At least once in their lives, everyone has wondered why circumstances have not unfolded as they would have liked and reflected on how to change their lives. Alexey Krol has developed a unique, original concept that explains how social and professional hierarchies are formed and why some people reach the ‘top’ while others remain stuck in a rut.
In his book Theory of Castes and Roles, which has remained one of the top business bestsellers for nearly a decade, he presents a perspective on society as a system where individuals instinctively sort themselves into castes and roles based on their thinking, motivation, and ability to influence others. However, the author believes recognising our positions in society gives us the chance to break free from the limitations of ‘caste’.
Krol draws on his own experience as an entrepreneur, investor, and consultant, adapting the concept of caste division to the modern world. Find out how technology, including artificial intelligence, is reshaping this system, what awaits the ‘lost snowflake generation’ and whether we all risk ending up in a digital concentration camp in Alexey Krol's exclusive interview with Kommersant UK.
How does your theory of castes and roles differ from Marx and Engels' class theory or the principles of the ancient Indian caste system?
To understand the differences, let’s first briefly examine what Marx and Engels’ theory represents. Marxism is an attempt to analyse how society functions. Its main conclusion is that the modern capitalist system is unjust. The private appropriation of capital and the social nature of production has led to a concentration of resources in the hands of a narrow group of people who exploit those who have nothing. From this follows the idea that an unjust system must be transformed into a just one.
To achieve this, the proletariats of all countries must unite, overthrow their exploiters, and create a new communist society where resources are distributed “to each according to his needs” and labour is provided “from each according to his ability.” This narrative works well as a means of brainwashing an uneducated working class, consolidating them, turning them into cannon fodder, and throwing them into the furnace of revolution. However, once power is seized, a different system inevitably emerges; one still based on exploitation and suppression.
The question of which system is more or less socially just is highly debatable. However, historical facts have shown that the classical approach implemented in the Soviet Union and the countries of the Eastern Bloc proved to be less effective than, for example, capitalism.
Today, China is attempting to pursue a ‘third way’, balancing between centralised socialist policies and significant elements of private property and capitalism. So far, they have been quite successful, and many other countries are following this path. Thus, Marxism is an ideology, a philosophical concept, that proposes a specific model of society, believing it to be the best.
The Indian caste system is not a philosophy but rather a reflection of reality; a way of describing how India’s religious society was structured in the past. It consisted of varnas (the four main social classes), forming the levels of a social pyramid, and castes, more akin to professional groups; there were around 1,500 of these in total. The essence of the Indian caste system was that a person born into a particular caste could not change their social status. In contrast, Marxism at least proposed a principle for changing the existing order, albeit through collective action.
The Theory of Castes and Roles (a name I came up with myself) is neither a political tool nor a reflection on society; it is an aid to personal growth, designed for individuals who want to evolve. At a certain point in life, people may realise that they are not living the way they once dreamed. This leads to the question: "How can I change my life?" The first step is to examine the world around us and understand how society is structured.
The Theory of Castes and Roles offers a certain perspective, but I do not impose it on anyone (I am not a scientist and this is only my subjective view). Initially, I only created it for one person; myself. It is a set of ideas that helped me understand what was happening to me, why I was intelligent yet not wealthy, what mistakes I had made, and what I needed to do. It is a pragmatic tool aimed at helping anyone (first and foremost, myself) figure out what is wrong with them and, accordingly, how to address it. I analysed this for myself, drew conclusions, arrived at certain insights, and shared them. Afterwards, I largely began shaping my life according to these principles.
Thus, the key difference in The Theory of Castes and Roles is that it is a tool to be used. It is not a worldview designed to brainwash people; on the contrary, it clears the mind. It reveals that the world follows certain paths, and people who want to grow must follow them. However, to move along these paths, they must undergo certain personal transformations. Growth is not primarily determined by what people know and can do but rather by their personalities; how they respond to obstacles, dangers, uncertainty, and so on.
The creation of artificial intelligence is the greatest technological breakthrough of recent years. Will AI affect your theory? What will it offer the different castes of slaves, professionals and rulers?
It will not affect it in any way because AI is merely a tool that amplifies existing processes. For example, 200 years ago, there was no grid and people relied on the pigeon post; yet communications flowed and all the castes and roles were already in place. Then came the telephone, increasing the speed of communication and giving rise to numerous professions and industries, but the caste system remained unchanged. Now, everything is happening rapidly, with mobile networks and messaging apps. We also have a new amplifier; artificial intelligence. This means that humanity will solve certain tasks much faster and more efficiently. However, it will not alter the caste structure at all.
