magdalene:“Do they oppose cross border trade? Immigration? The operation of one corporation in numerous countries? Foreign aid? International economic cooperation?”
Unfortunately, the answer to your questions is, none of the above. I don’t have the time right now to give you a really good answer; but I’ll do my best from off the top of my head.
By and large, what people are protesting against is how their governments are using the power of the state to enforce the agenda of multi-national corporations–an agenda that has usually not been approved by voters and is often against voters’ interests. Sometimes this involves a small nation’s acceptance of loans in exchange for the removal of “protections” that for decades have subsidized a local industry on which a large number of native people depend. Multi-national corporations want to end such subsidies so that they compete more cheaply with those domestic producers–the end result of which is typically to put domestic producers out of business. So such people end up ruined and part of an ever-expanding global pool of cheap labor. If there were great jobs waiting for such people maybe this wouldn’t be a bad thing. But, of course, there aren’t. In some countries this has led to families resorting to sending their children to work as factory laborers or prostitutes to survive.
Typically those who oppose this process aren’t against the loans or against foreign investment. They recognize that these are poor countries that can benefit from industrialization. They simply want it be done in ways that use the power of the state to protect the country against just being ravaged. So, for example, they want to see environmental protections built in, or conservation of national resources, or the institution of an appropriate minimum wage; and they want to make sure that citizens get to take part in the decision-making.
It’s a very complicated issue b/c everybody wants to see “progress” for developing nations: but so-called “free traders” (in actuality “free trade” agreements have all sorts of deals built into them and aren’t any more “free” than anything else) are often willing to ignore the severe human and environmental costs, whereas their opponents want more democratic participation on the part of average people, and more effective use of national governments to minimize the human and environmental costs.
Of course, in a highly developed nation such as the US or in Europe, the problem is somewhat different. Here the challenge is to build up the position of foreign laborers so that the excellent standard of living enjoyed by Western laborers isn’t undermined b/c of cheap and highly exploited international labor. For example, in 1995, the average cost of employing labor in China was 50cents/hour; in Germany it was (if I recall rightly) over $20. Naturally multi-national employers would like to shift as much of their labor costs to countries with a pool of cheap labor (not to mention no safety standards, or regulatory oversight, etc.). But even they are aware, to a certain extent, that they do so at their own peril. That is, many Mercedes Benz factory workers actually drive a Mercedes Benz; but no worker being paid 50c or even 5.00/hour can do this. So multi-national companies try to have it their own way as much as possible; cutting costs where and when they can by exploiting cheap labor; but trying not to destabilize the Western consumer economies that they depend on.
Some say that Western workers will simply become highly educated technical employees. But have you noticed any great plans afoot to turn laid-off factory workers into engineers or computer programmers? And the other problem is that even these skilled workers can be hired much more cheaply in other countries. To maximize profits a company might want to use engineers from India, computer programmers from Russia and teenage girl factory labor from Malaysia all to reduce labor costs to the bare minimum. This leaves open the question of the US or European countries that are meant to buy the product this company produces when their engineers, programmers, and factory laborers have been cut out of the picture.
Right now, the people most aware of this trend in the US are the factory workers who’ve been losing their well-paid jobs for decades; but it’s begun to affect workers higher up the ladder as well. And then there are those civic-minded, people who are simply concerned about what is going on in other countries on humanitarian and environmentalist grounds. They also have a right to be concerned since their taxpayer money and their US government are being used to support these “globalizing” activities but in ways that very few voters understand.
I hope this gives you some sense of how complex the issues are.
And I will accept any form of payment you have to offer 
Here, btw, is a link or two.
This one’s an interview:
http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com/issue/991206/1206forum.shtml
In this link the author explains how the North American Free Trade Agreement “has enabled multinational corporations to usurp the sovereign powers of government, not to mention the rights of citizens and communities.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&s=greider
Actually, the best thing about the globaliztion debate is how fascinating it is. I became interested, much as you did: with a sense of confusion and dismay