Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the American people must subsidize poor countries all over the world through trade? That is marxist.
No, Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the U.S. government should not artificially "reduce" the cost of U.S. agricultural products by subsidizing U.S. farmers. Wolfowitz is correct in saying that, without this artificial price adjustment, Americans would be able to buy cheap agricultural products on the international market - not as a "subsidy" to the countries from whence such products come, but as a mutually beneficial business transaction wherein we get cheaper goods and they get our cash.
His reasoning may be bad.
But free trade is straight out of Adam Smith, and he was no marxist.
Sidenote: Marx himself was not totally opposed to free trade, but openly loathed Adam Smiths writings.
He also was a strong proponent of subsidies.
If its by hook or crook, anything that will get rid of subsidies is okay in my book.
Americans should not subsidize anyone, whether domestic or foreign.
Here is how the subsidies work. We (you and I, the taxpayers) pay our farmers to not grow, or grow a product that is essentially unprofitable under free market. So, a bushel of wheat, which is unprofitable to be grown, is still grown and sold in the market at a low price.
Farmers in third world countries, who can grow wheat and sell at a profit under open market conditions, cannot compete against the subsidized wheat sold under low prices.
That is why Wolfowitz is correct in arguing that subsidies are against free markets.
Let me get this straight, it is not marxist for the government to control food output by use of farm subsidies.
But it is marxist to have markets open to world free trade and to let the market set the price?