This technology will only provide advantages to slaves, professionals and rulers if they choose to use it. If a slave masters AI and becomes competitive, they have the chance to transition into the professional class. After all, functionally, there is no difference between a slave and a professional. The only distinction is that a slave operates in a buyer’s market, where corporations decide whether to hire them or not; whereas a professional operates in a seller’s market; where corporations need them because they are unique, and companies play by their rules. This distinction is entirely defined by skill and qualifications.
The same applies to rulers. They may choose to use this tool to improve labour organisation, governance, corporate management, and ultimately, their control of people.
When a new, promising technology emerges, those who quickly recognise its potential, study, implement and apply it gain an advantage. That’s great; but fundamentally, nothing will change. Civilisation is built on relationships between people, not on artificial intelligence.
In this sense, robots have existed for a long time, they already communicate, and many processes run without human involvement; their share will only increase. It is now evident that robots and AI will take over a significant portion of human jobs. As a result, some people will inevitably shift to something like a basic income because a revolution will occur. Those who remain employed will be those capable of performing tasks that AI cannot yet handle, and competition among workers will intensify.
Castes will not disappear. Some criteria may change, but overall, the hierarchical structure of society will remain the same, as it is largely determined not by money but by patterns of human behaviour and psychology. In other words, castes emerge as a result of human behaviour.
Lazy or unintelligent people have slim chance of moving into a higher caste and securing a place there. On the other hand, an ambitious and hardworking individual capable of learning and overcoming obstacles while confronting fears, doubts, risks, and uncertainty now has an even greater chance of advancing in status. In fact, they may be warmly welcomed in higher castes.
What drives people to leave employment and start their own businesses?
From my perspective and based on my own observations, it’s definitely not about money. You can’t say that entrepreneurs necessarily earn more; most of them start small or micro-businesses, which often don’t generate higher income than traditional employment. The main impetus is that, over time, people, especially as they grow older, reach a point where they can’t abide being a ‘slave’ to a system that dictates their every move. Most employees experience this feeling to some degree, but not strongly enough to make them quit. After all, starting a business means facing risks, learning a great deal, coping with difficulties and navigating uncertainty.
It’s not just about competence; many simply lack the willpower to take this step. However, some people eventually feel a switch has flipped and so they start taking action. The more emotional ones may quit immediately, while the rational and pragmatic ones research their options first, start a business alongside their job, and only leave once it begins to show at least a few signs of life. Ultimately, it’s an emotional decision.
People leave when even all the ‘perks’ provided by a corporation can no longer compensate for the feeling of lack of freedom. On average, 90% of employees want to have their own business, but only a small percentage, three, five or ten per cent, actually take the plunge. Moreover, a first business is usually doomed to fail. People return to employment, try again, and only on their second, third, or fourth attempt do things start to work out. Statistically, the fifth attempt is the one that usually succeeds.
Why do some succeed while others fail?
It primarily comes down to qualifications and personality because business requires specific skills; without them, success is impossible. These include knowledge, self-discipline, the ability to take risks, and the capacity to learn. If someone hasn’t developed these qualities, they will inevitably encounter unsurpassable obstacles. However, if they are persistent and willing to grow, they will eventually learn how to build, launch, sustain, develop, and scale up a business.
Beyond skills, personal traits play a crucial role; maturity, focus, the nerve for bold risk-taking and the ability to overcome obstacles. Some young entrepreneurs manage to develop all these qualities by the age of 20 (and there are quite a few of them). Often, they start their journey in childhood; at nine or ten years old and by the time they achieve success at 23 to 25, they already have ten to 15 years of experience in business. They begin with simple things; trading skins and selling trinkets on game platforms such as Roblox, but this path allows them to go through all the necessary stages and grow into real entrepreneurs. At the same time, there are plenty of people in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s with deep expertise in their fields, yet their personalities are often weak, one-dimensional, and completely unadapted to the reality of business.
Is the neurophysiology of an employee’s brain significantly different from that of an entrepreneur?
