Talk:Kibbutz

Explanation of term "shmutznik"?

Can someone add an explanation of the term "shmutznik"-- origins, meanings, use etc.

shmutznik - a slang term for a member of Hashomer Hatzair [1]

shmutznik = Hashomer Hatzair AbuAmir 12:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

I do not understand why there is no section containing explicit criticism of Kabbutzim. The article praises their virtues, but mentions nothing about the potential harm done by taking children away from parents and thwarting individual ambition and achievement. This thing reads like a Kubbutz advertisement.

I think most long articles reflect some admiration for their subject. If you look at John Vanbrugh, it is pretty clear that that authors think that Vanbruch was a pretty swell architect. Many city articles attempt to persuade readers to visit that city. While I admit that I like kibbutzim, I think the article conveys both sides. There is a long quotation about how being left to cry alone scarred an infant. There is also discussion of kibbutz education possibly producing mediocrity. There is also Begin's "millionaires with swimming pools" quotation. The reason I did not say more about kibbutz education producing mediocrity is that I do not think that assessment is accurate.

Well, a criticism may not be needed, but the article needs to be toned down from looking like a prosy pamphlet advertising Kibbutzism. I just finished reading the article, and it appears to be an advertisement and magical story of history to the average reader. We had the same problem with the "New Coke" article.--ikiroid | (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Volunteers

I thought it was possible/fashionable for non-Israeli non-Jewish youths to spend working time at a kibbutz as a learning experience on commonal life.

- Yes, many non-Israeli non-Jewish youths (18-30, although mostly students 18-22) spend an average of 3 months working on a Kibbutz. There is a problem with providing a social life on some remote Kibbutz and Volunteers go some way to improve the social atmosphere for the young members.

Indeed. The volunteeers on the kibbutzim (of which I was one) do tend to be seperated from the Kibbutzniks socially. The Kibbutzniks aren't to concerned about getting to know people who will be gone soon enough, and there is the ever present danger of a young kibbutznik falling in love and leaving the kibbutz (although the reverse happens too). Having said this it is my experience that the young kibbutzniks do socialise with the volunteers to some degree. At Kfar Blum we had a disco/nightclub run by the volunteers that was open several nights per week. Young kibbutzniks and even people from the local town would come to dance. Robertbrockway 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Arab Labor

There should be something about the use of Arab labor on kibbutz and debates on the issue, particularly in Kibbutz Artzi Federation kibbutzim where there was a debate in the 1950s about allowing Arabs to become members with a decision against. AndyL 17:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good article

I just read it and found it rather informative, Good job. I think it could use more content regarding the day to day life in a kibbutz, as well as the social structure / hierarchy. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for a few days now. I'm planning to add sections on Daily Life, religious kibbutzim, and kibbutzim in the 21st century. I want to bring this up to FA status.Dinopup 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its all that far off. So is the social structure in any way anarchist, or is it a military style hierarchy, or what? I understand that concensus descision making is used, but outside of that... (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is at least one anarchist kibbutz that I know of, it is called Kibbutz Samar and is in the far south of Israel, by Eilat. Instead of looking at a daily sheet to see where to go to work, members of Kibbutz Samar simply work where they feel they are needed. If the tropical fish business needs people, or the date palm business needs people, members of Kibbutz Samar work there for the day. Kibbutz Samar does not call itself "anarchist" though, and unlike most kibbutzim, it sees nothing wrong with majority vote. I found this article on Samar, should you be interested.

http://www.anarchistcommunitarian.net/articles/kibbutz/samarkibb.html

http://www.ardom.co.il/heilot/samar/samar.htm

There is no military style hierarchy, I think if kibbutzim had been organized in that way they never would have lasted, but almost all decisions have to be made by the group. In the old days, if you wanted to do anything major you would have to get the group's permission, now most kibbutzim have relaxed that. Day to day business decisions are made by managers.Dinopup 23:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russian policy

This quote:

It was the official policy of the Russian government to "cause one-third of the Jews to emigrate, one-third to accept baptism, and one-third to starve."

needs a reference, preferably something Russian and not from Israel.--Wahoofive

The quotation came from the May Laws article on wikipedia, and I recall reading the same thing elsewhere. The policy wasn't truly "official," but I know that the quotation was first said by a Russian cabinet minister. Dinopup 23:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It still should have some kind of attribution. --Wahoofive 23:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The cabinet minister who made the "one third" quotation was Konstantin Pobedonostsev.Dinopup 00:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The statement that Pobedonostsev said this was removed from Konstantin Pobedonostsev by an anonymous IP who directed people at [User_talk:Humus_sapiens]]. --Saforrest 00:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with this "In case any Jews made their way into the Russian capital city, in 1897 the Moscow Chief of Police offered a bounty for the capture of an illegal Jew equal to the capture of two burglars. (Dubnow, Vol. III, 15)". In 1897 the capital of Russia was St petersberg, not Moscow. Is this really correct?

