Should progressives and social democrats support free trade?

[United Marxist Nations]

Fuck, I really need to finish this paper; sorry guys, I will be back in 900 words; then I'mma go Super Soviet 3 all over this thread.

[Morr]

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.

Workers can't self organize on a massive scale because they don't have nearly the education required to organize massive endeavors. They don't get it, because it's not part of their job, and if they did all get it, it might be dangerous.

[Daburuetchi]

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.

Care to explain the huge number of cooperatives, trade unions and collective farmers that were present in socialist countries?

[Daburuetchi]

Fuck, I really need to finish this paper; sorry guys, I will be back in 900 words; then I'mma go Super Soviet 3 all over this thread.

MRW

[New Werpland]

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

Care to explain the huge number of cooperatives, trade unions and collective farmers that were present in socialist countries?

Collective farms were totally shit and unproductive, a lot of the food supply of the Soviet Union came from rural un-collectivized farms(can't find source right now unfortunately).

Besides that most industries in Socialist countries were far from self-organized, and only got better when the central planners tried to incentivize work.

[Daburuetchi]

Care to explain the huge number of cooperatives, trade unions and collective farmers that were present in socialist countries?

Collective farms were totally shit and unproductive, a lot of the food supply of the Soviet Union came from rural un-collectivized farms(can't find source right now unfortunately).

Besides that most industries in Socialist countries were far from self-organized, and only got better when the central planners tried to incentivize work.

The farms became unproductive when Khrushchev privatized all the machine and tractor stations and started planting corn in Siberia without proper equipment. These like the 1965 Lieberman reforms were market socialist policies and not planned. Nor did the state force the creation of cooperatives

[Geilinor]

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.

What I'm saying is that free trade and capitalism work fine with help for the working class.

[The Liberated Territories]

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

Our material conditions can be independent of our consumption. If I live in piss poor conditions, but I do not consume anything else I need than to survive, then I can say I have the freedom, resulting in my accumulation of money, to negotiate at least, through my action or inaction, the services that exist, and he can also negotiate things like his wage, or material conditions. Was it not free choices that forced the congregation of millions into cities, and despite their ailments, were the better alternative to rural lifestyle? So at least these choices were not caused by the capitalist exploiting their environments, but offering a better alternative to their current one - the capitalist did not pressure or force the worker out of his home, but created something that caused the worker to come to him and draw up a contract benefitting both parties. In most cases, he still had the chance to live in his present material condition - the farm. For the worker living in an environment that was at first farmland and then developed, we cannot find fault either, as - with the exception of dirigismist state policies - would retain his property rights (the foundation of capitalism) and see his material conditions improve - particularly if he had a marketable set of skills that could be benefited from the influx of consumers.

[Daburuetchi]

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

Our material conditions can be independent of our consumption. If I live in piss poor conditions, but I do not consume anything else I need than to survive, then I can say I have the freedom, resulting in my accumulation of money, to negotiate at least, through my action or inaction, the services that exist, and he can also negotiate things like his wage, or material conditions. Was it not free choices that forced the congregation of millions into cities, and despite their ailments, were the better alternative to rural lifestyle? So at least these choices were not caused by the capitalist exploiting their environments, but offering a better alternative to their current one - the capitalist did not pressure or force the worker out of his home, but created something that caused the worker to come to him and draw up a contract benefitting both parties. In most cases, he still had the chance to live in his present material condition - the farm. For the worker living in an environment that was at first farmland and then developed, we cannot find fault either, as - with the exception of dirigismist state policies - would retain his property rights (the foundation of capitalism) and see his material conditions improve - particularly if he had a marketable set of skills that could be benefited from the influx of consumers.

Many people aren't in a condition to negotiate their wages, especially if it is difficult to find a job. Most poor people don't have savings since the cost of living is so high so their is little they can do then sell their labor at the given market rate.

No most people did not choose to move to cities. In the case of Africa and other countries free people were rounded into reserves and slapped with taxes and as a result had to work or face starvation. In the case of England free land that traditionally worked by peasants was claimed and they had no choice but to go and work in a factory. Millions of small scale producers could not compete with the scale of capitalist industry and as a result had to work in a factory. This is not free choice. This is clear cut economic pressure.

"Drawing upon a contract benefiting both parties" Have you seen pictures of factories during the industrial revolution. A 10 year old boy dying of lung disease working 15 hours a day for a few pounds is hardly a fair exchange. Do i need to mention to triangle shirtwaist fire, or Boss Tweed?

Again they could not live on the farm. As in the United States were there was a huge grain surplus which made it difficulty to be a farmer. That is fortunate considering what happened to millions of people in third world countries who were forcibly herded. You misty eyed view to robber baron era capitalism is ridiculous. People lived like animals in horrible tenet buildings and suffered all sorts of privation. This was exploitation pure and simple.

[Costa Fierro]

The key difference is that while Bolivia under Evo Morales is anti-neoliberal and anti-imperialist most third world countries have their entire economies geared toward the west and engage in little trade with one another

Except that Evo Morales used neoliberal fiscal policies to ensure that the revenue brought in by the nationalization of Bolivia's natural gas industry was actually being spend wisely, which resulted in the first government surplus in 30 years.

[Chestaan]

Free trade? Sure. TPP I'm not so sure about

[Atlanticatia]

I think, basically, the point is that you can't just have free trade, you need free trade combined with social-democratic social policies.

Just as social democrats don't believe in just leaving the market alone. We believe in having an active state that intervenes when necessary, and redistributes income via tax and spend. Free trade is good, but we also need free retraining for displaced workers, a welfare state to redistribute economic gains, labour protections, etc.

