 A'r ddaf i'r gysylltau y fath yw bryd ei wneud am hyr, y gallwn ni wedi'w ddangos cael ei butr yn gweithio'r llust, yn dweud e'r llust yli i ni i ni diolio'r llust, ond mae'r ysgrif, mae'r roedd gwmpelio, y gallwch ar hyn o'r ddurdod, mae'n gweithio'r hwn yn fodd, mae'r ddurdod, rhaid ddesug, Mae'r cyfrifysgau arall, oherwydd yw'r cyfrifysgau, yw'r cyfrifysgau ffaith, yw'r cyfrifysgau ffaith, yw'r cyfrifysgau sosial, yw'r cyfrifysgau yn ymgyrchol, yw'r cyfrifysgau ffaith o'r rŵl yn y clas. Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. As long as capitalism was delivering the goods as the Americans put it, as long as there was economic progress and living standards were increasing, and the situation of the workers was increasing, then things were not too bad. People did not question the existing system. It took it for granted. It's something that always has existed, always will exist and so on. Yes, now there's a change. And that, by the way, affects the mass organisations of the working class and reformism in particular. The crisis of capitalism is at the same time as night follows day the crisis of reformism. After 1945 we had a long period, decades of an upswing, an unprecedented upswing in the productive forces in America, Europe, Japan and so on. Of course it wasn't the same for the majority of the human race living in the so-called third world, but even they progressed to some extent. But in the advanced capitalist countries it was like boom time. And there was the classical period of reforms, of reformism. The Labour Party in Britain, the Social Democracy in Europe gave reforms, important reforms, like the national health, the things of this, free education, the things of this character, important reforms. Now reformism with reforms makes sense. To any work it makes sense. Reformism without reforms, reformism with counter reforms makes no sense whatsoever to anybody and thereby we see the reasons for the crisis of reformism which you see in every single country. Perhaps deal with some of the examples if I have time in the course of my lead off. But yes, the decisive turning point, you know there are decisive turning points in history, it is not an accident that historians refer to before and after 1789, the French Revolution, or 1917, the Russian Revolution, or the fall of the Soviet Union you could say, was a decisive turning point. But 2008 was undoubtedly the most important turning point in modern history because it marked the end of this long period of ups and downs. Of course there were ups and downs, you must be careful. The capitalist system has the basic laws and the laws are booms and slumps, it always moves in booms and slumps, it always has, it always will from the moment it was born to the moment when it's overthrown by the working class. You always get different ups and downs. Yes, but we're not talking about a slight down in 2008, we're talking about a fundamental organic crisis of the system and that organic crisis, my friends, continues to exist today. Despite everything you read, you shouldn't believe everything you read by the way, whether it's the economic forecast or the behaviour of the Russian secret services in wherever it was. Don't believe everything that you read, but you get constant for the last 10 years, it's an anniversary of course now isn't it, 2018, if my maths serves my memory correctly, it's 10 years isn't it, 10 years since this slump and they're still struggling to get out of it and I would add struggling in vain, struggling desperately to get out of this crisis. 10 years of cuts of austerity where the ruling class puts all the burdens of this crisis on the shoulders of the working class. It is quite monstrous if you think about it, they don't think about it, they don't talk about it, let's talk about it then. Why are there cuts? Why is there austerity, you know the answer, because there's a deficit my friends, because we must tackle the deficit, they all agree on this, the Tories, the Liberals, the right wing labour rights, must deal with the deficit. What they never ask is, why is there a deficit? And the reason is quite as plain as the nose on your face. In 2008 when the whole private financial system collapsed like a house of cards, according to the economic theory you see, the state should play no role in the economy, you've heard of that have you? The ones that are studying economics, any economics new to you, put your hand up. One, one brave fellow admits to it. Congratulations. Yes, all the others are ashamed about their hands. You know then, there's one person, in the tax before they say, the state must play no role, it's the market economy my friend, the market economy, the market, the market, the market will solve everything. Yes, well what about 2008? When the banks collapsed after making fabulous profits for a long period of time, what did they do? Did they say, oh no, state mustn't intervene, market will solve everything. Wait and see, did they like hell? They came running with their hands out demanding cash in America, in Britain, in Germany, in France, in Spain everywhere, and by God the government gave them cash, shoveled cash. I'm not talking about small amounts here, you know. George W. Bush, a Republican is supposed to be in favour of a balanced budget, and a strong dollar comes with an open checkbook. How much you want guys? Billion, take a billion, two billion, ten billion, take ten billion. Take