of power

the regular rotation of those i n managerial take part i n menial jobs just like any other kibbutz member. Managers and workers alike enjoy considerable autonomy as t o h o w they carry o u t t h e i r o w n w o r k roles, a n d it i s left u p t o the individual t o do his job as h e sees fit. According t o o n e supervisor: “ [ I am] completely free i n h o w I d o the job. N o b o d y tells m e h o w t o produce, n o t even the production manager.” H e o r status than any other worker, a n d office ensures that managers

continues, “ I ' m n o t fussing t o k n o w all the small details. I believe that y o u have t o give people room t o manoeuvre... Everyone has their o w n w a y o f working. I k n o w

this and let them get on with i t . I get involved only i f there are problems.” Despite the difficulties that arose i n terms o f reconciling demographic

the has strived t o ensure that a maximum degree o f freedom a n d

expansion a n d technological advancement with original ideological goals, kibbutz movement

egalitarianism i n decision-making remain central pillars o f the modus operandi o f

kibbutz industry. As the role o f managers is nominal, rather than one that enables them t o wield any kind o f coercive power o r affords them greater levels o f reward o r status, any hierarchies that are found within the kibbutz are de-emphasised. Direct democratic election a n d the regular rotation o f office holders prevents the development o f a separate managerial class.?

THE KIBBUTZ

7/1

Efficiency Without Coercion I t is important t o note that there remains n o

ofhcial m i n i m u m

labour

contribution requirement o n the kibbutz. I t s “management” has never kept a

formal check o n w h o works, when and for h o w long. The only regulator being the

With the worker i n charge o f his o w n life, rather than simply being a tool i n a production process directed from above, he is free t o make his o w n decisions regarding the work he does, h o w he does it—and even when he does i t . “That members were under n o compunction t o self-motivation o f each and every worker.

even remain a t their place o f work,” writes Warhurst, “is attested b y the constant stream

of bicycles leaving

a n d returning t o

the factory t h r o u g h o u t the working the factory t o conduct personal

day. Every member...would at some time, leave business.”*!¢

B u t , with such personal freedom a near-immutable principle i n the economic life o f the kibbutz, coupled with the absence o f managerial authority, the threat o f sanctions, o r the promise o f monetary reward, h o w does the kibbutz ensure that production goals are met? W h a t would happen, for example, t o a kibbutz member w h o is slacking off work? D u r i n g the 1920s, when presented

with this question, one member o f Degania simply answered: “ W e would not love

Simplistic though i t m a y seem, over the course o f the past century

him.”?!”

this attitude has played

a

key role

the ethos o f the kibbutz labour has traditionally been secured by “a

i n defining

model. Conformity t o productivity norms

socially defined framework o f sanctioning and behaviour prescription based o n public o p i n i o n a n d peer pressure”?'®*—a by-product o f the intense intimacy o f interpersonal relations between kibbutzniks, characteristic o f relationships i n a

gemeinschaft-type society like the kibbutz.

Thus, a n

individual's work reputation remains

vitally important

for

social

cohesion and for ensuring that the participatory economic model can successfully function, with attitudes towards a kibbutznik’s productivity and/or labour contribution based o n the “knowledge...and o p i n i o n s

held by the

community

about individuals a n d their perceived effort a n d commitment.” The medium o f transmission is basically gossip o r hearsay, o r as o n e kibbutz sociologist put it,

“informal

interpersonal communications.”

public o p i n i o n then, rather than through a meritocracy,

the kibbutz

is

able t o

Through the pressures o f

typically market-driven

system o f

ensure conformity t o its social norms a n d

labour expectations. Communal Consumption Collective possession and control o f the means o f production implies common enjoyment o f the fruits o f that production. Accordingly, the kibbutzs system ensures that the product

of the community’s labour remains at the disposal o f all

its members. T h e kibbutz has always sought t o ensure that its members’ needs are catered t o i n a

full a n d

egalitarian way, b a s i n g i t s approach t o c o n s u m p t i o n o n

72

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

the elimination o f any connection between one’s i n p u t and what one receives i n return.

T h e draft kvutza constitution o f

1924 stipulates

certain basic items such

the c o m m o n this translated i n t o a system wherein community members’ economic needs were comprehensively satisfied by the kibbutz. Everything from as food, h o u s i n g a n d c l o t h i n g that were t o b e “defrayed o u t o f

account.” I n practice,

food a n d clothing right d o w n t o cigarettes (a packet a day for those w h o wanted them) was provided for

by the kibbutz. With private property

nonexistent, the

individual’s accommodation was owned by the kibbutz a n d h e therefore paid n o rent. H e had n o food bills since h e ate i n the kibbutz d i n i n g r o o m , and his clothes

were borrowed o n a weekly basis from the communal clothing store, rather than being personal t o h i m . Smaller personal items, like combs and toothbrushes, were obtained from the communal store. Children were educated at the expense o f

the community. Should a kibbutznik fall i l l , the kibbutz would foot his medical

and hospital bills.??® Although each kibbutznik received a small allowance for

trips outside the kibbutz (every member was entitled t o an annual holiday a t the kibbutz’s expense), w i t h i n the community itself, n o money was used. A n d n o r did i t need t o

be, since members’

day-to-day economic needs were wholly provided

for o u t o f the c o m m o n account.

The kibbutz retained

this status as

a moneyless society until well after Israels

independence, with solidarity, p u b l i c o p i n i o n , and “the social identification o f the

individual with the system and its administration”?! remaining the sole guardians against the potential for waste a n d over-consumption that inevitably accompanies

free distribution. I n a paper entitled “The Use and Division o f Income i n the Kibbutz” presented at a n international conference o n communal living i n 1981,

Amir Helman identified a system

of distribution and consumption that reflected

the enduring influence o f the “to each according t o his needs” approach o n the

kibbutz o f that era, with every member c o n t i n u i n g t o receive a n equal quantity o f free goods determined by the kibbutz.?? However, the 1980s would subsequently witness the erosion o f this system. For a variety o f reasons (discussed i n Chapter 5) the ideological consciousness o n which

the kibbutz h a d previously relied as the primary stabiliser o f its economy began t o atrophy.” Increasing over-consumption of free utilities led t o

the kibbutz initially

beginning t o meter energy usage, m e a n i n g that since members n o w h a d t o pay for

the electricity they used, they had t o have their own money. Private accounts were

kibbutz life for the first t i m e . Such changes rapidly filtered other areas of consumption such as eating arrangements, with the communal d i n i n g halls—previously the focal p o i n t o f kibbutz’s communal life—replaced, i n the majority o f kibbutzim today, with pay-as-you-go cafeterias. thus introduced i n t o

into

T H E KIBBUTZ

Kibbutz Polity: The No-Government

73

System

The economic model o f the pre-1948 kibbutzim was built on the principles of communal ownership o f property, with production i n the hands o f the community a n d c o n s u m p t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o Marx’s m a x i m “from each according t o t o each according t o h i s n e e d . ”

With economic

his ability

activity a n d workplace decision-

making taking place o n a n egalitarian a n d participatory basis, neither the reproduction nor the transformation o f labour power depended o n

the relations

o f production through which goods a n d services are produced a n d distributed. I n other

words, relations o f production i n the kibbutz’s economic model were not with the absence o f wage labour, this

those o f employer and employee. Coupled

meant t h a t kibbutz members were n o t s u b j e c t t o exploitation o r subordination,

a n d therefore that the social and economic antagonisms inherent i n free market economies were absent. Let’s return for a m o m e n t t o Kropotkin. Adapting the critique o f political

the Russian anarchist argued that the political should be a reflection of its economic structure.?” T o phase o f life he saw a corresponding n e w political phase

economy first p u t forward by Marx, system

of a given

society

each n e w economic

(absolute monarchy corresponded to serfdom, representative government to capital-rule and so on). I n a society where

the distinction between capitalist a n d kind would be superfluous: “Free

labourer has disappeared, government o f any

workers,” Kropotkin wrote, “would require a free organisation, and this cannot have any other basis than free agreement and free cooperation... The no-capitalist system implies the no-government system.”??® Accordingly, given the structure o f

the kibbutz’s economic relations, this “no-government system” is one t o which the settlements have tried t o adhere since

Relying o n

the very earliest days o f their existence. of its day-to-day

direct membership participation i n all areas

running, the ultimate authority o f collective governance is the general assembly

or asefa, as i t is called i n Hebrew. The general assembly, o f which every kibbutz member was a part, m e t o n a weekly basis, traditionally i n the communal dining r o o m , a n d was the forum i n which the community’s decision-making took place.

I n i t , kibbutzniks could confront social, political and economic issues o r consider n e w candidates for membership. Every member h a d one vote a n d decisions were made by majority vote. Direct participation a n d involvement o f

all i n the general while this expectation m a y have been adhered t o the communities’ younger days, today only about 35 percent t o 40 percent o f

assembly was expected (though in

the members attend the general assembly's sessions). The direct democracy that the pioneers sought t o achieve involved every

member o f the kibbutz engaging i n the decision-making process, and the views o f every member given equal consideration. D u r i n g the earliest years

of

the movement, when the populations o f m a n y o f the kvutzot hardly made i t i n t o double figures, the decision-making process was,

by nature,

informal

and

74

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

sporadic, characterised

by

spontaneous direct democracy a n d loosely formed

organisational institutions.””” Decisions were made strictly b y consensus,

with

informal group discussions, debates a n d arguments—again, usually taking place

i n the communal dining room, without a chairman o r fixed agenda—being the

main forum i n which political activity took place. I t was assumed

by

the earliest kibbutz communards that the work would

get accomplished w i t h o u t having t o endow any individual o r group with power over

their associates—and during this early period i t did. B u t with

demographic

expansion a n d economic diversification came a recognition that the face-to-face democracy and consensus-based decision-making achievable i n the small, intimate communities o f

the

early years

had

t o evolve. Although the diversification,

expansion and the increased economic complexity o f the kibbutz meant that some

kind o f formal organisation was necessary, this recognition was still coupled with a n ideological commitment t o prevent any o n e individual o r group from acquiring personal power, a n d to subvert the formation o f a n “entrenched bureaucracy”—

i.e. a separate political class or ruling elite—within the kibbutz. *** I t was with this i n m i n d that the kibbutz’s decision-making structures evolved.

According t o the 1924 draft kvutza constitution, the general assembly remained

the “supréme organ o f the kvutza,”

as i t h a d traditionally been, b u t i t n o w took

u p o n itself the responsibility o f appointing “executive organs that are t o run c u r r e n t affairs for a certain term.””” So, while the general assembly remained

the ultimate forum i n

which

major policy decisions were

decided, certain

responsibilities beyond that were delegated t o various committees.

An

executive committee elected

by

the general assembly, i n t u r n , elected a

secretary for a o n e o r t w o year term, a n d sub-committees were appointed t o

deal

with various aspects o f community life. Areas such as work allocation, culture, services, economic planning, cultivation, personal relations, health, education, sports, entertainment and so o n would all have their o w n committees. I n addition

of secretary, treasurer a n d economic from and elected by the general assembly. These were held o n a temporary basis and rotated after a

t o these, a secretariat, usually consisting

coordinator, was nominated various administrative offices

predetermined period o f time, usually ranging from between one and five years. With the implementation o f

held as

this system o f administrative

offices i t was still

axiomatic that members elected t o these positions m u s t n o t b e afforded

any material advantage over their peers. Their o p i n i o n was n o t t o outweigh that of any

other kibbutznik,

a n d they w o u l d n o t e n j o y a n y m o r e prestige o r status

than anyone else. With those elected t o these offices enjoying n o special privileges

material rewards (the rewards

from the “satisfaction o f serving fills the post,”) a n d frequent rotation o f leadership positions and the participation o f u p t o 50 percent o f kibbutzniks o n various committees at any given time, the kibbutz system of or

derived solely

a n d from the appreciation o f everyone for the person w h o

THE KIBBUTZ

democracy remained geared towards preventing the formation o f any

kind

75

of

powerful and entrenched bureaucratic e l i t e .

All kibbutz

members serving o n committees were t o carry o u t their special

duties at night, with n o excuse other than i l l health accepted for n o t working o n

the land during the day—secretary, treasurer, economic coordinator and everyone else.?! The role o f these office-holders was seen as purely organisational, a n d did not bring

with

i t the

ability t o

back t h e i r recommendations

with

any

kind

of

sanctions o r coercive o r quasi-governmental power. Committees, for example, even i n the administrative functions they

fulfilled, remained under the scrutiny

by the Josef Blasi,

o f the community i n general. A n y policy decisions were still thrashed o u t general assembly i n open meetings. According t o kibbutz sociologist

writing i n the mid-1980s,

The close

community structure, economic equality, direct-democracy a n d

the

absence o f wage differentials work together t o discourage the formation o f elite groups. O f the several central mechanisms that reduce stratification, foremost is the collective system o f reward. Members are nominated t o public offices, n o t

elected; thus, “influence campaigns” seldom occur. Power i n such offices and committee posts is coordinating a n d executive, n o t definitive. People persuade, relate and direct. The general assembly, however, defines, decides, a n d sets the l i m i t s and policy for ofhcials. Officials receive power

from the community, n o t

from the people w h o held power previously. So

the “power”

o f the ofhcers is further restricted

decisions are s t i l l made, n o t

by

them, b u t

by

by

the fact that major

the general assembly o f kibbutz

members with w h o m the ultimate authority regarding matters o f governance remains. The general assembly, i n effect, organ”

held o n t o its

of the kibbutz, retaining the prerogative

should h e

function as

“the supreme

t o remove a n officer at any t i m e

fail t o live u p t o the expectations o f the community.

Over the

years, the increased complexity o f kibbutz social organisation a n d

demographic expansion have resulted i n this system’s evolution into an enormously complicated and comprehensive network o f committees, each charged with responsibility for the organisation and management o f the m a n y diverse areas

the kibbutz’s social a n d economic life. Although expansion meant that social relations became less i n t i m a t e and less visible, this diffuse decision-making system o f interrelated committees, branches a n d groups continues t o underpin the life o f today’s kibbutzim. There m a y b e more committees than there were, and their of

functions m a y b e more specialised, with kibbutz politics spread across the variety o f consulting and executive groups that have become the n e w decision-making centres, but sovereignty still ultimately rests with the general assembly o f members i n which all the functions of the kibbutz’s political process are still integrated.

