The problem is that it's not "one globalization" but that there's a whole lot of things getting globalized and different groups have different bones to pick with different facets of that, so that you can end up with a lot of criticism but for very different reasons. But that doesn't mean that these groups don't support it in other domains or under different conditions.
Like things are getting global. For better or worse. It has never been easier to travel the world and see the globe in it's entirety for yourself. People moving from one country to another or to the other end of the globe is no longer a technical problem. And for information it's even faster. People can communicate near instantaneous with almost anybody around the globe and can gather a global audience. Forcefully keeping people in a bubble is becoming increasingly harder and often requires cutting back on technology (so if you are in the business of brainwashing you already might not like that part *). The knowledge of humanity is at our fingertips.
Likewise our technology has reached the point where our impact and thus our responsibility is no longer just localized. Like industrial production has been the major driver of climate change that effects the "global community" as a whole. And that is regardless of whether we consider ourselves to be such a "community" or not.
Like we are all swimming in the same pool and if we all keep taking increasingly larger dumps in it, we all end up swimming in shit.
The problem is that the things that make us shit are or were also the things that powered our engines and produce(d) our prosperity. And we've already produced dangerous amounts of shit... And "we" is italic because it's not really that the average person has produced a lot of shit, but rather a small number of countries and an even smaller number of people within those countries. So if everybody wanted the standard of living of the 0.001% or even just of the lower 50% in these countries there would be A LOT MORE SHIT.
So the majority of the world shares the results of the impact of that: climate change and the problems that come with it: Mass extinction, bad harvests, hunger, conflicts, wars and mass migration because of that and so on. While only a small minority received the benefits of that.
So in a sense it's high time to take up a global perspective to acknowledge the problem and the ecologic, economic, and social injustices and to tackle that in order to preserve the planet in a state that is genuinely habitable. At the same time the human perspective is undoubtedly localized and from the low income person to the politician most people have to prioritize their own standard of living and that of the people around them in order to sustain their existence.
So it's about balancing the interests of all people vs the interests of the "individual". Where again we should keep in mind that particularly wealthy and powerful nations and individuals have a stronger ability to assert their interests than the rest.
And there you've got already some battlegrounds surrounding globalism, elitism vs egalitarianism, like do all people count the same or is myself, my group, my country, my continent, ... more worthy of stuff than others. Centralization vs decentralization. Like should one form a global cooperations and supernational institutions that actually have teeth to decide something or should the power remain with the different countries. How much are countries willing to give up sovereignty to a larger organization, who makes up that organization, how is it made up, who controls it, how are the rights of the members preserved? Like does each country get one vote or is it by population? By size? The inverse of pollution?
Like especially far right lunatics will deride anything in that direction as global domination, tyranny and a world government enslaving the people, while their "alternative" is isolationism, ignoring the problem and continuing in the same way and preparing for the effect of climate change locally, sacrificing the rest of the world.
But as said outside of the nightmare rhetoric, it's still a huge problem to tackle. Especially as there is another battleground: Our economic system (capitalism).
That refers partially to the unequal distribution of benefits and drawbacks of industrialization, but also to it's competitive nature, it's interconnection of countries via trade and the globalization of capital.
So one reason where the "nationalism" usually shows some split personality is international trade. Because their preferred version is some sort of mercantilism where they gain stuff through trade but neither rely on other places nor take in people from other places. So free exchange of goods, no free movement of people. However as supply and demand are a thing people naturally follow the stuff. So as their ideal is unattainable, they progressively become more openly violent or accepting of violence (supporting dictators to block migrant routes, sink ships in the Mediterranean or criminalize rescue missions, aso). So they rant a lot about "globalism" and the "globalist ideology" and "the great replacement" and other racist tropes that deride migration but they have surprisingly little to say about the migration of goods in one direction.
Because no free trade does not benefit all equally. If poorer countries have low rated currencies because they have nothing of interest on sale, have to sell mostly raw materials (for low amounts of foreign currency) because they lack the high tech production and then buy processed goods (probably made from their own raw material) at high prices and as consumables, then they are kept in a state of perpetual exploitation where goods and services move in one direction. Incidentally similar to the colonialism that left them with economies centered around just one product without the ability to sustain itself.
* The other problem is that in order to keep being "competitive" countries often allow for "global players". So they allow for monopolistic megacorps as they have large turnover and thus leave a lot of money in taxes and wages in a respective country.
And for those megacorps the world actually is already a global community. Because capital is almost as unrestricted in it's capacity to travel as information. So if the taxes are too high in one country the company just moves it's HQ to a tax haven and realizes it's profits over there while everywhere else only deficits are accumulated. If the country has too many "workers rights" or if the wages are "too high" or if there are environmental protections and other regulations in place, just move the HQ or production to another country that is more willing to turn a blind eye. And the countries are often competing with each other about making the best offers to these megacorps because they look for these sweet tax and wage incomes from them despite them being ever smaller the higher the competition. To some extend you can already compare these megacorps to countries given their "population" (number of employees), their size (spread of the facilities) and their "GPD" (turnover and profit) as well as their ability to "make laws" by threatening to move somewhere else if the country doesn't comply with their demands. Just that a nation would be property of it's citizens while a megacorp is property of rich people so the plurality of it's "population" would not be "citizens" so to speak. So "politically" these "nations" are somewhere between "tyranny", "dictatorship" and "plutocracy"... So while it's not easy to create a national bubble, huge megacorps being the hub for all communication might as well curate their own bubble and might have to (not all moderation is bad).
So from the perspective of money, the world is a large village and it really doesn't matter where or with whom you produce only that you produce with profit. So global exploitation and the more erratic and onesided these movements get, the more countries will find themselves in a position where it's easy to take advantage of them.
So yeah on the one hand it would be great if people could cooperate in their production and reduce redundancy and overhead, produce solar energy in the desert and move it to the other areas and vice versa. On the other hand given the competitive nature of the system that could mean that other countries produce energy on the your countries soil damaging the environment there and then extracting the profits without you seeing much benefit from that. So unless there is some actual cooperation that as well would take the form of exploitation.
So no globalization is already happening through our actions whether we like that or not and we are unlikely to get that Djinn back into it's bottle and it's more about the question how we tackle it and everybody being dissatisfied with the result, though for often very different reasons meaning this pattern might continue for a long time.