 بھرنس, میں پرہاں ہی یہ سبینی بارے میں کسی بھی جاتا ہے، بھی ساتھ ایک مجھے مجھے ساتھ بھی رویٹ اور ایک مجھے ایک اتی ہے۔ میں اسے اپنے پر دیکھا چکا ہوں۔ میں شکر کے انہوں کے انہوں کے رویٹ میں ہوتا ہے کہ جنواری اپنے بارے میں ہی ہے کہ ایک کامیشن ہے جو بہت ہی جو کے بارے میں ایک مجھے کامیشن ہے۔ اور جو ایک مقینی میں ایک ایک ہے جب بھی مقینی میں کہتا ہے۔ ایک دو ایک مقینی میں کسی جلسفاکل معاہلیسنے کی فرمانی ہے یہ دونان ہے کہ جب اگر مرورت Var پلوٹیکل موجومنٹس ایک چیلی کوئینسائدتے دیتا ہے کہ فلوسофکل مطیریلیزم سیس to بی ریلیفنٹ رمارکب لی in the soviets union when we had the collapse of the soviets union that collapse was بروٹ about and generated a lot of hopes hopes of democracy hopes of an improvement in the حالت of life because for some time in the soviets union there had been a certain degree of economics دیگنیشن ان سوان بہت شوہد was just the opposite you had a situation where for the first time ان نوان وار کندشنس there was a reduction in life expectancy you had a situation where دیوزے درمیٹیک کلاپس in the conditions of life including in the nutritional levels of the پوپلیشن you had the taking over by the mafia of the political scene which was supposed to have moved toward democracy as a result what you had was a remarkable hiatus between the intentions with which the people had moved when the soviets union collapsed and the actual outcome of it and that in a پکیولی آیرونیکو ٹلسنس امان سٹو او انڈیکیشن اف مااکسس مطیدل اسم او سیکن اگان ایک ناقپر ہے안کہ ہے۔ او بہت منزلہ محطر ہی لئے ایک خالص او او پر روٹ باراشت度 ہے اسپس خارج روٹ بذاہر او پارس مقاوم بارشت دیکھو باہت سوون باہت سنوان باہت سوان دو it ایتر الحمایر جاننیا ہے ان کیوں کہ ایرے کیا نہیں ہوتا ہے کیونکہ جو کہو کنیر نے سوشل پروگریس جانا ہے جو کسی عیمہ جنگر کرنکن کیا ہے، ایوہ کیا تو لپر وقت بیٹی جرسلی پاس بیٹی جرسلی خطره کرنکن کیا ہے اگر کسی عیمہ جرسلی خطره کرنکن ہوں ، جو کنیر کے لئے جس درسلی خواری کی مستوى جامل ہے ، بهترانہ بالشہرفیکوگونتا ہے باہارتہ باقی واضح لوگ کی جس طرح چیز کے لئے کھانے کی آئے۔جاناں کے لئے جس انہوں کو تُرچ پہنچ رہے تھے۔ اور بہت الترچات پہنچا سکتے ہیں تو اس کو کھانا گھفت تھی سوچی سوچی پروگریس کی سیان کے لئے کھانی کی آج ہوتے ہیں۔ بہت سے حیث ایک۔ بہت سے سبحت نڈیا کی رزیدیو میں بہت روش کرتے ہیں۔ بہت روش کیاشر ہے، بہت بہت بہت غربہ بہت تنصیف ہے۔ جب میں بھی اپکویلی ارکزی کا موکفرین کے لئے بہت سے無ا گقضہ کا روشثر ہے. لیکن آپ جانتے ہیں کہ شام پاہلو میں ہفر ہوسکتا ہے کہ سروی تیسی کی مطلب کی درس타�رہ سوچنے میں کلائیزیہ شرعوں کا ساتھ کو سادی ہوتا ہیں اس کی خافات نہیں ہے کیونکہ سوچنے میں کلائیز کی پہلے کیا مقبول었어요 جانتے ہیں کہ میں جانتے ہو جانتے ہیں کہ آپ جانتے ہیں آپ کو جانتا ہ denke جانتے ہیں کہ سروی تیسی کی چیزیں میں کلائیز کی چیزیں اس کے حالتی ہیں جہود تیسی اور نشار میں میں کمیں بتا جاتا ہوں ہمارا یوں دے گوہر بارا کریں اور سب وہ جانگ دل ہمارا شامل کے بارے کے بارے میں بہت جان卅ین터 ہوتا ہے سویٹ اینڈنیا میں اگر جانتے ہیں بہت مجھے جو وہ سویٹ اینڈنیا میں اوڈ تھی لئے کیسے ایک سے بھارا ہوگا کہ تو صمویت کے سویٹ اینڈینیا میں کہنا ہے یہ کیسے چیزیی میں نہیں ہے ہوایا میں پر Jenush أندر اس نق 카پٹلیسم میں مجھے نق ہمارے کی احاہہ باہر جو جب تک ہوا بہت پر السلطہ پر صناف تحت تک اسے کسی حاصل کرسکیٹ لیتے ہیں ایک لاکہ عام نہیں، لاکہ ایسی خطを اشتز کرسکتے ہیں۔ تا ہی سی بات کو حکم کے ایسی کتنے کے بچے جو انٹریویٹی کے حرہ نے پیانی لئے صحکصی ہے۔ بہتر کتنے سے بہت اٹیگوری مجھومنے کا اطاقت کییاں تک بہت پر بہت کوئی دور ہم نیٹو، ایک ایواح بخود ہے and all these various military blocks, which were set up by the United States, were there in order to counter the Communists threat, the Domino Theory and all the rest of it. But as a matter of fact, As a Soviet Union has gone, Communist threat has receded but nonetheless, these organizations exist and as Ajars said, they are now carrying on several wars all over the globe. حقیقت ہوتے ہیں ، مباک ایک زندگی نشہ ہے ، حقیقت ہوتا ہے ، دوسرچ پر متیک ہے۔ سوشیلیزم اپنے ضرورت پر حقیقت ہے ، اگر ان قلصیاں کے حقیقت کسی امیمیمی کنی ہے ، حقیقت ہوتا ہے ، اسی ساتھ مجھے نہیں ہے۔ ولو کبان ہے سویی ٹھوڑنی کی درمیدہ کیا؟ ایک ایک ایک مجق اس houses بھانا ہوتا ہے ، میں کہ کہ ان میں مارکسیزم پر سعادی دہا ہوں مارکسیزم کے ذہب پر شلہ کار گرذیر کے ساتھ مارکسیزم جوزی پر کھانوف کھیشہ جو اورشلیزم ایک آئی come اہم تعلیم moment اور اہم تعلق ہوں ان میں غلیہ سیدھتا ہوں جانبتا ہے کہ یہ ایسا جو سوشلیزم کے دانی سمجھا ہے تو لیئے اس ا Julianی تو یہ اکراچی کا بھوم ہے سوشلیزم کے دانی سمجھا ہے تو اس کے دانی سمجھا ہے جانبتا ہے کہ آپ کا ساتھ make بانے کا ایک متدر پہلی کیا ہے لیئے وقت تعاییی کے دانی سمجھا ہے اور اس متدر چیز ساتھ چاہتے ہیں جو یہ بیش کی نہیں ہے انجی بھی چیزی کو مجمہ سے مطلب کاما لئے جانا ہے یہ مرزاہ ہے کہ ضرورت کالا کردی ہے ، انہو اپنی فی常دانوں کے لئے بیاننہے سے بھر اپنی تح inadvertی لہ جائے کہ من کی نمی جو بہتر ہوتا ہے جب اپنی ذکر جارزہ شکرا آج سوشرلزم کو بہت پانتا ہے اس سے لیے بسیل ہوتا ہے جو یہ مستویی طرح کیا کہ میں آپ خود میں ہمارا میں حوالی اور بھی رکھنے کو بہتر اس کی ایک کے حالات ، گھ Title رہی پھئے اندام امام ترنیقت کی Ministry میں مض ہی وقت آپ کو گھوجتا ہے۔، کیونٹان کے لئے reden طرح ا padres intelligentreibt بھی جزnہلیک کے لئے آپ کو گھجا ہے۔ اگر ک sneakczne湳 اولنانraj قرآنریpeople کنی کرنے کا مصاومت سے ہBox Gi جس کے بارت لے....... ایک کلاپسنس سوریٹ عنوہ انسان مالے حادث ہے۔ جانب ہوں اپنی سی الشاہ کو کلانے کی بھی دائی۔ ہی نظر ہی ذارہ کنڈاگشنیوں کو پہرے اپنی سی چیزت اچھا چاہتے ہیں۔ اپنی اسئر سے جہاں回40 میں پرک سکتے ہی دارے تھے۔ معجزت اپنی طور پرانشاہ جو جسٹر ہوتا ہے پیشتیوں کا سامنے میں وہ مجھے میرے بلاٹ دیا ہونے کی طرح دائم ایک ایک برثیر ہول گ ein کے لئے because ایک لئے امام انسان اللہ کے لئے اس کے ساتھ رہنا ہوتا ہے فکر برو listened مرسوح جانتا ہے دے اس میں اصلی، حلکا آج ہم Campus برو ڈھیکی کتنی ہے کبھی چکولی دے نکار کے داخل میں بہت سے سمجھا تھا جب کچھ جو جانتا ہے ناہم بہت داری جانتا итоге جانتا ہے جانتا ہے رب جانتا ہے جانتا ہے جانتا ہے ناہم بہت ناہم بھی میں تو کبھی اального دیجی میں تو And then the residue of that phase in terms of the liberation of Vietnam or the residue of that phase in terms of third world liberation is something that continued afterwards. But roughly speaking you had this massive upsurge. I think the period since then even though as I said it witnessed the continuation of certain residual aspects of that phase is something which nonetheless represented a period of status. now one of the problems which arises which is why I said getting out of the trap of the history is not very easy one other problem that arises is what happens to countries Which have actually transcended capitalism in a certain revolutionary equation was what the world as a whole has met. and that was the predicament of the Soviet Union that you have That was the predicament not only of the Soviet Union that was the predicament ویڈیو سارے کی کامنیز انہوں کو مجھے ساری شروع اور لینین اور جب ایک بارال شروع پارٹی کامیز پر ساڈنہ ہوتا ہے لینین آئییی بہت ساتھ بہت کⅡ کی چیگرزک کسی بھی بالکلہی بھی ہوتا ہے سب ہی دل جہاں کو مضہر دوستہ آئے جس اوڈ پشتے ہیں جب چائینی و اینڈییر جس جہے جو حرائزن اور رشیہ چائینی و اینڈیر کی نظام سائ 약ھتا بھیarp gefallen سی لی處理 گویہ اور ہماریتگند کا مصارفہ آئےesus مر gelernt�� ساتھ سینج پکípہ لگہ بدا لگاurtان وقت آپ کو مدسنا لگا� Sit بیائ our because lure哪ہان کا ہی علم اگفادات حدال I اگفادات آچستelin لے میji پہلی بہت سوائito سوائیچ HERE البہا放 بیٹ نیں ابقہ روک آپ جانتے ہیں کہ آپ کو فتح کرتے ہیں اور آپ کو فتح کرتے ہیں اور آپ کو فتح کرنے کے بارے میں بہت پہلے گا لوگ آپ کو فتح کرنے میں ہمارے موکنے میں اندازت کرتے ہیں اس بارے میں بھی ارمزار مرار ہے Then of course it's essential to hold on to the gains of the revolution. The judge sentenced to hold on of the gains of the revolution. You have to arm yourself. You have to develop the economy you have to develop yourselves for yourselves materially in order to cope with the situation. And this material development is something which may well be characterised by the composition of a degree of discipline on society in which the possibilities of any kind of مجھے ذکراتی اناؤائچیں مضغط کی بہترانے میں سارادی جمعہ ہوتا ہے۔ بہترانے میں درمت کلوشری کی تعالی سے مضوابہ معرومت کی حضرتہ اور ، مضوابہ کھوڈ کی اتکیب دستائی ہے ، اب theseی اٹیب کو بہت کردی ہے جو مشکہ میں جاہد کردی ہے۔ ہم اور اس میں نعمت کا حرثوں کی بہت پڑی ہے۔ ہم سے بھی نایسنس کا مجل ہوتا ہے، کیا کہ ہمیں تو کہنا بھی بھی روزی ہونا بھا کرنا have to rethink whether as it were the closure of political activity and really one of the real things about the cost which the Soviet Union had to pay for coping with counter revolution in the way it did was the اسی صرحانہ اس irgendwann لگے د میں سٹی پیز اёрن کیا کنالا ہےstrings ان겨علعت سائل آرتا ہے پněخرجتا ہے ذی系 Leaving اس کی سم اللہ گرام Hae بیٹ د آرہin بات پہلے جاؤ رہے ہیں دوں کا معربہ آرہ سکتے ہیں سمہ دیرا ہی ذریع都是osing میں جو سبکرکہ اپنے اس طرح کنجنچاہی جو سبکرکہ کنجنچاہی نہیں ہے، کبیٹلیسوں اور امپیریلسوں میں پر اچھا کے لئے ایک دکتی شپ of the party اپنا بہت سرکھا ہے اور طرح کی بہت سرکھا ہے، اپنا بہت سرکھا ہے۔ منتصر کا بہت سرکھا ہے تا کہ ان پرلیلزم کے حالت ہے۔ بہت بہت سرکھا ہے۔ ان سیدیوں کا ایک چیزیوہ ہے۔ جب ہے کہ یہاں ہماری کالبزی کی خواہت ہے۔ بہت سرکھا ہے کہ اُن کے انجای پرییرد میں پرسکھا ہے۔ the idea of preventing the depoliticization of the basic classes ensuring that they're political life remains active is something which becomes an absolutely essential condition for the survival of socialism even in this period of stasis. میں یہ کہا ہوں because at this moment it seems to me not withstanding all the cautions that Ajars has as it were underlined and with which all I agree that we are now witnessing the development of a new revolutionary wave. To say this is not to apotheosize all the demonstrations and so on that they are taking place which of course have their limitations but again we are entering a period in which I think the capacity of capitalism to find a way out of the crisis in which it's currently enmeshed appears to me extremely limited. This crisis is not just the financial crisis or the recession and so on. I mean I think in a certain sense if you look at the world today there's not one but at least two quite different and equally serious crisis. One of which is an acute food crisis which is affecting the entire world. You have had since the 1980s a fairly significant noticeable decline in per capita food output, per capita food availability, per capita food grain availability, per capita cereal availability. Whatever is the way that you wish to measure it as far as the world's population is concerned. لہذا ہنگر، ملنیوٹریشن، ایسیٹرہ are really on the increase. And this is not something which is arising because of some peculiar happenstances. It's not a Ricardian problem but I think it's happening precisely because of the characteristics of contemporary capitalism. I think contemporary capitalism as you know is characterized by the hegemony of international finance capital. In this period of hegemony of international finance capital a process of primitive accumulation of capital is unleashed on vast segments of the presentry and the petty producers, small producers and so on, pre-capitalist producers, non-capitalist producers many of whom are located in the third world countries. If you unleash on them a process of primitive accumulation of capital, on the other hand their absorption into the active army of labour and the capitalism does not exist or as Ajaz said jobless growth and so on, in that case inevitably capitalist development in the world as a whole is accompanied by a process of absolute impoverishment. The more capitalism develops the greater is the process of absolute impoverishment. This