Social democracy is based on the premise that markets are a very bad master, but can make a good servant. We can use free trade to benefit us all, and to fund our public services and welfare state. That's what being a welfare society is about.

[Lydenburg]

Gibberish? Nonsense! My critique is primarily based in postmodernist critique of structural hierarchies, as formulated by John Lennon and Groucho Marx. You instead have continually ignored the premises of my arguments and switched to emotional appeals and fallacies.

Gibberish, jargon, call it what you want but this is the general forum, most people don't have higher education in whatever your talking about. If you can't say it in plain English, don't say it at all.

There's actually a term for this in business school. I think they call it "socialisation".

It means forgetting about the flowery jargon and simply restating the facts in a manner that can be understood by a wider range of general audiences.

Edit: on a related note, I've understood a little under half of what's been posted on this thread. Needs more dressing.

[Threlizdun]

Hell no. Not supporting protectionism is one thing, but the neoliberal policy of "free trade" is just an effort to eliminate regulations protecting workers, the environment, and national sovereignty in favor of the the interests of a handful of multinational corporations. Any progressive or social democrat that actually gives a damn about the founding ideals of their respective ideologies and of human wellbeing and sustainsabilty must fully oppose the disasters that have been "free trade" agreements.

[Knokkeheist]

Free trade is a good thing , the west can get cheap products and the developing countries can make money by selling these products.

[Neu Leonstein]

I'm not a social democrat, though I'd like to think of myself as progressive. But whatever, I think free trade is great in almost all circumstances.

But that doesn't mean I need to necessarily support free trade agreements for example. For a free trade agreement you'd basically need one page of paper with the line "We will stop putting up barriers to people from our countries trading with one another. Signed below."

But in Australia's case for example, the Pan-Pacific trade deal from the other day literally means that an Australian company that is unhappy with something the government did can go abroad, incorporate itself in another country and then go back to take the Australian government into an arbitration court. That's a right Australian companies literally have not been granted by the domestic political process. So that all seems rather silly... besides the overall problem that free trade agreements in general are almost never about actually hurting interest groups in the powerful countries by exposing them to competition. It ends up the other way around.

So It's probably best to evaluate free trade agreements on their own individual merits, rather than going all-out "for" or "against" just because of what you think of free trade as a general idea.

[Napkiraly]

The value of their labour is the market equilibrium.

According to David Ricardo "Possessing utility, commodities derive their exchangeable value from two sources: from their scarcity, and from the quantity of labor required to obtain them." This is not the same as market equilibrium

David Ricardo's theories are also part of the cornerstone behind free trade. Might wanna rethink some of the economist you pick to use.

[Napkiraly]

This isn't a source for your claims.

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? "

Pray tell, which resources were driving force behind the Vietnam War?

[Napkiraly]

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

Considering how many small business owners, doctors, artists, etc it would screw over, it would be pretty shit. Not being able to vote and being only somewhat watched and oppressed is kinda the best they could hope for. Worse case, they start being executed en masse.

[Daburuetchi]

According to David Ricardo "Possessing utility, commodities derive their exchangeable value from two sources: from their scarcity, and from the quantity of labor required to obtain them." This is not the same as market equilibrium

David Ricardo's theories are also part of the cornerstone behind free trade. Might wanna rethink some of the economist you pick to use.

So I can never use any bourgeois economist even when they are agreeing with me? please

[Kvatchdom]

Progressives in Europe generally do, but on the subject of Social Dmocrats it is more complex. Finnish Social Democrats are enormously pro-business and prefer free trade, even more so than any of our other parties. Finland has benefited from this, gaining a a mass of small businesses.

In my opinion, yes. In the end, it helps the country and the world.

[Kelinfort]

Oh, not the Marxist theory of labour.

Labourers are one component in production.

A theory may i remind you that was largely formulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Regardless, it is evident that workers receive very little of the actual market worth of their products

Because they are only one component in the production of a good. You're forgetting land, capital, and entrepreneurship. To maximise their value, it is their interest to form unions, which I wholeheartedly support.

And I don't dispute Ricardo or Smith's definition on the whole. Labour, however, is only a single component in production. You cannot make such a leap fro one quote.

[Ostroeuropa]

You cannot have free trade with a nation of people who are not free.

Opening the markets to non-democracies was a mistake and remains a mistake.

What we have is trade involving what amounts to slaves. That isn't free trade, not really.

Free trade is a good idea, but the rationales for it fall apart when you include people who cannot properly utilize market dynamics and freedom to push for better deals for themselves and such.

Yes, we should support free trade. What we have now, isn't free trade.

[Kvatchdom]

Hell no. Not supporting protectionism is one thing, but the neoliberal policy of "free trade" is just an effort to eliminate regulations protecting workers, the environment, and national sovereignty in favor of the the interests of a handful of multinational corporations. Any progressive or social democrat that actually gives a damn about the founding ideals of their respective ideologies and of human wellbeing and sustainsabilty must fully oppose the disasters that have been "free trade" agreements.

We're not misusing our workers, environment or sovereignty, yet we have free trade in Finland. It's all a matter of proper implementation.

[Daburuetchi]

A theory may i remind you that was largely formulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Regardless, it is evident that workers receive very little of the actual market worth of their products

Because they are only one component in the production of a good. You're forgetting land, capital, and entrepreneurship. To maximise their value, it is their interest to form unions, which I wholeheartedly support.

And I don't dispute Ricardo or Smith's definition on the whole. Labour, however, is only a single component in production. You cannot make such a leap fro one quote.

I was discussing how people tend to receive less and less of the value of the products of their labor not the conditions that enable the production of commodities.