It is raining grasshoppers and toad’s blood but nonetheless the Davos project continues unabated with its annual World Economic Forum, which is the main hub of the dominant powers and the elaboration of technocratic strategies. For an analysis of real interest, it is significant to take a look at the new white paper published by the WEF, on the occasion of the recent summit. The dossier deals with the “future of globalization”, outlining four scenarios, with the summoning title Four Futures for Economic Globalization: Scenarios and Their Implications, MAY 2022 link
The basic idea is quite clear: there is a scenario that is not only the one advocated by the WEF, but it is the one it is already working on with all its influence, which is expressed through the strategic partners (the major industrial and financial companies), through the global leaders, through the media, in turn controlled by men of the WEF, through the various branches of the Davos circle, young scientists, the Global University Leaders Forum, the technology pioneers, etc.); and there are alternative scenarios, more or less disturbing and nauseating, which we obviously want to avoid. In fact, at the opening of the paper, it is said that the history of 2022 is at a turning point and various factors contribute to the uncertainty of the future: the pandemic in progress (in progress …), the climate crisis, the war in Ukraine and related “geopolitical realignments”.
The concomitance of the three crises – epidemic, environmental, geopolitical – and their socio-economic consequences subject the global economy to a fundamental transformation, behind the driving force of enormous stress. At the same time, these leaders write, “technological innovation in recent years has gone beyond all borders and old ideas about what is possible”. It is very important to understand in what technology has surpassed the unimaginable, because this is precisely where a strong and decisive cultural backwardness of the area of dissent is affected: exactly what makes the opposition actions that are thought to be adopted ineffective. It is basically the integration of the digital world and the physical world, that is the core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The White Paper, however, points out the danger – from the point of view of the WEF -: in fact, this integration is no longer a given. On the other hand, geopolitical conflicts are also rapidly expanding from physical to “virtual” space.
In an attempt to imagine the state of the global economy in five years (in 2027), the WEF designs a model made up of four possible futures, which differ according to the prevalence of “integration” or “fragmentation”, respectively in the space “physical” and “virtual” or “digital”. We thus have a scenario with integration both in the physical and in the virtual, a scenario with fragmentation in both worlds and the other two scenarios in which the fragmentation in one corresponds to integration in the other or vice versa.
The range of four futures
The WEF is keen to point out that this is not a prediction of the future, but a range of “possible futures”. The first scenario is that of integration both in the digital and in the physical and of the integration also and above all of the two worlds. In this context, a globalization, although quite different from the past (it is “globalization 5.0”), would survive, in the second half of the decade, the destructive blows of the early twenty years and would lead to a new “prosperity”. This will happen if, as Klaus Schwab warned two years ago in “The Great Reset”, the pandemic crisis – to which the war is later added (The Major Conflict, in the words of this white paper), is used as a “opportunity”, to move away from the globalization of the past – the “neoliberal” one – and to develop a “governance”, a global cooperation.
This would then be the situation in 2027: greater diversification of supply chains of resources and raw materials has reduced the likelihood of prolonged supply and price shocks. The importance of oil and gas as strategic resources has decreased due to the growing diversification and greater adoption of renewable energy. Long-term investments in digital, social and green transformations (the so-called sustainable capitalism, in acronym ESG) feed “a new wave of inclusive and sustainable growth”.
In this scenario, cooperation between countries that are mainly responsible for CO2 emissions, made possible by physical and virtual integration, has made the fight against “climate change” effective. The labor market is more “globalized”, “digitized”, “delocalized”, with an increase in smart working, short-term and flexible employment.
The supply of highly skilled labor is increasing, while less skilled workers or those affected by globalization are more protected than in previous waves of globalization, because governments make “heavy” investments in “safety nets” and “human capital” through higher taxation.
Undress the good daddy’s sweet rethoric
In this perspective, the radical restructuring of the capitalist system is described, first defined as the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and then “Great Reset” by Klaus Schwab. Behind the idyllic representation of it in this white paper is the reality – which transpires from the same essay by Klaus Schwab, undoubtedly a little more intellectually honest than the present libellus, of a society without growth. Because out of rhetoric and simplistic sweetenings, this is what we know is hidden behind the loving formula of “inclusive and sustainable growth” which replaces that of “sustainable development”: a ruthlessly competitive world, bent by an even more shocking restructuring of the market of work, divided increasingly between a small minority of skilled work and a large precarious work area, with very heavy social costs, which will be tried to manage with the “safety nets”, ie the citizenship income and the minimum wage.
