‘Feudal Capitalism’ is the working title of the new book by Roberto Seghetti, a seasoned economic journalist (Agi, Panorama, Paese Sera, etc.), which recounts how liberalism and technocracy have reversed the progress of history.  It has just been published by Laterza. Rights, once equal for all, the noble legacy of the French and American Revolutions after the ‘Age of Enlightenment’, one of the finest periods in our political and civil history inspired by reason  (read Leonardo Sciascia and Voltaire to get a sense of the nostalgia this period inspires), now seem to have disappeared from the constitutions of liberal democracies. Instead, they are entrusted to the capricious protection of the ‘winners of capitalism’: populist politicians and the masters of Big Tech (monsters, as they were aptly described eight years ago on the cover of The Economist, a liberal weekly business magazine, not a radical Anglo-Saxon left-wing publication).

The weak, like new serfs, search for a master who will decide ‘who has the cards and who doesn’t’ in the new great global game of power, a sort of villainous game of Risk in which the strongest, already benefiting from guns, soldiers and tanks, immediately take everything, including icy Greenland.

Of course, ‘feudal capitalism‘ is the exact opposite of the ‘democratic’ capitalism that many of us have relied on: a system based on market rules that limit monopolies’ arrogance and protect information symmetry (which is always relative, let’s not delude ourselves). This system also punishes unscrupulous ‘lions of Wall Street’ and real financial fraudsters.

In short, we appreciated the ‘civil economy‘ capitalism theorised by Antonio Genovesi, who taught Adam Smith, the father of liberalism, as well as the ‘just economy’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘circular’ economies dear to Pope Francis (whom we recently learned Epstein and Bannon were plotting against because he was too friendly with the weak, la Repubblica, 15 February). This is also the approach favoured by the best of American and European economic literature, which tries to reconcile liberal democracy, the market economy and welfare through entrepreneurship, freedom, innovation and progress. In short, it builds wealth without blocking the ‘social ladder’.

Even in recent days, the newspapers have offered excellent examples of this ‘feudalism’.

Take, for example, the new revelations about the clandestine and criminal ties between sex and business that were woven by Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who liked to portray himself as a philanthropist (Il Foglio, 14 February). He had a dense network of ‘intimate friends’ (Corriere della Sera, 14 February) and ‘kept managers from Wall Street to the Emirates in his network’ (Il Sole24Ore, 14 February), as well as prominent figures ‘from the progressive world’, (Corriere della Sera, 15 February).  Political and power cross-cutting is always good for business, isn’t it?

But there are also those who reject the neo-feudalism of the  US and China. Take ‘Europe, USA, Merz’s shake-up’ (Corriere della Sera, 14 February), for example, which refers to a Europe that acknowledged the fracture in the West at the last summit in Belgium and tried to organise its own security and autonomy project. Then there’s ‘The new Atlantic alliance is born:  European autonomy and division of fronts’ (La Stampa, 14 February),

which suggests that powers and alliances are being mixed up. Finally, while not renouncing its special relationship with the US, Europe is attempting to build its own autonomous and better future by drawing on Mario Draghi‘s competitiveness projects and Enrico Letta‘s Single Market project.  It is not acting as a Maga satellite, but moving forward as a leading player on the global stage.  It is investing and innovating rapidly to build its own defence system, and forging

alliances with India, Mercosur and others that will guarantee it a broader and more favourable playing field than that dictated by Washington.  ‘I do not share Merz’s criticism of Maga.’ says Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, adding that ‘the US and the EU must move together’ (Corriere della Sera, 15 February).  Meanwhile, Jack Rubio, the US Secretary of State, is trying to bring everyone together: ‘We are ready for a future together’.  In fact, the Quotidiano Nazionale (Il Resto del Carlino, La Nazione and Il Giorno) ran with the headline  ‘Rubio extends a hand to the EU’, even though it is widely known that tensions between the US and the EU will continue. On the other hand, the traditions of feudal capitalism are based above all on obedience,  although it would of course be up to good politics to reach agreements that do not reward the arrogance of feudal lords or humiliate allies. It is a changing world, of course.

Everything is more fragile and uncertain,  but reviving and defending the democratic cultures and values of old Europe (or the old democratic transatlantic West) is probably more valuable than reviving neo-feudalism. This would ensure greater stability and a better economic and social balance, as well as making wealth gaps more acceptable and limiting their excesses.

If we descend from the heights of politics ‘everywhere and down to earth’ (to use a fascinating image from Censis) and delve into social relations, other reasons for rejecting the neo-feudal model come to mind.  Here, too, it is worth reading the news and looking at examples.

Take Milan, for example, which has recently been shining splendidly with gold and silver medals from the Winter Olympics, not to mention the sky-high prices for the beautiful international audience of sports fans and shoppers in Via Montenapoleone and Cortina.

The flip side of the metropolis of the ‘thousand lights of luxury’ is the homeless people dying of cold, eight victims since the beginning of 2026, while the Corriere della Sera and Il Giorno campaign on the ‘invisible victims of frost’, and Giorgio Gualzetti, president of the Opera Cardinal Ferrari, which provides assistance guaranteed by the Ambrosian Church, speaks of 700 daily hospitalisations and services that are not enough to look after everyone:  ‘The tragic winter of the streets… (Il Giorno, 14 February).

