 Mae'r bachiynauio ar y dyna o'ch gyffredinol y dyna yn y peth a pob peth gynnwch,on y dyma y dyma yn y cyfrifSiwyd cysylltu cyfrifiad cyfnodiys yn gwybodaeth y cyfrifoedd mewn oedd o'n gwirionedd o'u lleiol, a'u gwyfyd o'r lleiol a'u llwyddoedd gael oed inni mor meddwl. Rwy'n maith cyrchon o'r acenol iawn i ddweud. Rwy'n meddwl Achon, ddwy'n meddwl amser o'r llwyddoedd. Ond ydy o'r byd yw'r bydau o'r cychwynedd ymlaen i'r cyrnyddol, a'r bydau i'r cyfrannu hwnnw. Oni, mae'n meddwl i'r cyfrannu hwnnw yn y 7 ymlaen gyffredinol, gan yw y 2007, yw y 2008. Yn cyfrannu, mae o'r gweithio'n gweld. Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Ond efallai, mae'n mynd i'r ysbryd yn ymwneud yma, Have no real recovery the 99%, we see stag mentally wages declining living standards, the rise of zero our contract precarious labour, and obviously continue de-starity and continually growing inequality as well. Felly, dyna'n diolch i ni'n bwysig i'r gweithio, i ni'n dechreu'r eich ddechrau a'r wych chi'n mynd i'r eich dweud, i ni'n bwysig i ni'n eu bywyd hwnnw, o'i ziweld, i ni wedi'i ei synέchyd mewn gweithio ddechrau, i ni'n mynd i gyfaint, rydych chi'n sefydlu'r eu dympjol fardd iawn, i ni'n chi'n gyfaint eich ddweud. Dyna'n bwysig i ni, mae'n bywyd ei gallwch arweinydd gweld o'r ffordd o ddweithio'r traddwyndau hynny. You know you can you can always zoom in on a graph and you'll see a slight up turn. You zoom back out, and you'll see that that's just a tiny flick upwards on on another wise downward trajectory, as far as the timeline of capitalism goes. Even a dying patient in a hospital will occasionally see a kind of spasm of life before the lights eventually go out. On a global scale really there is no real recovery at all. Mae'r gwneud yn fawr, bod yma'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd yma yn ymweld. Mae'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd Dr Nouriel Rabini, y profesor, yn America, yn ymweld yma'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd yma yn ymweld Dr Doom, ond rwy'n credu'r cyfnodd yn 2008. Mae'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd yma yn ymweld yma'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd. Mae'r gwahodd yma wedi'i gwahodd i'r olygu newid wedi'i'r gwahodd. Yn ymydd i gweithio ymweldod F Pointeig, llwy iawn i'r arddennau. Mae dyma'r gwahodd yma'r gwahodd yma. Mae'r gwahodd llwyddoedd ar yr ymddangos ym Mhwyl, ac mae'r gwahodd yr ymddangos yn cael eu rhaid, nad defnyddio ar gwaith, a wych yn cyn ymdau, y gallu llynwyr cyrraedd yma yn ddweud yn y llunwyr yma yn ymlaen, a mae'n gweithio'r ymlaen i'r ddweud, i'w ddweud yn ystod yn ystod yn ddweud. Mae'r ystod yn Chine mae'n ymlaen i'n ddweud yn y proses ymlaen i'r Unedd a'r Eurupol, a'u ddweud yn y ddweud. Mae'n ddweud yn bethau, ddweud yn ddweud, ddweud yn ddweud, ddweud yn ddweud, a ddweud yn ddweud yn ddweud. Felly, allwch chi'n rhannu i'w gweld y cyfnod yma o'r gwlad ymlaen iawn? Felly, mae'n gweld yn ymddi, yn cyflwyno'r wahanol, yn ymddir i'r Westerbwrdd, yn ymddi'r llyfr iawn, yn ymddi'r cyfnodol, ond mae'r bobl yn yr unig, ac oherwydd, mae'n cymryd yw'r Chynedd, yn ymddir i'r Westerbwrdd, ac yn ymddi'r cyflwno'r llyfr yw'r reisdiannau y 2008-2009. Mae Chino dyn nhw wedi gynllunio. Mae'r grwmhau cyfnodau lleiwyr yng Nghymru, o'r ddau cyfnodau yn gwneud, yn dweud, yn ddweud, yn ddwylo'r ddechrau, yn ddweud, yn ddweud mewn gwir yma, yn ddweud o'r ddechrau, fel y cyfnodau a'r ddweud. Rwy'n ei wneud o'r ddweud o'r ysgol yma. Rwy'n ei wneud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r wneud o'r ddweud o'r Ddweud, O'r cymdeithaslawr cymdeithaslaw, clyw y cyfrasiau, oherwydd yn byddai cwaf iawn gwylliant arno ar gl Gin yn Argynойwch yn Brytanoedd Unedig. Fy rhai cwwyr Chynon cyllun yn heddiw'r cyfrasawr yn y methu sgwrs yr hynny, oherwydd eisman cyfrifio'r gweinydd cwyr gan alw sy'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio er mwyn yng ngyntafol maen nhw. ac mae'r risult yn dda i'r wrth gwrs eich cyfaciliad hynny, bo'r rheswm eich cyfaciliad hwnnw mae'r rheswm eich cyfaciliad hwnnw yn ei staglant ymddangos gyda'n gweithio cyfeithio. Mae Chynig yn dweud yr eich ddemol, mae'r ddemol yn ystod o'r tych o'r stil, mae'r ddemol yn ystod o'r tych o'r oed o'r oed o'r trech, mae'n dwylo'r prys oes oes oed o'r tych o'r ddechrau. Mae'r risult yn ystod o'r eich cyfaciliad hwnnw, y ffordd o'r cael ymddangos. Mae Maxus yn cael gwybod o'r ysgolig. Mae'r gweithio'r ffordd o ffordd o'r ysgolig yn wych. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn ffawr i'r ardei'r iawn i Europaid a Brin a'u cael ei ddweudio'r brifysgol a'r ysgolig o Ffartysgol Brin yn y cwysig. Bydd ymddangos o'r bwysig o'r adeiladau ar gyfer Tata. again Both jest on keg Cosmoe Jить And All of this is a reflection. End Lu skill down in China the stock market crash. Where he had the user massive stock bubble being formed output proddew circum alat edin needs and China that couldn't find an outlet a well they're for just seatma doctor abroad handoveracia exchange 부탁 couple months ago now and it's all a massive warning sign id. David Cameron few months back said that Mae'r rhaglŵr, ysbrydio'n llaw o'r rhaglŵr arall a'r mir... ..a'r Llywodraeth yma yn chywstio gorod ym Llywodraeth.. ..y'n cymryd ei chywstiau gan rai ddullus a fyddai'r idea... ..a ddweud y peth yn lydym yn bach ynrodd fel y costaeth... .. strengthio'n cyffredin i wirio am gyflymhaith yma e'r rhaglŵr ar gyfer mang enhanced. Rhyw wc ddweud yn braeddau, oherwydd yn Rhaglŵr o'r rhaglŵr ac Mhysgu. Indonesia, South Africa, a lot of these countries that were reliant on exporting raw materials to China with the slowdown in China. You now see the slowdown in all of these countries. In other words, what you see is a real interconnectivity on a world scale. The whole world economy is interlinked and each obviously you don't get crisis occurring simultaneously everywhere. It's a kind of combined and uneven development if you like, but one after another like mountain climbers all attached by a rope as one falls, the rest fall with it. China is the latest one to go bringing down the rest of the world economy. It's obviously going to rebound back on the west and that's why you're seeing all these flash points occurring at the same time. It shows you the severity of the crisis on a world scale, but stepping back from the immediate kind of crisis or the crisis of the last seven years. I think it's also important to look at the kind of historical development of capitalism over the last few decades. And if we see that, if we take that even bigger view of history, we see that really capitalism is in a period of senile decay. It's very much become a system that can no longer develop the productive forces where you have this enormous technological scientific kind of cultural and industrial potential, but none of it can be fulfilled under capitalism. You've got so many symptoms of this we see such as automation. The idea that there is this incredible level of automation or potential technological development in society today, but rather than it leading to increase leisure time or to better wages, we're seeing basically all the technology as Marx pointed out in capital actually, he writes that all of the machinery, all of the technology, all of this investment actually doesn't lead to rising living standards at all, but what he said is it leads to the accumulation of misery and toil at one end and the accumulation of profits at the other. And that's what we see today where even bourgeois commentators, a pair of MIT economists wrote a book called Race Against the Machine, the idea that now mankind isn't benefiting from automation anymore. The technological progress we've seen is just leading to a polarization. It's leading to this greater inequality in society where labor is in a race against the machinery that rather than liberating us is enslaving us. We're seeing this contradiction of unemployment on the one hand, mass unemployment alongside overwork on the other, a completely irrational contradiction, that the idea of poverty emits plenty, the fact that we have these huge piles of idle cash actually, this contradiction of austerity alongside massive accumulation of wealth in the bank accounts of the world's biggest businesses, for example, in Britain, something like 750 billion accumulated in the bank accounts of British big business. In Europe, it's the figures about two trillion euros. In America, two trillion dollars, I think. And in fact, Apple alone sits on something like 150 or 200 billion dollars worth of cash reserves that it's built up, but that it's unable to use because of this huge excess capacity, this huge overproduction on a world scale. And it's for this reason, because of this enormous barrier to investment, to the development of the productive forces that you see, again, even the serious bourgeois commentators talking about things like secular stagnation. This is the term that was come up by Larry