It is all the more difficult to oppose globalization from a more restricted base. Isolated countries, for example, can hardly stand alone against the omnipotence of financial markets. That’s also the reason why, taking into account the risks of retaliation (or “commercial war”), protectionism on the European continental scale would be more effective than a simple national protectionism – which is nevertheless better than no protectionism at all.
For several years, some authors haven’t hesitated to speak of “de-globalization”. Is this an objective observation or a pious wish?
Since the start of the 2010-s, following the publication of the famous work by Philippin Walden Bello (Deglobalization, 2002), a number of authors (Jacques Sapir, Emmanuel Todd, Frédéric Lordon, Edgar Morin, etc.) have actually started to speak of de-globalization. Marine Le Pen, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Arnaud Montebourg and Jean-Luc Mélenchon have also seized upon this theme. The debate has even expanded recently: Donald Trump was elected through denouncing the effects of globalization and Brexit won thanks to the vote from regions devastated by de-industrialization. However it’s less an observation than a watchword. The general idea is that it is possible to end globalization or, at least, it is possible to give it a different content, an idea that 65% of French people are favorable towards, according to polls.