Page 175 - The Making of the German Post-war Economy
P. 175

CONCLUSION





                                       Can capitalism survive? No. I do not think it can.
                                              Can socialism work? Of course it can. 1
                                              (Joseph Alois Schumpeter, 1943)

           As this study about the economic and political reorganisation of post-war
           West Germany has sought to demonstrate, neither the political decisions
           regarding the economic reconstruction of post-war West Germany nor the
           academic discussion on reinvigorating the philosophical and economic
           standing of liberalism in post-war Europe were confined to the political
           strategy units and schools  of economic  thought in Paris,  London and
           Washington. Quite the contrary: several German think tanks, political
           parties and individuals gave impulse to and then shaped academic, political
           and economic developments in occupied Germany, whether they were
           based there or abroad. While the Allies, indeed, set the political, economic
           and institutional framework  in times  of  occupation, Germans  were
           throughout formative actors rather than  passive recipients in both
           reorganising the post-war economy and in redefining political and
           economic liberalism – and  indeed socialism. United in one front,
           conservatives and socialists alike aimed to develop a viable socio-political
           and economic  order between  the extremes of unbridled capitalism and
           collectivist central planning.  The lessons gained from the historical
           experiences of both failed economic liberalism in the early 1930s and the
           inhumane totalitarianism of National Socialism, and, in addition,
           Germany’s preoccupation with the social  question  since  the  late
           nineteenth century led to the eventual development of a so-called ‘Third’
           or ‘Middle Way’ not as a compromise but as a combination of greater state
           provision for social security with the preservation of individual freedom.
           Despite common starting points, the various interpretations differed
           significantly, mainly regarding the importance attached to the state and to
   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180