JOURNAL

OF RURAL COOPERATION

Centre international de recherches sur les communautes cooperatives rurales International Research Centre on Rural Cooperative Communities ""!)'''''LI "",!)!) "'~'l1v 'vn~ '~'N~-"!111 t!)'~l1 CIRCOM

VOLUME 24 No.1 1996 CIRCOM, International Research Centre on Rural Cooperative Communities was established in September 1965 in Paris. The purpose of the Centre is to provide a framework for investigations and research on problems concerning rural cooperative communities and publication of the results, to coordinate the exchange of information on current research projects and published works, and to encourage the organization of symposia on the problems of cooperative rural communities, as welI as the exchange of experts between different countries. Editorial Advisory Board

BARRACLOUGH, Prof. Solon, UNRISD, PLANCK, Prof. Ulrich, Universitat Geneva, Switzerland. Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. CERNEA, Prof. Michael, The World POCHET, Dr. Carlos A., Universidad Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica. CRAIG, Prof. Jack, York University, POHORYLES, Prof. Samuel, Tel Aviv Ontario, Canada. University, Israel. DON, Prof. Yehuda, Bar Ilan University, SAXENA, Dr. S.K., Markham, Ontario, Ramat Gan, Israel. Canada. FALS BORDA, Prof. Orlando, Punta de SCHIMMERLING, Prof. Hanus, Lanza Foundation, Bogota, Colombia. Agricultural University, Prague, Czech KLATZMANN, Prof. Joseph, Institut Republic. National Agronomique, Paris, France. SCHV ARTZER, Prof. Louis, Universidad MARON, Stanley, Kibbutz Maayan Zvi de Buenos Aires, Argentina. and Yad Tabenkin, Ramat Efal, Israel. SMITH, Prof. Louis, University College, NINOMIY A, Prof. Tetsuo, Kanazawa Dublin, Ireland. University, Japan. STAVENHAGEN, Dr. Rodolfo, EI PARIKH, Prof. Gokul 0., Sardar Patel Colegio de Mexico, Mexico. Institute of Economic and Social Research, STROPPA, Prof. Claudio, Universita di Ahmedabad, India. Pavia, Italy.

Editor: Dr. Yair Levi Administrative Assistant: Daphna Bar-Nes

CIRCOM Information for Subscribers: The Journal of Rural Cooperation is a semi-annual periodical, aimed at the pursuit of research in the field of rural cooperation. Editorial enquiries and other correspondence should be addressed to CIRCOM, Yad Tabenkin, Ramat Efal 52960, Israel (Fax: +972-3-5346376). Subscription rate: $23 per annum (plus $2.00 sea mail; $6.00 airmail).

ISSN 0377-7480 Copyright © 1996 by Circom. Israel JOURNAL OF RURAL COOPERATION

Vol. 24 No. 1 1996

CONTENTS

Individualism vs Communalism, Inward vs Outward Orientation: A Kibbutz Perspective

Editor's Note 3 1. ARTICLES Introduction Gil, E. The Individual within the Collective: A New Perspective ...... 5 Issues and Dilemmas in Communal Life Don, Y. The Importance of Behaving Altruistically: Altruism as an Efficiency Boosting Factor in the Kibbutz ...... 17 Utitz, Z. The Ideological Crisis of the Kibbutz Movement . . . . . 27 Avrahami, E. A Kibbutz Dilemma: Social Movement or Self- Interested Group? ...... 31 Kressel, G.M. Reducing Collectivity in a Kibbutz ...... 35 The Kibbutz in a Broader Cooperative Perspective Levi, Y. Kibbutz, Cooperation and the Issue of Embeddedness 47 Russell, R. Individual vs Collective Forms of Sharing Ownership in Israel ...... 67 Assessing the Current Crisis Topel, M. Trends of Change in Kibbutzim ...... 87 2. BOOK REVIEWS Pestoff, V. Between Markets and Politics: Cooperatives in Sweden M. Rosner...... 103 Russell, R. Utopia in Zion, The Israeli Experience with Worker Cooperatives S. Maron ...... " ...... 105 The World Bank Ukraine, The Agricultural Sector in Transition T. Kowalak ...... 106

