1. The idea of a progressivist, universalizing capital operating throughout and exercising creeping control over the world is a complete myth, the Manifesto Marx's idea that over time he severely amended, or, I would argue, completely left behind. Not only is the history of capitalism one of increasing and then decreasing "globalization," but even in its most "advanced" states, it always operates by segmentation and exclusion. As much as capital wants to cover the whole earth, and beyond, it never really can because it always relies on stratification to function.
This doesn't mean that the appropriate response is to demand that capital first be made universal, the socialist desire to "take capital at its word." Besides being impossible, capital doesn't give a shit if you believe in it not. Of course, localist types make a similar mistake when they think they can find autonomy anywhere, as if capital can't operate on micro levels and doesn't affect small things. If it didn't it would be a lot easier to overcome.
2. Capital does rely on the local. It needs communities of care (families, but also larger than that) to reproduce its workers and nation-states to realize its surplus. Expecting people to think and act outside those locations of operation seems like a demand for heroism, and thinking that the local is not a useful site for disruption and transformation seems pretty wrong.
3. The demand that "the revolution" maintain and expand capitalist technological development is an interest, which I guess is okay, but it makes me wonder: would you give up your iPhone in exchange for communism? Okay, maybe that's a silly question, because it not only predicts the future but imagines one in which the two are incompatible. But I do think that if people are primarily interested in conserving their cars, 401k's, and lifestyles, then communism is impossible. Not because those things are dissonant with communism, but because it means no one's willing to put anything at risk.