While scrolling through Facebook recently, I noticed a GoFundMe page that an acquaintance from high school had shared. It had been created by a self-proclaimed “proletarian,” which is a term used in Marxist theory to refer to a member of the working class in a capitalist society. This person was seeking funds so that he could get on his feet and pursue a job that would help free the United States from “the shackles of capitalism.”

Various polling over the past year has shown that some millennials are embracing socialism over capitalism, without fully understanding what it means. A self-described socialist made a serious run for the Democratic nomination this year, and attracted thousands of young followers.

Last year, the Economist reported that "forces sweeping through the capitalist economy are also sweeping through politics: the old party machines are imploding, and political entrepreneurs have the wherewithal to take over old parties or to build new ones. Anti-capitalism is once more a force to be reckoned with."

Whenever I encounter a legitimate socialist or communist, I wonder if they have ever studied world history. Have they not heard about the tens of millions who died of starvation in Communist China and Soviet Russia? What about the political dissidents who were murdered during both regimes? Have they never heard about the millions of people who fled communist East Germany for the capitalist West? (I never heard of anyone in the West attempting to go to the East, by the way). What about all of the people who flee North Korea for South Korea? Are they so ignorant that they are unaware of these events? Or are they so blinded by ideology that they have somehow convinced themselves that they don’t matter?

Regardless, the important lesson to remember is that communism is awful. This is because the foundational premises are flawed.

For example, communism holds that capitalism is evil because humans are greedy creatures who only protect themselves, thus leaving their fellow, less advantaged neighbors to starve. To solve this problem, communism proposes putting a few people in charge to organize labor and seize all private property, and then force all able-bodied citizens to work in order to ensure economic equality. An elementary schooler could figure out why this doesn’t work. Even under an idealistic system like communism, people are still greedy and self-interested. Do you think Mao Zedong and his fellow elites were starving along with the proletariat when famine struck? Absolutely not. Zedong owned 50 estates and dined on his favorite gourmet foods, which were flown in from Beijing each day with money provided by Chinese citizens. Mao also knowingly starved his people so that he could sell food to build a military arsenal, thus demonstrating how much power “the people” had under this communist regime.

Famines and starvations were not only a problem for the communist regime in China. (It’s worth pointing out, by the way, that since adopting capitalist economic policies in the 1970s, China has become a flourishing economic world power). One of my political science professors once told me that famines do not occur in democratic, capitalist countries. Never. If you analyze history, you will find that my professor is completely right. The great famines of the world have occurred in places like Soviet Russia and Communist China.

Conditions similar to famine currently exist in the communist hell known as Venezuela, where, The New York Times has reported, the “common” people—also known as the ones that communism is supposed to benefit—are unable to find milk, bread, meat, and even toilet paper due to an economic collapse. During an exchange that illustrates the bitter reality of communism, the Times reporter asked a Venezuelan grocery store manager where one might find toilet paper in the country. The manager replied, “At Chávez’s house.”

This line alone demonstrates why Americans should be grateful to live in a capitalist country. Capitalism is not a perfect system, but humans are not perfect beings. Better to go with an option that allows for some inequality than for one that means everyone—save for the elites—suffers the same horrific fate.