George Soros’s Marshall Plan

Capitalism has been good for George Soros, so it is not surprising that the wealthy American businessman raised eyebrows when he argued, in a recent essay in The Atlantic Monthly, that the main enemy of an open society is no longer communism but capitalism.

While Soros says laissez-faire capitalism does not contradict the principles of an open society, he believes those very principles — that is, a social structure with institutions that protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens — could be undermined if a society has too much faith in “the magic of the marketplace” and in the doctrine that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest.

Soros argues that the principles of an open society are more threatened by “excessive individualism” than by totalitarian ideologies. To make his case, he points to the former Soviet Union, where the collapse of communism has laid the groundwork for an open society. But the West, he says, is not doing what it should to help reconstruct the economies of these former communist countries. The problem, as Soros sees it, is that Westerners do not recognize a common interest beyond their national interest because they are too individualistic, as well as too accepting of the belief that people should be left to look after their own affairs.

Soros says that, at a conference in East Germany in 1989, he was “literally laughed at” when he proposed the idea of a new Marshall Plan to help rebuild Eastern Europe. The response to such a proposal at the end of the Cold War, he points out, was very different from how the original proposal was received at the end of the Second World War.

Unfortunately, Western governments today are different from those in 1945.

Most are cash-strapped, with little ability to take part in expensive, reconstruction programs. More importantly, governments today have come to realize they have other limitations as well.

In decades gone by, governments had freer rein to pursue international goals.

Imperialism was the order of the day, and nations had the ability to expand their sphere of influence by a call to arms, invoked in the name of duty, sacrifice and love of country.

Today, in the post-Vietnam era, politicians know these words no longer have the same effect. The primary reason the United States does not want to be the policeman of the world is that its citizens have made it clear they will no longer sacrifice their sons and daughters to anything but a clearly understood and just cause. And with economic problems in their own back yard, Americans are not willing to sit back and watch their tax dollars shipped overseas.

If Western governments no longer have the financial clout or political will to solve the world’s problems, who will? Ironically, the only hope is the financial markets. There is already a flow of investment capital to former communist nations and, fortunately for us all, capital never goes anywhere without strings attached.

Capitalism is not, as its detractors often claim, devoid of social values. It encourages nations to implement a justice system which provides security for people, investments and business ventures. It generates employment and encourages people to help themselves, thus lessening the burden on the state.

It favors nations that take steps to eradicate corruption and political interference. And it favors progressive nations with open societies and an educated and trained workforce.

More importantly, capitalism is never static. It is an evolutionary dynamic which, over time, has incorporated many socialist policies, as well as ethical and environmental values.

It may not be perfect, but it works better than anything else.