 Well, there are moments in history which are moments of fundamental change. We are living through just such a period. It's a period which is unlike anything that anyone in this room, even the oldest comrade, has ever seen or has ever imagined. It reminds me a little bit of the old maps you know that you had in the Middle Ages where they weren't quite sure what existed beyond the pillars of Hercules. And they put the phrase, here be dragons. The bourgeoisie must feel a little bit like that now. You see, and by the way, what goes for our class enemies goes for us. What I'm telling you is there's almost nothing from the past period for the last 50 or 60 years which can give you any idea or any guide to what is going to occur in the future. The strategists of capital, the bourgeois intellectuals so-called, God preserve us from bourgeois intellectuals, the economists, the politicians, all these strategists of capital are at a loss. They don't understand what is happening. They have no explanation for what has occurred since the collapse of 2008. And now they're heading for a new and even deeper collapse like a man going downhill in a car without brakes. Not a very nice place. Not a very nice situation to find yourself in. And you can see, if you doubt my word, you can see the extreme nervousness of the bourgeoisie bordering, I would say, upon panic, if not outright panic. You see this in the enormous swings, the amazing, it's like a switchback in a fair, the crisis of the stock exchange. The year of our load, 2016, began, if you remember. It seems like a long time ago. But you haven't finished adjusting your Christmas pudding when the news came of simultaneous deep crises on the stock exchanges of the entire world, from Asia to Africa to North America to Japan to Europe to Britain, of course. Colossal falls on the stock exchange. Now, what does this represent? Of course, you understand that the stock exchange, of course, it's true, does not reflect the real economy. That's perfectly correct. It doesn't. There's a large element of speculation, huge amounts of speculation at the present time. As a matter of fact, what it does so however, it shows not what's happening, but what the bourgeois think is going to happen in the future. And you can see from that, this enormous nervousness. Now, compare that, by the way, to the fan pages of all the bourgeois press and all the news reports and so on. For the last five years or so, what were they talking about? Oh, the green shoots. Remember the green shoots? Yes. The green shoots of economic recovery. Well, where are the green shoots? Where is the recovery? There is no recovery. And in a situation where there's no real, there's a partial recovery in the US, but even that is now in doubt. And China, which of course was one of the major, if not the major, more to force of the capitalist world economy for the last 20 years, 30 years even, is now in a deep crisis. Now, what's the nature of this crisis? Well, you can see the symptoms. It's just one thing alone, which is the falling price of commodities. There's been steep falls. In many commodities, the most graphic expression is oil. The falling price of oil. Now, you might think that the capitalists would be pleased at the falling price of oil. Why aren't they dancing in the streets? Why aren't they opening the bottles of bubbly? They're not celebrating. Because they understand from their class point of view what we understand from our class, Marxist point of view, that this falling price of oil and falling price of commodities is not just oil. It's across the board, iron and so on, all falling prices. It is not a reflection of health, but on the contrary, it's a reflection of a chronic sickness of the system. The question that needs to be asked is why is there a falling price of oil? Well, you can find all kinds of explanation. The wicked Saudis, Saudi Arabia is increasing its production of oil, and therefore, there's a glut of oil on the world markets and so on. It is true, by the way, this is quite an interesting little point which shows the contradictions that exist internationally between the powers. The Saudis who were the puppets of American imperialism, now they've got interests of their own, as we will deal with in a moment. The Saudis have been deliberately increasing the oil production. Don't forget that OPEC was formed originally to stop this. There's an agreement of the oil producing countries to stop, to lower the production of oil, to keep the price up, which of course suits the producers of oil. The Saudis have not, they're supposed to be members of OPEC. They've not increased, they've not stopped the production of oil, or limited it. They're boosting the price of oil. You ask me why? There is a reason why. They want to destroy the American oil industry, which is, the Americans of the Yanks have built up quite a considerable native, national oil industry based on things like fracking, which you've all heard about. But the fracking is only profitable when the price of oil is at a certain level. If it falls below that level, it's ruined. And these companies, of course, are faced with ruin, which is what the Saudis intended. They also intended as a measure against Iran, which is their traditional enemy and so on. So there's different elements here. But you see, even if, and I see now, they're talking about reaching an agreement, I don't know what they'll succeed. They're talking about it, as I see the other day. There's been moves to try to restrict the production of oil. But even if they were to succeed in that, which I doubt, because there's other interests at stake, even if they would succeed in limiting the production of oil, it would not solve the problem for the simple reason. That the cause of the falling price of oil in other commodities can be something to be one word. You know what that word is? It's a word, I beg your pardon? Production. But some of you have been reading articles on marxist.com. Congratulations, Congress. This is a word you're not supposed to pronounce. It's like Oscar Wiles, you know, they're talking about homosexual activities. The love that dare not speak its name. This is the economic element which dares not speak its name. All the booze were economists. They stick to their throat like a fish bone. They can't get it out. The word overproduction, because it sounds like marx. And I am very sorry to say that there's some people who call themselves