 Thank you, Ushilbert. Good morning everybody and thank you for having come. Now I shall not repeat or even summarize what I said yesterday because I guess all of you or most of you have been, have attended it. I'm entering the second chapter of this 60 years history which is the the rise and the triumph for a short period of so-called neoliberalism. So-called neoliberalism because I think that the qualifying the system neoliberal is absolutely meaningless and it is it is an ideological qualification just as considering for instance of yet Union as communist. One has to make clear what are the real fundamental important characteristic of that so-called neoliberal just as one had to qualify to look at the reality behind the word communist. Without trying to priori-qualify good or bad or socialist or capitalist which are very general. Embracing a lot of things which are which could be quite different and no less important. So, but how it came out how and and what it has produced that is the second period, a relatively short period. I would say of 25 years to put dates from 75 to 2,000 or say to the first announcement of the deepening of the crisis with the financial crisis of Southeast Asia, Mexico and Russia towards the end of the 90s. Now without arrogance, I would say that André Gounder-Franck and myself, so I'm not alone. We we were feeling that change quite early because in Rome invited by Manifesto, it was exactly in 78 we produced a short book with the title Let Us Not Wait 1984 reference to Orwell 1984 that is looking at the capitalist system as entering a long crisis, a long crisis. This is what we wrote which has started in 71 was the announcement with abandoning the gold standard by the US and the US saying arrogantly to Europe the dollar is our money and it is your problem just as the recently the governor of the central bank of China said the yuan is our money. It is your problem But let's say as of 73 with flexible rates of exchange that more or less generalized and of 75 very clearly the rates of growth of accumulation therefore moving to half of what they have been on the average for the previous 25 or 30 years and never recovered since. So the long crisis did not start with the with 2008 it started in the 70s exactly exactly a century after the first long crisis. Now we imagined André Goudafrank and I that the response to that long crisis starting nobody, the language of conventional economics is always the same recession things of that kind congenital recession the response would be intensifying the concentration and centralization of capital intensifying subordination of the peripheries through massive transfer of center of gravity of industries but controlled industries through they five what I called I wrote it at that time the five monopolies new monopolies that is the control of technologies the control of the access to natural resource the control of communication the control of the Integrated new monetary and financial system with the flexible rates of exchange Etc. And the control of armament of mass destruction of course now and that this would lead to An attempt to control the new coming wave of industrialization of if not the peripheries all of them at least quite a good number of powerful new centers emerging and and We we called it model a and model b theoretical model a with Perfect control of that transfer Subcontracting and and and control through the five monopolies and that would lead also to a deep crisis in the center that is a massive and growing unemployment and and relative stagnation of income and be would be The other extreme that the five month the the Capacity of the emerging countries To get rid of that control of the five monopolies and then what is going to come out of that a new wave of capitalism with center of gravity moving to other regions and historical imperialism or a State a step on the long road to socialism that book was you can read it was was not Not considered at all in this time I think because it was in advance for its time but if we say today look at what is happening look at the stagnation in the centers look at the Transfer of center of gravity of industrialization look at the struggle between emerging and and and not emerging countries which are Controlled and countries which fight not to be controlled. We are not very far from the reality of today so that was that was the early views in I am a stubborn person. So I I was sticking to my My hour because André Gouda Frank was no less than me in that Respect we had long long discussions with the Italians at that time of manifesto, which were very innovative and open and where Perhaps the only one only people among the European communists who dared thinking in that in that way That is globally and in a revolution revolutionary way now And what Therefore being stubborn. I What is the new wave of of centralization of capital which is coming? And then gradually I wouldn't say immediately I came to the following if not Hypothesis perhaps but I consider it more than a hypothesis I think it's a reality Even if we would need far more Observation research to make it more precise And and and perhaps to introduce a lot of nuances as usual needed but still That is a in a short period between 75 and 90 15 years Which coincide with that Charism and Reagan, but that is not pure chance Of course, it's logic But which are not due to thatcher and and Reagan But to the internal logic of monopoly capital reacting to the crisis centralization of what and During those 15 years and that has been observed by a lot of economists merging companies and so on All sorts of things of that kind the rise of pension funds, which existed before As Enormous provider of Finance Etc. Etc. What my point is that what has happened is a centralization of the control of capital and I am some I am Insisting on that not