That is conflating two clearly different definitions of nationalism.
The nationalism I'm talking about led to WWI, WWII, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. It has nothing to do with what you are describing:
I've never heard an active government in economic affairs, such as the US in the mid-20th century, called 'nationalism'. Whatever you call it, it's a completely different thing, as other US policies were the opposite, purposely worked against, the actual nationalism that destroyed (and destroys) so many.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what the term 'Nationalism' means.
For other people reading this, that's such a fringe statement that I've never heard it before. To me, it looks like standard victimhood rhetoric.
Please. It was a powder Keg, and notably, Germany 'started it'.
Lebensraum, spazio vitale, manifest destiny.
Even ignoring that, if "nationalism" does not include the massive public projects and social cohesion of 1930s-50s USA, then frankly you have a bizarre definition of nationalism.
The East Asian miracles were based on nationalist economic policies as well as strong nationalist policies more generally in areas like natonal solidarity, immigration policy, cultural output, etc. The last 20 years have been a golden age of nationalism in rising Asia, as well as a deepening globalism in stagnant Europe. Contrasting the two regimes is useful.
GDP per-capita growth 2000-2019 (ignoring Covid slump in 2020):
EU: +18% (0.8% CAGR)
East Asia: +184% (3.1% CAGR)
https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-per-capita
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/EAS/east-asia-pacific/...
Instead, compare China with India. Two huge developing nations with similar post-colonial timelines. But their post-2020 fortunes could not be more different. India was racked with the largest protests in human history last year, and then got hit hard by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. China contained COVID-19 spread and is politically very stable. What happened in the last 20 years? Simplification is that China took a hard nationalist route and sought to protect its sovereignty. See GFW. India remained very open.
In terms of comparing developing and developed, a CAGR of 0.8% is anemic by any standard, particularly when you have the world's premier R&D centers, rule of law, etc. It is just not the case that poorer nations grow faster than richer nations -- most poor nations do not experience catch up growth at all. That the East Asian nations managed to do it really is a miracle, and they did it on the back of nationalism. It's not to be expected, and it's not the typical experience of low and middle income nations:
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/o...
It's worth noting that East Asian nations are not clones of each other. In the one I grew up in, I don't think nationalism played much of a role.
The government actively tries to foster a national identity but I don't think all that many people are buying into it - party due to the modus op of the government in my opinion; being a small nation the government has opted "being a leaf on the wind" pragmatism as its guiding principle and I believe it has rubbed off on (a significant percentage of) the people.
Raw pragmatism that involves toss aside anything that "doesn't work" isn't particularly compatible with dogmatic ideals of nationalism - i.e. people noticed the government isn't practicing what they preach.
The Chinese people who have the freedom to express their views, in Taiwan and formerly in Hong Kong, weren't so nationalistic. Can you back up your assertion about the rest?
Also, nationalism is global trend; there is no correlation with whatever China does.
> It is just not the case that poorer nations grow faster than richer nations
I think you know that's not what anyone was saying.
I don't think this has nothing to do with anything really.
And frankly, India has been taking a harder nationalist/populist line in the last 20 years.
India and China are completely different places.
China is authoritarian, and ordered, there is reasonably effective central policy.
India is from a civic perspective a mess of inanity and corruption.
The relative 'openness' as measured in flow of goods, capital, information etc. isn't anything really. If India could magically impose the same constraints as China it would probably hurt them.
In fact, the argument could be made that those constraints actually hurt China as well.
A pretty small sample size!
> the largest protests in human history
What's wrong with protests? That is not political instability, unless you are a dictator.
> China contained COVID-19 spread and is politically very stable.
You have no idea, because there is no freedom to report otherwise.
> China took a hard nationalist route
Only under Xi. Before that, China spent decades opening up (since Deng), and much of China's growth came from adopting capitalism and free international trade. And before Deng, Mao was a hardline Communist, working with international Communists (though not always agreeing with Stalin).
It's primarily a qualitative comparison, not a statistical analysis. 1/3 the human population also.
> You have no idea, because there is no freedom to report otherwise.
You have to be intentionally obtuse to not glean that China has effectively contained COVID-19 at this point. Not only are 1.4B Chinese and tens of millions of foreigners on the conspiracy, but the entire global economic system as well!
> Only under Xi.
GFW started in 1997 as globalization was accelerating. Try again.
No, they don't. Their GDP is more volatile, but over prolonged periods of time, they do not grow any faster. Most developing nations do not grow any faster at all. Very few do (only about 7% of poor nations managed to rise to middle income nations since 1870 or since the nation came into existence[1]. And in the same time, middle income nations are twice as likely to become poor than to become high income[1]).
The idea that there is "convergence" in which poor nations rise to become middle income and then middle income rise to become rich nations is a myth.
Yet it's one of those "cockroach myths" that never seem to die, because it appeals to people's intuitions, even though the data is clear on this point. Today, development economists no longer speak of "convergence" but of "low income trap" and "middle income trap".
But what the East Asian nations did by breaking out of these traps was incredibly impressive and equally rare. Think of a prison of poverty that no one has been able to escape, and they managed to escape it. It's an amazing feat.
For example, see this research article with transition probabilities:
[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/o...
Globalists believe that the time of Westphalian nations is over and everyone should live in one big borderless capitalist utopia ruled by global institutions/MNCs.
Internationalists believe in bilateral diplomacy and trade between sovereign nations, sometimes through international institutions like the UN. Internationalists value national sovereignty.
The key difference is that the basic unit of internationalism is the nation, while the basic unit of capitalist globalism is the individual or corporation.
Secondly, nationalism does not have a horrible track record. America was incredibly prosperous in the "big government" era of the mid 20th century. If 2021 USA existed in 1941, it almost certainly would not have effectively waged war across the Atlantic and Pacific. Once the global capitalists took power in the 70s, things have been going downhill every since. Nationalism got replaced with the fake performative "nationalism" of Reagan, et al.
Meanwhile, strong nations are currently on the up and up. Much to the chagrin of the global capitalists.