Works of Karl Marx 1848

Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848 [246]

On the Question of Free Trade

Gentlemen,

The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph
of free trade in the 19th century. In every country where manufacturers
talk of free trade, they have in mind chiefly free trade in corn and raw
materials in general. To impose protective duties on foreign corn is infamous,
it is to speculate on the famine of peoples.

Cheap food, high wages, this is the sole aim for which English
free-traders have spent millions, and their enthusiasm has already spread
to their brethren on the Continent. Generally speaking, those who wish
for free trade desire it in order to alleviate the condition 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-esteemed in England
as cheap government is in France. The people see in these self-sacrificing
gentlemen, in Bowring, Bright and 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 now see how the English free-traders have proved to the
people the good intentions that animate them.

This is what they said to the factory workers:

"The duty levied on corn is a tax upon wages; this tax you pay to the
landlords, those medieval aristocrats; if your position is wretched one,
it is on account of the dearness of the immediate necessities of life."

The workers in turn asked the manufacturers:

"How is it that in the course of the last 30 years, while our industry
has undergone the greatest development, our wages have fallen far more
rapidly, in proportion, than the price of corn has gone up?

"The tax which you say we pay the landlords is about 3 pence a
week per worker. And yet the wages of the hand-loom weaver fell, between
1815 and 1843, from 28s. per week to 5s., and the wages of the power-loom
weavers, between 1823 and 1843, from 20s. per week to 8s.

"And during the whole of this period that portion of the tax which
we paid to the landlord has never exceeded 3 pence. And, then in the year
1834, when bread was very cheap and business going on very well, what did
you tell us? You said, 'If you are unfortunate, it is because you have
too many children, and your marriages are more productive than your labor!'

"These are the very words you spoke to us, and you set about making
new Poor Laws, and building work-houses, the Bastilles of the proletariat."

To this the manufacturer replied:

"You are right, worthy laborers; it is not the price of corn alone,
but competition of the hands among themselves as well, which determined
wages.

"But ponder well one thing, namely, that our soil consists only
of rocks and sandbanks. You surely do not imagine that corn can be grown
in flower-pots. So if, instead of lavishing our capital and our labor upon
a thoroughly sterile soil, we were to give up agriculture, and devote ourselves
exclusively to industry, all Europe would abandon its factories, and England
would form one huge factory town, with the whole of the rest of Europe
for its countryside."

While thus haranguing his own workingmen, the manufacturer is interrogated
by the small trader, who says to him:

"If we repeal the Corn Laws, we shall indeed ruin agriculture; but
for all that, we shall not compel other nations to give up their own factories
and buy from ours.

"What will the consequence be? I shall lose the customers that
I have at present in the country, and the home trade will lose its market."

The manufacturer, turning his back upon the workers, replies to the shopkeeper:

"As to that, you leave it to us! Once rid of the duty on corn, we shall
import cheaper corn from abroad. Then we shall reduce wages at the very
time when they rise in the countries where we get out corn.

"Thus in addition to the advantages which we already enjoy we
shall also have that of lower wages and, with all these advantage, we shall
easily force the Continent to buy from us."

But now the farmers and agricultural laborers join in the discussion.

"And what, pray, is to become of us?

"Are we going to pass a sentence of death upon agriculture, from
which we get our living? Are we to allow the soil to be torn from beneath
our feet?"

As its whole answer, the Anti-Corn Law League has contented itself with
offering prizes for the three best essays upon the wholesome influence
of the repeal of the Corn Laws on English agriculture.

These prizes were carried off by Messrs. Hope, Morse, and Greg,
whose essays were distributed in thousands of copies throughout the countryside.

The first of the prize-winners devotes himself to proving that
neither the tenant farmer nor the agricultural laborer will lose by the
free importation of foreign corn, but only the landlord.

"The English tenant farmer," he exclaims, "need not fear the repeal
of the Corn Laws, because no other country can produce such good corn so
cheaply as England.

"Thus, even if the price of corn fell, it would not hurt you,
because this fall would only affect rent, which would go down, and not
at all industrial profit and wages, which would remain stationary."

The second prize-winner, Mr. Morse, maintains, on the contrary, that the
price of corn will rise in consequence of repeal. He takes infinite pains
to prove that protective duties nave never been able to secure a remunerative
price for corn.

In support for his assertion, he cites the fact that, whenever
foreign corn has been imported, the price of corn in England has gone up
considerably, and then when little corn has been imported, the price has
fallen extremely. This prize-winner forgets that the importation was not
the cause of the high price, but that the high price was the cause of the
importation.

