Thanks for this very important and insightful analysis. Protectionism does not only lead to economic problems; it also creates hatred and conflict between people in different countries and world regions. It fuels distrust and disintegration instead of connecting people in ways that allow them to compete and cooperate across borders.
When it comes to new ideas and visions, I think there is both a need and room to go even further than what is written here. For example, if we think about climate change, climate transformation, and climate-friendly development, it is not enough that only certain countries manage to carry out that transition. There is therefore a need for a globally regulated green market economy, so that the world economy also takes into account climate, nature, and environmental factors such as emissions, air quality, and farming.
I would also say that one very promising path for new trade and market development lies in decentralization and cryptocurrencies. In many ways, cryptocurrencies stand in direct opposition to what Trump, populists, and nationalists around the world are trying to do, because cryptocurrencies are global by design. They are not based on discrimination, they allow people to cooperate directly, and they can also be created for different purposes, including welfare, ecology, humanitarian aid, and more.
With cryptocurrencies, it becomes possible to integrate the world economy even more deeply and allow more people to cooperate and create jobs within communities rather than only through companies or government agencies. This is one of the possible ways forward. That is also why freer global trade needs more democratic governance at the global level, for example through global civic assemblies and a world parliament.
Except that, when you look at the labour data, manufacturing jobs disappeared well before the trade agreements. It was computerized CNC, factory robots and other forms of automation that massively increased productivity, and thus the need for labour.
I remember looking this up for 2018, but Iowa produced more value of manufactured goods in 2018 than in 1968, and it's not even close.
If everything gets automated, which will only happen organically if the natural cost of importing labor is higher than automation, undocumented and other immigrants will have no need to come to America. Liberalism, with its emphasis on markets and respect for individual choices, can help sort this out. You don’t understand liberalism.
Sorry, Shikha, but I don’t think you can publish an article that opposes capitalism while praising Marx and Engels and then accuse others of not understanding liberalism.
It started with destructive neoliberalism under Carter and accelerated from there until the productive sector of the U.S. economy was completely gutted in the 2000s.
Again, more productivity and moving up the product stack isn't a bad thing. Us manufacturing reached an all time high in gross GDP, real GDP and value added in the latest data set q3-2025. Employment is down, true, but there's no value in competing with low cost hubs in commodity hardware.
GDP isn’t equivalent to productivity. Proceeds earned by organized crime is included in GDP. The United States economy is parasitic and internally destructive of large segments of its citizenry. Because our billionaire class has mushroomed in size over the past 40 years largely through tech or financial Ponzi schemes is not synonymous with general prosperity.
I don’t recognize terms like ‘undocumented’ as if belonging to a society simply means having the right documents. I prefer, illegal aliens, since that’s what they are. Wealthy elites import immigrants to exploit cheap labor, undercut native working classes, and keep wages stagnant or as low as possible. We should severely restrict all immigration and of course deport all illegals. That would be the ideal. Your comment about tariffs in cities and states within the same polity is silly. Liberalism is to a civilization what fourth stage cancer is to a human body.
In explaining “free trade,” the author makes clear that it is, in practice, heavily regulated for labor and environmental reasons (because of course). He then goes on to argue that support for free trade isn’t really capitalist at all but was in fact endorsed by Marx and Engels. “History,” the article confidently claims, has this “almost exactly backwards.”
From there, the author casually conflates “neoliberal” with “capitalist,” which leads to some odd implications: were classical liberals, like the US Founders, actually socialists? When they wrote that government exists to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were they channeling Marx? Apparently, “history has it backwards.”
So, what we’re left with is an argument for heavily regulated “free” trade, justified in part by Marx and Engels, all in service of UnPopulist’s apparent vision of “freedom authoritarianism.”
In a liberal country, the function of government is to protect individual rights, which means a capitalist economic system, which means no government regulation of trade.
What you and the author are describing isn’t free trade, and it isn’t liberalism, it’s a system where government manages economic outcomes rather than protecting individual freedom. This is authoritarianism.
Because what is trade, liberalism or rights is also chaning through time and history. For example, a market economic system does not have to be capitalistic while trade today is more than just goods as 50 years ago.Also, we do not have individual freedoms yet at the global level while the trade is more global.
The problem with Marx and Engels and a lot of socialist politics is that the USA is not an industrial society anymore. Therefore, a post-industrial economy needs new ideas and systems
The problem with Marx and Engels is that their ideas, when applied, contributed to regimes responsible for the deaths of millions. Anyone who cannot recognize this historical reality lacks the perspective necessary for informed political discussion and cannot reasonably claim to be a liberal.
Thanks for this very important and insightful analysis. Protectionism does not only lead to economic problems; it also creates hatred and conflict between people in different countries and world regions. It fuels distrust and disintegration instead of connecting people in ways that allow them to compete and cooperate across borders.
When it comes to new ideas and visions, I think there is both a need and room to go even further than what is written here. For example, if we think about climate change, climate transformation, and climate-friendly development, it is not enough that only certain countries manage to carry out that transition. There is therefore a need for a globally regulated green market economy, so that the world economy also takes into account climate, nature, and environmental factors such as emissions, air quality, and farming.
