Random musings from a libertarian, tech geek...
As airplane reading on a biz trip to/from Europe, I read Against the Dead Hand: The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism by Brink Lindsey
Overall, I found the book very insightful and felt that Lindsey did a good job of pushing forward an alternative theory towards understanding the fits and convulsions that so many are having in the midst of "globalization."
Lindsey first argues that the world is actually current mired in a second bout of globalization. The initial round of Globalization was actually introduced in the late 1800s / early 1900s via the Industrial Revolution. While not quoting from his book, this article written by Lindsey provides a very good summary of the ideas he expands on:
During this period of history, "Globalization" reached truly impressive levels [Lindsey 63]:
Thus, the Industrial Revolution was generally founded in a classically liberal environment and led to significant world trade. However, this first bout of globalization seeded several memes which led to what Lindsey terms the "Industrial Counterrevolution"
Between these memes, Lindsey argues, a centralizing movement began to grow with the promise of "Back to the Future." Backwards towards a time of recognizable social enfranchisement and to the future towards the greater material well being promised by top down economic management. In full bloom, this movement was, of course, outright Marxism.
It's important to point out that while many contemporaries think of Socialism/Marxism as primarily a tool for political enfranchisement, the Marxists were actually arguing that their control of the economy would lead to greater material well-being for all -- above and beyond the effects of simple wealth redistribution; that there would actually be faster GNP expansion as a result of technocratic rule.
Here, Lindsey points out, we start to see several examples of the mutual flirtation between industrial techno barons and Marxist political technocrats [p 100]:
Even in partial fruition, however, Lindsey argues that we still see many of the vestiges of these ideas in place today even within the most liberal governments such as the US (for example Keynesian infatuation in the 60s/70s; various regulatory bodies today).
World wide, the Counterrevolution meme was far deeper and more damaging. Lindsey's example of particular manifestations of the Industrial Counterrevolution meme include:
Lindsey goes into excellent empirical an anecdotal detail into many of these examples. The net result of these policies was pronounced retrenchment from global trade over most of the 20th century.
I particularly enjoyed his discussion of how government centralizing policies, in the face of a "naturally" entrepreneurial populace results in sub-efficient scale manufacturing in India.
Now, Lindsey has laid the stage for his central argument -- that the throes as we enter our second bout with globalization stem from weaning ourselves off Counterrevolution memes [p 191]:
He goes through several of the oft-cited examples of Globalization gone awry and explains how they stem from the interplay of the liquid global market with illiquid statist policies:
Lindsey points out that he isn't advocating a neo-Anarchic embrace of non-government. To the contrary, he points out that many often unseen government actions are necessary to provide the groundwork for a successful, globally integrated, classically liberal society. Lindsey cites many of these functions as outlined in Hernando De Soto's Mystery of Capital.
Perhaps the most interesting element for me, Lindsey begins to articulate a theory towards the motivations of the now infamous anti-globalization protestors of Seattle, New York, etc. He advances an idea which does credibly explain their proclivity towards a very wide, disparate series of causes du jour. Lindsey finds explanatory revelation by looking at the infatuation European intellectuals had with War on the eve of WWII [Lindsey, 246]:
And so, while many anti-globalization protestors see themselves as the inheritors of the Rousseau vs. Smith/Locke intellectual debate; Lindsey actually finds them -- convincingly -- as the latest incarnations of the Marx voice. This is NOT in the end-game manner of a socialist paradise but rather in the motivation Lindsey quotes earlier in the book 
And in this sense, we also see what Lindsey believes is the fundamentally self-limiting nature of the anti-globalization protestor. While Marx was making his argument that centralized management would lead to greater material prosperity, our current protestors are actually protesting the tools of material prosperity itself.
While the argument has some resonance in a literary/philosophic sense, it is far from being a "mass market" meme (pun very deliberately intended).