a trillion, take what you want, and by God they took it. They took it and they put it in their pocket, and that's the last you heard of it. No recovery of the economy, no productive investment, despite cheap credit, all the stimulants which they tried to give to desperately revive the private market economy, the state, the state my friends, without which the whole damn thing would have collapsed ten years ago. Actual fact doesn't admit any argument whatsoever. And since that time, all they've achieved, what have they achieved in the last ten years? All that they've achieved on the basis of putting all the burden of this deficit on the shoulders of the poorest sections of society, the workers, the youth, the unemployed, the sick people, and so on and so forth. All that they've achieved is to transform what was a gigantic black hole in the private banking sector into a gigantic black hole in the public finances. That's all. And who pays? Well, you know who pays. Now, if you say A, you must say B, C and D. The ten years of austerity, and for ten years they've been singing the same song, the green suits, the green suits, we're recovering, we're recovering. Well, I don't see any particular sign of recovery. There's been a minor upturn in the economy, not in Europe, but in Germany fundamentally. Greece, there's no upturn. Italy, there's no upturn. France is in a very bad way. And Britain, well, you know the position. So therefore it's something, in America there's been a certain, allegedly a certain upturn, that's the extent of it is debatable. But such of an upturn that exists is based on what? It's based on the continuation of the policy which they've done for some years now of cheap credit. This state, dare I say it, this state again through the central banks, gives cheap credit, zero interest. Sometimes even less than zero. I can't quite get my head around that, but there you are. Zero interest of the banks in the hope that they're going to invest. In productive activity the banks do not invest and will not invest in productive activity for obvious reasons. Why invest in new plant, a new machinery, when you can't sell the goods that you've already got accumulated, easy steel? Well, there's a huge overproduction on a global scale, as Mr Trump will soon point out. Therefore what's the point of, well there's a crisis of overproduction, there's no argument about that. It is at bottom a crisis of overproduction and therefore markets are saturated they can't produce. China, for example, was undoubtedly one of the main elements in the global motor force for the last few decades as a matter of fact. But look, it's not rocket science, just work it out. If Europe and America are not consuming, because they can't consume because the low level, by the way the workers wages have been kept low in all countries, while profits have boomed colossally, if I've got the time I'll give you some of the figures later on. Living standards are held down, there's causal debts, including consumer debts, people have overspent, they owe a lot of money from the credit cards and so on. If Europe and America are not consuming, China cannot produce because China, the Chinese economy depends on exports. They can't absorb all the massive amounts which the Chinese economy has produced, they can't absorb it. They must export. They used to export to Europe and other countries they can't. And if China is not able to produce, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and other countries cannot export their raw materials. That's the, in a few words, in a few sentences, the basis of the present crisis that exists. They're trying desperately to, what are they trying to do? By continuing this policy of cheap credit, which by the way, from the standpoint of orthodox economics, I appeal to my friend at the back who's a great expert on this subject. I hope I'm going to pass your exams, are you? You will after this lecture. Well, plus you won't after this lecture. I can't guarantee the results. But you know, what was I going to say? Yes, cheap credit. They're trying to get the people to invest by continuing cheap credit. Now you see Alan Greenspan, you've heard of him. Alan's Greenspan, who used to be the president of the Fed, the medical federal reserve, more than 10 years ago, before the crunch, said the following. The purpose of the central banks is to be like a wet blanket in a party, you know, like the party we're going to have after this, I hope. And when you see people getting too dirty, the punch bowl is passing around. This is cheap credit. The punch bowl has been put. Everyone is happy, everyone is getting drunk. When the party is getting a bit out of hand, the purpose of the central bank is to remove the punch bowl before things get ugly, before things degenerate into a fight. I was amazed to see the other day, this shows the real situation, an American economist saying, oh no, no, no, no. The present position is, the task for the central banks is to keep the punch bowl circulating happily until the investment arrives. Now then, that's an interesting, because the investment, the productive investment is not arriving or not arriving in any kind of quantities which would make things safe. I mentioned China, and by the way, all this expansion of credit, it means what? It means they're trying to reflate the bubble that burst in 2008, okay? Now if you reflate a bubble, sooner or later you'll