marxists. And call themselves marxist economists, if you please, that suffer from the same disease. They can't get this word overproduction beyond the Adam's apple, you know, it's stuck. They find other words, oh no. What is it? Overcapacity, that's the one. Overcapacity, yes. As Shakespeare, you say I'm a verser, you know Shakespeare. Shakespeare said, a rose with any other name will smell as sweet. What the hell differences make if you change the name, you don't change the name. It's overproduction for God's sake. And now at last they managed to coffee them in bits. I was astonished on the television there that I don't channel four. They actually talked about overproduction of steel in China, good God. Over at last, a little light is beginning to flicker in their adult brains, which Marx explained 150 years ago in Capitalism, very clearly. When he said that all real crises of capitalism are crisis of overproduction. This is overproduction, good God, what else is it? Overproduction of oil, overproduction of steel in China, for example. We'll deal with China in a moment. This affects us. It affects Britain. That's the point of this discussion, my friends. We're not here to discuss international affairs as an amusing item to pass a pleasant hour or so. I hope it will be that, but that's not the purpose of it. No, Karl Marx explained, and Frederick Engels, the founders of Marxism explained, in the first phase of the Communist Manifesto, that capitalism develops as an international system. By the way, when Marx wrote those lines, there was no such thing. There's no such thing as a word market. There's only one developed capitalist country, that was England. France was just beginning in its infancy. Germany was not even thinking about industrialization. Now we see that what Marx predicted has become, it's like a laboratory test of the correctness of Marx's predictions. 150 years ago Marx predicted what is now known as globalization. All the globalization means is that the capitalism, and the capitalism, by the way, let's remember two things. There are two fundamental obstacles, two great barriers which are preventing the development of human civilization in the 21st century. Those two great obstacles in the way of human progress are, on the one hand, private ownership of the means of production. Production is quite outgrown, the concept of private ownership. And secondly, that outmoded relic of barbarism, which should be consigned to the Museum of Antiquities. The nation state, the nation state played a progressive role in the early years of capitalism, the creation of a national market. But capitalism's gone far beyond that now. So therefore, it is the crushing domination of the world market. That's the most important aspect, the most important phenomenon of the age in which we live. And no country can free itself from this. No country, not even a gigantic country like the United States, Russia, China, and that's the proof of it. China cannot free itself from this colossal pressure of the world market. Now, let's take China as a starting point for this analysis. I'll remember, I've got a long memory for some things. 25 years ago, I think it was. I had a discussion with the Spanish government, former Spanish government. Who was arguing, he'd read a bit too much of the bourgeois economists. Was arguing, no, no, no. Capitalism has solved this problem because of Asia, because of China in particular. Now, it is true, let's be clear, but it is quite true that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the collapse of Stalinism, the situation did change to the advantage of capitalism. And the opening up, there's no doubt about it, the opening up of China, the gigantic country of, at that time, 1.2 billion people to capitalism. This was a godsend, which did provide, if you like, like an oxygen, oxygen to the system, to put it bluntly, it saved the capitalist system from falling into a deep slump at that time. Yes, it provided new avenues for investment, very profitable avenues for British and American and French and Japanese investors who made huge profits. Talk about the falling rate of profit. Where's the falling rate of profit? These people, I don't know. They've got their head up their ass or something. They're typical of the economists, especially the Marxist economists, it seems, or pseudo-Marxist economists. Where's the falling rate of profit? They made huge rates of profit out of the opening up, but on the backs of the Chinese workers, don't forget that. Work, slave labor, working into the factories, like in the days of Charles Dickens and Karl Marx. No trade unions, no right to strike, slaving long hours into primitive conditions for low wages, ideal for capitalism. Yes, of course, that played a very important role in saving the system. Oh, yes. But as I pointed out to this comrade 25 years ago, he says, now look, you say that the capitalists will invest in China, so they are. But think it out. What will the result of this investment be? They're gonna build in China a lot thousands, tens of thousands of modern factories using the latest equipment and the latest technology, and these factories, sooner or later, are gonna produce what? They're going to produce commodities. And since we're on the question of the rate of profit, you cannot have any profit unless you sell your commodities. You're gonna find a buyer for the commodities. You're gonna find a market for the commodities. Where's the market? There's no market in China. Well, that's not quite correct. There is a market in China. Fairly sizable market. Yes, but it's not a market of 1.2 billion people, as they argue, because 800 million Chinese are poor peasants. Dirt poor. There's no market there. And therefore, China, which has built up a powerful productive apparatus thanks to Western investment, thanks to all these things. Oh, by the way, let's be clear about it. Was this a negative thing? From the standpoint of Marxism, I say no. We are very grateful to the capitalists for investing in China and building up Chinese industry, because in so doing, they built up the Chinese proletariat, a very powerful proletariat, probably the most powerful in the world. It hasn't moved yet, not decisively anyway. It started to move, but it's got a long way to go yet. But to paraphrase what Napoleon once said about China, he said, China is a sleeping dragon. When that dragon awakes, the whole world will tremble. I will paraphrase Napoleon. The