[claudiawerner]

It's important to analyze arguments not by what they seem to be but by what they actually are; the substance of what he's saying isn't that the USSR (for example) "wasn't real Communism" because it wasn't bureaucratic enough, his position is that regardless of whether it is "real Communism" or isn't, bureaucracy is still a question of central importance. The notion of discussing "utopia" in relation to its actual existing aspects is covered quite well by Marcuse[0].

On the other hand, several Communists (in fact, the ones Zizek is arguing against) very much argue for exactly what you propose: focus on small matters and diffused democracy to avoid centralisation of power. The fact of "real Communism" having been or not having been "tried" is irrelevant to the questions concerning how such a society, if it is possible, ought to be organised. Thought-terminating cliches don't make for critical analysis.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/#FanUtoRatGra

[blfr]

Theoretical arguments are incredibly overrated for complex systems. Usually, they're just ways for academics to signal their ability to make these arguments, to show off how smart they are, and of little utility otherwise.

You need to see how things actually work out in practice. And in practice Swiss democracy works very well whereas most central bureaucracies are soul killers.

[AstralStorm]

The trouble is, their system mostly works because of culture, not because it is truly any better. A certain high level of egalitarianism, responsibility for decisions and push back against exploitative or manipulative practices is required for success. This makes transplanting their practices hard.

In case you do not know, Swiss have a central bureaucracy. Not everything, heck most things are not decided by direct vote. Important things are though and the citizens can propose a referendum after the fact as well given enough buy in.

[blfr]

Obviously, the environment matters. It's not just culture but geography, history, genetics. It's much easier to run a free country when you're surrounded by oceans (like the US) or mountains (like Switzerland) than when you're surrounded by potential conquerors.

But that is also true of bureaucracies. Honesty, attention to details, voluntary respect for rules make bureaucratic systems semi-liveable and not a hellish kleptocracy.

Every idea suffers from implementation problems. Not every idea is worth implementing though.

[claudiawerner]

On the other hand, critical thought about such systems as they exist can pave the way to what we should and shouldn't want in future systems. While it's true of course that history doesn't follow some Solvenian philosopher's blueprint, real action is informed by theoretical aims. The other extreme is extreme apathy to towards democratic decisions (as others have pointed out) and how soul-killing and time consuming it is to have to engage with a great variety of things where a choice already made for you would be better. Compare this with the many arguments on this site about hosting your own e-mail server rather than using gmail + PGP.