Beyond the issue of homelessness, another social drama is occupying the pages of Milanese newspapers these days:  that of the delivery riders who bring food and other goods day and night to anyone who calls one of the many service cooperatives.  More than 5,000 people are involved, and in peak periods this figure can rise to 9,000.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Milan has opened an investigation to determine whether these individuals are self-employed, as the service companies claim, or employees, in which case contracts, job guarantees and security would be required. One of the companies, Just Eat, has stated that it has complied with this, but salaries are often lower than contractual rates.

Data from the CGIL trade union (Il Giorno, 12 February) shows that: 55% of riders work for multiple platforms, 72.9% work six or seven days a week, 50% work seven to ten hours a day, 66% travel more than 40 kilometres a day,  39.8% have been injured at least once and 67.4% have not received any compensation.
It’s hell.

In most cases, routes are defined by an algorithm, so those who work the most get the best services.

And what about employment contracts?  ‘Flexibility is compatible with subordinate work,  and the Milan model is booming,  filling a service gap while exploiting workers,’ comments Orsola Razzolini, a professor at the University of Milan who has been investigating the phenomenon for years (Il Giorno, 12 January).

Serfs, indeed. It is one of the darkest pages of capitalism, ensuring services that satisfy real needs and personal whims (such as a midnight pizza) for just 2.5 euros per ride,  often without even a tip.  Is that okay?

Sooner or later, the system will collapse. The dark side of this widespread ‘feudal capitalism’ will provoke revolts, protests or, at the very least, movements of conscience.

Therefore, it will be worth heeding the warnings of those who truly understand the principles of good capitalism.  Take Larry Fink, for example, the CEO of BlackRock, the largest global investment company based in New York,  who said:  ‘Capitalists, beware.  You risk losing your political and moral legitimacy. In the virtuous scheme of stakeholder values, legitimacy, even if only ethical, is essential to make the imbalances of capitalism tolerable.’

Speaking in Davos at the end of January at the annual conference of the most powerful men and women in world finance and business,  Larry Fink was not new with his warnings about the degradation of speculative excesses (La Stampa, 21 January).  In Davos, he didn’t specifically talk about delivery riders,  but rather everything that makes unacceptable a capitalism that violates or circumvents the rules and offloads the costs onto the poorest and weakest.  He spoke about ‘global capitalism‘  and its distortions, which are now feudal in nature. It is certainly worth paying full attention to his words.

(photo: Getty Images)

Guido Saracco’s latest book explores what the relationship between humans and technology might look like ten years from now

The ideal for all is to be open to progress while remaining mindful of our humanity.  This  is key and applies from both a social and economic perspective,  and it is particularly relevant in this era when technology and innovation seem to surpass human ingenuity (from which they originated).  As always, this is a question of culture, which is not just knowledge, but critical and careful thinking. To foster this kind of culture, ‘Alleati digitali. La nostra IA personale’ (Digital allies: Our personal AI), written by Guido Saracco and recently published, is definitely worth a read.

Franco begins by considering the following:  artificial intelligence is now part of our daily lives. It is defined by its rapid development and the urgent and necessary changes it brings to the way we understand and perform many daily tasks and productive activities. Saracco points out  that if we design it well, starting with a personal digital assistant to help each of us, the future can be a better place.

The book takes readers on a journey into the future, imagining how we might study, work and live in ten years’ time with an AI-based digital assistant by our side.
Guido Saracco shares the most relevant features of the mechanisms of the mind and the most recent neuroscientific and neurotechnological discoveries on human-machine interfaces. He then analyses the developments in artificial intelligence that have already been achieved and those that are expected. He then predicts how the alliance between humans and artificial intelligence will be consolidated in two ways:  new devices and shared functions, and the definition of a new regulatory framework that will dictate the technology’s boundaries of applicability and probably redefine humanity’s rights.

Saracco’s book is well written and can be read in one sitting, although it requires attentive reading.  Regarding AI and digital allies, he makes a crucial point that should be clear to everyone:  ‘The digital ally,’ he writes, ‘will firstly be a device based on generative artificial intelligence that will accompany us during advanced training after our brains have undergone adequate development in adolescence, and will remain at our side for our entire lives. Its hardware and software will improve over time in terms of performance, architecture and functions.  The only constraint is that control, evaluation and final decision-making must always be retained by the human.’

Alleati digitali. La nostra IA personale

Guido Saracco

Laterza, 2026

‘The old world is dying,  and the new world struggles to be born:  now is the time of monsters’. This quote by Antonio Gramsci, taken from the Prison Notebooks, is the epigraph to one of the most beautiful films of the late 1970s: Don Giovanni, directed by Joseph Losey and starring the magnificent tenor Ruggero Raimondi and soprano Kiri Te Kanawa, with excellent conducting by Loris Maazel. The epigraph is not only perfect for the film, but also for the more general political context to which it alludes, which is strikingly relevant today.

Gramsci’s ‘new world’ generated an October Revolution that nourished great hopes and ambitious dreams of redemption and social progress. However, it also fuelled the nightmare of the Soviet dictatorship in Moscow. It is worth revisiting the works of Vladimir Majakovsky, Osip Mandelstam and Gramsci himself for vivid accounts of this period.

