When I was a kid I remember reading about rural agriculturalists in Mexico who after the signing of NAFTA found themselves priced out, for the production of corn I think, and forced into migration or poverty. I also recall hearing that the TPP (and apparently NAFTA), operated largely to enforce "corporate rights" as persons, or even more, in the imperial periphery, beyond the lowering of tariffs. In these details there can be nothing but opposition.
However, you hear of the increased growth of tomatoes, for example, in Mexico, because of their comparative advantage, and of impressive manufacturing sector in things like automobiles and even increasingly electronics. These are remarkable things. In the big picture as an internationalist you have to support them here, to the extent to which you thank trade for these things.
On the other side of the deal you read just as many stories today of towns wiped off the map by deindustrialization, and that even though productivity has increased employment for these high-value added has declined without end. This is the issue with trade in at least the Anglo-sphere, and once upon a time the former Soviet Union at the minimum: deindustrialization. I know it's likely somewhat controversial to discuss these two groups together, and it might be a mistake, but the inquiry stands.
I'd like to discuss what's the problem with deindustrialization, and how does it relate to trade?
The problem is that without either an industrial proletariat, a rural poor peasantry, or both Marxists have no path to power
Just watched an interesting video that argues that debating trade issues are mostly used to divide the proletariat into supporting or opposing different sections of the bourgeoisie. This doesn't really resonate however because changing the structural composition of capital can benefit the class.