Should progressives and social democrats support free trade?

[The Liberated Territories]

The USSR was socialist.

Watch this, folks.

Nice strawman tovarisch

Why isn't the USSR socialist, hombre, no true strawman?

[American Imperial Union]

Why just progressives and social democrats?

Anyway, everyone should support some level of free trade. But it must be with nations of similar economic development. We can help and assist other nations and trade with them, but not at the expense of our nation and people.

We should only trade when it is an equally beneficial relationship.

[United Marxist Nations]

If the trade deals are beneficial for the working people of their country, why not. But, if they are detrimental to those people, how is it good? If anything, for certain countries, "beggar thy neighbor" defines free trade.

We need to realize that free trade will have winners and losers. But we can use the welfare state and redistribution to make working people winners - by raising the tax level, and redistributing gains from trade from the wealthy and corporations, to working people and the poor, we can make things a lot fairer. Just as we use the state to correct the market's income distribution, we can correct the income distribution from trade. This is what happens in the Nordic model.

Or we can skip the middle man and allow people to continue having jobs that would be lost in free trade agreements. While simultaneously helping other countries develop so that they can produce for their needs too. The way you lay it out, you flat out admit it is exclusively to help the capitalists, and would screw over the workers, in both countries, mind you.

[Geilinor]

If the trade deals are beneficial for the working people of their country, why not. But, if they are detrimental to those people, how is it good? If anything, for certain countries, "beggar thy neighbor" defines free trade.

We need to realize that free trade will have winners and losers. But we can use the welfare state and redistribution to make working people winners - by raising the tax level, and redistributing gains from trade from the wealthy and corporations, to working people and the poor, we can make things a lot fairer. Just as we use the state to correct the market's income distribution, we can correct the income distribution from trade. This is what happens in the Nordic model.

Or we can skip the middle man and allow people to continue having jobs that would be lost in free trade agreements. While simultaneously helping other countries develop so that they can produce for their needs too. The way you lay it out, you flat out admit it is exclusively to help the capitalists, and would screw over the workers, in both countries, mind you.

No, he's saying that there are still ways to help workers with free trade.

[Daburuetchi]

I'm assuming you haven't been living under a rock for the past 50 years and have the ability to remember events that are common knowledge. Do I need to read you "A babies guide to the Vietnam"war? "

Anyone can list random countries.
Why you're wrong:
China
South Korea
Singapore
Vietnam
India
Botswana
Chile (economic growth in past 25 years)
Germany
Japan
Taiwan
Panama (helped by free trade because of Panama Canal)

My list was in regards to any country that pursues monetary policy adverse to the west that were invaded or meddle with in some way. Most of the countries you listed have received heavy western assistance and quit a few used to be military juntas so idk how working your citizens like slaves to achieve high economic growth is something to be proud of

[United Marxist Nations]

If the trade deals are beneficial for the working people of their country, why not. But, if they are detrimental to those people, how is it good? If anything, for certain countries, "beggar thy neighbor" defines free trade.



Or we can skip the middle man and allow people to continue having jobs that would be lost in free trade agreements. While simultaneously helping other countries develop so that they can produce for their needs too. The way you lay it out, you flat out admit it is exclusively to help the capitalists, and would screw over the workers, in both countries, mind you.

No, he's saying that there are still ways to help workers with free trade.

That is still admittance that the policies themselves screw them over to the point where they need a helping hand.

[Geilinor]

My list was in regards to any country that pursues monetary policy adverse to the west. Most of the countries you listed have received heavy western assistance and quit a few used to be military juntas so idk how that could be considered a positive thing

I listed those countries because they've benefited from trade.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why just progressives and social democrats?

Anyway, everyone should support some level of free trade. But it must be with nations of similar economic development. We can help and assist other nations and trade with them, but not at the expense of our nation and people.

We should only trade when it is an equally beneficial relationship.

All trade, by definition, is an equally beneficial relationship, since the terms of that relationship come from negotiation and not by force.

[Daburuetchi]

Nice strawman tovarisch

Why isn't the USSR socialist, hombre, no true strawman?

I have said nothing in regards to the USSR nor is the discussion regarding the USSR. You are clearly threadjacking

[Geilinor]

That is still admittance that the policies themselves screw them over to the point where they need a helping hand.

I don't see the point, since communism is not a practical option.

[United Marxist Nations]

That is still admittance that the policies themselves screw them over to the point where they need a helping hand.

I don't see the point, since communism is not a practical option.

And why isn't it?

And, on the point of free trade, even if it weren't, how does that change what I said?

[Geilinor]

I don't see the point, since communism is not a practical option.

And why isn't it?

And, on the point of free trade, even if it weren't, how does that change what I said?

They need a helping hand anyway - the alternative you want has too many costs associated with it.

[United Marxist Nations]

And why isn't it?

And, on the point of free trade, even if it weren't, how does that change what I said?

They need a helping hand anyway - the alternative you want has too many costs associated with it.

Costs for whom? Maybe for the bourgeoisie who loses their beautiful, wonderful company, but the workers on both sides of the deal would be better for it.

[United States of Conner]

I'm not saying that Jacarbo Arbens wasn't overthrown by the Dulles brothers or that UFCO shouldn't have been demolished, but no proof has ever been shown directly linking the US, UK, or Belgium to his death.

Nope according to new documents https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ened-congo the USA was directly responsible

Source without a paywall, please.

[Daburuetchi]

Why just progressives and social democrats?

Anyway, everyone should support some level of free trade. But it must be with nations of similar economic development. We can help and assist other nations and trade with them, but not at the expense of our nation and people.

We should only trade when it is an equally beneficial relationship.

