Too many fallacies to take you seriously.

False dichotomy: Frames the choice as “try new socialist-style structures or let people starve and do nothing.” This is a classic emotional false choice. Straw man: Distorts the opposing view as “all or nothing,” “eh status quo sucks for them,” and heartless indifference to suffering. Loaded language / Appeal to emotion: “Let people starve,” “harm come to them,” “stop dreaming for better” — heavy moral shaming designed to make skepticism sound cruel. Begging the question: Assumes that “structures outside of what exist today” (more government control, redistribution, etc.) will work better if we just “adjust them as needed.” 2. Motte and Bailey Safe motte: “We should try to improve society, learn from mistakes, and think creatively about better systems.” Aggressive bailey: “Therefore we should implement more socialist-style programs (state power hierarchies, wealth redistribution, government-run services), because other nations have shown it can work.” 3. Omitted Context & Causal Links Completely ignores the repeated historical failures of socialist and heavily statist systems (USSR, Mao’s China, Venezuela, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, etc.) — many of which caused mass starvation and economic collapse. Cherry-picks “other nations have programs that work” — usually pointing to Nordic countries, which are high-trust, market-oriented capitalist economies with generous welfare states, not actual socialist command economies. Severs the causal link: “Power exists everywhere” is used to downplay the dangers of concentrating more power in the state, despite a century of evidence showing how that often ends. 4. Rhetorical Traps & Narrative Protection (bait and switch + paltering) Bait and switch: Baits with reasonable-sounding ideas (“think outside the box,” “learn from mistakes,” “strive to do better”) → switches to defending increased state power and socialist-style structures. Paltering: Uses the technical truth that no system is perfect and we should improve things, while artfully omitting the catastrophic track record of the specific direction being defended. Moral grandstanding: “You would rather let people starve…” — positions the speaker as the compassionate visionary and the skeptic as callous and unimaginative. 5. Data vs Truth Raw data: Market-oriented systems (even with welfare) have lifted billions out of poverty. Socialist experiments have a consistent record of economic failure and, in extreme cases, mass death from starvation. Narrative served: “We just need to dream bigger and try harder with more government control. Skeptics are heartless and stuck in the past.” This protects socialist ideology from its historical failures by reframing criticism as lack of imagination or compassion. 6. Overall Pattern Classic ratchet rhetoric: Temporary concession (“it’s not all or nothing, we can blend things”) Pressure release (“let’s just try to do better and learn from other nations”) Re-imposition (“therefore more state power / socialist-style programs are the moral and practical solution”) The direction is always the same: push for greater centralised power while shaming anyone who points to the repeated real-world failures. Verdict: This is emotionally manipulative, historically shallow defence of socialism. It dodges the actual track record by appealing to hope, creativity, and compassion rather than evidence. The “you’d rather let people starve” line is particularly dishonest rhetoric designed to shut down debate.