On the other hand, Losey’s version shifts the timing and expectations with poetic flair,  taking centre stage in that extraordinary period from the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, characterised by the ‘Civilisation of Conversation’, as recounted by Benedetta Craveri, to the French Revolution and the birth of the Europe of rights and freedoms that still shapes our political and civil conscience today.

The protagonist of Mozart’s opera, Don Giovanni, is a libertine rather than a libertarian or a liberal; he is a man who seeks pleasure without moral qualms.  But in the 18th century, liberalism, libertinism, libertarianism and a passion for new and unusual ideas coexisted in an extraordinary, and at times unbearable, combination. Look closely at the exhibition on Casanova at the Cini Foundation in Venice for proof of this.

The manner in which Don Giovanni opens the palace doors for a sumptuous feast is accompanied by a mighty chorus, repeated twice: ‘Long live liberty!’, which is as much about the passions of reason as it is about a lack of ethical and civic scruples. On the other hand,  Mozart is a devout Freemason and a liberal.  Don Juan, who is unscrupulous, will end up in hell. And the ‘New World’ evoked by the verses and music will indeed be new,  with freedoms, human rights, research and the precursors of democracy, our civilisation.

It is worth remembering that Gramscian motto reimagined in the Losey-Mozart style when considering the challenging times we are living through. The Europe of glittering wit in the salons of the Hôtel Particulier in the Marais, with debates between Voltaire, Diderot and their Neapolitan guests, such as Abbot Galliani and the economist Antonio Genovesi, no longer marks the time of new ideas.  The brilliant and cultured ‘conversations’, even in the palaces of power in Brussels and other European capitals, have given way to sloppy populist chatter.

So, adieu to Europe?  Far from it!  It is always time to sing the chorus, ‘Long live liberty!’.  Liberal Europe still has a place in today’s world, despite everything.  It has a culture,  a power and  a reason. As Antonio Scurati rightly notes in La Repubblica (4 February), ‘Against empires, Europe is alone with its freedom’, defining this solitude as an excellent opportunity to act as a ‘bridge between civilisations’, mindful of Peter Burke‘s cultural and civil lesson of the ‘explosion of knowledge’.

Here’s the point.  Following the recent barrage of insults against Europe from the US, China and Russia, as well as Big Tech, (the EU and Great Britain are skilfully moving forward, embracing rules, limits and critical reasoning.  Corriere della Sera, 6 February), for some time now, certain key figures in Brussels and some political circles in European countries have decided to take sensible, intelligent and prudent steps to avoid continuing to suffer aggression and insults.

Examples include the signing of the Mercosur Treaty for substantial mutual economic benefits  and the establishment of good trade relations with India, which immediately prompted Trump to pursue agreements with New Delhi, despite having denied doing so until yesterday.  Another small political victory was the clear ‘no’ from Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister (a politician whom Trump and his administration have always viewed as an obstacle), to the US’s dual option  of either buying or invading Greenland.

Carney waved the concise yet profound book ‘The Power of the Powerless‘, a dialogue with Václav Havel, a former leading anti-communist intellectual and later wise president of the Czechoslovak Federation, under Trump’s nose. It is a wise argument about the power of good ideas against the arrogance of ideals-less force. Trump has taken a step back and the good reasons for defending the European space remain firmly in the hands of NATO.

Is this too insignificant to suggest that Europe is regaining its spirit?  No, because during the ceremony for his honorary degree at the University of Leuven, Mario Draghi revived the idea of a ‘European federation’ and said  that this is how Europe will become a power.  In fact, he said that ‘the global order is dead and the US is seeking dominance. Now we need pragmatism:  let’s move forward with partners willing to do so in areas where progress can be made’ (La Stampa, 3 February).  ‘Pragmatic federalism’, reads the headline in Il Sole 24 Ore on 3 February,  while Lucrezia Reichlin sagely comments in Corriere della Sera on 6 February that ‘ Italy can now count on a change of pace in Berlin’.

For some time now, Draghi has emphasised the need for Europe to develop its own policies on security, technology, scientific research and innovation, industrial policy and training. These are all related issues for a Europe that wants to continue defending its industrial and production advantages, as well as its political, social and civil values. He is now raising his voice  and preparing to relaunch his competitiveness programme in the coming days, ahead of the European Council. He will be working with Enrico Letta on the common market,  and it is Letta who has made an important announcement:  ‘The EU must break the mould with quick decisions and cooperation’ (Il Sole 24 Ore, 6 February).

The era of cautious small steps, of small states putting the brakes on and of strong micro-nationalisms with paralysing veto rights, or even outright complicity with Europe’s enemies, such as the harmony between Orbán and Putin, seems to be over.  Otherwise, Europe itself will be reduced to a colony or a consumer market to be exploited and humiliated at will.

Patrizio Bianchi comments in Il Sole 24 Ore on 5 February:  ‘Europe must move from being little more than a confederal union to becoming a true federation that, while leaving room for national and local governments, consistently makes unitary choices in terms of foreign policy, defence and the economy, breaking free from the double trap of internal unanimism and submission to the US’.

