As for Marxist success in Nicaragua, I think it's fair to say that the brief period the Sandinistas were in power, and not beseiged by U.S. created and backed counter-revolutionaries, did create greater health and wealth for the Nicaraguans, but because that period was so brief, we've no way of knowing if it could have sustained its success. We'll never know, as my government shamefully murdered (literally and figuratively) the Sandinista regime.
Kerala is another matter (and one on which I did an admittedly quick study). It seems to have worked, though the caste system flourishes there as elsewhere in India. A quick read of related articles indicates that Kerala depends on overseas money from Keralans in the Gulf states and elsewhere, so it's an open question whether this Marxist-inspired state could support itself with filthy capitalist-supplied lucre. There's also the question of whether the "Kerala model" can work in places other than a small, Hindu state in India with a unique history.
For now, it seems like a nice place, sorta like Vermont.
On balance, Kerala appears to be
: : :Fascism is worse, because it actually works.
: : Yes, as it worked brilliantly in Germany or all those South American countries which wnet fascist.
: Facism never worked, the scorched earth policy and the creation of the SS werewolves and mass suicides among the German establishment at the end of the war are testiment to was the vicious popular execution of Mussolini and his mistress in Italy and the speedy reversion of Spain to democracy upon the death of Franco.
: : Communism cannot work, and folds into a fascist or quasi-fascist system, like in the PRC and former USSR. So in fact, communism leads to fascism.
: : :
: : The USSR never went fascsist. Plenty of communist regimes have 'worked', look agaoin at Kerala, Nicaragua, or Burkina Faso. Many of tehm have been democratic while they were communist and democratic afterward. There are a few, of course, that have become fascist opr neo-fascist; Aleman in Nicaragua and Yeltsin in Russia spring to mind. Of course, both were closely backed by the US.
: I think what DonS is refering to in his political ignorance is the correlation between Stalin or Maos variety of Communism and Hitler and Mussolini's variants of Facism every researcher knows that correlation does not prove causation but I suppose we'll do this again for this benefit.
: There are, taken at face value, similarities between the regimes in that they sought the concentration and consolidation of power in a single leader and murderously repressed the unions etc. but the ideologies where very different one involved the state becoming the solitary capitalist, therefore apparently increasing efficiency and happiness, the other the state becoming the protector of capitalists.
: In either instance the will of the capitalist was unquestionable and they where in no way accountable to the people as in liberal democracies, given that the socialist is concerned about the unaccountability of private individuals and power and compulsion they exercise it is incredible that anyone can draw the conclusion that the USSR or Nazi Germany where Socialist.
: If we want to get into the really, really childish and stupid arguments about "well it was called socialist" or "they claimed to be Socialist" then would DonS consider China Democratic because they call themselves the peoples democratic republic of China or Pinochets death dealing military marketeer Chile the Capitalist ideal of Milton Friedmanns "Capitalism and Freedom" because Pinochet claimed it was the model of his regime?
: I would suggest that DonS as a would be defender of liberty and freedom not repeat the mistakes of Hayek, Friedmann et al and get a political education rather than operating on assumptions and believeing the word of the Machavellian ruling classes of puesdo-communist regimes.