76

A LIVING REVOLUTION

Order Without Law Just as the kibbutz’s participatory labour model is held together by public opinion, gossip and social consciousness, i t is these same informal mechanisms that are the primary stabilisers of the community’s social and political life. The kibbutz employs no formal enforcement mechanisms t o safeguard social cohesion, and relies instead o n the

social pressures of

group

life

a n d the intense intimacy o f

interpersonal relations within the community t o ensure voluntary adherence t o its

self-imposed, collectively-decided behavioural norms. The fact that social relations

are so intimate o n the kibbutz means that the direct exchange, airing and resolution o f views o n a n informal

basis is a n everyday feature o f kibbutz life. This

face-to-

face interaction is seen as essential for direct democracy t o flourish, irrespective o f

the presence (or otherwise) of official legislative and supervisory institutions.” Inapaperentitled “Lawsand Legalism i n Kibbutz,” presented a t a n international

conference on communes and kibbutzim i n 1985, Avraham Yassour suggests that, b y their very nature as organic societies based o n voluntary association, communal responsibility, mutual t r u s t and collectively-decided agreements, the kibbutzim simply have a specialised

body o f

no need for

formalised rules and sanctions enforced

by

coercive legal institutions.?** Apparently attesting t o the

veracity o f Yassour’s claim, Josef Blasi’s study o f Kibbutz Vatik, published i n 1986, notes that the community had never experienced any serious crime i n its entire lifetime. I n a letter to Londons Freedom newspaper i n 1940, a British airman

stationed i n Palestine recorded a similar observation. Within the kibbutzim, he

“The p r o b l e m o f violence has simply n o t arisen,” a n d h e suggests that across the kibbutz movement as a whole this trend is n o t exceptional.?** Yassour’s o w n study similarly finds that the very phenomenon o f crime “factually disappeared”

wrote,

within the settlements.?® These remarks o n the non-existence o f crime were all made at a time when m a n y o f the communities were o f equivalent size t o small towns, o r at least large villages, m a n y o f them housing well over a thousand people each. Although neither

Blasi nor Yassour reflect on the other pressures conducive

to

solidarity within

the ability t o maintain a crime-free existence, for a n organisation the size o f the kibbutz movement t o have survived the communities

that could have bolstered

for the best part o f a century without having experienced any serious crime is clearly still n o mean achievement.

has the modern industrialised juvenile delinquency and

Inextricably linked to this absence o f crime is the fact that the kibbutz achieved a level o f social wellbeing almost unheard o f i n world. Blasi records h o w suicide, mental illness,

drug abuse have been almost totally eliminated among their membership, an accomplishment due i n large part, according t o sociologist Menechem Rosner, t o a sense o f belonging a n d a common identity promoted mutual

help a n d

by the

cooperation,

solidarity o f the peer g r o u p . ” “The emotional attachment o f

T H E KIBBUTZ

7/7

the individual kibbutz member t o his peer group,” writes Rosner, “and t o the

almost eliminated the feelings o f isolation, o f loneliness i n the crowd, o f anomie, s o familiar t o m o d e r n mass society.” T h e very nature of kibbutz membership, he says, “creates a feeling o f belonging, of sharing the fate

kibbutz as a whole

o f others, which are the conditions for real synergy and cooperation between

human beings.”*®

“The feeling o f

living a meaningful part o f something larger than oneself

“Total rather than this synergy i n the apparently glowing success story that is the kibbutz’ social life is echoed throughout m u c h of the literature written o n the kibbutz movement by members and outside researchers alike. While the lessons t o b e drawn from t h i s m u s t b e accompanied by a n acknowledgement that the kibbutz is obviously n o t without its problems (particularly i n the very recent years, when trends towards individualism have receives constant social reinforcement,” agrees Daniel Katz.

partial inclusion is the r u l e . ”

The role played b y

threatened to undermine the tight-knit community structure), i n comparison t o

the rest o f

Israeli society, the

kibbutz i s s t i l l a veritable

laboratory for students o f

social psychology a n d criminology.

I n their book Reform through Community (1991), social scientist Michael Fischer and education philosopher Brenda Geiger describe a n experimental project i n which a number o f young offenders were invited t o live a n d work as members o n kibbutzim i n l i e u o f the offenders’ perceptions

of

final third o f their prison sentences. Focusing o n the the kibbutzim, Fischer and

their o w n experience o n

Geiger explain h o w the protective environment, daily routines, egalitarianism,

peer group support, acceptance and trust provided b y the kibbutz way o f life

yielded involvement, commitment

a n d higher self-esteem. Relating the kibbutz

ways o f ensuring a harmonious social order t o theories o f social psychology criminology, Fischer and Geiger argue that the kibbutz’s w a y o f

life

and

provides

insight into h o w a combination of group dynamics a n d social learning i n a context

o f meaningful work and acceptance are conducive t o solving the problems o f

anomie in modern society.

Education o n the Kibbutz For the founding generation of kibbutzniks, the “solidarity of the peer group” identified by Rosner as a key determinant o f the kibbutz’s peaceful a n d

their situation. I t was from pioneering spirit, a n d also from the simple fact that m a n y o f the earliest settlements sprang from the nucleus o f a group o f friends w h o h a d grown u p together, made Aliya together, a n d lived communally p r i o r t o cohesive social relations was b o r n from the hardships o f

b o r n from élan,

founding their kvutzot.

the kibbutz—the fell o n the kibbutz’s education system. Needless t o say, the question of family a n d child-rearing was the subject of intense For subsequent generations however—those b o r n into

duty

of

fostering peer group solidarity

78

A LIVING REVOLUTION

disagreement within the movement from day one, and still constitutes one o f the most e n d u r i n g , complex, emotive ( a n d also myth-ridden) disputes s u r r o u n d i n g

the kibbutz movement. Apart from practical considerations,

the b i r t h o f the first children i n t o the

their their o r did

kvutzot gave rise t o a major ideological crisis. S h o u l d the parents b r i n g u p

child, o r should i t be i n someone else’s care? Should children live with family o r i n separate accommodation? Were children “private property”

they belong t o the group? The answer t o the latter was, in many respects, fairly clear. Since the communal

life o f

the early settlements saw

all expenses defrayed

collectively, i t was taken as self-evident that the expenses o f childrearing and education should b e borne by all. Nobody was t o b e exempt from

this just because

h e o r she h a d n o children.?*® Moreover, i t was felt that a n individual approach t o parenting would b e detrimental t o collective work, a n d i t was taken as read that the arrival o f a child i n t o the kibbutz should n o t interfere with the egalitarianism a n d participation o f communal life.

B u t the arrival o f the first babies i n Degania presented another, much more far-reaching problem for the communards. W h e n the first children were b o r n o n the settlement, their parents were dismayed

by their selfish

tendencies, and

i n constructing the kibbutz education system, made i t a priority t o ensure that these traits were replaced

by

cooperation, mutual sympathy a n d mutual

concern. Within the kibbutz, the education and socialisation o f youth came t o be considered a

(guides) a n d

joint enterprise o f the parents, metaplot (house mothers), madrichim teachers, w h o between them took joint responsibility for p l a n n i n g

a n d i m p l e m e n t i n g various educational programs. The education system

the kibbutz created was based o n the idea that children

should also live i n their o w n community environment, a “community o f youth” that would make the peer group the major socialising force rather than the traditional nuclear family structure. From infancy onward, children o n most

kibbutzim lived together i n the children’s house, where their parents visited for a

few hours every day and for m o s t o f the day on Shabbat and holidays.?*! Children were raised a n d educated i n groups, usually o f around sixteen, w h o remained

high school. Life w i t h i n these groups by the same democratic principles that governed the kibbutz’s adult

together from nursery school through t o was guided

society.

The youth society (composed o f adolescents aged thirteen t o eighteen) existed as a self-governing

body i n i t s o w n right, with its o w n general assembly, work The madrich guided the group and interceded only if the

a n d social committees.

children’s behaviours deviated drastically from kibbutz norms. Agricultural or other vocational training was valued just as m u c h as academic learning, and, from the earliest possible age, children were encouraged t o d o useful work a n d take u p

their natural role i n the productive life o f

the community.?*?

THE KIBBUTZ

7/9

With a n emphasis o n solidarity and cooperation, competition between groups was encouraged o n l y t o the extent that i t increased group solidarity and teamwork. A s the community took o n m a n y o f the duties traditionally assumed

by

the

parents, even after the rapid abandonment o f the more “extreme” communist practices (in m a n y kibbutzim, prolonged separation between parents and children quickly proved too m u c h for b o t h

parties), the e d u c a t i o n

system c o n t i n u e d t o

ensure that the authority structure o f the traditional nuclear family did not exist. Whether o r n o t this education system was either successful o r healthy is a question that has caused a great deal o f debate ( b u t n o t so m u c h i n the w a y o f consensus) among psychologists and sociologists all over the world. B u t perhaps more interesting is

the quite remarkable degree

t o which the kibbutz education

system polarises o p i n i o n even among those w h o actually went through i t .

O f her

upbringing at Kibbutz Nachshon, Dorit Friedman recalled h o w “ i t was inhuman, really inhuman.”?** Other kibbutzniks blame their schooling for strained parent and

sibling relationships

that were never overcome. Childcare experts have

described h o w “unnatural feelings” a b o u t extended parent-child separations persist

even among second- and third-generation

kibbutzniks w h o

never experienced a

traditional family u p b r i n g i n g . O n the other hand, o n e o f the first children t o b e b o r n at Degania recalled,

i n later

life,

a happier

childhood, d u r i n g which the “mutual concern for o n e the earliest age t o the p o i n t where i t became intuitive,

another,” nurtured from

an impulse that the individual obeyed instinctively, m e a n t that “ i t never occurred t o m e that I c o u l d have a n orange a n d n o t share i t w i t h all the c h i l d r e n . ”

Although the education system of the kibbutz evolved largely through trial and error (mainly error, some would say—by the late 1970s m o s t kibbutzim had abandoned m a n y o f the practices outlined above a n d returned t o traditional family life), i t was this feeling of non-reflexive m u t u a l aid a n d solidarity that the early kibbutzniks were attempting t o encourage i n t h e i r offspring. I t was

this

that

formed the basis of the education system they created. For the same

reason, educational ideas were also central t o the modus operandi o f many o f the

European youth groups that contributed t o building the kibbutzim of the 1920s and 1930s. Hashomer Hatzair is a particular case i n point. As an educational

Hatzair believed that educational training, a n d the kind of discipline fostered through participation i n a youth group, was the k e y t o collective settlement a n d the m o s t essential a n d effective m e a n s o f building a viable a n d sustainable community. A good insight i n t o the kind of educational framework they were trying t o create is obtained by looking at the youth movement, Hashomer

particular

organisation's activities in Europei n the 1930s. The m o v e m e n t divided itselfinto age groups (shichvor): Bnei Midbar (nine t o twelve years old); Zofim, subdivided into Zofim Zeirim (twelve t o thirteen) and Zofim (fourteen t o fifteen); and Bogrim, again subdivided into Zofim Bogrim (sixteen t o seventeen) and Zofim (eighteen and over). According t o kibbutz

80

A LIVING REVOLUTION

researcher Michael Tyldesley,

the B n e i

Midbar worked “using a n emotional

approach based o n customs, symbols and commandments o f the movement,” whereas the Zofim program was based o n “character-building a n d establishing

The Bogrim worked o n broadening Hatzair i n light of the organisations situation a n d role i n Jewish community-building i n Palestine, while the Zofim worked with texts like the Communist Manifesto and writings by Kropotkin a n d Landauer.?* This educational system was t o b e the bedrock o n which Kibbutz Artzi would b e built; its “organic” kibbutzim maintaining social cohesion and ideological the basis

for a Marxist-Zionist worldview.”

their understanding o f the politico-ideological roots o f Hashomer

conformity—and thus coherence and sustainability as socio-economic units— because its members had all gone through

Hatzair's emphasis

this educational process.

Hashomer

o n the development o f this “ideological collectivism” as a n

educational youth movement came t o b e institutionalised i n

TheKibbutz Federations From a n early stage, high

levels

of

their kibbutzim.

inter-community reciprocity a n d

the

beginnings o f relatively complex trade a n d communication networks began t o

develop among the settlements. The idea o f federation has been central t o the kibbutz movement since its inception, with Landauer, Arlosoroff, Buber and Yaari, t o name but four o f the m o s t influential ideologues i n the early movement,

all envisioning a Jewish nation i n Palestine built on an association of communal

(arguably i n some ways appositional t o the other “macro” vision o f the kibbutz talked about during the early development of the Gedud and Kibbutz

settlements

Hameuhad). Federations—loose, sporadic, a n d spontaneous at first—assumed m a n y o f the responsibilities usually taken o n by the state.

The idea o f formalising the trend towards federation remained just a n idea until 1925. The minutes o f a meeting o f kvutza representatives held at Degania the previous year show that, although the question of a federation of kvutzot had n o t yet been investigated, i t was considered “important insofar as i t m a y improve relations among the kvutzot,”?¥ and mutual aid seen “as a w a y o f spreading the communal idea.”

According t o Martin Buber’s famous retrospective analysis though,

Even i n

its first undifferentiated form a tendency towards federation was innate

i n the kvutza,

to

merge the Kvutzoth [sic] i n some higher social unit; and a

very important tendency i t was, since i t showed that the Kvutza implicitly

that i t was the cell o f a newly structured society. With the splitting proliferation o f the various forms, from the semi-individualistic form which jealously guarded personal independence i n its domestic economy, w a y

understood off a n d

o f life, children’s education etc., was supplanted

by a

and a more o r less

to

the pure communistic form, the single unit

of units i n each of which a definite definite human type constituted itself o n series

form

of colony basis.

a federal

T H E KIBBUTZ

81

The fundamental assumption was that the local groups would combine on the same principle o f solidarity and mutual help as reigned within the individual

group.’ I n his chapter o n Kropotkin i n Paths i n Utopia, B u b e r acknowledges the Russian anarchist’s belief that “a socialistic community could only b e built o n the basis o f

a double intercommunal bond, namely the federation of regional communes and trade communes variously intercrossing a n d supporting o n e another.” more o r less along these lines that the kibbutzim would evolve.

The

communities established

by the

I t was

various pioneering organisations

of

the Second and Third Aliyot gradually gravitated towards one another, laying

the groundwork

for

the subsequent

development

of the

federations. Gedud

HaAvoda evolved into Kibbutz Hameuhad (United Kibbutz), the Hashomer

Hatzair kibbutzim coalesced into Kibbutz Artzi Hashomer Hatzair (the National Kibbutz Movement o f the Young Guard). Hever Hakvutzot (the Association o f Kvutzot), the first federation formed i n 1925, became part o f the Thud Hakvutzot

Vehakibbutzim (The Union o f Collective Settlements) i n 1951. Throughout the twentieth century, the movement operated o n this federal basis with principles o f mutual aid between kibbutzim, as they underwent a complex a n d extensive process of splits a n d mergers. Today, The Kibbutz Movement—an

amalgam of the t w o largest federations, TAKAM a n d Kibbutz Artzi—houses some 94 percent of the country’s total kibbutz population, the Kibbutz Dati, the Religious Kibbutz Movement, making u p the remaining 6 percent?!

With representatives

from every

kibbutz, each

federation organises a central

authority with annual a n d extra-ordinary assemblies. A t any given time, a kibbutz

has around 6 percent o f its members working full time o n federation business, assignments that are rotated approximately every t w o years. A s well as planning, research, evaluation, consultant work and occupational a n d educational training

programs, the federations provide comprehensive healthcare, social insurance and various other federation-wide services, including economic and technical

advisory services such as the Kibbutz Industries Association (KIA), a voluntary organisation, established i n 1962, that represents and advises all the industrial

the movement.” While each kibbutz is a n autonomous of mutual aid a n d cooperation evident from the very inception

projects throughout entity, the bonds

o f the movement remain concrete i n these national federations. T h e progressive

tax system, organised

by the federations,

which enables

the m o r e

established

kibbutzim to help younger o r weaker settlements, is a contemporary example o f

the kind of aid that existed between the early kibbutzim.

