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. 🧵
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The world's greatest botanist died of starvation in a Soviet prison.
His crime: refusing to say plants worked the way Stalin needed them to. 🧵
By 1940, Nikolai Vavilov had done something no scientist in history had accomplished. He traveled 64 countries, collected 250,000 plant specimens, and built the largest seed bank on earth.
His goal had nothing to do with academic prestige. He wanted to end famine.
Vavilov understood that agricultural resilience depends on genetic diversity: the difference between a food supply surviving a drought or collapsing is measured in seeds.
The Vavilov Institute in Leningrad held seeds from every corner of the world. Wild wheat from Afghanistan. Rice landraces from Southeast Asia. Potato varieties from the Andes.
In the most literal sense, it was an insurance policy for human civilization.
Every seed preserved was a future problem solved. Vavilov thought of science the way an engineer thinks of load-bearing structures: you build for the crisis you haven't seen yet.
A rapper just defended the Bill of Rights better than most politicians ever have.
The police raided his house. Destroyed his door. Found nothing. And then sued him for making songs about it.
The jury took less than a day. 🧵
In August 2022, Adams County Sheriff's deputies arrived at Afroman's Ohio home under a warrant alleging drug trafficking and kidnapping.
They broke down his front door, ransacked the property, and took $400 in cash that officials later claimed had been "miscounted" during the search.
Authorities found no drugs, no kidnapping victims, and filed no charges.
The Fourth Amendment was written for exactly this moment.
The Founders had lived under general warrants: blanket government authority to search homes, seize property, and answer to no one.
They made that unconstitutional. A warrant must specify the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and when the state acts on bad information and causes damage, accountability belongs to the state. Not the citizen.
A man who spent less than a year in America understood it better than most people born here.
He wrote down how it could slowly fall apart.
We may be watching it unfold right now. 🧵
In 1831, a 25-year-old Frenchman came to America not to flatter it or indict it, but because a functioning self-governing republic was almost unprecedented in human history.
He wanted to understand how it actually worked.
Alexis de Tocqueville didn't find America's strength in its constitution, its geography, or its natural resources.
He found it in something harder to see: citizens solving problems without being told to, governing themselves at the local level, forming associations for every conceivable purpose. Not because the law required it. Because they had the character and the habit.
He called it "the art of association." And in understanding it, he saw exactly how it could be lost.
A New York Times reporter knew 10 million people were dying. He told the British Embassy. Then he went back to his typewriter and called the journalist covering the famine a liar.
That journalist was murdered two years later. The Times reporter kept his Pulitzer.
This is the story of four men who told the truth before it was allowed. 🧵
In 1933, Gareth Jones was 27 years old and working as a freelance journalist. He walked through Soviet Ukraine during the famine and reported exactly what he saw.
Walter Duranty, the New York Times' Moscow correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner, responded in print. He called Jones a liar. Russians were "hungry, but not starving."
In private, Duranty told the British Embassy that as many as 10 million people had died.
Jones was banned from the Soviet Union. Two years later he was murdered in Mongolia under circumstances that point toward NKVD involvement.
He was 30 years old.
Duranty's Pulitzer still stands. The Times reviewed it in 2003 and decided not to revoke it.
Noam Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge while they were killing 25% of Cambodia's population.
He kept his position at MIT. His reputation kept growing. His books kept selling.
Thomas Sowell predicted this would happen. He explained exactly why it always does.🧵
Chomsky's linguistics work was genuinely brilliant.
It made him one of the most cited academics alive and gave him a platform far beyond his field. He decided, so, to use that platform not to side with the oppressed, but to cast doubt on genocide survivors.
When the Khmer Rouge took Cambodia, Chomsky didn't defend the victims. He questioned their testimony.
In 1977, he and Edward Herman published "Distortions at Fourth Hand" in The Nation, arguing that Western media was exaggerating the killings to justify U.S. intervention. He wrote that refugee accounts deserved "great care" because refugees are "subject to pressure."
He even dismissed François Ponchaud, a French priest who documented the massacres in ”Cambodia: Year Zero”, as unreliable. Called his figures inflated.