Summers, the former US treasurer, who basically said that because of this huge debt mountain that we've accumulated, this huge excess capacity in the system that's been built up, we're looking at a situation where the economies of the world aren't going to be growing not just for decades, but secular stagnation, which means lasting a century. And Paul Krugman, the Keynesian Nobel Prize-winning economist, called it a permanent slump, basically. The idea that we're not just talking about years of austerity here, but decades of low growth crisis and, as I say, the austerity to go with it. And the important point is in all of this, that the capitalists and the academic representatives, their political representatives, their apologists, none of these people really have a solution to this long-term slowdown and decay of the capitalist system. So the question we have to ask ourselves today is, well, how did we end up here? Because this is the question that's obviously never asked by the bourgeois economists. In fact, to ask the question genuinely to try and answer it would actually obviously reveal why we're still stuck in this crisis, and more importantly would reveal the only way out of it. Because in 2008, you had a situation where the crisis hit, and all the so-called experts were left scratching their head. They couldn't explain the real origins of the crisis. It was called a credit crunch, or just merely greedy bankers or just a financial crisis. But we'll see later how this is all very superficial analysis. Going back to Paul Krugman, he said everything we've learnt about economics in the last 30 years is at best wrong and at worst harmful. He's, as I say, one of the so-called experts. So it's obviously for this reason that you had a lot of people then turning not towards the kind of modern academic textbooks or papers, but actually to the writings of someone who died 130 years ago. A whole swath of articles came out in the wake of the crisis saying Marx was right. Time magazine, I think, was writing on Rolling Stone, and the BBC produced a whole series called Masters of Money where they looked at Marx as one of the leading economists in history. And all of these people were trying to therefore look back and say, well, what was it Marx said about capitalism that can help explain today? And obviously, from a bourgeois perspective, they always say, well, Marx was right about capitalism, but wrong about his conclusions. He had a good analysis of that, but couldn't explain a real alternative. But nevertheless, there was obviously a rising interest. There still is a rising interest in what Marx had to say about capitalism and crisis. You saw sales of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital booming. I think there was even a manga version produced in Japan, apparently. But all of this shows that the traditional mainstream economics has reached an impasse. It can't explain what's going on. And therefore, it's important for us to go back and say, well, what did Marx really say in Capital? What did he really say about how capitalism worked? And I think to start off when we look at Marx's economics and his analysis of capitalism, we have to understand that Marx wasn't reinventing the wheel in the sense of he wasn't just plucking ideas out of nowhere, sucking them from his thumb. He based himself actually on the economists who'd come before him, people like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who were the high point of classical political economy. He basically wanted to say, look, even if we take everything you've said is true, you've developed a scientific analysis of the economy. You're treating economics like a science as it should be. We should treat all subjects in a scientific way, that to say in a materialist way, trying to uncover the general laws and patterns and tendencies of the system. But he said, I'm going to take your premises and show by developing them, by pointing out the limits and the logical next step, actually show how the very premises that these people had built themselves on actually led to a much more revolutionary understanding of what was needed as an alternative. Importantly, when we're understanding Marx's economics, we have to understand Marx's whole method. It's not like Marxism is split up into completely different subjects that each have their own analytical framework. Marxist economics was merely built on Marx's philosophy, the idea of dialectical materialism. If we really want to understand how the economy works, we have to look at it in a dialectical way. That is to say, we have to see it as a non-linear system, as a dialectical system where it's all interconnected, as I said, where there's particulars and generals, where there's general tendencies and patterns, but at the same time, each individual crisis is unique, but there is generally laws of crises, why capitalism goes into crisis, we can still understand. By analysing all the particulars, we can actually get a general sense of the laws and the tendencies within capitalism that interact to create this general pattern of crisis within the capitalist system. Importantly, Marx had, you know, he didn't see capitalism as a kind of ahistorical thing, but obviously something that had developed historically out of feudalism, and in fact, in its early stages, Marx said capitalism was a very progressive system, and its heyday had played a very progressive role from a historical point of view, in the sense that he said it had accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids and Roman aqueducts. He said it had played a very revolutionary role, in fact, in the sense that it had swept aside all the old fetters of feudal relations. It had played a progressive role historically, and what he meant by progressive was not a moral question about how well it treated people. In fact, he said from a moral standpoint, capitalism was reprehensible. He said, come into existence with blood dripping from every pore, that was the words he writes in capital, but he understood from a historical point of view, it played a progressive role, and what did he mean by that? He meant that it was able to develop science and technology on agriculture and industry and so forth to such a level that it created the potential for a new form of society, for a socialist society, a society of superabundance. It had concentrated all the old scattered forces of production, whereas before you had peasants working on their own little plots of land or on the land of the feudal lords. Now you had the peasants ripped from the land, forcibly actually. Capitalism had come, as I say, into being with the help of the state, the forcible ripping of the peasants from the land to create this new class of people who didn't own their own means of production, who didn't have the land to work on to feed themselves, but were forced to basically go into the cities, go into the new emerging cities, into where the industry was developing, where the capitalists were, and where they had nothing to sell but their own labour power. In this respect, capitalism had concentrated the forces of production, created industry, created factories and in fact started to create monopolies, not just in one country, but global monopolies, worldwide businesses, and a world market that was an incredibly prophetic analysis of Marx in the Communist Manifesto, where he talks about capitalism, the driving force buying capitalism, chasing the capitalist across the world in search of new profits, in search of new markets, creating globalization. This is quite incredible to be writing about this at a time where really there was only a handful of genuinely capitalist countries in Britain and France and Germany, America, but yet he's describing a process that now we've only started talking about in the last 25 years, the idea of globalization, of an integrated world market. But as I say, what were the driving forces that Marx identified as being responsible for this motor force? What was the motor force of this progression? Well, he said it was profit, it was private ownership and competition, the basis of capitalism that drove it forward. It was ultimately capitalism, he said, this waved labour and capital relation. That's what Marx defined capitalism by. He said, if you read capital, he starts, you know, there's lots of different places he could have started the book, but he starts with the question of the commodity. He says capitalism is a system where commodity production is now universal. You'd always had commodity production throughout class society in the sense of people not producing for themselves, but producing for the market, producing to exchange. But capitalism is the first time where this becomes generalised, where it becomes the dominant mode of production, where now the vast majority of the economy is based around production for a market. You've still got on the fringes, obviously, people, peasants working on their own land and