I would also say that one very promising path for new trade and market development lies in decentralization and cryptocurrencies. In many ways, cryptocurrencies stand in direct opposition to what Trump, populists, and nationalists around the world are trying to do, because cryptocurrencies are global by design. They are not based on discrimination, they allow people to cooperate directly, and they can also be created for different purposes, including welfare, ecology, humanitarian aid, and more.
With cryptocurrencies, it becomes possible to integrate the world economy even more deeply and allow more people to cooperate and create jobs within communities rather than only through companies or government agencies. This is one of the possible ways forward. That is also why freer global trade needs more democratic governance at the global level, for example through global civic assemblies and a world parliament.
Free trade has destroyed the American working classes. We need economic nationalism not more trade deals like NAFTA.
Except that, when you look at the labour data, manufacturing jobs disappeared well before the trade agreements. It was computerized CNC, factory robots and other forms of automation that massively increased productivity, and thus the need for labour.
I remember looking this up for 2018, but Iowa produced more value of manufactured goods in 2018 than in 1968, and it's not even close.
If everything becomes automated we can shut our borders and get rid of illegal immigrants, right? Liberalism is utterly bankrupt.
If everything gets automated, which will only happen organically if the natural cost of importing labor is higher than automation, undocumented and other immigrants will have no need to come to America. Liberalism, with its emphasis on markets and respect for individual choices, can help sort this out. You don’t understand liberalism.
Sorry, Shikha, but I don’t think you can publish an article that opposes capitalism while praising Marx and Engels and then accuse others of not understanding liberalism.
That must be how millions of them disappeared after those trade agreements vindicating Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader.
Spot the free trade agreements in this data series. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cAYh
The trend started way before manufacturing jobs peaked in absolute terms in 1978-79.
It started with destructive neoliberalism under Carter and accelerated from there until the productive sector of the U.S. economy was completely gutted in the 2000s.
Again, more productivity and moving up the product stack isn't a bad thing. Us manufacturing reached an all time high in gross GDP, real GDP and value added in the latest data set q3-2025. Employment is down, true, but there's no value in competing with low cost hubs in commodity hardware.
GDP isn’t equivalent to productivity. Proceeds earned by organized crime is included in GDP. The United States economy is parasitic and internally destructive of large segments of its citizenry. Because our billionaire class has mushroomed in size over the past 40 years largely through tech or financial Ponzi schemes is not synonymous with general prosperity.
If you think economic nationalism is good, why not create tarrifs between US states or even cities if you think that would be good for the economy?
I don’t recognize terms like ‘undocumented’ as if belonging to a society simply means having the right documents. I prefer, illegal aliens, since that’s what they are. Wealthy elites import immigrants to exploit cheap labor, undercut native working classes, and keep wages stagnant or as low as possible. We should severely restrict all immigration and of course deport all illegals. That would be the ideal. Your comment about tariffs in cities and states within the same polity is silly. Liberalism is to a civilization what fourth stage cancer is to a human body.
But that's what this author is also saying, only in a much more confused way than you.
What is your evidence and rational ground for that?
Another classic UnPopulist article.
In explaining “free trade,” the author makes clear that it is, in practice, heavily regulated for labor and environmental reasons (because of course). He then goes on to argue that support for free trade isn’t really capitalist at all but was in fact endorsed by Marx and Engels. “History,” the article confidently claims, has this “almost exactly backwards.”
From there, the author casually conflates “neoliberal” with “capitalist,” which leads to some odd implications: were classical liberals, like the US Founders, actually socialists? When they wrote that government exists to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were they channeling Marx? Apparently, “history has it backwards.”
So, what we’re left with is an argument for heavily regulated “free” trade, justified in part by Marx and Engels, all in service of UnPopulist’s apparent vision of “freedom authoritarianism.”
Great work, everyone.
All trade is regulalted, both through informal and formal rules. The question is not if but how trade should be regulated
In a liberal country, the function of government is to protect individual rights, which means a capitalist economic system, which means no government regulation of trade.
What you and the author are describing isn’t free trade, and it isn’t liberalism, it’s a system where government manages economic outcomes rather than protecting individual freedom. This is authoritarianism.
Are you sure about that?
Because what is trade, liberalism or rights is also chaning through time and history. For example, a market economic system does not have to be capitalistic while trade today is more than just goods as 50 years ago.Also, we do not have individual freedoms yet at the global level while the trade is more global.
The problem with Marx and Engels and a lot of socialist politics is that the USA is not an industrial society anymore. Therefore, a post-industrial economy needs new ideas and systems
The problem with Marx and Engels is that their ideas, when applied, contributed to regimes responsible for the deaths of millions. Anyone who cannot recognize this historical reality lacks the perspective necessary for informed political discussion and cannot reasonably claim to be a liberal.
Well that is the case, historically as regarding the USSR.