Rethinking Intelligence — Why True Digitalization Is the Key to Resilience

“If I can seamlessly replace an Indian colleague with a German or an Egyptian, I should be able to swap one AI model for another just as easily. This is not just operational flexibility—it’s business continuity.”

---

In today’s turbulent global environment, the need for strategic resilience has never been clearer. From geopolitical shocks to rapid AI evolution, the stability of our business models is being tested on all fronts. To stay ahead, global enterprises must adopt a new mindset—one that treats both human and artificial intelligence as interchangeable and modular. But here’s the hard truth:

We will not succeed in this transformation unless we take digitalization seriously.

And let’s be clear: this is not a cold, dehumanizing exercise. Treating humans as swappable components next to AI is a dangerous, even unethical mindset—unless it is grounded in deep respect for people and supported by digital systems that protect roles, identities, and contributions. The goal is not to devalue human labor, but to build resilient systems that don’t collapse when a single contributor—human or machine—becomes unavailable.

Also, let’s not pretend this is entirely new. We’ve been augmenting human labor with machines for decades—from autopilots in aviation to industrial robotics. AI is simply the next step in that evolution. The difference now is that intelligence—whether cognitive or mechanical—is becoming integrated in more areas of work, including decision-making, language, and creative tasks. This requires a more mature, transparent, and flexible infrastructure.

AI Must Become Core, Not a Curiosity

Artificial Intelligence—particularly Natural Language Models (NLMs)—can no longer be treated as experimental add-ons. These models are becoming integral to everything from customer interaction to internal operations. To treat them as peripheral is to misunderstand their transformative power. AI is no longer optional; it’s foundational.

Diversify or Risk Dependency

Deglobalization trends are making it risky to over-concentrate operations in specific regions, talent pools, or tech providers. Just as we learned to diversify supply chains and labor markets, we now need to diversify our digital and AI assets. No single provider or platform should become a point of failure.

Interchangeability: The New Design Imperative

To future-proof operations, our systems must be designed for interchangeability:

• Swap a human for an AI (and vice versa) without disruption.
• Replace one AI model with another (e.g., GPT with Claude or Gemini) seamlessly.
• Treat intelligence—whether human or machine—as a pluggable resource.

Intelligence must be treated as a modular, portable asset—not hardwired into our workflows.

But again: this is a design and systems challenge—not a value judgment on humans. True digital systems must elevate human roles and make organizations more humane, not more transactional.

And perhaps even more important: just as an Indian can work together with an Egyptian or a German, they can—and must—work together with an AI. These relationships are not just about replacement, but about collaboration. The future is not human versus machine. It’s human and machine, side by side, contributing as colleagues toward shared outcomes.

This is not just about AI. It’s about robotics, automation, and every digital component that augments or executes work. We’ve long accepted that machines can land planes, assemble products, and navigate ships. What’s new is the scale, sophistication, and visibility of these systems in the knowledge economy. That’s why digitalization isn’t optional—it’s existential.

Digitalization Is the Missing Link

Here lies the gap:

Many organizations convince themselves they’ve “gone digital.” But what they’ve really done is digitize analog workflows—not reimagine them.

True digitalization means:

• Systems are built on APIs, not documents.
• Intelligence (human or AI) connects through clear, standardized interfaces.
• Business logic is abstracted from execution—any qualified agent can perform the task.

As long as we are not serious about digitalization, we will not achieve intelligence interchangeability or sustainable resilience.

This is not about simplification; it’s about managing complexity through modularity and foresight.

Human and AI Labor: Two Sides of the Same Volatility

Human labor markets are volatile: resignations, relocations, and demographic shifts create constant churn. But the same is now true for AI:

• API pricing and licensing shifts
• Regulatory restrictions
• Performance or ethical failures

Treating both as interchangeable assets—not static dependencies—is the only way to ensure resilience. But this requires empathy, oversight, and clarity about where ethics end and efficiency begins.

What Must Be Done

To unlock this future, we must invest in:

• Modular, service-oriented architecture
• Abstracted processes with standardized inputs/outputs
• Governed, portable intelligence assets (human or machine)
• True digital maturity—not just tools, but systems thinking

The Future Is Flexible

The enterprise of the future won’t ask whether a task is done by a person or an AI. It will ask only: “Was it done well?”

We must build toward a reality where intelligence is modular, resilient, and swappable.

But that reality depends on something we’ve only just begun: serious, deep, uncompromising digitalization.

