Marx and Free Trade

[Cumannach]

Maybe someone can help me with this.

I'm trying to reconcile Marx's position on Free Trade, definitvely expressed in his famous speech about the repeal of the corn laws, and the central tenet of marxism, which is that, the urban proletariat is the first and only class in history capable of overthrowing the ruling class and instituting majority rule.

Now as I understand it, Marx repeatedly and coherently regarded capitalism as progressive, insomuch as it gave birth to the first class of people capable of succesful revolution and capable of establishing socialism.

Next, although it is contrary to the teaching of the 'Austrian school of Economics' and others of their ilke, common sense tells us that, in order for a country to develop industry, it must not have to compete for it's own market with a foreign industry, long established and far advanced compared to the starting up domestic industry. This obvious fact is brilliantly expounded upon and driven home by the writings of for example, Friedrich List, 19th century German economist (whose writings are online), and more recently Ha Joon Chang. Therefore the development of industry requires protectionism.

Now clearly the more industry there is in a country, the more urban proletariat also exists there, and without industry, the population will almost wholly consist of the peasantry, a class useless for revolution. Free trade must cripple the development of the proletariat as it cripples the development of bourgeois industry in any country less advanced industrially.

How then can Marx, at a time when England was far in advance in almost all industries, of all the other countries of Europe, argue for free trade, a move which would halt the development of the proletariat throughout the rest of Europe, as the capitalists of Europe were not slow to realise? Does Marx imagine the English proletariat alone can conquer the whole of Europe and the world? If so, does he then advocate all measures to speed their development (the English proletariat), which is, to speed the development of capitalism in England, by making the whole world the market of the English Bourgoisie?

Am I missing something?

[Hit The North]

I think you're missing the point that irrespective of whether the source of development is indigenous or foreign capital a proletariat must be created our of necessity.

[Cumannach]

No, the context was the free trade in export of finished manufactures, not capital.

[trivas7]

the central tenet of marxism, which is that, the urban proletariat is the first and only class in history capable of overthrowing the ruling class and instituting majority rule.

But Marx didn't hold this at all. He held that when the productive forces in society are held back by socially created relations of production those relations are overthrown by revolution. This happened in the bourgeois French revolution, e.g.

And try to tell Lenin and Mao that peasants are not important to political revolution.

[Hit The North]

No, the context was the free trade in export of finished manufactures, not capital.

But who would these commodities be sold to abroad if there was no proletariat - i.e. free labourers who exchange their labour for money - to buy them?

Anyways, your assumption that free trade would impede the development of capitalism in other European and American countries is not born out by history. By the end of the nineteenth century, Great Britain had been overtaken by both Germany and the United States. The evidence is that the increase in intercourse between nations as a result of free trade policy, stimulated the expansion of capitalism across the globe - at least in the nineteenth century.*

Actually I came across this article on Marx's speech on the issue of free trade: http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/23cWTOMarxFreeTrade.html (http://home.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/23cWTOMarxFreeTrade.html)

It seems like a good analysis of the issues.

EDIT:

* Actually, on second thoughts, protectionism is an obvious starting point for all national bourgeoisie in the early stages of developing the means of production. However, in an interesting passage in Marx's speech, he argues about how protectionism and free trade run into each other, highlighting the relation between free trade within a nation and free trade between nations:
Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.