Usporedna analiza kolektivizacijskih praksi u Izraelu, SSSR-u i Kambodži

master's thesis

• Title (english): A Comparative Analysis of Collectivization Practices in Israel, the USSR, and Cambodia
• Author: Maks David Zakošek
• Mentor: Hrvoje Klasić (mentor)
• Committee member: Tvrtko Jakovina (predsjednik povjerenstva)
• Committee member: Hrvoje Klasić (član povjerenstva)
• Committee member: Branimir Janković (član povjerenstva)
• Granter: University of Zagreb; Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences; Zagreb
• Defense date and country: 2023-03-21, Croatia
• Scientific / art field, discipline and subdiscipline: HUMANISTIC SCIENCES; History

Abstract

U uvodu uspoređujem kolektivizam dvadesetog stoljeća s kolektivizmom predmodernih utopijskih ideja. Pokušavam odgovoriti i na pitanje koliko komunizam i predmoderne ideje Platona i Campanelle još dijele zajedničku srž, a koliko se razlikuju. Jedno od središnjih pitanja koje postavljam jest što nam kolektivistički pothvati Izraela, Kambodže i SSSR-a govore o produktivnosti seljaka na zajedničkoj zemlji i je li ideja kolektivnog vlasništva još uvijek potencijalno relevantna u 21. stoljeću.

U SSSR-u je kolektivizacija bila Staljinov ekstremni odgovor na zaostalost prisutnu u mnogim aspektima sovjetskog društva. Citirajući brojne autore, razmatram mogućnost implementacije Buharinova modela razvoja i odgovaram na pitanje je li kolektivizacija ipak bila dobar potez u vrijeme njezine provedbe (1930-ih). Zatim opisujem proces dekolektivizacije pod Jeljcinom i Putinom i objašnjavam kontekst u kojem je on proveden.

U slučaju Kambodže objašnjavam kako je tako krvoločan i ekstreman režim došao na vlast. Bavim se i razlikama između sovjetske i Pol Potove kolektivizacije. Progresivni elementi sovjetskog režima ovdje dolaze do izražaja. Također razmatram Vickryjevu tezu da je Staljinova kolektivizacija obrnuti proces od onog koji je proveden u Kambodži. Na kraju, reći ću nešto o vijetnamskoj okupaciji i tranziciji Kambodže u kapitalizam sličan onome pod Jeljcinom u nekim aspektima.

U Izraelu je proces bio nenasilan i vrlo različit od druga dva. Objašnjavam zašto je kibuc promijenio svoj izvorni oblik i izgubio velik dio svoje popularnosti koju je imao sredinom dvadesetog stoljeća. Na kraju, razmatram lagani porast popularnosti i učinkovitosti kibuca u Izraelu dvadeset prvog stoljeća.

Zaključno, pozivajući se na druge autore, pokušavam donijeti konačan sud o tome može li kolektivno vlasništvo nad zemljom još uvijek biti korisno u rješavanju problema koji postoje u dvadeset i prvom stoljeću.

Abstract (english)

In the introduction, I compare twentieth-century collectivism with that of premodern utopian ideas. I am also trying to answer the question of the extent to which communism and the pre-modern ideas of Plato and Campanella still share a common core, and to what extent do they differ. One of the central questions I ask is what the collectivist ventures of Israel, Cambodia and the USSR tell us about the productivity of peasants on collective land and whether the idea of collective ownership is still potentially relevant in the 21st century.

In the USSR, collectivization was Stalin's extreme response to the backwardness present in many aspects of Soviet society. Citing many authors, I consider the possibility of implementing Bukharin's model of development and answer the question of whether collectivization was a good move after all at a specific time of its implementation. I then describe the process of decollectivization under Yeltsin and Putin and explain the context in which it was carried out.
In Cambodia, I explain how such a bloodthirsty and extreme regime came to power. I also deal with the differences between Soviet and Pol Pot's collectivization. The progressive elements of the Soviet regime come to the fore here. I also consider Vickry's thesis that Stalin's collectivization is a reverse process from the one carried out in Cambodia. Finally, I say something about the Vietnamese occupation and the transition of Cambodia to a capitalism similar to that under Yeltsin in some respects.

In Israel, the process was non-violent and very different from the other two. I explain why the kibbutz changed its original form and lost much of its popularity it had in the mid-twentieth century period. Finally, I consider the slight increase in the popularity and efficiency of kibbutzim in twenty-first century Israel.
In conclusion, referring to other authors, I try to make a final judgment on whether collective ownership of land can still be useful in solving the problems that exist in the twenty-first century.

• Keywords: kolektivizacija; SSSR; Kambodža; Izrael; utopja; Kropotkinov anarhizam
• Language: croatian
• URN:NBN: urn:nbn:hr:131:031878
• Study programme: Title: History; specializations in: Research, Teaching; Course: Research; Study programme type: university; Study level: graduate; Academic / professional title: magistar/magistra edukacije povijesti (magistar/magistra edukacije povijesti)
• Type of resource: Text
• File origin: Born digital
• Access conditions: Open access
• Created on: 2023-03-27 10:36:38