" That doesn't really make capitalism to be at risk." -> "You mean governments that wanted to keep their power gone and intervened???"
You just proved my point.

Revolution happens when society cannot take it anymore, violence becomes a viable solution. When you try to shove issues like inequality or exploitation under the rug like it's nothing, all it says to me is that capitalism can no longer solve these problems so their supporters choose to ignore them. 

I disagree with your premise given the evidence I've provided so I don't think we can go further than this.

I know what you mean. I'm currently studying in the States, and there is vocal and obnoxious Socialist community here that stages protests all the time. All I see there is privileged, entitled brats that are too blind to see how easy they have it.

I'm from Ecuador myself where socialist policies for 10 years left our economy in tatters and our democracy, international credibility and institutions seriously damaged. Even though our current government is slightly more centrist I don't think it goes far enough in eroding the previous toxic policies.

Lol, the juxtaposition of "Socialism is... I thought you liberals liked freedom, no?" when referring to liberal-critical socialists and "You millennials really need to educate yourselves" is so ironic. 

Socialism and modern forms of liberalism (the political ideologies used to justify and protect capitalism) aren't even remotely the same thing. Socialists are critical of liberalism. That you think the people supporting socialism in this thread are liberals shows a lack of knowledge on your part. 

Have you considered that there are many different concepts of what freedom is? 

He is probably looking from USA POV where socialists and other left wing call themselves liberals while requiring more government intervention.

That's not what socialism is though, I clarified it in the first post. If we have to resort to misinterpreting what it is to denounce it, that's not a good sign.

I agree, and also left wing in USA shouldn't call themselves liberals since they want a lot of intervention... and although one can't reduce socialism to be always based on government intervention you know that is what most people have been exposed to.

I actually think it's liberals calling themselves left-wing, rather than leftists calling themselves liberals.

You may think they shouldn't be calling themselves left-wing, I won't complain about it, but when they want the government to interfere on economy on ever increasing size and frequency and also the "social freedom" they want is also through lawmaking to make things they don't like forbidden.... nothing the american "liberals" preach are really liberal in concept independent of what name or ideology they say they have.

Government intervention is not necessarily left-wing though, if the goal of the intervention is to reduce income inequality then sure, but some times it is done to break up unions, cut social services, etc.

I don't know how to put it simpler to you that government instilling fear because they want to keep their power is totally different than capitalism being at risk... the socialist countries fall by themselves and capitalism was thriving at the same time... so it's hard to say it was at risk.

Sure, the violence was so needed that they had to kill their own followers to keep their power... but that was the socialist countries.