find, you must have known this as a child, you must have played with bubbles, soap bubbles as I did. So they get to a certain size, they tend to burst with unfortunate consequences. In other words, as for learning, they always say we've learned from history, they've learned nothing, because they're doing exactly the same mistakes that Greenspan did in the past. The enormous extension of state funds and so on, quantitative easing it's called, that's the punch bowl by the way, can only lead to one thing we pointed this out a thousand times, despite what Keynes wrote, and he wrote a lot of rubbish, that the expansion of credit and state funding and monetary expenditure and so on, inevitably leads to inflation. There's no argument of money, inevitably will lead to an explosion of inflation at a certain, that's quite a dangerous thing to do. It means debt, the state, this argument, oh the state will pay, the state will find money, the state will pay for this, the state will pay for that. My dear friends I've got information for you, the state does not have any money, the state hasn't got a bean other than what it can extract from taxes and so on, that's all. All right, so this is a false argument and therefore that leads to, in itself, leads to a colossal increase in the deficit and increase in debt as night follows day, and that's just what's happened. Instead of, with all the sacrifice and the austerity and the cuts and the suffering and the deaths and the misery that's been caused for the last ten years, they have not solved the central problem, the debt continues to increase. By the way, not just in the West, I've got some astonishing figures, I've got many figures that will not bore you with them because it makes things too long, but I can't resist this. China, get a road to this, China in 2007 had accumulated debt of $6 trillion, quite a lot of money, I hear you say, not so. 2017, that's last year, China had accumulated debts of $27 trillion, and this cannot continue. So there's this overhang of debt, this like a black cloud, overhang of debt over the whole system, and let's be clear about this, it's very fragile, the whole world economy is in a fragile state despite what they say. Any shock could be an economic shock, stock market, a serious shock market, shocks and scares, stock market crisis, or even a non economic shock, there's a war in the Middle East which drives the price of oil up, anything like that can cause a severe slump. And therefore, if you know these facts, then you will not be surprised that the last few days, you've seen in a few weeks, in a few months, these gyrations on the stock exchange. It's like a madhouse. Stock exchange is like a casino, except a friend of mine once said, well yes, it's like a casino, it's like a betting shop where all the horses win until all the horses lose. That's the stock exchange. Just imagine the lunacy of a system where the entire world economy is dependent on a gigantic casino, that's the state of affairs that exists. But more interesting from our point of view is what this shows about the psychology of the ruling class. And this instability, this constant instability, this quite serious, these gyrations that are there, uncontrolled swings that are taking place, ups and downs and so on. Quite jotes. What is their effect? They reflect an extreme nervousness on the part of the bourge, well that's what it reflects. Extreme nervousness about the economic outlook and the social outlook and the political outlook, you better believe it. These guys are extremely nervous. They have no confidence whatsoever in the future of their own system. I think the only people that do have confidence is the reformist who is the blindest of the blind. Now into this mess, into this colossally unstable, very delicate equation, steps, guess who? Donald J. Trump with his size 15 boots, army boots, steps in with his policy of America first. America first, which means, by the way, everyone else last. Make America great again, he says, and he means it. And he means make America great at the expense of the rest of the world, that's the facts of the case. I was quite amused, I was in Pakistan actually, in January when he turned up in Davos. They had this CNN, this wretched channel, which carries all this rubbish on it. But I followed Trump's speech and I noticed, he said he wasn't going to go to Davos. That's the devil, that's Satan, that's the world establishment, the global establishment. He turned up with very soothing words, which I noticed his audience were not clapping very much. Someone's actually booed at some stages, it's astonishing. President of the United States get booed in a place like Davos. He informed them, which they should have been pleased to hear the news, that he was a great champion of free trade. Hooray, free trade. But he said, but he said, free trade, hooray, but he said, it must be fair. Oh, what does this mean? It must be fair, it must be fair to the United States. By the way, the same time he made this speech in February, he introduced punitive tariffs against minor things, solar panels and washing machines. Incidentally, the reason that the Yangs give for this protectionism and this protectionism is it's in defence of their national security interests. I asked myself, washing machines. What's that mean? Of course they can't wash the underpants of the American army, I don't know. It's astonishing. They