Why Free Trade Agreements Aren't Free 

Found it: libcom.org/library/on-free-trade-karl-marx

The natural progression from unlimited competition is the concentration of capital. Market competition is a zero-sum game; there is a winner and a loser. Not only that, but often times, the winner is rewarded with resources that give her/him competitive advantages for future clashes. Without a very stringent regulatory apparatus (which "free market" advocates strongly oppose), the tendency of the market is to monopolize over time. It is a logical conclusion to how competition works. If we imagine a tournament bracket, there are winners and losers, but ultimately, there is one person who comes out on top. Obviously in the market this occurs over a long period of time, but the general dynamics are essentially the same. The biggest difference is that in a chess tournament, the top five players do not collect any kind of advantages for future competitions, whereas on the market, companies that win out normally acquire greater shares of their respective markets or are able to branch out into new industries to build their overall economic power. So, yes, you are right in saying that today's capitalism is not about competition, but rather about monopolies. However, there is nothing anomalous or unnatural about that. The monopolies of today are the products of yesterday's unlimited competition.

The fact that cronyism exists is not just because of the state. Certain components of free-market capitalism will naturally lead to the development of cronyism. If you have a system in which the means of production are operated collectively, but owned privately, the value created by the collective during the labor process will be appropriated by the private owner. The capitalist mode of production requires that wealth be continuously pumped upwards, and accumulated by the bosses. In short, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Free market capitalism requires that class division will be perpetuated on a systematic basis. There will be economic inequality under a capitalist mode of production, and this means there will be competing class interests. The capitalist class of private owners will have a vested interest in retaining private ownership of the means of production, and the consequent economic inequality, whereas the working class will have an economic interest in abolishing private ownership of the means of production, and getting rid of the consequent economic inequality. Unless the capitalist class act directly against their own interest, they must establish ways of protecting their class position from the working class and consolidating economic privilege in the long term. Establishing a state apparatus to act in their interests with a monopoly on the use of violence that is perceived to be legitimate is an excellent way of doing that, even if it results in a deviation from market principles. The institutions created under free market capitalism have a greater economic interest in power consolidation than actually having a free market system. This is why crony capitalism exists. I should also add that I find the right-wing libertarian position on this issue disingenuous in certain respects. I don't like how they boldly declare that the economic problems in the world are all because we live under cronyism/corporatism or whatever, and then go on to say that all of the prosperity in the world comes from free markets. It always amazes me capitalist shills never actually know the definition of "capitalism" and "socialism". "Capitalism" is turned into some airy-fairy bullshit about "free markets" and "voluntary transactions" when the term "capitalism" has always referred to the mode of production and the commodity, social and labour relations that arise for it, which is why it can quite easily be said that capitalism was born in the year 1834 which was when all these relations come together to form capitalism as a system. If "free trade" is capitalism, then market socialism and feudalism would be capitalism too. All of these systems can engage in trade in a market. This is why it's near impossible to argue with propertarians, ancaps, etc. When they talk about capitalism, they are talking about some idealistic fantasy that doesn't actually exist, nor does it explain anything and is completely malleable to the debate at hand. None of them are arguing in good faith, because then they would actually have to address criticisms to issues that are inherent to capitalism as a system, which is something propertarians, ancaps and mainstream economists have been bolting from since the early 20th century, which then goes into the interesting history of why sociology was largely decoupled from economics as a school when they were highly integrated in the 19th and early 20th century.

@@seedee3d Complete rubbish that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer under capitalism. You're mistaking inequality for poverty.

@@R3tr0v1ru5 Wages in the first world have literally been stagnant for several decades. Since GDP has dramatically grown in that time, the poor are literally getting poorer. In the third world, some poor people are getting richer, this is notably happening in countries that do not follow a free market model. China is responsible for the overwhelming majority of people lifted out of poverty, and any bourgeois economist will tell you that China is most assuredly not a free market economy; not even in the loosest sense of the term.

That's because capitalism's promise of innovation and competition is a lie.

Yes.

Yes!

No

The billionaires funding the politicians and talking heads

Did you watch the video?

Lol "not unregulated"

@@510tuberHow are Nafta and EU trade laws "unregulated"? they assuredly are...

While I respect your points, let's unpack this from a different perspective. The issue with FTAs isn't actually that they don't create jobs, facilitate investment, or make trade easier, all of which may be true. But they often benefit capital (big business and finance) more than labour (workers). That's a classic Marx critique: capital exploiting labour. Yes, property rights do exist independently, but FTAs can actually alter who benefits most from those rights. Regarding 'unregulated capital flow', that doesn't actually imply that there are no regulations at all, but it does critique the adequacy and fairness of these regulations. You also talk about the benefits of cheaper goods from abroad during a financial crisis. True, though I would argue that the reason those goods are cheap is often due to lower wages and poorer working conditions in those countries. That's the inherent inequity of capitalism. And your argument that investors don't withdraw investments doesn't, in fact, always hold. Capital is actually mobile, especially in this global economy, and can be moved quickly to find cheaper labour and resources. The challenge for us is to articulate this without negating the efficiencies and advantages of international trade, and to do so in a way that people get. I think we should also ask ourselves: are these agreements making the working class more powerful, or are they further strengthening the capitalists?

You forgot the part where person A has all the food, and puts an unreasonable price on the apple

@@matteoferro4599 and why would a person have all the food to begin with if it's not for government involvement? You Commies never ask the important questions.

@@matteoferro4599 I can price things how ever I wish, a positive price or a negative price, I could charge different people different prices or make the price of all products equal, or better yet, it's not even up for sale.

@richierich8245 when you have a free market, monopolies form that work exactly like that

@@matteoferro4599 such economic illiteracy🤣, all monopolies are formed by government granted privileges. What free market do you even speak of? There is no such thing as a free market so long as the state exists.

I study it daily and don't think you do.

@@510tuber name 10 books

Or a lot of other countries, I really just came to this video because I wanted to see what the Marxist opinion about Free Trade Agreements is, for a debate. It's "incredible" How a lot of people are defending it, and those are the same who say that they want no governments and a free world where everyone is each other brothers. But what they really want is to close the economic borders and people to become more Nationalists. The Free Markets, are the ones who keep the improvement in a lot of developing countries for example like Chile, where they are well managed.

Clearly you didn't comprehend the video at all, yet still felt compelled to blibber about it nonetheless.

@@thewickedwitchofse8998 Oh mighty intellectual, Oh mighty intellectual, please explain that which my small Brexit and Trump supporting brain could not fathom?

@@roland20002000 if you support Trump, there is literally no sense in explaining anything to you. You have made a choice that is so intellectually dishonest that you are a lost cause. Move on.

Jefferson's views on patents should not surprise those who are aware of his views about democracy and equality. He opposed patents strongly because he considered it an unfair monopoly. He would later become more in their favor when he discovered the power they had to encourage invention. But he suggested what actually became law a 7 year limit after which things entered the public domain. Now we have a completely irrational patent law system that merely favors monopolists, not innovation, productivity, equality, fairness, humanity and development. A good current example was Covid 19 patent rules. The public paid 90% for them and Big Pharma would not even distribute to the 3rd world. Instead the advertised boosters which were unnecessary to squeeze more money from wealthy nations. With a much more serious pandemic with a high death rate, Pharma patents are inhumane genocide and irrational as virus can mutate and re-infect 1st world nations. But this example is just the tip of the irrational outcome iceberg.