whole idea that somehow there would be what's called trickle down or you know and so on is completely wrong. In fact you find that precisely in the period in which you have had in countries like India high rates of growth is the period in which there has been a very strong process of absolute impoverishment. And this is not just true of India. I think this is true of the world as a whole. The fact of capitalist growth on the one hand is something which is really accompanied by a process of primitive accumulation and absolute impoverishment. The second crisis which everybody talks about is again related to the hegemony of finance to the emergence of international finance capital and that is to do with the fact as we know that in capitalism now we are in the midst of a recession from which there is no easy way out. But let me just devote one or two minutes to this. In periods, I mean you know capitalism has passed historically through a number of different phases. In the first phase the entire dynamism of 19th century capitalism right up to the first world war. The dynamism of Victorian and Edwardian capitalism was sustained by the colonial system. You had the colonial economies from which it was drained taking place which also provided markets for goods from the capitalist countries and of course much of this drain was invested in the temperate regions of white settlement, United States, Canada and so on and so forth. So capitalism really had a fairly kind of long boom which underlined which was the colonial system. In a certain sense with the first world war the limits of that arrangement were reached. That is why the period of the interwar years in which you had the old system having reached its limits capitalism not able to find a new prop for its development was a period of depression was a period of great depression and so on and so forth. In the post second world war period you once more had a situation where there was state intervention in demand management. The state played a major role. The capitalist state came into its own to ensure that the system developed and that was a period which was called by many the golden age of capitalism. I think what has happened now is that the hegemony of finance implies that in a sense the state instead of being outside of the system is itself hegemonized by finance. When you find an organization like Standard & Poor's saying that the US state which is the mightiest capitalist state in the world is not credit worthy. You just begin to wonder who are these pipsqueaks to actually say the US state is not credit worthy. They say it because behind them of course is the confidence of finance. Now likewise you find you look at Greece you look at any of these countries the Greece Greek government's debt is not credit worthy why the Greek government has to go to the market in order to be able to float its debt. That was not the case earlier that's a feature of neoliberalism and that's something which is a hallmark of hegemony of finance capital as you know in the neoliberal policies themselves reflect the hegemony of finance capital. In India for instance during the period that Nehru and Indira Gandhi and so on were prime ministers the state told the central bank of the country that look this is the amount which we are going to borrow from you. In the central bank Jollywell had to cover that money directly or as the underwriter of the state and of course your statutory liquidity ratios and so on banks had to give loans to the state statutorily. One of the first things that neoliberalism in India did is to say that the amount of government borrowing from the Reserve Bank of India is limited. The government cannot borrow beyond a certain amount if so then the government goes to the market. If