When Leftists Were Free Traders
In Pax Economica, historian Marc-William Palen chronicles the left-wing history of free trade.

Pax Economica: Left-Wing Visions of a Free Trade World, by Marc-William Palen, Princeton University Press, 328 pages, $35
In 1845 the editor of the New York Evening Post, William Cullen Bryant, traveled to England. In America, Bryant's paper was famous for its radical support of free trade, free banking, international peace, and the abolition of slavery. In Europe, he was America's most famous and accomplished poet—and a strong ally to Richard Cobden in the Anti–Corn Law League's war to bring down the price of bread by rolling back tariffs.
The movement against the Corn Laws was reaching a fever pitch: a tipping point toward free trade and peace in the world's premier empire, with repercussions that could ripple around the globe. The next year, Prime Minister Robert Peel buckled under the pressure and Parliament repealed the hated trade barriers. Free traders gained their greatest victory to date, Britons got their cheap bread, and—with the globalizing power of the telegraph at hand—radical liberals felt like they were poised to sweep humanity into a new age of peace and prosperity.
Meanwhile, a counterrevolution was brewing. One of America's overlooked contributions to intellectual history and world history is the nationalist-protectionist economic system developed by Friedrich List and popularly called "the American System." Listian economics became the Whig Party platform, calling for public works, a national bank, and high protective tariffs. The Listian nationalists argued that the United States should pursue economic independence to maintain its security against the British juggernaut. Many others who were arrayed against British power copied the Americans.
Here we have the central set of intellectual and political conflicts that set the stage for Marc-William Palen's timely and important new volume, Pax Economica: Left-Wing Visions of a Free Trade World. This book fluidly combines intellectual, social, political, and world history, seamlessly transitioning across borders to show how ideas and interests intersect and collide.
Though the story has many elements, its heart is a movement "for free trade, anti-imperialism, and peace." This broad movement's members included early libertarians, Georgist land taxers, Marxists, feminists, Christian radicals, and others. "Left-leaning liberal radical reformers such as Richard Cobden, Henry George, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, Norman Angell, Abe Isoo, J.A. Hobson, Jane Addams, Rosika Schwimmer, and Fanny Garrison Villard," Palen writes, "connected free trade with democracy promotion, antislavery, universal suffrage, civil rights, prosperity, anti-imperialism, and peace." They were, he says, a "motley crew of left-wing free traders" who spearheaded an early, good-natured version of globalism.
***
The phrases left-wing and free traders are not often conjoined today. "The past couple of decades have witnessed a flurry of scholarship tracing the right-wing origins of today's free-market ideas back to the interwar years," Palen notes. "By recovering the shared world of left-wing radicalism and free trade, this book tells a very different story, with a much earlier starting point: the 1840s." This, he hopes, will overcome the errors created when "Cold War lenses…blurred the historical depiction of modern left-wing radicalism, displacing the economic peace movement from its previously prominent position."
The 19th century left thought free trade would promote peace: the more interdependence, the more peaceful cooperation and understanding. In a speech to the Anti–Corn Law League on January 15, 1846, Cobden claimed that material prosperity was the least of free trade's implications, painting a world in which all mankind melted into one vast family: "I see in the Free-trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe," he said, "drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."
The rogue's gallery of Victorian-era free traders included some odd bedfellows. There were Marxists, who, in Palen's words, "did not consider free trade free of sin" but believed that it would accelerate the social revolution. There were feminists who broke with the movement's anti-imperial side, "hoping that doing so would legitimate the women's suffrage movement in the eyes of male political elites," yet still vigorously supported free trade. There was the founder of the Esperanto movement, who hoped his creation would "eradicate one of the greatest impediments to world trade—the language barrier."
***
The 1840s were the era of what Palen calls the "Cosmopolitical imagination," but the decade also kicked off a multidecade surge of nationalist economics around the globe in response. From Russia to Japan to Germany to Australia—and, much later, in India and Africa—nationalist-protectionists viewed Britain's Cobdenite turn as another way to prevent local independence and maintain the empire. They sought a way out from under British (later American) political domination through national autarky, the Listian economic counterpart to political independence. This was a constant thorn in the side of the Cobdenite anti-imperialists.
In Germany, the Listians formed the German historical school, whose "leading lights created the Verein für Sozialpolitik (Association for social policy) in 1872 to counteract Manchester liberalism, Judaism, internationalism, anti-imperialism, and democratic socialism," while ushering in "a new wave of anti-Semitism." Back in the United States, the German historical school's disciples founded the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School; the GOP adopted a program of high tariffs and strict immigration quotas. In Soviet Russia, Vladimir Lenin drew on List's ideas—and "laid the groundwork for Joseph Stalin, whose industrial-military system was more Listian than Marxist." Where once there appeared nothing but free trade on the horizon, we were now thrown on the defensive while the nations of the world marched to war.
