I did not say tariffs are socialism. Clearly you are misunderstanding me. You are in favor of an equitable distribution of wealth, yes? I said tariffs will not lead to that. Socialism will. Therefore, if you are in favor of an equitable distribution of wealth, you would be better off supporting something that will actually get us there, and tariffs are not that.

First off, no, I didn't claim hundreds of years of a global capitalist economic system - no idea where you pulled that from. I said hundreds of years of economic research. You know, Smith, Engels, Ricardo, Malthus, etc. etc.?

We've had a "global economy" for the last 150 years, as economics know the term. Source Don't pretend to be studied on a subject if you're not.

Regardless, globalization has less to do with tariffs than you think. International trade has been happening for centuries, as have tariffs. Tariffs are not a perfectly legitimate way to protect the local economy unless you think severely stunting the growth of the standard of living is also acceptable. There's a reason that the standard of growth in most countries the world over has exploded exponentially after globalization.

If you don't think socialism fixes the problem of labor exploitation I'm not sure what to tell you. That's literally what it was designed for. It prevents profits from flowing only to the top, which pretty much prevents workers from being exploited, doesn't it?

Ah, the classic "capitalism doesn't work because continual growth is a physical impossibility!" argument. Common from armchair economists. Let me explain why this is a moot point on multiple levels: 1) Capitalism does not rely on continual growth. Capitalism, at its core definition, simply means an economic system owned by private players rather than a centralized authority (like a government). Nothing about that system is dependent on growth. Even the media's version of capitalism you know is not dependent on growth. Profits can exist at a stable level, believe it or not. Now, our current stock market has an unhealthy obsession with growth, but this doesn't speak to the entire system of capitalism.

2) Continual growth is physically possible. I always find that argument funny because you're actually arguing against the entire history of the human race. Not once have we not continued to grow. Malthus thought we would run out of food for all humans; science provided an abundance of food for all. What if we run out of fossil fuels? We already have synthetic and alternative sources of energy that are cleaner and much longer lasting. Growth is forever. You're thinking of it in an antiquated mindset based on needs. In the first world at least, we have largely outgrown "needs." Our wants will continue to grow with our standard of living. You can't blame your small-mindedness on capitalism.