NationStates Jolt Archive

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

I'm guessing that this is a loaded question...

...However, I'm against protectionism, so don't start putting words in my mouth for that statement.

First, since when do socialism and protectionism go hand in hand? I'm pretty radically socialist politically, but generally I'm not particularly fond of protectionism--especially when used by developed nations. That does not mean, of course, that I am particularly fond of capitalist globalization as it has been practiced.

Second, in response to your question I was going to reference limited flexibility--workers and capital can't always be shifted with ease to their optimum position within the global market--but I'm not sure if that qualifies... you could always assert that "all parties" means absolutely everyone (individuals instead of nations), in which case no, protectionism never meets that standard. But, then, the same is undoubtedly true of free trade.

Yeah, free trade also didn't benefit all...
Farmer in my country, for example.
(PS: What created by human, aren't perfect...)

Protectionism =/= Socialism

This thread fails

True...
It is only propaganda by the Evil Capitalists. Don't believe them!
LOL…
Anyway, I too don’t believe in Free Trade. Yeah, I am an Islamist-Socialist. I’ve seen many discrimination against poor people. (Because of Corruption, or Capitalist morale?) And, my country isn’t ready for all-out economical warfare.
PS: It seems that U.S.A. and Malaysian market is falling. This is time for us to take over! Hurrah for the Melayu Islands!

I'm a socialist and strongly supportive of free trade.

'All parties', I assume you mean the foreign bourgeois states...

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

why?

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

It isn't supposed to benefit all parties, it's supposed to protect your particular nation's industries.

For many more paralysingly obvious answers to silly questions about economics, try studying the subject.

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.Ask a monarchist. They're the ones into mercantilism.

well there is all the Green localization of resources thing which basically aims to stop the race to the bottom whilst cutting to a minimum international shipping pollution (aiming to kill dead the elevators being assembled around the world)

I could go further but I only got halfway through the book :p

As has been pointed out, protectionism isn't socialism.
However, there are instances where protectionism can be useful (but they are rare).

How about the case of a small agrarian country made up of mostly poor farmers? Cheap food is entering the market, threatening to put most of these farmers out of business. If a tariff is put onto the imported food, the farmers can stay in business (remember they make up most of the population) and have a little bit of money left over to support the small number of non-farming industries in the nation.

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.
It doesn't. See the US.

15 replies without a peep from the OP. At what point can we officially confirm this was a troll looking to start a flamewar?

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

Protectionism cannot benefit all parties, but socialism is not concerned with that.

EDIT: At least the socialism that this is directed at.

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

Protectionism usually comes from mercantalists (who tend to be monarchist or nationalist, due to the whole "my nation/my ruler should get the most benefit), greedy and lazy capitalists (Who don't want to bother making a good product, but want to keep selling their stuff in a market where they have a monopoly) or socialists who are mercantalist, in which case they're usually the nationalist kind (but not nazis, because however much their name may be national socialists, they were fascists... nationalists, yes, socialist... not so much).

Aaaand in all of those cases that I can think of, it's not even supposed to benefit all parties.

Which is why I, as part of the vague term of the left, do not generally support protectionism, except in very exceptional circumstances (local food production is important, though it needn't be entirely self-sufficient, for example).

This thread sucks more than your mum

15 replies without a peep from the OP. At what point can we officially confirm this was a troll looking to start a flamewar?
He hasn't gotten a single person to accept his premise. Also, weird thing for a lurker to do.

Thus ends my 2 (two) random observations.

To begin with exactly what is the questions "Socialist"? Generally it is accepted as a person who advocates a society that is trangressing into the state of classical Communism but it is too all embracing a word to be used in such a complex question. I personally here will be a little more precise and consider the question to be aimed at the modern, democratic Socialist who generally make up the majority. These people, me being one, wish to achaive a classless society, equality and occasionally public ownership (which I do not particularly see as neccesery and indeed would argue that it could even create a state-corporation, but thats a whole other question).