And in direct contradiction to his co-prize-winner, he asserts
that every rise in the price of corn is profitable to both the tenant farmer
and the laborer, but not to the landlord.

The third prize-winner, Mr. Greg, who is a big manufacturer and
whose work is addressed to the large tenant farmers, could not hold with
such stupidities. His language is more scientific.

He admits that the Corn Laws can raise rent only by raising the
price of corn, and that they can raise the price of corn only by compelling
capital to apply itself to land of inferior quality, and this is explained
quite simply.

In proportion as population increases, if foreign corn cannot
be imported, less fertile soil has to be used, the cultivation of which
involves more expense and the product of this soil is consequently dearer.

There being a forced sale for corn, the price will of necessity
be determined by the price of the product of the most costly soil. The
difference between this price and the cost of production upon soil of better
quality constitutes the rent.

If, therefore, as a result of the repeal of the Corn Laws, the
price of corn, and consequently the rent, falls, it is because inferior
soil will no longer be cultivated. Thus, the reduction of rent must inevitably
ruin a part of the tenant farmers.

These remarks were necessary in order to make Mr. Greg's language
comprehensible.

"The small farmers," he says, "who cannot support themselves by agriculture
will find a resource in industry. As to the large tenant farmers, they
cannot fail to profit. Either the landlords will be obliged to sell them
land very cheap, or leases will be made out for very long periods. This
will enable tenant farmers to apply large sums of capital to the land,
to use agricultural machinery on a larger scale, and to save manual labor,
which will, moreover, be cheaper, on account of the general fall in wages,
the immediate consequences of the repeal of the Corn Laws."

Dr. Browning conferred upon all these arguments the consecration of religion,
by exclaiming at a public meeting,

"Jesus Christ is Free Trade, and Free Trade is Jesus Christ."

One can understand that all this hypocrisy was not calculated to make cheap
bread attractive to the workers.

Besides, how could the workingman understand the sudden philanthropy
of the manufacturers, the very men still busy fighting against the Ten
Hours' Bill, which was to reduce the working day of the mill hands from
12 hours to 10?

To give you an idea of the philanthropy of these manufacturers
I would remind you, gentlemen, of the factory regulations in force in all
the mills.

Every manufacturer has for his own private use a regular penal
code in which fines are laid down for every voluntary or involuntary offence.
For instance, the worker pays so much if he has the misfortune to sit down
on a chair; if he whispers, or speaks, or laughs; if he arrives a few moments
too late; if any part of the machine breaks, or he does not turn out work
of the quality desired, etc., etc. The fines are always greater than the
damage really done by the worker. And to give the worker every opportunity
for incurring fines, the factory clock is set forward, and he is given
bad raw material to make into good pieces of stuff. An overseer not sufficiently
skillful in multiplying cases of infractions or rules is discharged.

You see, gentlemen, this private legislation is enacted for the
especial purpose of creating such infractions, and infractions are manufactured
for the purpose of making money. Thus the manufacturer uses every means
of reducing the nominal wage, and of profiting even by accidents over which
the worker has no control.

These manufacturers are the same philanthropists who have tried
to make the workers believe that they were capable of going to immense
expense for the sole purpose of ameliorating their lot. Thus, on the one
hand, they nibble at the wages of the worker in the pettiest way, by means
of factory regulations, and, on the other, they are undertaking the greatest
sacrifices to raise those wages again by means of the Anti-Corn Law League.

They build great palaces at immense expense, in which the League
takes up, in some respects, its official residence; they send an army of
missionaries to all corners of England to preach the gospel of free trade;
they have printed and distributed gratis thousands of pamphlets to enlighten
the worker upon his own interests, they spend enormous sums to make the
press favorable to their cause; they organize a vast administrative system
for the conduct of the free trade movement, and they display all their
wealth of eloquence at public meetings. It was at one of these meetings
that a worker cried out:

"If the landlords were to sell our bones, you manufacturers would be
the first to buy them in order to put them through a steam-mill and make
flour of them."

The English workers have very well understood the significance of the struggle
between the landlords and the industrial capitalists. They know very well
that the price of bread was to be reduced in order to reduce wages, and
that industrial profit would rise by as much as rent fell.

Ricardo, the apostle of the English free-traders, the most eminent
economist of our century, entirely agrees with the workers upon this point.
In his celebrated work on political economy, he says:

"If instead of growing our own corn... we discover a new market from
which we can supply ourselves... at a cheaper price, wages will fall and
profits rise. The fall in the price of agricultural produce reduces the
wages, not only of the laborer employed in cultivating the soil, but also
of all those employed in commerce or manufacture."

[David Ricardo, Des principes de l'economie politique et de
l'impot.