Chinese proletariat is a sleeping dragon. When that dragon awakes, the whole world will tremble, and there's no question that it will awake. And that process also has begun. But you've got this build-up, a colossal build-up of the Chinese industry, this colossal, immense, productive capacity. Where do they export? You answer me. Now, at this moment in time, where are they going to export? Maybe to the moon. Or Pluto, I don't know. They've certainly developed spaceships. That shows the power of Chinese capitalism. Where do they... The answer is very simple. It's not rocket science. Child of five could understand. If America and Europe are not consuming, as they did in the past, and they cannot consume, because of the levels of poverty, the tax on living standard, the colossal accumulated debt of consumers and companies and so on, if America and Europe are not consuming, China cannot produce. And if China cannot produce, countries like Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Bolivia that have been exporting raw materials to feed this Chinese industry are in serious difficulties. Therefore, the whole business of globalization, you know, dialectically, things change into the opposite. China, from being one of the main motor forces of the world economy, now is one of the biggest threats to the world economy. You want proof of this? Look around. I don't have to look very far. I'm from Swansea. Next door to Swansea is Port Talbot. Ever been to Port Talbot? I know Port Talbot well. The city of steel, they used to call it. It's a vast steel. You never seen anything like it. The whole city is one vast complex of steel making. I remember when they opened Port Talbot, I was an gangster. Workers were earning 20 pounds a week. Good God, they were from Swansea, they were flocking up to get jobs, 20 pounds. That was a lot of money. Average wage then, nearly 10 or 15 at the most. Now it's gone. It's finished. They've just announced they're gonna sack 15,000 workers. That's definite. And they might close the lot. Why? Because there's too much steel in the world, my friends, over production. There is vast over production of steel in China. They produced all the steel, they can't sell it. By the way, we complain about closing factories in Port Talbot, but the Chinese are closing many more factories. Thousands of Chinese steel factories are being closed. There's mountains of steel unsold in the yards of China. Chinese steel workers are gonna go back to the village where they came from to live in dirt poverty. That's why the figures are not reflected in the figures of unemployment in China. It's disguised as huge unemployment. And that will create an explosive situation. As night follows day. Incidentally, I don't know if you know this, I saw this figure recently. For the first time, this is about two years ago, for the first time in history, China is now spending more on internal security than external defense. And they spend a lot of money on external defense, as we will deal with. What does that mean? It means the Chinese ruling class is well aware to totalitarian regime, so you wouldn't know. You don't know what's going on. We know there's been a lot of strikes and demonstrations. Some have been reported, but a lot are not reported. Kept quiet. Therefore, in China, you will not see any signs of a major development until it's taken place, until the explosives are ready to take place because of the nature of the regime. So therefore, I am warning you, I'm advising you, that China can erupt, and it will erupt when people least expect it, when nobody expects it. And therefore, the task of building a section in China is a very important task pending for this international. That's a separate matter. Let's go back to the world economy. The falling prices of commodities is not, as I say, it's not a sign of health, but a sign of sickness. There's the falling price of iron, that's a direct result of the corollary of the lack of demand for steel. Of overproduction. And this of course means that the system is heading inevitably for a new collapse, which will be, I'll predict, and you want to place a bet with me, you're welcome to do so. It will be bigger than, much bigger than the crisis of 2008. And what really alarms them is that they don't have any instruments for solving this or avoiding it. Now, some people ask me, you know, some people say, well, Alan, you talk about the crisis of capitalism and so on, but didn't Lenin say that capitalism will always find its way out of the deepest crisis, that there's no such thing as a final crisis of capitalism? Yes, I answer. Lenin did say that, and I agree with him. There's no such thing as a final crisis of capitalism in the sense that the whole thing will automatically collapse under its own weight. Oh, no. The capitalist system will find its way out of the deepest crisis unless and until it is overthrown by the movement of the working class. That's something that we have to remember. Won't collapse under its own weight. Yeah, but that statement, oh yes, they'll always find a way out of a crisis. That's the statement. Correct as it is as a general proposition, does not tell me anything concrete about the present situation that we're facing. The question is wrongly posed. The question that ought to be asked is this, how long will it take them to get out of this mess and at what cost? Those are the questions that must be answered and you can find the answers in the pages of the book as well-pressed. How long? Well, the financial times calculated, I think it was 12 months ago, to solve the crisis of the euro if they can solve it, which I doubt. To solve the crisis would take 20 years, at least 20 years. 