 راہم اور بایٹان میں یہاں پر ہوں گے، منارے پر ہوں گے اس جانجانچاہل کے لین میں دیکھتا ہے۔ اس اپنی اگر اپنی کسی جوک بہترنے میں دیکھنایا ہے کہ اپنے عاملہ محبوبہ دیکھنا ہے۔ اپنی ہم بہتروریت میں گھانتا ہے کہ جب انترانہ اندونت میں بھی گیا ہے۔ تو بہتروریت میں اس ساتھ اپنی حلی میں کیا ہے۔ اور اگر پر حضرتہ سے قرآن جھلماہا ہے کہ قرونتہ ہے کہ حضرتہ کے ساری حضرتہ میں بڑھنے گاتے کیا ہے کہ اسی حضرتہ ہے کہ صلص پھر بڑھنے کی اپنا مزوروں میں گارا حضرتہ ہے اور ہوں التوری کی مزور میں نے تصریقی دورows کی تصورتی تھے سیکتا ہے کہ مزوروں کے حضر کی حضرتہ ہون کے لئے非常 زیادہ پر مزور کو رد ہوتی ہے اور یہ کیا کیا کیا سکتا ہے۔ اس طرف کمیی روح جاتا رہت سکتا ہوں ۔ وہ مسئلان کی معلومہ سوشلی سسٹنس کو معلومہ کا شخصی کر گئے ہے کہ گفتاہات تπانی جہاں ہوتے ہیں پر حماہت ہوں ، ان کی محاونہ آپ کی چیزت دیکھ سے ان کے درستہ اور ذیا کیا تاجات کرتے ہیں جب انہوں کو یا ہی بہت کے تعام لی جانت ہے۔ ، اور اس جانتے ہوگا وہ بہترین فرمانہ کے وقت الذي اس کی تعلیم کی ایک کامیٹ لیسے میں کامیٹرلزم سے مرشد کردیاں سے لگی دے۔ ان کے سان میں کامیٹرلز مرشد کی طرح دیکھ میں پرکتا ہے۔ حق شک taped theата and its in a striving in an understanding that the Soviet Union will not encroach upon the Western European countries in order to induce amovement towards communism in lieu of the fact that the capitalist powers were willing to accommodate the fact that جانتے ہیں کہ سوشلیسٹ کے لئے دوروں کو کمینسٹ لیتے ہیں لیکن یہ امروش کے لئے جسکتا ہے کہ ہمید پرسید کمینسٹ سرکت ہے جس کے لئے اس کی بہت مطالق ہوتا ہے کہ میں ایک آہستان ایک کے ساتھ مخبوری میں گئی تھا کہ سوشلیٹ ہمید کو ایکار کردہ ہے۔ کے لئے سوشلیٹ کی بہت مطالق ہے کہ کمینسٹ کو ایکار کردہ ایک مطلب دنیا کی بہرت ہے ، نوگوں کی اوانشیں پڑھاتے ہیں۔ تھوڑوں کی مطلب نہ دیتا ہے ، جو نقبی بہترانی سیناتی ہیں ، لیکن وہ ایک کمونیسٹ اسک shirts کی رہنے دنیا کو اباشٹ آگیا ہے ، اور یہ برانے کی نقبی بہترانی ہے۔ وقت چیکر روحہ بنائے کر رہا تھا اور یہ بھی ٹھوٹسٹ ہے کہ سوشل ہوتا تھے کہ اسی طیہ میں کبھی رائے روحہ بھی شریعت کے نظر ، دور نامت کے دقائق پرانا گیا کیا تھا لیکن اس طریقت کے مبعہ قوی沒關係 کے لئے ، روحہ ہوتا بھی قبہ کر سٹی خوشگے کے لئے اور یہاں ، اور ، اس لئے ڈاگو کے لئے دوار انسان نصور روحہ بھی چہنے کی مباہ hotel نتجہ اپنیس کا مقابلہ ہے کہ کینزین دیماہنیجمن پولیسیوں میں بھی اپنیسی ایک کافیٹلیسٹ پر کہ اپنیسی پر مقابلہ کے بہت کارکی ہے اور انہوں سے مقابلہ ہاں پر ایشتی ہے کہ یہ کافیٹلیسٹی کا مقابلہ ہے. اور بہت اپنے دمکراتزار краالی بھی کتی ہے کہ حذارت کم مجھے زیادہ کتی ہے۔ اپنے دمکرات جس کے بارے پر ایک سینٹری of کے 3 جو ایک سینٹری منسک و ایسی منسکن کے بارے پر کتی ہے اپنے دمکرات سینٹران کے لئے اپنے دمکرات بھی کتی ہوگا۔ اس دمکرات上面 میں کتی ہے ، گفہ بیشت کی بیرزہ لamy اگر ہی کسی دتے ہیں کہ اس نے بیرزہ کے بڑے کی طرف سے کبھی کرنا رکھو ہوئی میں سب کتھلیزم میں بیرزہ ہی دارے میں جیزیرہ میں اس طرح اختریان دخالی رہا ہوں جانا چاہتے ہیں۔ پیدا میں اپنابسیی سلیوں نے پیدا چاہتا ہے جو تقنیری شارح اپن palabras کے لئے ہموچی برسی میں بیرزہ تھا but I mean it in a very specific context and I'm indeated to the Polish economist Oscar Lange for this particular term. It is a spontaneous system in the sense that it is driven by its own imminent tendencies. Now, of course, you have human agents whose actions, whose decisions in the overall sense انہوں کو آجاد کی وقت ہے۔ بس ایک ہم انہوں کے ساتھ گلوں کے لئےеты پر یہ ساتھ کیا ہے۔ because they are subject to the force of competition more or less are goersed into acting in particular ways so that you could, without really doing violence to reality see the system as propelling itself forward through the intermediation عبادہ جنگوں کی کاملہ بارے میں ہوتا ہے کاملہ کے لئے کاملے میں ہوتا ہے اور اس سوری کبہ کیا نہیں پڑھی کروٹہ ہوتا ہے۔ کارل مارکز نے ناما چیز مصر Please تو ہم پرسانی فائدہ کیا۔ کیا کہ ہر ناما کا مجھے کاملہ کیا ہے کہ ہر لوگ کو کی reclaim سائیہ کیا ہرتا ہے کمینی آتا ہے گے جب یہاں اور ہوری leave مصر پیچھوں کے لئے ناماہ کیا ہے لیکرہ کبہ کے لئے ناماہ ہے وہ میرے ساتھ باتے ہیں اور اسے اگر کافتلیس میں پر مدرہ ساتھ جانتا ہے میں جو بہت کچھ کسی کو بہت کرتا ہے اور بہت سے وہ کچھ لوگ بھی مجھے بہت مراملہ تھی like for instance ایک کاملیشن انٹردکشنوٹ لیکنوچیکل برس all of it was more than forced on the capitalist the incis and development of the productive forces was more than forced on the capitalist now in this spontaneous system theếہ انہوں سے والدہ الخریط بکر ک نظر پر کسی قاتل کی اندرانت حالی میں دھلتا ہے۔ بہت ایک شخص پر اس کے خاتل کی جس کو ساری مقابلیہ پر جس کو مقابلیہ چھوڑ کی مقابلیہ کی تعلقات ہے۔ آپ نے معلومت کی مقابلیہ ہے۔ انہوں کی خاتل ایسی پر ایسی دھلتا ہے۔ خاتل ایکہان کی خاتلیہ ہر مہد کانے کا حلہ جانا ہے۔ again is something which is really a part of the process of dynamics of the system. The fact for instance that every object becomes a commodity over time again, which Marx had highlighted, is another of the imminent tendencies of the system. Now all these are tendencies which the system necessarily in its process of self propulsion ب solved the in the ڈمینڈیتنی of human age and some are more or less acting as instruments of this self-properation. These are the tendency that it exhibits and manifests itself. The role of the state is actually to aid these tendencies. By the way, in my next lecture, I'd like to say that a very basic distinction between Marxism and liberalism arises because of this. لہذا کیا کہ ہم اپنے حطر کرتا ہے هنا ہے無 matter what the state brings you in any way مجھے ویسق جب کئی حالاتائنہ تکرار ہے ہے کہ مطالعی برہات تقیادہ ہے۔ مطالعی برہات تقیادہ ہے جو کہا کہ بوڈای دیگے ہوتی ہے۔ کیا بہت ہے جب پر مطالعی مطالعی برہات ہے؟ سوار herkes تک سکتے ہیں لیکن اگو انمییا ملی آگا جببلرہ دیناس پر thanیئر ، کرتے ہیں تک سکتے ہے اتنے مخلص پرنی کے دل کو کوئی فرصہ دیناس میں نہیں ہی تعالی کرسی ہے اگر یہ به اپا جانے پرشد ہے, یہ سیستمی چاہتے ہیں bestمدی میں بھی ماری جلگی میں دیناس کے اپنے مطلدات۔ سیستمی چاہتے ہیں سیستمی کی یہ تقریبہ سے اپنے ماری کو پرشد ہو جاتی ہےRad But After this Displacement as long as the system continues to be driven by the same tendencies then it wont actually continue to be again a self propelling EntityIf the state acts in a way which actually thought these tendencies in that case the system becomes disfunctional when it becomes ہے یا اس پر حکم then there are two possibilities one is that in a recursive ماننے than the intervention of the state would have to be more and more kind of ڈیپر and ڈیپر more and more comprehensive or alternatively and this more and more comprehensive would eventually lead to a transcendence of the system or alternatively the state begins to withdraw from intervening an when it then once more you have realize decision of the same image and tend 힘Which had exist in earlier . Now the post-second world war situation can infact be interpreted in his particular way Surely the golden age of capitalism that actually brought capitalist countries very close to full employment. For instance in the early to the mid sixties britain had unemployment rate that was about 2% of the total work force, مصجدowsپٹ ہے ، جو بھی اکشاییی کوئی توک کنیدی کوئی تک اس چیز میں پہانی کھوندنگی تھا ، جس کیمص جہب اکشاییر بہت fluor ایک اپنے لئے جو اکشاییر کے لئے ایک کامیشن ہے ، آج میں اکشاییر کھوندنگی تھا ،۔ جو میں اکشاییر اپنے لئے کعلیسن ہے ، یہ اکشاییر بہت اکشاییری ہون شاہر جھو میں انکردنگی میں دے جہاں بھییسutilیت such low unemployment rates over such a long period of time Now if you have such low unemployment rates being sustained then that is clearly something which really goes against the the the the the imminent logic of the system Why does it do so because capitalism can never do without a reserve army of labor which has at least three important roles to play. two of these are generally well recognized but but i'd like to add a third one of which which everybody knows is that the Reserve Army of Labour is essentially for restraining the real wages of the workers because of which when labour productivity rises the real wages don't rise or even if they do rise the fact of the surplus value being۔ کنا کہ جوزِ فرمن ایکانبیس جوزِ فرمن پیٹا نے کہ ہی سے دیکھوιο heart ہے ، اور دیکھو ، ، ، ۔۔ ، ، because of course you'd have competition, which gives rise to a situation ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ اس کے لحظہ کامی کو حفظہ لی تھی جائے ہوں، لگ before the long before the competition for workers has taken the economy any way your full employment you would actually have the accumulation process slowing down there are inner ways in which capitalism reproduces the reserve army of Labour چیز ایران طرف دیا کی جلو مات کو ایک اورای کارزی بہت ، دیکھا ہے کہ آپ کا ایک اورای کارزی پیسے لے سے بھی نہیں چاہی ہے ، ہر را جلو ہوتا ہے ، یہ پکید ہوتا ہے کہ ہم چیز لے ہوتا ہے کہ جو ایک اورای کارزی خود کے لئے آپ کو اپنی کارزی سے سکتے ہیں جب جہاں سرکتے ہیں ، جو ان کا اونےوں حرار پیسے کے لئے کے پال کے لئے دوسروں کے بارے میں مررطہ ہے۔ میں ایک سسٹیلی سسٹنے کے لئے مررطہ کیلکہ مررطہ بات کیا ہے کے لئے لے جانتے ہیں۔ اگر آپ پیدا ہی نہیں کرتے ہو پڑے لاتھاwoman pleasure آپ کو انہوں کے ل aynı بیٹھرے لڑھنے کا آباد ہے اور مروروں کا بیٹھرے کیا ہے کوریوں کے لئے کافا لیس جو بہت بہت اگر یہ جانتے ہیں کے اپنے رئے یہاں بے انموالی کے اپنے بہت سے آجنے کےDamit موزئ میں بڑھے کیا دون میں بہت مقوم ساتھ چیلیộ کسی کافاہز کے تلیمین حایہ ایک د الفرن کے لئے بہت پوئی لوگ کے مقوم سائے ساتھ مقوم مقوم رہا ہے کے حام کے ساتھ جانتے ہیں کہ جانتے ہیں کہ ساتھ کافاہز کے را когоہوں کے کافاہز کے زیادہ کہ سب سے ہی فرمان اجارہ کرنے میں کسی موارک موارک دسپلین ہوا ہوتے ہیں جو انہوں کی حقیث میں کے لوجک میں کیا ہے۔ لیکن سبت کیا مجھے حقیث میں آج کا مہلے دولی کیا ہے؟ جاں مجھے دولی لیکن ہے کہ مجھے بارگن یہ مانی ترمز ہے۔ مجھے بارگن کی حقیث میں آج کے مہلے دولی میں آج کا مہلے دولی ہوتا ہے۔ اگر ایک ا contour بالدارفہ بلکہ جانتے ہیں اور اگر اہم اہم اہم اہم مح geographical محقوق بہت کس طرح اہم محقومتہ بلکہ پھر انتظران بلکہ جانتے ہیں اانہم محقومتہ بلکہ جانتے ہیں اور ایک اہم اہم محقوق بلکہ جانتے ہیں اور ان کے ذہ پر محقوق ساتھ یہ محقوق بلکہ جانتے ہیں exists some of money must remain relatively stable and is very important for that you must have stability of money wages for which the reserve army of labour is very important. Many of you would know that these days There is much talk about inflation targeting. Why is it that capitalists are not committed to say acceptedosed country will be returned to the government government. میں آپ جو ایک anniversary importantly ، بہت مل PHOON talked about انفل�ی نظر انیضان ہوتا ہے کی故ران سی�ر ہلے جمی coastermanship و پس کس ، انفلاج ایک ف Сегодняیèn لیکن جو بہت بہت ج aquilo being غidos البالیہ دوب Tucson دستو horse جو اپنے پہ落 جاتا ہے کہ لیننن اگر نے ساری سمجھے Somewhere کے لئے the best way to تک سیسٹر کی سیسٹم اپنے پر ایسے چھوڑنی کی طرح ایسے ڈبوچہ ہے لیننن ہے کہ یہ حلیت جاتا ہے جو لیکن کیا ہے اس کے لئے اس کیا کیا کیا کیونکہ اس کمیت کے لئے ایسا حامہ جاتا ہے جو آپ کے لئے اس سیسٹمی کے لئے سیسٹم کی سیسٹم کی تبیلیت کیا ہے ہاں جانا جانا چاہیے بیٹو کافٹلیت کو موجود ہے گو سامنے دیتے ہیں۔ یہ آہ بہت ایک حام حقوں کی پہنچلس شروع حمارت کو جو مقابلہ 초�مہ میں سے حقوں کو بڑھی ہے ، تصور ساتھ مصدور کیا رہے تھا resentرے کے لئے یہ خودی کیا لیکن ساری ساتھ بھاک ہے اور پہنچلس کیا ساتھ بھی دینامنیلی ساتھ بھائی ہیں جانو یہ ساتھ چاہیے ہے جب کہ جو ہیں ایک جو آپٹینے پس کے مطابق ہوقی ہے کیا守ود ہے اس کی طفولاک ساتھ ساتھ زندگی کے لحظہ پڑ splashing ڈیاری وہ ماکر کامل اس لحظہ کہ کہبیٹ چدا گیا تعلیسائے اس پ miałہ الع maintی ماکر کامل اور ہستان کی حالاتت کو مسالل championships اس خاہت 可以 though ڈیاری فهروری بارہ مہموانے اور دیکھو اندگی شرادہ پہلال dalam بہت حکول لین اپسار چندہ tür کے اپسم گا محار میں شاہ relacionہ نہیں پڑ لیکن کیل ہے because the capitalist world at that inflationary upsurge suppose it is the case that capitalist states had gone on towards further intervention in the sense that you know ok wages and incomes policies that they try wages and incomes policies everywhere that is as it were raising the intervention of the state a little beyond simply providing a large amount of demand to بڑھا کے جانررے تصورہ سب سے caseے میں ہوتے ہیں ، but of course once your wage is an income policies if you have Aha this share of the Capitalist then they may not invest at all they may not even accept the wages an income policies there may be violation of it in which case it will become very important for the state itself to step in as an investor for the state to undertake پبلیک اینکمان کے دور کہ the point that I am trying to make is that in order to اندرنائے میں درستانئے بوضیدہ آپ آپ کو اگر آپ ایک اوشاہ پر ای도ر پکرہ ہے کہ اید ایک آپ کو حمل niezاہر darauf کرتا ہے اور اس کو کہ بوضیدہ کا بیرش آنے والے ایک نقش کیا لگی ہے کے لئے پس ایک آنے بڑاesses نے کے لئے آپ کو اپنے فرام سے اپنے پرس سکتے ہیں اور ان کی وجہ کیا لگتے ہیں بات مارکر اٹھار اور رونہ ریکن اور so on کے لئے اگر آپ اپنے مداری بوضید کی تورت نہیں کرتا ہےے جیسا ،列ہ سے برائیطر صمامر کے لیکن ، کامیٹلی تقني سے ساتھ اسمید کی ایہت جب بھی ذکر ہے ، ہوگا ، کامیٹلی صمامر کے لیکن اے دrenceق کی ساری ، لمیت تکیک جاتا ہے ، کامیٹلی صمامر کی ایک بیطر 사람 ہے۔ سامائے ڈیmی شخص ایہات میں دور ہونا پہنچ کامیٹلیزم کے لیکن paintings یہ جاری کے ساتھ ہی بردی اور یہ ساتھ اپنی پر مجملی میں آپچش کرولر ہے انہوں سے ساقان جتا ہے جو اپنی پر مجملی میں بھاتنے بلک میں کسانتر اکک ر關係 یہی بردی ہے ایک بنار کیا آپچش کرولی ہوئے جس آپچشی کرولے کا اNI عاقزہiors جو اپنی تل وقربان اور ساقانی مصر اپنی پر جو مجملی میں بھاتی کرولی ہے بیسکیلی کیا ہے کہ دوری the period of the golden age of capitalism you had high levels of investment because high levels of growth and therefore high levels of savings inside this capitalist world and the private savings were not only high enough to finance the investment but they also had to be high enough to finance the US governments borrowing because the US government was borrowing in order to maintain a string of military bases all over the world the US governments level of borrowing kept going up and of course it went up dramatically during the Vietnam war as the Vietnam war hoted up around the mid 70s as a result huge amounts of private savings were generated inside this universe of this capitalist universe now some these private savings were in fact handed over to those who required private savings through the intermediation of the banks but there was one very specific thing under the Bretton Woods system the dollar was supposed to be as good as gold and the US borrowing therefore took the form of a cost less borrowing they just printed dollars European banks held on to these dollars and when they held on to these dollars the US government had to pay no interest rate because you know they it was supposed to be as good as gold as a result a lot of the European banks were very keen that look we are holding all these dollars but we must earn some income on it one way of earning this income would have been to invest it all over the world but under the Bretton Woods system every country had capital controls their controls and capital inflows and outflows as a result pressure mounted in order to get rid of those capital controls initially there was a movement of funds you know I mean hot money flows which was in violation of the Bretton Woods controls but later on in fact Europe first Latin America and Africa later India in 1991 we began dismantling capital controls the Bretton Woods system of controls completely collapsed and that was the beginning of the process of globalization of finance globalization of capital and in particular globalization of finance capital now there is a lot of misconceptions about globalization and I think while those misconceptions may not be common in this room is worth actually going getting rid of something one view that basically globalization which is associated with the pursuit of neoliberal policies entails a retreat of the state that the state which earlier was intervening no longer intervenes which is a completely false conception what happens is a change in the nature of the intervention of the state just imagine we are in a world where there are nation states governments are really representing nation states but on the other hand capital is globalized that's the essence of the process of globalization capital in particular finance capital is globalized now if you have globalized finance capital and you have nation states as I once mentioned earlier then of course the nation state willy nilly has to do what globalized finance wanted to do because otherwise it will just leave the country canes had been aware of this as I mentioned last time and in his Yale review article he had said finance must be national in other words globalization finance prevents the autonomy of the nation state to pursue whatever policy it wishes to do because if finance is global and the nation state remains a nation state then it will have willy nilly to do exactly what finance demands now therefore what actually happens is not that the state retreats the state retreats from some range of activities in order to intervene in the economy in a different way its retreat takes the form that while earlier the state appeared to stand above society and appeared to be intervening in the interest of all kinds of classes as a kind of you know umpire as a kind of neutral entity standing above society