Tag: democracy

THE MARSHALL PLAN

NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Marshall Plan” (Dawn of the Cold War)

By: Benn Steil

Narrated by: Arthur Morey

Benn Steil (Author, American economist, senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Along with an excellent history of America’s “…Marshall Plan”, there is an underlying message about two fundamental forms of government, i.e., one is democratic, and the other is authoritarian. By democratic, the point is not to suggest an idyllic understanding of American Democracy or Russian Authoritarianism. America and Russia have experienced government leadership that has been both authoritarian and democratic in the last 248 years.

One can justifiably argue America’s authoritarianism was experienced during the four years of the Trump administration (2017-2021).

In contrast Russia’s democratic experience was with Mikhail Gorbachev between 1985 and 1991. Before and after Gorbachev, democratic experience in Russia has been limited and largely authoritarian. What history of “The Marshall Plan” shows is the superior value of American democracy’s checks and balances that limit the power of authoritarian leadership by preserving deliberations of the many as opposed to the one. Trump is not the first U.S. President that was an authoritarian.

George Catlett Marshall Jr. (1880-1959, American army officer and statesman, became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense during the Truman administration.)

History of “The Marshall Plan” shows the resilience of democratic versus authoritarian governance. Steil shows “The Marshall Plan” is created in a boiling cauldron of disagreement among branches of the American government. The conflicts between American political parties and departments of government hammered out a plan that improved the economies of both America and Europe after the war. America became the economic hegemon of the world as Russia’s economy collapsed in the early 60s.

MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976, FOUNDING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping

One might argue the success of China came as a result of the more inclusive economic decision-making policies of Deng Xiaoping after Mao Zedong’s death. With Deng’s opening the economy to market-oriented reforms in 1978, worker efficiency and productivity created an economic boom in China. China’s danger today is the autocratic rule of Xi Jinping. His one-man rule nearly collapsed the economy during Covid 19. America certainly suffered from Covid, but Trump’s authoritarian character was mitigated by political resistance to unilateral Presidential decision-making.

Steil explains how Molotov delayed negotiations on “The Marshall Plan” with a clear understanding that only one person, Joseph Stalin, made decisions in Russia.

Steil notes “The Marshall Plan” is singularly disparaged and reviled by the Russian government. That disparagement is directed by one person, Joseph Stalin. There is no one to oppose the autocratic rule of Stalin’s leadership. Stalin’s opposition was either sent to the Gulag or murdered. A more balanced power structure in Russia could have taken advantage of “The Marshall Plan” but by singular fiat of one person (Stalin) implementation was impeded after WWII. The errors inherent in communism and authoritarian rule are being recreated by Putin in the 21st century.

What Steil shows is that many elected officials in America fought the principles of “The Marshall Plan”. However, the constant back and forth of government policy arguments in Congress aided European recovery after the war in a way that stabilized Europe and monumentally improved the economic growth of America.

Autocracies can certainly improve their economic growth at a pace that is superior to governments ruled by democratic ideals. However, autocracies have a much greater risk of following the wrong path because of their singular focus on one person’s decisions.

With an autocrat’s decision-making process, economic growth is either stultified or accelerated by one person’s decision. The give and take of democracies offer the benefit of different policy maker’s perspectives that may slow policy decisions but ultimately improve the odds of forward economic growth.

This argument is somewhat disingenuous in the sense that American natural resources were still to be tapped in the 20th century.

However, it is more than the availability of natural resources that made America economically successful. It is the give and take of a democratic process that protects America from the giant missteps that can come from autocratic rule. America has had some good to great rulers, but it has also had some ignorant, bigoted autocrats that offered minimal support for the ideals of freedom and equality. Checks and balances are the strength of American democracy. Presidents can make a difference, but they cannot destroy America’s future.

Ben Steil’s history of “The Marshall Plan” is not limited to an explanation of how important and difficult it is for America to pass important and consequential legislation.

The last chapters of Steil’s history of the Marshall Plan explains why Russia, China, and North Korea resent American encroachment on their spheres of influence. From the era of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong II, there has been a growing concern over the expansion of America’s sphere of influence. Steil explains how the Marshall Plan has morphed into a deepening concern about NATO expansion in Europe. As noted in an earlier, the Marshall Plan is created to aid recovery of countries that were impacted by WWII’s destruction. In reality it aided America to become the hegemon of the world. Because of the economic stimulus that revived the countries damaged by WWII, America created new markets for their industrial growth and international trade.

NATO is viewed as another vehicle for America’s economic growth and ideological threat to Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un’s control of their countries.

NATO is viewed as another invidious way for America to expand their influence and power. That seems an unfair evaluation of NATO. NATO is a military defense plan saying one country within NATO that is attacked by another country is an attack on all NATO countries. Every nation that has managed to become an independent country should be able to pursue there own interests.

The iron curtain is rusting but its characteristic strength remains a barrier to international cooperation.