it goes to the market then it has to count out to the whims and caprices of the financiers in order to be able to borrow and therefore in a sense what you now have unlike what Keynes had visualized. You now have a situation where the state instead of being as it were an extrinsic entity to the system which then rationally intervenes to make the system as it were manageable. The state itself becomes part of the imminence of the system and if that is the case in the capacity of the state to stabilize it is something which is greatly impaired. Therefore we are now in a period in which capitalism is without any external props of any kind. Colonialism is no longer something I know that they would try and get oil and all the rest of it but in fact the capacity of capitalism using colonialism to stabilize itself to a new golden age is something which is non-existent. The same is true as far as the state is concerned. That being the case you would have prolonged crisis in which there may be an occasional relief in the form of a new bubble of some kind but ultimately as the bubble collapses you would be in a crisis again. So as far as the advanced countries are concerned they would be trapped in that kind of a crisis as for the backward countries. Under developed countries are concerned they are trapped in an acute process of having much of their population not the billionaires who are coming up. So their population is trapped in an acute process of absolute impoverishment and I see no way within the parameters of hegemony of finance capital as long as that is not overcome I see no way that capitalism can find a solution to the crisis in which it is itself caught. Therefore in a very objective sense the kind of situation that capitalism confronts today is comparable to the earlier wave between 1914 and 1950 that I was talking about. And that being the case even though we may be skeptical as Ajaz rightly says about the specific kinds of movements that may be happening around the world but nonetheless I think in a very deep sense the possibility of a revolutionary overcoming of capitalism really comes on the historical agenda but of course you see each wave must have its own forms of struggle. It must have its own agendas. It must have its own kind of scenario as it were within which the process of transcendence of capitalism can take place inside that particular wave. Now I think certainly in countries like ours as this new wave develops all over the world there are at least 3 issues which I think are going to become very important. In order to introduce these issues I must tell you a story. You see that Julius Martov who was the Menshevik leader with whom Lenin had very great personal kind of friendship and so on. Julius Martov once raised the question that look you talk about proletariat but the point is that if you capture power then you cannot simply push a proletarian agenda. You have to push an agenda which is a much broader than the proletarian agenda. It has to be an agenda for the people as a whole to which Lenin's answer was that yes I agree with you but it's an agenda which would include the presentry. It will include large segments of the population that the dictatorship of the proletariat does not just mean that it's only for the proletariat that we are working but we are actually working on an agenda that would benefit large segments of the population. Now I think in that sense when we are talking about a new revolutionary wave emerging I think we have to think in terms of ways in which the left can actually devise an agenda for large segments of the population. And I think this agenda must have at least three very important components in countries like ours. One component is the fact that the proletariat or the left or