Although the federations’ primary role involves co-ordinating activities within and between kibbutzim, they have also traditionally played a big part i n the life o f wider society. A noteworthy example o f this is the Branch for Involvement i n Israeli Society, a unit established t o create programs t o help Israel’s underprivileged.

82

A LIVING REVOLUTION

While the federations co-ordinate national political programmes and develop the expected norms o f conduct for the member kibbutzim i n terms o f consumption, educational programs a n d regulations i n various other spheres

of life, the kibbutz

secretariat i n Tel Aviv has n o real power, as such, over the individual kibbutzim. Unless a decision o f the secretariat is accepted and ratified by the general assembly

o f each kibbutz, the central authority has little power o f coercion, allowing the individual kibbutzim t o retain

The Histadrut The kibbutzim

their basic autonomy.*>’

are self-contained social models i n themselves, b o u n d together

i n this federative structure, b u t they have always been connected t o the country’s

trade u n i o n movement, the Histadrut. Quite apart from its enormous influence i n defining the ideological self-understanding o f the kibbutz movement, i n the context o f this discussion the Histadrut is a n interesting organisation i n its o w n right. Founded i n Haifa i n December 1920, the Histadrut was created t o provide

for all Jewish workers,

a federation

t o promote l a n d settlement, a n d t o s t a n d u p

for workers’ rights, as well as t o provide services such as a n employment exchange, sick pay a n d consumer benefits for its members. More than simply being a tradeu n i o n movement i n the conventional sense however,

the Histadrut

became

something o f a n “alternative society” d u r i n g the pre-state years. From

1920 onwards,

the Histadrut would o w n a n d control a wide variety

o f different enterprises throughout Palestine, a n d i t was, for a time,

employer i n

the largest

the country. As well as owning numerous businesses and factories, i t

had its o w n network o f schools and ran teachers’ seminars, libraries and cultural

the country.

clubs across

Workers’ councils i n the cities a n d

the kibbutzim

ran

various cultural programs, sponsored sports clubs, a n d established flourishing publishing houses.?** I n

pre-1948 Palestine, as Laqueur notes, the of its enterprises. H e could do

A trade u n i o n m e m b e r had n o need t o move far outside the compass o f Histadrut sector, even i f he did n o t work i n o n e

h i s s h o p p i n g i n a cooperative store, deposit his money i n a workers’ bank, send

his children t o Histadrut-sponsored kindergartens a n d schools, and consult a

doctor

at

the Kupat Holim (Histadrut Sick Fund), which was ultimately

to

65 percent o f t h e total population, a semi-ofhicial fact. B u t for the fact t h a t the H i s t a d r u t did n o t o w n

provide medical services for national

health service i n

cemeteries, i t w o u l d have been true t o say that the Histadrut provided the great majority w i t h all amenities from the cradle t o t h e grave.”

Within

two

years o f its inception, the Histadrut had over 8,000 members,

just over half o f the Jewish working class i n Palestine. By 1927, n o w 25,000 members, i t incorporated 75 percent o f the country’s entire Jewish

representing with

workforce. Although the creation o f the state meant that some o f the functions

T H E KIBBUTZ

it

83

had previously fulfilled were n o longer needed, the arganisation would remain

a n i m p o r t a n t mainstay o f the l a b o u r movement a n d c o n t i n u e d t o provide k e y

welfare functions until the 1990s.

Anarchism i n the Kibbutz? T o characterise the kibbutz’s unique model o f organisation described i n

this

chapter as a microcosm o f state socialism o r Marxism, as many have done, would b e a mistake. Although,

by the

early 1930s, the wider discourse o f settlement

was framed almost entirely within a Marxist-Leninist ideological context, a n d the

official line of the kibbutzim had, as a reflection of a larger Israeli political discourse (and particularly that o f the Histadrut), become avowedly pro-communist, the model

of politico-economic organisation created within the kibbutz itself differs

sO enormously from that o f m o s t of,

state socialism that

the t w o

theoretical blueprints for, o r historical examples

While the his followers are

systems are s i m p l y n o t analogous.

essential preconditions o f state socialism as defined by Marx o r

n o t present i n the kibbutz system, the key characteristics o f anarchist socialism

are clearly visible.

This is the l i n e taken b y Israeli journalist and kibbutz member Giora Manor, whose 1993 article “The Kibbutz: Caught Between ‘ I s m s ’ attempts t o dispel the idea that the kibbutz is the practical example o f Marxism o r a microcosm o f state-

that i t is commonly thought to be. M a n o r argues that the shift towards Marxist ideas that began during the 1920s actually had n o real bearing o n the reality o f kibbutz life b u t merely created “an ever-widening chasm based forms o f socialism

between ideology as expressed i n slogans and manifestos, a n d reality.”>*

still implemented i n kibbutz life b u t never this discrepancy between ideology a n d praxis was

Anarchism, M a n o r claims, “was m e n t i o n e d . ” ” H e believes

by the kibbutz’s educators, whose task i t w a s t o explain t o the youngsters the theory of the community into which they had been born. D u r i n g the 1930s, this task was made particularly problematic by the staunch anti-Zionist stance o f communists all over the world (some kibbutz leaders spoke o f the “unrequited love affair” between the USSR and the kibbutz movement). felt m o s t acutely

B u t even after the kibbutzim’s official pro-communist stance was made easier to

rationalise by the USSR’s fighting against Hitler during the Second World

W a r a n d its subsequent influence i n the United Nations’ decision t o vote for the creation o f the state o f Israel, “the educators went o n t o pay

lip

service t o

Marxism, but did n o t try t o connect i t t o kibbutz theory.”*® Manor suggests i t became unfashionable within the kibbutzim t o formulate any theory regarding the basic principles of the kibbutz i n a wider ideological framework, noting t h a t , “until the 1950s hardly anybody noticed the absurdity o f preaching Marxism while living according t o the principles o f anarchism.”

While this

argument m u s t b e set i n a framework i n which the importance o f

84

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

Jewish and early Israeli society the adoption of a Marxist-socialist

Marxism—specifically Leninism—to Palestinian could n o t

be overstated, Manor's

claim that

worldview resulted i n a “complete divorce between kibbutz theory a n d kibbutz

practice,” rather than i n the abandonment o f anarchism as a way o f life, is one that

has some basis.

While the rhetoric m a y have become Marxist, i n

terms o f

the communities’

internal structure and praxis, the kibbutzim actually moved closer towards social anarchism during

this period

than conventional analyses might suggest.

Although the amalgamation o f agriculture a n d industry meant a divorce from

the

cosmic Tolstoyanism o f the early, agriculturally-orientated kvutzot a n d resulted i n the kibbutzim having t o re-think their organisational structures, economic diversification brought the communities closer t o Kropotkin a n d Landauer’ ideal o f the local-level integration o f industry a n d agriculture than they h a d previously

been. The introduction initially o f small, light-industrial workshops and subsequent integration

with

their

larger scale industry and intensive, technologically

advanced horticulture and agriculture, as eco-anarchist Graham Purchase argues, resulted i n the kibbutz model becoming “exactly the sort o f modern communal village/small town life which Kropotkin

had envisaged.”**

Chapter 5

A New Kibbutz Movement? The Kibbutz in the Twenty-First Century

“ F o r anarchists and o l d fashioned socialists, the kibbutz movement i n

Palestine... w a s a n example o f h o w people could live a n d work together without the state, the boss and the incentives o f capitalism. Alas, it would appear

that the kibbutzim

n o w exist only i n name, i n that they

have abandoned all the values a n d objectives that made them unique.”

—The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly, Summer 1995

Interviewed i n 1999, N o a m Chomsky remarked that the early kibbutz communities “came closer t o the anarchist ideal than any other attempt that lasted for more than a very brief moment before destruction.” Internally,

the communes

certainly

proved themselves capable of creating and sustaining a functioning social system based o n

the principles o f classical anarchist theory, b u t i n

addition t o providing

a comfortable and egalitarian existence for their o w n membership, d u r i n g the prestate p e r i o d , they also succeeded where o t h e r utopian experiments failed. T h e y

this t o a national level, effectively building a n entire national the success of cooperative labour organised through a federated

managed t o extend

infrastructure o n

alliance o f horizontally run communal societies.

The organisational and economic structure o f the Yishuv i n the early years Jewish settlement consisted o f a panarchistic pattern o f various co-existing collective, quasi-collective and n o t so collective institutions, from the kibbutzim a n d the virtually all-encompassing Histadrut federation a t o n e e n d of the spectrum, through t o capitalist enterprises like the Rothschild colonies at the o t h e r . ? ¢ 2 / 2 % Alongside the Jewish cooperative bodies that formed the backbone of the Yishuv’s economy, the Palestinian economy kept going the whole time. The Arab villages, of

themselves run i n a broadly collective fashion, continued t o grow crops and take

their produce t o market i n Hebron, Be’er Sheva and Jaffa. Until the Arab revolt of

1936, the t w o economies were largely integrated, with certain commodities

(vegetables for instance) produced mainly by the Arab sector a n d others, including various sorts o f fruit, imported from neighbouring Arab countries.?**

Although they were ultimately under the jurisdiction o f foreign powers at all times, this decentralised network o f communes, cooperatives and other collective a n d quasi-collective enterprises proved itself capable o f carrying o u t m o s t o f the

88

A LIVING REVOLUTION

major functions usually undertaken

by the centralised institutions

o f capitalism

and the state. O n the back ofcollective endeavour, industry, agriculture, all manner o f cultural a n d

social programs

and even a rudimentary national health service

were successfully coordinated. Individuals were free t o adhere voluntarily

system o f their choice a n d

join a n d leave

the

t o the

jurisdiction o f the communities at

their o w n discretion.

The Betrayal o fa Dream A s w e have seen, this situation

was something that m a n y o f the kibbutz

founders initially hoped w o u l d become a permanent arrangement. I n terms

o f capability, i t might

well have been able

to.

The fact that this vision would

ultimately n o t come t o fruition is attributable t o a series o f larger-scale betrayals that occurred during the

British Mandate period, as the dream pursued by the

early communards was systematically manipulated and hijacked by the emerging

Zionist institutions o f the state-to-be. A clear portent o f what was t o come, and arguably o n e o f the earliest and most

distinct points o f betrayal, can be seen i n events surrounding Kibbutz Tel Yosef

i n the Jezreel Valley i n the early 1920s. Established in 1922 by members o f the Gedud HaAvoda, Tel Yosef was a n offshoot kibbutz o f Ein Harod. I n the summer o f 1923 i t was t o become the focal point for the culmination o f escalating tensions

between the Ahdut HaAvoda and the Gedud HaAvoda. Since its inception in 1919, Ahdut HaAvoda aimed to bring the Gedud under its control, and under the leadership o f the m a n w h o would become Israels first Prime Minister, David ‘Ben-Gurion, i t made attempts t o move towards a merger. I n the r u n - u p t o the

second Histadrut convention i n 1922, at which p o i n t the Ahdut HaAvoda’s control o f the Histadrut was still n o t yet secured, B e n - G u r i o n approached the

Gedud and the rest of the Jezreel Valley kibbutzim i n an attempt t o broaden and strengthen

the Ahdut HaAvoda’s support-base.

O n December 3, Ben-Gurion addressed a meeting o f kibbutz representatives

he spoke o f his concerns about the viability o f the the need for a “strong organised body that will lead the w a y for the masses of workers.”**> H e complained of the Histadrut’s weakness a n d its inability t o effectively control the different elements convened at Tel Yosef, where

Histadrut as i t existed a t that t i m e a n d stressed

existing within i t , arguing that the priority from that p o i n t forward was t o strengthen the organisation, which, h e said, “can a n d should be everything i n

this country,” b u t was “not yet created.”*® Ben-Gurion declared his i n t e n t i o n t o

their support o f his attempts the hands of the World Z i o n i s t O r g a n i s a t i o n .

make the kibbutzim his power base, a n d asked for t o control the sources o f funding i n

H e argued that, without a n independent financial basis, there would b e n o hope for achieving autonomy.

B e n - G u r i o n was a m a n with a considerable talent for manipulation. While h e k n e w perfectly

well that all this would be more than acceptable t o the kibbutzim,

A N E W KIBBUTZ M O V E M E N T ?

at n o point

did

h e m e n t i o n anything a b o u t ideological partnership.”

89

Many

representatives o f the kibbutzim at that time envisaged the Histadrut taking the form o f a nationwide “cooperative o f organised bodies,” b u t Ben-Gurion felt that

the labour

federation would b e m u c h easier t o control if i t was composed n o t o f

groups, b u t o f individuals.?®® H e knew the Histadrut became a

body that

gave

that if the kibbutzim had their way, a n d priority t o socialist, ideologically-driven

communes that demanded economic egalitarianism and complete autonomy; it could quite easily become a serious competitor t o Ahdut HaAvoda. This was a risk Ben-Gurion was n o t prepared t o

take. After the second Histadrut

convention,

when i t became clear that the Gedud had n o intention o f merging with Ahdut

decided t o eradicate this threat once a n d for all. the make-up o f the t w o organisations’ respective leaderships,

HaAvoda, h e Given

this was

never going t o prove particularly problematic for a m a n o f Ben-Gurion’s political abilities. The leadership o f

the Gedud did n o t

have

his talent for manipulation, what they preached.

preferring instead t o make a h a b i t o f actually practising

“Unlike Ahdut HaAvoda,” writes Ze'ev Sternhell, “not only did the Gedud adhere uncompromisingly t o the principles o f equality and mutual aid administered through the c o m m o n treasury, but its leaders set a personal example.”

“They laboured strenuously, first i n laying roads and afterwards i n the

fields of the Jezreel Valley,” Sternhell explains. “They laid the foundations of Ein Harod and Tel Yosef with their o w n hands a n d suffered with the rest from weakness and malnutrition. That was their great mistake. Instead o f embarking o n a political career, taking over the administrative jobs i n the Bureau o f Public

Works while

that was

still possible

key positions i n the Histadrut, the principles o f equality, autonomous

a n d seizing

they continued t o work hard a n d realise

labour and personal example. While [the leaders o f the Gedud] were setting up...

kibbutzim, spreading Gedud companies from the Upper Galilee t o Jerusalem, a n d building and stonecutting, the heads o f Ahdut HaAvoda were making politics

into a profession, setting u p a n apparatus and binding thousands o f isolated, unorganised workers t o

the Histadrut without regarding themselves as being for a

single moment obligated t o set a personal example.”?” A s a w a y o f weakening his political opponents, a n d i n

light o f the escalation

of tensions between the Gedud and Ahdut HaAvoda, Ben-Gurion decided t o l o o k again at Shlomo Lavi’s demand that kibbutz Ein Harod be taken away from the Gedud. Lavi sought the dissolution of the Gedud through the elimination o f its common treasury, and h e wanted to prevent any possibility o f the finances allocated t o Ein Harod being transferred t o other settlements. T o this end,

he essentially accused the Gedud of embezzlement. Armed with a variety o f allegations concerning the misuse o f resources, h e approached the Histadrut

authorities asking that the supply of money t o the Gedud’s treasury be c u t off.” O n December 2 , 1922, Lavi made an official declaration about the Gedud’s alleged actions. B e n - G u r i o n made n o reference t o Lavi’s

allegations—though

90

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

he

was well aware o f them—when

he

addressed

the

meeting o f kibbutz

representatives a t Tel Yosef the following d a y (asking for t h e i r support a t the

Histadrut convention), nor did he i n the following weeks. He saved i t up for

what he felt was the right m o m e n t . When this m o m e n t came, he “applied the full force of the Histadrut steamroller o n behalf of the Ahdut HaAvoda.”*”* Although the Gedud’s adherents at Tel Yosef vastly outnumbered Lavi’s supporters i n E i n H a r o d , the Histadrut demanded that the joint economy be divided equally between the t w o settlements. Tel Yosef refused p o i n t blank t o divide u p the property. After delivering a n u l t i m a t u m , which was ignored, Ben-Gurion retaliated against the kibbutz. “ B e n Gurion acted swiftly and with cruelty,” writes Sternhell o f the event, “and h e

did not

shrink

from u s i n g any means, including withholding medical aid,

food

supplies, and other necessities. A blockade was imposed o n Tel Yosef...nothing could be expected o f Gedud members except complete surrender.”?”

