Dimentio

well, depends, do i have to shave my balls to play?

I agree the Incas were a very different culture from the Aztecs. They didn't even speak languages that belonged to the same language family. Also the Aztecs had writing, the Incas didn't.

But if one states that the Inca Empire had "socialist features", then the Chinese Han Dynasty had even more "socialist features" for sure. Han Dynasty emperors would forcefully break-up the estates of the large aristocratic landowners and give them for free to the landless poor. Slavery was also very rare, unlike ancient Rome at around the same time.

I have some doubts about these claims regarding the Inca Empire. I don't think a Bronze Age class society without writing can have any socialist features like "free healthcare".

You should adopt a more critical attitude regarding these theories. The rule of thumb is: "If it seems to be too good to be true, then it probably is too good to be true."

Otherwise hey how about we re-establish the Incan system? What's the point of fighting for socialism?

A "command economy" does not equate with "socialism".

Why are you offline?

Well I'm not trying to be racist or anything, but generally speaking slavery societies in the New World were less developed than slavery societies in the Old World. Primitive slave-lords don't really seem to have a concept of "generalised morality". In China, this concept (called de or "virtue") was only created around the Shang-Zhou transition. The Shang Dynasty was China's "primitive slavery phase", closer to the Incas and Aztecs, while the Zhou Dynasty was China's "advanced slavery phase", closer to Greece and Rome.

I've seen it. It is quite interesting.

By the way, have you read Chris Harman's A People's History of the World?

Thing with ultra-left dogmatic ideologues, is that they tend to get angry over every little thing. They take politics too personally.

Good comments generally on feudalism by the way.

Not really- anyway, karate was more my speciality.