20 years of constant cuts, attacks on living standards, austerity, unemployment, misery, that's the perspective. That is the perspective, okay? At the end of that, they might come out, they might not. So what, that doesn't solve anything. And if anyone in this room imagines that the workers of Britain, of Spain, of Russia, of China, of the United States are going to stand where their arms folded, where they're living standards and the conditions of what are we talking about? What's under attack in Britain? What is under attack by this Tory government? I'll tell you what. The conditions of a semi-civilized existence, that's all. That's what was conquered through hard struggle over the last 50 or 60 years. We conquered conditions of a semi-civilized existence. And even though semi-civilized conditions now are under attack, it's too much. The capitalism cannot afford these concessions, the welfare state, education, and all the rest of it. It cannot be afforded. They must cut. Don't you see we've got a deficit? You understand we've got a deficit? The Labour leaders agree with this. John McDonald, who we know personally, to his shame as during the course, oh, yes, must solve the deficit. Must solve the deficit. Which means 20 years at least of constant attacks. This, my friends, is what? I'll tell you what. It is a finished recipe for an explosion of the class struggle everywhere, such as not being seen, perhaps ever, certainly not since the 1930s, since the Russian Revolution and so on. The conditions are being prepared. I'll prove the point later, but let's go back again to the economy. I said they don't have the instruments to solve these crises. Do those instruments exist? Do the capitalists not possess means whereby they can avoid the crisis or get out of the crisis? I answer yes, oh yes, they have such means. These means are well known. What are they? Well, they're too fundamentally. First of all, reduce the rate of interest to stimulate consumption, stimulate investments, increase the rate of profit, okay. Secondly, increase state expenditure. Keynesian argument. Government spends money to boost the economy. Right, let's take the first one. Reduce the rate of interest. I ask you, how can you reduce the rate of interest when it's close to zero? The rate of interest has never been, I said that we've never been in a situation like this before. Sometimes I scratch my head. I wonder where they get this stuff from. But there was an interesting point made by the Rob pointed out to me. The chief economist of the Bank of England, no less, stated that the rate of interest at present is the lowest that it's been for 5,000 years. I don't know how long has he been around this guy. That's since the days of Hammurabi. In Babylon. I don't know where they get these statistics from. But anyway, it's the lowest it's ever been ever. So let's just compromise with the gentleman. It's been the lowest. Normally the rate of interest would oscillate around 5%. That would be the normal kind of figure you'd expect. Now it's close to zero. In fact, it's negative in many countries. I see the Sweden is just at the, introduced a negative. Japan has got a negative rate of interest. I think Europe has got a negative rate of interest. What's it mean? Normally, if you have a 1% rate of interest, you put 100 pound in the bank and then at the end, you get 101 pounds back. Not too good, but I suppose barely acceptable. With a negative rate of interest, you put 100 pounds in the bank, you get 99 pounds back. So who's gonna keep their money in the bank on that basis? This is absolutely insane. That's the present position. Now, answer the question. How concrete can you decrease the rate of interest? You can't. The Yanks recently have slightly increased the rate of interest. The Federal Reserve. And that caused a panic. They'd have to pull it down again. They can't use that. That mechanism has already been used up. You understand? It's finished. What's the other one? Increased rate of interest, it's still expensive. Now you all watch the television as I do. How are you gonna increase state expenditure when they're talking about the need to cut the deficit? To cut state expenditure is what is necessary, so they say. And therefore, you can see that the bourgeoisie is in a fix. They do not have any means of avoiding the slump which is staring them in the face. That's the reason for the nervousness of the stock exchange which indicates things to come. Now in this context, this general crisis of capitalism, what interests us is not so much the abstract economic theory, although that's got a certain importance. But what is important is how it impacts on the lives and thoughts of ordinary people of all classes in society. And you could say, well, the process has been slow. You could say, well, look, there's a crisis since 2008 and some people, well, where's the socialist revolution? Well, we haven't seen one yet. Yes, but that's not the point. We have to look at this as a process. Human consciousness, we know as materialists, is not actually not something that's progressive. It is extremely conservative. Most people don't like change. They're afraid of change, particularly fundamental big changes. They get scared of the idea. And they will cling as long as they can tenaciously to the familiar things that they know, the existing society, the existing order, the existing parties, the existing politicians, the existing morality, the existing church. They will cling to these things desperately as long as they can. And until the moment comes when events catch them by the scruff of their neck and shake them and they're compelled to face reality. Yes, and this process, comrades and friends, has already commenced. Has it not? You saw the recent, just one example, the recent, last year it was the referendum in Ireland on the question of same-sex marriages. You know, Ireland was a priest-ridden country, the most Catholic country in the world. The priest decided everything. The priest in the village would go from house to house, knocking on the door and ask, why are there no children in this house this year, in case they're using contraception? That's the level of the spiritual dictatorship of the Catholic Church. And it's collapsed. The old stinking edifice has come out of pedophiles, tortures, murders of young babies and children in coffins. They're digging up hundreds of corpses, secretly buried by nuns. This is known to the people. And it's produced, and of course the cover-up of the hierarchy has produced a wave of revulsion, such that in this referendum, by the way, there's no postal voting in Ireland's referendum. People were coming from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA to cast their vote in this referendum, which is a massive slap in the face for the Catholic Church. Now that in Ireland, my friends, it's like a revolution. And it shows that people have had enough. They've had enough. That was ratified just a few weeks, a couple of weeks ago. In the general election in Ireland where the Labour Party, people looked at the Labour Party in the hope that they might solve their problems. Of course, the Labour leaders, as they do everywhere, the social Democrats