Let’s stop digitizing the past. Let’s start building for intelligent resilience—with systems that empower, not replace, the people behind them.

Walter Benjamin famously argued that fascism is not an independent force but rather a symptom of a failed revolution. In his Theses on the Philosophy of History (1940), he suggested that when progressive movements fail to enact systemic change, reactionary forces step in to preserve the status quo.

Today, authoritarian and far-right movements are resurging in the U.S. and Europe. By applying Benjamin’s framework, we can better understand this phenomenon as a reaction to the failures of progressive politics, economic crises, and the inability of democratic institutions to address deep societal inequalities. Strikingly, many who embrace fascist ideologies seem fully aware of their destructive consequences. Yet, rather than uphold an imperfect status quo, they opt for destruction, often at their own peril. This tendency is particularly pronounced among those who are, paradoxically, doing relatively well under the current system.

Historically, this pattern has emerged before. In the years leading up to the rise of Nazi Germany, many members of the middle and upper classes—especially those with relative security—turned toward fascism despite knowing its violent and destabilizing nature. A similar phenomenon occurred in Mussolini’s Italy, where intellectuals and business elites embraced fascism, believing it would provide order while simultaneously upending what they saw as a decaying liberal system.

At the same time, a critical mistake made by opponents of fascism is the belief that presenting factual rebuttals or exposing lies will counter its appeal. However, history shows that fascism thrives on narratives, emotions, and grand visions, not empirical arguments. Efforts to fact-check or expose contradictions often fail because fascist ideology does not rely on truth but on a compelling story that resonates emotionally with its followers. This has been evident in contemporary politics, where right-wing movements successfully frame themselves as the defenders of a threatened way of life, regardless of factual inaccuracies.

An additional misconception is the belief that once in power, fascists can be reasoned with or that their inefficacy will expose them and lead to their downfall. This is another fallacy of empiricism. Fascists do not need to be competent to remain in power—they thrive on spectacle, fear, and the continuous redefinition of enemies. Frustration and disillusionment often reinforce, rather than weaken, their grip on society. Failed policies or contradictions do not erode their support because their appeal is not based on rational governance but on the promise of destruction, renewal, and dominance.

---

1. Benjamin’s Thesis VII: Fascism as the Reaction to Blocked Change

Benjamin argued that fascism emerges when genuine social progress is prevented. He wrote:

“Every rise of fascism bears witness to a failed revolution.”

Key Points:

• Societal crises create two potential paths: one toward progressive change and another toward reactionary repression.
• If the revolutionary path fails, the ruling class and reactionary forces use fascism to maintain control.
• Fascism does not introduce real structural change but instead reinforces existing power dynamics under the illusion of national renewal.
• Many individuals, even those in relatively comfortable positions, seem drawn to fascism not despite its destructiveness, but because of it, seeing destruction as preferable to a stagnant or flawed status quo.
• Historically, fascist movements have gained traction among people who were materially secure but ideologically discontent, preferring upheaval over continuity.
• Countering fascism requires not just rational arguments but compelling narratives and alternative visions that inspire mass movements.
• Fascists do not need to be competent to remain in power—spectacle and the perpetuation of crisis sustain them.

This was exactly what happened in Germany after World War I. The failure of the 1918-1919 German Revolution and the inability of social democracy to challenge capitalism allowed fascism to rise as an alternative.

Today, we see echoes of this pattern in the U.S. and Europe.

---

2. The Contemporary Crisis: The Rise of Fascism in the U.S. and Europe

🇺🇸 United States: Authoritarian Drift and “Project 2025”

In the U.S., there is a significant push toward centralized executive power, particularly through initiatives like Project 2025. This conservative policy blueprint, supported by think tanks aligned with the Republican Party, aims to:

✅ Restructure federal agencies to align with presidential directives. ✅ Replace career civil servants with political loyalists. ✅ Infuse government policy with conservative ideology, particularly in areas like education, climate policy, and reproductive rights.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian specializing in authoritarianism, describes Project 2025 as “a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States.”

🇪🇺 Europe: The Normalization of Far-Right Politics

In Europe, the situation is equally alarming:

• Germany, France, and Italy have seen the rise of far-right parties like AfD, National Rally, and Brothers of Italy.
• Traditional conservative parties are increasingly adopting far-right rhetoric and policies.
• Anti-immigration laws, nationalism, and anti-LGBTQ+ policies are being normalized under the guise of “protecting national identity.”

