1) Inability to develop local economies, due to their inability to compete with LMC's and imports,
2) "Predatory" LMC practices such as sweatshop-type labor practices, environmental damage, forced farm takeovers, etc
3) Removal of trade barriers which can otherwise be used to protect local companies & markets.
1) Not developing a local economy isn't a reason to stop farming. Losing an existing economy might be. But that's different.
2) Forced labor and farm takeovers sound like fantastic answers, but you said they're only a small part of it, which I don't doubt.
3) Maybe this is the biggie. But it's not the LMC, it's other imports. Or are you talking about exports driving up local prices? Either way, your family can live on your own supplies of chickens, pigs, goats and grain and just not participate in the market.
PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case.
I'm not so sure, but this is a puzzle I've never been able to solve. Plenty of people say "globalization bad" but nobody can explain why. I've tried Googling it on and off, but the field is so full of emotions that nobody bothers with the logic. You've at least made a good effort, but it still leaves some gaping holes.
All that has led me to the tentative conclusion that pre-globalization life was even worse for many of these people. I know it's not a very romantic view, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a subsistence farmer unable to buy anything except local goods and services. What if I get sick? What if I want to do something more interesting than laboring all my life? Sounds terrible.