Pawns The Tel Yosef affair, which took place i n M a y and June 1923, marks the first

p o i n t at which the dream o f a n organic commonwealth o f autonomous, egalitarian communities was betrayed. The emergent state apparatus, led by up-and-coming

career politician David Ben-Gurion, usurped the utopian possibilities of the kibbutzim, while preserving the myth of that utopia for his o w n political purposes.

With Ben-Gurion’s seizing control o f the means o f distribution and using i t against a n individual kibbutz i n retaliation for its refusal to obey the order o f a central authority, the creation o f a n e w kind o f society effectively stopped being a realistic proposition. After that, i t was only a matter o f time before the kibbutz movement turned from a nationwide socialist experiment, within a non-state mandatory entity, into a collectivist component o f a state-driven, command economy.

I f the

the utopian moment, the second was of the this was also a betrayal by a state, but n o t apparatus that was taking shape i n Palestine. This was

first betrayal was o f

revolutionary moment. I n a sense,

the proto-Zionist state a betrayal

by the

underlying reality that Zionism was, from the outset, i n the

service o f colonialism. Given the larger w e b o f power politics i n project to

had been entangled from the very beginning,

which the kibbutz

this was a betrayal waiting

happen. For the European Jewish youngsters o f the late nineteenth a n d early twentieth

century w h o h a d been educated i n socialist ideologies, Z i o n i s m wasn't

just about

seeing the e n d o f exile and the re-creation o f Eretz Yisrael. I t was about creating a fresh society, i n a n e w place. I t was a project t o which this generation could readily subscribe, a competing trend t o Marxist currents, a n d o n e able t o compete

due t o its ability t o a t t r a c t those people w h o d i d n o t see their calling and realisation

lying i n

conventional European revolutionary activities.

selfThis was the

A N E W K I B B U T Z MOVEMENT?

91

real cause: a revolution without a n opponent, i n which radicals w o u l d be afforded the opportunity t o

build something totally new, from scratch.

While these idealistic youngsters were building their kvutzot, however, the institutions o f political Z i o n i s m were i n the background, buying u p l a n d a n d forging diplomatic relationships with the

British

government.

This was

particularly so after the First World War with the establishment o f the Mandate, when political power i n Palestine was assumed b y the British, and b y Zionist organisations. The subsequent emergence o f interests based o n world i n t o t w o antagonistic b l o c s d u r i n g

the Jewish community i n

the division o f the the mid-1940s m e a n t that the future of

Palestine became a question o f economic and strategic

concerns, o f setting u p a permanent stronghold i n a region rich i n natural resources though the installation o f a n agent o f the West. Executive influence

over the question o f statehood lay n o t with the workers i n the kibbutzim, but with the global superpowers.

Thus, i t was Zionism’s colonialist dimension that would ultimately be the final nail i n the coffin o f the early kibbutz pioneers’ original vision. Independence would not, as was desired, come from “collective will,” but, quite literally, from the United Nations. The fact that this had been the case right from the very beginning was a reality t o which the early communards were tragically oblivious. Whatever ambitions the radicalised youngsters o f the Second a n d Third Aliyot may have arrived with, the scope o f the Zionist m o v e m e n t and the utopian

by the external influence o f the the multiple webs of power that the

projects i t sheltered had always been restricted Western states, a n d by t h e i r enmeshment i n

involvement o f these foreign actors entailed.

the kibbutzniks were i n creating and sustaining of life w i t h i n their settlements, these communities’ long-term potential as a national political force had always been structurally i n h i b i t e d by their being pawns i n Western states’ foreign policies. This reality, unaccounted for i n Regardless o f h o w successful

a radical n e w w a y

the anarchist and socialist ideologues” explanations o f the functioning and destiny o f agricultural communities o n which the communards drew, made i t inevitable that

almost

the kibbutzim would e n d u p b e i n g absorbed by a state themselves.

Though Diaspora Jewish interests on the right were certainly a catalyst on

the road t o

the national character of the by Italian anarchist Alfredo B o n a n n o , w h o blames

statehood a n d played a p a r t i n shaping

young Israel—as emphasised

the Jewish-American and international lobbies for cajoling the U S into “push[ing] the small b u t fierce Israel i n t o the role o f policeman o f the Middle East” —the role

of Western imperialism i n

reversing

the utopian ethos o f the Jewish community

i n pre-state Palestine was, i n fact, more symbiotic i n character.” During the

1950s, Ben-Gurion a n d the early state leadership proceeded t o lead Israel from o n e foreign sponsor t o

the international

the next,

i n a n attempt to make

the c o u n t r y

“useful” o n

stage. Thus, a n impoverished, vulnerable a n d solicitous Israel,

92

A LIVING REVOLUTION

looking for friends, offered itself up as the worst kind of tool

to

the West, in

exchange for protection and money. This is the conclusion reached b y Ralph Miliband and Marcel Liebman i n a n exchange o f letters, beginning o n the eve o f the

1967 war a n d published later

under the title 7he Israeli Dilemma. Liebman a n d Miliband’s discussion o f the relationship between Zionism a n d Western imperialism focuses specifically o n

the British and French i n light o f the Sinai War, and o n France's subsequent adoption o f Israel during the beginning o f

the disturbances

in

Algeria. The

authors—two left-wing Jews with very different positions o n Israel—in varying degrees excoriate Israel for its readiness t o prostitute itself for whatever European power Ben-Gurion happened t o

be courting at the time.

Yet, i t is important t o note the distinction i n Liebman and Miliband’s argument between

their identification of Israel's utility as a metaphorical Middle the Western powers (4 /2 B o n a n n o ) , a n d the more

Eastern aircraft carrier for

pertinent issue o f h o w the country’s role as such impacted Israel's internal ethos

and ideology, regardless o f h o w the state’s foreign a n d domestic policies might

differ: given Israel’s poverty and desperation for support during its early years, its leaders’ abandonment o f even a pretence o f socialism a n d liberalism was hardly

surprising. B y making itself so readily available, cosying u p t o the West, Israel's leadership inevitably ended u p accelerating the transformation o f

their state i n

many ways, including a rapid shift i n national ideology that would see the gradual

redundancy of the kibbutz idea.

The E n d o f the Kibbutz Movement? The kibbutzim’s role i n Palestinian-Jewish society a n d the Zionist project/s is

one thing, but what of the way of life within the communities? Since 1948, the

of social anarchism within the the state, but, since the Declaration o f Independence, the movement has

settlements have, t o some extent, existed as islets shell o f

been steadily diluting its radical way o f life. While the settlements used to be widely

written about and held up as an exemplary socialistic society—famously hailed

by B u b e r

as

“the experiment

that

did n o t fail”—the majority of contemporary

kibbutz-related literature is today more concerned with chronicling “the e n d o f

the kibbutz movement.” State absorption had a profound n o t least because the

impact o n the w a y that the kibbutz worked, influx o f n e w members brought into the movement by the

state were n o longer c o m i n g from a radical p o s i t i o n , b u t instead a m u c h m o r e

conventional, Social-Democratic background. Throughout the second half o f the

century, enthusiasm for

the idea of belonging t o a radical pioneering organisation the children born into the kibbutzim

similarly declined, accelerated as m a n y o f

began t o marry people outside the movement, thus undermining the settlements’

ideological bedrock.?”” During the latter half o f the century, as the settlements

A N E W KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT?

93

became progressively more introverted and less involved i n national politics, the status

of the kibbutz gradually eroded both within its own eyes and within Israeli

society as a whole.

I n spite o f this, the kibbutzim still managed to retain their anarchic

of life for m a n y years after state absorption. I n some respects; the kibbutzim as the “experiment that did n o t fail” would remain

communalist w a y Buber’s view o f true

for several decades, as the communities continued t o bear a considerable

resemblance t o Kropotkin’s vision o f anarchist communes for m a n y years yet,

though now within the shell of the state. Within forty years of Paths in Utopia’s publication, however, Buber’s sanguinity would b e called i n t o question once a n d

for all, as the movement entered a period o f drastic transformation auguring a rapid a n d radical divorce from the socialist ideals that i t h a d been struggling t o uphold throughout

the second half o f the century.

The Crises o fthe 1980s T h e kibbutz’s problems began i n earnest with the victory o f Menachem

Begin’s Likud government i n 1977, a n unprecedented event i n Israeli history that heralded a seismic

shift i n

the make-up

of Israel’s political landscape. From there

o n i n , Israel underwent a process o f major economic change, with ownership o f the economy moving from the state a n d

the Histadrut into private hands for the

first time i n the country’s history. Along with Mapai, the Histadrut had effectively exercised complete control over the country’s economy

until that p o i n t , a n d was

n o w drastically scaled back, organised labour stripped o f its influence.

Concomitant with this change was the broader process o f globalisation

the industrialised world. International currents set i n by the policies o f Margaret Thatcher a n d Ronald Reagan quickly engulfed

occurring throughout motion

Israel. T h e first and most significant transformation was the country’s merger

with the global market and sudden exposure t o the forces o f the world economy, privatisation a n d cutbacks i n the public sector.?’¢ These changes were accelerated by Likud’s subsequent elimination o f all restraints o n

resulting i n widespread

financial trading i n 1985, which eased conditions for foreign investment a n d paved the w a y

for Israelis

t o invest abroad, as

well as helping t o develop Israel’s 13 percent i n the 1970s,

financial market.”” Import duties, which h a d averaged

dropped t o 1 percent by the end o f the 1980s, and import penetration (as a share o f GDP) rose from 37 percent t o more than 50 percent over the same period.””® These economic changes h i t Israel hard, crippling the productive s e c t o r and causing small businesses nationwide t o collapse into bankruptcy.

Most o f Israel's

traditional industries sustained severe damage, and although the kibbutzim managed t o survive this period, they did so at grave cost. I n 1982, the movement

was showing profits o f 345 million NIS (New Israeli Shekel), but spiralling (which peaked, i n 1985, at 400 percent), combined with the price o f

inflation

produce controlled by government policy, a n d the banks

joining forces t o exploit

94

A LIVING REVOLUTION

mutual guarantees among the kibbutzim (giving them unlimited, expensive credit for high-risk investments) changed this. Between 1984 and 1988 the kibbutzim lost around 470 million

NIS per year t o the country’s banking system.?”® Believing their debts at a manageable level, the kibbutzim had

that inflation would keep

borrowed excessively during the early part o f the decade, b u t when the government brought i n austerity measures, bringing inflation down to 2 0 percent per year, the settlements were left with a mountain

of debt that they were unable t o repay. By

1988, they collectively owed something i n the region of 12 billion NIS, a figure that brought with i t astronomical interest payments.?° Although socialist i n comparison t o its more recent conservative and neo-

liberal incarnations, as

the first

government i n the country’s history n o t

led by

the Labour Movement, Likud was n o t exactly sympathetic t o the kibbutzim’s

situation. Despite remaining a major contributor

to

the country’s economy,

that i t n o longer enjoyed the prestige, influence o r degree o f representation that i t had previously i n Israeli society, and for a long time, suggestions for a wholesale recycling o f the movement's debts fell o n deaf ears. I n January 1989, the election of a national unity government o f Labour and the movement found

Likud, headed by Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres, provided something of a

that year

reprieve, and

the kibbutzim, the government and Israel's state-owned

banks managed t o s i g n a n agreement t o restructure t h e movements

debt.

Unfortunately, this came too late t o reverse the damage sustained during the crisis period, n o t least because the most serious injuries suffered were not purely economic. Government policy during the

of

their ability

1980s deprived the federations

to channel resources to individual kibbutzim, thus undermining

the movements and leading t o the federations losing m u c h o f the individual settlements became increasingly introverted and preoccupied with their o w n internal problems, mutual aid between kibbutzim began t o atrophy, the implications of which were spelled o u t m o s t graphically t o kibbutz members by the B e i t O r e n Affair of 1 9 8 7 . 2 ! I n c o m m o n with m o s t kibbutzim, B e i t Oren had found itself caught u p i n severe e c o n o m i c a n d social crisis d u r i n g the early p a r t o f the decade, the result o f government economic policy, exacerbated by demographic changes within its o w n membership that saw a n increasing number o f elderly people a n d fewer young people able t o shoulder the economic burden. I n a n unprecedented move that sent shockwaves throughout the kibbutzim, the movement responded t o B e i t Oren’s plight by c u t t i n g off i t s relations between

their influence. A s

financial support t o the settlement and suggesting that veteran members leave.

The B e i t

Oren Affair was o n e o f a series o f events that battered kibbutz

members’ confidence and economic security during

the 1980s. Moreover,

the

disconnection that took place between the kibbutz movement a n d the Israeli state under Begin was a major shock. n e w direction

for Israeli

kibbutzim’s self-image.

With Likud claiming t o represent a n entirely follow, this had a devastating impact o n the

society t o

A N E W KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT?

95

A painful process o f introspection was compounded b y changes i n the ideological direction o f Israeli society during that decade. Neo-liberalism was o n

the rise, and its emphasis o n individualism meant that the struggle t o create a

the periphery of the country’s social West since the late 1960s, Israel's historically secular consensus was superseded by a return t o religion and a revival o f both ultra-Orthodoxy and nationalist spirituality. The kibbutzim, with their typically liberal political outlook a n d secular political culture, came t o seem collectivist national ethos was relegated t o

consciousness. Following similar trends i n the

outmoded and unworthy o f respect.?*?

These varied and dramatic ideological shifts fuelled a n ever-growing crisis o f faith i n the pioneering ideal o f Zionism, which i n turn severely dented confidence i n the kibbutz w a y

of life and contributed t o the weakening o f social cohesion short, although the movement managed t o survive

within the communities. I n

the crises of the 1980s, i t emerged n o t only with a vast quantity of debt

had t o find a w a y

that

it

o f repaying, b u t w i t h i t s entire raison détre severely damaged

i n every possible respect. Lacking both institutional and cultural legitimacy, and equally conspired against by Zionism’s imbrication with Western imperialism, i t appeared that the end of the road had arrived, and with it, the death of any possible

emancipatory, Jewish-led social projects i n historic Palestine. Indeed, Israel had

that its critics had always said i t was—the death of the kibbutz movement just o n e of m a n y examples of the Jewish community's

proved itself t o be the dead end

failure t o d o anything positive with its achievements i n the region.

