Doug's question is two fold: Will the current regime of trade accelerate the gobbling up of the earth? Will those who have been written off by the Neo-Spencerian assholes who own the planet rise up and reclaim their birthright and evolutionary heritage.
>From the time of Fredrich List, sensitive economists have known that free
trade has really been a code word for mercantilist motives. Liberty and the
desire for advantage are incompatible cognitive stances towards other
societies, advantage being the desire to exploit the OTHER's ability to
trust. Competitive advantage is the Prisoner's Dilemma working itself out
on the biosphere.
http://ccmail.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/SPATIALP.HTM
Ian Murray Seattle, WA People for a Fair Trade Policy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 9:22 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: MAI mk2 - Int'l Network to Stage Protests in Seattle
> USagainst WTO
>
>
> D.L. wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that Marxists, particularly Marxists in and around the
> >Seattle area, should come up with something a little better than a
> >demonstration by workers on antiquated capitals against free trade. Free
> >trade, as such, is something that socialism would clearly foster, if it
> >could. What we protest against is capitalism, not markets, not
> free trade,
> >not industrial development, and it is time to say that.
>
> The conclusion to Marx's 1848 speech on free trade:
>
> "If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the
> expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also
> refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at
> the expense of another.
>
> Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of trade
> we have the
> least intention of defending the system of protection.
>
> One may declare oneself an enemy of the constitutional regime without
> declaring oneself a friend of the ancient regime.
>
> Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing
> large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it
> dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon
> the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence
> upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free
> trade competition within a country. 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 government, as a
> means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of
> free trade within the same country.
>
> But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while
> the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and
> pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to
> the extreme
> point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It
> is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of
> free trade."
>
> Doug
>