It has nothing to do with whether or not socialism is affordable. Any economic system is subject to the limits of resource availability vs. consumption which means that of course socialism can be unaffordable — no big news there.
What is different about socialism vs. capitalism however is what does the state do when the economics become untenable? Because socialism demands that the state manage the economy, then that means the state also manages resource exploitation and consumption. The state therefore has a mandate to (1) ensure constant production, via any method; and\or (2) limit consumption; all in in order to fulfill it’s primary mission — to adequately provide.
And because labor (i.e. the people) is a key constituent of any economic system, when the system becomes strained, the reality sets in as people are forced into any number of undesirable situations and actions resulting in the inevitable sacrifice of liberty.
Now, I know what the immediate retort is here — “THE SAME THING can happen with capitalism” and yeah — that is 100% correct — it does happen with capitalism. Except, there’s one huge difference…
It happens, in large part, due to the actions of the people themselves — not the state. Individuals are more than free to relinquish their liberty and to put themselves into resource deprivation but we must never empower the state to make those decisions for us…never…never…never.
PS: Let’s also not forget that the biggest socialist state known to man, in addition to having a horrible standard of living for a vast majority of its people, did go bankrupt…
PPS: No, don’t throw China into the mix — while true that the gov’t is socialist, the economy is de facto capitalism. And aside from being horribly corrupt (see “The China Hustle” — will truly open your eyes), China’s incredible economy can be traced to one overarching factor — the existence of a very hungry customer with a seemingly insatiable appetite…the West.
