The idea is the agenda that "globalization" is representing somebody’s plan, and it may be because of the tragedies of poverty in the world. For an illustrative example of this type of anti-globalization rhetoric we can study the work of coalition of local institutions which have enough power to influence at national and international levels. Business Elite, as we often call them, forces their agenda behind the formal democratic institutions . The multinational companies do everything to grow and expand; they invest in special projects, concentrating more money in fewer hands.
Today we do not meet much critics of globalization on any side, whether they are right or left. Oxfam gives identity of products as Olympic sports cloths making workers to work faster for long periods of time in difficult environment for minimum wages. It led to more goods and less expenses. Trade is inherently unfair business for developing countries, which would rarely experience increased welfare instead of disparity in unemployment, poverty and income. Once Nyerere the former President of Tanzania summarized zero-sum mentality during his visit to Britain saingg that he was poor just because “others” were rich. The right politics are still there concerning about the market which makes winners and losers at the same time. Edward Luttwak mentioned that global capitalism demands for hard laws, cruel punishment, and imprisonment of mass.
Surely, the right wing is more declined to capitalism with free markets today than the left wing does. The persistence of this way of thinking shows how the zero-sum mentality is forming an independent branch of political ideology. Of course globalization \capitalism creates winners and losers, storms with creative destruction. It is not hard to realize the perception that there are more losers than winners, they are reinforcing the habit of behaving in zero-sum way.