When globalists and antiglobalists do get to talk to each other, the debate usually gets to the third world, and the globalists usually smile indulgently and say look at the economic growth figures of such-and-such an LDC. If the antiglobalist answers that, s/he's immediately on the other's turf.
Now, it occurs to me that capitalist development 'take-off' moments are marked by an appropriation of something - enclosure, and/or privatisation, and/or commodification of something (often a whole way of life) not formerly commodified. That means 'economic growth' can't help but be dramatic, as stuff without formal market value, and/or without formal profits, and/or without any recourse to market transactions at all could well equal zero on the national accounts. They suddenly appear on the accounts purely by virtue of a formal change of status, don't they? So, as the accounts soar, you actually get people losing their access to a livelihood, and/or public services and/or a tenable social network of collective-life-sustenance.
Et voila! A potent accounting trick proves unfettered capitalism is in the interests of the world's poor whilst it actually starves 'em!
Is that a correct answer for the antiglobalist to give? And, if so, is it a decisive answer?
Cheers, Rob.