I hold no brief for Friedman and his latest simulacrum of a book–believe me–but I found Gray’s attempted takedown of it less impressive than Frank Foer did (and less interesting than Rich Lowry did). There has always been a utopian streak to the classical liberal view of free trade, which often takes it to be the sufficient condition for world peace. But are we really to believe that the growth of global commerce does not even tend in this direction?

Gray redefines “globalization” as “the ongoing process of worldwide industrialization.” He can therefore claim that Stalin accelerated globalization by industrializing Russia. He can also argue as follows: “There is no systematic connection between globalization and the free market. It is no more essentially friendly to liberal capitalism than to central planning or East Asian dirigisme. . . . Globalization makes the world smaller. It may also make it—or sections of it—richer. It does not make it more peaceful, or more liberal.”

It’s not that I think Gray hasn’t proven these assertions. I don’t think he has even rendered them plausible.