The Contemporary Movement This breakdown o f confidence i n the classic kibbutz lifestyle led t o far-reaching organisational changes within the kibbutzim. Across the movement, radical

transformation became the defining feature o f the kibbutz of the 1980s and 1990s

deal with changing conditions. I n practice, this entailed m a n y of the settlements taking o n a complexion far removed from the anti-market intentions of their founders. The last t w o decades of the twentieth

as the settlements struggled t o adapt t o

century witnessed a rapid and sustained move toward less communal living, as

the kibbutz, little by little, jettisoned the vestiges o f its collectivist heritage i n an attempt t o

The

deal with

the mounting external pressures.

current legal status o f

the

movement

defines t w o distinct

kinds

of

kibbutzim: Communal Kibbutzim (Kibbutzim shitufi’im), i n which only minimal changes have been made from the original principles, and New-style/Changing

Kibbutzim (Kibbutzim mitchadshim), i n which considerable changes have been and are being made. The movement today is i n a process o f transition, with each

kibbutz having

t o decide t o

are currently organised i n radical changes i n

which category i t b e l o n g s . Around thirty kibbutzim the Zerem Shitufi (Communal Stream), opposed t o

kibbutz lifestyle, a n d around a hundred similarly organised i n

96

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

MaagalShitufi (Communal Circle), which includes those kibbutzim which, while

changing, remain committed t o adhering t o the basic principles of kibbutz life. Although the majority o f

the kibbutzim

have attempted t o maintain

their

original ethos i n the face o f adversity, a n ever-increasing minority are officially

t u r n i n g their backs o n socialist ideology altogether, explicitly turning t o capitalism. A m o n g the first o f these was Kibbutz Kfar Ruppin, which, i n 1999, converted its industrial and agricultural branches into l i m i t e d companies, established a

holding company for them and distributed shares t o its members o n the basis o f seniority.”®> While the privatisation o f kibbutz assets has so far only been realised i n a minority o f kibbutzim, many within the movement see i t as simply a matter o f time until this trend becomes more far-reaching.

The threat this poses

t o egalitarian and communal ownership o f

the means

o f production remains a serious concern i n relation t o the precariousness o f their economic future. Although o n l y a minority o f kibbutzim have explicitly chosen to

take t h i s market-based p a t h ,

with m o s t o f

the settlements

today

built

around hybrid economies, the number o f settlements following i n Kfar Ruppin’s footsteps—twenty-two

While

a t the o u t s e t o f the n e w millennium—is

r i s i n g every year.

the process o f making difficult decisions as t o whether o r n o t t o g o d o w n the path of privatisation, the movement as a whole has nevertheless taken o n a palpably capitalist complexion. D u r i n g the 1980s, when traditional management systems came t o be seen as anachronistic and m o s t settlements are currently i n

a factor i n the economic failures o f that decade, many kibbutz members proposed that horizontal management should be replaced by modern management practice, even i f this meant that participatory democracy suffered as a result.

The managerial

s t r u c t u r e o f most

of the kibbutzim’s

industrial

enterprises

today resembles a complex, centralist hierarchical organisation more

akin

to

that o f any large, capitalist business than t o the functioning anarcho-communist

economic unit i t once was. Boards o f directors run the economic branches, and

the industries

i n particular, with business management n o w separated from the

socio-political system. Economic decisions are therefore n o longer subject t o

social considerations. Increasing separation o f economic management from the kibbutz milieu— directorates with external managers n o w replacing the traditional committees drawn from the general assembly—drastically undermined the kibbutz’s character as a gemeinschaft society i n which the collective was responsible for and involved

with every aspect of the r u n n i n g of the community. The 1990s also saw methods o f differential reward according t o seniority, function, and effort creeping i n t o the

kibbutz system.?® Kibbutz Ein Zivan was the first t o introduce differential salaries i n 1993, and by the outset o f the new century, more than a third o f the kibbutz movement

had followed s u i t .

Now

t h a t a manager

of

a factory, for example,

receives a m u c h larger personal allowance than a factory worker o r agricultural worker, a n important cornerstone o f the kibbutz’s egalitarianism has been lost.

A N E W K I B B U T Z MOVEMENT?

In

97

the political sphere, demographic changes and stratified differentiation led

t o the nature o f t h e communities’ democratic political decision-making system

changing almost beyond recognition, a n d direct participatory democracy, i n m a n y cases, coming under threat from a n increase i n the use o f representative bodies and ballot voting. Direct democracy, i n

the form o f the general assembly,

has been widely replaced by elected councils, a n d the general assembly itself n o w

“resembles a n annual shareholders’ meeting more than i t does the traditional

all kibbutz members.”2% By the same token, since the late 1970s, the kibbutz has seen radical changes t o the w a y i t ensures the maintenance o f social order. Individual freedom—already under threat from the ever-expanding w e b o f bureaucracy and increasingly authoritarian committees well before the crises o f the 1980s—has been radically undermined by the widespread formalisation and institutionalisation o f the assembly o f

general assembly’s decisions, a p h e n o m e n o n that Yassour warned, as far back as

1985, was “subvert[ing] the continual development and readjustment which are

vital t o the existence o f

the

kibbutz as a voluntary

communal society.”

Reinventing Utopia I f o n e generalisation c a n be m a d e

as t o

the current

state

of the movement—and

generalisations are n o t easy given the rapidity with which changes are currently

taking place—it’s that

the contemporary kibbutz bears l i t t l e resemblance

t o the

fiercely ideological settlements o f the movement's younger days. Yet, t o dismiss

the kibbutz idea as simply another failed experiment i n the history o f anarchism o n this basis would be premature.

for this: First of all, while the structure and day-to-day of the contemporary kibbutz i s c e r t a i n l y n o t nearly as close t o classical

There are t w o reasons functioning

anarchism as i t once was, generally speaking, the movement still functions i n a manner clearly distinct from the capitalist o r state socialist models. The enduring

influence of the movement's early anarchistic character means that there are still lessons t o

be absorbed from its w a y o f life. The International Communal Studies

Association insists t h a t , while the kibbutz of today only remotely resembles the early twentieth century movement, i n the vast majority o f cases i t has so far managed t o preserve its uniqueness as a community o f solidarity,

with common

ownership o f means o f production, despite the physical a n d organisational changes that have taken place since the

1980s.

of Kibbutz Geffen, carried o u t that, irrespective o f the movements assimilation i n t o

Warhurst’s longitudinal ethnographic study during the 1990s, indicates

a market economy, integration o f labour, direct democracy (albeit i n a highly evolved and absence

of

rapidly atrophying

form), non-hierarchical management systems,

authoritarian structures i n

the

political o r economic spheres a n d

communal production/consumption are still very m u c h i n evidence within the

98

A LIVING REVOLUTION

community itself. This is, of course, i n comparison t o capitalist society rather

than

t o the kibbutz’s o w n previous incarnations, yet even so, as Warhurst observes i n

his study, the essential preconditions o f capitalism (or state socialism as defined by Marx), were still absent i n the kibbutz, even as the movement prepared t o e n t e r the twenty-first century.?® B u t perhaps o f greater long-term significance, given the rapid and apparently irreversible downhill slide the kibbutzim appear t o be on, is development o f the movement

has always been

that

characterised

the historical

by

a distinct

dialectical pattern. Since their inception, the communities have been i n a continual process o f change, responding t o the m a n y challenges presented t o them, n o t only

by the changing

forces o f the outside world, b u t also

by

the varying political,

social, ideological a n d demographic developments within their membership. The current phase o f the movement i s n o exception.

Samar Towards the end o f

the twentieth century,

i n response t o the movement's

shifting further and further from its original ideological goals, new projects began t o emerge throughout the country.

As children

o f the traditional kibbutz began

they s a w as the failure o f the the dialectic o f the kibbutz’s development began. O n e o f the most audacious o f these projects—in m a n y ways the flagship o f a

t o set u p n e w communities as a reaction t o w h a t

traditional ones, a n e w epoch i n

n e w generation o f anarchist-orientated communal experimentation—is Kibbutz Samar. A small settlement o f well under a hundred permanent members, situated

about thirty kilometres inland from Eilat, Samar was founded i n 1 9 7 6 b y kibbutz

what they felt were the shortcomings o f the had got i t wrong,” explains o n e o f the community’s founders. “ W e were all from kibbutzim about forty years o l d , a n d w e were acutely aware o f the alienation between the kibbutz member a n d the kibbutz establishment. W e knew all about the tyranny children w h o were trying t o remedy

kibbutz their

parents

had created.

“Basically w e felt that o u r parents

o f the work roster and the humiliating dependence o n committees. W e forged o u r principles i n revolt against the established kibbutz a n d have

held onto

them

ever s i n c e . ” ?

Most

kibbutz children o f that generation saw exactly the same erosion o f

personal freedom and dignity o n their parents’ kibbutzim as Samar’s founders did,

but the majority naturally believed that this authoritarian a n d humiliating kind o f communalism was a given. M a n y simply left the kibbutzim as a result, adopting the attitude that “ i f this is communalism, then we don’t

want

i t any more.” The

youngsters w h o founded Samar, o n the other hand, were adamant that another

kind of communal life was possible—one that could reconcile individual freedom with communal responsibilitcy—and set o u t t o prove as much.

Samar’s members have never called themselves anarchists. They did

n o t set

o u t basing their w a y o f life o n anarchism (even today, most o f the members are

A N E W KIBBUTZ M O V E M E N T ?

n o t familiar with anarchist ideologies), a n d

the settlement

99

they created has never

explicitly called itself an anarchist kibbutz. Yet that is precisely what i t has become known as. Understanding

from the experience

of

their parents’

kibbutzim that

authority is the root cause o f the humiliation and degradation o f the human being, the founders set o u t purely a n d simply t o eliminate every element o f mainstream kibbutz society that involved

the domination o f one person by another. As a the principles o f pure, communal

result, Samar came t o function according t o anarchy, without any

kind o f

hierarchical o r authoritarian structures o r any o f

the organisational functions that have undermined communal life i n the original

kibbutzim.*!

The community’s

founders made i t a priority t o ensure that there would b e

none o f the institutions, committees, formalised regulations, binding decisions o r personal budgets that they

felt subverted individual

liberty o n their parents’

kibbutzim. I n place o f authority, there would remain only personal relationships between individual equal human beings, a n d

by fellows.

solely

the settlement would be regulated their

the sense o f personal responsibility o f each member towards |

Samar, in other words, functions more or less exactly as the early kvutzot d i d . Its modest size and intimate nature allow i t to employ a system based o n total trust, face-to-face democracy a n d mutual responsibility. Direct democracy

and active participation b y members i n the decision-making process is the n o r m .

by which the kibbutz regulates its affairs from the complex network o f bureaucracy and committees that have

There, the informal general meetings

are a far cry

come to characterise communal life o n the original kibbutzim. Perhaps more important than

the general meetings,

which themselves are sporadic, t o say

the

least, is the constant informal dialogue that is central to Samar’s life. A willingness to

talk a n d t o discuss everything openly means that a culture

o f constant, organic

conversation is a fundamental part o f the kibbutz’s existence.

Samar’s income is derived mainly from agriculture. A date plantation, a dairy a n d plant nurseries provide the economic base, b u t Samar is a

fluid and dynamic

society n o t averse t o economic diversification. According t o o n e o f its inhabitants,

the wishes a n d the needs o f the members,” from the complex w e b o f committees that have recently

“the kibbutz develops according t o a n d as such, i t is distinct

become the bugbear o f the traditional kibbutz. “At Samar, i f someone wants t o d o something, h e o r she assembles a n a d h o c committee a n d does i t . ”

This

approach has allowed continuous experimentation with a range ofnew cooperative enterprises, with varying degrees o f success.

Whereas, i n many o f the older kibbutzim, the autonomy o f the individual has come under threat

from increasing bureaucratisation and the institutionalisation kibbutz life. While

o f regulations, at Samar i t is manifested i n every sphere o f

the allocation o f labour, for example, i n the larger, established kibbutzim is the responsibility o f a nominated committee, i n Samar, there is n o work roster. It is

100

u p to

A LIVING REVOLUTION

the individual members

t o decide when,

if, i n

what branch a n d for h o w

l o n g they work. While collective consumption o n the traditional kibbutzim

has

for m a n y years taken the form o f a collectively-dictated budget for each member, Samar’s members have revived communal purse

from which

the system

used o n the very earliest kvutzot—a

members are free t o

take as m u c h

as

they t h i n k

they need.

“At first there was a fixed monthly allowance,” one member recalls, “ b u t we

opted for the open box system pretty quickly and have kept i t open ever since. Everyone takes what he wants a n d nothing is written down.”*” Today takes the form o f a communal creditcard account. I t works The settlement’s social a n d political

life is

this system

fine.

based o n voluntary acceptance o f

decisions b y each individual member, with n o coercion o r any kind o f statutory sanctions. T h e recognised behavioural limits ensuring social cohesion are arrived at collectively, a n d harmonious social life is maintained solely by people voluntarily

abiding by the socially defined norms o u t of a sense of responsibility towards the community.”* While the kibbutz does have administrative officers, these have been reduced i n n u m b e r “to a n absolute m i n i m u m , ” with the few committees that exist at Samar d o i n g so only o n a n informal, a d h o c b a s i s . ” Samar’s system is n o t without its problems. For instance, as o n e member

says, “we can never

be sure

h o w m a n y people are going t o report for work o n

a given m o r n i n g . M a y b e ten will s h o w u p o n a d a y w h e n o n l y t w o are needed. Alternatively only three m a y b e available when there is a load o f work t o b e done. Then I have t o g o a n d r e c r u i t p e o p l e from o t h e r branches. If they agree t o come, that’s fine; b u t if they don't, there is nothing I can d o about i t . ” The reality, however, is that Samar does seem t o work. Writing i n TheJerusalem Report, Michael Liskin tells us that “while the kibbutz movement as a whole is i n

the throes o f economic and social decay, Samar is blossoming.”**” Unlike its Second

Third Aliya forebears Samar has had t o contend with fierce competition from a highly-developed capitalist economy, n o t t o m e n t i o n a political c l i m a t e generally hostile t o the interests o f the kibbutz. That Samar survived the crises of

and

the 1980s entirely unscathed, and has continued t o go from strength t o strength is falling apart, i s n o m e a n achievement.

while the rest o f the movement

The Urban Kibbutzim Samar is, has always been, a n d

will probably

remain a unique exception i n

the

kibbutz movement, believed even by i t s o w n membership t o b e a o n e - g e n e r a t i o n

p h e n o m e n o n . Nevertheless, i t exists as part o f a n e w generation o f projects

heralding a fresh phase i n the history o f the kibbutz. This a phase that

has, a t its

core, a visible and deliberate reconnection with the anarchistic ethos o f the early years o f the movement, a response t o the decay that has set i n t o t h e mainstream

kibbutzim with their dealignment from

their original principles.

A NEW KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT?

Rising u p

101

alongside the kibbutz movement there currently exist a growing

n u m b e r o f n e w settlements and quasi-anarchic, kibbutz-style organisations across

Israel, created i n response t o the crises a n d privatisation that have challenged

1970s. This alternative

the kibbutzim since the

communal movement consists

largely o f urban, non-agricultural, small commune-type groups whose members live communally a n d pool

their salaries, but do n o t necessarily work together.