Cobden died in 1865, but the movement he led continued to grow through the long battles with nationalism and imperialism that form the narrative of this book. After the disaster of two world wars, figures like the "Tennessee Cobden"—Franklin Roosevelt's secretary of state, Cordell Hull—thought they saw their moment resurfacing. Hull was a lifelong Cobdenite and a bit of a throwback to the long history of low tariffs in the Democratic Party. As secretary of state he spearheaded the "good neighbor" policy of moving from militarism toward trade in U.S. relations with Latin America. Hull eventually became a powerful supporter of supranational institutions, such as the United Nations and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that he hoped would connect people through trade and flourishing rather than armed conquest and imperialism. As he and others pushed such ideas during and immediately after World War II, each of the pro-trade factions this book covers saw reason for hope once again.
But the feeling was again fleeting, and it ultimately fell to Cold War pressures. Ideological divisions over the welfare state, Third World development, labor policy, and "democracy promotion" split the old "left-wing commercial peace movement," Palen writes, as "neoliberals like [F.A.] Hayek of the Geneva School and the Chicago School's Milton Friedman were deeply critical of the welfare state, anti-colonial nationalism, and trade unions." Some neoliberals defended Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile and the South African apartheid regime, exacerbating those divisions. It now seemed to left-wingers that the new liberals were simply capitalist bodyguards for the new colonialists—the hegemonic West, especially the United States—and the new mercantilists who would use the West's power to force less-developed nations into perpetual subservience.
Neoliberals like Hayek recognized and appreciated the historical linkages between Manchesterites and socialists. But those historic linkages steadily diverged, particularly as neoliberalism came to be identified with Margaret Thatcher's Tory government in Britain and Ronald Reagan's Republican administration in the United States. All this, Palen argues, "effectively ostracized free trade's left-wing supporters from the very supranational institutions and structures they had helped create." Most free traders on the right could feel successful and willing to maintain the course; the left was, well, left to sit and stew in defeat. So were the more libertarian-leaning free traders who would not support conservative militarism or alliances with the "New Christian Right" in exchange for trade liberalization. Some libertarians were also suspicious of the new supranational organizations and agreements, fearing the ways they could evolve into supranational bureaucracies.
Pax Economica ends on a somber note. Ours is an age of resurgent nationalist economics, militarism, and technocracy. Peaceful internationalism and interdependence are threatened. In the United States, Palen writes, we are saddled with "a new protectionist Washington Consensus," and trade policy around the world is merging with foreign policy. He concludes with a call for recovery and memory: to challenge the "growing economic nationalist partnership between the far Left and the far Right" by recovering the "radical economic cosmopolitan tradition" that stretched across the spectrum while fighting for both free trade and peace.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Pax Economica Nostalgia."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, they’ve sure as fuck lost that spirit now!
Sarc has a raging hard on for this article.
Importantly, as noted, rationales for particular positions did not align. Liberal free traders approved of free trade because of, well, liberty (and comparative advantage – oddly not mentioned here) while Marxists did so because they thought it was an inevitable and necessary step on the way to the Radiant Future predicted by Beardy (wrong, of course).
Which is why the de-evolution of the liberal movement becomes so convoluted in the telling above. The author seems to indicate that excising of free markets from leftism was some Rightist thing.
“But those historic linkages steadily diverged, particularly as neoliberalism came to be identified with Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government in Britain and Ronald Reagan’s Republican administration in the United States. ”
You can always spot the sleight of hand from the passive voice. Neo-liberalism just “came to be identified”, right? Like one day everyone just developed a delusion that if they wanted free markets they had to go find Ronald Reagan.
In fact, Reagan and Thatcher would not have peeled off these free-market liberals if the marxists and fascists hadn’t basically wrested control of the entire leftist movement. Let’s note that we entered into the Cold War era with the most famous leftist leader, FDR, at the helm. He had fundamentally changed the relationship between government and citizen, instituting a level of command and control, cradle to grave welfare, and price controls that ensured there was no place for free market economics in the go forward left.
As you note the collectivists had always been playing the long game, and they used WWII as the perfect opportunity to eliminate freedom-lovers from their party and reshape the left as the technocratic, statist welfare state that it is today.
Heck, the left wingers don’t even support physical peace anymore, domestically or internationally.
