4 ms·

What's wrong with free trade?

etplayer 9y ago
I think there should be a distinction made between "Free trade" and "free trade", the former being what can be seen in a capitalist economy - not the free association of people, but the requirement of some people (workers) to sell labour-power to landowners (capitalists). This systematic requirement is anything but free[0]. However the latter is the actual equal freedom for all to trade what they want to, in what quantity, which they can do without fear of poverty, destitution and death if they do so. This is what Communists mean when they say they are opposed to Free trade. Because the sale of labour-power for wage is an unequal relationship from the outset, in a similar way to how the feudal serf producing his quit-rent-corn for the feudal lord - yes, he may refuse to hand it over (he has the freedom of choice), but should he take that freedom, which is human-created, structural, he is liable to poverty, destitution and death. Edit: I must also note that it also works the other way. The capitalist is not free from capital either, within a capitalist economy - he must employ wage labour, make it his only concern, in order to survive, without which he will either be forced to become a worker, or if he cannot find work then become destitute. As such, Property itself is a restrictive force, acquiring a mind of its own. It is in the self-interest of the workers and the capitalist to counter this system which restricts them so. [0] Kropotkin wrote in The Conquest of Bread: "We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We call those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger. The result of this state of things is that all our production tends in a wrong direction. Enterprise takes no thought for the needs of the community. Its only aim is to increase the gains of the speculator. Hence the constant fluctuations of trade, the periodical industrial crises, each of which throws scores of thousands of workers on the streets."
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > but the requirement of some people (workers) to sell labour-power to landowners There is no such requirement. Nobody is being slaved/forced to work (and if they are it's illegal) with anyone. And that's not what Free Trade is about at all.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    Yes there is such a requirement, at least for the majority of people. The quote at the bottom by Kropotkin places it into perspective; under the name of free contract, huge numbers of people, I must say the vast majority of people, must either provide labour-time in exchange for wage, or die. I do not mean 'force' in the sense that somebody is putting a gun to your head, I meant it in the sense that there is a system set up and perpetauted by those who profit from it (the capitalist class) such that in order to live and indeed buy back the products which their labour gives value to these people are forced to work. Do you think many people, especially the poorest or those in the least favourable jobs, would engage in such wage labour if they had the opportunity not to? No, they engage in it beacuse they are forced by the circumstance of the capitalist system. It is an impersonal force, but a human constructed social and structural force nonetheless. I realise that there is a distinction between 'killing' and 'letting die', and it is philosophically significant, but most people would agree that a system in which 'letting die' is a fine course of action save for the intervention of the twisted charity of the State which defends the system is not an ethical one, nor a moral one, in a world in which it is certainly possible to do better.
    - Sacho 9y ago
      Kropotkin's "analysis" is a nice soundbite, but it's just bashing a strawman and proposing a dream-like utopia to replace it with. Feudal times were nothing like capitalism. The capitalist "class" is fluid, unlike nobility - the surveys I've read put wealth churn at around 60-70% after just a couple of generations. There are people "stuck" in generational poverty, but they're not a "class" either - there's plenty of rags-to-riches stories, and there's no obvious system to uplift them all. Consider the situation in the US, where the people below the poverty line are richer than the lower classes of most other countries. Or how the US middle class is "eroding" into upper class citizens at a 2:1 rate(for every person dropping to the lower class, there's 2 rising to upper). Is this the "not ethical" "not moral" system that is "letting people die"? Kropotkin's solution to the evils of capitalism is anarchism - a utopia where people would just cooperate and get along. This is a fantasy, and to substantiate it he day-dreams about the good old pre-feudal days(which never existed in the way he dreams of them). Just like communism, his proposals rely on fundamentally changing human nature - they are meant for a different species, not us. Your "certainly possible to do better" world is nowhere in sight, from my point of view. We've had poets, sci-fi writers and activists speak about how we should do better, how we should find that utopia where everyone is equal(ignores intrinsic human variance), everyone is happy and getting along(ignores basic human nature), and no one is poor(ignores the relativity of wealth). In fact, the changes in human nature that these systems require would also change capitalism for the better - i.e. you don't need a system that fairly redistributes wealth, if everyone is as altruistic as Gates after his career.
akvadrako 9y ago
Nothing, free trade is perfect.
jcbrand 9y ago
I'll try to provide an answer as far as I understand the issue. Poorer countries with less developed markets are forced to open their domestic markets to foreign countries and competitors who then completely outcompete and dominate the local offerings. This prevents local business from developing and many existing ones go bankrupt in the face of foreign competition. This tends to leave the local market largely undeveloped in terms of domestic companies, and results in money flowing out of the country to foreign shareholders. Another problem is that so-called "free" trade isn't totally free. Some of the places that espouse free trade, like the US and Europe, don't practice what they preach. The most egregious example I can think of is agriculture subsidies, which effectively prevent (for example) African farmers from selling their produce in those markets while additionally making produce (like poultry) from those countries cheaper than local offerings, which again bankrupts locals.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > Poorer countries with less developed markets are forced to open their domestic markets to foreign countries and competitors who then completely outcompete and dominate the local offerings Poorer countries which can't sell their agricultural goods on the global market don't fare too well. It goes both ways. Check the level of life in Cuba for example.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    > Poorer countries which can't sell their agricultural goods on the global market don't fare too well. It goes both ways. Check the level of life in Cuba for example. Which proves free trade is a shit of a system for most developing countries.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      If they can't sell, it's not Free Trade.
      - owebmaster 9y ago