I believe it is. The reason lies in neuroplasticity; our brains change in response to the experiences and situations we immerse ourselves in. The daily realities of employees and entrepreneurs are fundamentally different. An entrepreneur constantly faces uncertainty and must overcome it, whereas an employee typically does not encounter obstacles and risks of the same magnitude. If we compare employment and entrepreneurship in terms of risk and complexity, an entrepreneur gradually learns to derive pleasure from these challenges. They consciously increase risks and set ambitious goals because this has become their normal reality. For a regular employee, however, being thrown into such an environment can be a demoralising shock. They may become paralysed by fear and unable to act. While fear is paralysing for many, some master it and press on regardless; that’s the key difference. Others simply freeze. This ability can only be developed through practice.
We often impose certain roles on ourselves, limiting our potential with internalised narratives. However, real-life situations force us to act rationally, based on circumstances rather than our preconceived notions. As Mike Tyson famously said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Statistics show that most successful businesses were not started by people who dreamed of becoming entrepreneurs, but rather by those who had no other choice; whether due to age, job market limitations, or other circumstances. Life forced them to start something, whether they were ready for it or not. Ultimately, hardships are the most powerful learning tool, shaping not only skills and resilience but also neurophysiology itself.
Young people today are often accused of lacking motivation. Many teenagers are not only inactive but seem disinterested in work altogether. What causes this stagnation? At the same time, the current generation of young people has been called the most anxious in history. What’s behind this, and how can we help our kids?
The reasons are simple. Parents have worked hard, created comfortable conditions for their children, and now they try to shield them from difficulties because they find it more convenient to do so. Parents themselves are exhausted by the daily grind of work, business and mundane responsibilities. Their child's struggles become an additional source of stress.
At the same time, 99% of parents are not competent in child-rearing, especially single mothers, whose numbers have increased. Not wanting extra stress, they protect children from hardships. As a result, kids grow up in a comfortable environment, get everything they want instantly, and become accustomed to short dopamine cycles from video games, cartoons, and social media.
The landscape of education and development has also changed. Games exist today that didn’t 30 years ago, providing children with instant dopamine without stimulating the imagination. While some games encourage development if approached wisely, this requires awareness on the part of both parents and children.
To make things worse, many kids don’t read, which negatively affects their development. When you stop reading, you stop imagining. You no longer have role models to aspire to, which means you lack ambition. Ambition is not something that arises automatically; it needs to be taught, nurtured, and instilled.
Parents may not notice this issue in early childhood, but by pre-adolescence, at the age of 11 or 12, they suddenly realise that their child firstly lacks ambition and wants nothing, secondly is entirely focused on consumption, thirdly only has average skills because they have never developed the habit of working hard and lastly and most importantly, they have not developed a strong personality. When it comes to parenting, our duty is to raise a child into a strong, adaptable individual; someone who can grow, evolve, and survive in the real world.
How can this be done?
There are two aspects. Firstly you must provide your child with knowledge and skills; they must understand the world and be able to do something. Secondly, you must shape their personality so they are capable of overcoming obstacles and standing up for themselves. Schools provide a minimal set of knowledge and skills, but no one is concerned with shaping children’s personalities. I often observe older children aged ten, 12, 13 or 15 and their personalities are underdeveloped, primitive, and in an embryonic state. In the past, this was considered a developmental delay. Today, it has become the norm.
We have 15-year-olds with fully developed secondary sexual characteristics, and access to vast amounts of information, yet mentally and emotionally, they function at the level of a four-year-old. This creates a dangerous imbalance. They have been shielded from difficulties all their lives. School provides some challenges such as bullying and peer pressure, but they manage. Then they go to university, where the difficulties intensify, as they have to study, and failure can lead to expulsion.
As children grow, they enter an environment with increasing obstacles and competition, but they are not prepared for it. They remain primitive, weak, consumption-driven personalities, addicted to social media and games. Meanwhile, the world around them becomes harsher, leading to severe frustration.
In itself, this is normal. Learning is always accompanied by frustration, because we learn through struggle and overcoming difficulties. But today, only a few can handle this reality, while the majority break down, resulting in suicidal thoughts, therapy and medication.
Then they go to psychologists, who, for the most part, do more harm than good. These young people come to them saying: "I’m suffering, help me". But a commercial psychologist cannot tell the parents:
"Your son is a walking robot; he eats, digests, and flushes it all down the toilet. He needs to be made human. What you failed to do in 15–18 years must now be urgently corrected if you want him to function normally."
Why? Because the parents would simply leave and stop paying. It’s a conflict of interest. Weak parents are ideal clients because they will keep coming back forever. The psychologist can prescribe medication, and diagnose bipolar disorder, autism, or anything else, but that’s not the real issue.
