Students For Liberty Profile picture
Oct 23, 2025 17 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Recent polls show growing support for socialism among young people worldwide.

Here's the irony: This support is strongest among those who hate authority, reject compliance, and refuse to obey.

The only two things you can do under socialism are comply and obey. 🧵 Image
Let me show you what youth life actually looked like under socialism.

In the Soviet Union, youth indoctrination began early. Parents enrolled children in the "Little Octobrists" organization to help them secure future positions.

By age 14, they joined the Komsomol. Its core mission? Prepare future members of the Communist Party.Image
Here's the catch that nobody tells you:

There was no other path to influence or change.

You had to join the Komsomol. Wait for old bureaucrats to die. Slowly climb the Communist Party's chain of command.

That was it. The only path. Image
Think about that for a moment.

You're 20 years old. You have ideas. You see problems that need solving. You want to create change.

Your only option? Join the party. Kiss the ring. Wait decades for the gerontocracy to die off. Maybe, if you're lucky, have influence at 50. Image
Many young people who favor socialism think they'd have more freedom in a socialist country.

The opposite is true.

It is in capitalist societies where young people have enacted the most profound social change in history. Image
No other economic system has seen so many people under 30 create organizations capable of changing the world.

Mark Zuckerberg built Facebook at 19. Greta Thunberg started a global climate movement as a teenager. Countless founders, activists, and creators under 30 have built movements that shift culture.

None of this happens under socialism.Image
Image
Ludwig von Mises explained why:

"Under socialism, the beginner must please those already established. They do not like too efficient newcomers. In the bureaucratic machine of socialism, the way toward promotion is not achievement but the favor of superiors." Image
He continues:

"The rising generation is at the mercy of the aged."

Not at the mercy of consumers who choose what they value. Not building something people voluntarily support.

At the mercy of bureaucrats who control the only path to influence. Image
Under capitalism, if the establishment doesn't like your ideas, you can build an alternative.

Don't like traditional media? Build a podcast. Start a Substack. Create a YouTube channel.

Don't like existing companies? Start your own. Compete. Let consumers decide.

You have options. Multiple paths. Freedom to build without permission.Image
Under socialism, there's one employer: the state. One path to influence: the party. One way to create change: wait for the bureaucrats to die.

You think your boss is bad now? Imagine if quitting meant not just losing your job, but losing access to housing, education, and any future opportunity.Image
The young people pushing for socialism are often the most creative, ambitious, and anti-authoritarian people in their generation.

They're artists. Activists. Entrepreneurs. Builders. People who reject being told what to do.

And they're advocating for a system that would crush exactly those qualities.Image
Here's what they don't understand:

The reason they CAN push for socialism, organize movements, build platforms, and spread ideas is because they live in a capitalist system that allows dissent and alternatives.

Under socialism, this conversation wouldn't be permitted. Image
You want to change the world? You want to solve problems? You want to create something meaningful?

In capitalism, you can start today. Build it. Test it. Let people choose it. No permission needed.

In socialism, you join the queue. Please the bureaucrats. Wait your turn. Maybe have influence in 30 years.Image
The irony is almost painful:

The same generation that refuses to wait, that demands change now, that rejects hierarchies and gatekeepers, is considering a system where waiting, obeying, and pleasing gatekeepers is the only path. Image
Your generation has more tools to create change than any generation in history.

You can reach millions without traditional media. You can fund projects without banks. You can build businesses without corporations. You can organize movements without institutions.

All of this exists because of economic freedom.Image
Don't trade that freedom for the promise of equality.

Under socialism, everyone is equally powerless, except the bureaucrats who control the single path to influence.

Under capitalism, you're free to build, create, and change the world right now. Without permission. Without waiting. Without compliance.Image
The choice is yours:

Comply and obey, waiting decades for permission to matter.

Or build, create, and change the world today.

One system demands you ask permission. The other lets you ask forgiveness.

Choose freedom. Image
Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Students For Liberty

Students For Liberty Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sfliberty

May 30
Every American student learns the same story about Standard Oil:

Rockefeller as the villain of unregulated capitalism, Standard Oil as proof that free markets inevitably produce monopolies that crush consumers.

A historian went to the primary records and found the opposite. 🧵Image
In "The Myth of the Robber Barons," Burton Folsom builds the Standard Oil case around one number: between 1870 and 1911, the price of kerosene fell from 26 cents a gallon to under 8 cents. Standard Oil dominated the kerosene market and the price to consumers fell by roughly 70 percent over those forty years.

