Karl Marx, Free Trader

American Greatness ^ | June 2, 2018 | Spencer P Morrison

[Thalean]

Marx believed that international free trade, or perhaps more accurately, Ricardian economic globalization, would pave the way for a glorious proletarian revolution. Specifically, Marx thought that free trade would increase wealth inequality and reduce wages for the majority of people, and that this tension inevitably would lead to conflict.

While I hate to admit it, Marx is broadly right on this point. International free trade has indeed increased wealth inequality and reduced wages for the majority of Americans. In fact, the median American household was richer in the 1980s than today (better technology aside). Part of this is explained by the recent influx of low-wage immigrants and decreasing household sizes—but even so, globalization remains the single largest contributing factor.

Likewise, Marx was correct that increasing inequality degrades social cohesion, setting the stage for violence and revolution. As it turns out, people are not hyper-rational automatons like economists assume: jealousy is real, and most people would rather lose money than see someone else get rich relative to them, even if they would themselves get (slightly) richer.

[Thalean]

interesting

[DesertRhino]

The cornerstone of the free trader globalist movement is the end of national sovereignty and identity. That is the effect we have witnessed and are still witnessing.

The was 100% in line with Marx’ goals.

Free traders espouse a laundry list of things the founders utterly opposed. And they hate things the founders enthusiastically used, such as tariffs.

[BitWielder1]

Marx said a whole lot of things, just because he appears to be right on some point or another sometimes, does not validate his other points.

[aquila48]

“International free trade has indeed increased wealth inequality and reduced wages for the majority of Americans.”

It has absolutely not increased wealth inequality if you look at it globally. The wealth disparity between Americans and Europeans, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese used to be enormous. With the advent of globalization the disparity is much less today.

[TXLoneStar]

Correct. There is really no such thing as international free trade. “Free trade” really only applies within a country where the rules and conditions are the same for everyone. There are too many variables between countries to be able to engage in free trade. It is not possible.

[Olog-hai]

“[I]n general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.”

That quote from Marx, from his 1848 speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels, is certainly well known here.

[Poison Pill]

Why does your pursuit of what you consider national sovereignty supersede another person's pursuit of their individual sovereignty? It seems to me that when people say “national sovereignty” what they really want to do is pursue the policy that promotes their own best interest.

[Sam Gamgee]

Interesting but ALL factors should be examined. We soon forget how industrial unions helped push companies into the arms of globalization.

Also there is the issue of enlarging the state, especially under LBJ. Those on the top of the food chain, who are closet to government largess end up benefiting the most, while oncoming inflation ruins those at the bottom.

I would also blame inflationary monetary policy that was essentially concocted by Wall Street wizards hand in hand with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Those that benefited the most were those whose job was not to create anything, but only to move financial instruments around. Those connected to the investment banking and plain banking industry have benefited enormously while crushing the purchasing power of the average man.

Just oneexamples. Automobiles from 1970 to now have risen almost 9 times. Wages have risen 5 times.

[DesertRhino]

Yes, I do indeed consider that the sovereignty of the USA as an independent nation is more important than the goal of an individual businessman.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Sounds like you have a problem with the US Constitution because under it, Congress is allowed to regulate foreign trade. Yeah, the nation comes before those who’s loyalty is to the their corporate logo rather than the nation itself.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Harrumph harrumph they’re obviously misunderstanding Marx, and free trade is really the true-blue conservative position, just because!

[Yashcheritsiy]

Apples and oranges.

It increases disparity and reduced wages for Americans within the US labour market.

It reduces disparity by sending formerly high paying jobs over to third world countries, marginally increasing their average wage and wealth while reducing our own.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Exactly.

I’ll be frank - I don’t really care if some corporation can squeeze another $0.05 per unit of production by firing a bunch of Americans and moving their jobs to Indonesia. I’m looking out for my own first.

[JonPreston]

Just what Karl Marx ordered:

[aquila48]

“marginally increasing their average wage and wealth”

Marginally?? Go ask the Europeans, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and now Chinese and Indians how marginal a change it is from the ‘50s to now.

As for decreasing our wealth, you need to measure not just the income but also the expense. Generally speaking, prices on goods that are imported has gone way down (compared to when they were produced here), so our net has improved even if our wages have not gone up much.

As capitalism, competition and trade expands worldwide, it is inevitable that wages and standards of living across countries will tend to equalize.

Also as cheaper labor is brought into production, prices will tend to go down. That’s good for us as consumers. However since we’re all both consumers and producers, it puts a lot of competitive pressure on us as producers to produce more and better for less. That part is not always pleasant.

To avoid social disruption and unpleasantness this type of globalization has to be done gradually, otherwise you’ll get social unrest from people that have been displaced by too much and too sudden job migration. So some protectionism is warranted, but too much is counterproductive.

[Poison Pill]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

My issue isn't with Congress determining what is or isn't in the national interest. Congress derives that authority from the Constitution. Following the laws Congress makes is the price we pay for living in the Republic. My issue is with FReepers who delude themselves into thinking that their opinions are facts and on par with the dictates of Congress and who think that their own personal self interest equals patriotism and ought to be elevated to some kind of national standard.