of the property of capital of the control of capital and I I give the Obvious example of pension funds which juridically are the property of the millions of Workers, but which de facto is the property of the financial capital, which manage it Centralization of of the control of capital And I submit that this has led in a short period to a qualitative change In monopoly capital now I discuss that basically with the team Of monthly review particularly Paul Suizi and Harry McDoff before they died and then with John Foster, but They also were among the few people at that time The few Marxists say and nobody else was interested in that question Of this New level Higher level of centralization of control of capital now I formulated it Maybe 10 years or 15 years later by qualifying it and then I shall qualify the system as as Generalized globalized financialized monopoly capital It's a little long, but that is the reality in my opinion not neoliberalism, which is the Very superficial Naming and We ought to therefore specify what are The characteristics of each of those qualities generalized what I mean by that Etc. Now generalized in the sense that of course monopolies or oligopolies Existed before since one century And were important Perhaps even were decisive in the In the designing of economic policies of major imperialist countries, but there was a vast area of economic activities Capitalistic economic activities, which were relatively or to various degrees autonomous or independent from monopolies and there was a Little Interconnection between the monopolies in the various areas for instance car industry where monopolies or I don't know another sector Very few interaction except through the generalized market, of course, but that is superficial To a system in which in which there is almost no more Perhaps I am exaggerating a little but not much. I think no more autonomous activity that is all production activities of goods and services are completely controlled by This centralized monopoly capital this generalize. This is why it is generalized in the sense that it command It controls the whole productive system. The whole productive system is controlled by them Upstream and downstream allowing Creating a new status for the apparently Autonomous activities of de facto Subcontractors in many cases even the jury through contracts with monopolies But de facto if they remain Apparently Independent and it is the so-called market which never existed as such without being qualified more precisely Which decides that is upstream the monopolies and you take a very good example Which is the agriculture modern agriculture Family farming In the Western countries in the US in Canada in Western Europe Japan is a little different but There are always difference from one place to another but these are secondary Which which were Relatively independent At the previous stage even with monopolies in the sense that The so-called market Decided of the prices of that product which was Producing allowing an income for the farmers family farmers, which was which was At least equal to the average Income in that case wage of Qualified labor say and that has disappeared because it's controlled upstream by Monopolies who are providing the credit who are providing the inputs Monsanto and so on and downstream by the monopolies which are controlling the Supermarkets chain of distribution and so on and that upstream and downstream control means that the Value and surplus value which is created in modern capitalist farmer Agriculture family agriculture if you call it so is completely pumped out and Is is is the source of a rent not a profit and monopoly rent upstream and down and downstream to the extent that We add those prices the income of farmers would be zero Even in some cases perhaps negative or very small and that it is Compensated by subsidies of the state, which means the taxpayer a financed the Super profit which is which are the monopoly rents. That is the system It's not market. So the blah blah about transparency of competition the market is Revealing the true prices and so on is a pure imaginary Ideological blah blah which has nothing to do with how the system is Operating actually so that is what I mean by generalized and you can expand that to Almost all services including health and To the extent that it is a private or semi-private and so on you can extend it to At also a global level through what appears as international trade on Major commodities you can extend it and you will see that Decentralization of control is enormous gigantic now That is one of the content of this so-called neoliberalism It's the major one because it is determined for the rest Then the second point is globalized globalized is is nothing new Globalization has started with capitalism Well, I'm going to Frank even saying it's a 5000 years before I disagree with that because it is Disregarding the qualitative meaning of Fundamental modes of production say at least but anyway, that's not the point and But What new pattern of globalization and this new globalization I'm Precisely relating it to the generalized monopoly capital by the fact that it is trying to operate by strategies Systematic economic and political strategies to support them through the five Advantages if we don't call them monopolies that is the control of the access to natural resources Again, not necessarily the property The oil can be owned by a formerly by a national company of the producer country That's of no importance To the extent that the access is meant that you are not allowed not to exploit it and not to export it in order to And that's trouble. I mean for the control of access of natural resources is fundamental Perhaps it's not new because it has been important before also, but it's fundamental in the new geopolitics second is the control over an On