Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism) - And Goy Class War

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's an interesting old article on Marxism and Free-Trade.  Free Trade is a Jewish concept. In light of modern events and modern Jewish Economic Propaganda, I see this idea tied to the Protocols.  
--------------------

Engels wrote in the Introduction to Free Trade (published by New York Labor News Company, in one volume with another text titled Wage-Labor and Capital, 1902):

"That was the time of the Brussels Congress, the time when Marx prepared the speech in question. While recognising that Protection may still, under certain circumstances, for instance, in the Germany of 1847, be of advantage to the manufacturing capitalists; while proving that free trade was not the panacea for all the evils under which the working class suffered, and might even aggravate them; he pronounces, ultimately and on principle, in favour of free trade." (Free Trade, Engels' Introduction, p.6).

So Marx and Engels clearly knew that Free Trade might worsen the lot of the lower classes, but advocated it anyway, as a means to achieving a World State. They were prepared to endorse an evil means, to achieve what they saw as a worthy end.
-----------------
Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism)

Peter Myers, Canberra, Australia, August 2, 2001; update January 7, 2003. My comments are shown {thus}. Your comments please mailto:myers@cyberone.com.au.

You are at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/classwar.html.

Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of a world culture (c) Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state - they will be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their backers in the higher classes.

Free Trade -> Misery -> Social Revolution.

(1) Karl Marx on Free Trade (2) Frederick Engels on Free Trade (3) Trotskyists for Free Trade

(1) Karl Marx on Free Trade

Karl Marx's major statement about Free Trade was an address delivered to the Democratic association of Brussels, Belgium, on January 9, 1848, around the same time as he wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 6, Lawrence & Wishart, London 1976:

{p. 450} Karl Marx

SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF FREE TRADE
DELIVERED TO THE DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF BRUSSELS
AT ITS PIBLIC MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1848

Gentlemen, - The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph of Free Trade in the nineteenth century. In every country where manufacturers discuss Free Trade, they have in mind chiefly Free Trade in corn or raw material generally. To burden foreign corn with protective duties is infamous, it is to speculate on the hunger of the people.

Cheap food, high wages, for this alone the English Free Traders have spent millions, and their enthusiasm has already infected their Continental brethren. And, generally speaking, all those who advocate Free Trade do so in the interests of the working class.'

But, strange to say, the people for whom cheap food is to be procured at all costs are very ungrateful. Cheap food is as ill reputed in England as is cheap government in France. The people see in these self-sacrificing gentlemen, in Bowring, Bright & Co., their worst enemies and the most shameless hypocrites.

Everyone knows that in England the struggle between Liberals and Democrats takes the name of the struggle between Free Traders and Chartists. Let us see how the English Free Traders have proved to the people the good intentions that animate them.

{p. 463} 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 presumptionm 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 universa1 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 Messrs Hope, Morse, and Greg.

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.

You believe perhaps, gentlemen, that the production of coffee and sugar is the natural destiny of the West Indies.

Two centuries ago, nature, which does not trouble itself about commerce, had planted neither sugar-cane nor coffee trees there. And it may be that in less than half a century you will find there neither coffee nor sugar, for the East Indies, by means of cheaper production, have already successfully broken down this so-called natural destiny of the West Indies.

And the West Indies, with their natural wealth, are as heavy a burden for England as the weavers of Dacca, who also were destined from the beginning of time to weave by hand.

One other circumstance must not be forgotten, namely that, just as everything has become a monopoly, there are also nowadays some branches of industry which prevail over all others, and secure to the nations which especially foster them the command of the market of the world. Thus in the commerce of the world cotton alone has much greater commercial importance than all the other raw materials used in the manufacture of clothing. It is truly ridiculous for the Free Traders to refer to the few specialties in each branch of industry, throwing them into the balance against the product used in everyday consumption, and produced most cheaply in those countries in which manufacture is most highly developed.

If the Free Traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same

{p. 465} gentlemen also refuse to understand how in the same country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another.

Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticising freedom of commerce we have the least intention of defending Protection.

One may be opposed to constitutionalism without being in favor of absolutism.

Moreover, 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.

First published in French as a pamphlet at the beginning of February 1848

Signed: Karl Marx {end}

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/classwar.html

[active_indolent]

Thanks CrackSmokeRepublican
Interesting reading.
The same "divide and conquer" strategy as always conducted by this group. Every social construct that holds the gentile together has to be broken so that they never act in harmony and are easy to lead in the "right" direction. Being the cause of the problem and then come up with a solution – them same story all over again and again. Hegelian dialectic.

Even Adams Smiths liberalism should be seen in this context. Individualism could be something beautiful were peoples separate talents and skills complement each other in building a better society. Individualism could be seen as something that bring people together, that humans are social beings that strive to help each other despite differences.  
But in Adam Smiths "liberalism" make us believe  that individualism equals selfishness, greed and competition. Instead of unite people individualism becomes something useful for their "divide and conquer" strategy so they can lead us as cattle with Hegelian dialectic.

The same with the concept of government. It can be seen as a social invention that can be good or bad, it can be seen as something that repress individualism or it can be seen as a tool for individuals to share, develop and complement each other. Ultraliberalism and anarkism are useful tools to give people the impression that government is inherently evil and should be avoided. This leaves government arena to this group all by them selfs. Because jews see each other  as social beings, they stick together, they see individualism as something that promote their goals as a group.

 The important thing for them is that we fight each other and never unite in any form.