are just a prop for the capitalist system, particularly when it's in crisis. They rushed to fulfill their role as great responsible moderate statesmen, carrying out vicious cuts against the people of Ireland. They got their deserts. Well-deserved kicking the teeth. They were booted out, as was Finlay Gale, the partners. That means that there's a ferment in Ireland. And this same ferment I will maintain exists everywhere, to one degree or another, at different speeds, with varying intensity, but the same process can be observed. Look at Greece. Greece is the sick man of European capitalism. It's in a terrible state. I know Greece very well. I was going back and forth to Greece for about 20 years. I know the Greek people very well. I can tell you that not long ago, say, six, seven years ago, Athens was a prosperous, modern European country, a city, rather. Living standards were not much different to what you'd find in London or Madrid or in Paris. You go to Athens now, what do you find? Mass unemployment, terrible poverty, schools without books, chemists without drugs, hospitals without medicines, and formerly middle-class people rooting around in the dustbins trying to find food. In Athens, people fleeing to the countryside to find food. That's the reality. They want to cut pensions now. And the Tsipras, by the way, take note of the role of left-reformism. You know, about 18 months ago, there was a pensioner. There's the middle of a lot of... I don't know how many general strikes and demonstrations has been in Greece. I've lost count. This pensioner turned up on the steps of the parliament. It is best suit, suit and tie. And he left a note. He wrote a note which said, I'm desperate. You've taken everything from me. You've taken my pension. You've taken my life. I can't live anymore. I only hope that the young people will carry on the struggle against this anti-popular government, I think the man said. And he took a pistol out of his pocket and he blew his brains out. Last time I was in Athens, I was told that my friend George Scaniotti said, no, there's many suicides. That doesn't make the headlines anymore. People are killing themselves because they can't live under this atrocious system. How is that reflected in politics? It was reflected. Extraordinarily. The Pesach supposed to be the sources party. Supposed to be the mass party of the traditional party of the Greek working class collapsed because of its treacherous role supporting cuts in the government. And you have the rapid rise, the extraordinary rise of Syriza, which was a small left party, split from the communist party actually in the 1980s. From 4% to 30% and they actually were elected. When, 18 months ago, last January, how many months is that? My maths is not very good. Somebody helped me out. 14. 14? Go to the top of the class. 14 months ago, just not, it seems like a long time ago. Last January, Syriza won the elections. And there was tremendous hopes in Alexis Tsipras. Very popular man. By the way, those with illusions in Jeremy Corbyn, who we support, but we support critically, I don't want to test us on the British perspective's discussion. So bear in mind, what happened with Tsipras? Tsipras, undoubtedly was an honest man, I think. Left-reformist, not a left-reformist. He was going to stand up to the treacher, was going to represent the Greek people and so on. Elected into power. He actually thought with the other chap, Varifakis, isn't it? He's on the TV quite often these days, that they were going to negotiate with Angela Merkel and the other crocodiles, you know? They were going to negotiate. Why not negotiate a deal? All reasonable people, aren't we? So they went to discuss. And so, and Merkel, under the table, of course, caught hold of a delicate part of Tsipras's anatomy and just squeezed a little bit. That's all. And Tsipras did the honorable thing. He capitulated. Not quite, however, not quite, because he held a referendum, which was the right thing to do, by the way. They held a referendum as to whether because the treacher was imposing atrocious conditions and so on. They were doing that, by the way, also for political reasons. They couldn't afford a left-wing government to get any concessions because of the example that he was set to the rest of Europe. And Tsipras correctly called a referendum and lo and behold, I think he thought they were going to lose. I'm convinced of that. He put thinking that the Greek people were going to seize the... He underestimated the people. There was a massive vote, no. And people were on the streets prepared to do anything. If Tsipras had been a Marxist or even half a Marxist under those circumstances, he could have done anything. He could have asked the Greek people to do anything. Not just the working class, but the middle class, the taxi drivers, the peasants, everybody were furious at this business. They were prepared to go to the end. What did he do? Naturally, he capitulated, which, of course, has led to wave demoralisation. It's not finished. Now there's more general strikes. You see, he signed a deal. Yes, but let him carry it into practice. Let him try to carry it into practice. Privatisation cuts in pensons as well. He's trying it. He won't succeed. Therefore, coming to Europe, in Greece, nothing has been solved. Nothing has been solved in Greece. The crisis remains. The economic crisis remains. The political and social crisis remains. Let's go further afield. In Spain, you have the rise of Podemos. Is Jordi here tonight? Where's Jordi? He can't make it there. He knew I was going to speak about him. That's why. Now, Jordi Matral is a very wise man. He knows everything about everything, so he says. Anyway, I often get advice from Jordi. And about, I said, two years ago, January, I had a letter from a friend of mine in Madrid who was active in Podemos. He said, well, all our hopes are on Podemos. I said, Jordi, what's this Podemos? He said, oh, it's nothing. It's a small group, which it was, which it was. And then, of course, the mayor elections came as a Jordi. Did you say Podemos was nothing? When they got a massive vote, from nothing, it's true. Apparently, this organization has sprung from nothing. And it's a left, mass organization. In the recent elections, they got almost more votes than the Socialist Party. That's because it was rigged. They should have got more votes. And therefore, in Spain, also, you can say that the situation is drastic. I was