small craftsmen and so forth producing for themselves, whatever. But the vast majority of production becomes production for a market. And in this respect, he tried to identify what was the basis of commodity production. He said a commodity, what was a commodity? Well, it was something that had, on the one hand, a use value. It had some sort of utility. It was useful to people. There was a demand for it in society. It had some sort of need for it. But he said, at the same time as having a use value, commodity had an exchange value. In other words, there was some sort of quantitative relationship between one commodity and another. As soon as you bring your commodity to the market for exchange, and it then has an exchange value, as soon as you can exchange it, you've got to say, well, how much of one thing can you exchange for another? The real question that Marx identified and tried to answer, the one that baffled the economists who came before, like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, they understood the question of value. They understood David Ricardo had a labour theory of value in the sense of understanding that value, this exchange value, what ultimately determined the amount of one commodity that could be exchanged for another, was the question of labour time. Commodities were exchanged. In general, Marx said, and Ricardo said, was on the question of labour time, of how much labour had gone into this commodity, not just the living labour in the form of wages, but all the previous labour in the form that's crystallised in the tools and the raw materials that had gone into producing these commodities. That exchange value represented the exchange in general. Well, Ricardo had said it was just individual labour time, but Marx took it a step further and said, no, it's about socially necessary labour time. In other words, if you were less efficient and tried to bring a commodity to market that had taken you longer than the socially average time needed to do that, then obviously you couldn't just charge more because you'd be out-competed by those who had more efficient production, who had better technological level and could produce in less time for lower costs, basically. In other words, there was what Marx called a socially necessary labour time that was constantly changing through investment and developments of technology and machinery and so forth. It was this that formed the exchange value, that formed the basis of how much of one commodity could be exchanged for another. In general, Marx said, obviously the idea of the lower value within Marxist economics, again, it's like all laws within Marxism. It's not an iron law that exists in a metaphysical realm, but rather is a general tendency where as long as you could infinitely reproduce such commodities, then the lower value would apply. Where you had some sort of scarcity or some sort of block or barrier to the development of that commodity, then obviously you would get mismatches between supply and demand and prices could diverge from the actual value, monopoly prices, for example. But in general, you had this lower value that operated behind the backs of people, if you like. It's not a law you can grasp or something that you can identify, but it was operating behind the backs of the capitalists and obviously asserted itself through the idea of competition and the invisible hand, as Adam Smith called it. But what was different in capitalism, Marx identified, was the question of now you had this generalised commodity production, generalised private ownership and competition and production for profit, and the question Marx tried to identify was where does profit actually come from? It's not just something that you can just cheat your neighbour. There's not just one set of people who are very good at basically buying cheap and selling dear. He said, if that was the case, you'd just generally get inflation in the economy. The real basis for profits, Marx said, could not lie in exchange and on the market, but actually had to be identified in the source of production itself. In this sense, he identified profit as ultimately coming from the unpaid labour of the working class. In the course of the day, workers would produce a certain amount of use values. The eight hour day, for example, that would be the value of the commodities produced in the course of the day, would have eight hours' worth of labour time, for example. But it would take workers only say four hours to actually produce the equivalent value of their own wages. The other four hours, therefore, were what Marx called surplus value, the fact that now in those four hours Marx identified saying that effectively the worker is working for free in that period of time. It was that that was the source of value, the unpaid labour of the working class. What was unique about capitalism now is that you have the system where the workers are selling their labour power, they're selling their ability to work. You've got this class of people who have nothing to sell but their ability to work. You have the capitalists who are buying that labour power, buying that ability to work for a period of time, whether it's a day or an hour or a week or a month or whatever. The point under capitalism is now you've got what makes it so revolutionary was because now the capitalists are buying that time and it's up to them to try and squeeze out of that labour power, out of the worker, as much actual labour as they can, trying to squeeze as much use value out of the period of time they've got. That meant there was an incentive for the first time to really invest in increasing productivity, in trying to produce more in the space of less time. It was that, that was the real driving force, trying to push down the hours of the day that were needed to go to wages, increase the proportion of the time that was going towards creation of surplus value. All of that was what gave capitalism a very dynamic nature to it because it allowed, it was driving the capitalists to constantly try and lower their costs of production, to invest in machinery and technology, increase productivity and decrease their costs in the hope of obviously ultimately increasing their market share, driving others out of business and thus gaining super profits. But Marx pointed out that all of that progressive side of capitalism, all of these forces that drove it forwards in terms of profit, private ownership and competition, all of these at a certain point turned into their opposite and actually become a barrier to the development of capitalism and that's because of a contradiction that Marx outlined at the heart of capitalism where, although each capitalist is acting very rationally in the sense that they're all trying to push down their own costs, replace labour with machinery, increase productivity all in the sake of increasing profits, that's all very rational from the point of view of the individual capitalist. But the point is that when all the capitalists now are doing this at the same time, you end up with a result that's very irrational for the system as a whole because each capitalist in driving down wages and replacing workers with machinery is basically cutting away the market, the ability to buy for the society as a whole. Driving down the wages is basically cutting away at the market for the very goods that capitalism as a whole is producing. So while it's very rational for one capitalist to drive down his costs, they're hoping that all the other capitalists, meanwhile, are going to keep paying their workers nicely so they can buy all the goods up that capitalism is producing. But obviously everyone's doing the same thing and the result is this contradiction of overproduction where suddenly the system finds itself in a situation where too much is being produced, where the productive forces are basically coming up against the limits of the market. And as I said, that is really an inherent contradiction within capitalism because of the nature of where profits come from. The fact that profit is merely the unpaid labour of the working class means that you've always got this situation within capitalism where the wages, the market for the goods that capitalism is producing are only a fraction of the wealth that's actually being created. And there's this huge surplus that cannot find an outlet. And that's why Marx called this overproduction, the idea that he said that you had for the first time in history famines, not because there was scarcity or not because there was too little, but because there was too much, he said, too much commerce, too much industry, too much means of subsistence. These are the words of the Communist Manifesto. As I said earlier, the idea of poverty amidst plenty is contradiction of overproduction. Now, the real question we have to ask ourselves in this situation is, well, if there's this inherent contradiction within capitalism, why aren't we in a permanent crisis? Why isn't