Semi - OT: Ted Kaczynski kicked the bucket

You have a greater love of Communism than you do of humans. You defend it to the point of absurdity.

Point of fact mass murder and oppression are found all throughout recorded history(and  beyond) which tells us that arguing about systems is really kind of pointless. Until human behavior changes people will continue to do terrible things to each other because reasons.

TL;DR

Violence is by definition woven into the fabric of totalitarian ideologies like Nazism/Commumism and is an explicit tool to achieve the aims of the movement to eliminate enemies whether "racial" or "class" enemies.

Capitalism also engenders violence but is a byproduct and not and end in itself. 

Stop excusing the crimes of leftist totalitarian regimes simply because the aims they profess outwardly appear noble when they are in fact every bit as intentionally immoral and horrendous as right wing totalitarian regimes.

The Full Version
 

I’ll explain the difference. Various forms of totalitarianism, whether of the left or right, almost  invariably used violence as a direct end to eliminate "undesirables/resistance" as part of the in-built envy/hatred/revenge driven programs of their collectivist mass mobilization schemes.  Whether you are discussing Nazism or Stalinist/Maoist Communism, you will find that the semantics driving the justification for brutality are different but in substance equate to the same thing. Nazism espoused perpetual war as a social Darwinism ideal to purify and improve the the race. Mao promoted continuous revolution to ensure that counter-revolutionaries and class enemies would never be able to stop the "progress" of the revolution toward true communism. The language is different but the obvious enthusiasm for brutality against enemies of the regime is the same. The main differences are that right-wing fanatics do their damage quickly, make no attempt to conceal their crimes out of a contempt for existing moral norms, and tend to implode quickly. Left wing fanaticism tends to persist for a longer time and with more legitimacy because their propagandized message of "progress" conceals the rotten core and is amplified by useful idiots, fellow travelers, and duplicitous accomplices. This is why today we continue to have defenders of totalitarian far left agendas from respectable elements of society while virtually no one with a hint of sense would endorse totalitarian far right ideology. They are both horrendous but the left wing nuts are much better at marketing. Look no further than Putin‘s invocation of Soviet-era talking points about how the Ukraine invasion is about battling Nazis and the colonial West

I am not really talking about Chavez and Trump here because they are more of the authoritarian variety.  They are merely strongmen not interested in completely transforming society but simply getting it to bend to their will.
 

Capitalistic societies by contrast are really liberal societies with a focus on economic growth. Violence and the complete upheaval of society is not their direct aim, though it often ends up that way as a byproduct especially when the countries in question are the hegemons of their time and are trying to preserve that preeminence. But if you look at smaller liberal capitalist representative democracies like Switzerland you won’t find violence in the fabric of their DNA. The same cannot be said of any states that embrace some form of National Socialism, Communism, or theocracy.

"irrational hatred of communists" 

Holy fucking shit people like you exist.  You apparently have never heard of Pitesti prison, or what happened to the Kulaks, or the endless examples of mass torture and murder at the hands of communism.  There is no such thing as an irrational hatred of communists because they are sub human filth.  It's nothing but a religion.  It's a religious cult of domination and destruction.

But no, you're right, it's just never been done correctly, it will work this time. 

Those countries have a more extensive welfare state than us, but they are not socialist.  Private enterprise exists in them.  IKEA is not a state-run monopoly.

(Even the so-called Social Democratic Party of Sweden is not actually that, it's just a center-left party.)

No, they are social democracies.  There is a difference.  And every modern welfare state in the world is some form of mixed economy with elements of social democracy.  It's why we have a tax-payer funded and gov't run pension plan (social security), health insurance for the elderly and poor (Medicare & Medicaid), and unemployment insurance to name but a few programs supported by a welfare state.  That's not the same thing as democratic socialism.  Virtually every socialist dictatorship (East Germany's official name was the German Democratic Republic and North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) claims to be democratic because their definition of democratic is different than what someone who is a citizen of constitutional representative democracy would consider democratic and has nothing to do with voting.  Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, left wing totalitarian dictatorships go a long way toward justifying their bona fide 'democratic' credentials to obscure the reality of their workings in a way that right wing totalitarian dictatorships make no pretense about.  It is part of the revolutionary subversive nature of such movements.

Further you can socialist with a small 's' to denote any kind of collectivised society that disregards individual welfare to some measure or another in preference to an abstracted notion of 'society', 'the people', 'the volk', etc.  In the generic sense it is neither left wing nor right wing.  It is only when you add qualifiers that you know if the character of the system is left or right wing e.g. Fabian Socialism, Marxist-Leninist Socialism, Mussolini's syndicalism, etc.