increasingly what happens in the period of globalization is the state acts in the interest of globalized finance in the interest of what one called international finance capital now the fact that the state acts in the interest of international finance capital implies the pursuit of a whole range of policies which more or less are pretty common everywhere you know I mean we know what these policies are the neoliberal policies and so on which I need not repeat but one very important implication of this should be actually kept in mind I mentioned last time that one of the reasons why the period of inter imperialist rivalry which had characterized capitalism in the interwar years was superseded by or you know that the inter imperialist rivalrys got mutant in the post war period is because there was one power which was far more powerful than anything else some people had referred to as a period of US super imperialism US was by far the leading power it really did not have any other powers to challenge its kind of hegemony and consequently in some sense the muting of inter imperialist rivalries was a reflection of the power relations within the capitalist world but with the emergence of international finance capital the muting of inter imperialist rivalries actually becomes a characteristic of the system why when Lenin was talking about the fact that you know that each inter imperialist rivalry and each of these powers within each of these major capitalist countries you have a financial oligarchy that presides over the sphere of finance and industry and that is interested in carving out an economic territory for itself at the expense of a rival financial oligarchy where the British finance capital struggling against the French finance capital German finance capital struggling against the British and French finance capital the whole idea is really of finance capitals which were nation based nation state aided and within each country represented equivalence of industry finance and of course the state personnel but now what happens is that if you have a division of the world into rival economic territories then that goes against the fundamental interests of globalized finance globalized finance would like to go all over the globe therefore any arbitrary barriers which are imposed against such movement is something that they dislike so obviously a hallmark of globalization is not that the world be partitioned into different spheres of influence but that all such partitions must disappear and that's exactly why now the muting of inter imperialist rivalries actually takes on I mean you know really becomes based on the material reality of the emergence of international finance capital many people have actually referred to this new situation as ok there was a debate as many of you would know a debate meaning there was a discussion difference disagreement between Lenin and Kautsky you know that in when Lenin had written his imperialism there was a big attack on Karl Kautsky's views and I'll just very briefly mention it and many people have seen the current conjunction of globalization as one which represents a triumph of Karl Kautsky over the Leninist position why do they say that you see Lenin had said that you have different kinds of finance capitals as I said German British and so on and they would be always trying to partition and repartition the world in accordance with their relative powers relative strengths and so on Karl Kautsky was as you know a very very distinguished well known Marxist Theorist of that period had put forward the view that can we not imagine a situation where there is an agreement among the different finance capitals that they are not forever locked in bitter rivalry but there is an agreement among the different finance capitals so you have the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capitals in which case of course the fact that wars must always occur is something that need not happen because you can actually have a joint exploitation which is a peaceful exploitation because these finance capitals would no longer be at loggerheads with one another against that Lenin had argued that suppose we visualize and Karl Kautsky had called it a state of ultra imperialism now Lenin had said that suppose we visualize such a situation suppose there is an agreement capitalism is forever associated with uneven development the uneven development would mean that the relative strengths on the basis of which an initial partition had been done of the world would be changing and as the change there would be an effort to redraw the partition to repartition the world and that itself is going to generate conflicts so conflict is something which is embedded in the very fact of uneven development that capitalism necessarily engenders now many people say that now that inter imperialist rivalries are not there Kautsky and position has been vindicated as opposed to Lenin's position I'd like to see it differently namely that both Kautsky and Lenin were really talking about nation based finance capitals either being at loggerheads with one another or combining with one another but we have really gone beyond that very idea of nation based finance capitals we now have international finance capitals not internationally united finance capitals belonging to different nations but a genuine international finance capitals to which the financial oligarchy of different countries are closely integrated and that being the case is not a question of Lenin versus Kautsky but in fact the world has moved beyond both Lenin and Kautsky this is where I'd like to see it now this process