A recent report by The Guardian highlighted how Europe is experiencing a “steady erosion of political divisions,” where the far-right is no longer an outsider movement but a legitimate political force shaping mainstream policy.

---

3. Why Is Fascism Rising? Benjamin’s Framework in Action

A) Economic Inequality and the Failure of Progressive Movements

• Economic policies have favored the wealthy while wages stagnate and social safety nets weaken.
• The working class and lower-middle class feel abandoned by liberal democracy, making them vulnerable to authoritarian populists.
• This mirrors Weimar Germany, where economic hardship and political instability led many to embrace the Nazi Party.
• Even among the well-off, there is a sense of dissatisfaction, leading some to embrace destruction over a flawed but stable system.
• Fact-based rebuttals alone cannot defeat fascism; only compelling counter-narratives can.
• Believing that fascists will be exposed as ineffective is a dangerous misconception—chaos and crisis sustain them.

B) Political Paralysis and the Weakening of Institutions

• Congress in the U.S. is gridlocked, unable to pass significant reforms.
• The European Union struggles to respond to crises like immigration and economic stagnation.
• As democratic institutions appear ineffective, people turn to “strong leaders” who promise action—often at the cost of democracy.

C) The Spectacle of Fascism: Manipulating Media and Public Perception

• Fascists use media to sustain their movement regardless of policy success or failure.
• Failed governance does not necessarily lead to loss of power when spectacle, fear, and crisis management dominate politics.

---

5. Conclusion: The Urgency of Now

Walter Benjamin’s warnings remain as relevant today as they were in 1940. Fascism does not emerge in a vacuum—it is the result of failed revolutions, economic injustice, and political inaction.

Understanding the present through Benjamin’s lens gives us both a warning and a roadmap:

• Fascism thrives on emotion and narrative.
• Rationality alone will not stop it.
• Only a compelling counter-vision can defeat it before it becomes fully entrenched.
• Expecting fascists to fail or be exposed as frauds is a mistake—disillusionment fuels, rather than erodes, their power.

Recently, I took to the streets again, filled with an urgency I had rarely felt before. The chants, the banners, the sheer energy—it felt like history was calling. This was it—fascism was no longer an abstract fear from history; it was real, tangible, and unfolding before us. The weight of history pressed upon my shoulders, and yet, for the first time, I felt light, as if I had finally found my place in it. This was the moment my generation had been waiting for. The historical question that had echoed for decades

What would you have done when fascism came?—was finally being asked of us.

And I was ready to answer. Marching, chanting, standing shoulder to shoulder with others who believed that history was once again at a crossroads, I felt certain that our actions would make a difference. A sense of purpose filled me, and for the first time, I felt almost joyful—ready to take up the fight. At least for that moment, it quieted the existential question that had always loomed over me: What would I do? 

The Battle is Not Here

But at this weekend’s end, a gnawing realization set in. While discussions about democratic erosion and authoritarian tendencies are certainly relevant in Germany and Europe—most notably with the rise of the AfD and similar movements—the grand, defining struggle of our era does not seem to be happening here. Instead, the real epochal conflict is unfolding in the United States and we are mere observers.

Much like Poland or Belgium in 1939—nations caught in the path of larger forces beyond their control—Germany and Europe today find themselves in a precarious position: not as the deciding players in history, but as observers, waiting to see which way the storm will blow. The political trajectory of the U.S., whether it remains a democracy or veers into authoritarianism, will shape the future global order;

any decision made in Berlin, Brussels, or Paris are mere footnotes in some maybe to be written Bachelor theses.

Little Influence, Big Consequences

The realization was crushing: no matter how loudly we protested, even assuming we do win the fight here, the real battle was happening elsewhere, far beyond our reach. It is a hard pill to swallow, but Europe has limited influence over what happens in the U.S. American politics are deeply internal, and external pressure rarely shifts the course of events.

The Realization: We Were Never Asked

Many people believed that if democracy were in danger, they would be called upon to take a stand, to fight, to resist. But the truth is more unsettling: this generation might never even get the chance to answer the question, What would you have done? Because the defining decisions are happening out of their reach

Instead, the historical question facing this generation might be something far more humbling: What will you do when the decision has already been made?

Or, to put it differently: Welcome to the feeling our grandfathers’ neighbours must have known all too well—helplessly, standing at the edge of history, watching it unfold like a storm that has already been set in motion.

Only this time, we know the ending. And yet, we can do nothing to rewrite it.

Seems oddly fitting in the end—my grandfather’s father’s karma has finally caught up with me.