Well I guess the way to first answer this question is to ask "Why bother to actually help all parties?". Surely a "Socialist" nation would care little about protecting the "parties" in other capitalist nations. Therefore protectionism would only be required to protect the citizens of the one nation, a "Socialism in on nation" sort of a concept, as the concept was so elegantly put by a certain, dictator.

Secondly exactly who benefits from the wonders of free trade??? Would the farmer be happy trading on a market flooded with cheap imports from transnational corporations? Generally the concept of "Free trade" wholly benefits corporations though in the common day people seem to misread this as trade that benefits the worker, where the profit goes to the people who produce the product this however is not the case. I personally consider it stange taht the phrase "free trade" was adopted by charities fighting for this "charitable salesmanship" as when explained I beleve most who support the charities would be against the actual concept.

So who benefits from trade limitations??? The answer is very complex to the average socialist. Trade sanctions and tariffs can produce good effects for both indevidual buisiness-persons and large corporations them and those who dont for example a tarriff imports of chicken helps the individual, free-range farmer and corporation that owns 50 battery farms.

So whats the answer??? Adopting free trade is not an option, what is desired is a medium. With rules such as with products that are greatly despired but rarely produced should be imported with low tarriffs (so as to promote there production, if at all possible) and those that are produced above demands should simply not be permitted to be imported. What is desired is a system that both helps the individual, small buisinesses, produces products that are indemand and at prices that are affordable by all citizens of a nation. Thusly everyone in society benefits.

And how is this desirable to a modern, democratic socialist? The modern, democratic Socialist would not want to destroy buisiness and competion merly limit the powers of transnational, over dominant corporations as well as any other "big buisiness" which consider citizans as "Human Resources" rather than humans. Individual small-level buisinesses could operate much more freely and with the increased job market diversity there would likely be an increase in wage (though of course minimum wage would not be thrown out).

So to conclude, another lead weight on the ascent to Communism is dropped (the corporation), equality in oportunity is greatly increased and the distinguishment between Classes is minimized. And there you have it everyone in the nation has benefitted and protectionism has in essence enforced Socialism whilst aiding every "party" within said nation. Protectionism therefore benifits everone, whislt parhaps even helping the global market, ofcourse this would depend on a socialist buisiness practice.

15 replies without a peep from the OP. At what point can we officially confirm this was a troll looking to start a flamewar?

Rather benign idea for a war to flamewar over.

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

That's not really socialist...it can be, of course.

But to turn the question on its head, how does free trade benefit the US, looking at how China is sucking the jobs out of the country?

on the consumer nation. Take China and the U.S. or Mexico and the U.S. or Malaysia and the U.S. With no restrictions on the goods coming out of these countries the burden falls on the U.S. for all inspection and testing of goods coming in.

For many years, consumers in the U.S. could feel confident that the food and other goods they purchased met certain standards of quality. Americans counted on the FDA guidelines being enforced to protect against harmful contents. Those protections were enforced by required testing during production.

With free trade, those guidelines are not extended to other countries. Huge amounts of food and other goods come into the U.S. that have been produced under who knows what conditions. The FDA does not have the resources to inspect all of these goods in addition to inspecting goods produced in the U.S. The cost to the U.S. taxpayer of expanding the FDA large enough to inspect them at the receiving end would be exhorbitant.

Thus we have lead paint in children's toys, anti-freeze in pet food, eColi in ground beef and broccoli, etc. None of which were caught until they had been purchased and consumed by Americans for some time.

He hasn't gotten a single person to accept his premise. Also, weird thing for a lurker to do.

Thus ends my 2 (two) random observations.

Rather benign idea for a war to flamewar over.

I never said he was good at trolling.:D

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

ok, I'm a libertarian, but I'll give this a shot.

Protectionism is good for national defense, which is in turn good for everyone.

Some protected industries in America are the ball-bearing industry, the corn industry and jet-fighter industry (Lockheed, Boeing, etc.) Now if we decided to export all of those industries to China, and then a war broke out, assuming trade between the U.S. and China broke down, our troops would have no airplanes, no cars and no food. Exporting industries crucial to national defense seriously compromises our national defense. So assuming national defense is good for everyone, protectionism has its place within our economy to a certain degree.