capitalism for the last 200 years been in a permanent state of crisis? How does it overcome this contradiction? And, well, Marx, I understood and identified that as well in Capital Volume Two, for example. He talks about the idea of there being two different departments within the economy. The idea that capitalism produces, on the one hand, the goods, the consumer goods that go into reproducing the working class, consumer goods and so forth, Department One. On the other hand, it also produces capital goods, the goods that are actually new machinery, new infrastructure, new means of production. And it was this interplay between the two departments where capitalists constantly took that surplus and reinvested it back into new machinery, new inter-technology. That was how capitalism found an outlet for all of this surplus that was there, all of these profits. But obviously that, in itself, was only a temporary solution. It only creates a temporary kind of equilibrium in the economy, if you like. But it's a temporary equilibrium at the same time, creates even bigger contradictions for the future, because now you're building up more productive forces that are producing more commodities that need to find more of a market, but at the same time, the market's shriveling away as wages are driven down and so forth. That's kind of what you see, really, is the contradiction behind Keynesian policies. The idea of government stimulus is basically this idea. Keynes was trying to write in the 1930s at a time where you had the Great Depression, he was trying to explain why you had such mass unemployment, why the economies in the world found themselves mired in this crisis. He pointed out, there was a vicious circle, basically, where because of the inability of workers to absorb all the goods, capitalism would stop producing, but if capitalist stopped producing, then that means making more people unemployed. If they made more people unemployed, there'd be even less of a market. In other words, he was saying that capitalism in crisis was stuck in this vicious circle that would constantly drag it further and further down. What Keynes said was that it was a problem of what he called underconsumption. In other words, if only you could make up for the lack of the demand in the economy, then you could reverse this vicious circle and actually push capitalism out of crisis. He proposed that it was government spending ultimately that had to be used to actually get out of these vicious circles and stimulate the economy, make up for that lack of demand, and turn a vicious circle into a virtuous one. Obviously, the real question that Keynes never really asked was, where does the government get that money from in the first place? Government doesn't have any money of its own. Ultimately, it has to raise money through taxes, either through taxing the working class, which actually has the contradictory effect of reducing the spending power, or they have to tax the capitalist, which would drive down their profits and reduce their investment in the economy and would bring, therefore, a strike of capital and you'd actually make the crisis even worse. That's really what you see, the limits of Keynesianism, but you also see, as I say, the fact that all of that investment, all of that Keynesian investment, if it's going to be going into anything useful, and often it wasn't, often you see in new deals type programmes or in these massive Keynesian programmes you've seen in China today, it's a case of building bridges to nowhere or houses, giant cities that lie empty. In other words, it's mal investment that doesn't go into actually increasing real wealth in society. It's similar, and in fact, the army and military spending plays a similar role. It's like spending enormous amounts that don't go into exchange, that don't go into the real economy, but are just lying idle and wasted, and that's what you see today. Where it is invested into real production, this kind of Keynesian spending, all it does is actually create even bigger problems in the future, like in China, is it? It creates even bigger excess capacity and creates bigger instability on a world scale. This was the problem that obviously capitalism faced in general, that all this reinvestment in the economy to create new forces of production, eventually it meant actually saturating the world market you find by the First World War. All the big imperial powers through trying to find new sources of profit, through investing into new machinery, new technology, creating bigger forces of production, eventually they come up against each other as you find the world market becomes saturated. That's really the basis for the First World War. It's an imperialist war where all the different imperialist powers suddenly come up against each other and the new rising imperialist powers, like Germany for example, find themselves if they want to expand their market having to encroach on the markets of others, and that was really the cause behind First World War, which in turn acted to destroy much of the productive forces. It laid the basis for a brief re-emergence of growth in the 20s, although mainly in America and Britain actually you had the continuation of the crisis is British capitalism, which had been so dominant, suddenly found itself playing second fiddle to American capitalism, and you see actually the beginning of British capitalism's decline starts in the First World War and Britain becomes a second rate imperialist power from then on. You see a continued crisis through the 20s. In America though you have a brief boom, the roar in 20s based on a lot of stock market speculation and so forth, and all of that obviously came crashing down in the, it was a temporary phenomena, it came crashing down in the Great Depression of 1929, and that's when then as I say you see the emergence of Canesianism as an attempt to try and get out the crisis, but really it didn't work at all. You had 10 years of continued crisis with some ebbs and flows in the economy, but ultimately it was only the Second World War that mopped up all the unemployed with the state taking control of large sections of the economy and actually investing in new technologies, new machinery and so forth, and above all the destruction of the Second World War, you know Germany, Japan, large sections of Europe, all of these leveled, and that kind of destruction of the productive forces along with the emergence of America as a dominant global player, the dominant imperialist power, the hegemon if you like after 1945, able to break open the world market. The dollar basically becomes the international currency as good as gold with all of the gold in fort knocked backing it up and the Bretton Woods system of currency and world of world exchange backing up the whole monetary system. All of these factors along with the huge levels of expenditure into new machinery and productivity from the state during the Second World War, all of that, all of these different factors combine to give capitalism a new lease of life in the post-war period. It was that post-war boom and those factors combining together that meant you had this brief renaissance of capitalism where for 25 years you had continued economic growth and really that was the basis then for the reformist policies we see of the day, the creation of welfare states of the NHS here in Britain of course, all of that was the product of this post-war boom but within that whole period you've got obviously increasing investment going on, particularly this Keynesian spending going on, this demand side management. Keynesianism became the dominant paradigm in economics at the time and the economists thought that they could just control the whole economy through these levers but obviously even that boom whilst lasting for 25 years could not last forever and there were people who did think it could last forever. You had even people on the left so-called Marxists capitulating to Keynesianism thinking that capitalism had somehow overcome all its contradictions that you could just have permanent expenditure on military to keep the economy going, not understanding that actually that far from stimulating the economy that was a massive drain on the economy and in fact it's because of the huge Keynesian expenditure in arms military particularly in America with the Vietnam War and other wars in that period that actually becomes an enormous drain on the economy, it actually sucks the life out of capitalism, leads to massive inflation spreading across the world through the Bretton Woods system which eventually collapsed at the beginning of the 70s and eventually you see the oil crisis in the 70s being if you like the final straw that breaks the camel's back and tips the world into back into a world crisis and on that then what follows is the attempts by the capitalist to restore profitability to the system to try and attack the working class to get out of the crisis and you see obviously