in Madrid, and I was there in December, during the general election. In Spain, since the so-called transition, was also present at that time, the fall of Franco. There's been a two-party system, the so-called Socialist Party, the PSOE and the PPP, the right-wing party, oscillating like Tories and Labour and so on. That system last December was shattered, completely shattered. And it will not be easily put together again. They haven't even been able to form a government. What's it now, April? There's no government in Spain. They can't put a government together. That's a reflection in Greece, in Spain. It's a political reflection of a profound crisis of society, not just an economic crisis, but a social and political crisis. Scotland is another example. I mean, good heavens above. Who expected that? I didn't expect that result in Scotland. Who did? The Labour leader certainly didn't expect it. That was an earthquake. And that earthquake remains, by the way. I don't see any. Personally, I don't see the Labour Party of Scotland recovering any time soon from that. And by the way, the vote for the ASNP, let's be clear about it, is a left vote. You saw Sturgeon again on the TV today. She spoke, in my opinion, more radical than John McDonough. Not very difficult these days, I have to say. But it's not, some people said, oh, it's a reactionary vote. It wasn't a reactionary vote. What the hell are you talking about? You had to be an ass, or what? The ASNP puts them all in. Not that they mean it, of course. You don't have to tell me about the ASNP leaders. But the fact is that they put, in effect, they put a social democratic program. That's what they put forward. And therefore, they get support. But now to the most interesting development, which you're all waiting for, I know. The US of A. Now, I read The Economist magazine every week. And I got a terrible confession to make to Adam. I always skip the section on the USA because it is boring. There's nothing, politics, American politics. What American politics? There are no American, or there were no American politics. You know, the great person I consider personally to be the greatest modern American writer, very left-wing chap also. I recommend you to read his books. He died, unfortunately, a couple of years ago. Gore Vidal, by the way, he's from the upper class of the American establishment. So he knows them at first hand. And he said the following. Our republic has got one party, the property party, with two right-wings. The Democrats in the republic. That's an accurate statement. And up until recently, most people didn't bother to vote. Most people were not interested in elections. Obama actually caused a little bit of quite a lot of interest, but he let people down. But look at the present situation. This election campaign is interesting. The columnist of the Evening Standard said that. He said it was always boring. And now all of a sudden, American politics have got interested. What's the reason for this? And the reason I would submit is the same. It's the same process in Greece, in Spain, in Ireland, in Scotland, and in the United States. It's the same process. That beneath the surface of apparent calm and tranquility, there's a seething mass of discontent. You talk to people on the streets. You'll find that out soon enough in Britain. There's a seething mass of anger, of indignation. This business of Panama, again, that's more fuel to the flames. And it's in the press. It's in the public domain. But there's one law for the rich, and there's one law for the poor, and we've had enough of this, this establishment. There's a growing distrust of everything, of the press, the media, the lawyers, the legal system, the police, the politicians, the bankers. Bankers used to be regarded as respectable people, you know, Josh, when I was your age. Bank manager, the picture of respectability, the bank manager. Now I think that the bankers and bank managers are probably somewhat less popular than serial killers and pedophiles, I would think. But there's a hatred towards the rich. And that exists in the United States. Wonder of wonders. The country of big business, the country of the market, market economics and so on. The American dream gets to its quick. It's finished. People now can see, particularly the young people, can see this for what it is. It's a colossal, atrocious, disgusting lie in the middle of the crisis. The bankers, it's an insult to public opinion. They were bailed out by the public fund, which is, by the way, what's that got to do with free market economics, I ask? You know, what does the textbooks say? The state must not have any role in the economy. Am I right? Governments must stay out, laissez faire, laissez aller, and so on, you know. The state must not interfere. Of course, when they collapsed in 2008, what did they say? Did they say, oh no, the state must stay out and solve this problem ourselves. Did they hell? Did they hell? They came running with their hands out, you know. Rather with menaces, demanding money with menaces, I believe Mark is a legal offence, isn't it? What do they call that, demanding money with menaces? Blackmail, there we are. Give us the money. And George W. Bush comes running with an open checkbook, the representative of the Republican Party of Balanced Budgets, Sound Dollar, Market Economics, laissez faire, he cannot come to the open check. How much you want, guys? A billion dollars, take it. 10 billion, take it, trillion, take it, trillion. And they did. They took this out. If anyone snagged with that, some of you might realize, unfortunately, the government hasn't got any money. The American government, the British government, they haven't got any, they haven't got a bean, unless they can raise it from taxes. And therefore, all that they've achieved in these countries for the last eight years is to transform what was a gigantic black hole in the private banks into a gigantic black hole of the public finances. And therefore, don't ask for hospitals and schools and houses and education and universities and unnecessary things like that. No, no, it must go to the banks, must go to necessary. And the bankers who are insult to injury cause they fill their pockets. The profits of these companies have increased vastly since the crisis. Although the economy is flat as a pancake. Now, how do you explain this? And people are not stupid. People are not stupid. They can see this, and I repeat, beneath the