If it helps to clarify, St Petersburg became Capital of Russia in 1712, and was replaced by Moscow in 1918. Regards Lynbarn 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Percent

In the following paragraph:

Kibbutzim also continued to play an outsize role in Israeli society. When only 4 percent of Israelis were kibbutzniks, kibbutzniks made up 15 percent of the Knesset. In the Six-Day War, when Israel lost 800 soldiers, fully 200 of them were from kibbutzim. One twenty-fifth of the population of Israel was making 25 percent of the sacrifice. (Bettelheim, 15)

I removed the last sentence, which seems to add POV without adding any information. --Wahoofive 23:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stalin's support for statehood

Another statement that needs documentation:

One reason Josef Stalin had for supporting the UN partition plan in 1948 was that he assumed a country which practiced pure communism, as Israelis did with kibbutzim, would be an ideological ally of his.

--Wahoofive 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I could qualify the statement by saying "may have had for supporting the UN . . ." Most historians conjecture that Stalin supported the partition plan because he expected Israel to be anti-British (at the time Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were completely pro-British, reactionary (in Stalin's mind) monarchies). It's a conjecture that I've seen in non-biased books, but I could delete the Stalin reference if you recommend.Dinopup 04:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just going by the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. --Wahoofive 06:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed the Stalin bit to something about socialists in general supporting Israel (in its first 2 decades). Many Western Europeans who visited Israel came to kibbutzim. It's funny that these people who would never have worked on a farm in their own country (very few of whom were Jewish) would work on a farm in Israel, but that's what they did.Dinopup 15:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stalin was a schemer and his decision to support Israel's creation in 1948 may have happened for a myriad of reasons (he was also going a bit senile at the time, according to some, so his reasons may have not necessarily been logical). In any case, given that Stalin soon launched a massive anti-Zionist (and anti-Semitic) campaign in the Soviet Union that soon spread to the rest of the Soviet bloc in which Jews were accused of dual loyalites or just plain disloyalty and Zionists (real or suspected) were rounded up and tried .On the other hand, social democrats throughout western Europe and North America were generally quite supportive of Israel prior to the 1967 war and support remained pronounced among many social democrats at least until Likud took power in 1977. While you still can find some in the British Labour Party and Canada's NDP who are supportive of ZIonism today the numbers have greatly diminished over the past three decades and few, if any, hold Israel up today as some sort of socialist beacon. AndyL 16:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I think it's safe to say that even if Stalin was supportive of Israel in 1948 his support was tentative and quite short lived." I agree with you. I think the 1947 partition plan vote occurred in a brief window of opportunity for Israel that did not exist two years previously or two years after. The United States' support for the partition plan was certainly short lived. I know of at least one White House aide who conjectured that the US would not have supported the partition plan if FDR had lived. As for Stalin, I think his calculation about Israel must have been motivated by what he perceived as self-interest. He probably thought Israel would be on his side against Britain. Stalinw as slow to grasp the fact that Britain was no longer going to be the dominant capitalist power. The Arab monarchies certainly were not pro-Soviet.Dinopup 20:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Israel template

I've had objections about one of these Israel templates before and it seems to me as if its placement and layout still hasn't improved. There are many templates for article series that are very good and helpful and {{israelis}} isn't a bad idea, but just like it's "Jewish Languages" counterpart it looks very cumbersome. Did article series template really meant to be this... rowdy? Considering this is now an FA, I must at least drop a hint about trying to improve its placement or design. Consider decreasing it in size, making it horizontal, and placing at the bottom. Like the {{Jewish language}} it is taking up a lot of space for an interwiki template.

Peter Isotalo 08:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Er...

"Kibbutzim have given Israel a wildly disproportionate share of its military leaders, intellectuals, and politicians." - disproportionate to what exactly? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Presumably disproportionate to the relatively small share of the population living on kibbutzim.--Pharos 04:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Warning*: "...founded on the dispossession of Palestinians"???? This is an encyclopedia?

Psychological aspects

In this section, it sounds as if it was a widespread view that Kibbutzim create "mediocrity". In fact, it seems to be a fact that the part of Israel's intellectual, political, artistical people educated in a kibbutz is disproportionate. I found this validated in the passage cited above (section "Er..." on this page). Therefore, as it stands the section "psychological aspects" gives the wrong impression. It was never validated in a single study that Kibbutzim create mediocrity. The opposite, however, seems to be quite uncontroversial about sociologists. Maybe the cited passage should be moved there?

I agree with you that kibbutzim did not produce mediocrity. The impression came from Bettelheim though, who I suppose counts as an authority. The problem with Bettelheim is that he spent less than two months on a kibbutz and his theories were just impressionistic.Dinopup 02:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Secular?

"part of one of the largest secular communal movements "

I admit I know very little about kibbutzes, but are we sure they can count as a secular movement? Something like this sounds like at least part of the driving force here would be closely associated with Judaism. How do we arrive at that categorisation?