that represented politically through thatcherism and Reaganism and driving down the wages, taking on the trade unions and capitalism then gets a new lease of life particularly then with the reintroduction of capitalism in China, the fall of the Soviet Union beginning in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and suddenly the world markets opened up again to capitalism, all these new markets opened up in China with new sources of cheap labour providing the basis for capitalism to keep on growing but nevertheless throughout that period that contradiction is re-emerging, that contradiction of overproduction because you've got the driving down of wages thatcher and Reagan, the ruling class worldwide taking on the working class driving down the wages but again the question has to come about of well who's going to buy all the goods that capitalism is producing and you see therefore capitalism taking on a new lease of life through the expansion of credit which has always existed the idea of credit, Marx had explained actually even in the 19th century what the role of credit was in the sense of he said it was the means by which capitalism temporarily overcome the contradiction of overproduction by artificially expanding the market in the short term that was the role of credit not on the one hand it also kind of lubricated the whole system, allowed the capitalist to keep investing and reinvesting without having to save up loads of money in the meantime the whole banking system played that role but on this larger scale it plays the role also of basically temporarily artificially expanding the market and you see this role of credit really taking off in the 80s, financialisation, the big bang here in London of deregulation and the financial system, all these new ways of packaging up debt and expanding credit, mortgages, loans, credit cards, all of this taking off an unprecedented expansion of credit and this was really as I say a temporary way of overcoming the crisis but only as Marx always pointed out only by paving the way for even bigger crises in the future and it's worth actually just tangentially looking at the economist Hayek at this point who's a very right-wing economist, very neoliberal economist who's often cited as being you know the one along with Keynes and Marx, one of the leading economists who explained crisis and Hayek said that the crisis was because of this deregulation or because of basically actually there was too much encouragement in fact by the government in setting interest rates low they artificially expanded these credit bubbles, allowed bubbles to form and he said that was the basis behind crisis was allowing these bubbles to form, encouraging these bubbles to form and he said if only you never did that, if only the government didn't interfere actually by setting interest rates artificially low and so forth encouraging credit to expand then you wouldn't ever get these crises, the economy would work itself out, the invisible hand would keep everything under control. Now what Hayek never really pointed out was what would happen actually if the capitalist hadn't introduced measures to expand credit in the 80s, the point is that if you hadn't had the expansion of credit in the 80s it's not like the economy would have just kind of settled into a nice equilibrium, no what would have happened was basically the crisis we're in through today would have would have would have been brought forwards much earlier, the crisis that had hit in the 70s would never have been overcome and in fact the economy would have gone into a downward spiral much quicker, in other words it's not the expansion of credit that causes the crisis but rather it's merely a method by which the capitalist delay the crisis and the real contradiction is that of overproduction, the fact that capitalism produces far more than the market can absorb, that's the role of credit that Hayek never really explained and obviously this all exploded eventually in 2007, 2008 the default on the subprime mortgages spreading through the financial system and you get the credit crunch which again is it's not the the lack of credit caused the crisis but Mark said it was the crisis that caused the lack of credit, the fact that you have this enormous overproduction in the system and this becomes realised as people start defaulting on things like mortgages and then the banks which normally lend to each other start worrying about where all their debts are and suddenly they stop lending to each other and that you have the bailing out of the banks in order to keep the whole system going and in doing so what starts as a financial what seems to start as a financial crisis develops into a complete economic crisis that's the point it's not the crisis is not simply one of the banking system and of the financial system that is merely a symptom of this deep underlying crisis of capitalism, this crisis of overproduction that exists everywhere on a world scale and that's why we're seeing what we see today which is this seemingly intractable crisis where they can't get out of it and we would call it today really an organic crisis of capitalism where all the contradictions are now coming to the fore. It's not just one of these kind of temporary boom and slumps that capitalism occasionally goes through but you know there is that kind of more frequent like breathing almost of the capitalist system where you know occasionally purges itself of of individual sectors that might have excess capacity or so but no this isn't like that kind of that slow you know that faster rhythm of capitalism that it goes through. This is something much deeper all the different contradictions that have been building up for decades now coming to the fore and it's for that reason that you find that the capitalist well the capitalist find there's no real way out for themselves that there's no weapons in the arsenal left for them in terms of you know Keynesian measures impossible at a time really when government debts are sky high and the market is telling governments it has to cut interest rates that they would normally lower to stimulate the investment are already rock bottom and that's why you see increasingly desperate measures being taken by the capitalist the idea of quantitative easing for example which i don't have time to go to fully explain here but the point is it's it's not a sign of strength of capitalism that the that it has this quantitative easing at its disposal it's a sign of weakness actually it's a desperate measure that far from actually solving the problems of the economy is actually increasing the instability on a world scale all this money getting into the economy inflating asset prices across the world and so forth creating greater instability not not greater stability and and so you find find the situation where really both sides of the capitalist class in terms of the Keynesians and the neoliberals they're both arguing against each other but they're both right and they're both wrong and that in itself is a reflection of the impasse capitalism finds itself in where the Keynesians are right on the one hand to say well look austerity is cutting away at the market and the more austerity you have the the deeper the the recession becomes you see that very clearly obviously in a place like Greece today but on the other hand you know the neoliberals are right as well saying look we need to cut because there's these huge debts and and they're weighing down on the economy and they're demanding therefore austerity and and the point is therefore that austerity is not ideological it's not it's not a question simply of the nasty capitalist it's it's a reflection of the there is no way other no other way out for capitalism at this time and the fact that they've now used up all these reserves all these all the weapons in their arsenal that makes this this prospect of a new world slump even scarier for the capitalist because as I say now it's not just in europe and and britain and america but now china's being brought in all the other emerging economies the eurozone continuing to be in crisis and and therefore the the the situation is even worse now than in 2007 2008 because the all the methods they they used up basically all these methods already and there's there's no tools left if the for for when this new world slump kicks in and what makes it even worse from the capitalist point of view from the ruling classes point of view is obviously that it's not just an economic situation that's changed in the last seven years but the political and social situation has been transformed as well the the whole of consciousness has been changed on a world scale in the last seven years you've had all these political earthquakes in Greece in Spain uh in scotland and the rest of britain now with the corbin movement in the us with bernie sanders and occupy everywhere we look we see that obviously consciousness has changed massively since the crisis