A globalization in this sense is not only different, but precisely opposite to the so-called neoliberal one, as it will require more state – the return of the Keynesian big government but with a completely different function and above all in a completely different situation – and an imposition ferocious tax. The middle class will thus be increasingly reduced to a proletariat which will live on minijobs and subsidies. Ironically, it is precisely the prediction of a Marxist tendency that had seemed most fallacious.
However, the difficulties with which the construction of this scenario must deal can be read between the lines and even over the lines: it will be necessary to overcome the centrifugal tendencies that act in the opposite direction to this integration: the “economic, social and regional resilience” and the problems linked to the supply chains of resources and raw materials. But first of all there is another problem (the one that escapes many opponents): the primary condition for realizing this scenario is not so much “physical globalization”, but digital globalization. The capitalism that is being proposed is in fact a capitalism of surveillance and control, which passes through the new technologies of the all-pervasive Fourth Industrial Revolution. This is clearly explained in the second scenario, the one that provides for an integration in the physical world, but not in the digital world.
However, we anticipate an implication that is also practical and that those who are committed to fighting this dystopian plan should keep in mind: the action of resistance in the digital world, against this “digital globalization” and therefore against surveillance capitalism, is at least as essential as that in the physical world. Perhaps it is the decisive one. Or maybe the two actions are inseparable. These are completely open circumstances and we will only be able to draw conclusions at the end.
Let’s now see the other of the four futures with their alternative scenarios, more or less threatening and disturbing, but not necessarily and mainly for global powers. As we have seen, these four nice scenarios arise from the combination of four variables: integration, fragmentation, physical world, digital world.
With the second scenario, an integration in the physical world is envisaged, but a fragmentation in the digital world. There is fear of a reinvigoration of the global market, for the resumption of trade in goods, and at the same time a fragmentation of the digital space, because they tell us «some governments try to exercise greater control, companies have to face conflicting regulations in all countries and the problems of computer security create further fractures».
In essence, there would be «greater state control over digital freedom of speech, new firewalls, inadequate privacy regulations and an increased risk of disinformation». Big-tech companies, especially biotech and AI (artificial intelligence) companies, would encounter difficulties on the global market due to monopolies and state controls and a limited diffusion of innovation and competition. In this way, in 2027 «economic cooperation becomes more complex, with fragmented digital systems», divided into technospheres, and this also negatively affects the trade in physical goods. Technology-based industries, such as electronics, aeronautics, automotive, pharmaceuticals, are concentrated in single regional areas and their production is significantly reduced. There is also reduced “green-tech” innovation, with a slowdown in the global transition to renewable energy and an increase in dependence on carbon-based energy sources, and with negative consequences on the cost of living.
According to this scenario, geopolitical rivalries further strengthen the fragmentation of the digital space, leading to stronger restrictions on freedom of speech, cyber wars and high levels of disinformation. On the job market, even highly qualified personnel find opportunities mainly within their own “technosphere”.
This scenario seems an unlikely bugbear, because the factors that could hinder integration in the digital world – basically state powers and geopolitical rivalries – seem to be the same ones that would adversely affect physical integration. It is not clear how a physical globalism can coexist with a digital protectionism. Some of the negative consequences of the reduced digital integration are undoubtedly real and to be taken seriously: those who imagine that we can return to the pre-digital world do not understand that this retreat of history would now have heavy costs, which global powers would download anyway, in large part. , on the weakest and least guaranteed classes and countries. But, apart from this, the second scenario further clarifies the fundamental purposes pursued by the globalist oligarchies gathered around the WEF: both physical-digital integration and integration in each of the two worlds are essential for them, as well as the orientation of sovereign state powers, in order to cooperate in global governance, which must not hinder “digital globalization” with their own regulations.
The sarcastic sense of the word peace
Geopolitical rivalries are therefore seen as a serious threat. The desired world, because it is preparatory to the planned transition, must be pacified as much as possible, with a peace that obviously has nothing to do with justice and even less with freedom: a peace of the humankind in the literary sense, being quiet and silent, within a world that can include everyone, and above all countries like Russia and China, in globalization. Indeed, it was precisely through the ritual initiatives of Klaus Schwab that we owe the entry of China and then that of Russia into the global market. One of the reasons for the publication of this white paper is precisely the concern that geopolitical wars arouse (attention, only these) in oligarchies that perhaps too hastily thought they had liquidated them. These events, just to add a further level of complexity, are an obstacle to the globalization designed by Klaus Schwab and his companions, but they are also an obstacle to freedom in the world and, of course, to peace in the broadest sense of the term.