of globalization is one which has at least three very important characteristics which I'd like to underscore the first characteristic which many people have talked about is of course what they call financialization financialization which is analogous to industrialization which had occurred earlier there's an enormous weight of the financial sector of course financialization proceeds much more has proceeded much more in the advanced countries compared to the developing countries but nonetheless it's a global phenomenon the second feature which I think is quite interesting is that now you have quite apart from financialization or you know if you like that there is I'd like to draw a distinction between capital as finance and capital in production when you set up a factory that's capital in production but if you have finances moving around employing itself in stock markets here or there or something that's capital which is mobile which is capital as finance while there's an enormous growth in financialization and therefore in the weight of capital as finance as far as capital in production is concerned you have a diffusion of activities from the metropolitan core to a number of countries like China, India, East Asia in particular which is really quite a novel phenomenon why do I say it's a novel phenomenon because if you look at the history of capitalism then typically what happened in the colonial period there was de-industrialization you had let's say British textiles getting rid of our weavers in India, China etc. which actually produced unemployment huge reserve armies of labour huge labour reserves and very low subsistence wages but the remarkable thing is that British manufacture in capital let's say or capital in production could have come to India and China use this low wage labour in order to use the same technology that they were doing using back home to produce for the world market then of course their profits would have been higher but that did not happen if it had happened in that case the dichotomy between the under developed and the developed countries would have to a significant extent disappeared the fact that it did not happen the fact that there was a segmentation of the world economy meant that labour from the south was not really allowed to move to the north capital from the north did not move to the south except to mines plantations and you know managing agencies and so on which were really part of the same international division of labour but they did not shift manufacturing activities from north to south so you had a segmented world and as productivity increased in the advanced countries wage also increased and there was a gap therefore between the subsistence wages in the third world and the wages the workers had in the first world this appears now at any rate to have changed now what you do find now is a shift of activities from the advanced countries to countries like China, East Asia and shift of service activities to an economy like India not that much of manufacturing in order to take advantage of the low wages in order to produce for the global market not just a local market but produce for the global market now when that happens then labour in the advanced countries begins to compete against labour in the under developed countries that means basically you have a situation where wages there can't rise as a matter of fact I probably mentioned the Joseph Stiglitz has estimated that the real wages of a male American worker in 2011 was no higher than in 1968 and perhaps marginally lower so what you find is that taking the world as a whole obviously there is this diffusion of activities taking place and this implication we shall discuss in a moment and the third feature to my mind the third very important feature of globalization which in a sense defines it for at least societies like ours is that it completely gets rid of whatever state support and so on existed as far as petty production peasant agriculture are concerned I said that the change in the nature of the state under globalization this change in the nature of the state takes the form whereby in the post war derogist regimes that came up after decolonization the state played the role of actually defending sustaining promoting petty production and peasant agriculture but now the state increasingly refrains from doing so because state policies are now much more geared towards keeping up what is called the confidence of the investors which basically means appeasing the bunch of speculators and financiers who move their money around the world because of the globalization of finance capital this withdrawal of state support from petty production and peasant agriculture is one which basically implies that we have an agrarian crisis huge amounts of peasant suicides because two ways firstly agriculture ceases to have the kind of profitability it had earlier which if you like in floor terms implies the squeeze on the incomes of the agriculture sector and of petty producers when I was in Kerala I was in the planning I used to work in the planning board we once made an estimate and you found that suppose the fisherman sector you know the sector you assume that every fisherman was getting what was the minimum wage in the state and which used to be paid in Mahatma Gandhi national rural employment schemes suppose you imputed that wage to every fisherman then you found that the sector as a whole was in deficit in other words you found that the fisherman got a return per labour day that was lower than the minimum wage that they could have earned on an MG and RHS project it's a very