I just got into an argument with a Zionist settler who claimed that in the years of austerity after the Entity was established, that it had state ownership of the means of production, ergo it was a socialist state - but that the state's mismanagement led the settlers to shift towards liberal capitalism. The settler interlocutor also stressed that there were ties between the USSR and the Zionist entity.

So basically, what's up with that, and how can I better argue against Zionism, bearing these facts in mind?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] material_delinquent@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

you gotta ask who owns what and employs whose labour for what aims. The Histadrut, general union, was exclusively jewish and also owned housing etc., but it wasnt moving to abolish property, but to "develop" jewish labour on land it first bought an empty title for to then evict the people actually living and working there or used lawfare to declare land "mevat" (fallow) and seize it to then doing the nakba and seizing the majority of land and ressources while the arab population lived in poverty and under military law. The aim was not communism, especially since other economic forms existed and the kibbutzim were like only one model, premarxian as well. I am drunk and a bit tipsy, but this "socialism" was what we'd call social democracy based on military conquest, corporatism and some state intervention as well as bad ideas on raising children developing towards the realization of vitalist-racist ideas (Nordau) or Imperialism (Labour Zionism)

2)to fuck over the brits and wrong ideas about what makes a nation i think

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago

Very interesting.