The third scenario is the overturned version of the second, thus being defined as digitally dominant: a reality that sees integration into the digital world and fragmentation in the physical one. The latter is due to economic protectionism and geopolitical conflicts, with opposing alliance systems. However, the use of web platforms and technologies will still see a complete spread. In addition to this, the profile of a five-year path is described
«The world’s major economies have aligned themselves with tax systems linked to digital services, cybersecurity and privacy regulations and laws on online work»
In this scenario, the expansion of the economy and online work becomes very effective.
«In some sectors the competition is strong, with small and big players competing to offer the best services. In others, the largest platforms form global domains and their domination raises political and social concerns due to their uncontrolled power and market concentration»
Briefly described the third scenario, the negative implications of fragmentation in the physical world are highlighted. It involves a fragmentation of global supply chains, which are broken according to strategic alliances – «ex. United States-European Union; China-Russia», with prolonged supply crises, rising inflation, heavy indebtedness of governments, companies and families. The smallest and most trade-dependent countries suffer the greatest losses, as well as those that have an economy based mainly on the extraction of raw materials and energy resources, the former due to a lack of essential raw materials, the latter due to the reduction of exports. Those who manage to compensate for the economic losses due to physical fragmentation are saved, thanks to the development of digital services, ie the digital transition, by moving to business models such as the one called anything as a service. It is therefore likely that market power will increase and the economic and political importance of global technology giants, those who work with Artificial Intelligences, offer market data and digital services, while physical fragmentation damages manufacturing and leads to a premature deindustrialization of less advanced or developing economies, which have not invested in digital infrastructure and cannot keep up with global digitization.
In essence, the countries that have made appropriate investments in human capital will benefit from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, while the others will risk being expelled from the global economy. Major economies, with large internal markets and local or regional sources of supply of key resources are not profoundly damaged in this scenario. Finally, on the labor market, global digitalization offers growing opportunities in knowledge-intensive value chains and creates a strong demand for highly qualified talents around the world. On the contrary, the cross-border movement of labor is more restricted and a rift is created between workers who are geographically constrained, compared to those who are more flexible. These limited possibilities of movement suffer especially the less skilled workers in the sectors of physical presence jobs and this reduces remittances for developing economies; finally, younger workers in backward economies are penalized.
The thought between cheering and reality
The picture outlined in this third scenario among the four futures has its own brutal, but frank and real eloquence. It is not the favorite of the WEF globalist oligarchies, but it is equally clear that they do not fear it at all. At best, they would have some difficulty arguing that the Fourth Industrial Revolution has brought us to the best of all possible worlds.
The scenario should instead be taken into serious consideration by all those opponents of the system, who oppose an USA unipolar globalization, a multipolar world, the old slogan of Maoist China and Russia since the early nineties. The geopolitically and militarily multipolar world, which would then be a bipolar world, with Russia linked to China in a subordinate position, without a true change of economic, social and cultural paradigm, would be precisely the one described here.
It would be the world of Digital Dominance, of digital globalization, which none of the political actors, including China and Russia, have the ability, the possibility or even the will to stop: the Russian oligarchs are global power; the second world company in on-line commerce, which is not a competitor of Amazon, but rather shares the sector with Amazon, is the Chinese Alibaba, strategic partner of WEF; China absolutely wants to take over Taiwan, because Taiwan is the new Silicon Valley, it is at the center of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, ie the sector of artificial intelligence, microchips, the internet of things.
Who would pay the costs, who would be the excluded, the submerged, the rejected? They would be, even more than before, the mass of workers without a high specialization in the sector of digital technologies, the middle class and small businesses crushed by the giants of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, small businesses, all those who have a physical labor income. and “in presence”, all those who have difficulty moving to where there is the greatest and best job offer, the smallest countries, the weakest economies, those lagging behind on the digital transition, entire areas of the globe, such as Africa , Latin America, producers and extractors of raw materials, the manufacturing industry and all its employees.
From this analysis comes further confirmation of how foolish it is to oppose the Russian-Chinese empire to the US empire. We must not hope for anything from an internal opposition to the system, but instead seek a system alternative. But this, of course, is a matter for those who, instead of cheering on the stadium, should worry about their own future, together with that of their children.
