Globalization, like its 19th predecessor industrialization, promises a new hope in alleviating poverty, misery, inequality, etc, and most people can sense that. Those who outright oppose(d) it are(were) seen as either dogmatic reactionaries, or pie-in-the-sky- idealists who prefer mythical and idyllic past to the future.
What made Marxist ideologies so successful in the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries was their embracing the promise of industrialization while denouncing its then existing institutional form (property relations). The winning socialist story was "Industrialization has the potential of liberating the humankind from poverty and misery. The current social institutions grounded in property relations keep industrialization from realizing that potential. The point is, therefore, to liberate industrialization from its institutional constraints." The utopian socialisms that denounced industrialization on behalf of idyllic pre-industrial utopias lost.
As I see, the modern ant-globalization crowd repeats the mistakes of the 19th century utopian socialists. They do not embrace globalization as the Marxists did industrialization, and call for abolishing social institutions from the past that constrain its potential. Instead, they tend to embrace social institutions from the past (various forms of national protectionism) and denounce globalization that threatens them. That is reactionary rather than progressive.
There are very few progressive narrative that see new technology and globalization as an opportunity rather than a threat (e.g. Paul Hawken et al., _Natural Capitalism_). Most of what see on this list is globalization bashing in the utopian socialism style.
Wojtek