The Left and Free Trade

[Maynard]

I'm not sure if this is in the right place but nonetheless. Should the left support Free Trade? And why or why not? I wnated to hear what some of you had to say.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't believe no one has picked up on this. Did you mean fair trade? That is a valid debate, the left however cannot support free trade. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, it is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

In one word NO!

[Maynard]

I mean free trade, where there is no restrictions on the amount of goods traded between nations. I can't see why the left cannot support that, the free movement on capital or finance, is however another story completely. I don't think any leftist can support that.

What exactly does "fair trade" mean, however, in your sense?

[rioters bloc]

no, no, never. it is one of the most horrific tools of capitalism, because it allows economically powerful countries to exploit other nations, strip them of their resources with no benefit for the developing nation, and also eradicates cultural diversity by imposing western values/culture onto the rest of the world. ill try and find some good resources, but as hegemonicretribution said, in one word, no. this is what people protested against at seattle and cancun and washington , and anywhere else the wto or world bank have met to discuss how to fuck up the world even more. the zapatista movement, while already existing on a small scale beforehand, only really start revolting after mexico signed nafta [north atlandtic free trade agreement] because they saw that such an agreement would rape mexico of it's resources and worsen living standards for the inhabitants.

[rioters bloc]

here's some excerpts from the communist manifesto:


The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
[emphasis added]


Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:06 PM
I mean free trade, where there is no restrictions on the amount of goods traded between nations. I can't see why the left cannot support that, the free movement on capital or finance, is however another story completely. I don't think any leftist can support that.

What exactly does "fair trade" mean, however, in your sense?
Fair trade is a movement that pays third world producers more than they would get on screwed world markets.

I am not sure about what you are saying here Maynard. Free trade would involve capital and finance, totally restricted trade is obviously not free trade, and partial free trade (like I think you are suggesting) already exists to some (highly unjust) extent.

Complete free trade could essentially solve some problems. Alot of the problems are caused by the inherent unfairness of our system, and the desire for the state to reproduce this through trade. If free trade was to exist it could only exist post revolution, to avoid problems linked to inheritence. But this is not the way to go.

True capitalism (according to actual capitalists, not our preconception of it) would at least majorly reduce the influence and impact of bigger companies and individual nations that benifit from the current policy, and some initial redistribution and evening out of wealth would be experienced. However this is as far as this system can take us. At this point it is quite possible that those that are at the top will start making things less free to their own ends.


I do think I get what you mean though, and although in the special case of quotas as you talk about there could be a bit of benifit it is simplyt a lesser of two evils, I want the good. This is basically the same as "Should we suport the democrats because otherwise the republicans will be in office." The answer has to be a definite NO still.

Support is the wrong word to use, as this is still not conducive, in this case, to the left at all.

[Maynard]

Well, I agree with most of what you say, you are describing the free movement of Capital, which usually does rape other nations resources and exploits workers but that is completely separate, at least to me, from trade. Mexicans should be able to, for instance, export agriculture to the United States, where they can receive a higher price, while not having to compete with US agriculture that is heavily subsided by the US government, which it currently is. This will increase living standards for a lot of Mexicans that is the type of free trade that I'm talking about. Capitalists have tried to blur the meaning of free trade by making it mean free movement of Capital as well as the current trading system of "developing countries, you lower your tariffs so we can export to you but don't expect us to do the same!". I oppose free movement of Capital, I oppose the current trading system but I think free trade, by itself, is a worthy goal. So that poorer countries have a better chance to export, receive higher income and increase living standards, the current system, however is completely opposed to that.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:27 PM
I oppose free movement of Capital, I oppose the current trading system but I think free trade, by itself, is a worthy goal. So that poorer countries have a better chance to export, receive higher income and increase living standards, the current system, however is completely opposed to that.
In this sense I think fair trade is a worthier goal, it is designed to fix the problems of what we have now, not to merely remove the problems and let things heal themselves.

Free trade cannot be a goal, that implies the end of a journey. It is something that if it happened (in the sense you implied, not the truest sense) could possibly improve lives as I said earlier, but our goal is further reaching than this and support would be reformist. All I am saying is that support is too strong a word. Perhaps we could initially tollerate this, but not much more.

[Maynard]

Obviously, free trade, even as I describe it, could not be a final goal, as it based on the relations of the Capitalist system, which I completely oppose. The concept, however, of people or communities, in a communist society exchanging goods, as well as the free movement of people, is worthy of support, however. So, you are correct but I think many socialist parties, have advocated "market socialism" which practises "self-reliance" where the country itself tries to produce everything it needs, while trying to restrict foreign goods. I think that line of thinking is entirely mistaken, there nothing intrinsically wrong with trade or no intrinsic virtue in self-reliance, as Doug Henwood has pointed out.

[Guerrilla22]

Free trade as it is referred to, really isn't free at all. What it should be called is "making exploitation easier."

[JKP]

Seeing as how all the first world powers came into existence in a cradle of protectionism, I don't think exporting free trade to other countries is going to help at all.

Check out this website:

http://www.paecon.net/

They more or less debunk the free trade myth.