All trade, by definition, is an equally beneficial relationship, since the terms of that relationship come from negotiation and not by force.

Not really. If you're under economic compulsion to do something you have little choice. As Marx said" The consumer is no freer than the producer. His judgment depends on his means and his needs. Both of these are determined by his social position, which itself depends on the whole social organisation. True, the worker who buys potatoes and the kept woman who buys lace both follow their respective judgments. But the difference in their judgements is explained by the difference in the positions which they occupy in the world, and which themselves are the product of social organisation." We are forced to make decisions based on our material conditions. People must sell their labor in order to survive and must do so at the given market rate

[United States of Conner]

They need a helping hand anyway - the alternative you want has too many costs associated with it.

Costs for whom? Maybe for the bourgeoisie who loses their beautiful, wonderful company, but the workers on both sides of the deal would be better for it.

You said "bourgeoisie"
Argument invalid
The "bourgeoisie" losing their companies wouldn't benefit the workers because then, you know, the workers have no companies to work for, thus meaning they aren't workers.

From there, you could take the optimistic approach, which is that the workers form their own companies (though without heavy wealth redistribution this would just result in a new bourgeoisie), or the pessimistic approach, which mainly applies if you believe that the owners of businesses are actually there because they are the smartest and most innovative. In that case, you've basically just fucked up progress. Game over.

Or, if you're advocating actual communism, that won't work either because the real world isn't Karl Marx's bushy bearded head.

[United Marxist Nations]

Costs for whom? Maybe for the bourgeoisie who loses their beautiful, wonderful company, but the workers on both sides of the deal would be better for it.

You said "bourgeoisie"
Argument invalid
1) The "bourgeoisie" losing their companies wouldn't benefit the workers because then, you know, the workers have no companies to work for, thus meaning they aren't workers.

2) From there, you could take the optimistic approach, which is that the workers form their own companies (though without heavy wealth redistribution this would just result in a new bourgeoisie), or the pessimistic approach, which mainly applies if you believe that the owners of businesses are actually there because they are the smartest and most innovative. In that case, you've basically just fucked up progress. Game over.

Or, if you're advocating actual communism, that won't work either because the real world isn't Karl Marx's bushy bearded head.

1) "If it weren't for the lord of the manor, how would you peasants have any land to toil?"

2) No, just seize the existing machinery, there's no reason to build a new one when you already have one built.

[Morr]

WMDs were a causes belli to gain access to iraqi oil fields previously worked by state owned companies but now are occupied by us corporations who are gaining millions of dollars in profit while the iraqi people are being rapes, bombed and murder. Dat is the connection

That's corporatism.

Uh, no it isn't. Corporatism is about state-recognized corporations (bodies) representing sectors of workers.

[United States of Conner]

You said "bourgeoisie"
Argument invalid
1) The "bourgeoisie" losing their companies wouldn't benefit the workers because then, you know, the workers have no companies to work for, thus meaning they aren't workers.

2) From there, you could take the optimistic approach, which is that the workers form their own companies (though without heavy wealth redistribution this would just result in a new bourgeoisie), or the pessimistic approach, which mainly applies if you believe that the owners of businesses are actually there because they are the smartest and most innovative. In that case, you've basically just fucked up progress. Game over.

Or, if you're advocating actual communism, that won't work either because the real world isn't Karl Marx's bushy bearded head.

1) "If it weren't for the lord of the manor, how would you peasants have any land to toil?"

2) No, just seize the existing machinery, there's no reason to build a new one when you already have one built.

1) It was a bit of snark.

2) And where do you go from there? If we have, say, a private space exploration company that also owns it's manufacturing (vertical integration and all that),'and then all of a sudden communism happens and the manual laborers in charge of putting together rockets and such are out in charge of the company, they have all the tech, but nobody knows how to use it, because the people who you call the "bourgeoisie" are all off somewhere else. Which means either losing thirty + years while you redevelop this tech, or more likely, just go off on a different path then you originally would have, and generally a worse one.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) "If it weren't for the lord of the manor, how would you peasants have any land to toil?"

2) No, just seize the existing machinery, there's no reason to build a new one when you already have one built.

1) It was a bit of snark.

2) And where do you go from there? If we have, say, a private space exploration company that also owns it's manufacturing (vertical integration and all that),'and then all of a sudden communism happens and the manual laborers in charge of putting together rockets and such are out in charge of the company, they have all the tech, but nobody knows how to use it, because the people who you call the "bourgeoisie" are all off somewhere else. Which means either losing thirty + years while you redevelop this tech, or more likely, just go off on a different path then you originally would have, and generally a worse one.

lol, do you think the guys running the company are actually the rocket scientists and engineer specialists of the company?

[Greater Istanistan]

Yes, I think that they should support free trade as a way to increase market share and ease commerce, thereby helping everyone including the working class. However, when free trade is used as a way of introducing reactionary attitudes on copyright, along with forcibly privatizing public-owned bodies (for Canucks, the CBC and Canada Post), breaking up "anti-competitive" stuff (again for Canucks, OHIP's pharmacare being a primary example), and allowing corporations to sue governments for doing things they don't like, I refuse to see it as anything but oligarchical powergrubbing.

[New Werpland]

I don't see the point, since communism is not a practical option.

And why isn't it?

It never happens.

[Grunberg-Ludbach]

And the fact that Free Trade isn't Fair Trade says it all.

That's the most simplistic political sentence I've heard for quite some time.

[Morr]

And why isn't it?

It never happens.

It could, it's just that the ideology is stuck in a secular rut.

[New Werpland]

It never happens.

It could, it's just that the ideology is stuck in a secular rut.

It's been tried many times, workers don't self-organize, and motivation is lost.