Last week we spent a night at a Kibbutz, the Kibbutz Lavi to be precise. Before arriving I laboured under the misapprehension that accommodation at a Kibbutz would fall, on a scale of luxury that stretches between a Bedouin tent and a youth hostel, somewhere close to the former. Not at all! The place was more like a Holiday Inn.
It was staffed by Kibbutz members one of whom gave a talk on Kibbutz life in the evening. Although many Kibbutzim have strayed from the founders’ ideals, the one I was at hadn’t, I was assured. The young man delivering the talk was a zealot; he waxed lyrical about the life and only became a trifle testy after some probing questions. Members’ incomes are placed into a pool from which the expenses of the Kibbutz are paid; each member is given pocket money to meet his “needs”. Needs are not self defined as far as I could tell. Many Kibbutzim are run on non-religious lines, but not Lavi; it adheres to Judaism – it practices a type of Kosher Communism.
Members who shirk work are subjected to “peer pressure” and, although any member can leave, generally they are not thrown out for misbehaving.
I can’t say it doesn’t work, since our stay was as enjoyable as it would have been at any good hotel. Concessions have been made to Capitalism, though: for example, our speaker was the lawyer for the Kibbutz, a sure sign of collaboration.
And the Kibbutz could not operate as it does without the underpinnings of a Capitalist system to provide people to sell to. Not unlike a pacifist living peacefully in a society rendered safe because it employes soldiers.
I especially enjoyed the last line. Puts me to mind of the idea of “military preparedness”. Those who least prepared for war are the most likely to be attacked, and those who are most prepared for war are least likely to be attacked.
Frankly, I think that it is too bad we live is such a world. Who knows how much good could have been done over the generations if the money spent on the military had been spent on more/other humanitarian efforts. I say “other” because anyone who knows our Canadian Armed Forces today understands that its purpose (as a tool of the civilian government) is to impliment government policies, mostly of an international nature. These government policies include disaster releif.
Happy travels Dave.
I believe that Costa Rica, Lietchenstein, Samoa and Panama have no military and I don’t see them being attacked except perhaps by the US.
I agree with AMP that it is a shame that we waste so much on military spending to the neglect of more important humanitarian efforts. I hope that these countries (and possibly others) can serve as examples to us “larger” countries that billions spent on the military is not needed.
Try telling that to a Jew after he has taken you through the Holocaust museum.
Exactly.
The US is the only villain. China and Islam are completely benign.
Very simplistic notion, EdmontonAnglican. Having no military makes an enlightened population? Costa Rica, Lietchenstein, Samoa and Panama are not exactly paragons of high virtue or civilization. Canada doesn’t have much of a military anymore either, because we hope the Americans will bail us out if the need ever arises.
The accomplishments of these countries do not compare to the U.S. either, though. And I don’t see them rushing in with humanitarian aid whenever it is needed, to the extent the U.S. does. Come to think of it, I don’t see the emigrants of the world elbowing to get into Costa Rica, Lietchenstein, Samoa or Panama. Have a look at the U.S. Green Card Lottery lately?
I hope this thread does not grow into a “let’s bash western culture” theme. After all, AnglicanSamizdat is all about getting rid of the ridiculous left-wing notions, rather than confirming them.
“Those who least prepared for war are the most likely to be attacked, and those who are most prepared for war are least likely to be attacked.”
Not necessarily so. Political science studies have shown that the risk of conflict often increases substantially when two neighbouring countries come close to military parity. However, it depends on the politics of the region and the countries involved. Whereas France and Germany in the first half of the twentieth century could be used as an example in one way, they may now also be used as an example the other way. In the case of Israel, lack of military preparedness would likely have long ago resulted in annihilation.
But only a fool (or a county of fools) will start a war that cannot be won.
Sounds good, but the problem is, there is no absolute measure beforehand of whether a war can be won or not. There are too many unknowns. Hitler was pretty damn sure that his war would of course be successful, and would usher in the new Reich. See what I mean?
And sometimes an entity will start a smaller conflict that cannot be won as part of a plan that the larger conflict that will result can be.
Really An. You are getting too literal, while I was speaking more anecdotally. Oops. Is that my chain I feel being yanked.
It is often fashionable anecdotes that fools take seriously. Did you add a caveat to that statement? Who was to know you weren’t literal?
We have had a whole generation of Canadians, from the dark years of Trudeau forward, who speak in such a manner but who believe what they are saying.