interesting and moot point on which many people have written why in such a case does a fisherman continue to be a fisherman why don't they go and work in an RHS well I mean I think that's a very deep issue which you know Christopher Hill once wrote an article that because of the fact that they don't want to give up their freedom for a mess of potage that basically the conversion of petty producers to the role of workers is something which is such a severe and painful transition from any of them because of the fact that being a worker means you are under coercion that they would take substantial cuts in their living in order to continue as petty producers though of course their children and so on might actually join the ranks of the proletariat but the point is that therefore you find that the petty production and peasant agriculture sector is indeed crisis and what is more also in stock terms that means in terms of asset transfers there is as you know a substantial amount of conflict that is currently evident because land of the peasants are being taken over for suppose an industrial project like basically means in class terms a process of acquisition of land of the petty producers by the capitalist now this is something which Marx had referred to and of course the land is not taken over gratis but nonetheless is taken over at prices which are generally throw away prices and this is something which Marx had referred to as a process of primitive accumulation of capital primitive accumulation in flow terms in terms of squeeze and incomes primitive accumulation in stock terms in terms of taking over property gratis now these are the various I mean to my mind very significant social implications of the process of globalization but I want to now move on a little to the question of how globalization impinged on the socialist countries now I think basically I mentioned earlier that under the socialist countries under socialism as it existed because of the fact that a lot of aberrations had occurred which at the time were considered contingent and which it was believed that the ongoing revolutionary process in the march of history would actually correct these aberrations these aberrations continued that produced a new kind of alienation as far the people were concerned not what is not what you find in capitalism but nonetheless something which is no less real it was real now one of the ways in which many of the governments which were all party dictatorships tried to acquire credibility in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is by increasing the consumption levels of the workers by borrowing from abroad in other words this was a period in which lots of loans were available globalization of finance finance is available but in fact there was a loan pushing they would push loans to all kinds of countries and of course since loans were available many of the socialist countries actually got indebted I remember I think with Prof. Chandrasekhar we had gone to GDR and we asked the economists there but you know I mean isn't it rather disturbing or borrowing so much from the international market some capital loans are still very small but the point is that one way that the socialist countries got trapped into this process of globalization is by getting indebted which appeared at one point to a very smart move that you're actually raising consumption levels by borrowing but when it comes to paying back borrowing paying back the loans you have problems arising this anticipation of exchange rate depreciation because you don't have enough foreign exchange and if there is even anticipation of exchange rate depreciations you find that even many of the public sector enterprises which were exporting enterprises didn't bring back their foreign exchange earnings something by the way that also happened in India now if an export earner does not bring back the foreign exchange earnings then that is exactly analogous to a capital flight because that basically means that money we should have flowed in is not flowing in and that put further pressure and that is when the economies really started getting into a tailspin and of course at that point as you know many of the apparatus then simply grabbed hold of state property through a massive process of primitive accumulation of capital and set themselves up as capitalists now it is quite amazing that you had a socialist country but almost immediately as socialism was collapsing you had the emergence of these billionaires in Russia one of whom actually bought up the Chelsea football club in London so it's quite remarkable that once the economy got into a tailspin then all these problems arose as I mentioned last time not only is it the case that the leadership of the communist party set themselves up as presidents in all the republics to which this Soviet Union got fragmented لیونید کراف چوک ادوار شیوان نارجی اسلام کریمو او دور سلطا نظر بائی و ان سان باری سیلسین but what is more you also had a parachics taking over state property the other way that socialism actually affected or globalization of finance the availability of funds the movement of capital global movement of capital was used by the socialist countries was in the case of China in the case of China while there was a resistance to the inflow of finance they were quite careful but at the same time they actually encouraged the inflow of capital in production in order to set up enterprises for meeting exports and of course China became an enormous success story as far as exports are concerned very high rates of growth everybody knows about it there is a question which arises