>"the Protective system is nothing but a means of establishing manufacture upon a large scale in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the market of the world: and from the moment that dependence upon the market of the world is established, there is more or less dependence upon Free Trade too. Besides this, the Protective system helps to develop free competition within a nation. 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 monarchy, as a means for the concentration of its own powers for the realization of Free Trade within the country.
>But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."
what did he mean by this?
Camden Brooks
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid
Kayden Brown
No, what he is describing is called "Accelerationism."
Jose Cook
He's basing his position on a flawed pre-supposition.
Specifically, he thinks that free trade and capitalism are inevitably doomed to failure.
Therefore, he is "in favor" of global free trade because he thinks this will accelerate the failure of capitalism.
Adrian Wood
>To sum up, what is Free Trade under the present conditions of society? Feeedom of Capital. When you have torn down the few national barriers which still restrict the free development of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wages-labor to capital exist, no matter how favorable the conditions under which you accomplish the exchange of commodities, there will always be a class which exploits and a class which is exploited. It is really difficult to understand the presumption 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 more clearly. ...
>{p. 464} Why should you desire farther to sanction unlimited competition with this idea of freedom, when the idea of freedom itself is only the product of a social condition based upon Free Competition?
>We have shown what sort of fraternity Free Trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The fraternity which Free Trade would establish between the nations of the earth would not be more real, to call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. Every one of the destructive phenomena to which unlimited competition gives rise within any one nation is reproduced in more gigantic proportions in the market of the world. We need not pause any longer upon Free Trade sophisms on this subject, which are worth just as much as the arguments of our prize essayists...
>For instance, we are told that Free Trade would create an international division of labor, and thereby give to each country those branches of production most in harmony with its natural advantages.
Hudson Davis
>wahhhhhh free trade exploits the labor of low skilled industrial workers
its almost like the ultimate goal of your life should not be to become a "worker"
what a sad state of affairs that the communist seeks not to produce art nor science nor philosophy but rather they glorify the Maoist-Leninist ideal of the pastoral laborer, doing nothing with his life but turning a spanner or picking turnips for the 40-50 healthy years he has on this planet
Ethan Collins
>>Therefore, he is "in favor" of global free trade because he thinks this will accelerate the failure of capitalism.
Indeed. Socialists frequently try to make the point that capitalism is completely dependent on the working class to survive, but who can still think that these days? What happen in the end is the eventual automation of production. Following that, human labor becomes redundant and the poorer slowly die off, ending class conflict.
Jaxon Reyes
this thread is about the speech in question, where Marx advocates free trade, please stay on topic and actually read the material before discussing
Jack Bailey
>its almost like the ultimate goal of your life should not be to become a "worker"
very much the opposite. his ultimate hope was to have the workers take over the factories.
Samuel Richardson
I did read the material. I also comprehended it, which is something that you clearly didn't
Matthew Perez
>wahhhhhh free trade exploits the labor of low skilled industrial workers
clearly not
Parker Hernandez
From your long ass copypasta
"So long as you let the relation of wages-labor to capital exist, no matter how favorable the conditions under which you accomplish the exchange of commodities, there will always be a class which exploits and a class which is exploited. It is really difficult to understand the presumption 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 more clearly"
literally crying that low skilled laborers get paid their market value, rather than what they feel like they're worth.
Kevin Moore
is he LITRULLY wrong
Thomas Richardson
>>literally crying that low skilled laborers get paid their market value
this shows how one can recite something verbatim, yet show a misreading so bad that he is effectively functionally illiterate.
Ryder Wood
You still failed to prove that capitalism is marxist.
Carson Smith
and then do what? you telling that jim and bob from the local factory will suddenly will come up with a brilliant new plan? lol whatever
Tyler Lopez
they'll probably elect their old boss to manage the factory again (assuming they haven't hung him yet) and give him a salary that was a fraction of what he used to earn.
Brody Jones
that's why I posed it as a question for discussion in the thread, however going back to
"the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."
protectionism is the antithesis of the proliferation of the trade of capital, and since Marx is in favor of its opposite he would seem to be a giant advocate of capitalism, on the merit that it breaks down traditional institutions
Zachary Lewis
>they'll probably elect their old boss to manage the factory again (assuming they haven't hung him yet) and give him a salary that was a fraction of what he used to earn.
actually, this scenario in itself is probably incomprehensible to some. we should just ignore this unimaginable image and pretend this never existed
Bentley Gray
If you need something to prove Marxism wrong look at the TF hat economy. Material value does no have to come from labour but instead comes from people "believing" it has value. This is the same reason why there was Tulip Mania in the Netherlands and why cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have value. Hell it's even why gold has value.
Nathan Wood
how does that prove Marx wrong based on the quotes I've just provided showing he advocated free trade?
Nolan Bell
Well, tell that to the fucking marxists that want to put the state in front of everything.
I would gladly take marxists as rather rational people if they used this aproach to fight capitalism.
Because, you know, socialistic policies lead to nothing more than crisis and social inequities, as the many examples on the many countries and cultures have shown.
