Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Local direct democracy is not feudalism, actual read up about it for yourself.
Your second paragraph is just baseless personal attacks.
Pointing out that you are unable to support your argument by showing a communist society which actually works in the way that the purported tenets of communism say it should is not a personal attack. Neither is stating my opinion that you are either a troll or a magnificently inexperienced individual who bases their argument on theory rather than reality. Simply put, it has to be one or the other. There is no other explanation for your continued rejection of reality in order to keep arguing for governmental systems that demonstrably do not work for anyone other than the plutocracy.
Pointing out that you are unable to support your argument by showing a communist society which actually works in the way that the purported tenets of communism say it should is not a personal attack. Neither is stating my opinion that you are either a troll or a magnificently inexperienced individual who bases their argument on theory rather than reality. Simply put, it has to be one or the other. There is no other explanation for your continued rejection of reality in order to keep arguing for governmental systems that demonstrably do not work for anyone other than the plutocracy.
So now we've gone from communism being a great form of government to feudalism being an even better form of government? You just keep digging the hole deeper.
You're talking to a poster who espoused Marx as a man of genius and communism as the best form of government, yet couldn't give a single credible example of a society where Marxism or communism actually worked. The OP is either a troll who creates these threads just for giggles or has had zero real world experience and treats Wikipedia as the end-all, be-all source of information.
I didn’t say anything about it being better. I said that if you’ve really had a chance to study their style of government beyond just yelling “commies,” you’d actually find that it’s an interesting case study.
It’s a much smaller country than ours, so that means that the national government SHOULD be more palpably felt at the local level, but the government lacks the resources to fully extend its influence effectively. At the same time, it’s vast enough that local plenipotentiaries are very heavily empowered. Most Latin American nations have that tradition, and Cuba surprisingly is no exception despite being a communist nation.
The country’s governance is a LOT different than it was in 1959. Especially after some of the Varela Project reforms were introduced. The government would probably be a lot more responsive to people’s needs if the country didn’t lack so many resources.
Not one of those is or was an example of a successful communist society, any more than when you tried to use them as examples in your previous thread espousing the joys of communisn. Half of the ones you linked to lasted less than 5 years. How about showing us one that lasted more than two decades and remained non-plutocratic?
I didn’t say anything about it being better. I said that if you’ve really had a chance to study their style of government beyond just yelling “commies,” you’d actually find that it’s an interesting case study.
It’s a much smaller country than ours, so that means that the national government SHOULD be more palpably felt at the local level, but the government lacks the resources to fully extend its influence effectively. At the same time, it’s vast enough that local plenipotentiaries are very heavily empowered. Most Latin American nations have that tradition, and Cuba surprisingly is no exception despite being a communist nation.
The country’s governance is a LOT different than it was in 1959. Especially after some of the Varela Project reforms were introduced. The government would probably be a lot more responsive to people’s needs if the country didn’t lack so many resources.
I agree that it is an interesting case study, and actually have no issue with your post. I merely quoted you as a preface to pointing out the OP's inconsistencies.
I agree that it is an interesting case study, and actually have no issue with your post. I merely quoted you as a preface to pointing out the OP's inconsistencies.
Read my OP, I was talking about their impressive political structure, not their economic policies or external conflicts.
Not one of those is or was an example of a successful communist society, any more than when you tried to use them as examples in your previous thread espousing the joys of communisn. Half of the ones you linked to lasted less than 5 years. How about showing us one that lasted more than two decades and remained non-plutocratic?
1. They were all destroyed by outside forces, none of them faced internal failures.
1. They were all destroyed by outside forces, none of them faced internal failures.
2. The Zapatistas have been active for 24 years.
1. Part of being successful is the ability to effectively defend your society. Hence, they weren't successful.
2. The Zapatistas aren't communist. They are libertarian socialists. Calling them communists is like calling America a democracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
