THE global elite gathered last week at the Swiss resort town of Davos for the so-called World Economic Forum to deliberate on the future of the world economy (read: how to continue looting and plundering the mass of the world’s people and resources). The theme of this year’s gathering was the so-called ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, and what it means for humanity at large as we head towards the third decade of the 21st century.

‘Revolution’ is a word to be used with great caution; popular associations aside it does not always imply human emancipation. The first, second and third industrial revolutions can be read as historical moments in the rise of the capitalist world system, and the contemporary digital age is another such moment. The human condition has for sure been radically altered by the internet in particular and information technologies in general, but the story is not all hunky- dory.

I personally am not smitten by smartphones and around-the-clock internet. In fact I am wary of what the ‘fourth industrial revolution’ signifies given the increasingly problematic fact of our screen addiction. I wonder why more of us do not ask questions about the origins of the internet in Washington’s military-industrial complex which, in the 1960s and 1970s, perceived its development as key to winning the Cold War.

We focus only on the shiny, liberating elements at our peril.

Perhaps most of all, I am struck by the innumerable contradictions that characterise this ‘revolution’ (as has been the case throughout the history of industrialism).

We in Pakistan might not have spent much time discussing the Davos moot in any case, but in the wake of the dastardly attack on Bacha Khan University what little prospects there were completely evaporated. The truth, however, is that episodes like the Charsadda attack have a much greater connection to the ‘digital revolution’ than we might otherwise think.

What we today call ‘non-state terror’ thrives because of the real-time communication afforded by cutting-edge information technologies. It is telling that authorities all over the world are dedicating so much time to what is called ‘cyber-security’ — note the ongoing controversy in this country over a proposed bill regarding internet freedoms in parliament. It is of course a separate matter that the state often seems more concerned with the activities of those on the left rather than those on the right, but the point is still that the virtual world is a major battleground of (state and non-state) terror.

Now bear in mind that many otherwise intelligent people tend to associate the violence of the religious right with some kind of mediaeval ideology. Certainly this is in part because many self-proclaimed jihadis claim to want to resurrect a purported golden age, harkening back to the early days of Islam. But claims aside, we should be willing and able to understand the contemporary brand of millenarianism for what it is — a very modern kind of political violence centring on the capture and/or rebranding of the state.

The fact that the Charsadda attack took place on the death anniversary of Bacha Khan was not a mistake. It confirmed that the attackers consider themselves defenders of the (modern) ‘ideology of Pakistan’, which has demonised political movements like the one with which Bacha Khan is associated in the name of defending the territorial and ideological frontiers of Pakistan.

It is now well accepted that today’s ‘terrorists’ were yesterday’s freedom fighters (mujahideen). We didn’t think of them as ‘anti-modern’ when they were at the frontline of the fight against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In fact, we thought of them as representing very modern ideals (read capitalism) in the struggle against a distortion of those ideals (read communism).

So why, then, has the debate around today’s ‘non-state’ terrorists started to resemble a Victorian-era diatribe about the challenge posed by uncultured heathens to ‘civilisation’?

If we remind ourselves that what we are today calling the ‘fourth industrial revolution’ was devised as part of a Cold War strategy to defang Soviet communism, and that the Afghan Mujahideen were another strategic asset in the same war, the logical inconsistencies of the so-called war on terrorism in particular, and capitalist modernity in general are laid completely bare.

Whether we choose to call it thus, the current industrial revolution has many sides to it, like all that preceded it. We focus only on the shiny, liberating elements at our peril.

There is little doubt that the promise of the digital age is immense — anyone with even a cursory understanding of it recognises the potential for cutting-edge technology to help us meet our collective and individual needs, whilst also ensuring conservation of the planet. But until industrial society remains a capitalist one, humankind will not be able to shed war, suffering and injustice, whatever the garb. Is that the kind of revolution we want?

The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Published in Dawn, January 29th, 2016