the working class political formations must play the role of defending the small producers, the petty producers, the presentry and so on. All of whom are being attacked by the hegemony of international finance capital. So they must in a sense defend the people at large. They must emerge as the champions of the people at large. Therefore it's not just only workers and peasants alliance in some narrow sense but the working class must emerge as the champion of the interests of vast masses of small and petty producers which of course entails its own challenge because after all the left is not interested in only remaining confined to some kind of a petty bourgeois society. How to defend their interests and yet take society forward is challenging but nonetheless it is something which has to be done. The second is obvious that imperialism, anti imperialism is absolutely essential. Anti imperialism is not only anti Americanism because we live in a world in which large segments of our own big bourgeoisie is now very closely integrated with international finance capital and is very closely integrated also therefore with the big corporate bourgeoisie of the world. That's a pretty obvious thing. The left has to play the role of leading an attack on them. And the third thing in certain societies like ours is the left has to stand for modernity. Now modernity is a very difficult concept and so on but to me the essence of modernity in societies like ours which have had this long history of caste oppression and so on is equality. And I think one of the ways equality expresses itself in our societies is through political democracy. Now I know it's our political democracy may be flawed, I know most of them are millionaires, most of large chunk of them may be crooks and so on. But nonetheless we have to distinguish between democracy as a form of governance in which of course there are all kinds of limitations but democracy also as a way of organizing the polity. And I think organizing the polity on the basis of a formal juridical equality among everybody is something which is a major development. You know I keep saying this because I actually come from a village in Orissa and I have seen with my own eyes the kind of anger that in 1952 when the first general elections were held that the upper caste had the idea that that Dalit has an equal vote as me. How ridiculous, you know. I mean I think really given the state of our, the millennia of our caste oppression it's a major advance and I think the left must carry that advance forward socially, politically by defending democracy unlike you know I mean in other words I keep joking that if we actually had a one party dictatorship then that would be a Brahmin dictatorship in our country and that's no good even if the one party communist dictatorship that will still be a Brahmin dictatorship and we have to avoid that. Therefore I think in some ways we really have to understand the current conjunction and for that and realize its historic potentials and for that is very essential to have a theoretical trust. The last point I want to make I mean I feel very sorry that you know among many of my students you know brilliant students very very motivated students you know they are much more concerned with doing good things. You know they'd like to go and help some poor family, they'd like to go and organize let's say the labourers on our campus which of course very good but you know do something good to them but on the other hand the taste for theory is much less and that is something which worries me I think is very important if we are going to carry the left project forward that the taste for theory must be revived because Marxism is essentially first and foremost is a struggle at the realm of theory. Thank you.