technologies particularly new technologies not producing bicycles, but new technologies Vanguard technologies particularly the info the Digital but not only that also the nuclear whether we like it or not also the Space also etc etc by over protection over protection of so-called industrial property by WTO the control of that is Medias and communications and therefore information and and shape shaping shaping the Mentality of people can etc etc The control and I this is an important point to which I will come back tomorrow this afternoon I mean the control of the integrated financial and Monetary system because that means the control of mass capital. I mean The access to mass Even if you put chap wants to Fire It's a test. Okay. I hope so The control Even if you have to borrow some money to buy In apartment you are not the you have not access. It's not you who have access to the capital market It's the bank through which you operate which means that the capital access to capital market for is exclusive for those monopolies and and That is operating at the global level But I'll come to this point because it is very central in the conflict and contradiction of that system now and That leads to the financialization in the sense that but this is the subject of this No, it's the subject of this this morning not this afternoon. It leads to Well What it has led to very fast exactly what we wrote on regular funk and I in 78 that is a Relative stagnation That is low rates of growth in the centers Accelerated rates of growth in the peripheries emerging markets not nations or countries but I'll come to that later and and along with So called recession, which is not a recession low rates of growth growing unemployment, etc. And that is the internal imbalance the Very different from the imbalance which Keynes had Analyzed which was the reality of his time in the 30s between the Not global in the sense of wall, but the overall Supply and demand in very different from it, but of the same nature say an imbalance That imbalance along with the pumping of the value and surplus value by monopoly rent is The objective basis for growing fast Unequality, you know the figures they have been provided particularly for the US, but they exist everywhere that the first I Don't remember if it were the 5% wealthier or 10% but that's not important which controls 7% of the income 715% of the income in 20s had gone down to 7 to half of it Towards the 50s and has moved up back to the to 15% the double within a couple of two decades So gigantic and fast growing inequality in in income and wealth which which means a Spiral to to the bottom because this is not correcting the imbalance, but But making the imbalance More and more acute again opposite to the blah blah on the market that the tendency of the market is to Tendency to tend towards equilibrium of supply and demand. No, the market is creating growing this equilibrium and not Because the market is shaped by the strategies of monopoly. It's not the market per se the Market of which the World Bank IMF etc. And the others are speaking. It does not exist. It's an imaginary system not not not capitalism and and and as Marx has shown and if he was He is the only one who has shown it the The system moves from this equilibrium to disequilibrium Without no tendency to tend to towards an equilibrium now the two only Antimarchs is to try to prove the opposite seriously not the ideological blah blah Deciding a priori that the market is not that where Valras in the 19th century and and and Srafa in the 20th It's not a pure chance that none of them was was Anglo-Saxon Both of them one was Franco-Swiss and the other was Italo even if he were living in in Britain That attempt to prove that the market would tend to that they failed They were honest enough contrary to the neo to the conventionally economies to recognize it Anyway, I think I said it yesterday If you take the case of Srafa production of commodities by commodities It's nonsense because you can put on this on the ground all the ingredients for production including the wage goods and Leave them on the ground nothing will happen except that they would get wasted by time If not introducing labor this production of commodities with commodities by labor and not by commodities That is the fundamental of the understanding of the so-called market as opposite I'm not speaking of planning as opposite to really existing relations of production commanding and Shaping the so-called the apparent the surface the top of the iceberg which appears as the market now that system But this is will I will develop more this afternoon is not I'd never considered it I personally never considered it as sustainable, but as a transition after the resulting of the erosion of the Previous system or systems which I mentioned it yesterday the three systems of social democracy in the West of really existing socialisms in the East Soviet and Chinese of national popular Systems with all their variation in the in the south which eroded and broke down At the same time and and and together I mean the Stupidity of the social Democrats was that to think that the defeat of the communists would be their victory It meant the defeat of the cousins and then of themselves a little quickly after That their strength was associated with the strength of the Alternative model if we call it so Alternative force or other force a questioning capitalism or questioning the control of capital which was the really existing socialism and then And we can call it their suicide moving from social democracy to social liberalism and disappearing as such making that and Making no no difference between left and right Which had a meaning before and the Soviet Relatively brutal breakdown, but after a long decline during the 80s. I mean the Gorbachev time and and the move after the death of of Mao