What’s the real problem? Parenting is not psychology. It is an entirely different discipline, requiring a different approach. Parenting is the process of shaping a personality through overcoming obstacles. There is no other way.
This is how human neurophysiology works. But parents have not done this and will not. Why? Because to immerse a child in a challenging, aggressive environment, the parents themselves must have willpower.
And a weak personality cannot raise a strong one; this is a statistical fact. People with strong will and ambition go into business, science, technology, politics and the military; places where they can prove themselves. But where do the most mediocre people go? To schools; the lowest level of servitude.
Ask yourself what a person with a slave mentality can teach your child. Only to be a slave themselves. Teachers project their own worldview, and we see the results; this is happening not just in Russia but in the US and worldwide. A child completely unprepared for life eventually collides with reality, and it crushes them.
At that point, parents have only one option; to take things seriously. Because no one except the parents cares about their child. Now, these parents must make up for 18 years of missed development in just one year, rebuilding the child’s personality without causing irreparable trauma, which will occur regardless. But it's better to be strong and traumatised than weak and insignificant, because a weak personality will accumulate even more trauma in the long run.
But not all parents choose this path. In Japan, there is the phenomenon of hikikomori; children who isolate themselves in their rooms, playing games while their parents simply feed them. It’s easier for the parents. That’s their choice.
What kind of entertainment will be available to those living on welfare? Which professions will survive in the future, and which will disappear?
Entertainment will remain the same: movies and games. In my opinion, for the poor, most entertainment will gradually narrow down to gaming because games continue to evolve, becoming cheaper and more accessible. Meanwhile, live human experiences are becoming more expensive.
For example, ten years ago, you could see a show in Las Vegas for $100. Now, good shows cost at least $700. A ticket to a Taylor Swift concert can go up to $35,000-40,000. Movies and games are increasingly merging. Games are gradually consuming all other forms of media because poor people simply cannot afford to consume more complex content.
When it comes to professions, the longest-lasting jobs will be those where artificial intelligence (AI) cannot easily replace humans. However, it's not just about whether AI can replace a person, but also about how much people earn in that role. For example, toilet cleaning; in theory, robots already exist that can do this. I've seen them. But for now, hiring low-wage workers is still more cost-effective. The question is: Would you want your child to have that job?
We all want our children to be creative and fulfilled individuals. However, the areas that allow for self-fulfillment will also have the highest competition. Corporations are willing to pay more for creativity, but competition will not only be against other people but also against AI.
You can imagine a simple graph, with how easily AI can replace a human in a given profession on one axis and how much money can be earned in that profession on the other. The zone where AI has not yet replaced humans and where people can still make good money is shrinking rapidly.
It’s already obvious that jobs with formalised rules, such as accountants, lawyers, medical diagnosticians, teachers, coaches and psychotherapists will be among the first to disappear. There are already predictions that within five years, people will stop writing code. Still, software architecture is a different story, but at the current pace of AI development, in three to four years, AI will likely handle that too. The technology is already designing user interfaces. We can see this trend clearly. What matters is not just what AI can do today, but how things have changed in the last two years and how they will evolve in the next two to three years.
Is happiness possible without freedom?
First, we need to define what freedom is. Ignorant people think freedom means doing whatever they want. That’s nonsense because true freedom is, first and foremost, awareness. There are three types of slavery; the first is economic, when someone lacks financial independence and is forced to work to survive. The second is mental when the mind is so deeply conditioned by marketing that people buy things because they have been convinced they need them and not out of necessity. These people genuinely believe they are free, unaware of how much they are being manipulated. The third type is a slavery of worldview when people have a narrow and limited perspective but do not realise it. Your worldview shapes how you perceive yourself, the surrounding reality and what you believe you can or cannot do. If your worldview is blinkered, you won’t even notice how this limits you. The problem is that people think they are free while failing to recognise how they are being controlled politically, socially and by the information they consume.
Happiness, on the other hand, is a feeling. For example, you may work for a corporation and not be free, but if you drink vodka, you feel happy. To keep that feeling, you must keep drinking forever. Many people choose this path. One definition of happiness is that it is simply the absence of suffering. This leads to the question: Where does suffering come from?
The Buddha and Maslow believed that suffering arises from unfulfilled attachments, expectations, and desires. In other words, the issue isn’t happiness itself; it’s that you are unhappy. You are driven by envy, fear, and anxiety and if you remove these factors, theoretically, you may become happy for the present moment. The problem is that people don’t perceive the true nature of reality. Instead, they listen, watch, and compare, developing desires they cannot fulfil, which makes them unhappy again. This creates a vicious cycle.