Can it be done?  With difficulty,  but yes. Even the euro was the result of a small group of around a dozen countries coming together, with Italy rightly striving to be at the forefront,  and the others following.  The single currency has been one of the greatest policy successes in contemporary history, not just in terms of monetary policy.

Naturally, the relationship with the US remains crucial,  as does the dialogue with China  and the maintenance of good multilateral relations with Latin America, the Gulf countries and Africa. And why not Russia too, once it has extricated itself from the Ukrainian crisis. The objective is clear:  a foreign, security and economic/trade policy for Europe,  starting with those who are in it.

The Draghi-Letta lesson is clear, as is the European federalism espoused in the Ventotene Manifesto, written by Eugenio Colorni, Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi, and supported by ‘the mothers of Europe’, Ursula Hirschmann and Ada Rossi, as well as Simone Weil and Hannah Arendt.

It is a matter of pragmatic federalism and ambitious political intelligence.  Certainly, one cannot be caught between the old and the new worlds,  for amidst the shadows, political miseries and fears, the sleep of reason breeds monsters.

(photo Getty Images)

Recently published research links the COVID-19 pandemic with the launch of new female businesses

A crisis can present an opportunity for development and rebirth,  and this is true of both societies and economies.  This process can, of course, be traumatic in many ways, but it needs to be carefully understood and observed. The unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on businesses and society is a clear example of how crises can have a profound and differentiated effect on different business sectors. To study this topic from the perspective of female entrepreneurship, a research group coordinated by Alessandra Micozzi recently published a study entitled ‘Donne e impresa al tempo del COVID-19: il ruolo dell’ecosistema aziendale’ (Women and business at the time of the coronavirus pandemic: the role of the business ecosystem).

The idea underlying all the research is that female entrepreneurship has faced a crisis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that has amplified existing structural weaknesses in terms of access to credit, professional networks, work-life balance and care responsibilities, but which has also highlighted the capacity for adaptation, innovation and resilience that is often underestimated.
The research systematically analysed the impact of the pandemic crisis on the setting up and development of women’s businesses in Italy, taking an interdisciplinary perspective that integrated legal, economic and regional factors.

The adopted method involved analysing administrative data and resilience indicators, as well as the results of a survey aimed at women entrepreneurs who started their businesses between 2020 and 2021. The results enable us to understand how business systems have adapted to the effects of the crisis, revealing sectoral and regional variations.
However, the research coordinated by Micozzi also demonstrates how crises can act as a ‘stress test’ for local systems, revealing vulnerabilities while also creating opportunities for transformation.

Donne e impresa al tempo del COVID-19. Il ruolo dell’ecosistema imprenditoriale

Alessandra Micozzi (edited by)

Franco Angeli, 2026

Bank of Italy research explores the role and importance of good data management

Information is an important factor in competitiveness and a powerful tool for greater efficiency in markets.  Theory has long maintained this and practice proves it. Reading Francesco Zollino’s (of the Bank of Italy’s Information Management Service) research, which was published in the institute’s ‘Tematiche istituzionali’ (Institutional Issues) notebooks, helps to improve understanding of this area.

‘L’efficiente governo delle informazioni nell’esperienza delle imprese italiane’ (The efficient governance of information in the experience of Italian companies) is based on evidence from data collected from a sample of large Italian non-financial companies. In particular, an analysis of the organisational and managerial set-ups for the implementation of Data Governance (DG) reveals many common traits across business sectors and geographic areas.

Zollino identified a series of elements that can be summarised into a few key points. First of all, there is widespread awareness of the high strategic value of information assets in light of the uncertainties of the operating environment. Secondly, substantial investment in communication and widespread training for company employees is needed to contain the costs of adapting to the changes brought about by DG. Thirdly, transparent assignment of roles and responsibilities is crucial in DG strategies. All of this must be considered alongside the constantly changing role and importance of data governance for companies. Above all, however, Zollino himself explains that there is an ‘inseparability between the opportunities for exploiting information assets, including through the use of advanced analysis methods, and the need to ensure adequate safeguards for their integrity, confidentiality and security.’

Zollino’s work highlights an important aspect of production culture and organisation that should not be overlooked. However, the research goes even further,  outlining a good practice agenda for DG that could be useful beyond the business world.

L’efficiente governo delle informazioni nell’esperienza delle imprese italiane

Francesco Zollino

Banca d’Italia, Tematiche istituzionali, January 2026

Sporting enterprise stories as examples for businesses

A company as a team. Not just rhetoric, but a practical approach. The idea of creating an equivalence, or at least a connection, between the organisation of a sports team and that of a company is nothing new, but it still offers useful insights for those involved in setting up or relaunching a business. It is with this in mind that I recommend reading ‘Campioni a Sorpresa:  Dallo sport al business: superare le attese e costruire successi’ (Surprise champions. From sport to business: exceeding expectations and building success), a recently published book by Marco Alfieri.

