I don't think that 'the worse, the better' is Marx's central point. His opposition to protectionism was pretty straight forward. The anti-corn law league were more progressive than the landowners, who sought protection at the expense of the working class.
It was always the case that Marx sought the clarification of the opposition of proletariat and bourgeoisie by resolving all those questions of democratic rights that preoccupied the artisan working class. He writes similarly upon political representation and so on.
Contrary to Max's other posting I would say that we should oppose protectionism today, but not on the exactly the same grounds as Marx. Protectionism suggests an identification with the national capital as opposed to foreign competitors. But, as Lenin would say, the main enemy is at home. It is not foreign goods that are putting workers on the bread line, but domestic bosses.
Obviously the slogan 'free trade' is not one to be supported - not as long as it rests upon a monopoly over the means of production. But protectionism ought to be opposed.
The US working class, I read, in Scientific American is substantially replenished with immigrant labour. I see no basis for identifying with US (or British) industry as against foreign. Now more than ever, workers have no country.
In message <006101bf0897$eddc87c0$d818c897 at bellatlantic.net>, Max
Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> writes
>Tom Dickins:
>> I know this speech by Marx has come up here (or pen-l) before so I hate to
>> rehash it. But Marx's support for free trade is explicitly based on the
>> immiseration of the proletariat thesis--that the
>> concentration/centralization of capital will bring about social revolution
>. . .
>
>mbs: Context aside for a second, I'd say this is not one of Marx's better
>moments. His closing remark boils down to "the worse, the better." But
>worse does not necessarily lead to better; it can lead to worse yet.
>
>I'd like to second TD's remark about the relative reasibility of union
>organizing in manufacturing, hence its strategic political importance. It
>may also have a strategic economic importance by propping up labor standards
>and exerting some pull on service sector wages.
>
>Whatever the drawbacks of manufacturing work, the potential pay premium
>seems to be enough for workers to figure out where their best interests lie.
>As things stand, the Dems are abandoning these people to Buchanan. Let the
>centrists babble about education, having eight different careers in a
>lifetime, or improving service sector jobs. Let the greens vent about
>alternative technology. Lefts can fantasize about revolution in the
>periphery. Buchanan is going to be speaking directly to workers who
>understand that is all hooey, and there is one guy who wants to *protect*
>the jobs they want, the jobs their fathers had that enabled them to make a
>life from the humblest origins.
>
>mbs
>
>
-- Jim heartfield