In fact it was a defiantly secular movement. Their classic claim was that they worked twice as hard on the Sabbath. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Most Kibbutzim were/are indeed defiantly secular, and to a large degree even anti-religious, which settled well (ideologically speaking) with their communist/socialist ideology. Kibbutzim observed the major Jewish holidays, but in a distinctly non-religious manner, as an attempt to transform these holidays from religious holidays to national or ethnic holidays. It should also be noted that several Kibutzim were pioneered by religious settlers (Kibbutz Dati). See the discussion in Zionism about the differences vs. Judaism. In general, Zionism is more of a nationalist/ethnic movement, which should not be confused with religion. There are plenty of anti-religious Zionist Jews as well as anti-Zionist religious Jews... altmany 22:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Secular as opposed to monasteries. Catholic and Buddhist monastic movements were much larger than the kibbutz movement, but their purpose was religion. If kibbutzniks are religious it is incidental to their communal life. As mentioned by Altmany and Jayjg, most kibbutzim were secular. Judaism was their culture. Kibbutzniks celebrated Shavuot like Americans celebrate Thanksgiving.Dinopup 02:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers

too long / unfocused

Does anyone else think like half of this should be incorporated into an article on Eastern European Jews or something along those lines? Most of it has very little to do with kibbutz: simply stateing times were tough at various periods for Eastern European Jews and linking to the approperate articles on that subject would be better. -- stewacide 00:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Now there are two parts to this article

Please see History of the kibbutz movement for those sections dealing with the pre-state and early state of Israel periods. There was a need to cut this article up into two segments because at over 60k it far exceeded the normal length for Wikipedia articles. Note: No content was removed in this division into two articles. Thanks. IZAK 17:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchisation

Since there were obviously two parts to the article: history, and concept, but the article contents did not reflect this, I changed them accordingly. I haven't changed a single word, only made parts into subparts, and moved some things around. LeoDV 08:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was made a FA with its history section in. No one would read a separate history article (no one edits or links to my History of the United States Senate, I fear that it is unread). I intended this to be a single article. Most browsers can do 60 k. Dinopup 17:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not alter anything from the article, I only hierarchised the contents list. LeoDV 29 June 2005 10:29 (UTC)

Zichron Ya'akov founded by Romanian Jews

I have removed Zichron Yaakov from the article and replaced it with Rehovot and Gedera. Zichron was not a Bilu settlement but instead was founded by Jews from Romania who were affiliated with the Hovevei Zion movement. See he:ביל"ו and he:זכרון יעקב for confirmation. RCSB 15:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Co-operative

I saw no mention of co-operatives. How do they compare with kibbutzes?

United Kibbutz Movement and Kibbutz Artzi Movement are now united

Since 1999, the United Kibbutz Movement and the Kibbutz Artzi Movement are now united, why is this not in the article? --Shuki 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Feminism in Kibbutzim

The following line:

Artzi kibbutzim were also more devoted to equality of the sexes than other kibbutzim. A 1920s, 1930s era kibbutz woman would call her husband ishi — "My man" — rather than the usual Hebrew word, ba'ali,, which literally means "My master."

implies that the Hebrew word for husband holds a different connotation than it does in other languages. The American English Dictionary offers the following etymology of the word husband in English:

ORIGIN late Old English (in the senses [male head of a household] and [manager, steward] ), from Old Norse húsbóndi ‘master of a house,’ from hús ‘house’ + bóndi ‘occupier and tiller of the soil.’ The original sense of the verb was [till, cultivate.]

Could anyone offer a revision to this sentence that would help relativize this? Jadorno 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference appears to be than "husband" only has one meaning in English, while "Ba'al" still literally means "master" in Hebrew. Mo-Al 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

English still includes the phrase "animal husbandry." Just an observation. FWIW. --Christofurio 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I found this article http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Kibbutz. Anybody else notice any striking similarities between specific sentances in both the wiki and reference.com page?

Example:

A kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ; plural: kibbutzim: קיבוצים, "gathering" or "together") is an Israeli collective intentional community. Although other countries have had communal enterprises, in no other country have voluntary collective communities played as important a role as the kibbutzim in Israel. Their importance can be traced to the creation of the Israeli state, and continue to the present day. (reference.com)

A kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ; plural: kibbutzim: קיבוצים, "gathering" or "together") is an Israeli collective intentional community. Although other countries have had communal enterprises, in no other country have voluntary collective communities played as important a role as the kibbutzim in Israel. Their importance can be traced to the creation of the Israeli state, and continue to the present day. (wikipedia.org)

The concern is that reference.com was not referenced in the article.

The reference.com article appears to have been copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article; see the notices and links at the end of the article. --Woozle 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

Which is correct? Or are they both, somehow? :

• "...within the Pale of Settlement, Jews could neither live in large cities, such as Kiev, nor any village with fewer than 500 residents..."
• "The May Laws forbade Jews to live in towns with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants..."

--Woozle 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How many?

I came to this article wondering the Kibbutz population and found no answer.