Alfieri uses the stories of three teams as examples. He explains how they have rewritten the rules of the game, transforming themselves from provincial dreamers into absolute leaders.  Imoco Volley Conegliano was born out of bankruptcy in 2012 and now dominates world volleyball, having won twenty-nine titles.  Aquila Basket Trento has climbed every category from Serie D to winning the historic Italian Cup after beating Olimpia Milano.  Meanwhile, Joey Saputo’s Bologna has kept a decade-long promise by qualifying for the Champions League and winning the Coppa Italia.

The book recounts the stories of the individuals responsible for leading ‘the team’ to seemingly ‘impossible victories’, whether they be the chairman, coach or manager.

The message from the examples collected by Marco Alfieri is clear: we do not need boundless capital or luck, but rather long-term strategic vision, patience in our daily operations and unwavering faith in our human resources. The book brings concepts such as shared leadership, talent enhancement and regional identity that becomes a competitive advantage to life. It is a must-read.

Campioni a sorpresa. Dallo sport al business: superare le attese e costruire successi

Marco Alfieri

Egea, 2026

‘All the uses of words to everyone… not because everyone should be an artist but because no one should be a slave.’ This quote by Gianni Rodari, taken from ‘The Grammar of Fantasy’ (Einaudi, 1973), has become increasingly pertinent as the debate on AI continues to focus on its risks and the possibility that ChatGPT and other generative systems will independently create a distorted reality beyond human understanding. These systems could create their own vocabulary and language, in short, their own abstract, and therefore false and manipulative, version of the idea that nomen est consequentia rei (the name is the consequence of the thing) dramatically altering and overturning its values and meaning.

All the uses of words to everyone, then. Let’s start from that. From educating AI to the necessary skills and limitations to govern and steer its evolution, without fear. As early as 1966, Umberto Eco warned us against fictitiously dividing ourselves into ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘integrated’ groups in response to the unexpected evolution of television. He advised us to analyse, understand and incorporate any overwhelming technological innovation into the order of human knowledge. From Gutenberg’s moveable type to quantum physics, and from the internet to AI. Let’s be honest, however, that this is becoming increasingly difficult.

Which words are we talking about using that provide value? Let’s do some calculations. Italian is one of the richest and most articulate languages, with between 215,000 and 280,000 basic words (including technical, literary and regional terms), amounting to two million forms with all their variations. A good dictionary, such as Treccani or Zanichelli, includes between 100,000 and 160,000 words. The average educated person’s vocabulary is around 50,000 words. De Mauro speaks of 7,500 ‘basic words’, of which only 2,000 are used daily. This is a paltry number, providing a simplified and therefore misleading understanding.
These figures highlight the first requirement: the ability to understand, correctly use and distinguish at least several tens of thousands of words. This is not only to avoid falling into the ever-growing category of ‘functionally illiterate’ people (those unable to understand a medium-complexity text or perform elementary calculations, accounting for a third of the Italian population), but also to enable the formulation of precise and relevant questions about the functioning of AI (which advances through increasingly precise and probing questions).

In other words, we could update Rodari’s call for ‘democratic education’ (i.e. a broad and widespread education as referred to in the Constitution with regard to the responsibility for quality school education) when we consolidate ‘all the uses of words to everyone’ into a vocabulary of around 50,000 words. This is much more than the 2,000 words we use every day, such a low number that it makes us ‘slaves’ to manipulation, propaganda, instrumental simplifications, factoids and fake news. This makes responsible participation in ‘well-informed’ and therefore ‘critical’ public discourse impossible, as Jürgen Habermas demonstrated in Europe and Antonio Gramsci, Don Lorenzo Milani and Benedetto Croce demonstrated in Italy.

The question now is whether generative AI will ever be capable of such creativity that it can coin verses such as ‘I am illuminated by immensity’ or ‘to spend the afternoon, absorbed and pale’. To tell us that ‘we are like leaves in autumn on branches’ or remind us that ‘there’s rosemary, that’s for remembrance…and there is pansies, that’s for thoughts’. Could it fully set out the terms of the ‘wager on God’, describe being ‘in the grip of abstract furies’, delve into the sphere of doubt about the scientist’s responsibility in the face of the atomic weapon, quote ‘the winter of our discontent’ and inform us that ‘even the bramble had its bends of sweetness, even the plum tree its candour’, without drawing on its memory of Giuseppe Ungaretti, Eugenio Montale, William Shakespeare, Elio Vittorini, Lucio Piccolo, Blaise Pascal and the fathers of physics, Niels Bohr and Werner Karl Heisenberg. And quote ‘the Wine-Dark Sea’ to describe the murky darkness of its depths.
AI can recite poetry and combine different and similar verses, and it may even invent rhymes that sound like those from non-existent but plausible poems. However, it is not yet capable of generating original thoughts full of poetic and literary meaning.

Will it be able to do so in the future? The danger is there. Perhaps this is not even the greatest danger. We all know how important poetry and literature are in shaping the human soul, defining behaviour and inspiring great cultural and civic choices that have a radical impact on mass movements, the tastes of millions of people and their passions and aspirations (read or reread Elias Canetti‘s ‘The Holy Fire’ in ‘Crowds and Power’, as well as Alessandro Manzoni‘s ‘The Betrothed’ and Sigmund Freud‘s ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego’ for a clearer idea).