Attempts t o integrate the kibbutz idea i n t o a n urban environment were being made as early as the mid-1940s. With widespread expansion a n d industrialisation taking place i n kibbutzim nationwide, and with

the institutions of the newly-

created Israeli state assuming responsibility for m a n y o f the tasks previously undertaken

by the kibbutz

federations, certain groups w i t h i n

movement began t o q u e s t i o n the role o f pioneering—and

the kibbutz itself—in this

rapidly changing

the mainstream

even t h e p u r p o s e o f

environment. M a n y came t o the

c o n c l u s i o n that for t h e k i b b u t z movement t o m a i n t a i n i t s influence i n Israel i t m u s t b e directly involved i n the country’s urban areas. Accordingly, attempts t o

integrate the kibbutz i n t o a n urban environment were being made as far back as

1947, when a group of 200 people s e t up a kibbutz i n Efal, near Tel Aviv, with the

goal of living o n a kibbutz while working in the city.

The Efal settlement was t o b e short-lived, however, falling apart just four years after its inception. Most subsequent attempts t o integrate the kibbutz idea into towns and cities across Israel have m e t with similarly unqualified failure. Communities established i n suburbs o f Jerusalem, Haifa a n d Herzliya soon found themselves unable t o integrate into the surrounding society and, although still i n existence, simply became “kibbutzim near towns.” I n 1968, a group from the H a b o n i m Dror youth movement established a settlement near Haifa, which they named Kvutsat Shaal. Shaal fared l i t t l e better than its predecessors, however, a n d disintegrated i n

1972.

There are currently four “urban

kibbutzim,”

however, that can

justifiably be

viewed as success stories. The largest o f these, Reshit, was established i n a Jerusalem suburb i n

1979 a n d currently has around a hundred members. Alongside Reshit from the Gaza

are Migvan i n the western Negev city o f Sderot, one kilometre

strip (best known internationally as the target o f relentless attacks by Qassam rockets since the Disengagement i n September 2005), Bet Yisrael i n Jerusalem, and Tamuz, situated i n

the small

development town

of B e i t

Shemesh eighteen

miles west of Jerusalem. Tamuz Tamuz was established i n the s u m m e r o f

1987 by

nine individuals

who,

in common with many o f their generation, found themselves increasingly disenchanted with the mainstream kibbutz movement where they were born and raised. With privatisation creeping into the kibbutz seen as both the cause a n d effect

of the breaking

down

of community,

Tamuz’s founders realised that

A LIVING REVOLUTION.

102

the kibbutz was becoming unwilling, and more importantly unable, t o fulfil the role i t had previously played i n addressing the needs o f the country.

Like

the

kibbutz pioneers more than half a century before them, they aimed t o create a “ j u s t society” based o n equality, mutual aid a n d cooperation, ideals that they felt were increasingly b e i n g abandoned by the main body o f the kibbutz movement. I n the highly developed country that Israel h a d become—with agriculture n o

the economy, the country’s borders n o w protected by the army of the political landscape—Tamuz’s founders came t o the conclusion that addressing the needs of contemporary Israel could best b e achieved by locating their settlement within a n urban environment.

longer so central t o a n d the

Left n o

longer enjoying hegemony

The settlement they founded became, i n its o w n words,

An urban kibbutz, a small Jewish community, and like the traditional kibbutz, Tamuz is a collective. Its 3 3 members function as a single economic unit, expressing the socialist ideals o f equality a n d cooperation, ideas and praxis.

However, unlike the traditional kibbutz, we are located i n an urban environment, keeping us i n tune w i t h

Unlike

what is happening i n society around us.**®

the traditional kibbutz, Tamuz

owns n o cooperative agricultural o r

jobs and their individual incomes g o Aside from the obvious differences however, the economic

industrial enterprises. Members work regular i n t o a common fund. arrangements

by which Tamuz

functions are otherwise more o r less congruent

with those o f the traditional kibbutz. The collective owns several cars, assumes responsibility for the financing o f education, health, a n d transportation a n d so

o n . Members live i n family units i n collectively-owned housing, maintaining separate households, and allowances are distributed o n

the basis o f family size—

thus loosely “according t o need.” I n c o m m o n with m a n y urban communards o f their generation, Tamuz’s

members reject the increasingly indirect kind o f democracy and often debilitating degree

of

bureaucracy that have crept i n t o

the

larger, traditional

kibbutzim.

Instead, they o p t for direct, face-to-face democracy attainable i n small, intimate groups. Believing

that, for

a society t o b e truly democratic, i t m u s t involve a n

individuals active engagement i n the political process and direct participation i n the r u n n i n g o f the community, Tamuz’s decision-making different collective forums c e n t r i n g a r o u n d

the

takes place i n various held o n a

general meetings,

weekly basis. These meetings are frequently

divided i n t o

smaller discussion groups, with

seminars taking place every t w o months for longer, more detailed debate o n more general subjects. T h e settlement’s small size means that i t seldom resorts t o the

kind of ballot voting adopted in recent years by m o s t of the older kibbutzim. I n contrast t o the traditional kibbutz, there are n o committees m a k i n g decisions for the individual member.?”

A N E W KIBBUTZ M O V E M E N T ?

103

That individuals are free t o make their o w n decisions about their personal lives is emblematic o f the heavy emphasis placed o n individual autonomy at Tamuz. This emphasis sets the group ethic o f the urban kibbutzim apart from the asceticism of the traditional, tightly-knit kvutza; members of Tamuz are fundamentally a n d vehemently opposed t o the subordination o f

the individual

t o the group. I n place o f that n o t i o n , the community adopts the m a x i m that “the

of m a n m u s t be expressed i n every m o m e n t o f communal life.” This attempt t o reconcile individual freedom a n d socialist communalism is central t o almost all the groups within the n e w wave o f communal experimentation that sprang u p i n the latter half o f the twentieth century. Israeli journalist Daniel Gavron observes that the ideas o f “sacrifice for the c o m m o n cause, the freedom

subservience o f the individual t o the group, the personal deprivation for the sake o f the superior communal goal” simply d o not feature i n the lives o f today’s urban communards as they once

did i n the mainstream

kibbutzim. Tamuz members,

he says, like those o f the other urban kibbutzim, are “almost obsessed with individual autonomy

their

[and] their personal freedom.”

Members o f the urban kibbutzim, Gavron writes, view the communal life as,

fulfilment. I t they are unaware of the society around them—quite the reverse: they

“more than anything else, a means t o greater personal freedom a n d is n o t that

are making s u p r e m e efforts t o reach o u t t o t h e populations o f the towns where

with Israeli society at large for the by t h e conventional kibbutzim, but where the traditional kibbutz aimed t o lead the Zionist enterprise, the modern urban kibbutz aspires t o create a superior quality of life for its members while making a they live. Their involvement a n d interaction

m o s t part preceded similar attempts

contribution t o the quality o f the surrounding society.”*"!

The Tamuz system is based solely o n mutual trust a n d mutual responsibility: what is best for the community,” says o n e o f i t s inhabitants. “But i t is also assumed that the community aims t o benefit the individual member. The members believe that the t w o things are “ I t is axiomatic that every member wants

interdependent.”**?> Accordingly, there exist n o mechanisms o f coercive authority a t Tamuz, whose members believe t h a t “ c o n t r o l mechanisms. . . a r e based o n the

assumption that people try t o

take advantage of each other a n d must be prevented from doing so.” According t o one member, “the Tamuz assumption is that, given the opportunity, people prefer a life based o n trust a n d partnership, [rather] than

o n e based o n exploitation a n d deceit. I n the absence o f control mechanisms,

continuous dialogue between

the members is m a i n t a i n e d . ”

From its inception, Tamuz has engaged i n various educational and social projects i n the surrounding area. I n

1996, i n cooperation with B e i t Shemesh Kehilla, which seeks

residents, its members established a non-profit association,

field o f social involvement a n d works t o promote the area’s diverse population groups. Kehilla attempts t o assist

t o develop projects i n the

dialogue between

weaker social groups through community organising a n d self-help, i t runs various

104

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

kinds o f

study groups for both children a n d

adults, a n d

attempts t o cultivate

community frameworks i n B e i t Shemesh a n d its environs that contribute t o the empowerment o f the town’s residents, a t t h e same t i m e trying t o c o u n t e r the

alienation a n d disintegration o f Israeli society’s social frameworks.’ A separate organisation by the name o f Yesod (an acronym for

“A Social Democratic Israel”),

through its publication Society, works t o promote p u b l i c debate o n issues such as economics, politics, a n d culture.

The Tnuat Bogrim

Groups

Tamuz a n d the urban kibbutzim represent only o n e part o f a variegated mosaic o f new, urban social models that exist within Israel at the outset o f the twenty-first century.

As the mainstream kibbutz drifted further

number o f young

people across the country 1990s saw the kibbutz movement

from its roots, a n increasing

began t o subscribe t o t h e sentiments

o f Tamuz’s founders, a n d the

a n exponential upsurge i n the n u m b e r

o f groups leaving

t o set u p their o w n communal projects

based o n the original kibbutz idea. A t the time o f writing, there are upwards o f

1,500 people living communally across Israel, entirely unconnected t o the kibbutz movement.

This number

i s increasing steadily each year.

Approximately three-quarters o f these are members o f the Tnuat Bogrim o r “graduate movement” groups o f the youth movement Noar Oved ve’Lomed

(Working & Student Youth Movement), otherwise known by its acronym NOAL. As kibbutz life was supposedly the ultimate fulfilment of their ideology, the kibbutz’s abandonment o f its original values left graduates o f the youth movement without a means o f achieving either hagshama (self-realisation) or any structure for bringing about change i n Israeli society. M a n y NOAL graduates began t o look

for alternatives. I n

the creation of new, more intimate settlements, they saw a w a y by practising the youth movements ideology a n d values

o f achieving hagshama

i n their everyday lives.

Historically involved with the building of traditional kibbutzim, NOAL the crises of the 1 9 8 0 s b y a b a n d o n i n g their usual role

graduates responded t o

within the kibbutz movement proper, and instead, evolved i n t o a distinct n e w

o f (what Habonim Dror’s James Grant-Rosenhead describes as) “small,

stream

intimate, consensus-driven, anarcho-socialist groups.”** The n e w NOAL graduates

of the 1990s “decided t o c u t o u t the kibbutz intermediary from their traditional They retained their small, intimate group life as separate n e w adult communities after they graduated from the youth movement and the army. Instead o f integrating into a traditional kibbutz, they took o n responsibilities within the youth movement which were formerly undertaken by the kibbutz emissaries.”*% symbiosis.

These graduate groups formed communes, kibbutzim, single groups, o r groups

of groups all

over

the country,

a n d since

the 1990s, such

organisations

have b e e n taking r o o t i n every m a j o r town a n d city. O t h e r socialist Zionist

youth

movements,

who had been having the same discussions as N O A L about

A N E W KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT?

105

their future direction, began t o form their o w n graduate groups along similar lines. Examples

of these are Hashomer Hatzair’s Pelech and Machanot HaOlim’s

Na'aran, among many others. The graduate groups that form the bulk o f this new wave o f urban communal experimentation generally consist o f between ten a n d forty individuals. According t o Grant-Rosenhead, each is “trying t o work towards social

justice and equality i n

Israeli society, through a wide variety o f educational

a n d social initiatives o n both local a n d national levels.

The n u m b e r and variety of

these groups is growing each year, and the rate o f growth is increasing t00.”*” During the 1990s, these groups gained i n strength and number, and tentatively formed a rudimentary network. I n 2000, what had begun as a disparate miscellany of experimental communal projects, came together under the banner of Ma'agal Hakvutzot (the Circle of Groups), a n umbrella organisation set u p t o “support the expansion o f the communal idea i n Israel, t o nurture solidarity between groups, t o promote important educational projects a n d t o w o r k towards a n Israeli society,

both o n a n economic and political level, based o n social democratic values.”?%/3%

Kvutsat Yovel Nearly all o f those involved i n these communities are Israeli-born, but the Diaspora youth movement H a b o n i m Dror

has four groups (and counting)—established by

immigrants from Great Britain, the United States, Mexico and Australia—located

i n three different urban centres across the country. O n e o f these, situated i n the

Migdal Ha'Emeq

is (four from England, t w o from North America), Yovel began i n Jerusalem i n 1999 before moving t o its present location. I visited Yovel for the first time i n June 2006, a n d spoke t o one northern town o f

s o m e thirty

miles s o u t h east o f Haifa,

Kvutsat Yovel. Initially consisting o f six H a b o n i m graduates

o f the group’s founding members, Anton

Marks.

Originally from Manchester, Anton made Aliya

has since been at

to

Israel i n early 1999 and

the forefront o f H a b o n i m Dror’s communal endeavours i n the

country. H e describes the ideological inspiration b e h i n d the establishment o f these

new “anarcho-socialist” communities—which he and many others see as “the seeds o f a n e w kibbutz m o v e m e n t ”—as the intellectual progeny o f m u c h the same c o m b i n a t i o n of Judaism a n d socialism that motivated

the early kibbutz pioneers.

“ F r o m the socialist camp,” Anton says, “you're talking about people like M a r x a n d Engels.

From the

socialist-Zionist camp you're talking about

people like

Moses Hess, [Ber] Borochov, [Nachman] Syrkin, and so o n , and also o f course the anarchist writers such as Kropotkin, Landauer a n d Bakunin.” The influence o f Martin Buber’s “I-Thou”

philosophy is

also central t o the groups ideology,

with interpersonal relationships seen as a fundamental determinant o f the nature o f communal

life. The fact

that these n e w groups choose t o describe themselves

as “kvutzot” rather than kibbutzim is itself a deliberate and conscious alignment

with the intimacy o f the small anarchistic settlements of the early years.

106

A L I V I N G REVOLUTION

“One o f

the things that’s very clear t o us” says

Anton, “ i s

that were trying t o

build o n something that’s come before us, t o try and learn those lessons and n o t make those same mistakes again,

but

also t o take

the beautiful

things that are

there. So yes, there are things that are conscious, a n d there are things that are semantic. Kvutza has a different meaning t o kibbutz; i t denotes something m u c h more intimate; w e do use

the term kibbutz as well, b u t i n

the context o f

“kibbutz

o f kvutzot.””

This phrase, “kibbutz

that have fused t o that, a t the t i m e this book goes t o press, i s the

o f kvutzot,” refers t o the u r b a n groups

form larger communities, a process

defining trend within Israel's new communal scene. Within these conglomerates, a great importance is placed o n the individual kvutza within the larger structure, so enabling the intimate relationship building between individual people that members see as the absolute sine gua non o f community. Although

of kvutzot”

the “kibbutzim

are expanding rapidly, with more a n d more kvutzot being set u p each

year, the individual kvutzot themselves are limited i n terms o f their ambition

towards expansion. “The emphasis o n smaller units,” Anton explains, “is a lesson learned from the original kibbutz movement. Communities o f hundreds o f people cannot possibly reach t h e levels o f t r u s t , o p e n n e s s a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g that a group

of ten people can.” As with the early

settlements, i t is this trust, openness, a n d mutual

understanding that enable

the communities

t o function i n the w a y that they

do. Indeed, like Samar, these groups share many characteristics with

their early

twentieth century forerunners, a n d consciously so. Kebillatenu occupies a central

the Yovel communards’ long list o f inspirations, and the communal ethic the settlements o f the Second and early Third Aliyot provides the ideological template for the n e w groups’ activities.

place i n

embodied i n

Each group has a communal purse, directly democratic internal decision-

making structures and shared responsibility for domestic

duties, all of which are

geared towards ensuring the maximum degree o f political and material equality for its membership.