A predatory monopolist raises prices once it owns the market. Rockefeller kept cutting them.Image
How did he cut prices that aggressively?

Cleaner refining processes that captured byproducts other refiners threw away. Pipelines instead of rail when rail was overpriced. Less waste at every stage of production.

By the early 1880s, Standard could refine a barrel of oil for roughly half the cost of its rivals.Image
Read 9 tweets
May 29
In 1994, on live BBC television, Michael Ignatieff asked the historian Eric Hobsbawm a direct question: if communism had produced the society it promised, would 20 million deaths have been worth it?

Hobsbawm answered yes.

He kept every honor he had, and collected more. 🧵 Image
Ignatieff gave him the chance to walk it back.

"Even knowing what we know now, you'd still say it was worth it?" Hobsbawm confirmed. The exchange was broadcast, transcribed, and noted in the major obituaries. Nobody has ever claimed it was taken out of context. Image
Four years later, in 1998, Tony Blair appointed him Companion of Honour, one of the highest civilian distinctions in Britain.

Honorary doctorates, BBC interviews, festschrifts, and front-page reviews in the Guardian and the London Review of Books continued until his death in 2012.Image
Read 11 tweets
May 27
He was one of the Soviet Union's most valuable agents inside the U.S. government.

His network reached into the State Department, Treasury, and the Bureau of Standards.

He walked away from all of it because of an ear. 🧵 Image
In 1925, Whittaker Chambers joined the American Communist Party. He was 24, had worked through Marx more carefully than most of his future critics, and was convinced that capitalism was collapsing and communism was the only moral alternative.

He was not just a naive militant. He took the ideas seriously, which is exactly why he became dangerous.Image
By the 1930s he was a clandestine agent for Soviet military intelligence (the GRU).

He recruited officials inside the State Department, Treasury, and the Bureau of Standards. He hand-carried microfilmed documents to Moscow's couriers. He was good at it. Image
Read 11 tweets
May 22
In 1936, John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It became the most influential economics book of the 20th century.

The only man intellectually equipped to refute it decided not to respond.

He spent the rest of his life regretting that decision. 🧵Image
The man was Friedrich Hayek.

Five years earlier, in 1931, Lionel Robbins had brought him to the London School of Economics specifically to provide a serious intellectual counterweight to Cambridge.

He had then spent more than a year writing a line-by-line dissection of Keynes's previous book, A Treatise on Money, published in two parts in Economica in 1931 and 1932. In that moment, he was the most credible critic Keynes had in the English-speaking world.Image
Hayek and Keynes were also friends.

They corresponded warmly through the late 1930s and through the war. When the LSE was evacuated to Cambridge during the Blitz, it was Keynes who arranged rooms for Hayek at King's College. In the summer of 1942, the two of them stood fire watch together on the roof of King's College Chapel, scanning the sky for German incendiaries during the Baedeker raids.

They disagreed about almost everything in economics. They worried about each other anyway.Image
Read 11 tweets
May 21
The mainstream narrative always tells the same story: FDR's New Deal single-handedly saved the US from the Great Depression.

Academic economists have disagreed with that story for over 60 years.

The research is public, but it rarely reaches popular culture. 🧵 Image
The popular story is simple: the market failed, Roosevelt acted and the country recovered.

The only problem is that all of those claims have been challenged in academic economics for the last sixty years. The work comes from a Nobel laureate in economics, the discipline's most prestigious journal, and some of the most cited historians of the period.Image
Start with 1963. Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz publish A Monetary History of the United States, still considered one of the most important works of 20th-century economics.

Their central finding: the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve. Image
Read 11 tweets
May 20
In October 2023, 108 economists, including Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman, signed an open letter warning that Javier Milei would devastate Argentina if he won in November.

Major outlets treated it as settled consensus.

He won, and this is what actually happened. 🧵 Image
Milei's program, the letter argued, would "increase already high levels of poverty and inequality," produce socio-economic devastation, and severely reduce policy space for years to come.

When he took office in December 2023, annual inflation was running above 200% and climbing toward 300%. The primary deficit had not been closed in over a decade.Image
Eighteen months later, monthly inflation fell to 1.5% in May 2025, the lowest reading in five years.

Argentina posted its first fiscal surplus since 2008. The central bank stopped printing money to cover the deficit. Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(