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.
Every single industrialised capitalist state that exists or has ever existed has used some form of protectionism.

So I don’t see why the question should be directed towards socialists only.

First, since when do socialism and protectionism go hand in hand?


"...and the government extracts trade concessions from poor nations in exchange for humanitarian aid."

"Political Freedoms: Unheard Of"

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=the_kurtish_republic
(Accessed January 26, 2008 at 11:22 PM GMT)

Socialists are naturally opposed to the exploitation of the poor by wealthy developed nations. Of course, the key to stopping such exploitation is to make a voluntary market choice, chiefly by choosing to not conduct business with those who plan simply to exploit. In the context of international trade, however, this choice requires collective action; somekind of social action, or socialism. State capitalists (including the OP) deny the existence or legitimacy of collective social choice because such a choice makes their exploitation more difficult or impossible, therefore they conclude that the poor nation's collective market choice must be the result of some anti-market "protectionist" scheme.

Therefore, between the ears of a state capitalist, "protectionism" is socialism.

Naturally, the state capitalist's conclusion is invalid because of a flawed premise. Collective social choice does exist, can be legitimate, and, when legitimate, can be put to the use of exercising voluntary market choice. Thus, a collective social choice that does not favor the interests of the state capitalist is no more "protectionism" than is my individual choice of one loaf of bread over another at the grocery store.

Well decades ago the bourgeois were very nationalistic, and the bourgeois nations competed with each other and use protectionism, these days the nature of the bourgeois has drastically changed, they are now a transnational entity and 'free trade' means that national borders are no longer the dividing lines but no firms must intensely compete with each other all over the world, and the only way to compete is to find cheaper labor, to drive down wages and conditions to increase productivity.

Decades ago the bourgeois states felt threatened during the Depression and the rise of the workers' movements, they therefore conceded to welfare and 'New Deal' provisions to keep the workers in line, these days however the bourgeois dictatorship feels much more confident in their position, and as such pushes deregulation, neoliberalism etc, this was embodied by Thatcher and Reagan. It's class struggle 101 really, the main challenge is getting the workers to understand how unfair and undignified wage labor really is, how the bourgeois don't build capital, they build nothing, and are parasites upon the workers. Once the workers realize their own power, they can openly seize their productive capacity as their own.

I think most people know that 'free trade' doesn't benefit the common people, it does exactly what if was designed for, to concentrate global capital into the hands of the transnational bourgeois.

*snip*

OK, stipulated. I suspect you're pretty much spot-on on much of that, but here's a question: Let's say for the sake of arguement that there is another Communist revolution. How would the country in question keep from becoming another brutally repressive police-state dictatorship like the USSR or the PRC? History would seem to indicate that dictatorship, or something worse like Cambodia's "Killing Fields", is inevitable.

Why does socialism have anything to do with free trade? If anything, free trade would be necessary for the implementation of socialism or else there would be artificial barriers preventing the fair distribution of resources around the world.

OK, stipulated. I suspect you're pretty much spot-on on much of that, but here's a question: Let's say for the sake of arguement that there is another Communist revolution. How would the country in question keep from becoming another brutally repressive police-state dictatorship like the USSR or the PRC? History would seem to indicate that dictatorship, or something worse like Cambodia's "Killing Fields", is inevitable.
I sense that you buy into most of the anti-communist propaganda then? Pol Pot was very crazy, but he was no Marxist, and neither was Mao, both were agrarian primitivists who wanted to revert humanity back to some real or perceived rural communalism in the past, thus Mao's 'back to the countryside' and Pol Pot's agrarian 'reforms'. To the issue of the USSR, I tend not to look at it in terms of absolutes and ultimates of what was 'bad' and 'good', I think after Stalin's death and the defeat of the no-party democratic state and it's replacement by the bureaucratic party-state, that worker power was harmed severely. If you want to go into Stalin's record and other misconceptions regarding him, I will, but it's probably not the right topic for it.

My position is simply based off Marxism, and that a society run collectively by the proletariat would be the most progressive and modern state because it would both capture the productive forces of modern industrial labor (which capitalism also does), but it would also get rid of the bourgeois state, the instrument that holds back the workers and leeches off their productivity.