Traduit de l'anglais par F. S. Constancio, avec des notes
explicatives et critiques par J.-B.- Say. T. I., Paris 1835, p.178-79]

And do not believe, gentlemen, that is is a matter of indifference to the
worker whether he receives only four francs on account of corn being cheaper,
when he had been receiving five francs before.

Have not his wages always fallen in comparison with profit, and
is it not clear that his social position has grown worse as compared with
that of the capitalist? Besides which he loses more as a matter of fact.

So long as the price of corn was higher and wages were also higher,
a small saving in the consumption of bread sufficed to procure him other
enjoyments. But as soon as bread is very cheap, and wages are therefore
very cheap, he can save almost nothing on bread for the purchase of other
articles.

The English workers have made the English free-traders realize
that they are not the dupes of their illusions or of their lies; and if,
in spite of this, the workers made common cause with them against the landlords,
it was for the purpose of destroying the last remnants of feudalism and
in order to have only one enemy left to deal with. The workers have not
miscalculated, for the landlords, in order to revenge themselves upon the
manufacturers, made common cause with the workers to carry the Ten Hours'
Bill, which the latter had been vainly demanding for 30 years, and which
was passed immediately after the repeal of the Corn Laws.

When Dr. Bowring, at the Congress of Economists [September 16-18,
1848; the following, among others, were present: Dr. Bowring, M.P., Colonel
Thompson, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Brown, and James Wilson, editor of the Economist],
drew from his pocket a long list to show how many head of cattle, how much
ham, bacon, poultry, etc., was imported into England, to be consumed, as
he asserted, by the workers, he unfortunately forgot to tell you that all
the time the workers of Manchester and other factory towns were finding
themselves thrown into the streets by the crisis which was beginning.

As a matter of principle in political economy, the figures of
a single year must never be taken as the basis for formulating general
laws. One must always take the average period of from six to seven years
-- a period of time during which modern industry passes through the various
phases of prosperity, overproduction, stagnation, crisis, and completes
its inevitable cycle.

Doubtless, if the price of all commodities falls -- and this is
the necessary consequence of free trade -- I can buy far more for a franc
than before. And the worker's france is as good as any other man's. Therefore,
free trade will be very advantageous to the worker. There is only little
difficulty in this, namely, that the worker, before he exchanges his franc
for other commodities, has first exchanged his labor with the capitalist.
If in this exchange he always received the said franc for the same labor
and the price of all other commodities fell, he would always be the gainer
by such a bargain. The difficult point does not lie in proving that, if
the price of all commodities falls, I will get more commodities for the
same money.

Economists always take the price of labor at the moment of its
exchange with other commodities. But they altogether ignore the moment
at which labor accomplishes its own exchange with capital.

When less expense is required to set in motion the machine which
produces commodities, the things necessary for the maintenance of this
machine, called a worker, will also cost less. If all commodities are cheaper,
labor, which is a commodity too, will also fall in price, and, as we shall
see later, this commodity, labor, will fall far lower in proportion than
the other commodities. If the worker still pins his faith to the arguments
of the economists, he will find that the franc has melted away in his pocket,
and that he has only 5 sous left.

Thereupon the economists will tell you:

"Well, we admit that competition among the workers, which will certainly
not have diminished under free trade, will very soon bring wages into harm,only
with the low price of commodities. But, on the other hand, the low price
of commodities will increase consumption, the larger consumption will require
increased production, which will be followed by a larger demand for hands,
and this larger demand for hands will be followed by a rise in wages."

The whole line of argument amounts to this: Free trade increases productive
forces. If industry keeps growing, if wealth, if the productive power,
if, in a word, productive capital increases, the demand for labor,the price
of labor, and consequently the rate of wages, rise also.

The most favorable condition for the worker is the growth of capital.
This must be admitted. If capital remains stationary, industry will not
merely remain stationary but will decline, and in this case the worker
will be the first victim. He goes to the wall before the capitalist. And
in the case where capital keeps growing, in the circumstance which we have
said are the best for the worker, what will be his lot? He will go to the
wall just the same. The growth of productive capital implies the accumulation
and the concentration of capital. The centralization of capital involves
a greater division of labor and a greater use of machinery. The greater
division of labor destroys the especial skill of the laborer; and by putting
in the place of this skilled work labor which anybody can perform, it increase
competition among the workers.

This competition becomes fiercer as the division of labor enables
a single worker to do the work of three. Machinery accomplishes the same
result on a much larger scale. The growth of productive capital, which
forces the industrial capitalists to work with constantly increasing means,
ruins the small industrialist and throws them into the proletariat. Then,
the rate of interest falling in proportion as capital accumulates, the
small rentiers, who can no longer live on their dividends, are forced to
go into industry and thus swell the number of proletarians.