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic and one of the fathers of OpenAI alongside Sam Altman, says that the risks associated with AI are alarming. He parted ways with Altman precisely because of concerns about the distorted use of such a powerful and uncontrollable tool. In a recent piece in Il Sole 24 Ore (28 January), Amodei lists the risks, which include mass unemployment, fraud, dictatorial control over public opinion and market manipulation. He also calls for a ‘Constitution’ that establishes principles for the ethical development of AI. This is a minority position in a world of enthusiasts for all the opportunities offered by AI, especially for scientific and technological research and for the productivity of the most innovative companies.

However, the question of how to better understand and govern the evolution of AI remains open, as does the issue of how users can learn to interact with it.
A good example comes from Bocconi University in Milan, where Rector Francesco Billari has just announced a new course called ‘Cognitive Sciences and Human Behaviour’, which will be introduced in 2027 and will be compulsory for all Bocconi students. The aim is to ‘study human intelligence with AI and put people at the centre’ (QN/Il Giorno, 27 January). Billari adds, ‘We will open scientific research centres to develop criteria for the scientific evaluation of the impact of social policies and to verify the consequences of applying AI in the social sciences’.

This, too, is a good application of Rodari’s advice to build ‘a good education’ and work on conscious words, also recalling Robert Putnam‘s civil lesson that democracy requires deliberation and direct interaction between citizens. Without this, ‘public space is reduced to a technological convenience that makes us, paradoxically, more connected but profoundly alone and politically inert’ (Paolo Benanti, Il Sole24Ore, 28 January).
The silent erosion of institutions poses a risk to us. An AI system that has been fed all the vocabulary related to the Constitution could be a lifeline, albeit a fragile one.

(photo Getty Images)

‘In the end three things remained/The certainty that we are beginning…/The certainty that it is necessary to keep on going…/The certainty that we may be interrupted/before we finish…/Let us transform the interruption into a new path/the fall into a dance step…/fear into a ladder…/dream into a bridge…/searching into meeting!’

Eighteen essential verses.  They are often attributed to Fernando Pessoa by mistake.  They were actually written by Fernando Sabino, a Brazilian poet with a melancholic streak, perhaps the source of the Pessoa misunderstanding, who had a solid reputation in the 20th-century literary world of Rio de Janeiro.

It is useful to reread these verses so as not to get lost among today’s pushy and contradictory statements, arrogant threats, false news and real acts of violence. Instead, we can reevaluate the importance of intellectual work, of doubt and research, of ‘making a fall into a dance step’, ‘of interruption into a new path’, and, above all, follow the idea that ‘the course of things is sinuous’ (Maurice Merleau-Ponty), and therefore that the story may suddenly change direction, reject something, or reveal a multitude of different ends capable of restoring a different, and often better, order to things.

As elderly Europeans, we grew up according to the values of the primacy of ideas (of law, rules, constitutions, reason, philosophy and literature) and we are now profoundly uncomfortable in the face of the arrogant assertion of the primacy of force. Many of us, convinced of the merits of democracy, have adopted the ‘primacy of the impersonal and abstract norm’ (not subject to the whims of the ruler) as theorised by the liberal jurist Hans Kelsen and detested by the Nazis. At the same time, we rejected the principle that ‘in a state of exception, the sovereign is the one who decides’, as theorised by Carl Schmitt and favoured by Nazi authoritarian thought.

We now risk not living our remaining years ‘with an open soul, a heart at peace… lovingly embracing the ones still left to live’ as the old Pablo Neruda wisely wished for himself and for us (which should be reread every day, like a joyful and wise prayer). Instead, we risk suffering them with the anguish of living in a violent, abusive world dominated by macho bullying that creates rules and behaviours that benefit the strongest, and by techno-feudal lords who are beyond all control, manipulating algorithms with no regard for the consequences for the sustainability of life for millions of people (read the prophetic novels What We Can Know by Ian McEwan and The World Without Winter by Bruno Arpaia to understand this better).

Is Europe therefore lost, marginalised and in decline, as the powerful in Washington, Beijing and Big Tech hurry to explain to us almost daily?

Probably not. Provided that this vilified and intimidated Europe does not give up playing to its strengths in the geopolitical and geoeconomic confrontation, including those values derided as irrelevant because they are not accompanied by military force and high technology (this is what we have been trying to write stubbornly in our recent blogs: ‘to make fear into a ladder, the dream into a bridge’, to falsely paraphrase Pessoa, actually Sabino).

Let’s dare to play with a different deck of cards, one not illustrated with tanks, soldiers and cannons, and let’s try to measure Europe’s strength in a different way, for example by putting our culture on the table.

Take Raphael’s great painting The School of Athens, for example, which is housed in the Vatican Museums (the preparatory cartoon is at the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan and is well worth a closer look):  there are great philosophers guided by Plato and Aristotle, as well as mathematicians, astronomers and artists (including Raphael himself, looking thoughtful in a corner). There is even a little boy whose hair is ruffled by an impetuous wind, probably the strong breath of innovation that animates that otherwise stately and composed painting.

The ‘School of Athens’ embodies the strength of Europe:  knowledge and ideas in motion; the ‘polytechnic culture’ of philosophers and mathematicians (that culture which is now indispensable for designing, giving meaning to, controlling and guiding artificial intelligence); the beauty of art, as well as the balance of science.

