The planet heard the news: Klaus Schwab, founder and long-standing president of the planet economical Forum in Davos, resigned from the supervisory board of the organization today. This is the symbolic end of an era. For 55 years Schwab led the Forum and gave speech to global discussions on the future of the economy, technology and society. His best-known ideas, specified as the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “Great Reset”, won a circular of applause among elites, but equally many controversy and criticism.
And here are any of his ideas:
1. The 4th Industrial Revolution: techno-optimism or techno-dictature?
One of Schwab's flagship ideas is the concept of the 4th Industrial Revolution. According to him, combining digital, biological and physical technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, the net of Things, biotechnology) will radically transform all aspects of life.
Schwab promotes the thought that countries and businesses must actively support the improvement of these technologies as they are inevitable and essential for progress. The problem is that Schwab almost unreflexively treats possible threats. Yes, he mentions “the request for ethics”, but there is no real critical analysis.
In practice, the 4th Industrial Revolution means the concentration of technological power in the hands of corporations. What Schwab presents as a “future of human-machine cooperation” can lead to mass surveillance, surveillance and marginalization of people without access to technology.
Instead of emancipation, we have a hazard of digital feudalism, in which the main platforms control communication, the labour marketplace and access to information. Schwab does not answer questions: who will control these technologies? Who will be liable for their abuse?
2. large Reset: Renewal or Masked Centralization of Power?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Schwab promoted the thought of "The large Reset". It assumes a thorough redevelopment of the economical and social system: a shift from shareholder capitalism to the capitalism of stakeholders, that is, a strategy in which companies respond not only to investors, but besides to society and the environment.
Sounds good? On paper, yes. In practice, however, “Reset” was promoted mainly by economical elites to manage this transformation. This is not about a democratic revolution, but alternatively about redefining neoliberalism so that it can last longer. Schwab and his colleagues do not propose to destruct inequalities but to institutionalise them in a fresh form.
The large Reset is more rebranding the strategy than changing it. alternatively of asking the public what should be changed, the elite meet in Davos and find it for everyone. There is no real participation here, and there is no excess of PR narrative.
3. Capitalism of stakeholders: an empty password?
Schwab has been promoting a model of “capitalism of stakeholders” (stakeholder capitalism). He argues that companies should service not only investors, but besides employees, customers, local communities and the planet.
It's a beautiful idea, but not supported by reality. Most corporations appearing in Davos run business as usual: profit maximization, taxation optimization, labour cost reduction. Capitalism of stakeholders frequently turns out to be just PR for companies that do not want to be seen as heartless piers.
Besides, Schwab does not answer the question: who should defender these stakeholders? What tools do they gotta enforce their rights? There are no in the current system.
4. Davos as a symbol of the separation of elites from reality
The Davos Forum was to be a place of dialogue. In practice, it became a luxury club for the richest. Millionaires and billionaires discuss equality by flying private jets. Politicians give speeches on the request for change and then return to old politics.
Davos became a symbol of global cynicism: saying 1 thing, doing another. Schwab, although undoubtedly affecting the form of a global debate, did not make mechanisms for real change. On the contrary, he established a model in which decisions are made outside democratic supervision.
5. Schwab as an ideologist for fresh technocracy
Schwab promotes a planet managed by “experts” and “leaders”. The problem is that specified leaders answer to no one. The Davos Forum is an environment where no 1 is liable for the consequences of their decisions. Schwab wants a planet where democracy is expendable due to the fact that it is replaced by the management and consensus of the elite.
It is simply a return to a technocracy model that ignores conflicts of interest, classes and ideology. Meanwhile, real change requires not so much consensus as confrontation and democracy. Schwab does not propose revolution or even reform. He's offering a better oiled machine.
6. “You will have nothing and you will be happy” — story or warning?
This sentence, although derived from 1 of the articles on the WEF website, was symbolically attributed to Schwab. His imagination of the future implies moving distant from private property to “use as a service”. Apartments, cars, equipment — everything would be shared.
In theory, this can reduce consumerism. In practice, however, it means making people dependent on digital service providers and platforms. If you have nothing, but you rent everything from Amazon or Google, who truly controls your life?
Schwab and his colleagues do not realize that ownership is besides independence. Without it, a citizen becomes a customer, and a client can be manipulated.
Summary: End of the Age, time for something new
Klaus Schwab's departure from the planet economical Forum closes an crucial chapter in the past of global elites. His ideas played a major function in shaping modern communicative about the future. But now it's time to revise and challenge them.
It is not adequate to preach the slogans of equality erstwhile practice is elite meetings without democratic control. It is not adequate to advance technology without asking the consequences. It is not adequate to change the communicative without changing the structures of power.
Schwab wanted to be the architect of the future. However, it leaves behind a plan that resembles dystopia more than utopia. Time for fresh ideas, more rooted in reality and more democratic.