hit in 2008 and uh and that obviously makes the the prospect of a next world slump even scarier for the ruling class because now you have a a working class uh uh you know the 99 percent that are far more organised that are far more radicalized and uh and are looking for an alternative and the alternative as far as we're concerned is marxist is obviously sitting right under our notes we can see it in the form of the the huge quantities of wealth that are said are sitting there idly unable to be invested by the capitalist because of this huge overproduction on a world scale we can see the technologies that are potentially there um it's just reading uh the other day paul mason's new book post capitalism where he talks about how information technology digital digital media all these things have shown the enormous contradictions that capitalism's facing where we've got the potential to supply culture in infinite quantities in the sense of once you've produced an mp3 or a video whatever it's infinitely replicable at no extra cost it's price should be zero according to the the market and yet um and yet obviously the these monopolies like apple like facebook like google they have to they have to have a monopoly just to keep the prices high just to be able to keep making profits out of these kind of digital economies we see that in other words a potential there with all that technology not only on the hand one hand automation as i've just talked about earlier but the potential to have this super abundance of so many things and it's not just digital commodities but but obviously food and and medicines all these things that are held back but currently by the question of private ownership and production for profit and and and the control of these of this wealth and of this technology in the hands of the one percent in other words private ownership has become this enormous barrier to the development of society it's become an enormous fetter and therefore the the solution for us is is an easy and an obvious one the the need to get rid of this private ownership not of the of the small businesses and the the you know personal property that people have but the main levers of the economy the commanding heights as marx called them bringing these the banks and the major monopolies that dominate every sector of the global economy bringing these into public ownership in in nationalisation under under workers control getting rid of the anarchy of the market and utilising this planning that already exists actually in it within these giant monopolies every every giant monopoly has planning if you like internally producing according to a plan in order to decrease costs and increase efficiency and increase profits point is we want to take that same plan that exists within companies but now get rid of the competition the anarchy between these major monopolies and have a plan across the whole of of the economy a democratic rational plan that's what socialism and the and the transformation socialist transformation of society is about it's about you know getting rid of one set of laws the capitalist set of laws and and replacing them with a new set of laws an economy that operates according to a new you know a new paradigm if you like and and and that has to be a socialist plan of production in Britain and internationally and anyway that's that that's the the marxist analysis that's what marx had to say about crisis about capitalism and and importantly he pointed therefore to the way forward and that's what we're fighting for today I'll leave it there okay well it was very good discussion and thank you for all the all the contributions and questions um to just come back on some of the points um yeah i mean the housing question which uh several contributions have referred to um i mean really what you what you're seeing now as as several people have pointed out is really how housing uh as as more and more become a uh the kind of victim of speculation if you like um and it that itself is is a reflection of the crisis of overproduction where all of these kind of things that that should play some sort of useful role you know whether it's uh you know um certain raw materials you know you've got speculation of food uh there's speculation in in art and and and wines and you know very cultural or things you know but and then housing is is such an extreme part of this where basically obviously you've got properties being bought up not at all ever with the intention of actually living in them but purely as investment vehicles purely people trying to to make money out of money and getting on the the property bubble that's taking place particularly in in somewhere like London and obviously the the result is these extraordinary contradictions where uh where you have uh as people have pointed out homelessness alongside empty mansions and in fact it highlights the the political crisis as well or the the the social crisis in the sense that um here you've got a situation where people are trying to to overcome this this this dichotomy if you like by by by occupying the homes you have squatters and so forth but you see them evicted and it shows how the law i'm sure this is being discussed in the other session on the state the law ultimately is a question of the law of maintaining property rights and it's above all about those property rights because here you see with with housing so clearly how the right of of those people who've bought that house as an investment vehicle trumps the rights of those people to have a home uh you know the the squatters are evicted because uh it threatens the the the the the use of that that that property as a um as an investment vehicle for the rich um what else uh yeah the Jonas asked interesting question about quantitative easing how you'd expect all this money that's being printed i mean what well first of all what is quantitative easing well it's uh it's not it's not quite as simple as printing money because uh if that was the case then you'd expect some sort of situation like you know Weimar Germany where it's just hyperinflation as as uh Jonas pointed out um obviously that's not happening and the and part of the reason is the the way in which quantitative easing works which is whereby the the central bank uh basically creates money in order to buy up assets from the other banks um uh and in doing so tries to free up basically money that the bank has to then lend and make riskier loans if you like to to business and to houses um with the idea that that that will then cause them to consume and invest and uh and hopefully stimulate the economy but the fact is as as uh i think Scott pointed out most of these banks aren't then lending this money on you're not seeing an increase in investment you're not seeing an increase in in in demand in the economy but in fact the banks are just using this money to kind of shore up the their bank balances and and some of this money is obviously finding its way into the wider economy and in doing so inflating asset prices it's creating instability it's acting also as a kind of a way for for different currencies to try to competitively devalue to a certain degree as well you're getting a it's it's become a form of protectionism almost um which again shows you how it adds to the instability on the world scale but i think the important point is also that when we talk about money and and it's and the relationship between the money supply and inflation um we've got to understand that that that kind of law if you like like all laws that we talk about in the economy is only really a tendency and obviously there can always be countervailing tendencies and and the countervailing tendency you're seeing at the moment is the fact that although the money supply is being increased through through these kind of methods whether it's credit or quantitative easing or whatever you know in japan they've effectively doubled the money supply through quantitative easing in britain obviously we've printed 375 billion pounds worth in quantitative easing uh which is uh you know something like 20 percent of of of GDP but the the the countervailing side to this is the enormous downward pressure on prices because of the uh the the lack of of demand in the world economy the the huge excess capacity the in other words overproduction is is is is pushing uh is well it's pushing prices down it's pulling the whole economy downwards um and uh and therefore uh as has been said is that the fact that quantitative easing even doesn't have an effect it shows it's it's like uh you know the drug has already uh been used up the the the the body has already become immune to the drug uh it's that they've used you know tried they've tried so hard to to to you know constantly get that next kick into the economy that each extra addition is uh diminished returns if you like and um and you see this with the question of of credit itself where uh the i think in the chinese economy for example it used