This is the strength of Europe that other parts of the world lack, or at least do not have to the same extent:  the critical depth of knowledge that translates into science, research, technology, business, productivity, work and civil coexistence.  This precious social and civil capital is much more solid and lasting than pure military technology. This social capital can be weakened by the bureaucratic rigidity and ideological schemes of the EU, but certainly not blocked.  It is a capital that must be invested in with political wisdom and robust pride in European ‘sweet patriotism’.

So, here is the freedom affirmed against all compulsion by Baruch Spinoza, alongside the spiritual thoughts of Pascal and Montaigne; the stubborn scientific spirit of Galileo and Newton; the ingenuity of Leonardo da Vinci‘s Atlantic Code, which depicts technical objects that do not yet exist; and the architectural principles of Leon Battista Alberti. Not to mention Shakespeare’s profound understanding of the dynamics of power and hubris (which should be studied in all good management schools and enjoyed at the theatre), Bach‘s sense of the divine, Voltaire‘s critical intelligence, and Kant‘s philosophical and ethical perspective. Then there is the economic wisdom of Antonio Genovesi, Adam Smith and John M. Keynes; the scientific and moral acuity of Hans Bohr and Marie Curie; and the lucid critical and narrative skills of Alessandro Manzoni and Thomas Mann. More recently, we can see the meaning of alchemical creation as an artistic antidote to the historical and current violence of the world in the work of Anselm Kiefer, the wise Primo Levi of ‘If This Is a Man’, and the extraordinary Hannah Arendt, who still warns us against the alleged ‘banality of evil’. This ‘banality’ can still be seen in recent images of children being used in Minneapolis to ‘find out’ whether their parents are illegal immigrants (But what are men and women, animals to be ‘flushed out’?) To understand, read the articles and editorial in the Quotidiano Nazionale/Il Giorno, La Nazione, Il Resto del Carlino of 28 January). And we can endlessly go on, page by page, intellectual by intellectual (a nice word, ‘intellectual’, as Tullio De Mauro taught us) until we have finished browsing the monumental Treccani and Britannica encyclopaedias, with all their updated volumes.

Our values of culture, democracy, freedom and tolerance are the same as those of the democratic and liberal West. These values are currently being challenged in the US, with protests taking place in cities such as Minneapolis and New York, as people fear that they will be compromised, limited or abolished.

We have the knowledge and the ‘civilisation of conversation’ from which the Enlightenment was born, the cornerstone of contemporary civilisation, and a capacity for critical thinking that marked the entire twentieth century when applied to science. We also have the pragmatic intelligence to define the mechanisms and values of liberal democracy, which brings together freedom, entrepreneurship, the market and welfare like nowhere else in the world.

Are books worth more than an army?  Do ideas beat the missiles and machine guns of mercenary or fanatical militias?  The challenge is on, at least in the medium term. Iran is offering us exemplary evidence of the disruptive power of ideas against the weapons of the Pasdarans right now.  ‘Reading Lolita in Tehran’ has been a powerful symbol of freedom and civilisation for decades.

Meanwhile, the Canadian leader, Mark Carney, has turned to a seminal European text to bolster his argument against Donald Trump’s claims on Greenland.  This text is ‘The Power of the Powerless’, in which Vaclav Havel opposed Soviet communist authoritarianism before he became president of the Czech Republic and the course of history changed.

‘The power of the powerless’ to finally recognise that ideas have a great power that must be asserted, even in the face of weapons and the most advanced high tech devices (which, however, do not work without ideas). For the record, Carney has recently prevailed over Trump, who has temporarily given up on buying or using military force to take over Greenland.

Of course, political realism is needed to avoid ending up in the pages of Don Miguel de Cervantes, but without abandoning our values and principles. This is far removed from the cynicism of Giulio Andreotti‘s ‘It’s better to make a living than to kick the bucket’, and does not reflect the values supported by projects such as Draghi and Letta’s plans for Europe. It is also far removed from the arrogance fuelled by greed and vast, disproportionate wealth. There is a difference between the ‘credible deterrence’ that Europe must establish, involving an ‘industry of war’ with strong ‘technological leadership’ that renders war unfeasible, and the aggressive plans of those who seek to return the world to a time of two or three dominant empires (concepts explored in ‘The Price of Conflict’ by Paolo Balduzzi and Andrea Bignami, published by Paesi Edizioni).

After much deliberation, it is only natural to agree wholeheartedly with Marina Brambilla, the Rector of the State University of Milan, who, a few days ago, gave a speech at the inauguration of the Academic Year in which she stated that ‘academic freedom is a non-negotiable’ (Il Giorno, 20 January), particularly in a context in which ‘anti-scientism is rife’.

Academic freedom is defined as ‘freedom of research and teaching, the autonomy of science and a stimulus to research, the positive effects of which then extend to businesses, work, civil life and society’. The autonomy of scientific research is one of the founding values of the liberal order. Reiterating this in these controversial times is essential.

Marina Brambilla therefore did well to remind us that research in Italy is provided for and protected by the Constitution, and to call for much greater resources to be directed towards research than have been made available so far.

