Peter Navarro, former trade adviser to President Donald Trump, has framed free trade as aligned with Marxist principles, arguing that modern globalized trade practices contradict conservative values. Navarro’s critique centers on the idea that unrestricted free trade fuels the same systemic inequalities Marx predicted, while failing to account for “unfair” practices by trading partners like China. Here’s his argument unpacked:
### Navarro’s Core Claims
1. : Navarro asserts that free trade theory—rooted in Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s classical economics—ignores real-world “negative externalities” like job losses and wage stagnation, which Marx highlighted as inherent to capitalism. Marx saw free trade as accelerating capitalism’s contradictions (e.g., wealth concentration, worker exploitation), ultimately leading to crisis . Navarro claims modern free trade perpetuates these Marxist-identified flaws, leaving workers vulnerable .
2. : Navarro dismisses Ricardo’s comparative advantage, a pillar of free trade, as irrelevant in a world dominated by state-backed mercantilism (e.g., China’s subsidies, intellectual property theft). He argues that economists clinging to Ricardo’s 19th-century model are “ivory tower” elites disconnected from industrialized communities .
3. : Navarro ties China’s post-WTO accession “blue collar carnage” in U.S. manufacturing to Marxist dynamics: offshoring jobs, suppressing wages, and exploiting workers. He claims China’s rise mirrors Marx’s prediction that capitalism’s greed would destabilize economies .
4. : Navarro advocates “fair trade” through reciprocal tariffs to counter foreign subsidies and IP theft. He frames this as a rejection of Marxist-aligned globalism, prioritizing U.S. workers over “unfair” systems that benefit elites .
### Why Navarro Links Free Trade to Marxism
– : Marx viewed free trade as intensifying capitalism’s exploitation of labor. Navarro argues that globalization has done the same, enriching corporations while hollowing out U.S. manufacturing .
– : Marx predicted capitalism’s self-destruction via overproduction and crises. Navarro warns that trade deficits and deindustrialization—driven by China’s “cheating”—echo this trajectory .
– : Navarro dismisses the “religious faith” in free trade, comparing it to Marxist idealism. He claims both ideologies ignore real-world corruption (e.g., currency manipulation, forced technology transfers) .
### Counterarguments and Context
– : Marx endorsed free trade not as ideal but as a catalyst to hasten capitalism’s collapse. Navarro repurposes this critique to argue that unchecked globalization harms U.S. interests, necessitating protectionism .
– : Most economists reject Navarro’s views as fringe, arguing tariffs risk trade wars and higher consumer costs. Critics note his dismissal of comparative advantage ignores efficiency gains from specialization .
– : Navarro’s rhetoric aligns with Trump’s populist nationalism, framing trade policy as a cultural battle against “globalist elites” and Marxist-leaning systems .
### Conclusion
Navarro’s equation of free trade with Marxism is less about ideological alignment and more a polemical tool to justify protectionism. By invoking Marx’s critique of capitalism’s flaws, Navarro paints free trade as a failed system that conservatives must replace with “fair” trade policies. Whether his assessment holds, it underscores a broader rejection of neoliberal globalization in favor of economic nationalism.