and you know it's not okay this is a very contentious issue that in China as a result of all this have we now got to a situation where the labour reserves have disappeared there is no doubt that wages have increased but the point is that we must not forget that much of the increase which has occurred in the real wages in China of the workers has been decreed by the state in other words the state has administered a real wage increase if there is a certain and even this increase is really much more in the coastal areas even if there is an element of tightness in the labour market that is something that does not extend to China as a whole certainly in the interior of China and also if you look at the age group of 50 to 60 you find that you know there are some poor surveys and so on there is a fair amount of unemployment in the age group of people who are in the workforce but in the age group of 50 to 60 so it's not as if labour reserves have disappeared but of course the Chinese government has increased real wages but there is a necessary limit to the extent to which the government can do this because the whole economy has survived upon being a successful exporter now suppose it is the case that the Chinese wages rise because the state has decreed a rise in Chinese wages then fairly soon you would find that the location of export activities will move to other places where labour reserves exist and where real wages are still low so the Chinese real wages in this kind of a regime cannot be too much out of line with the real wages elsewhere and therefore this necessarily puts a constraint upon the degree to which the Chinese real wages can rise it's an interesting proposition that in China in fact there was an article in the Financial Times on October 2nd in China now there is a very significant growth of a neo Maoist opposition a neo Maoist movement the October 2nd Financial Times said I mean I'm not taking that at its face value that if there are elections today between the communist party and the neo Maoist opposition the neo Maoist are likely to win but okay whatever you may say but certainly while earlier the opposition to the ruling party came from the so called pro-democracy movement now the opposition comes to a very significant extent from the neo a much greater extent from the neo Maoist and there's an enormous nostalgia for the egalitarian period which characterizes the Maoist era so the point is that it seems to me that even in China one has to take the success of the Chinese growth story with a certain amount of reservations at any rate how has globalization affected the people of the world generally how can we look at the impact of the process of globalization on the different segments of the world's population we have now a certain study Branko Milanovic who is a person who works on income distribution and just written a book but broadly one can say that everywhere in the world the top 1% the proverbial top 1% that the occupy movement was targeting has done remarkably well in fact in India wealth inequalities have increased so dramatically that roughly the top 1% now controls half the wealth of the country this is a real increase so inequality at that level has increased indubitably quite dramatically as far as the workers in the advanced capitalist countries are concerned their conditions certainly are really pretty bad I gave you Stiglitz's figure and many of the many of the resistance currently of course in the guise of right wing resistance because they are led by a lot of them in Donald Trump or UK or Marine Le Pen and so on now that is something which is a reflection of the fact that the working class in particular has really done very badly I believe that it's important for the progressive left elements in all these countries to recognize this and to take up the resistance of the working class instead of shunning it on the grounds that this resistance currently is linked with the right but that's something which I'll try and talk about next time but when it comes to workers in the third world or working people in the third world by which I mean petty producers workers peasants and so on one should have thought that there should be a rise in their wages one should have thought that the shifting of these activities should actually have made them better off as a matter of fact what you do find however is that despite all these shift in activities you still have very significant labour reserves I said in the case of China it's a matter of debate but in the case of other countries other third world countries is absolutely no doubt that there are very significant labour reserves which are not used up because of which their wages continue to remain at a subsistence level as far as the workers are concerned and what is more unemployment takes the form of labour rationing work rationing in the form of casual labour intermittent labour, disguised unemployment petty entrepreneurs in fact it's remarkable that a lot of the petty entrepreneurs are supposed to be Dalits now this is something which is tomtom as a great achievement that look at the way that Dalits have become entrepreneurs as a matter of fact that's really a form of disguised unemployment and analogy that I'd like to give you I think maybe I'm not sure if I gave it last time that during the great depression in the 1930s there were a lot of shoe shine boys people who didn't have jobs they just kind of started sitting behind by the road in order to shine shoes so you could say there's an enormous boom that is taking place in the shoe shine industry that employment in shoe shining has really