3. CURRENT INFORMATION Dissertation Abstracts ...... 111 The Individual within the Collective: A New Perspective

by Efraim Gil Governors State University, University Park, Illinois, USA

Abstract In recent years, the seemingly inevitable struggle between individualism and collectivism has continued to intensify and accelerate both in the kibbutz movement and in the world at large. In the kibbutz, demands for individual rights, initiatives and rewards have increasingly challenged the original collectivist ideology upon which the kibbutz was founded. This paper presents an approach which can avoid the struggle between the individual and the collective. Instead of seeing the collective as a reaction against brutish individualism, the community becomes the "greenhouse", the support group and the family that nurtures the many positive aspirations of each of its individual members. In return, because of this loving support and nurturing, the individual views the collective as the base for development, to be nurtured and supported.

In recent years, the seemingly inevitable struggle between individualism and communalism has continued to intensify and accelerate both in the kibbutz movement and in the world at large. In the kibbutz, demands for individual rights, initiatives and rewards have increasingly challenged the original collectivist ideology upon which the kibbutz was founded. These challenges have continued to erode the original collectivist values while strengthening those of individualism. While some see this as progress, others see it as a down-spiral, leading to a likely "triumph of capitalism" in the kibbutz movement. It is my own, personal, experience with kibbutz living that sensitized me to this issue and led me to reflect upon it over the years. As a member of an Aliyat Hanoar (Immigration of Youth Nuclei) group in Kibbutz Kfar Glickson, I appropriated the collectivist values of sharing, cooperation and mutual care. Yet, instinctively, and with increasing intensity, I rebelled against the ideologically mandated submergence of the individual, his interests, his aspirations and his personal growth and development. So I left. In America, I had a taste of both the benefits and the drawbacks of the ideology of individualism and its way of life, and did not like that either. In the sixties, I worked to attempt to establish a Walden Two type community in California, and in 1971, I helped found Neve Han and became its secretary. And again, the struggle within myself between the noble goals of

Journal of Rural Cooperation, 24(1),1996:5-15 ISSN 0377-7480 © 6 E.Gi/ individual self-realization and the equally noble goals of collective responsibility, mutual care and cooperation, surfaced, intensified and made me reflect upon this difficult issue. Since leaving Neve Han in 1972, I have tried to examine (1) the basic values related to individualism vs collectivism as expressed in kibbutz ideology; (2) the origins of these values; (3) their effect on the growing struggle between the individual and the collective; and, (4) some possible solutions to this struggle. The results of my reflections and analysis of these issues are summarized in this paper. My goal here is to explore an approach which avoids the struggle between individualism and collectivism, while, placing the kibbutz, once again, in the forefront of a new way of life in which human beings can live together in individual and collective harmony. In order to explore the idea of an alternative relationship between the individual and the collective, it would be helpful, first to try to understand the causes and origins of the current struggle between collectivism and individualism. I will briefly explore the relevant aspects of past kibbutz ideology and its impact on this struggle. The collectivist ideologies First, then, is a brief look at the collectivist ideologies of Utopian socialism, and its values, since these provided some of the bases of kibbutz ideology. The collectivist ideologies of the 19th century were, in large measure, a response to the rampant individualism and class warfare of the industrial revolution, that allowed and encouraged a small minority of individuals, through the instruments of capital accumulation and supportive state power, to dominate and oppress a suffering and downtrodden majority. Individualism and catering to individual wants were viewed by many of the proponents of 19th century collectivist ideologies, as capitulating to, and encouraging, brutal competition for survival between individuals. The collective, from this perspective, was seen as a means of altering this nasty way of being, and any deviation from this new collective ideology towards any form of individualism, was seen as backsliding into the quagmire of a brutish nature. The utopian ideologies, from Fourier and Owen, to Proudhon and Kropotkin, believed that an ideological blueprint of the perfect social structure could be designed and, when implemented, would change the basic structure of the capitalist state. With some variations, the basic values and principles emerging from these and other socialist thinkers included the following values:

• Introduction of change through the establishment of small communities that would serve as social experiments and demonstration projects.

• Such communities, or communes, would be based on principles of sharing cooperation and mutual support.

