There is an underlying problem with discussions today about globalization. Ideologues have hijacked the term “gloablization” just as they have hijacked the term “diversity”.
“Globalization” is something the Eisenhower administration supported after WWII. The idea was that another massive war would be unlikely if trade were the foundation relationships among nations (particularly nations that have no other strategic reason for interacting).
The basic theory is that while people do not get along well with one another, cultures clash instead of blend easily, and crossing the invisible (but very real) max-mix-rate limit tends to be a prelude to violence, when economic interests align people demonstrate a remarkable ability to suppress political and cultural conflicts in favor of mutually beneficial trade. Free movement of goods combined with a natural self-segregation and general non-interference in internal affairs among nations, therefore, is critical to promoting technology, wealth, and the general advancement of the human condition without forcing people to blindly interact to a degree that makes them uncomfortable.
And that was that[1].
This being an Eisenhower policy, of course, it was based on capitalism. Socialists view capitalism as a Prime Evil and therefore something that must be targeted for subversion, and this is what they have done with the word “globalization”. These days when you see that word in the media it is a reference to “global society”, “global governance”, “global government”, “world law”, “citizens of the world”, “international law”, and related fantasies of the global socialist Left. What is a very, very good thing (voluntary global trade) has been corrupted by this new meaning.
It is important to note that the various flavors of Marxism are “take over the world” ideologies, similar in this way to Islam. If you have ever wondered why Right-leaning political groups are satisfied to allow local issues to be handled by local policy, but Left-leaning political groups always must elevate every village regulation to the national level and then later scream about it as a global problem, this is why.
Trade is good because it flows both directions. Wealthy countries tend to have a “trade deficit” with poor ones because the poor ones have raw goods the rich ones want, and the rich ones have the thing that defines richness: money. Global trade is the greatest “redistributor” of wealth ever devised, and nobody need be coerced to have it work properly.
Free movement of goods is a remarkably powerful strategy both for developed and developing nations, and incidentally does a profound amount of good around the world.
Free movement of people, however, is an absolute aberration and will only result in one of the following ends: impoverishment of the West and eventually the world, a reversal of the trend of ethnic and cultural acceptance in the West, an explosive backlash in the West that will cause a replacement of the leaders the Left screams their heads off as “racist Hitler clones!” with actual racist Hitler clones.
[1. Interesting addendum to this: Eisenhower was the mentor of Richard Nixon. We can see many of Eisenhower’s policies echoed in Nixon’s policies, in particular the brilliant and unexpected ploy to turn Communist Russia and Communist China against one another by “opening” China. Which worked exactly as intended at a time nobody saw it coming, blinded themselves by various ideological rhetoric.]