Trump at the UN: The Guardian almost gets it. Almost.

You can almost hear the grinding molars, as The Guardian?s economics editor grits his teeth and grouses that, goddammit, Trump is right.

Of course, there?s no way in bleeding, blazing Hell that the Grauniad would ever actually straight-up admit such heresy. So the brief flashes of reason here are heavily leavened with fallacious arguments. Quote:

The real threat no longer comes from balaclava-wearing anarchists throwing Molotov cocktails but from within. Donald Trump is now the one throwing the petrol bombs and for multilateral organisations like the IMF and World Bank, that poses a much bigger threat.

The US president put it this way in his speech to the United Nations on Tuesday: ?We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.? For decades, the message from the IMF has been that breaking down the barriers to trade, allowing capital to move unhindered across borders and constraining the ability of governments to regulate multinational corporations was the way to prosperity. Now the most powerful man on the planet is saying something different: that the only way to remedy the economic and social ills caused by globalisation is through the nation state. Trump?s speech was mocked by fellow world leaders, but the truth is that he?s not a lone voice. End of quote.

The big fallacy here is also a depressingly common one, from all sides. Put simply, Elliot conflates globalisation with globalism. While the latter derives from the former, the two are not the same thing. Globalisation is an objective economic, political and technical process. Globalism can be traced back at least as far as trade routes like the Silk Road, if not earlier. The 19th century was the most intense period of globalisation in human history, surpassed only by the 21st century.

Globalism is an ideology, partly based in that process, but mostly the result of discredited Marxism morphing into Cultural Marxism. Globalism saddles the straightforward process of globalisation with a raft of dodgy political assumptions. Quote:

The idea that the nation state would wither away was based on three separate arguments. The first was that the barriers to the global free movement of goods, services, people and money were economically inefficient and that removing them would lead to higher levels of growth. This has not been the case. Growth has been weaker and less evenly shared. End of quote.

This is the first blurring of globalisation and globalism (with a hat-tip to Marx’n’Engels thrown in). Elliot?s assertion about weak growth, probably the result of too much uncritical reading of Piketty, is simply false. Apart from a brief dip during the GFC, global growth has continued. Quote:

The second was that governments couldn?t resist globalisation even if they wanted to. End of quote.

This is blurring the line between globalism and globalisation even further. As Elliot admits, despite the cheer-squadding of the likes of Clinton and Blair (globalists), governments have continued to set the rules. North Korea is the most extreme example. Quote:

Finally, it was argued that the trans-national nature of modern capitalism made the nation state obsolete. End of quote.

Now, we?re at full-blown globalism.

As Brexit, rising nationalism in Europe, and the Trump wave have shown, this globalist assumption is a paper tiger that is being ripped to shreds by ordinary voters.

In any case, another global power is on the same page as Trump, surprising as that may seem. Quote:

The world?s other big economic superpower ? China ? has never given up on the nation state. Xi Jinping likes to use the language of globalisation to make a contrast with Trump?s protectionism, but the stupendous growth posted by China over the past four decades has been the result of doing the opposite of what the globalisation textbooks recommend. End of quote.

China is as devoted to sovereignty as the United States. While the UN and the EU are determined to relegate national sovereignty to the dustbin of history, the world?s two great powers aren?t going to give it away. Neither are ordinary citizens. Quote:

Increasingly, voters are looking to the one form of government where they do have a say to provide economic security. And if the mainstream parties are not prepared to offer what these voters want ? a decently paid job, properly funded public services and controls on immigration ? then they will look elsewhere for parties or movements that will. This has proved to be a particular problem for the parties of the centre left ? the Democrats in the US, New Labour in Britain, the SDP in Germany ? that signed up to the idea that globalisation was an unstoppable force. End of quote.

But, having flirted with the heretical concession that Trump is right, The Guardian makes sure to return to the path of righteousness. Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn certainly does not accept the idea that the state is obsolete as an economic actor. The plan is to build a different sort of economy from the bottom up ? locally and nationally. That?s not going to be easy but beats the current, failed, top-down approach. End of?quote.

Um, Jeremy Corbyn is an unrepentant socialist. A ?failed, top-down approach? is all he?s offering.