• Such communes would be composed of members joining or leaving the The Individual within the Collective 7

community of their own free will. • Internally, all policy decisions, including decisions on production and distribution of goods and services, would be made in accordance with the principles of participatory democracy: one person, one vote. • Goods and services, as well as responsibilities, would be distributed, based on the principle of "from each according to hislher abilities, to each according to hislher needs". • Such communities would form into associations of communities, that would increasingly encompass and transform all of society. The Utopian thinkers saw this new social structure as aimed at freeing the individual from the brutality, oppression and lack of freedom of laissez­ faire capitalism supported by state power. And, indeed, in comparison to the powerlessness of the individual working in the 19th century sweat-shop, living a short, miserable, unhealthy and brutish life, there was no question that the life of an individual living in a commune based on the above principles, would be immeasurably freer and better. The individual would live in an environment of friends, for whom he cared and who cared about him. Each person would have a voice in decisions that affect everyday life; and each would be free to join or leave for another, more compatible community. And, finally, all would share equitably in the benefits of production. Such communes, then, would be a major step forward in the freeing of the individual. However, no further step in this direction was proposed by Utopian ideology. Issues of personal aspirations, individual development and growth, and self-fulfillment and realization, were neither thought of, nor were they even remotely attainable, even in the rich imaginations of the Utopian thinkers. Such thoughts, however, incubated over the years in the successful kibbutzim, and, in them, it became possible to address the issues of the individual within the collective. The kibbutz movement, in a myriad of variations, implemented, to a large extent, the basic values of Utopian socialism: autonomous communities, cooperation, mutual help, participatory democracy, social equality, and economic equality. However, in the process of interpreting and implementing these ideals, some had to be changed in practice. Thus, some practices emerged that were either unrelated to, or, at times, contradictory to, some of the basic Utopian socialist values, and other new values emerged, often aimed at further freeing the individual, but just as often in conflict with some of the earlier Utopian socialist and kibbutz values. What, then, were the new interpretations in practice, and how are they related to the various issues in the current crisis? The principle of "sharing, cooperation and mutual support" produced, in the early kibbutz, a most extreme swing of the pendulum, away from the minimally, or 8 E. Gil nonshared lives of bourgeois society, to an absolute sharing of everything: mates, underwear and all. The past eighty years or so have seen a constant debate and struggle to establish a balance between what is private and what is shared. While private radios and TV's, choice of furniture and clothing have been generally accepted as depending on private individual choice, other issues in this vein remain unresolved and under debate in the current crisis. Questions arise such as: what about individual automobiles? Why not choose one's profession and place of work? In other words, where is the borderline between private and shared decision­ making? Should sharing and cooperation apply only in the "control of the means of production" or also in the area of consumption, and, if so, to what degree? In addition to the problems an amorphousness and lack of clear definition of what the original ideology meant by "sharing, cooperation and mutual support", the major problem of the lack of balancing the needs and aspirations of the individual and the need for sharing, cooperation and mutual support still remains. Another basic ideological principle, that of members being free to join or leave, has been substantially adhered to over the years, thus advancing the ideal of freedom of the individual. However, that freedom has not been well implemented inside the community. To what extent have members been able to make such free decisions inside the community in relation to such important life decisions as the choice of profession, choice of work or choice of further learning? And, conversely, to what extent does the community have the right to compel the individual through common decision making, ostracism, expulsion or other such punitive means to alter hislher free choice? Over the years, kibbutz ideology, in practice, has assigned to community primacy in decision making, assuming the right to compel and to override such personal choices for the sake of "community interests", sometimes born out of real necessity but sometimes to implement the perceived ideological principle of the supremacy of the collective interests. Here too, then, the balance between the community and the individual remains in dispute. A further ideological principle, that of "from each according to hislher ability, to each according to hislher need", has been modified, in practice, from the very inception of the kibbutz to mean "equality". However, the original principle allows for a diversity of both abilities and needs among members that were to be equally valued. This would have allowed individual members the flexibility in choice of occupation, level of production, and type and amount of consumption. The modified principle