Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Lets face reality. Free Trade is nothing new. It destroyed the Spanish, British and French empires and it is killing us. There is a reason that Marx, the commie bastard and father of a centuary of genocide, loved it. It increased tensions in societies, destroying culture and national identity and driving revolution of the socialists.

Look what it did to Europe and Europe, on top of this, didn't have to worry about massive illegal immigrations in the 19th centuary. We have 10-20 million illegals futher depressing wages and causing a further break down of our middle class.

While Marx was writing this, America was busy building the greatest economy on earth through strict import tarrifs that caused American industry to build in America.

Now we are repeating the errors of the 19th centuary Europeans. Why?

"If instead of growing our own corn... we discover a new market from which we can supply ourselves... at a cheaper price, wages will fall and profits rise. The fall in the price of agricultural produce reduces the wages, not only of the laborer employed in cultivating the soil, but also of all those employed in commerce or manufacture."

[David Ricardo, Des principes de l'economie politique et de l'impot. Traduit de l'anglais par F. S. Constancio, avec des notes explicatives et critiques par J.-B.- Say. T. I., Paris 1835, p.178-79]

****

Finally, the more productive capital increases, the more it is compelled to produce for a market whose requirements it does not know, the more production precedes consumption, the more supply tries to force demand, and consumption crises increase in frequency and in intensity. But every crisis in turn hastens the centralization of capital and adds to the proletariat.

Thus, as productive capital grows, competition among the workers grows in a far greater proportion. The reward of labor diminishes for all, and the burden of labor increases for some.

***snip***

To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim of the free-traders who imagine that the more advantageous application of capital will abolish the antagonism between industrial capitalists and wage workers. On the contrary, the only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out still more clearly.

***snip***

But, in 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

1 posted on 01/05/2006 9:44:32 AM PST by jb6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: A. Pole; ninenot; GarySpFc; Romanov; neutrino; oceanview; snowsislander

ping


2 posted on 01/05/2006 9:46:35 AM PST by jb6 (The Atheist/Pagan mind, a quandary wrapped in egoism and served with a side order of self importance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

And that is why modern marxists, such as castro and chavez hate free trade.(/Sarcasm)


3 posted on 01/05/2006 9:47:10 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

Free trade works within a nation. We demonstrated that with our history (citizens of the United States trading with citizens of the United States). We created the largest free trade area of the world. And the world was dying to get in and be a part of it.

However, to gain access to our markets and protect our own industries, they had to pay a cover charge, or tariff.

There were exessive tariffs to be sure but the best ones just evened the playing field to compensate for wage differences, cost of transport etc.

Things started to go to pot when when started bringing our tariff rates to zero as Britain, etc. did before us.

Free trade itself is not akin to marxism. The way we practiced it in the beginning of our Republic is based on Adam Smith and Liberty.

Absolute free trade, however, is first cousin to marxism because it treats everybody and every nation the same ("from each according to his ability" etc.) and does not take into account such variable as governments and their regulations, wage differences between nations, travel costs, etc.


5 posted on 01/05/2006 10:12:24 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

I think you're missing a larger point here.

Let's review, for a moment, one of Marxism's greatest maxims. In so many words, what causes conflict in society is the lure of, and the distinction afforded by, material wealth. Particularly surplus material wealth. Eliminate surplus material wealth and distribute the remainder equally, and societies ill's would be cured, according to Marx, since most of societies ill's were caused by that old bugaboo; human nature, espeiclaly the more venal aspcets such as greed, jealousy and gluttony.

With the advent of the machine ecomony in Marx's day, the means existed, for the first time in human history, to produce enough goods, at affordable prices, for all of society to live at the same level of existance, and therefore there was no longer a need to indulge in distinctions based upon material goods (wealth)and the problems such distinctions posed to society. Provided, of course, there were well-intentioned Marxists around to decide how the goods got distributed. Marxists, you see, were not supposed to be subject to the whims of human nature.

Taken hand-in-hand with the newer theories of the planned economy coming into vogue at that time, and Marx kinda-sorta makes sense in a dispassionate,clinical way.

The problem with this theory is that a) the machine economy produced surplusses that it often was impossible NOT to distribute and b) human nature never actually goes away just because you conveniently ignore it. What Marx was getting at was a simple exchange of suprlusses in order to hold that which could not be controlled (human nature) in check.

For example, if Nation X is a fully-industrialized society and the bordering Nation Y is an agrarian one, then there is bound to be friction. Nation X has, in it's industrial potential, the ability to militarily and economically dominate Nation Y. It's citizens have a higher standard of living which incubates jealousy within it's neighbor's population. Nation Y, on the other hand, has to contend with a richer, militarily stronger neighbor which is a magnet to it's disaffected masses. The solution is Free Trade, in the sense that X trades it's surplus industrial goods for Y's surplus agricultural products. It is the simple exchange of goods with the idea that both sides should be satisfied in the name of parity.