shot up but as a matter of fact that is really a symptomatic of disguised unemployment on the whole and of course the disposition of the peasantry the squeeze on the peasants the squeeze on the incomes of peasants and petty proprietors that I talked about petty producers is something all of which implies that the working people in the third world countries despite the shift of a set of activities are not really any better off but they are also worse off and certainly when you look at nutrition data hunger and so on you find this to be the case what has happened however is that there is a certain improvement in the condition of a segment of the middle class this is true of China this is true of India as well now it's a good point whether the middle class has expanded in numbers but so far is almost 50% of India's workforce is still engaged in agriculture it is unlikely that the middle class has expanded so much in terms of numbers but it has actually become much more visible because its relative incomes have really increased dramatically as a matter of fact I once made a very simple calculation between the salary of a professor when I joined JAU as an associate professor a salary was 700 rupees basic you look at salary of a new associate professor today and the factor by which it has been multiplied is way way above the factor by which the procurement price of wheat has gone up for instance therefore if you simply compare peasants and professors then you find the professor doing very well compared to peasants and professors by the way are not the best paid not at all so you do find that actually there is a remarkable rise in terms of the relative incomes of the working class of the middle class now this therefore would suggest that in the days to come we may see I mean how things are going to pan out is difficult to say because the current crisis of capitalism about which I talk next time is something which is going to impinge on the middle class as well in which case it is possible that there would be a certain middle class joining of the resistance of the working people that's taking place all over the world but on the other hand if that does not happen then you may well find the situation where there is a conflict of interest between the middle classes on the one side and of course the working population on the other side and then that becomes a very important test for the left that it must be of the side of the working people for instance if you look at the brexit vote london which is where british finance capital is concentrated and where you have a significant middle class associated with the financialization of the economy voted against brexit but on the other hand all the working class areas that you find in britain voted strongly in favor of brexit so you find that this kind of a difference is beginning to manifest itself how it pans out is something that remains to be seen before I end I'd like to draw your attention to one point one of the things about the collapse of socialism that took place which actually for a very long time had left someone like me personally very sad is the fact that it left so little residue you had the english bourgeois revolution of 1640 but on the other hand even when you have the restoration of the monarchy in 1688 between 1640 and 1688 there has been a substantial achievement of the revolution which continues to remain the restoration was not a restoration of the monarchy the way it was in 1640 you look at the french revolution it is true that thermidor happened then Napoleon happened then all kinds of things happened but at the same time the basic achievement of the revolution in terms of whatever distribution of land smashing of feudalism there was a residue that remained throughout all this one of the sad things I used to feel about the collapse of socialism is that you cannot detect any such residue it's almost as if socialism just collapsed and all the gains of it disappeared but on the other hand when you actually think about it carefully what it means is something which is extremely interesting what it means is that between capitalism and socialism there is no possibility of a little bit of gain beyond socialism in other words a collapse of socialism necessarily means a victory of capitalism when I was a student we used to have interminable discussions about whether the Soviet Union is state capitalist whether the Soviet Union is this or that there is not a socialist country but it's all kinds of other things we thought Bernam and Carter wrote in this book called managerial revolution that really you can actually have a situation where managers run the economy you always talked about techno structure so many people used all that to say that even when you don't have private property you actually can have a system which is a managerial capitalist system or a state capitalist system and so on that is possible to have some intermediate state between capitalism and socialism the fact that there is no residue the fact that the Soviet Union's collapse or that of Eastern Europe actually meant a complete submersion of these countries within the capitalist orbit suggests that there is no such intermediate step that is possible and it suggests therefore that really between capitalism and socialism it is as Eugene Portier had written in his famous song The International is the last struggle and if you lose the last struggle you're back into capitalism and that's the basic difference between bourgeois revolution all previous revolutions and the socialist revolution the socialist revolution is the last struggle thank you