Within each group, the maxim “from each according t o his

ability t o each according t o his need” has been actualised, and coercive authority

is nonexistent, community life based instead o n free-flowing discussions, mutual aid, mutual trust a n d total freedom.

“As a n

example,” Anton elaborates, “ m y

group has o n e b a n k account where all o u r earnings are deposited. W e each have

an A T M card t o

that

one a c c o u n t and can withdraw money a t our own discretion.

I t works purely o n trust a n d a shared sense of responsibility.” According t o Yovel’s members,

this setup has worked very well for nearly eight years.

The absence o f factory, farm, date plantation, olive groves, o r any other

the groups’ economic base means the kvutzot by n o means comparable, economically, t o the full-cooperatives that the kibbutzim were. Anton emphasises, however, that these n e w communities do, i n fact, see themselves as having a means of production, even though i t is n o t as collectively-run enterprise providing are

A N E W KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT?

107

immediately obvious as the factory o r rolling farmland of a traditional kibbutz. “All

o f the different movements have officially established non-profit organisations,” he tells m e . “ I n terms o f what w e d o day-to-day, w e work i n teams with other people...involved i n various educational and social projects. W e raise money based o n those projects; w e carry o u t o u t s i d e fundraising i n all sorts o f places t o help u s t o run those projects. T h e m o n e y that’s fundraised’ comes i n t o the movement,

so again i n terms o f our financial arrangements, we're all getting according t o our needs, as opposed t o

what the outside market tells us that we're worth.”

Located mainly i n the development towns, which house a large proportion o f

the country’s m o s t underprivileged a n d marginalised groups, the kvutzot attempt what they feel are the salient issues o f the day—issues their members claim the traditional kibbutz, as well as the Israeli government, are comprehensively failing t o address. All but one of Yovel’s members work i n education i n o n e w a y o r another— t o integrate i n t o mainstream society i n a n effort t o tackle

mainly i n projects r u n b y the Kibbutz o f Kvutzot i n Migdal H@Emeq and Nazareth Illit, of which the kvutza is a part. A s far as they are concerned, education

is the primary determinant o f meaningful long-term change i n Israel. According t o Anton, however, “the secondary education system i n Israel has deteriorated i n m a n y areas, including a significant reduction i n teaching hours a n d a n increase

the system leaves m a n y students behind—more often (Forty percent o f all children i n Israel are living under the poverty line.) Western capitalism has bludgeoned its w a y i n t o what was once o n e o f the most progressive societies i n

i n class sizes. I n addition,

than n o t students that come from a n impoverished background.

the world.”

The n e w generation of urban communards undertake projects designed help remedy this s i t u a t i o n . These projects are geared towards encouraging empowerment a n d coexistence, nurturing relationships of mutual aid, solidarity a n d tolerance i n a society they view as a profoundly unequal a n d discriminatory. Within each movement, teams composed of members from different groups work together o n a whole host o f different projects, including r u n n i n g a boarding to

school for disadvantaged youth, teaching English t o Arab children, organising after-school clubs, museum-guiding, establishing a n d r u n n i n g democratic schools,

legally representing the rights o f working youth and establishing seminar centres. All this m a y seem a far cry from the agrarian philosophy of the early pioneers, but necessarily so, for the context i n which the new groups are operating is vastly different

from the conditions that

the early immigrants found o n

their arrival i n

Palestine. Twenty-first century Israel is o n e o f the m o s t advanced industrialised

nations o n

the planet,

a n d with this comes a whole n e w set

of problems

very

different from those faced by the kibbutz pioneers. “In the old days of the movement,” Anton explains, “the bottom l i n e was about creating a country, and

creating a new human being, building an economy based o n agriculture, settling the land, defending the borders. Those needs are n o t the same—the needs today

108

A LIVING REVOLUTION

are more the social needs o f the country, narrowing those gaps, and recognising that these are the needs o f the country i n the

twenty-first c e n t u r y . . .

W e see the

ways o f dealing with those needs as being based o n the same values—it’s methods

just the

that are slightly different.”

A t the t i m e o f this writing, the various communal projects are at the stage

the same discussions about the kibbutz representatives were i n

i n their development when they are having m u c h the future direction o f their movement as

1920s meeting. T h e strengthening o f inter-community ties a n d moves The coalescing o f groups under the umbrella o f Ma'agal Hakvurtzot can, i n itself, be seen as a n indication of this trend, as can increasing local-level cooperation between groups and the growingtogether o f kvutzot within “kibbutzim o f kvutzot.” While each kvutza retains its o w n autonomy, the organisation already involves a great deal o f inter-group their early

towards federation are at the top o f the agenda.

activity. Dialogue between communes is a regular feature o f the n e w movement's

activities, emblematic o f a n attempt t o nurture the kind o f mutual aid between groups as exists between individuals within each group. Building the Future?

T h e traditional kibbutz has n o t “failed,” b u t i t has encountered serious problems that have led n o t only t o a n increasingly marked disconnect

with the

classical anarchist ideas o n which the movement was initially based, b u t also t o a corresponding weakening o f

the kibbutz

movement’ relevance t o mainstream

Israelis. T h e n e w urban communal groups thus constitute a n important n e w phase i n the development o f the kibbutz. This reconnection with the small-group ethos o f the kibbutzim’s early years highlights the urban communes as a n entirely

modern organisation whose concerns and priorities betray an increasing unease

with the present direction o f Israeli society. Given the degeneration o f the original the generally ideologically bereft state o f Israeli society as a whole,

movement a n d

i t is fascinating t o see h o w this n e w generation is consciously reinvoking the movement's anarchist progenitors as inspiration for its future direction.

While the n e w urban communal groups are n o t nearly as close t o the ideas of Kropotkin as the original kibbutzim were, both graduate-movement kvutzot and urban

kibbutzim still embody m a n y anarchistic traits i n their social a n d political well be too early t o speculate as t o these projects’

organisation. Although i t m i g h t

future, as their evolution i n t o a nationwide network o f extended neighbourhood communities gathers pace, they still potentially represent inspiration o r a template for those w h o are attempting t o combat capitalist hierarchies

by building the

future society i n the here and now. Unlike the traditional kibbutz model o f self-contained, federally-connected settlements, that these n e w groups are

embedded w i t h i n

towns is a crucial a n d

definitive characteristic. Many projects their members undertake serve t o help integrate the settlements into local communities. This idea invites immediate

A N E W K I B B U T Z MOVEMENT?

comparisons t o Landauer’

vision

of the p r e l i m i n a r y

stages

109

of the t r a n s i t i o n

to

a future anarchist order (see Chapter 6 ) . Anticipating contemporary notions o f prefigurative politics, Landauer envisaged

the gradual

transition t o a stateless

society taking place as communal, anarcho-socialist groups grew u p within, and alongside, the existing state—eventually succeeding i t . H e maintained that “the

pioneers i n spirit would be those w h o begin with the independent realisation o f collective

life

within community groups which

will join

the federated alliance

a n d which will m a i n t a i n the n e w socialist w a y of life within the old world.”*'° This

federation, h e said, would gradually replace the centralised capitalist state, as the consolidation a n d expansion o f the n e w communities gradually eroded its complex mechanisms

of control and suppression.’'! I t

of this James Grant-

is interesting t o see elements

b e i n g reinvoked contemporarily, particularly so, given that Yovel’s

Rosenhead specifically chooses t o attach Landauer’s t e r m “anarcho-socialist” t o

the n e w communal groups. A key feature that distinguishes the graduate urban kibbutzim (Tamuz, attached.

et

al.) is

While the urban kibbutzim

that

movement groups from the

the former have a youth

movement

represent more o f a “lifestyle choice” for

their members and see themselves very much as “one-generational communities,” the graduate groups, like Anton's, are part o f a continuing m o v e m e n t . With new members

joining all the time

and

the organisation both increasing

i n number

a n d spreading t o more neighbourhoods i n Israel's urban areas, w e can see the

beginnings o f an anti-authoritarian, consensus-driven structure rising u p within

the Israeli state—alongside it—in the form of a federated alliance o f communal their particular communal ethic from those described by Landauer as the pioneer nuclei o f a n e w society. W h e r e this nascent society will g o next remains t o be seen. “ I t ’ s a l o n g process,” Anton says. “ I definitely see i t becoming more a n d more meaningful i n terms of groups n o t far removed i n

dealing with the needs o f this country. I'd like t o paper over

to

think

that

we're n o t just trying

building I'd some point i n the future, we'll reach that critical mass,

the s y m p t o m s of a

pretty r o t t e n society [ b u t ] t h a t we're

a n alternative society at the same time as being involved i n the existing one.

like

to

think that yes, a t

the p o i n t where the alternative society is n o longer the alternative society, that the existing society i s

the alternative society. That's the v i s i o n . ”

Chapter 6

The Kibbutz Movement and Israeli Anarchism Contemporary Perspectives

“You don't know what order with freedom means! You only know

what

revolt against oppression is! Y o u don’t k n o w that the rod, discipline, violence,

the state a n d government can only b e sustained because o f y o u

a n d because o f your lack o f socially creative powers that develop order

within liberty!” —Gustav Landauer,

1913

Given the sheer magnitude of issues resulting from the Jewish settlement of Palestine during the early twentieth century, i t is t o be expected that the aspirations a n d achievements

of the pre-1948 kibbutz communities are rarely recognised by by the d i n o f a n t i - Z i o n i s m a n d

modern anarchist movements. Drowned o u t

the condemnation

o f Israeli oppression o n which most leftist critiques o f the

region's politics are focused, the social lessons o f experiments such as the kibbutz movement are l o s t t o the o u t s i d e w o r l d , n o t t o m e n t i o n m o s t Israelis. A t the

same time, i t is also true that m a n y self-identified anarchists have abandoned the core battle between labour a n d capital i n favour o f any anti-Zionist cause,

frequently indulging i n forms o f anti-Semitism typical o f many contemporary anarchist

movements.>'?

I n short, a good proportion o f today’s militant anarchist left knows n o t h i n g

of the ideologies that informed the early period of communal experimentation i n Palestine, m u c h less the internal workings o f the early kibbutzim. The fact that

the early kibbutz movement

came “closer t o the anarchist ideal than any other

attempt” a n d was, as this b o o k has demonstrated, a crucial chapter i n the history

o f anarchism, remains o f little interest. Though one may ascribe this oversight t o any number o f factors, including racism towards Jews o r anger a t Israel for its

government's policies towards the Palestinians, whatever the reason for ignoring the aspects o f the historical anarchist project implemented i n Palestine and Israel, i t reflects a tendency t o concentrate anarchism’s ideological achievements i n

First World contexts such as Europe. This should n o t be taken lightly, as many ideological and social innovations by the left are frequently made i n

and otherwise global southern contexts.

Third World

A LIVING REVOLUTION

112

To

this end, this chapter considers h o w activists o n the ground i n Israel are at

the forefront o f today’s movement towards a stateless commonwealth i n historic

Palestine, an idea foreshadowed i n many o f the ideologies prevalent during the

of the kibbutz movement. Is i t recognised among their ranks that this precedent exists? I s i t known that this was the original a i m of the Hashomer Hatzair o l i m , for example? A n d is i t acknowledged that, for a while at least, this system actually worked? The kibbutz movement m a y well have internally come closer t o the anarchist ideal than any other such experiment. However, in the absence of permanent state structures prior t o Israeli independence, these federated islands o f communalism also together proved themselves able t o take o n early years

many o f the functions usually assumed b y the centralised institutions o f capitalism and

the state, as part of a decentralised pattern of settlement n o t too far removed

from the “organic commonwealth” envisaged b y figures like Buber, Landauer and Kropotkin himself.

Anarchism i n Israel Despite

the early kibbutzim’s

ties t o anarchist ideologies a n d the actualisation o f

they have never been officially affiliated t o a n y formal anarchist movement i n the country. Although a minority from among the founding generation had connections t o the Yiddish-speaking anarchist movements i n their countries o f exile, there were n o such organisations

social anarchist ideas within these communities,

well into the 1940s. The influx of western European survivors of Nazism w h o arrived i n the region the wake o f the Second World War included m a n y influenced by libertarian

i n Palestine until in

ideas, and i t was this wave o f immigration that began t o sow the seeds o f Israels mainstream anarchist movement.*'?

The first formal organisation was established

i n the late 1940s by a group o f Polish immigrants i n Tel Aviv, and from the m i d 1950s, the nascent anarchist scene centred o n the Yiddish-speaking group

Agudath Schochrei Chofesh (ASHUACH), the “Freedom Seekers Association,” founded i n Tel Aviv b y Russian-born writer and philosopher Aba Gordin. Problemen/Problemot, the monthly review Gordin established, ran until the

late 1980s. Following its initiator’s death i n 1964, the review was directed b y

Shmuel Abarbanel, and then by Yosef Luden. Although the organisation itself numbered only about 150 members, the conferences ASHUACH organised i n

the late 1950s and early 1960s, o n the philosophy of anarchism, drew hundreds of people.’' As i n many other countries, the end o f the 1960s sparked a renewed interest i n anarchism i n Israel. During the latter part o f that decade, and the early years o f the next, the country’s anarchist movement began t o

take shape

with m o r e

a n d more groups coming together, gaining impetus a n d inspiration from the student movement i n Europe a n d the various revolutions taking place outside

T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT A N D ISRAELI ANARCHISM

1974, a n anarchist

Israel. I n

113

group i n Tel Aviv was named i n h o n o u r o f Gustav

Landauer, i n recognition o f his ideas’ impact o n the formative years o f

the Jewish

communitarian movement i n the country.’"” The emergence of new protest movements i n the 1980s i n opposition

the continuing

occupation

of the West

Bank and Gaza, a n d t o

to

the Lebanon

conflict, together with Israel's then-nascent p u n k scene, the animal rights movement, the rise i n conscientious objection, and the first Intifada, saw Israeli

anarchism steadily gaining more a n d more m o m e n t u m throughout the decade,

with numerous anarchist student cells starting during this period. M a n y o f the

time—whether self identified as by anarchists. The anti-capitalist, anti-

country’s radical left-wing groups around at that anarchist o r not—saw some involvement

Zionist Trotskyite group Matzpen (Compass), founded by former members o f the Israeli Communist party i n 1962 and active until the late 1980s, is one such organisation.’ Contemporary Israeli Anarchism

The contemporary

anarchist movement i n Israel came together d u r i n g the

the world i n the late 1990s. I n addition t o the 300 o r so Israeli anarchists, a n d a few hundred Palestinian sympathisers a n d allies (anarchism is historically n o t a well known intellectual wave o f anti-globalisation activism that took place across

c u r r e n t i n Arabic culture and there is n o formal Palestinian anarchist movement

as such), there is a significant international presence o n the ground i n Israel a n d Palestine.