The last scenario of the four futures
So here we are at the last scenario of the four futures outlined by the World Economic Forum. In this scenario, the events of the early decade – pandemic and war – provoke destructive responses to globalization, with fragmentation in both the physical and digital world. These responses are essentially protectionist in nature, with restrictions imposed by various governments on the trade in goods and services and the flow of capital and with strict controls on information, technology and social relations. These new “iron curtains” lead to the creation of closed areas, within which physical and virtual cooperation still takes place, areas that are made up of the various geopolitical alliances. Non-aligned countries are forced to take sides. To minimize dependence on other areas, the standard of living decreases everywhere and significant and prolonged shocks occur in prices and in the economic offer of products and services.
In this general framework of economic stagnation or stagflation, the effects on the various countries are all the more diversified. Larger economies, with large internal markets, hold up better and for a longer time, while countries and companies most dependent on imports, technologically backward, heavily indebted are more severely and sooner affected. The dependence of economically weaker countries on stronger ones increases. Industries have been induced to nationalize for security reasons.
General manufacturing production drops. Essential services – health, supply – are in crisis and “progress risks slowing down for generations”. Environmental degradation is accentuated, due to the accentuated exploitation of local resources, with the return to carbon-based energy sources.
The dual physical / digital fragmentation thus leads to a loss of job opportunities for both the most skilled and the least skilled workers. Public spending on social safety nets increases. Social and political conflict risks leading to greater authoritarianism and limitations on freedom of the press and expression and privacy.
The deadlock of globalization and dissidence
The agreements placed in the belly of the associates of this international Forum are certainly aimed at exacerbating the negative consequences deriving from a disintegration of globalization known to us so far. However, the premises and the overall picture are realistic, especially for laboratory countries with scarce resources in raw materials and energy, such as Italy. Through a “deglobalization” all the evils that the same “sovereignists” or “alternatives to the system” of the left as well as the right, attribute to globalization, would be aggravated precisely through the deglobalization. For certain fringes that present themselves as avant-gardes, we believe it is therefore appropriate to review ideological schemes and attitudes that are now abused. The conclusions that can be deduced from reading this WEF white paper are very stimulating, precisely in this sense.
Affirming that none of the so called four futures is the “optimal” one, even if some of these lead to better results, the idea according to which the first scenario (a full physical / digital world integration in a globalist key) is the one privileged by the WEF, would seem disproved. The problem is that this forum is realistically aware that “the traditional engines of globalization have reached a critical point” and that “in the coming years, the most likely outcome is a complex combination of the four scenarios“, while it is unlikely that one of them , for example the first, can be absolutely imposed.
It is very interesting to understand what this “combination of the four scenarios” might consist of more precisely. With the usual clarity, the minds of the WEF imagine a subdivision of the world on three levels: of purely local political areas and markets, other geopolitical areas – with related alliances – and markets at a regional level and, finally, a globalized higher level. Globalization, at the level of big tech or big pharma giants or also big banking and financial groups as well as online commerce leaders – Amazon like China’s Alibaba – will coexist with geopolitical conflict and related protectionism.
The eventual multipolarity so dear to sympathizers of the Russian-Chinese alignment in an anti-American function does not destroy or even contrast the globalization of the big, but that of the small, the only ones to be seriously damaged. This three-level articulation is also and above all hierarchical – a bit like in Immanuel Wallerstein‘s world-system model: globalized areas and markets are the winning ones, those restricted in the local dimension are the losers and the exploited, while those regionalized are the intermediate level. And this should lead to a bath of realism even those who think they are withdrawing from the world, perhaps in neo-hippy or post-hippy “self-sufficient” communities.
Having recognized the WEF what it is right to recognize it, in terms of analysis, planning and strategy skills that unfortunately are hiding in the field of self-styled opposition, it must obviously be said that the scenario that is looming, that of a world on three levels – global, regional and local – within this mode of production, it is unacceptable, even worse than the first scenario which is that of a triumphant globalization, and must be fought and averted.
We believe this report is therefore useful for understanding the tools and objectives of the fight that are totally wrong and which would risk producing worse effects than the evils they intend to fight. The hope is that we will really be able to work in identifying those paths that are truly different from both the scenarios of a new globalization or a three-level world of the WEF, and from the fatal ideology of the “multipolar world”, which only serves Russian interests and especially Chinese, both from the escape from the world (from the virtual world and also from the real one) of certain dreamers. It is the way of a system alternative. A very difficult path, but the only one for which it is worth spending one’s energy.