We want thoughtful conversation motivated by curiosity, and comments that add information. We do not want denunciatory rhetoric and generic venting. The latter are not ok regardless of the topic, so please don't post like that.
If you had posted an informative critique of what's wrong with the proposal, that of course would have been fine. But if we take out the pejoratives, grand claims, and other information-free things, there's actually nothing left of that comment. Nowhere do you explain or justify any of your claims; you just piled on more of them. For example, calling something appallingly Marxist just adds noise. So does leaping darkly to "the history of the 20th century". You're far from the only user doing this, of course; people on all ideological sides do it here, and we moderate it when we see it. But you were specifically the user who swerved in this ideological battle direction and then, when others were predictably provoked, perpetuated it. That's definitely against the rules.
You may not be versed in British politics. The people who came up with this proposal are self-proclaimed Marxists and they plan Marxist policies. That's factual and publicly recognised.
I hope that calling on the history of the 20th century is justification enough to back my statement that the results have overwhelmingly be appalling (which is a historical fact) for the educated readership of HN.
I feel that you are accusing me of not justifying a claim that "water is wet", and that might appear disingenuous.
It's disappointing to be censored and accused of "flame war" for doing this.