There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, globalization. For as long as there are vast disparities in, e.g., life expectancy and educational level across the planet, our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense), unfair, unstable, miserly, antediluvian. Good globalization means flow of information, capital, people, goods that is (or should be) the great equilibrator, restoring balance.
The other face of globalization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term conscious ESG arbitrage. Effectively pursuing short-term extractive profits by identifying global opportunities to hide environmental externalities such as pollution, exploit inferior labor conditions and benefit from poor governance systems (oligarchs and the like). Bad globalization means sharply raising inequalities within a region while modestly lowering inequalities between regions.
If localization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, localization. For as long as one region lives at the expense of others, slurping (ultimately by force) resources and human talent from across the planet our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense). The good side of localization means that, by-and-large, communities in all regions become adapted to and live in equilibrium within their own ecosystems.
The other face of localization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term Ideology arbitrage. Effectively pursue narrow-minded, isolationist policies and otherization, based on politics, religion or other discriminating factors in order to prop and persist a sub-optimal power structure arrangement.
The bottom line on globalization/localization is that they are sufficiently ill-defined that every political agenda can find something useful. Yet as the above juxtaposition hopefully illustrates, it does not take that much to start being more honest, less obfuscating, about what we are really talking about.