“‘Though the story has many elements, its heart is a movement “for free trade, anti-imperialism, and peace.’ This broad movement’s members included early libertarians, Georgist land taxers, Marxists, feminists, Christian radicals, and others.”
Marxists for free trade.
When they thought free trade would accelerate that progress towards social revolution, when, presumably, it would be cast aside as it does not fit in much with Marxist end goals.
Well it worked, didn’t it? They rode with the free marketers all the way into the 50s and then slowly purged them from the Democratic party, until it had become the party of unions, welfare and the state. And it could do this because we had a strong economy at our fingertips.
And now the free marketers have been purged from the GOP.
Great. One more excuse for Trump’s Deranged Supporters to hate free trade.
There’s the hard on.
Wish I could charge rent for the time I spend in your head.
Browser logout again?
“Marxists for free trade?”
Evidently the author never read, “Das Kapital” or the “Communist Manifesto.”
Free trade, indeed, trade in general, is a cancer to any Marxist regardless of stripe.
Even “communist” China does not allow free trade as it is defined by economists and political scientists, but it does toy with capitalism to a point, but only if it benefits the ruling communist party members. The masses only get a sampling of what free trade can do for them in China, but at least they get something out of it unlike the poor oppressed masses in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.
When the culture insists on dividing the world into only two political ideologies, it’s clear that Left today is not at all the Left of a century and a half ago. Hell, not even the same as merely fifty years ago. Yes, the Left used to be Free Trade, Free Banking, Free Markets, Anti-Slavery, etc. They were against government controls of people. They were in many ways the precursors to modern (pre-MC) libertarians.
Then they got taken over by the old school progressives (eugenics, public schools, etc). Then by the Marxist socialists. Then by modern progressives. And now the radical identitarians are shoving their way in.
Because people can’t think in anything but left/right, up/down, black/white binary thinking. Boaf sides are identical int he economic sphere now, only arguing over the rate of spending increases. So it can’t last. One side or the other has to flip to opposite mode sooner or later. The GOP already did the big shift to full blown strong man populism, but at the same time I can’t see the Democrats coming out for reduced taxes and spending and trade and markets and freedom. So I expect some party to split and we’ll get a big shuffle like with did the mid 19th century.
The term “leftist” is a meaningless catch-all used by Trump’s Deranged Supporters to describe anyone who criticizes their cult of personality.
Your line of BS indoctrination really shines like a sunny-day at “Anti-Slavery”.
The left was literally the Pro-Slavery side of the Civil War.
Free traders gained their greatest victory to date, Britons got their cheap bread, and—with the globalizing power of the telegraph at hand—radical liberals felt like they were poised to sweep humanity into a new age of peace and prosperity.
Seems like a very odd and tin-eared response to what was – historically – THE big event that occurred at exactly that time in Britain. Namely the failure of the potato crop in Ireland (for the umpteenth time in the previous few decades) in the autumn of 1845 (a few months previous to repeal). Which led to the Great Famine and the depopulation of Ireland over the next few years.
I can’t tell if you are highlighting or ignoring the fact that the potato famine was manufactured politically for the specific purpose of depopulating Ireland. The excuse, of course, was “late blight” but that was not what caused the famine, any more than the coronavirus pandemic caused inflation.
If it was manufactured politically, then repeal of the Corn Laws (and the near immediate (four days after repeal) takeover of the British govt by the free trade laissez-faire Whigs (who are also left-leaning if you want to compare them to the Tories) was an integral part of that.
It is author of that paragraph – not me – who is completely ignoring food – in Ireland – that is not remotely a ‘greatest victory’ – or that leads to ‘peace and prosperity’. I really don’t have an agenda here. Except that honest histories should include the most salient facts even if difficult or unpleasant to explain. Otherwise it ain’t history, it’s dishonest ideology/propaganda. I don’t even know if the book itself talks about the issue. The reviewer doesn’t.
“Ours is an age of resurgent nationalist economics, militarism, and technocracy.”
The problem here is that nothing is simple. No matter how good the principle is, there will always be occasional counterexamples to fuel the opposition. In this case we had over a decade or two of increasing free trade and prosperity with Russia before Putin imposed his nationalist economics and militarism on the Russians. Something similar happened in China. Some societies just cannot tolerate success. No matter how good things are for them, someone is going to come along and push their panic buttons.
“LOOK! LOOK EVERYONE! I FOUND THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK!”, Anthony..
“The phrases left-wing and free traders are not often conjoined today.” … Nor anytime in history. But heck; with a full-page of twisting logic and limited examples of a “needle in a haystack” even the never-was party gets a golden star of ‘free’ trade.
Anthonys out feeding the commie-sheeple today.