Europe On Welfare

At the time, the Marshall Plan was a practical solution to an ongoing problem. You had an economically depressed Europe, which was going to be terrible for all concerned. First off, that's going to damage the world economy because Europe is too poor to pay any debts and too poor to import any goods. Secondly, it's a ripe ground for either fascism or communism. World War II left a giant communist power—the Soviet Union—pretty much in charge of Eastern Europe, and looking to expand.

Marshall's solution was ingenious for its simplicity and audacity. It was basically, "these people need money, we have it, let's give it to them." You could say he put all of Europe on welfare. The craziest thing is, it appears to have worked. Communism never spread into Western Europe, and eventually (well, like fifty years later) crumbled.

Marshall was playing the long game, is what we're saying here.

Socialism: Not The Same Thing As Communism

Now, the Marshall Plan is most interesting in terms of what it says about the role of government. There's a big debate about that, and you know what? There always will be. That's a good thing. Adams and Jefferson couldn't agree on what the government should do, and those two helped found the thing. So if they couldn't work it out, what hope do we have?

The point is, the government took pretty drastic action. The political situation at the time was much more friendly to that kind of socialism. FDR's New Deal was a massive socialist program that, at the very least, staved off the worst effects of the Great Depression and built lasting infrastructure, and the economy of war was basically a giant socialist enterprise. So the American people in the 1940s were a lot more willing to be like "let's give this socialism thing a try."

Again, it appears to have worked. While it sounds crazy now, because communism and socialism are wrongly equated to each other, but at the time made perfect sense. The best way to fight communism is to use the government to make sure people have an economy to be free in.

Does the government have a right to do this? Some people would say no, and they're not wrong. Some would say yes, and neither are they. That's why we have democracy. At the time it was broadly supported by both major parties, though it took Czechoslovakia falling to a communist coup to get the Republicans in line. These days, it's doubtful even the Democrats would support something like this.