Finally, the more productive capital increases, the more it is
compelled to produce for a market whose requirements it does not know,
the more production precedes consumption, the more supply tries to force
demand, and consumption crises increase in frequency and in intensity.
But every crisis in turn hastens the centralization of capital and adds
to the proletariat.

Thus, as productive capital grows, competition among the workers
grows in a far greater proportion. The reward of labor diminishes for all,
and the burden of labor increases for some.

In 1829, there were in Manchester 1,088 cotton spinners employed
in 36 factories. In 1841, there were no more than 448, and they tended
53,353 more spindles than the 1,088 spinners did in 1829. In manual labor
had increased in the same proportion as the productive power, the number
of spinners ought to have reaches the figure of 1,848; improved machinery
had, therefore, deprived 1,100 workers of employment.

We know beforehand the reply of the economists. The men thus deprived
of work, they say, will find other kinds of employment. Dr. Bowring did
not fail to reproduce this argument at the Congress of Economists, but
neither did he fail to supply his own refutation.

In 1835, Dr. Bowring made a speech in the House of Commons upon
the 50,000 hand-loom weavers of London who for a very long time had been
starving without being able to find that new kind of employment which the
free-traders hold out to them in the distance.

We will give the most striking passages of this speech of Dr.
Bowring:

"This distress of the weavers... is an incredible condition of a species
of labor easily learned -- and constantly intruded on and superseded by
cheaper means of production. A very short cessation of demand, where the
competition for work is so great... produces a crisis. The hand-loom weavers
are on the verge of that state beyond which human existence can hardly
be sustained, and a very trifling check hurls them into the regions of
starvation.... The improvements of machinery, ...by superseding manual
labor more and more, infallibly bring with them in the transition much
of temporary suffering.... The national good cannot be purchased but at
the expense of some individual evil. No advance was ever made in manufactures
but at some cost to those who are in the rear; and of all discoveries,
the power-loom is that which most directly bears on the condition of the
hand-loom weaver. He is already beaten out of the field in many articles;
he will infallibly be compelled to surrender many more."

Further on he says:

"I hold in my hand the correspondence which has taken place between
the Governor-General of India and the East-India Company, on the subject
of the Dacca hand-loom weavers.... Some years ago the East-India Company
annually received of the produce of the looms of India to the amount of
from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 of pieces of cotton goods. The demand gradually
fell to somewhat more than 1,000,000, and has now nearly ceased altogether.
In 1800, the United States took from India nearly 800,000 pieces of cotton;
in 1830, not 4,000. In 1800, 1,000,000 pieces were shipped to Portugal;
in 1830, only 20,000. Terrible were the accounts of the wretchedness of
the poor Indian weavers, reduced to absolute starvation. And what was the
sole cause? The presence of the cheaper English manufacture.... Numbers
of them dies of hunger, the remainder were, for the most part, transferred
to other occupations, principally agricultural. Not to have changed their
trade was inevitable starvation. And at this moment that Dacca district
is supplied with yarn and cotton cloth from the power-looms of England....
The Dacca muslins, celebrated over the whole world for their beauty and
fineness, are also annihilated from the same cause. And the present suffering,
to numerous classes in India, is scarcely to be paralleled in the history
of commerce."

[ Speech in the House of Commons, July 28, 1835. (Hansard, Vol.XXIX,
London 1835, pp.1168-70) ]

Dr. Bowring's speech is the more remarkable because the facts quoted by
him are exact, and the phrases with which he seeks to palliate them are
wholly characterized by the hypocrisy common to all free trade sermons.
He represents the workers as means of production which must be superseded
by less expensive means of production. He pretends to see in the labor
of which he speaks a wholly exceptional kind of labor, and in the machine
which has crushed out the weavers an equally exceptional machine. He forgets
that there is no kind of manual labor which may not any day be subjected
to the fate of the hand-loom weavers.

"It is, in fact, the constant aim and tendency of every improvement
in machine to supersede human labor altogether, or to diminish its cost
by substituting the industry of women and children for that of men; or
that of ordinary laborers for trained artisans. In most of the water-twist,
or throstle cotton-mills, the spinning is entirely managed by females of
16 years and upwards. The effect of substituting the self-acting mule for
the common mule, is to discharge the greater part of the men spinners,
and to retain adolescents and children."