I think the OP is thinking of protectionism as socialism because most protectionists tend to be members of either socialist movements or in the past associated with socialist movements (i.e. unions).

As for why a socialist would want to be protectionist EA struck it right on the head. Though of course the crazy paranoid socialists would hate protectionism just as much because they would say it's another way for the elites to have power. Good socialists just hate whatever the mainstream likes and call it capitalist and a way to instrument oppression.

This is probably why I'm a socialist.

I think the OP is thinking of protectionism as socialism because most protectionists tend to be members of either socialist movements or in the past associated with socialist movements (i.e. unions).

Like Pat Buchanan?

I actually don't see much advocacy of protectionism coming from the Left, at least when it comes to policy proposals... you hear a lot about labor and environmental protections (and new priorities and approaches more broadly), but not much about instituting tariffs.

I swear if people actually even gave the cursory read to the Communist Manifesto their would be alot less meaningless statements on socialism around NSG.

Like Pat Buchanan?

I actually don't see much advocacy of protectionism coming from the Left, at least when it comes to policy proposals... you hear a lot about labor and environmental protections (and new priorities and approaches more broadly), but not much about instituting tariffs.

Maybe this is what the OP meant. He hasn't bothered to return though, so we'll never know for sure.

I think after Stalin's death and the defeat of the no-party democratic state No-party other than the Communist Party, you mean.

I sense that you buy into most of the anti-communist propaganda then?

Your senses need fine tuning, then.

Pol Pot was very crazy, but he was no Marxist, and neither was Mao, both were agrarian primitivists who wanted to revert humanity back to some real or perceived rural communalism in the past, thus Mao's 'back to the countryside' and Pol Pot's agrarian 'reforms'.

None of which justifies the mass deaths at their command.

To the issue of the USSR, I tend not to look at it in terms of absolutes and ultimates of what was 'bad' and 'good', I think after Stalin's death and the defeat of the no-party democratic state and it's replacement by the bureaucratic party-state, that worker power was harmed severely. If you want to go into Stalin's record and other misconceptions regarding him, I will, but it's probably not the right topic for it.

It was also harmed by Stalin's purges.

My position is simply based off Marxism, and that a society run collectively by the proletariat would be the most progressive and modern state because it would both capture the productive forces of modern industrial labor (which capitalism also does), but it would also get rid of the bourgeois state, the instrument that holds back the workers and leeches off their productivity.

I understand the theory. I suspect you, like many here in the US, have a hard time distinguishing between an economic system and a political system; you just do it in the other direction. I have no problem with socialism. Unchecked capitalism is, IMO, a bad thing. What I object to is the lack of democracy and freedom in every Communist nation that has ever existed (please don't use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and claim they weren't really Communist. I understand Marx's progression from capitalisn to socialism to true communism, I was using the word in its common usage).

It isn't supposed to benefit all parties, it's supposed to protect your particular nation's industries.

For many more paralysingly obvious answers to silly questions about economics, try studying the subject.

I never stated that socialism = protectionism, I know that and I see how I was misinterpreted.

Don't accuse me of knowing nothing about economics, the reason I asked this question was to show that no one can think of a reason where free trade benefits anyone.

I never stated that socialism = protectionism, I know that and I see how I was misinterpreted.

Don't accuse me of knowing nothing about economics, the reason I asked this question was to show that no one can think of a reason where free trade benefits anyone.

Whta?

Well decades ago the bourgeois were very nationalistic, and the bourgeois nations competed with each other and use protectionism, these days the nature of the bourgeois has drastically changed, they are now a transnational entity and 'free trade' means that national borders are no longer the dividing lines but no firms must intensely compete with each other all over the world, and the only way to compete is to find cheaper labor, to drive down wages and conditions to increase productivity.