of "equality", on the other hand, often creates the opposite expectation: that of conformity to levels of education that maintain some level of equality among members, and to some level of uniformity of consumption. While the original principle might be interpreted as allowing for variation in such individual needs as eating with the family vs eating in the dining hall, or in choosing one type of profession or another, or in having the children sleep at home or at the children's The Individual within the Collective 9 home, the principle of "equality" tends to make members look at such variation in practice as deviation from the basic principle of equality and continues to cause debate and conflict regarding the areas in which equality should be applied (e.g., choice of work, production, consumption) and regarding how "equality" can be measured in each of these areas. The recognition of diversity among members of a community is, unfortunately, lost in the change from the original principle to the concept of "equality". In addition to modifying, in practice, some of the original Utopian socialist principles, the kibbutz acquired some new values based on the particular needs of the Jewish people. The most important among these were: (1) the building of the Jewish state; and, (2) a return to the land, and thus the primacy of agricultural work. One of the major ideological problems of the kibbutz now is that both of these values/goals have been fulfilled, and in no small measure due to the leadership of the kibbutz movement. The problem here is that these two goals have had primacy for so long in kibbutz ideology, that their fulfillment leaves a vacuum in the minds and hearts of many members of the kibbutz movement. There comes through a feeling of "losing one's way," of asking "what of importance is left to do?" The original purpose of Utopian socialism, the establishment of a cooperative, just and democratic society of mutual care, has receded into the background and needs to be revived. Placing the individual, and hislher self-actualization, at the center of this kind of a society, seems to be emerging as the next step in the evolution of the kibbutz movement, and is at the center of the current debate and crisis. Finally, the societal conditions, both in Israel and in Western society in general, which gave rise to the original Utopian socialist values, have changed and improved, in part under the influence of socialist ideology. The result has been that, in many places, the standard of living in general society is similar to that in most kibbutzim, and the exploitation and oppression of the individual in the general society appears to have diminished somewhat with the rise of unionism and the welfare state. Also, on the surface at least, the outside society seems to offer greater opportunity in education, choice of work, and professional advancement. Thus, the individual, in choosing between the kibbutz and general society, must make an unfortunate choice between what is perceived as the immediate economic and self-fulfillment advantages of the outside society, and the lofty social goals of the kibbutz. Here, again, placing the individual and hislher self-realization at the center of a cooperative and just society of mutual care, would go a long way in defusing the current crisis and in placing the kibbutz movement in the forefront of positive social change. An alternative approach to the individual in the collective What is needed, then, is an alternative approach, a way that is true to who we are and who we can be, both individually and collectively; a way that puts into practice a balanced way of life providing both for individual self realization and a 10 E. Gil community of mutual care and love, aiming at improving and perfecting that way with an open mind. In order to explore and initiate such an alterative approach and in order to prevent the destructiveness of this continuous struggle between collectivism and individualism, this paper proposes a perspective which attempts to remove the need for the struggle between the individual and the collective, and allows the transformation of the kibbutz into a new kind of community that reconciles individual and collective interests. Within this perspective, human beings are seen as being capable of changing and improving themselves, of learning to understand, create and love, as well as being, at times, brutish, selfish and competitive, all depending on the spiritual, socio-economic, and political milieu in which they are raised, and in which they live. In either case, viewing the individual from this, more positive perspective, leads to the development of a new community paradigm and to the transformation of our concepts and practices of individual/community relations. To arrive at this perspective, it is necessary to examine our basic assumptions about who we are, the values resulting from these assumptions, and the impact and implications of the chosen value/goal paradigm. We need, first, to examine who we are, and what our potential might be. When we plan an environment, or a change in environment, for other creatures, such as in a zoo, we take some care to understand the nature and needs of the creatures for whom we are planning. Thus, we provide a mud puddle for the hippopotamus, and swings for the monkeys, and not vice versa. We should do no less when planning for human beings, for ourselves. What, then, are the "mud puddles" and "swings" that we must pay attention to when planning for ourselves? There are three crucial categories of basic assumptions that we must address in our quest for a changed paradigm in individual/community relations:

• Human beings are all good or all evil.

• In what manner do we learn and progress in achieving our potential?

• Is each human being a separate self only, or do we have a dual nature, requiring mutual love and relations with others around us in order to thrive and live up to our full potential?

When we look at human history, the notions that human beings are all good or all evil fall quickly by the wayside; we have simply seen too many instances of great evil as well as many instances of loving goodness. Even if we assume the "tabula rasa" notion, we are simply reiterating that, in potential, human beings are capable of the entire range between extreme evil and superlative goodness; all the way from a Hitler to an Isaiah, depending on what we learn in this world. What we learn in this world is in large part dependent on how we are treated: if we are treated with kindness, care and love and are helped as individuals to fulfill The Individual within the Collective 11 our potential and reach the highest level of self-realization available to us, we will respond in kind towards the group of people who treated us that way, and will tend to move towards the goodness end of human potential. The initial decision to engage in loving care of other human beings also depends on another set of possible assumptions about our nature. While the philosophy of Social Darwinism, capitalism and the libertarian tradition assume and propose that each individual is a separate self, engaged in deadly competition for survival with all the other separate selves, there is growing evidence from such widely separate fields as child-rearing and quantum theory that human beings have a dual nature: separate individuals that must have loving mutual, cooperative relations with others in order to survive, prosper physically as well as spiritually, each in their own unique way and each reaching towards their own highest potential. It should be noted that these basic assumptions are based on only limited knowledge of our nature as human beings, and this, in itself, warrants another basic assumption: that our plans and their implementation are but tentative experiments, rather than blueprints of the ultimate or ideal society, and that these might change based on experience and further knowledge. From these considerations of basic assumptions about human nature, we can extract a set of values that add to or modify the original Utopian socialist values, and that place the individual at the center of communal concern and in a mutually supportive and loving relationship within the community that placed him at the center of its concerns. These values might include the following:

• Each individual is unique and important; the community will, therefore, support each individual in hislher quest for self-realization, with concern and loving care.

• To allow for and encourage loving and caring relationships among its members, communities will strive to remain small in size.

• Such communities will be based on the principles of sharing, cooperation and mutual support by members of each others' aspirations.

• In addition to being free to join or leave the community, the individual will be free to choose spiritual and occupational pursuits, place of work, as well as the type and intensity of social relations. In case of a conflict between the interest of the individual and the needs of the rest of the group members, principles of conflict resolution and the consideration of available alternatives will be used to resolve the issues at hand.

• The community will remain open ended and experimental and will periodically evaluate its assumptions, values and practices based on 12 E. Gil

experience, further knowledge and changes in the perceptions and aspirations of its members.

• In decision making, the community will, first and foremost, attempt to satisfy the aspirations of all its members. When that is not possible because of objective circumstances, the decision making process will strive towards compromises through consensus. When consensus is not reachable, majority rule will prevail but with clear and unequivocal indication of how and when the minority's concerns will be addressed.

• Goods, services, responsibilities and benefits will be distributed on the basis of "from each according to his/her abilities, and to each according to hislher needs" rather than on the basis of equal distribution.

• Mutual help among communities and the transformation of society at large will be sought through effective associations among communities and through dialogue and interaction with the rest of society. Effect and impact on current practices and the current crisis While the actual impact of these assumptions and, of the resultant value system will have to wait to be tested by experience, it might be helpful to engage here in a bit of speculation regarding their potential effect on current practices as well as on the resolution of issues in the current crisis. In the sphere of spiritual development there is a hunger in the world today for spiritual fulfillment. The community here would encourage and help members who seek spiritual fulfillment, regardless of prior pro-religious, a-religious, or anti­ religious ideological commitments and affiliations; what is important in the context of this proposal is the loving, mutual support of each member's unique spiritual journey. In the area of social relations, it would be up to the members whether the children sleep in the children's house or with the family, or how often and with whom one eats in the dining hall or at home. What should be remembered here is that this is a voluntary association, not only in terms of joining or leaving the community but also in terms of how and with whom each member spends time. This, of course, will vary from community to community and from group to group within a community. In a cooperative caring and voluntary but individual-centered community, there can be no room for compulsion in human relations. I suspect that the more compulsion is removed and the more voluntary and mutually beneficial relations are encouraged and take place, more rather than less togetherness will be the result. Applying these assumptions and values to the educational system would result in teaching about the dual nature of the individual. This would result in members that feel assured of the value of pursuing their own unique path to self-realization, The Individual within the Collective 13 yet at the same time, are willing to support others in their own unique paths. Just as in a family, a member wanting to pursue further learning should be supported to the extent of the community's financial ability. If, because of financial limitations, such pursuit is not immediately feasible, a plan should be devised to determine how the member's educational needs would be satisfied in the future. In the economic sphere, the basic principle of sharing would prevail, but would be mostly applied to ownership and production; that is, the community would own and control the means of production. Consumption would be either private or communal, in accordance with the wishes and inclinations of each member. In a community based on the above assumptions and values, initiation of economic enterprises would depend on initiation by individual members, the readiness of a sufficient number of members to voluntarily participate in the work of that enterprise, and on the availability of funds to support such an enterprise. The basic principle here is that members must be free to choose their professional and work pursuits. If a situation arises in which nobody chooses some area of work that must be done (e.g., the laundry or kitchen), then either a rotation system or incentives might be used. There is nothing wrong with using incentives as long as they are available to any member who chooses to do the work. Each member, then, has the option of deciding whether the proposed incentives are worth doing the undesired work. This approach also has relevance to the problem of requiring higher productivity in community enterprises that have to be competitive with similar enterprises in the outside society. It is all right to require such higher productivity, but only as long as enough members will voluntarily work in such enterprises with or without additional incentives. A more long-term solution to this problem is for communes to emphasize enterprises for which they are uniquely suited and to avoid competition with capitalist enterprises that still (or again) use exploitative labor practices to gain advantage in the market place. Summary I have briefly discussed the ideology of Utopian socialism and its application in the kibbutz movement. I have, then, looked at some of the problems and issues of the current crisis, analyzed some of the assumptions and values that seem to underlie these problems and issues, and, then, suggested altered assumptions, values and practices that make the individual and hislher aspirations the central concern of a loving, caring and mutually supportive community. In sum, what is proposed here is that the collective, instead of continuing as a reaction against brutish individualism, should become the "greenhouse", the support group, the family that nurtures the many positive aspirations of each of its individual members. In this kind of community, the struggle between individualism and collectivism becomes irrelevant and nonsensical. The collective, in this perspective, views its mission and task as the nurturing of the positive aspirations of each of its 14 E. Gil