to be the everything something like every uh every every one dollar's worth of of debt would create one dollar's worth of uh of investment and now it's something like four dollars are needed to create one dollar's of investment so in other words that you're getting these diminished returns more and more the the economy is so sick so full of all these contradictions that that the the measures become more and more useless and futile uh that the capitalists have to to try and get out of these crises um rosa talked about the the so-called german economic miracle and uh and the and its basis in the exploitation of uh of the german workers and obviously alongside this you've also had the massive investment of machinery and uh and productivity in germany but obviously that has created this huge overproduction within the german economy and the the solution to that for the german capitalist was uh was the eurozone basically was there was the the the creation of a market uh a free market where they could basically lend money lend this huge excess uh you know this huge huge surplus that the german economy is producing lend it through german banks to uh and european banks through to the uh to the peripheral economies to buy back german goods and obviously you see therefore as as rosa pointed out our germany is very much interlinked to these countries around it and it and the the euro crisis is really exposed again exposed all these contradictions where uh whatever they do is is is kind of wrong from the point of view of capitalism then on the one hand uh they don't want Greece to leave the eurozone because they know it could unravel the whole eurozone that is the basis for for that uh for for for the german economies boom basically um but on the other hand they can't you know keep pouring money into a bottomless pit which is what Greece and uh and other countries have have become uh you know they they can't keep funding uh consumption in in these other places so uh you end up with a situation where whatever they do is wrong because the point is it's not a crisis of the eurozone it's a crisis of capitalism and uh and it's and it's just expressing itself in different ways in different countries the eurozone creates a particularly acute crisis because you have all the different countries locked together and uh and obviously as long as they're all going in the same general direction there's generally boom then everything can be kept together but as soon as in as soon as you've got a crisis then obviously all the economies are moving in different directions but they're all tied together and it creates uh it creates all those those national tensions coming to the fore we'll talk about it in this afternoon session on europe but you see really on a capitalist basis europe is falling to pieces frankly and uh and and and there's no way out for the for the european capitalists um whether it's inside the eurozone or outside um and uh and but with germany as well obviously it's linked to china it's an enormous amount of export of uh of capital goods that germany produces two places like china and again the chinese slow down having an effect on germany there so again uh all of these things are interlinked and um and and really it's a it's a question of uh when not if in terms of uh these stronger economies being brought into the crisis also um yes scott talked about this idea of creative destruction and other people have alluded to it as well in terms of the uh the coal and the steel industries this is always the the mantra of the capitalist is a phrase termed by a capitalist economist called schumpeter actually and um basically is the idea that you know capitalism would would would bring about progress would bring about technological revolutions and so forth through what you call creative destruction otherwise the the old industries were destroyed the uncompetitive ones that couldn't keep up um but in in doing so that would free up the capital free up the human resources and the uh and the money to then be poured into to um uh other new kind of innovative sections of the economy and obviously there is some historical basis to this idea it's not you know all all the bourgeois ideas in terms of economics and in fact in in all of society they always have some material historical basis you know obviously uh otherwise they they they wouldn't be able to exist at all they wouldn't be taken at all seriously they have to have some sort of grain of truth to them and obviously historically there is a grain of truth to the idea of creative destruction that you know once upon a time the vast majority of the population was involved in agriculture but as uh as innovation came about people were you know as you had increased productivity on the land more of those people could be taken from the land and into new innovative sections in industry and vice versa with automation you get people moving from industry into services the the real thing now though that that that that that is really worrying even the bourgeois economists is that this creative destruction is going to be very much destruction and not much creation in the sense that now you've uh you've freed up labour from agriculture and from industry it's all you know service-based economies in places like Britain we don't make anything anymore and there's already excess capacity of uh of kind of manufactured goods and so forth on a world scale so it's all in services and the point is now they're talking about well even the services sector is going to be absolutely uh kind of turned upside down by automation there was a study by some Oxford economists uh where they predicted 47 percent of jobs in the US could be uh automated away and made redundant by 2030 and they were saying the real sectors of the economy that were going to be hit hardest by this were not the the manufacturing and so forth which has already seen this process taking place but white collar jobs people even like doctors it could be replaced by you know you can get health apps on your iphone now and diagnose you apparently um you got lawyers and uh an accountancy uh translation for example all these kind of things that used to require human skill and and obviously highly educated workers now all of these people are uh are being uh thrown onto the scrap people will be thrown onto the scrap people as well and uh and and and uh there isn't uh any kind of obvious sign of where these people are going to go where the next uh of where the next wave of innovation is that's going to employ all these people uh because you know technology isn't some sort of deus ex that just it's not a manner from heaven that just kind of falls from the sky and suddenly you know you create jobs out of nowhere you have to have a material basis for innovation and for for the deployment of technology you know uh the famous example we have to use is how even in um uh i think it was ancient greek times in alexandria someone invented the the steam engine the the idea of a steam engine existed for thousands of years but the reason it didn't get fully deployed to increase productivity across society until the industrial revolution was because in a slave society it played no role there was no need to increase productivity it was uh you had slaves and the way you increased wealth was by getting more slaves through war and conquest and it was only with capitalism as i said earlier with the idea of wage labor where you were buying the ability of the worker to work the buying the labor power that there was an incentive to invest to have new technologies like steam that could uh rapidly increase productivity and today we find the same sort of thing there's a there's enormous potential if you like for technology we can see you know 3d printing uh all these digital technologies i talked about earlier you know you can see the potential to to to use these to to to increase leisure time to to to automate vast sections of society and and in fact it would make the old idea of planning economy very simple but obviously it can't be used within the material limits of capitalism within within the barrier of private ownership and production for profit and and even science itself and the whole process of innovation is ultimately limited by what capitalism and what the material basis in society can provide if you've got a situation where you've got artificial scarcity in society and competition over the limited resources that are kind of falling off the table of the capitalist for the rest of society then that in itself you know that that that creeps into every facet of society in other words you know the the logical competition asserts itself even in the public sector even in even in scientific research in in universities you have limited resources because of austerity and so academics now even they're all within even though they're all within the same public sphere and public funding they're ultimately forced to compete against each other to