There are two paths to happiness; an ineffective path, through constantly chasing desires, like most people do, by pursuing money, pleasure, and consumption and also a conscious path, by understanding why the first path is ineffective and learning to control your emotions, desires, and needs. Once you reach this level of awareness, you realise that the entire debate about freedom and happiness is a false, fabricated issue. You understand that you can do anything, at any time, in any way you choose. If it seems you can’t, this is just an idea in your head. You can step beyond the happiness-unhappiness dichotomy.
Ultimately, this problem only afflicts ignorant people; for enlightened individuals, it simply does not exist. A normal person is happy by default, regardless of what they have or lack. There’s a great quote attributed to Bill Gates: "You can teach a smart person, but you cannot make a fool smart”. Some fear that AI will restrict our freedom, but I believe that’s nonsense. Smart people understand limitations exist for their benefit, while fools see them as oppression and start shouting: "I have no freedom!"
How likely is it that AI will lead to the creation of digital concentration camps in certain countries?
Of course, certain restrictions will be introduced, and that’s a good thing. As mentioned earlier, conscious individuals don’t need restrictions; they already understand how to behave. But for those who act like half-animals, restrictions are necessary to prevent them from harming themselves and others. The principle is a meritocracy of rights, where, if you are worthy, you get more rights and fewer restrictions and if you are unworthy, you get fewer rights and more restrictions. A criminal, by definition, lacks sound judgement as, for some reason, they chose to commit a crime. They become socially dangerous, and society isolates them to prevent harm to others. That’s the entire logic behind restrictions to their liberty. So, in my opinion, we will gradually see a segregation based on levels of awareness. This could be implemented through exams or other evaluations. The principle is simple; if you can prove that you are rational and responsible, you get more rights. Fail to prove you are rational and you have fewer rights.
This is a public good.
US President Donald Trump recently announced SoftBank plans to invest half a trillion dollars in infrastructure over the next four years, which could potentially lead to the creation of a superintelligence. What does this mean?
First of all, superintelligences are still a pipedream; it’s mostly hype. Most likely, this infrastructure will be broad and not exclusively related to AI. Right now, there is a general belief that AI development will be a key factor in geopolitical dominance, which is why there is heavy investment in the field. This infrastructure is not just data centres, it’s also people. The more resources invested, the higher the likelihood of technological breakthroughs.
It’s 100% certain these investments will accelerate progress, but superintelligence remains science fiction for now, and no one can predict when (or if) it will appear. Whenever companies like OpenAI make bold claims, we need to remember that these statements are primarily made for investors. They always have to promise something, but some things can be predicted with reasonable accuracy, while others remain pure speculation. At this stage, the probability of creating superintelligence is effectively zero. We don’t even know what it truly means; there are no clear criteria for defining it. Even modern AI is just a tool, highly efficient at narrow, specialised tasks, nothing more.
Two possible futures; one golden and the other dystopian?
I believe how well things turn out will depend not so much on AI itself but on political elites and their willingness to pursue societal progress and efficiency. Society’s goals are always set by elites, who can be roughly divided into two types, or rather, it’s more accurate to talk about a balance of interests between the elites and the general population. There are societies where elites strive to maintain this balance, prioritising national well-being because they understand that they are also part of the system themselves. When they create better conditions for people, they also benefit in the long run. The first type of elite tries to limit corruption; even if only partially, while the second type, often referred to as ‘kleptocrats’, exploits public funds with no regard for people’s well-being. In the first case, corruption is somewhat controlled; in the second, it thrives unchecked.
My assumption comes down to this; if national and global elites choose a less corrupt, more socially responsible path; one that balances their own interests with the greater good; then we have a chance at a positive future. Elites never want to lose control, but if they prioritise progress over exploitation, our future will be more successful and stable. However, if elites continue down a path of corruption, then the global decline we’ve seen over the past 20-30 years, in the U.S. and worldwide, will only worsen. AI itself is not the deciding factor. The key to a positive future is not technology, not even AI itself. All of today’s major problems could be solved without it. If political will aims at destruction, AI will serve that purpose, but if the political leadership focuses on creation, AI will contribute to progress. Ultimately, it all comes down to people. Destruction begins in human minds, not in technology.