The rusting of the iron curtain comes from the tears of societies ruled by authoritarians. The authoritarians are leaders who believe their way of life is threatened. NATO is viewed as a trojan horse at the front gates of non-aligned countries.

One decries Putin’s slaughter of Ukrainians in an unjust war. Life of innocents have no value to today’s Russian leadership that believes their power and way of life is threatened.

The real-politic of authoritarian’s desire for stability and power outweigh the value of human life. The same is seen in the plight of Palestinians who are not part of the October 7th’ terrorists’ killings and kidnappings but are in the way of Israel’s retaliation against Hamas.

In my amateur opinion, China, Russia, North Korean, or other authoritarian governments have a right to rule their countries as they wish. Their citizens are the key to every leader’s longevity. NATO is an effort to offer freedom of choice to established independent countries but if the citizens of a country support their leaders, there is little NATO, or any alliance can do, except to support the sovereignty of all nations.

NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.

Steil argues George Kennan is right in suggesting NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”. Kennan believed it would inflame nationalist beliefs and reinvigorate the Cold War. And so, it has–as evidenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s expressed intention and action toward Taiwan, and North Korea’s armaments support of Russia.

CAPITALISM’S DEATH?

Democratic capitalism is the most likely form of government to assuage our worry and find a rational solution for our right to privacy.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“TECHNO-FEUDALISM” (What Killed Capitalism)

By: Yanis Varoufakis

Narrated by: Yanis Varoufakis

Yanis Varoufakis (Author, Greek economist and politician, Minister of Finance of Greece for 7 months in 2015, launched Diem25, the “Democracy in Europe Movement 2025” in February 2016.)

Yanis Varoufakis’s “Techno-Feudalism” argues the advance of technology is killing capitalism. Varoufakis’s argument is that democratic capitalism is either dying or dead. He suggests a survival plan in the last chapter of his book. This misguided book reminds one of Mark Twain’s response to news of his illness, i.e., “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.

Varoufakis argues the advance of technology and its intrusion into private lives of citizens will destroy freedom of the individual and result in a government ruled by authoritarian, undemocratic, feudal oligarchs.

Varoufakis infers technology is the cause of the rise of new robber barons that have struck it rich in the internet era. He largely disparages the great wealth accumulation by the founders of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other tech leaders in the 21st century. His argument is based on belief that these new robber barons became rich without the hard work of laborers like those during the industrial revolution. The error in his argument is that labor is adjusting from work with one’s hands to work with one’s mind.

Freedom is the keystone of democracy.

Freedom and democracy have been limited and abused over the centuries but have ultimately led to the wealthiest countries in the world. When freedom is overregulated by democratic leadership, economic progress is diminished. Democracy has historically mitigated mistakes of overregulation with human nature’s desire for freedom. There is no reason to believe human nature will change.

In one sense, Varoufakis’s argument is correct. There is a greater risk of loss of freedom with the advance of technology, i.e., particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence. The evidence of that risk is seen in China and North Korea’s surveillance capabilities today.

Authoritarian leadership has always been a risk to society.

As inferred by Varoufakis, authoritarian risk is greater in the 21st century because of surveillance technology and the predictive power of artificial intelligence. Surveillance does not change the nature of humankind. Democratic government only becomes more important. The juggernaut of technology will not be stopped, and our lives will be more intimately understood by strangers than ever before. That truth only means democracy, freedom of choice, and equal opportunity are made more consciously recognized as important.

The fact that the 21st century has new robber barons, business leaders with great wealth and power, is nothing new.

All forms of government have winners and losers. What democracy does is level the playing field. It is a raucous governing system that leaves some out of success, but it beats any known alternative for broader human opportunity. Democracy will always be a work in progress. America needs better health care for all citizens. America needs improvement in equal rights and opportunity for all citizens. No Americans should be homeless or hungry. Few countries, if any, have adequate health care, equal rights, and opportunities for all its citizens. Most realize, America must do better.

The resurgence of labor unions in America is a good sign for American peace and prosperity.

Varoufakis suggests democracy can be saved by bringing it down to an individual level within companies that generate wealth for the country. In one sense, he is right but his idea of giving one vote to every employee in determining wages, and the direction of a company are a step too far. Labor is a critical part of yesterday’s, today’s, and tomorrow’s economic prosperity. Owners and managers of companies need to include union representation in their corporate decisions. Neither labor nor management have all the answers, but all have money, commitment, and labor in the game. Each should have their say. That is a part of Democracy’s success in the world.

The intimate knowledge of personal behavior is a valid concern in the modern world. In the hands of authoritarians, the risks of surveillance technology are multiplied. In democracy, risks are not eliminated but can be judiciously regulated. Democracy has the best chance of determining how a surveillance economy needs to be handled. Democracy will continue to make mistakes, but historically, its successes outweigh its failures.

Citizens should worry about what others know about their personal lives, but the advance of technology will not be stopped. Democratic capitalism is the most likely form of government to assuage our worry and find a rational solution for our right to privacy. Varoufakis’s “Techno-Feudalism” is more wrong than right, but he makes one think about our future.