Decades ago the bourgeois states felt threatened during the Depression and the rise of the workers' movements, they therefore conceded to welfare and 'New Deal' provisions to keep the workers in line, these days however the bourgeois dictatorship feels much more confident in their position, and as such pushes deregulation, neoliberalism etc, this was embodied by Thatcher and Reagan. It's class struggle 101 really, the main challenge is getting the workers to understand how unfair and undignified wage labor really is, how the bourgeois don't build capital, they build nothing, and are parasites upon the workers. Once the workers realize their own power, they can openly seize their productive capacity as their own.

I think most people know that 'free trade' doesn't benefit the common people, it does exactly what if was designed for, to concentrate global capital into the hands of the transnational bourgeois.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/LOLCat/128289054028715000bourgeoisiecat.jpg

15 replies without a peep from the OP. At what point can we officially confirm this was a troll looking to start a flamewar?
No. I have posted questions before without replying for extended periods. Someone who hovers over their threads like some helicopter mom has no life or other interests. Remember to take all things in moderation, even NSG.

Also, just to confirm, I use 'bourgeois' and not 'capitalist' because bourgeois is far more descriptive and evokes Marx's theory of them.

Your senses need fine tuning, then.
Well whether you mean too or not, by only accepting the 'mainstream' line regarding communism you are doing your own knowledge a disservice. Whether you learnt it at school or wherever, you would be best to find more informative sources rather than using absolute ultimates to judge everything, ie 'Stalin was evil', information is key here, so in circumstance etc. You would do best to develop for yourself a more factual account of such things.



None of which justifies the mass deaths at their command.
Actually my stance is pretty Marxist, the PRC under Mao and Cambodia were never a dictatorship of the proletariat simply because of the fact that the proletariat was never a numerous or powerful group in either countries. Both were overwhelmingly peasant and both leaders encouraged this with their primitivism ideology, Maoism (which a radical variant was adopted by Pot) was moreover a rural liberation movement.

Stalin on the other hand increased the power of the proletariat by foremost increasing their number to the vast majority of the Soviet population, the collectivist urban population exploded under Stalin and the productive capacity was increased massively. As for lies and misconceptions regarding Stalin, I do not really want to go into it fully here, but I would encourage you to read these very well sourced works regarding Stalin:
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html


I understand the theory. I suspect you, like many here in the US, have a hard time distinguishing between an economic system and a political system; you just do it in the other direction. I have no problem with socialism. Unchecked capitalism is, IMO, a bad thing. What I object to is the lack of democracy and freedom in every Communist nation that has ever existed (please don't use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and claim they weren't really Communist. I understand Marx's progression from capitalisn to socialism to true communism, I was using the word in its common usage).
Well again, your making more 'ultimates', it's this 'all or nothing' approach that I have seen so much applied to the history of communism. I suggest you don't use pro-bourgeois sources as your basis of argument, or rather for your misconceptions.

Tell me how protectionism (anit-free trade) can be used in a case which benefits all parties.

Excuse me, I don't think you should ask this to socialist alone. Through history, free trade has been blocked by liberists, too.
Easy example... USA, the champion of free trade (they say).
1.the USA enforces an embargo against Cuba (which the USA themselves recognise as an independent country). This means, the USA prevent another country from accessing free trade.
2.the USA charge huge import fees on goods coming from other country. I could give you the example of the fees charged on italian foods, they can reach 100% of the value (this means that the consumer price in the USA doubles).

So?

Protectionism </= socialism.

I never stated that socialism = protectionism, I know that and I see how I was misinterpreted.

No, you weren't misinterpreted - you expressed yourself in a manner which invited that interpretation.


Don't accuse me of knowing nothing about economics,

Whyever not?


the reason I asked this question was to show that no one can think of a reason where free trade benefits anyone.

That makes no sense. People are already dismissing you as a troll - if you wish to make a point then please do so.


Easy example... USA, the champion of free trade (they say).
1.the USA enforces an embargo against Cuba (which the USA themselves recognise as an independent country). This means, the USA prevent another country from accessing free trade.
2.the USA charge huge import fees on goods coming from other country. I could give you the example of the fees charged on italian foods, they can reach 100% of the value (this means that the consumer price in the USA doubles).


More than that, the USA was a pioneer of modern protectionism. In the US' early history, their economy was heavily dependent on it.