surface, particularly in the United States, there's been a buildup of anger, of frustration, of hatred, of the rich, of the 1%, I wish I'd thought of that slogan. It's a wonderful slogan, you know. We are the 99%, I wish we'd thought of that. And by God, it's true. There's the 99%, and there's the 1%, and the 1% constantly becomes obscenely rich at the cost of the great majority. People know this. And there's a hatred building up. There's a rage building up, which has got an explosive revolutionary significance. Even you can see that in the form of Donald Trump, don't laugh. Of course, we know Trump. We know that he's a multi-billionaire. We know that he's as thick as two short planks. We know that he's slightly unhinged, and we know that he's an extreme reactionary. We know all that. Yes, but Donald Trump, he might be mad, but he's not exactly stupid. And he's cultivated this plebeian image and this plebeian way of speaking, like the ordinary man against the establishment. He demagogically attacks the establishment, even attacks the rich. I don't know how he manages that. Somehow he does. Or rather, he defends the working man, the American working man, against the immigrants and against foreigners and so on. It's reactionary stuff. Yes, but it's court, a court, a court. It's stuck, a court. With many ordinary men who feel politically dispossessed, who hate the establishment, who hate the existing. And this man seems to offer, he doesn't, of course, seems to offer something different. Therefore, the establishment is quite concerned about Trump, actually. That's dangerous stuff using that kind of demagogic talk. Although he doesn't mean a word of it. They're doing their best to try and stop it. But more important still than Trump is what you see in the democratic camp. You see, isn't there a parallel with Corbyn here? The right wing of the Labour Party made a big mistake with Corbyn. You know, he wasn't even gonna get nominated. He needed how many, 30, how many? 35, he didn't have anything like 35. But the most he had was 17, being generous. We were in Spain, I tell you a funny story, we were on holiday, Anna and I were in Galicia at the time, and she likes to be connected. I do not. You know this. I got a thing about modern technology. I got a thing about it. I'm not interested in Twitter and Facebook and stuff like that. I don't, particularly when I'm on holiday, don't really know. But Anna insists in looking at her bloody smartphone. Hey, look, Jeremy Corbyn standing for Labour. She says, no, he's not. Yes, yes, he's sure. I said, don't give it, I don't give it. He can't, he can't say he hasn't got 35 votes. He said, sure, I'm telling you, he said, let me have a look at that. They made a mistake. They thought that he wouldn't stand the Snowballs chance in hell, therefore, why not let the poor Pakistan and make a fool of himself? They made fools of themselves. What Corbyn represented, whether we didn't come from him or inside the Labour Party. The Labour Party remained as dead as a donor. But around the Labour Party, up and down the country, there was the same burning sense of indignation, and Jeremy Corbyn gave all that is needed, you see. What's needed? What Archimedes said. I always get this quote wrong, but it doesn't matter. I'll get it approximately right. Give me a place to stand and I will move the universe. A place to stand, a point of reference, that's all that's needed when you've got these conditions that have built up. And all that happened in Britain, Corbyn provided that point of reference and by God, the whole thing flocked. The SMP in Scotland appeared to present the same thing, and that also blew up. And in the States, you get the phenomena of Bernie Sanders. Who is Bernie Sanders? Do you know? I'll tell you what, 12 months ago, you couldn't answer that question. Nobody knew who Bernie Sanders was, except for a handful of senators. 12 months ago, everyone knew who Hillary Clinton was. Of course. And of course, initially he didn't stand the snowball stand saying, hell, same as Corbyn was not supposed to stand the snowball stand saying, huh, once this man stand, and he stands up speaking, I said, right, okay, you can say he's confused undoubtedly he is. But he was a man that stands up and he's got some courage, by the way. And he describes himself as a democratic socialist that stands for a political revolution in America. Fighting talk. He denounces the rich, he denounces Wall Street. He denounces Hillary Clinton for being corrupt in so many words. And he gets fantastic support. Big audiences, even in Texas, 10,000 people turn up. I think it was in Dallas, 8,000 somewhere else. Huge meetings. Mainly of young people, enthusiastic young people. And the postwar journalists, they don't know how to react. What the hell's going on? And reluctantly, one of them said, it was in the evening stand, it was, well, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it's not in spite of him being a socialist that they support him, it's because he's a socialist. I can't understand this. And here's an interesting figure. These figures, but this figure, I think it's from last year. Last August, I can't remember. Before the campaign took off, anyway. June, thank you, Rob. June of last year, before the campaign started, they got the following figures. You'll correct me if I'm wrong. 69% wasn't it, have you? 69% of young people, more than 30 years of age, I think, in less than 30 years of age, in the States, would vote for a socialist president. 