[roenxi]

I'm not from the US & I don't watch corporate news.

And I doubt any of the people who cause that sort of catastrophe go in to it saying "lol we're gonna starve you peasants!". They go in saying "this'll work, you just need to give us power rather than those greedy capitalists". The ideas there turned out to be worse than WWII because they weren't on-the-face scary enough to prompt the violent resistance to them that was needed. I dunno, I suppose just as a point of interest, what part of the communist ideology do you think they got wrong, which needs to be avoided? Particularly from the early days before people realised how bad the famines were going to be?

And I don't think that the US socialists are interested in copying Sweeden. They've got their own plans and they're going to claim "this is what worked in Sweden!" regardless of whether that is true or not. I don't think AOC or Sanders speaks Swedish or has any respect for Swedish legal principle.

[tibbydudeza]

But you are the one who said "socialism = worst suffering humanity has ever called forth" - this is the worst of the uninformed FoxNews hyperbole you find on there.

I simply don't see how asking for a social safety net, national healthcare and economic justice for the poor relates to that hence my remarks ????.

If that makes me a Socialist then so be it. Perhaps cheap easy labelling of ideas is the issue here.

[roenxi]

What do you think was worse? USSR + China was pretty bad.

> social safety net, national healthcare and economic justice

The US already has 3/3 of those things. But where is the limit where you agree that the US has them? And why is that the limit where the power centralising stops?

And how does that compare to the early calls from the communists? They thought they were helping too. There are scary outcomes from bad policies with good intentions.

But this is a bit off topic so I'll appreciate your answers but hopefully stop getting distracted. The point I want to make and I think I've made is that by actual outcomes it needs to be demonstrated which wing of politics is likely to be more dangerous. They are both pretty scary when they go wild. The rhetoric is not the scary part of the left, their rhetoric is like honey. Everyone likes it at some level.

[tibbydudeza]

I meant national health care like the UK NHS or Canada - the US does not have it.

On the social safety net sure there are programs such as SSI/MedicAid/Food stamps etc but there are more efforts esp from the right to curtail than actually expanding it

It is not like the number of poor people in the US are getting less.

"scary outcomes from bad policies" - it is inherent in any govt system whatever you label it not only left - recall the junta's in South America that made people disappear or Spain/Portugal to protect the countries allegedly from the communists.

The best bet is a free press, democracy and hopefully informed voters that participate (sadly that is becoming more of a wish these days)

[roenxi]

> The best bet is a free press, democracy and hopefully informed voters that participate (sadly that is becoming more of a wish these days)

The political news of the week is that the FBI launched a no-knock raid on the former president, we learned from the Rogan-Zuckerberg interview they were also active in suppressing news stories that would have favoured him and were probably active in the years of stupidity that was exposed as a farce in the Muller report.

If you happen to be in the US, tack FBI reform (or ideally, disbandment) to your list of wants. Because if there is a collapse of press freedom or democracy they'll be involved for the worse. Or indeed, are involved. And they're part of the spies-on-everyone conspiracy wasn't-actually-a-theory.

... you got me, despite myself I liked that answer so much I had to respond.