- A Buttery Pastry
- Sep 4, 2011
-
Delicious and Informative!
|
I get that, but to say 'wealthy interests will always corrupt even good intentions so it's better to not even try' seems more like it's giving up on trying to have a foreign policy at all, rather than recommending any particular such policy. And if it is the case that well-intentioned interventionism will always be corrupted, how do we explain the success of the actual Marshall plan? (Unless you think it wasn't successful, in which case, fair enough).
The actual Marshall Plan was part of the US asserting itself as an imperial power, with the political class in general being strongly supportive of it as a national political project. Combine that with a weaker capitalist class, a recent history of deep government control of the economy, and the Marshall Plan also having the clear effect of restoring an export market for US goods, and it makes sense why short-term gains from corruption were generally overlooked in favor of long-term gains from doing it properly. Any modern attempts at a Marshall Plan is going to have to contend with capital having sunk its claws deep into pretty much every politician, and the country as a whole not caring enough about anything that a politician could channel it into the kind of sustained political action which would be needed to replicate it.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2024 21:23
|
|