Free trade, in the literal sense, extends beyond the mere exchange of goods. It also incorporates the exchange of labor, capital and ideas. None of these is necesarily amicable to the ideals of Marxism or to the idea of a planned economy.

Marx, therefore, is not a "Free Trader". He is simply someone who advocated the exchange of surplus wealth, where applicable, in order to prop up his fantasies of international brotherhood.

In the example cited above, there is nothing keeping Nation Y from matching the industrial output and stregth of it's neighbor X, except the notion that the citizens of Y should be content to suck off of X's teat in a symbiotic relationship. The overriding concerns in this example is not national greatness, equality or greed, it's supposed to be simple peace. In this regard, Y, in the name of peace, is to simply forego any attempt to equal the industrial capacity of X.

That is hardly "Free Trade" is it?


7 posted on 01/05/2006 10:34:08 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

Yeah..yeah..I'm sure you can find Hitler said something that could be construed as supporting free-trade if you look hard enough.


8 posted on 01/05/2006 10:37:22 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

That quote is not germane to today's global economy and you know it.


9 posted on 01/05/2006 10:38:42 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (None genuine without my signature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6
Not sure I'd claim Marx as an authority on the matter - he said a number of contradictory things during his career as an economist. Among those is the undeniable fact that he was in favor of capitalism, at least with respect to its ending the feudal era in economics (see Capital, volume one). My personal opinion is that the fellow really didn't have a firm grasp on the subject.
11 posted on 01/05/2006 10:54:17 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

Bumpity bump bump!


12 posted on 01/05/2006 11:15:45 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

>>The most favorable condition for the worker is the growth of capital. This must be admitted. If capital remains stationary, industry will not merely remain stationary but will decline, and in this case the worker will be the first victim. He goes to the wall before the capitalist. And in the case where capital keeps growing, in the circumstance which we have said are the best for the worker, what will be his lot? He will go to the wall just the same. The growth of productive capital implies the accumulation and the concentration of capital. The centralization of capital involves a greater division of labor and a greater use of machinery. The greater division of labor destroys the especial skill of the laborer; and by putting in the place of this skilled work labor which anybody can perform, it increase competition among the workers.<<

>> You thousands of workers who are perishing, do not despair! You can die with an easy conscience. Your class will not perish. It will always be numerous enough for the capitalist class to decimate it without fear of annihilating it. Besides, how could capital be usefully applied if it did not take care always to keep up its exploitable material, i.e., the workers, to exploit them over and over again?<<

>>Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.<<

Low paid illegal alien workers are filling in just fine for the American workers who are being crushed.


>> If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another.<<

Free-traders have no difficulties in understanding how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another.


15 posted on 01/05/2006 2:51:45 PM PST by B4Ranch (No expiration date is on the Oath to protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6; Toddsterpatriot; Mase; expat_panama
Lets face reality. Free Trade is nothing new. It destroyed the Spanish, British and French empires and it is killing us.
[]
We have 10-20 million illegals futher depressing wages and causing a further break down of our middle class.
jb6, January 5, 2006

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.
Karl Marx, January 9, 1848

_____
I just doesn’t get any better than this. I’ll go make the popcorn.

21 posted on 01/05/2006 7:42:49 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6; 1rudeboy
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.

Does free trade make you want to rise up and wipe out the kulaks?

25 posted on 01/05/2006 8:29:46 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (How much for the large slurpee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6
Lets face reality. Free Trade is nothing new. It destroyed the Spanish, British and French empires and it is killing us.

This may be your reality but it has nothing to do with the truth.

Free trade in Great Britain began in earnest in 1820 and gained momentum with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the Navigation Act in 1849. With the Anglo-French Commercial Treaty of 1860, the English practiced a largely free trade policy until WWI. During this time, Great Britain was the worlds wealthiest and most powerful nation.

In 1915, Great Britain officially became a protectionist economy when large tariffs were imposed on a wide variety of products. This was the beginning of their economic decline. The 20th century was marked by a dramatic increase in government control over the economy and, eventually, a welfare state. Protectionism killed the British empire, not free trade.

26 posted on 01/05/2006 8:41:04 PM PST by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

The lengths people will go to justify the jobs they hold that are becoming obsolete.

Next thing you know people like you will be throwing their sabots into the machines.


31 posted on 01/05/2006 9:06:19 PM PST by Fledermaus (Please explain the difference between Al-Qaeda and the Left? Anyone? Anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6

Thanks for posting this! Good points!


44 posted on 01/05/2006 9:58:46 PM PST by neutrino (Globalization is the economic treason that dare not speak its name.(173))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jb6; Toddsterpatriot; Mase; expat_panama; nopardons; MonroeDNA

142 posted on 01/09/2006 4:22:01 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: A. Pole

Bump


144 posted on 01/10/2006 6:42:02 PM PST by Nowhere Man ("Nationalist Retard" and proud of it! Michael Savage for President in 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Bush signs the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. From left: Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick,
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, and Bahrain Ambassador Naser M. Al Belooshi.


147 posted on 01/11/2006 4:54:43 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson