Posted 16 февраля 2021,, 13:13
Published 16 февраля 2021,, 13:13
Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38
Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38
It's no secret that the name of the German economist, founder and permanent president of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Klaus Schwab, is the first on the banners of the covid dissidents of the entire planet. His books, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and The Great Reset, and many of his speeches are recklessly studied and cited by them. And not in vain, because there he portrayed our future, as the "masters of history" represent it - 1% of the most influential and wealthy families of the world's elites and their closest "servants". And the coronavirus pandemic itself has become an inevitable catalyst for this transformation.
Schwab is building his designs for a new world order, in which more than 90% of today's well-established people will lose everything, from property to the right to control their soul and body ... and life itself. A sort of universal equality of the slaves of the global system.
“Many people ask when we will finally be able to return to normal life. In short: never, - says Schwab - The world will never be the same, capitalism will take a different form, we will have completely new types of property, in addition to private and state. The largest multinational companies will take on more social responsibility, they will be more actively involved in public life and be responsible for the common good”.
Suppressing the world's peoples with COVID restrictions and open state terror will result in the loss of billions of jobs. For those who have lost their jobs, Schwab is proposing the introduction of a “universal basic income” in exchange for fulfilling a number of conditions, such as unconditional vaccination with everything BigPharma has to offer and giving up ownership of the property forever. The size of the “universal basic income” will barely reach the subsistence level, but in order to maintain it, all conditions will need to be met unconditionally. Those who do not want to give up property will be strangled with taxes.
“Enterprises will comply with these measures, not because they think they are correct, but because otherwise they will have to pay too high a price. (...) By 2035, up to 86% of jobs in restaurants, 75% of jobs in trade and 59% in entertainment industries can be automated, ”writes Schwab.
As a result of the destruction of business, former businessmen will join in their new poverty to billions of disadvantaged citizens, new slaves of a new world order - this will achieve "social justice and equality." “The pandemic gives us this chance: it is a narrow window of opportunity for reflection, solutions and resetting our world,” says the visionary economist.
However, not everything is so simple, objected to Schwab, publicist and writer Marina Shapovalova, who published a post with a detailed and convincing analysis of what he was right and what he was wrong about. Covido dissidents should be familiar with it:
“Having presented his visionary ideas as the main topic of the last Davos Forum, Klaus Schwab said nothing new: almost nothing that he has not written about in recent decades. The difference is that he wrote, published, proposed for discussion in Davos, attracted Prince Charles himself to popularize his ideas, but did not go. And so, assessing the circumstances of the pandemic as favorable, Schwab entered with shock: he decided to immediately daze and troll.
For if you do not annoy anyone, then hell who will pay attention to what you are talking about, albeit on the most prestigious public platforms.
Therefore, in the first words of his manifesto, having correctly guessed (even in the summer!) That mask-isolation regimes would still bring the inhabitants to depression and neuro-suicidal breakdowns, he immediately said that there would be no return to the “disturbed sense of normal life” after the pandemic - “NEVER".
It is done. Everyone finally noticed. They were outraged. Read it. And ... We saw the conspiracy of the all-powerful world "Behind the Scenes", intending to push us all into the global digital "green" concentration camp named after Greta Thunberg. The conspiracy theorists have a holiday: they have warned for a long time! True, it makes no sense for them to work now to expose secret plans: everything is declared openly and in detail, although it is rather chaotic and not without a certain slyness. But, before putting on the foil hats in anticipation of the takeover of the planet by the reptilians, let's figure it out".
Most of each of the sections of the book contains a description of the pressing problems of humanity, which Mr. Schwab sees them. And this is growing inequality, ecology and other imbalances that threaten natural and social shocks.
Schwab considers the main issues of the post-spear era to be the erosion of globalization, the lack of global governance, the growing rivalry between the United States and China, and the fate of fragile and failing states. The author sees the "trilemma of globalization" in the fact that "three concepts - economic globalization, political democracy and the nation state are incompatible with each other, based on the logic that only two of them can effectively coexist at any given time". At the same time, voters' rejection of globalization is a rational response to the global crisis in a strong economy. That is, de-globalization with an orientation towards protectionism, which will last for the next few years, will be initiated by rich countries. Global governance in the form of cooperation of transnational actors will become irrelevant and ineffective during this period. The rivalry between the United States and China is predictable only in the sense that almost any of its consequences are dangerous for the world as a whole. The fragility of states that are unable to provide fundamental functions in a deteriorating economic environment also threatens the world with great trouble.
Noting that the role of the state has greatly diminished in recent decades, the author admits that it justifiably and expectedly increased during the covid crisis, and will continue to grow, increasing taxation and more actively influencing the way of doing business. However, the author does not rule out (although he considers it unlikely) the collapse of "some bankrupt or oil states" as a result of the pandemic shock.
Unlike pandemics of previous centuries, which killed a significant part of the population and therefore caused a post-pandemic increase in the cost of labor, a covid pandemic that bankrupts businesses is more likely to generate unprecedented unemployment. Digitization and automation, accelerating during quarantine restrictions, will reduce human participation in many industries to a minimum, destroying a large proportion of jobs forever.
Scientific and technological progress, from the point of view of Schwab and his like-minded people, under the conditions of modern capitalism (the purpose of which is to increase profits) only exacerbated the negative tendencies of predatory nature management with an uneven distribution of benefits and access to the benefits of civilization, including medical care. The author has long argued that all this will not lead to good, and takes the opportunity to draw attention to the problems again.
And he sees the case as timely and especially suitable, because pandemic lockdowns have hit the capitalist system not weakly, causing irreversible damage to the harmful world economy. Practically destroying or significantly reducing the volume of everything that Schwab hoped to reduce and destroy only by 2030, persuading billionaires to help him in this noble endeavor. The author devoted many lines - most of the text - to the proof of the irreversibility of the "reset" that is taking place during the pandemic. Moreover, in some places it is quite convincing. After all, his outrageous "never" in the general sense of the manifesto does not mean the prolongation of isolation and other prohibitions by the will of the "world government", but rather the psychological inability of humanity to soon overcome the fear of infection and death. He describes the trend as he sees it: in the pandemic of depression that hit especially rich countries, in the consequences of the destruction of a significant proportion of small and medium-sized businesses in services, in the national isolation measures of governments, etc. All this will last, says Schwab, no less than one and a half to two years after the pandemic itself fades, and most likely - much longer. It is even more likely that most of the pandemic restrictions will remain with us forever, just as the temporary security measures introduced after the 9.11 terrorist attack became permanent and customary, without any objections or questions. Simply put, it is not Schwab and his comrades who are going to ban the whole world from taking off their masks - he only predicts that most people will henceforth fear every public sneeze like the plague, urging their governments to create safe conditions for health and strictly control irresponsible contacts.
Garbage, in fact, this virus of yours, Schwab casually notices several times - but how it went! You can't help but take advantage of this! And he expounds his vision of trends, topical global problems and ways to overcome them in the window of opportunity created by the covid crisis.
The author sees the necessary fundamental change in the fact that stakeholder capitalism should replace Friedman's share capitalism, whose social responsibility is to increase profits, in the Russian version - “stakeholder capitalism”. All parties involved in economic processes are equally interested: owners, shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers and even the environment. Increasing profits can no longer be the goal of companies, the environment will dictate conditions to the business: to work for the benefit of all stakeholders and, instead of profit, aim at respecting human dignity.
Of course, in this idyll, where the wolf lays down next to the lamb, and the grass of the environment must remain intact, consumption will have to be limited. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption are fading into oblivion, which we already partially observe, and which we do not regret at all. But this is not enough. The author sees the "japonification" of the production-consumption model close to the ideal. It is Japan that stands out today with two interconnected distinctive features: it has one of the lowest levels of inequality among high-income countries and a markedly lower level of consumption. The consumption structure under stakeholder capitalism can be graphically depicted as a donut, “in which the inner circle is the border of the minimum necessary for a good life (as proclaimed by the UN Sustainable Development Goals), and the outside is the ecological ceiling determined by scientists (which emphasizes the boundaries of anthropogenic activities to avoid environmentally negative impacts on climate, soil, oceans, ozone layer, fresh water and biodiversity). There is a golden mean (or “dough”) between the two borders, where our human needs and the needs of the planet are met".
The pandemic crisis has created an opportunity to rethink the entire organization of life in order to bring about positive, sustainable and lasting change. And since everything complex is maximally vulnerable, the author sees the way out in simplification, as in an "antidote" that helps to increase stability. This is about offline. About supply chains, air travel, restaurant business, tourism and other contact economic interactions, which are the essence of harmful excesses.
The author does not touch upon the digital complexity in this context, although it is it that raises questions of a moral, ethical and legal nature, for example, how can the right of an individual to confidentiality be combined with the benefits of total tracking. The author acknowledges the legitimacy of the questions, but considers fears about digital tracking and control exaggerated and ultimately futile. After all, the tracking system best of all satisfies the main vital need - safety. She will ensure the protection of the health of everyone and everyone - it would seem, what more could a person want. Is privacy really important, and in what sense? The author thinks that to a large extent it can be sacrificed painlessly (a matter of habit), and some minor problems will somehow settle down in the process of AI development: in the end, what prevents a person from simply believing that the technology of tracking viruses or terrorists is used only against viruses and terrorists, and not for any other purpose. And to agree that in some circumstances "state power can rightfully prevail over individual rights".
Governments are likely to decide that it is in the public interest to rewrite some of the rules of the game and continually increase their role. As it happened in the 1930s in the United States, when the problems of mass unemployment and economic insecurity were tried to be eliminated by increasing government intervention - a similar course of action is likely to be characteristic for the foreseeable future. By increasing budget expenditures while reducing tax revenues, governments will build up budget deficits using the tools of the so-called modern monetary theory (MMT) - “helicopter money” with zero and negative interest rates. Subsequent inflation and a decline in real disposable income will undermine citizens' confidence in the political elites of their states. The new social contract that the post-like world will require will include broader provision of social assistance, protection, health care and better basic services.
Who exactly will demand a new social contract in such a form that no one in the world can refuse it?
From the text of various sections and chapters, we can conclude that the driving force behind the coming changes will be civic activism and popular discontent, which is inevitable in conditions of economic decline and impoverishment. Left without sources of livelihood, which is inevitable as a result of a lockdown "reset" ("macro-reset, micro-reset and individual reset", detailed by the author in several sections), the masses will rightly demand that they take care of themselves from both governments and large a business that is more likely to survive the crisis. The activists (apparently, as the most conscious part of the revolutionary class) will demand a more responsible approach to environmental problems, a transition in production and consumption from the "take-make-utilize" model to a model that is "restorative and regenerating by design".
Responsible leaders and decision-makers “may want to take advantage of the shock of the pandemic to bring about long-term and broader environmental change” so that the crisis “does not go to waste”. Enlightened leadership is about providing financial “incentive packages” to campaigns moving to green energy and low-carbon business models.
Social behavior (collective and individual) must shift towards greener lifestyles, encouraging us to ignore everything that we don't really need. At least in rich countries, it is worth promoting, for example, reducing meat consumption and reducing flights. Criticism of the idea of constant economic growth assumes the satisfaction of consumer needs with zero and negative GDP growth.
The transition to the principles of stakeholder capitalism can be carried out in the process of interested partnership of states with business with the participation of social and environmental activists, inspired by the “cleansing” results of lockdowns for nature and concerned about establishing a more equitable distribution of benefits. The cost of failing to meet the new requirements will be too high for companies "in terms of activist anger." “For activists, the decency shown (or not shown) by companies during the crisis will be paramount. For many years, companies will be judged by their actions - critically, not only in a narrow commercial sense, but also through a broader social lens”.
The post-pandemic era will usher in a period of massive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor and from capital to labor. Separate economic growth from resource use. And it will finally bury the ideas of neoliberalism, which prefer competition to solidarity, and the free market to government intervention.
And all this described splendor is the only alternative (in the author's opinion) to the spontaneous realization of global threats in the form of wars and environmental disasters that cast doubt on the prospects for the survival of mankind. An alternative that requires a change in the world leaders' outlook and new standards of behavior.
Just as they say.
However, Mr. Schwab is not at all convinced that the necessary Reset can be carried out without problems.
First of all, as he notes, there was no “committee for saving the world”, and there is still no. Meanwhile, global coordination for such a large-scale transformation is absolutely necessary, "because it is unthinkable that the global economy could" reset "without sustainable international cooperation." The transition to “digital everything” must also be supported and accelerated by “regulators” that do not exist.
In addition, in terms of the goals set, the announced Reboot seems to be significant and influencing the possible results of the aforementioned "trilemma" borrowed by the author from Dani Rodrik (Harvard economist). According to her, democracy and national sovereignty are compatible only if globalization is contained. On the contrary, if both the nation state and globalization flourish, then democracy becomes bankrupt. And if democracy and globalization expand, there will be no place for the nation state. "The combination of economic integration with democracy implies that important decisions must be made at the supranational level, which weakens the sovereignty of the nation-state." The general institutional decline described by Fukuyama exacerbates the problems of a world devoid of global governance. “This sets in motion a vicious circle in which nation states do not cope well with the serious problems they face, which then reinforces societal distrust of the state, which, in turn, leads to the fact that the state lacks power and resources, and then leads to lower performance and inability or unwillingness to address global governance issues".
Schwab sees a way out of the vicious circle in the goodwill of enlightened leaders of states and big business, who understand that outdated geopolitics is leading the world to disaster. While the willingness to constructive cooperation in common interests can save him. Again, Schwab has high hopes for the participation of activists, especially among young people who are losing perspectives in the shocks.
Describing real threats and tendencies that are generally invisible today only to the blind, although they are evaluated in different ways, Schwab proposes to cope with them by means of conscious self-restraint with “social” compulsion to it. There is no other way to interpret the planned refusal of business from profit as a goal and the consent of all mankind to limit consumption. Especially with a warning that the "conditions" of other behavior will not allow.
Of course, the masses of people, deprived of jobs and incomes, are quite capable of putting pressure on the elites, demanding the redistribution of the benefits of the "robotic-digital" economy - all "social packages" during the 20th century arose precisely as a result of such pressure or out of fear that it would manifest itself in a dangerous way. ...All reforms in the direction of the welfare state were carried out after great shocks, accompanied by a collapse of the economy - it is not at all excluded that the "covid reset" will serve as the start of changes in this direction. But there are reasonable doubts that a business can exist at all without the goal of making a profit. Contemplating and conceiving any kind of productive activity, investing personal funds in it in order to respect human dignity and for the sake of loss - this is a fantastic oil painting about fabulous altruists who do not need bread - let's work! Suppose that there are enough of them for the functioning of the economy, but there are still questions to which the Schwab manifesto does not give answers.
In the post-pandemic era, in his opinion, only those spheres of activity that work for high technologies, health and safety will flourish. But social care, security, free and affordable healthcare, investing in environmental protection, financing from state budgets for the development of green technologies and green energy, and all such great ideas are all about the distribution and redistribution of profits. In order to have something to distribute, taxes must be collected. To have something to pay taxes from, you need to produce something and, nevertheless, make a profit, albeit completely withdrawn to the budget. Even if all goods are produced to a minimum, by reducing consumption, it is still unclear who, why and how will do this in the described system of relations. Quite interesting assumptions about this arise, but hardly pleasant.
Campaigns dealing with the “right” technologies and using green energy, as we have already been informed, will be subsidized by “incentive packages”. That is, their actual unprofitability will be repaid by the "solidary state" or supranational structures. The profits generated in the digital realm (exponentially growing in the Schwab world, with no “ceilings” for productive industries) are still neither food, nor clothing, nor housing, nor a means of transportation. We can say that the digital sphere will generate all kinds of amenities and some services for the population, as well as digital tracking and control - for various governing structures. It will be financed, of course, from the same "pockets" - by consumers of services and the state. Again, through distribution and redistribution. But how will a producer of something work without the consumption of which a person cannot live? Since such activities in the “new world” knowingly exclude the personal interest of the entrepreneur, it remains to assume that it will have to be organized by the same “enlightened leaders” who will take responsibility for general justice and well-being. In order to "feed the people", it will be necessary to finance the production of meat from centralized funds, even if it is artificial and does not pollute the atmosphere with methane.
