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.