produce papers just for the sake of it in order to gain access to funding and and the result is that you're getting this huge degradation to science itself and the economist ran an article the other year where they said that something like you know 50% of scientific papers aren't validated and and could just be be bunked they said you know in other words it's just nonsense science being produced just for the sake of it in order for academics to get you know a quantity of papers out rather than quality in other words the very base the very quality of the scientific research we do is is being undermined because of competition because of the lack of resources that capitalism provides and and therefore you know there's there there's no obvious way in which you're seeing how science is going to be taken forwards how technology is going to be taken forwards how society is going to be taken forwards capitalism as I said has become unable to develop the the forces of production and it was that that marx ultimately said was the real test of whether a system was progressive or not and and when it could no longer take forward the the forces of production develop science and technology and culture and so at that point marx said you would get these these crises you would become obvious that a revolution was needed to to to let the productive forces to let standards of living carry on expanding and you know in terms of the this back to this creative destruction again we see obviously with coal mining and then the 80s in Britain now the steel industry see obviously that the capitalism you know if it's left up to the anarchy of the market it's left up left up to the invisible hand obviously it is that it has to go through this kind of chaotic process in order to reallocate jobs from one sector to another you know we would say obviously in the long run something like coal could not survive as an industry because obviously we would be wanting green technologies environmentally friendly ways of producing energy but obviously capitalism can't reallocate resources in society in that kind of way in a rational way from one sector to another it can only do it in that anarchic way in that destructive way where a whole generation is thrown on to the scrap heap and and obviously that's why we call really for for a socialist plan of production if it's only by taking control of the banks of of these major industries that you can retrain workers through a lifelong process to be able to move from one sector to another where you can allocate the resources take them out of one sector and place them in the you know the the green energy for example that we need and do it in a in a rational way that that means people aren't left on the left you know left to the the dogs of of competition um uh Steve and others talked about inequality and obviously the incredible inequality we see today with the the 1% owning something like 50% of the the world's wealth and obviously you've seen people like Piketty who've come forwards and tried to explain this Thomas Piketty become very popular with his book also called capital although I think like with superhero movies the original is always better so don't get the reboot it's and and he was I don't think anyone who actually reviewed the book could have read it because they've read it their reviews would have been very different because although he talks about he provides very good statistics on how a quality inequality has changed over time and and how it's reached such incredibly intense levels today he doesn't really ever explain the cause of inequality it's very much a historical description of its development but never actually looking at the the the laws within capitalism that give rise to inequality and that obviously means that you can't ever explain the solution really the solution according to Piketty and all these kind of reformists is you know the idea of just tax the rich basically a policy that's failed to work in Piketty's own country in with Francis Halland who tried to tax the rich was found that he couldn't because the rich had a strike of capital and then and and the result was he's actually now carrying out worse austerity than than his predecessors and and it's the same obviously in Greece today and what Piketty has said never really explains is how inequality is not some sort of byproduct of it's not like a a nasty kind of tumor on the side of capitalism you can just cut away you know this is really the idea of all reformists is that you can cut the nasty bits of capitalism away and create some sort of good capitalism get rid of the nasty finance and make nice manufacturing as though finance wasn't always an inherent part of the capitalist system and and the point is inequality itself is not it's not something that you can just a nasty symptom that you can cure it's it's it's it's an inherent part of the capitalist system the fact is capitalism is inequality in the sense that where does profit come from what is the basis for the capitalist system it is the production of profit a production for profit and and that profit is the unpaid labour of the working class in other words the the the wealth that accumulates for the few is very much necessitated upon the exploitation of the many you can't not have inequality within capitalism to get rid of inequality would be to get rid of capitalism and that is something that Piketty never points out and that all of these reformists never really point out and that I think is why just to sum up we we have to discuss the questions of Marxist economics we have to discuss the question of crisis of capitalism is to understand the real laws that are at play in society and and and you know look and understand these general lessons not just for academic interest as as people have pointed out in the from the contributions but because to understand you know why capitalism goes into crisis and and why it will go into crisis and continue to go into crisis and and this really is is is one of the last questions that was asked was you know when can we expect the next crisis well I think we're still going through the beginning it's not like you can say the last crisis ever really ended that's the point it's it's a continuation the whole of the last seven years it'll be ebbs and flows in the situation but but obviously we can talk about next slump which I think is very much around the corner but it's all part of the same ongoing crisis of capitalism we never really got out of the last one and obviously that the the fact that there is a new world slump on the horizon has enormous impacts on consciousness and that's what we need to understand that that you know the the material basis for reformism has been withered away the the post war boom is not going to come back you know there were particular circumstances that allowed that to happen that don't exist anymore it's much the crisis is much deeper now there's no recovery on the horizon let alone talk of a boom and therefore any party that comes into power on a reformist program is going to instantly find itself faced with that deep world slump and faced with the prospect of having to make deep cuts and deep austerity we see that in Greece we you know where within the space of six months a party elected on a radical left program ends up carrying out worse austerity than its predecessors that shows the the inability of reformism in this intense period of crisis to offer a way out and and that's the kind of prospect that's going to face a Corbyn Government from you know before he's even in power they're already attacking him and obviously once he's in power they'll be there'll be strikes of capital if he tries to take on the rich if he tries to tax them you'll have strikes of investment the the capitalist will use every tool in the box to to basically force him to retreat on the question of anti austerity politics and that means that we have to be prepared ourselves to argue for a for a genuine alternative to actually say look there is no reformist way out of this crisis there is a is a is not a crisis of of of of austerity or ideas it's it's you know it's not an ideological question that you can just get rid of the nasty Tories it's a it's a result of the actual system itself of the deep contradictions within the system on a world scale we need to understand those laws why capitalism is going through crisis understand that there is no way out within capitalism and therefore aren't you know give the only alternative that there is which is a revolutionary transformation where we understand these laws not just to reform them but to fundamentally transform them to to to to change the whole way in which society operates so that we can get rid of these crises get rid of this austerity and and as I say the the only solution therefore is a is a socialist one and that's obviously what we need to discuss here and and and have that conviction to be able to argue for in the labour movement