through Deng Xiaoping to a new Vision or a new strategy for For China and the gradual and there it took different form for the south in some cases it was really a coup d'etat and the return to Neocolonia if we call it so regime in other cases particularly with Respect to the Arab countries and that is important to understand what is happening now that the same ruling class Which had been national popular in order to remain in upper and power in Moved they decided themselves to move to or they accepted to move to neoliberalism to submission In order to remain in power that was the infidels of the Arab countries, which was led by the those who inherited Nazism or Buma Dian or the old bus of Syria and Iraq and and therefore created the Conditions for what happened later the explosion or the the popular revolts and So it took a number of forms that is very important to look into Of course, and I have don't have time here. I I just mentioned the rough lines But case by case, but we have to have some overall vision now that is That that that is the meaning of a Financialization because due to this spiral and growing in balance the only alternative Investment since investment cannot go in the widening and deepening of the productive system in spite of its being to various degrees associated with the Higher growth in the peripheries are in some peripheries Which is partly an outlet for investment But very small if you look at the figures as compared to the moving out into financial investments that is precisely speculation Made possible by the flexible rates of exchange made possible by the so-called independence of the central bank, which is meaningless empty of any meaning Which? All that with the future markets, etc. etc. Now there are people who are Saying that it is the invention of those techniques which have made it possible My tendency is to say the opposite Something is invented when it is useful when it has to be invented particularly in areas such as credit Formulas says and and so on the venitions had invented things which were useful in that time While the modern people are no less clever they invent what is needed And Foster has shown I think and he's one of the few who has shown that this is is bound to move from bubble to bubble This is why after the subprime we had the bubble of speculation on the commodities on food on on Fundamental minerals copper if you look at the figures It it can be the price can be so-called market multiplied by three within a few weeks and stand at high level for some time before moving back down a little down and so Chaotic chaotic, but this chaos is not the chaos produced by the so-called market It's the chaos produced by the internal contradiction of the strategies Developed by that centralized monopoly capital But that centralized monopoly capital that generalized monopoly capital It is it's internal logic now that also has enormous political consequences or dimensions of political and social One is the change of the pattern of the bourgeoisie No, throughout history one may say and particularly throughout European and North American history of the 19th century and half of the 20th century and and more and the bourgeoisie one where To be counted by millions and millions and tens of millions not thousands of hundreds of thousands second they were Chris they were embedded in Families usually men Related to some place with the owner of a factory here of The Bigger or smaller but still and with a political Legitimacy influence in their place, etc. It was a concrete reality Now we are moving towards Marx and that was what I discovered in the most recent reading reading of capital Considered as a tendency, but he was very optimistic that tendency Would the Things would change before of the rule of abstract capital That is who is the owner? It's meaningless question when you said in the 19th century Who is the owner of that factory? You could designate a person a man a house a Somewhere now abstract capital but this abstract capital is managed by really a I Don't like the word plutocracy because it has been used by the fascists But it is the reality today by a handful a handful of People who decide now that That is a gigantic gigantic change I would say culturally the good sense of the world of the world and political of course and this is also the objective reason for The disappearing of the meaning of the historical meaning that it had of left and right within the bourgeois democracy of the previous stages the compelling capital and labor to come to Historical compromises of one kind of another etc. Etc. It's the end of it and the other aspect of That abstract is collective imperialism. I mentioned it. I think yesterday Answering one question which was in advance because I had it in mind for today That is the reverse of the relation between internal let's call it national market and global market that is a It competition in a lot of sense would not be market meaning between monopolies and where we're basically Developing deploying at national level and the winner would be the one who would Penetrate the global market now. It's reversed. It's the one who penetrates And partly control or have access to The global market which turns to be also the winner at national level if we call it so now That is the objective basis for that collective imperialism of the triad Which was not the product of the Cold War and of political Alliance against the Soviet Union and communism, but which is the product more important That aspect did exist also, of course But it is in my opinion secondary the main aspect was the change at the root of the Level of centralization of the control of capital. This is why and I would Conclude that part of my presentation of this morning I have I will still take some five or ten minutes by What I think I said yesterday because the question