What the hell is economic nationalism?

It's just social democracy, just less welfarist and progressivist than whatever Bernie's pitch was. The point is, however serious either gentleman may be, and how unsympathetic you may feel to this considering US's traditional role as the enforcer of global capital and base of NYSE, IMF and World Bank and so on, it would entail: a return to sovereignty in economic management and a rejection of the effective complete devolution of all power to unaccountable neoliberal organs and restructuring regimes ("trade deals", loan conditionality), especially with regard to free flows of capital and labor, transnational corporate structures that evade tax while profiting off the locale, and so on. The point against globalism is it essentially nullifies any pretense of democracy, however thin and farcical as it may have been before, and the corruption from untouchable global interests with infinite money, holding your country's whole economy hostage at the same time via a stroke of a pen, while being able to force favorable regulation anywhere else, is simply impossible to combat. From a leftist perspective it precludes any form of socialism, creating a global race to the bottom for all regulations including labor and environmental, destroying all community, among other deleterious effects. Globalism clearly does not even stop imperialism, there's still China for example, and merely dissolving all the other nation states with nothing to replace them except perhaps ad hoc local paramilitaries (vs globalist PMC total security state), makes everyone on earth unable to protect themselves under whatever meager shield the nation provided before. It's nothing less than the total and complete victory for Capital over the entire planet.

Marxists here however all but openly defend this because >muh all nationalism is just porky tricks to fuck with the proletariat, >stop being mean to refugees! or whatever. It's a breathtaking testament to their true colors.

The Russian Empire for 300 years

how does pic rel work? you cut taxes and invest the money to build gulags?

Don't you find it odd the Soviet empire despite its peak reach never thought to icepick the big wigs or infrastructure of the banking system which would have not only thrown capitalism into instant turmoil but was ultimately was the lead factor in its own sudden dissolution?

Domestic workers first, basically.

capitalism in one country

Economic Nationalism is when you try to reduce trade with foreign countries as much as possible as focus on increasing domestic production. It could be done in either a capitalist or socialist country. North Korea is doing it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)
READ A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE CUCK

Not really, economic nations came out of Fredrik List that complained that the British porkies had a unfair advantage so the German state should help German porkies. List argued that the USA became a strong industrial nation not by accepting the London consensus but instead using the power of its state to develop its own bourgeois economy.

Australia was protectionist for about 80ish years.
It was a divisive issue at federation in 1901, some still followed classical liberalism, while more radical new economic theorists encouraged protectionism.
It first became a consensus on protectionism for one very simple reason - racism.
Now before shrill dickgeads start calling me an SJW, understand that this was implemented at the same time as the white Australia policy.
The basic idea was that Australia would be a country for the British race, even other western Europeans were not considered acceptable.
This was heightened by the feeling of isolation, especially after getting bombed the Japanese in ww2 and the spread of communism in South East Asia.
Additionally, Australia is a very curious country from a socialists perspective. In the 1800s it was called the "working man's paradise" and there was a very strong labourist movement, inspired by charterism.
Likewise, the colony of Queensland had the world's first Labor government in the 1890s, followed by the Australian government after federation. (Which Lenin commented was just bourgeois anyway).
But by the 70s, like much of the rest of the western world, our economy was shitting itself and neo-classic economics was coming into vogue. Likewise, this coincided with the social revolution of the 60s becoming more accepted.
Capitalists here realised Asia was actually a huge source of revenue - they are developing and lack natural resources whilst we have a shitload.
So throughout the 80s non European migrants came and our economy was opened to the world, the end of 'fortress Australia."
Politicians promised that the standard of living would rise - and shit we've had something like 25 years of non stop economic growth (i.e muh gdp)
But the gap between rich and poor has increased, the cost of living has sky rocketed (shitty delapatated houses in capital cities cost millions) and wages have stagnated.
So now you see a lot of angry people who equate the problem with free trade and immigrants. They want a return to closed borders, both in terms of economics and immigration.
Just my anecdotal example.

But muh socialism in one country.

thread
retard comes in

I took the time to make a little effortpost in another thread, so of course it died without any further replies.

it's a spook

The time for socialist protectionism is long past. The material conditions are right there