I think there should be a distinction made between "Free trade" and "free trade", the former being what can be seen in a capitalist economy - not the free association of people, but the requirement of some people (workers) to sell labour-power to landowners (capitalists). This systematic requirement is anything but free[0]. However the latter is the actual equal freedom for all to trade what they want to, in what quantity, which they can do without fear of poverty, destitution and death if they do so. This is what Communists mean when they say they are opposed to Free trade. Because the sale of labour-power for wage is an unequal relationship from the outset, in a similar way to how the feudal serf producing his quit-rent-corn for the feudal lord - yes, he may refuse to hand it over (he has the freedom of choice), but should he take that freedom, which is human-created, structural, he is liable to poverty, destitution and death. Edit: I must also note that it also works the other way. The capitalist is not free from capital either, within a capitalist economy - he must employ wage labour, make it his only concern, in order to survive, without which he will either be forced to become a worker, or if he cannot find work then become destitute. As such, Property itself is a restrictive force, acquiring a mind of its own. It is in the self-interest of the workers and the capitalist to counter this system which restricts them so. [0] Kropotkin wrote in The Conquest of Bread: "We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We call those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger. The result of this state of things is that all our production tends in a wrong direction. Enterprise takes no thought for the needs of the community. Its only aim is to increase the gains of the speculator. Hence the constant fluctuations of trade, the periodical industrial crises, each of which throws scores of thousands of workers on the streets."

ekianjo 9y ago
> but the requirement of some people (workers) to sell labour-power to landowners There is no such requirement. Nobody is being slaved/forced to work (and if they are it's illegal) with anyone. And that's not what Free Trade is about at all.
- etplayer 9y ago
  Yes there is such a requirement, at least for the majority of people. The quote at the bottom by Kropotkin places it into perspective; under the name of free contract, huge numbers of people, I must say the vast majority of people, must either provide labour-time in exchange for wage, or die. I do not mean 'force' in the sense that somebody is putting a gun to your head, I meant it in the sense that there is a system set up and perpetauted by those who profit from it (the capitalist class) such that in order to live and indeed buy back the products which their labour gives value to these people are forced to work. Do you think many people, especially the poorest or those in the least favourable jobs, would engage in such wage labour if they had the opportunity not to? No, they engage in it beacuse they are forced by the circumstance of the capitalist system. It is an impersonal force, but a human constructed social and structural force nonetheless. I realise that there is a distinction between 'killing' and 'letting die', and it is philosophically significant, but most people would agree that a system in which 'letting die' is a fine course of action save for the intervention of the twisted charity of the State which defends the system is not an ethical one, nor a moral one, in a world in which it is certainly possible to do better.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    Kropotkin's "analysis" is a nice soundbite, but it's just bashing a strawman and proposing a dream-like utopia to replace it with. Feudal times were nothing like capitalism. The capitalist "class" is fluid, unlike nobility - the surveys I've read put wealth churn at around 60-70% after just a couple of generations. There are people "stuck" in generational poverty, but they're not a "class" either - there's plenty of rags-to-riches stories, and there's no obvious system to uplift them all. Consider the situation in the US, where the people below the poverty line are richer than the lower classes of most other countries. Or how the US middle class is "eroding" into upper class citizens at a 2:1 rate(for every person dropping to the lower class, there's 2 rising to upper). Is this the "not ethical" "not moral" system that is "letting people die"? Kropotkin's solution to the evils of capitalism is anarchism - a utopia where people would just cooperate and get along. This is a fantasy, and to substantiate it he day-dreams about the good old pre-feudal days(which never existed in the way he dreams of them). Just like communism, his proposals rely on fundamentally changing human nature - they are meant for a different species, not us. Your "certainly possible to do better" world is nowhere in sight, from my point of view. We've had poets, sci-fi writers and activists speak about how we should do better, how we should find that utopia where everyone is equal(ignores intrinsic human variance), everyone is happy and getting along(ignores basic human nature), and no one is poor(ignores the relativity of wealth). In fact, the changes in human nature that these systems require would also change capitalism for the better - i.e. you don't need a system that fairly redistributes wealth, if everyone is as altruistic as Gates after his career.

akvadrako 9y ago

Nothing, free trade is perfect.

jcbrand 9y ago

I'll try to provide an answer as far as I understand the issue. Poorer countries with less developed markets are forced to open their domestic markets to foreign countries and competitors who then completely outcompete and dominate the local offerings. This prevents local business from developing and many existing ones go bankrupt in the face of foreign competition. This tends to leave the local market largely undeveloped in terms of domestic companies, and results in money flowing out of the country to foreign shareholders. Another problem is that so-called "free" trade isn't totally free. Some of the places that espouse free trade, like the US and Europe, don't practice what they preach. The most egregious example I can think of is agriculture subsidies, which effectively prevent (for example) African farmers from selling their produce in those markets while additionally making produce (like poultry) from those countries cheaper than local offerings, which again bankrupts locals.

ekianjo 9y ago
> Poorer countries with less developed markets are forced to open their domestic markets to foreign countries and competitors who then completely outcompete and dominate the local offerings Poorer countries which can't sell their agricultural goods on the global market don't fare too well. It goes both ways. Check the level of life in Cuba for example.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > Poorer countries which can't sell their agricultural goods on the global market don't fare too well. It goes both ways. Check the level of life in Cuba for example. Which proves free trade is a shit of a system for most developing countries.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    If they can't sell, it's not Free Trade.
    - owebmaster 9y ago