again was ahead of time It's not what appears to be the so-called tyranny of the markets. No, it's the tyranny of that plutocracy Oligarchy call it if you don't want to say plutocracy Which is Developing strategies which shape the markets and therefore it's their tyranny and not the tyranny of market per se and the Opposing market and planning is a good way of escaping the real problems and and and and and And moving the debate to a abstract ideological Level instead of looking at Really existing market and really existing eventually planning on the other hand That is the question of the social historical content of let's call them state Capitalisms plural not state capitalism as a category per se now that that system has moved through Has been as I said not sustainable but apparent glorious glorious victory Which the glory the glory of the victory was Exaggerated also because it coincide with the breakdown of the Soviet Union 1990 say Opening a new era which Giovanni Ahrig and myself qualified the Bell Epoch because it was repeating exactly the nonsense which was said in the first Bell Epoch that is the Victory of In response to the first long crisis of first age of monopoly capital first age of globalization first age of financial financialization at the time it was called in French label epoch and It was also all the nonsense that you have read we have read in the 90s About the end of history about this about democracy peace and so on The dividend of peace because of the end of Cold War Etc etc exactly the same was written in the 90s before World War one label Epoch Curiously almost a century later because it was between 1890 the 1890s the rapprochement the Name of this plane the Concorde between the the French and the British The Franco-Russian alliance etc etc and all that exactly the same a century later now that Bell Epoch Went on for 10 years 20 years very very short period in history with Exaggerating all the making worse and worse every day all the characteristics of that new pattern of generalized Monopoly capital that is increasing inequalities Not peace but wars local but important still Starting exactly in 91 with the first or the second Gulf War Depending of how you qualify the Iraq Iran war the Kuwait war say and etc etc and Now That created That was an era of Apparent but I'll come this afternoon on more quality qualifying more this apparent Recolonization Now as I said in accordance with the Mao type of analysis not opposing the national bourgeoisie to the Compredor bourgeoisie as to existing classes, but as two attitudes of the same class or two tendencies one winning more than the other depending on conditions of the same class that is Developing national strategies or accepting and submitting to compadre Policies and strategies attitudes now Recompadirization recolonization as etc now the first wave and I'll come to that this afternoon of Moving into trying to benefit from Find a place in that globalization by Growing by Industrialization export industrialization Subcontracting in the weakest in the most cases and Trying to be not exclusively subcontracting. That is the Chinese pattern during the 90s was was now again without Now with respect to Africa, this is important with respect to Africa. It means that Africa is important Africa is important because of its natural resources the African peoples are not important. They are other a Superfluous Which is the scandal of scandal? I mean if a whole continent is superfluous one should ask the question is it not the system Which leads to that which is superfluous, which means that what is to be questioned is not African Societies, but capitalism Which condemn them to that now I've said a word about Whenever the ruling classes or the ruling power and this is again Mao the state The state meaning that those who have if not the monopoly who have the Decisive position in ruling the society ruling the politics ruling the state tend to Establish themselves as a force Double independence he said Mao independence from their people and independence from the other powers external powers double independence as far as possible independence from their own People including if they have been the product of a true People's revolution, which is the case of China at least and but also of others to various extent To to become independent of that and also independent that is national national in from imperialism That is an attempt to move out of precisely the five monopolies or the five advantages that I mentioned now in that case in that case the These ruling class become I Call it a comparado state That's it could look a little or a compared comparado state capitalism And I think that that is my how I qualify the Arab among others particularly the Arab systems of for Egypt, so that and mubarak for Algeria after Bume Dyan And the drift of the Saddam Hussein and half is an asset in Iraq and Syria now So that that is how I read the second chapter I Was asked in to exactly in 2002 Because I was writing that this system is unstained unsustainable at the time of where the fashion was its Capital is forever capital is is a flexible system which can adjust to any change Etc. Etc. All this kind of literature that it is not and I wrote the financial side of it It's it's a Kyle's heel and it will Start falling apart by and through what would would will appear as financial crisis I was left at and a provocative journalist asked me when and I told him I don't have a crystal ball to tell you the day and our perhaps But within ten ten years we were in 2002 it happened in 2008 So and if it were not the subprime it would have been something else that is the Accident takes always a concrete Face, but it could be another one. So I'll I'll stop at that point in order not to move into the subject of this afternoon on The second coming rise of the south Thank you