[Dr. Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of Manufactures

London 1835. Book I, Chap.I, p.23]

These words of the most enthusiastic free-trader, Dr. Ure, serve to complement
the confessions of Dr. Bowring. Dr. Bowring speaks of certain individual
evils, and, at the same time, says that these individual evils destroy
whole classes; he speaks of the temporary sufferings during the transition
period, and at the very time of speaking of them, he does not deny that
these temporary evils have implied for the majority the transition from
life to death, and for the rest a transition from a better to a worse condition.
If he asserts, farther on, that the sufferings of these workers are inseparable
from the progress of industry, and are necessary to the prosperity of the
nation, he simply says that the prosperity of the bourgeois class presupposed
as necessary the suffering of the laboring class.

All the consolation which Dr. Bowring offers the workers who perish,
and, indeed, the whole doctrine of compensation which the free-traders
propound, amounts to this:

You thousands of workers who are perishing, do not despair! You
can die with an easy conscience. Your class will not perish. It will always
be numerous enough for the capitalist class to decimate it without fear
of annihilating it. Besides, how could capital be usefully applied if it
did not take care always to keep up its exploitable material, i.e., the
workers, to exploit them over and over again?

But, besides, why propound as a problem still to be solved the
question: What influence will the adoption of free trade have upon the
condition of the working class? All the laws formulated by the political
economists from Quesnay to Ricardo have been based upon the hypothesis
that the trammels which still interfere with commercial freedom have disappeared.
These laws are confirmed in proportion as free trade is adopted. The first
of these laws is that competition reduces the price of every commodity
to the minimum cost of production. Thus the minimum of wages is the natural
price of labor. And what is the minimum of wages? Just so much as is required
for production of the articles indispensable for the maintenance of the
worker, for putting him in a position to sustain himself, however badly,
and to propagate his race, however slightly.

But do not imagine that the worker receives only this minimum
wage, and still less that he always receives it.

No, according to this law, the working class will sometimes be
more fortunate. It will sometimes receive something above the minimum,
but this surplus will merely make up for the deficit which it will have
received below the minimum in times of industrial stagnation. That is to
say that, within a given time which recurs periodically, in the cycle which
industry passes through while undergoing the vicissitudes of prosperity,
overproduction, stagnation and crisis, when reckoning all that the working
class will have had above and below necessaries, we shall see that, in
all, it will have received neither more nor less than the minimum; i.e.,
the working class will have maintained itself as a class after enduring
any amount of misery and misfortune, and after leaving many corpses upon
the industrial battlefield. But what of that? The class will still exist;
nay, more, it will have increased.

But this is not all. The progress of industry creates less expensive
means of subsistence. Thus spirits have taken the place of beer, cotton
that of wool and linen, and potatoes that of bread.

Thus, as means are constantly being found for the maintenance
of labor on cheaper and more wretched food, the minimum of wages is constantly
sinking. If these wages began by making the man work to live, they end
by making him live the life of a machine. His existence has not other value
than that of a simple productive force, and the capitalist treats him accordingly.

This law of commodity labor, of the minimum of wages, will be
confirmed in proportion as the supposition of the economists, free-trade,
becomes an actual fact. Thus, of two things one: either we must reject
all political economy based on the assumption of free trade, or we must
admit that under this free trade the whole severity of the economic laws
will fall upon the workers.

To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present
condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown
the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital,
you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you
let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how
favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes
place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which
will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim 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 still more clearly.

Let us assume for a moment that there are no more Corn Laws or
national or local custom duties; in fact that all the accidental circumstances
which today the worker may take to be the cause of his miserable condition
have entirely vanished, and you will have removed so many curtains that
hide from his eyes his true enemy.

He will see that capital become free will make him no less a slave
than capital trammeled by customs duties.

Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract
word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual
in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.

Why should you desire to go on sanctioning free competition with
this idea of freedom, when this freedom is only the product of a state
of things based upon free competition?

We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between
the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which
free trade would establish between the nations of the Earth would hardly
be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood
is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie.
All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to
within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world
market. We need not dwell any longer upon free trade sophisms on this subject,
which are worth just as much as the arguments of our prize-winners 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 the production which
is most in harmony with its natural advantage.

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 herself 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 combatted his alleged natural destiny of the
West Indies. And the West Indies, with their natural wealth, are already
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 thing must never be forgotten, namely, that, just as
everything has become a monopoly, there are also nowadays some branches
of industry which dominate all others, and secure to the nations which
most largely cultivate them the command of the world market. Thus in international
commerce cotton alone has much greater commercial than all the other raw
materials used in the manufacture of clothing put together. It is truly
ridiculous to see the free-traders stress the few specialities in each
branch of industry,throwing them into the balance against the products
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 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.