‘Non-negotiable academic freedom’ is indispensable today if Europe is to compete with the US, where tens of thousands of students, researchers and professors are in serious difficulty due to massive cuts in federal funding to universities for disobeying the White House’s political directives (we discussed this last week on the blog).

Of course, Europe can never reasonably act as a global alternative to the US.  However, reaffirming its strength, solidity, scientific creativity and culture can be a great European objective. This would also strengthen some far-reaching EU values and interests, such as autonomy, strategic and energy security, industrial policy and an authoritative voice that goes beyond the power of the US and China.

In this sense, good news has come from Italian universities in recent days.  For example, the Polytechnic and Bocconi University of Milan recently signed an agreement to establish ‘the gigafactory of start-ups’ (Il Sole24Ore, 21 January).  The Polihub and B4i hubs of the two universities are to be transferred to the TEF Foundation (chaired by Ferruccio Resta), with the aim of creating a thousand innovative companies per year. An important step forward for research, innovation and the most dynamic companies.

Europe, in search of strength and identity, is grateful.

(photo Getty Images)

Research published which aims to describe production organisations in a more complete and exhaustive way, beginning with design

The culture of production never just involves one product, but much more:  content and image, manufacturing and corporate intangibility, practical manufacturing and imagination that becomes a project and then a product. Understanding the relationships and complex history of businesses operating in a given area therefore requires contributions from multiple sources. Such as the research by Alberto Bassi, Giulia Ciliberto, Maria Cristina Addis, Jacopo William De Denaro and Marco Scotti, ‘Il patrimonio intangibile d’impresa. Una mappatura design-driven’ (The intangible heritage of business. A design-driven mapping) included in the larger collection ‘Design Plurale. Casi e modelli alternativi per l’innovazione’ (Plural Design.  Cases and Alternative Models for Innovation).

The research aims to develop a methodology that can help create a more comprehensive map of entrepreneurial ecosystems, beginning with a case study of the North East. The final goal is to identify the body of intangible knowledge embodied in the interactions between local businesses and design culture, that is, the intangible aspects that contribute to telling the story of the business through means other than those more closely linked to production.

The authors explain that studies on intangible assets often tend to focus on the values from which companies derive a direct economic benefit, while design cultures and practices are rarely studied in their own right or in relation to broader societal and cultural connections. The ‘map’ being developed is therefore made up of contributions from various disciplines:  from design theory and history to territorial studies, economics, semiotics and cultural heritage.

When applied to the North East, this method results in an alternative business framework to traditional accounting and financial reporting,  offering a more holistic view of the company as an expression of a productive culture that encompasses not only the technical and economic aspects, but also the human and social dimensions.

Il patrimonio intangibile d’impresa. Una mappatura design-driven

Alberto Bassi, Giulia Ciliberto, Maria Cristina Addis, Jacopo William De Denaro, Marco Scotti

in Design Plurale. casi e modelli alternativi per l’innovazione / Plural Design. Cases and Alternative Models for Innovation, Federico II University Press, 2025

Multi-authored book published on the current situation regarding technology and the need to put people at the centre

The issue is not just technology. Rather, it is that technology necessarily requires other complex, innovative elements to be understood correctly in order to avoid one being overwhelmed. This is a condition common to all since the Industry 5.0 scenario became a reality, based on the idea of overcoming techno-centrism and putting people at the centre by combining innovation with sustainability, resilience, and social justice. But what does it mean to put people at the “centre” in the digital age? What is the emerging Industry 5.0 paradigm really all about?
To understand more, read ‘L’Europa e le sfide dell’industria 5.0. Per governare e non subire le rivoluzioni del nostro tempo’ (Europe and the challenges of industry 5.0: How to govern without suffering the revolutions of our time), edited by Massimo Adinolfi, Pietro Maffettone and Massimiliano Scarpetta.
The book brings together a series of contributions offering multidisciplinary readings of the ethical, political and cultural implications of digital transformation. These readings span a range of disciplines, from philosophy and law to economics and geography, and investigate the impact of automation on work, democracy and rights. In addition to the editors, Paolo Benanti, Roger Abravanel, Barbara Carfagna, Sabino Cassese, Danila De Stefano, Lorenzo Mariani, Raffaele Mauro, Stefano Quintarelli, Paola Severino and Laura Sposato contributed to the work, each bringing their own vision and interpretation of Industry 5.0 to the multidisciplinary analysis, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
After explaining how the project that led to the book came about, the transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 is addressed, as well as the evolution of industrial policy that accompanied this process. The book then goes on to explore some of the fundamental aspects of Industry 5.0, such as automation and the market, spatial and social organisation, and issues like labour relations and distributive justice. It concludes with a series of interviews, each offering a unique perspective on the subject. The book emphasises the need for inclusive public policies that can govern innovation without stifling its potential, while supporting a human-centred model of European development. Above all, Adinolfi, Maffettone and Scarpetta invite us to engage in an informed dialogue that enables us to govern, rather than suffer, the revolutions of our time.

L’Europa e le sfide dell’industria 5.0. Per governare e non subire le rivoluzioni del nostro tempo
Massimo Adinolfi, Pietro Maffettone, Massimiliano Scarpetta
Franco Angeli, 2026