individual members, while, in return, because of this loving support and nurturing, the individual views the collective as the base for development to be nurtured and supported.

Selected Bibliography Adler, M.J. The Idea of Freedom. Vol. II. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1961. Ardila, R. Walden Three: A Scientific Utopia. Carlton Press, 1990. Beitz, C. and Washburn, M. Creating the Future. New York: Bantam Books, 1974. Buber, M. Paths in Utopia. Boston: Beacon Press, 1949. Chermayeff, S. and Alexander, C. Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. New York: AnchorlDoubleday, 1965. Fairfield, R. Communes U.S.A. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1972. Fromm, E. The Sane Society. New York: Holt & Co, 1955. ___. You Shall Be as Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its Tradition. New York: Vintage BookslRandom House, 1960. Goodman, Paul. Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals. New York: Random House, 1952. ___ and Goodman, Percival. Communitas: Means of Livelihood and Ways of Life. New York: Vintage BookslRandom House, 1960. Gottschalk, S.S. Communities and Alternatives: An Exploration of the Limits of Planning. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1975. Haworth, L. The Good City. Indiana University Press, 1966. Hubbard, B.M. The Evolutionary Journey: A Personal Guide to a Positive Future. San Francisco: Evolutionary Press, 1982. Kateb, G. Utopia and Its Enemies. New York: Schocken Books, 1963. Kephart, W.M. Extraordinary Groups. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982. Lanir, J. "The kibbutz in a transition period." Bulletin of the International Communal Studies Association, No.7, Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 1990. "Leadership participation and binding decision making on kibbutz", Kibbutz Trends, No.2, Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 1991. Levitas, R. The Concept of Utopia. Great Britain: P. Allen, 1990. Maron, S. "From Bolshevism to Communism?", Bulletin of the International Communal Studies Association, No. 10, Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 1991. Miller, T. American Communes, 1860-1960: A Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1990. More, T. Utopia (Logan, G.M. ed.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. The Individual within the Collective IS

Perin, C. With Man in Mind: An Interdisciplinary Prospectus for Environmental Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970. Redekop, C. "Capitalism, Communism and utopian communalism," Bulletin of the International Communal Studies Association, No.7, Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 1990. Rosner, M., Ben-David, I., Avnat, A., Cohen, N. and Leviathan, U. The Second Generation - The Kibbutz between Continuity and Change. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1990. Roszak, T. The Making of a Counter Culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1969. Sale, K. Human Scale. New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1980. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior. New York: MacMillan, 1953. Soleri, P. The Bridge between Matter and Spirit is Matter Becoming Spirit. Garden City, New York: Anchor PresslDoubleday, 1973. Winthrop, H. Ventures in Social Interpretation. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1968.