In my opinion, this should remind us of something. Especially considering the promotion of self-restraint in consumption.
In such a system, a producer-owner can only be thought of as a "conveniently attached to the budget cut" on green technologies, a businessman who really does not produce anything useful, and even then - for a salary, like a cleaning lady in his own company. And only as long as "society" (in the person of activists or supranational bodies?) Considers its activities socially acceptable. Property in such a world is generally questionable, since it is said that it can be alienated in the public interest. And it is not needed, as Schwab previously explained, since in the world of digitalization it will be possible to transfer things and objects for use "on demand", increasing the "coefficient of their useful use." Everyone will have free access to transportation and housing anywhere. If you are interested in whose balance will be leased movable and immovable objects, then I cannot answer - I am also interested.
From what has been said, we can conclude that there is nothing of capitalism in “stakeholder capitalism”. Approximately, as in "sovereign democracy" there is no democracy.
Imagining in detail the fair and safe order of the world proposed by the author, one can guess why the billionaires and other powerful of this world, annually gathered by Schwab in Davos, have so far been in no hurry to join the implementation of his wonderful plans. And there is some reason to believe that the contours of the proposed Reboot are not very appealing to them. At least most of them.
However, it is possible that as a result of the "global reset" that is actually taking place now, and taking into account personal ambitions, the Davos community (or its most influential part) will see the Restart project as an interesting project for itself. Indeed, why not rule the world if the opportunity is there? We have already seen something similar: it is not the first time that the world and human nature are proposed to be radically reshaped according to the planned, more just model. And it is impossible not to notice that the masses, being in a vague state, managed to be involved in the process.
To what extent everything will turn out according to the declared plan and how it will end - we can assume with a high degree of probability. The more difficult question is how long the experiment can last.
First, with the destruction of nation-states through such a formation of supranational governance with the participation of transnational business, we will undoubtedly lose the so-called basic rights defined by the Declaration of Human Rights. Simply because until now they have been guaranteed by the states of the modern type, which once assumed such an obligation. How they performed them is the second question. Sometimes they were not implemented at all, but the legal grounds for demanding the observance of the rights to life, freedom and property were preserved, allowing civil societies to progressively move in this direction. The enlightened leaders of the "new order" do not undertake any such obligations. Moreover, the opposite directly follows from Schwab's manifesto: an individual has no rights before "society" and supranational management structures - everything should be subordinated to considerations of social and environmental benefit.
Second - in addition to the first - the organizers of the “new order” promise to feed all conscientious members of the community, provide them with safety, health protection and the most convenient use of available material benefits. The entire virtual world is offered as a spectacle - inexpensively and without leaving the place. Nothing else, mostly nothing more than green consumption and equity. They also do not promise to increase the production of material goods. And they can't. Because the project is energy deficient.
It seems that the author does not know, or does not want to know that today the digital sector, the most important one in his project, is the fastest growing energy consumer. And "green" energy, which has already spent trillions in reserve currency, provides energy based on the energy costs for its production 4-5 (wind) or 20 (sun) times less than hydrocarbons. The planned mandatory decarbonization of the economy practically means that digitalization will face the limit of energy supply at the initial stage. Or, you have to agree with the use of hydrocarbons to obtain sufficient amounts of energy - explicitly or tacitly. And with this, a somewhat different picture is emerging, more like the political regimes of the "world gas stations". And the rest - the similarity is almost complete. But as if on a global scale.
Taking into account all of the above, it can be assumed that the likelihood of the implementation of the visionary project of Klaus Schwab is small. In full, it is close to zero. But this does not mean that individual elements of the project will not be implemented in reality - rather, they will. But as a result, they will form completely different configurations, not very similar to the dreams of Herr Schwab.