The daily worker., 1930-06-20
A FEW REMARKS ON THE
TARIFF

other words, the protectionism of the bour-
geoisie during the period of industrial capital
developed into an entirely different protec-
tionism with the transition of capitalism into
its final stage of Imperialism.
Thus it is entirely inadequate and incor-
rect to speak of the tariff today as the pro-
tective policy of the bourgeoisie as contrasted
with its previous free trade policy. Protec-
tive tariff was also the policy of the American
bourgeoisie when it was essentially an indus
trial bourgeoisie, that is, during the period of
progressive capitalism. Protection at that
time actually helped to develop ''infant" in
dustries; in other words, it helped to develop
the productive forces.
Friedrich Engels drew attention to this
many years ago. Writing of protection in
America Immediately after the Civil War of
1861-65, Engels says: Protection, being
means of artificially manufacturing manufac-
turers, may, therefore, appear useful not only
to an incompletely developed capitalist class
still struggling with feudalism; it may also
give lift TO the rising capitalist class of
country which, like America, has never known
feudalsm, but which has arrived at that stage
of development where the passage from agri-
culture to manufactures becomes a necessity"
Thus, by speaking of protection as the pol
icy of the bourgeoisie, you actually help the
monopolists in their claim that protection is
an historical necessity, is progressive policy
We may not necessarily have in mind the
bourgeoisie when capitalism was still pro-
gressive But, precisely because the mono-
polist bourgeoisie today tries to hide under
the cloak of the progressive bourgeoisie of
the middle of the 10Th century, is it our duty
as Marxists to clarity and expose this for the
workers.
And what about the protective tariff to-
day? Today, the protective tariff is the pol
icy not of progressive bourgeoisie but of
reactionary, finance-captalist bourgeoisie. To-
day capitalism is not progressive capitalism,
but reactionary. capitalism in it's final stage,
that is, imperialism. This is the fundamental
difference.
The tariff policy of the monopoists today
does not develop the productive forces, but it
is means of still further enriching the capi-
talists, while retardng the development of the
productive forces. If, in the period of progres.
sive capitalism, it served as defensive weapon
to artificially manufacture manufactures, to al
low the home industries to get on their feet,
today it serves as an offensive weapon, to
enable the finance capitalists of America, at
the expense of the American masses, to carry
on a more effective struggle for world mar
kets, for imperiast hegemony Today the
tariff protects" essentially export articles,
lact Wnicn dlreauy EngeIs noted IN note TO
the third volume of Marks Capital.
We are dealing here with a fundamental
qualitative change. Protective tariff has
turned into its opposite. From the policy of
a progressive bourgeoisie it has become the
policy of the reactionary, imperialist bour-
geosie.
The United States is the classical country
of trusts and of the tariff policy of the trusts,
or more precisely, of finance capital. The
new tariff policy of the United States may be
dated from 1883. This broadly comedies with
the transition of capitalism into its final stage
of imperialism. 1t must be repeated: 1t is
absolutely necessary to understand clearly
that the tariff today is the policy of reaction
ary finance capital, and not of the bourgeoisie
in the abstract