Socialism, with the rise of Bernie Sanders as a politician, has been a hot topic of controversy. The majority of arguments are fallacious, but the valid ones are excellent.

One of the main arguments is simple — it is just, “What’s so bad about socialistic reformation?”

Unfortunately this is one of the arguments with a severe lack of validity. This question shifts the responsibility of knowledge of socialism to the opposition. Anyone arguing in favor of socialism cannot use this as a valid token of rhetorical checkmate because they are the ones seeking a change, to have government enforcement of economic action, as opposed to their counterpart, capitalism, that requires no enforcement.

In other words, socialism has prerequisites of governmental interference of the economy, which is the part that should be substantively justified in order to prove that the reformation is favorable for the whole, individual, or both.

When it all boils down, a justification is needed for the change, not for the continuation, of the current economic system.

Joshua Morissette


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.