This consists

connected

to

primarily

of European

and North American volunteers

the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a Palestinian-led

organisation, established i n 2 0 0 1 , that encourages volunteers from around the

the Israeli military the Gaza Strip.

world t o take part i n nonviolent protest against Bank and, until disengagement i n 2005,

i n the

West

Although Israel's anarchist movement is small in comparison to its European and North American counterparts, sections of i t are highly active. A sizable proportion o f those involved

participate i n

the peace, environmentalist a n d animal rights

movements, b u t since the beginning o f the second Intifada i n

2000, the activities o f

anarchist groups—Ilike those o f any other radical leftist organisation i n Israel—have been focused almost entirely o n opposition t o the Occupation i n Palestine, and i n

against the construction of the Separation Wall. Numerous organisations joint resistance t o the Occupation exist throughout the country.

particular

of

Ta'ayush (Arab—Jewish Partnership)’, for example, created i n the o f 2001

by Jews and

autumn

Palestinian Arabs o f Israeli citizenship, engages i n m a n y

different solidarity actions i n the occupied territories. The Anarchists Against the

Wall (AATW)¥ initiative, a direct action group established i n 2 0 0 3 i n response to i

the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the S e p a r a t i o n Wall, similarly htep://www.taayush.org/

i i heep:/fwww.awalls.org/

works alongside Palestinians

114

A LIVING REVOLUTION

i n nonviolent resistance t o the Occupation, taking part i n demonstrations and direct actions against the wall i n particular, and the Occupation i n general, across

the West Bank.

While destructive/preventative action against the Occupation is the movement's main focus, the construction o f practical alternatives is considered a n important thread o f anarchist activity i n the region. Grassroots peacemaking comes i n a variety o f different forms, with many o f the country’s anarchists actively involved with the numerous kernels o f cooperation and solidarity that exist throughout

Israel. I n addition t o Jewish-Arab initiatives like the Negev Coexistence Forum," the women’s solidarity group Bat Shalom," the Arab-Jewish Center for Equality, Empowerment and Cooperation’ i n Netivei Ahava

the Negev and the children’s and youth centre

(Paths o f Brotherhood) i n Jaffa, the more prominent examples

often referred t o i n anarchist literature include cooperative communities

like

Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam (NSWAS)," an experimental village situated half way between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where Jews and Arabs have lived and worked together for over three decades.

Established i n 1976 as a j o i n t venture b y Jewish and Arab Israelis, Neve Shalom carries o u t educational work t o promote peace, equality, mutual understanding

and cooperation

between. the two peoples. The village is one o f the few i n the

country with bilingual, multicultural schools i n which Jewish and Arab children are educated together i n both languages a n d taught the culture and traditions o f each

people. I t

is also h o m e t o the School for Peace, which runs workshops for

young people and adults i n conflict-resolution training, and a Pluralistic

Spiritual

Center. I n addition t o its educational institutions, NSWAS operates a program that provides humanitarian assistance for Palestinian villagers affected by the conflict. N e w Profile," a volunteer organisation run

by

feminist w o m e n a n d m e n

opposed t o the militarised and bellicose consciousness some anarchists involved. Supporting

the right

of Israeli society, also has

t o conscientious objection, n o t

presently recognised i n Israeli law, the organisation provides help and advice to those wishing t o abjure Israeli militarism a n d o p t o u t of military the recognition

of the individual’s

service. I t calls for

his o r h e r conscience, by means o f alternative

right t o act according t o

and for the o p t i o n t o express one’s social commitment

civic service, and advocates a fundamental overhaul o f the education system t o give young Israelis a n upbringing that promotes the practice o f peace a n d conflict resolution, rather than o n e that perpetuates a society that sees military prowess as a supreme a n d overriding value.

i i i htep://dukium.org/ iv htep://www.batshalom.org/ v hup://www.nisped.org.il/ v i htep://www.nswas.org/ v i i htep://www.newprofile.org/

T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT A N D ISRAELI ANARCHISM

Israeli

Anarchism a n d the Kibbutzim think o f themselves as anarchists today

Israelis w h o c o m e t o

115

tend t o arrive a t

that stance first and foremost through their immediate objection t o the military and

their belief that

citizens o f Israel have a n obligation t o resist the immoral

policies and actions carried o u t i n their name, rather than background o r in-depth historical understanding." I n

light

from a

theoretical

o f their focus o n

what they see as more immediate concerns, the role o f ideology i n informing their outlooks a n d actions is largely de-emphasised.

Viewing their most pressing goal as ending the Occupation and restoring Palestinians’ rights, m a n y Israeli anarchists believe that o n l y when this has been achieved can substantive discussions begin about

like t o

see i n

the future. This “one step a t a time”

the kind of society they would that theoretical

approach means

anarchist frameworks are largely alien to some people working within the groups that see themselves as “anarchist.”

I t would be fair t o say that the role o f libertarian socialist ideologies i n informing the ideas o f those involved i n the early kibbutz communities doesn’t exactly play a prominent part i n defining the ideological o r historical self-understanding of m o s t o f today’s activists. That contemporary radicals c o n s i g n today’s kibbutzim t o the d u s t b i n of radical experiments goes without saying, but there are also m a n y within Israel's anarchist camp w h o are wholly unaware of the historical presence o f anarchist ideas i n even the earliest years o f Zionist settlement. “Most o f today’s radicals would laugh if y o u suggested that the kibbutzim had anarchist roots,” o n e activist suggested t o m e recently. “When Israel’s anarchists l o o k back o n the early years o f the movement, they see i t i n a very negative light—not just as part o f a

racist state-building project, b u t a project that, even within its o w n communities, tried t o stifle individuality a n d make everyone the same.”

According

to

anti-war activist and New Profile member Tali Lerner, “Even

twenty years ago, the same technical idea as Kropotkin w r o t e about existed i n the kibbutz. B u t what people saw was this idea being r u n so badly that that’s what they remember. H o w oppressive the kibbutz became i n its later years towards its

what the kibbutz was about, a n d that stays with them. They wont think “Well, i n the 1930s,

o w n members is anarchists’ main impression o f

that’s the impression

i t really worked.”

The Kibbutzim and theMilitary The experience of the early communards is one with which many o f today’s Israeli anarchists would have difficulty relating. “Reading people’s letters from the

Second a n d Third Aliya kvutzot,” Lerner said t o me, “you realise that these people

were so deeply emotionally invested i n things on a level

that m o s t

of today’s

v i i i The following section is based o n a series o f interviews with Israeli activists i n Tel Aviv i n 2 0 0 6

and 2007

116

A LIVING REVOLUTION

radicals would see as utter naivety. This is so distant

from the experience o f today’s

radicals. We're m u c h more cynical today, m u c h more individualistic.”

Perhaps the main reason, however, for contemporary activists’ disdain for the kibbutzim, is that they have become so inextricably intertwined with the Israeli state, and, i n particular, its militaristic policies towards the Palestinians. Indeed, in

the first

three decades following independence, the country’s fiercest fighters

were drawn from

the kibbutzim, including the Israel Defence Force's core military

leadership.

The first baby b o r n at

Degania, for example, was Moshe Dayan, the famous

the 1967 IsraeliThe ideological shift that

warrior a n d politician w h o achieved worldwide fame during Arab

War as

the architect o f Israel's military victory.

occurred within the communities colonisation against

from the 1930s onwards—from

socialism

ethos, as the movement became a bastion for Zionist

t o a nationalist-militarist

the interests of the Palestinian population—is a major barrier of the kibbutzim for m a n y of

t o anything approaching objective consideration

today’s anarchists. According t o Israeli activist and author Uri Gordon,

their internal structure as communes, the early kibbutzim o f course deal of correspondence with anarchist principles, a n d yes, this was a system that proved itself capable of providing for a large number o f people. The kind o f system the communities employed is well known i n Israel. B u t when these communal islands are transformed i n t o the food-basket of a country a n d the source o f its elite soldiers, as far as today’s anarchists are concerned any achievements that the kibbutzim might have had before 1948 are hardly

I n terms o f

had a great

relevant t o today’s struggles.®'”

The Yishuv (through its defence force auxiliary, the Haganah) had essentially been organised as a military entity since

the establishment of the Jewish self-

defence organisation Hashomer i n 1909. During the 1930s, the sections o f the

movement's membership

that

initially had favoured organising and solidarity

with their Arab co-workers began t o dwindle, a n d m a n y people were thrown o u t o f the kibbutzim for speaking o u t against the racism inherent i n the “conquest o f labour.” According t o o n e Israeli activist I spoke t o , the p o i n t a t which those

radicals w h o weren't ready t o convert their Zionism into a right-wing, nationalist movement

were kicked o u t of the settlements was the point a t which the kibbutz

forfeited its relevance t o radical thought.

This was

also a period—and t o some extent this is known among today’s

anarchists—during

which

many

of the

original radicals were also leaving

the

kibbutzim o f their o w n accord, disillusioned with the n e w ideological direction

their settlements were taking. Fourth International socialist Rudolf (Rudi) Segall, w h o arrived i n Palestine

from Germany i n 1934, inspired by the ideas of Gustav

Landauer, lived o n a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz from 1935 t o 1939. I n a n interview

T H E KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT A N D ISRAELI ANARCHISM

i n 2001, he spoke o f his and many o f his comrades’ disenchantment with

117

their

n e w reality: “ I t is n o miracle that a high percentage o f the Israeli military elite came from the Kibbutz,” h e said. “ F o r some o f us the contradiction between the socialist ideal and the behaviour i n relation t o the resident population became ever bigger, s o . . . a large group

left the Kibbutz i n

order t o carry o u t political w o r k . ” 8

Changing Perspectives

I n short, the kibbutz is viewed b y contemporary Israeli anarchists n o t for what i t once was, b u t for

of i t s

what i t has become. I n

/ight o f what i t has become—both i n

of i t s external face as Zionist institution—the w a y i n which the kibbutz was actually r u n , and the lessons t o be learned from its early economic and political structure, fade i n t o insignificance. This is exacerbated by the inevitable tendency, prevalent a m o n g today’s younger radicals, t o apply m o d e r n anarchist ideas t o d i s c u s s i o n terms

oppressiveness towards i t s o w n members a n d

a n establishment

o f the early kibbutzim, and therefore t o lose sight o f the historical context i n which the communities were operating.

(“Even the very earliest kibbutzim

couldn't possibly have been anarchist,” one member o f the N e w Profile initiative said t o me, utterly bewildered

by the very suggestion,

“because

they used work

animals.”) Given t h a t m o s t o f Israel’s anarchists arrive a t

their beliefs

i n reaction t o

the

limits o f Israeli liberal/left politics, their tendency t o ignore o r overlook the lessons to

be learned

from

the early kibbutz movement

i s n o t surprising. T o

the y o u n g

generation, the kibbutz is the establishment. For many, the fact that i t served for so l o n g as the source o f elite units i n the IDF a n d the country’s political leadership is, itself, enough t o limit interest. B u t w h y is i t that so few within the contemporary anarchist movement remain conscious o f the prevalence o f anarchist ideologies i n

the early years o f the kibbutz movement? Among those activists whose knowledge o f Zionist history extends beyond the partial story peddled by the Israeli education system, media and hasbara (Zionist education aimed at foreigners), there is some acknowledgement that the creation o f the state, a n d the kibbutzim’s subsequent

link

t o i t , meant the

historical

perspective o f m a n y within the kibbutz movement—and the Zionist movement as

a whole—changed dramatically. “When you think about it, it’s hardly surprising that today’s radicals k n o w so little o f their forebears” politics,” Lerner said t o me. “When the state was set u p , everything that happened before 1948 was twisted t o

fit what was acceptable t o the new Zionism, the sole focus o f which was the state. Ben-Gurion a n d other figures

from that 1948.”

generation deliberately tried t o erase

everything that happened before

“The entire movement i n Israel was t o delete everything that happened before the state w a s everything,” Lerner adds. “You can’t say whether o r n o t

it

was designed t o bury the anarchist ideas specifically, b u t that was certainly o n e effect. Anarchism was n o longer spoken about. T h e idea that the kibbutzim were

118

A LIVING REVOLUTION

g o i n g t o create a n e w society h a d s t o p p e d b e i n g a realistic p r o p o s i t i o n b y t h e

mid 1930s—by

the kibbutzim were the creation o f the state, the entire n o t i o n had ever been a i m i n g t o build a n e w society i n Palestine as a

that p o i n t there was a state-in-waiting a n d

coopted—but around the t i m e o f that the kibbutzim

socialist project rather than a n exclusively Z i o n i s t o n e was systematically erased.

The entire anarchist o r radical socialist n o t i o n i n Jewish history was altered, as everything was changed i n t o this n e w o n e perspective o f Z i o n i s m : ‘ Z i o n i s m is the state

o f Israel.” Everything was focused on making this happen.”

the early the Israeli educational curriculum. While figures like A.D. Gordon and C h a i m Arlosoroff a n d groups like Hashomer Hatzair are well known, the influence Kropotkin, Landauer a n d Tolstoy had i n informing their ideologies I t goes w i t h o u t saying that the role o f anarchist ideology a m o n g

settlers is absent from

is rarely taught—but i t is also seldom talked about among the elder generation o f kibbutzniks w h o were actually there. The young generation o f anarchists— m a n y o f w h o m were raised i n kibbutzim—have first hand experience o f

this,

a n d m a n y agree that even kibbutzniks from the founding generation today look back at the early years very differently from the historical accounts that appear i n

documentation from

the time.

Outside researchers and kibbutz authors note this same tendency, some concluding that the fact that some o f

the individuals

who

had previously been

promoting radical leftist ideologies would later dismiss the role o f such ideas is a product o f a n “anti-ideological ideology” that emerged within the kibbutzim, c o m p o u n d i n g the proletarianisation o f intellectuals.’

The No-State Solution While the achievements and aspirations o f the early kibbutzim m a y remain largely alien t o many grassroots activists, they have been noted i n m u c h o f the scholarship emerging i n recent years from the Israeli anarchist movement. I n his b o o k Anarchy

Alive!, Uri Gordon notes the anarchist principles o f the pre-state settlements and

the presence o f anarchist literature among the early communards, observing how, while their methods m a y n o t have been the same as those o f today’s anarchist movements, a n d while they remained largely o b l i v i o u s t o

their reality

as pawns

in

a larger imperialist project, the early kibbutzniks’ form o f constructive activism has c o n t i n u e d significance t o contemporary anarchist struggles i n

the r e g i o n . ’ *

I n drawing u p his grand strategy for moving towards a “no-state” s o l u t i o n

laid o u t i n a 2003 article entitled “From Mutual Aid,” Chicago-born Israeli Bill Templer elaborates o n this relevance i n more detail. Acknowledging the impact of anarchist ideals o n the t o the Israel-Palestine impasse

Struggle t o Mutual

founding generation o f kibbutzniks, Templer suggests that their example might

be borrowed

for a renewed move towards

originally envisaged by many

the kind

o f stateless commonwealth

of the movement's founders.?*!

THE KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT A N D ISRAELI ANARCHISM

119

Putting forward a proposal for a “staged transformation”—moving from

an interim stage o f t w o states t o a unitary, bi-national state, and o n t o

what he

tentatively terms a “Jerusalem Cooperative Commonwealth’ —Templer argues

the first steps towards meaningful peace l i e i n laying the groundwork for kind o f Jewish-Palestinian Zapatismo, a grassroots movement t o ‘reclaim the commons.” This w o u l d mean making constructive moves towards direct democracy, participatory economics a n d autonomy for the people of b o t h that

«

a