69% of the youth of America. Yeah, and then they said, yes, but the older people are more conservative. The over 65s, only 34% they're thinking, only 34% would vote for a socialist president. I thought to myself, good God, what are you talking about? What do you mean, only 34%. After decades, after generations of vitriolic, anti-socist, anti-communist propaganda, socialism is the same as communism and so on. The fact that 34% of over 65-year-olds in the States say, yeah, I'd vote for an American, for a socialist president. What does that mean? This is big stuff. This is serious stuff. Now, the question is, of course, we don't know, I don't know, what's gonna happen in the Sanders campaign. I think it's unlikely that he's gonna be elected. They'll pull out all the stops to ensure, but I see that he's won seven out of eight of the last competitions, what are they called? Caucasus, primaries. There's New York to come, for the estimates I've seen, he stands with the chance of winning in New York. And in California, and therefore, the establishment of the Democratic Party must be clear. Now, let's be clear, the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party. It will never be a socialist party. It will never be changed into a vehicle for social change. And I think it's highly unlikely that they will allow someone like Sanders to win. They'll pull this stunt or that. If they do allow him to win, then, of course, he can be easily brought to heel, because he'd be one man on his own in the entire Congress, just imagine it, including in his own party. Highly unlikely. And the $64,000 question is this. If Sanders is cheated, particularly after making a very creditable result, if he's cheated of victory, what's going to happen? Well, that depends, of course, on Sanders. Only one man can answer that question. And I think it is possible it's not certain, but it is not beyond the bounds of credibility. He might stand up. Although, he has said in the past, I'll support any candidate that the party chooses, unlike Trump, who said, I'm not supporting anyone else who's ever Trump. But he said, well, I support. Yeah, he said that, sure. He's got to say that. But if push comes to shove, with the enormous indignation that exists and the pressure to be under from the grassroots, is it not conceivable? He might tell us, well, look, this is a farce. This is rigged. I'm not going wrong with this, and goodbye. And split from the Democratic Party. And under those circumstances, that might be the beginning. This is the realm of supposition of a serious socialist mass movement in the United States. Now, whether that happens or not, we don't know. It may not be. He may capitulate. In this case, the movement might deflate overnight, like a tire going over a nail. It's not sure, but it doesn't matter. Whether that happens or not, that's not the point. And the point is this, and that's the message we've got to get across. In the United States, the conditions are being developed now. I'm not talking about sometime in the future. For what? For socialist revolution. I'll be blunt about it. I think that the people there are more open than ever. I mean, it's just a small point, but I was invited. I think I might accept. Next weekend, to participate in a Skype conference, by youngster that appears from nowhere from Colorado. That's a military area, by the way. You had extreme problems fixing this up. Some of this come from nowhere. I think there's people like this all over the States. They're looking for what? They're looking for the ideas of socialism. Comrades. They're looking for the ideas of the international Marxist tendency. And the only task which we've got to do, same in Britain. I've been around for quite some time. I've seen all kinds of situations. But I think Rob will agree that. I can never remember a situation where particularly the young people, not only the young people, especially the youth in Britain, are more open to the ideas of Marxism than what they are today. And the only task which we have got, which shouldn't be all that difficult, it depends on us. If we act in a serious manner, if we've got fire in our bellies, if we really believe in what we say, what we stand for, it's an, I think it's easy to approach young people today. Whether it's in the universities, in the schools, in the factories, on the streets, in the football ground. Although I don't like football, but that's just me. You know, you can win people directly to the ideas of sources just internationalists. You can win people directly to the ideas of revolutionary Marxism if you express them in a clear and comprehensive manner. So therefore, you know, it really depends on us. This is the most extraordinary period. It's the most exciting period I've ever seen. It's an exciting period. It's a period of change in which to sum up, how would you sum up this period? I mean, some people draw pessimistic conclusions from this. Some people that ought to know better. Some of the older people in particular that are a prey to, they fall sick with a terrible disease. And there's no cure known to medical science with this disease. It's called pessimism, skepticism, you know. No good at all. And the reality is they draw these negative you turn on the television and, yes, the world seems a horrific place. You'd be entitled to draw the most negative conclusions. It doesn't have time to speak about the Middle East, sir. I attended it also, but I've run out of time. We get an iron chairman. Another time. People can draw negative conclusions. Look at this terrible world. Yes, it is terrible. It reminds me of what Lenin once said. Lenin said, capitalism is horror without end. True. Capitalism is horror. Look at those hard-rending pictures of these terrible suffering refugees, young kids and so on and so forth. Now they've been decorted back to Turkey. Wonderful. A wonderful advertisement for European capitalist civilization, isn't it? Capitalism is horror without end. Yes, but there's another side to this, you see. We've been here before. Open your history books. Look at history, you see. When any social system enters into terminal decline, as the case with the Roman Empire, as the fall of feudalism, you know, you get the same horrors, the same collapse, the same disintegration, the same torment, same wars, suffering, bloodshed, cruelty. Yes, you get the same picture. And all that that means is that the old system, the capitalist system, this monster is dying on its feet, it's rotten, it stinks. It's dying on its feet, it's a system that's dying, but it refuses to die. It refuses, obstinately, to die. And on the other hand, there is the elements, the embryo, you see in everything I've said about America, about Britain and so on. What do you see? You see the embryo of a new society that is struggling to be born. A new and higher form of human society but just struggling to be born. What is our task in this situation? Our task is to ensure that all that we can, to ensure that this birth takes place as quickly, as swiftly and as painlessly as possible. That is our task. And I would say, I would maintain, it's the only task and the only cause which is worthwhile fighting and sacrificing and working for at this juncture in human history. And ultimately, the success of this endeavor will depend on the Marxists. That is to say, it will depend on all of you together. Thank you very much.