Editing Openai/6966bb9c-3654-8007-9e2f-1b0a3270a19e (section)

=== Assistant: Got it 👍 Here’s a Facebook-friendly version that keeps all the content, but adds light visual structure using things F… ===
Got it 👍 Here’s a Facebook-friendly version that keeps all the content, but adds light visual structure using things FB reliably supports: short separators, emphasis with caps/quotes, and a few emojis — no trimming, no argument changes.

I see a lot of people on the Facebook group “truth seekers” commenting about WEF and Davos. Members of this group are ill informed, usually right wing, and highly conspiratorial. As someone on the left, I have my suspicions that the WEF act in the interest of fairness, equality and true sustainable development for all the world. I would characterise them more as proponents of a globalised economy, stable markets, a legal framework for multinationals and ultimately keeping primary industry in the Global South, with higher-value secondary and tertiary industries concentrated in the West — resource extraction and corporate colonialism, basically.
—
Firstly: how fair is this characterisation? Secondly: compare Davos with the Bilderberg conferences. As closed-door meetings between some of the most powerful people on the planet, it’s hard to believe they are discussing anything other than their own long-term interests and enrichment at the expense of the other 99.999999% of humanity — though obviously we don’t know, because of the secrecy.
—
This was prompted by the usual Davos blurb about “A Spirit of Dialogue” tackling️🤣. In reality, that characterisation of the WEF is broadly accurate. It’s a corporate-funded NGO that acts as a coordination hub for global capital — harmonising regulation, reducing risk for multinationals, and stabilising markets. It is not democratic and not neutral. Its model assumes extraction and labour-intensive production remain in the Global South, while finance, IP and high-value activity remain in the Global North. That’s neoliberal development economics dressed up as sustainability. Inequality is treated as a governance problem, not a power problem, and private capital is assumed to remain the engine of transition — even for climate policy.
—
Where conspiracy narratives go wrong is imagining the WEF as a secret world government issuing binding decisions. Where liberal defences go wrong is pretending it exists for the public good. The truth is that it’s a soft-power institution shaping norms and the limits of debate in favour of global capital. Davos is performative and public — elite consensus theatre. Bilderberg is deliberately opaque — elite coordination without theatre. Davos wants to be seen; Bilderberg does not.
—
Neither exists to redistribute power, democratise the economy, or serve humanity at large. They exist to preserve elite stability. Even climate policy is framed as “investment opportunity” and “risk management”, not systemic transformation. The cynicism about “dialogue” is justified — but the mistake is thinking this makes Davos authoritarian or communist. It’s the opposite: capitalism talking to itself about how to survive legitimacy collapse and stabilise an unequal system under pressure.

If you want, I can also:
• make a short hostile-audience version
• add a one-line kicker at the top
• or rewrite it in a calmer / more conciliatory tone to avoid instant pile-ons