[wet blanket]

Quick answer: no
Why? It's the cornerstone of a destructive and oppressive social order based on the systematic exploitation of working(and nonworking) people.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:06 PM
Check out ttis website:

http://www.paecon.net/

They more or less debunk the free trade myth.
was there a particular article we should read? only cos there seem to be a lot, am i'm feeling too lazy to go through em all :P

[JKP]

Read this one:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:50 PM
The concept, however, of people or communities, in a communist society exchanging goods, as well as the free movement of people, is worthy of support, however. So, you are correct but I think many socialist parties, have advocated "market socialism" which practises "self-reliance" where the country itself tries to produce everything it needs, while trying to restrict foreign goods.
I agree that with few exceptions this is not a realistic goal for nations (India might be able to pull it off). However in this sense it is useless talking about free trade, regardless of how a transitional economy arose, it will have already been slated by the media and shunned by foreign markets.

Often the choice to go it alone is made by two sides (left and right), however even if you are willing to trade freely, the west would not and could not allow it. It doesn't matter about reality because they maintain most of the means of production, reating to reality (the press). So whether or not they will not trade freely because of the oppressive regime, or the more likely percieved threat to their elevated existence doesn't matter, they still won't do it.

Trading between nations initially though I am totally for, this isn't free trade, rather common sense.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Nov 10 2005, 12:11 AM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Nov 10 2005, 12:11 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 11:50 PM
The concept, however, of people or communities, in a communist society exchanging goods, as well as the free movement of people, is worthy of support, however. So, you are correct but I think many socialist parties, have advocated "market socialism" which practises "self-reliance" where the country itself tries to produce everything it needs, while trying to restrict foreign goods.
I agree that with few exceptions this is not a realistic goal for nations (India might be able to pull it off). However in this sense it is useless talking about free trade, regardless of how a transitional economy arose, it will have already been slated by the media and shunned by foreign markets.

Often the choice to go it alone is made by two sides (left and right), however even if you are willing to trade freely, the west would not and could not allow it. It doesn't matter about reality because they maintain most of the means of production, reating to reality (the press). So whether or not they will not trade freely because of the oppressive regime, or the more likely percieved threat to their elevated existence doesn't matter, they still won't do it.

Trading between nations initially though I am totally for, this isn't free trade, rather common sense. [/b]
Dude, you seriously need to read the article I linked to in my last post.

[against all authority]

free trade ia a killer. just look at the phillipenes. america has said to them that if they are not willing to open their markets, they will withdraw all aid given by the USA. therefore they had absolutely no choice but to let the big, multinational corperations into their local markets.. which in turn, wiped out all the small time local producers who relied on revenue from their local sales. because the americans can afford to charge cheaper prices, obviously the already poor are going to buy from them in an attempt to save money.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Free trade is not globalization - the former is one of several aspects of what some people call "corporate globalism". Really this is just a useless term describing a sort of nasty, brutish, "One market under God," put into its disturbing practice. The latter, real authentic globalization, as in the exchange of ideas and movement of people without restraint - which is evolving necessarily out of our advanced communication and transportation technology, and actually hindered by the market - should not be confused with free trade. Corrosion of culture is part of globalization, but I would suggest this is a good thing. Culture is just a nice way of saying hegemonic structures of local ruling classes - which we can do without!

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 11 2005, 12:18 AM
Corrosion of culture is part of globalization, but I would suggest this is a good thing. Culture is just a nice way of saying hegemonic structures of local ruling classes - which we can do without!
i agree with everything else you said except for that part^

rather than a corrosion of culture, i see globalisation as creating one kind of homogenous 'global' culture, which as i see it is one which tries to combine a bunch of 'Other-style' cultures, but seen through 'western' eyes, and harbouring western values [often consumerist by nature]. and in reaction to this, sometimes non-western cultures will try and assert their own local culture more strongly and simply reinforce the hegemonic structures you talked about.

neither of which i like :P

[youdontknowjake]

free trade is against our beliefs. it is a plot against the asiatic population. we need thge support of everyone. we need to validate our cause, and to do that, we need to show that we care about everyone, we are a union of nations, not just separatye territories

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:16 AM
Dude, you seriously need to read the article I linked to in my last post.
And you need to read my post(s) :P

If you re-read what I put, I have reached many of the same conclusions as that article, which gave an insight, but in my oppinion was fairly weak. I agree that free trade isn't a policy of richer nations, I have repeated this several times, I also commented on the inherent unfairness of subjecting devolping nations to such immediate market liberalisation in face of tariffs existing at the other end.

My last line was not about free trade, or even liberalisation of trade restrictions either way. Rather it was in direct reference to the need for trade between nations in a transitional economy. Many nations would crumble during revolution if they cut off trade with outside countries, the infastructure to be totally self sufficient is not common at all.

I also stated that this will be hampered as much as possible by the protectionist policies of (possibly other?) first world nations. They will pursue class interests as they have always done, so this is unrealistic.

Even then I could not say I support this trade, just as I cannot support the concept of ownership anywhere. Accept for the sake of humanity, support no.

[anomaly]

Free trade does to third world workers what rich men do to whores...

We should never support free trade because a creates a system of liberal economic policy which stomps on worker's rights. It disposes of national regulation and lets huge transnational corporations (most of which are based in the USA and are subsidized by the US gov't...corporate welfare) rule over them.

Free trade serves to make the numbers, the statistics (some of them) look better. What this materially means is that the wealthy businessmen are growing ever wealthier! We do not support such disparity of wealth, clearly.

Once 'free trade' is established (as one pointed out, this trade is not neccesarily free...think of the US trade embargo on Cuba...and remember that during the Reagan era, when international markets were growing ever 'freer', the US was returning to protectionist policies the likes of which had not been seen for 50 years...), working class people have two choices: work at a terrible job with no benefits that barely allows one to put food on the table (choice #1!) or die (choice #2!).