introduced, yes, quite swindzing tariffs, I think it was, yes, 50% against solar panels. That's mainly direct against China, by the way. And 50% against washing machines, there we are. That will teach them. But mind you, let's be clear. Washing machines and solar panels are not great in the great panorama of world trade. They don't account for very much, so you could afford to shrug that off, but now. And that was the worry at the time. They said, oh no, no, this is a dangerous precedent, this is very slippery ground. What does he do now? He's just announced, they haven't yet implemented it, but I think they will, despite the howls of protest. Tariffs on, 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminium. Now that's serious stuff. That is serious stuff. Of course, howls of protest, of course. From the Europeans, from the Canadians, they say they're going to be temporarily exempt. We'll see how long that will last. Oh, Britain is asked to be, of course, because of the special relationship, they're asking to be exempted also. Let's see, I'd be interested to see what happens about that special relationship. More seriously still, you probably haven't noticed this, unless you go on holiday to the States. The American dollar has been falling recently. It rolls quite a long way, but it's fallen back quite a long way since. And the Secretary of the Treasury, what's the mention, I think, whatever his name is, Stephen Minchin, that's the Secretary of the Treasury, made a speech, an irresponsible speech saying, yeah, it's good that the dollar should fall because it helps our exports, which it does. It means the American exports are cheaper and the imports from Europe and Canada and China are more expensive. This is a finished recipe, if it's not stopped, for trade war. You see, others have already said, we intend to retaliate. The Europeans have said, we're going to retaliate against American jeans and a little bubble gum or whatever else they picked up. Hamburgers, no, American products. I'm trying to mean this, oh yeah, you're going to do that? Are you retaliating against European cars? That's how a trade war starts. The idea of a trade war perhaps seems to you to be a little bit abstract. It isn't. It's an absolutely fundamental question because ever since the Second World War, one of the main motorforces that propelled the capitalist system forward was precisely the colossal expansion of world trade, particularly in the last period with so-called globalization. It did have an effect. You see, as Marx has explained the facts of life, what are the two major obstacles in the way of human progress at the present time in the world? I answer. On the one hand, private ownership of the means of production for profit. Secondly, the nation state. These are barriers which hold up the development of the productive forces. But by means of expanding world trade, reducing tariffs and so on and so forth, they partially, for temporary people, they got round this question of the limitation of the national state. Now, of course, Trump comes along. Not only Trump, because they'll all be at it. I say, no, no, no, no. We are in favour of protectionism. You actually said the other day, I think Rob pointed this out to me, protectionism is a good thing. Did he say that wrong? Protectionism is a good thing. This is completely irresponsible. Protectionism is the export of unemployment. Think about it. You export your unemployment. Trump is complaining because the steel industry in the States has been devastated. That's perfectly true. Partly because of cheap imports from China and other countries. That's also true. His solution is quite simple. Keep out these products. We'll have a nice steel industry. Yes, but that's got consequences. What he's doing is exporting unemployment then to China. We'll have to close steel factories and so on. This is serious stuff. There's one little fact that people generally are not aware of. What turned the 1929 Wall Street crash into the Great Depression, which lasted 10 years or so up to the Second World War, was precisely the introduction of protectionism and competitive devaluations. Beg ym maen nhw, byddai'r strategi. That had severe social and political consequences. I jumped from that. I don't want to spend too much time on the economy. We've discussed this many times in the past. We don't have to change anything in our fundamental analysis. But there's an element which I've mentioned. The last 10 years has been seen as the most staggering increase. I think it's unprecedented in history. Inequality. It's obscene. I mean, you've heard the fact the fact that you've stated men. Just a couple of facts, you can't resist this. The three richest men in America and the United States, which are who? Who are they? I've lost their names now. Anyway, the three richest billionaires, Bill Gates is one of them. Warren Bullock Bullock is the other one. There's another one whose name escapes me. Jeff. Yes, that's him. I've got the same amount of wealth as half the American population. That's 160 million people. Three individuals have more wealth than 160 million Americans. Get your head around that, which is astonishing. One... Where are we? Yes. One CEO, executive in the USA, earns the same amount for one day's work as an average worker earns in one year. This kind of thing. I've got lots of figures, but I won't bore you with it. It's too much. You can get these quite easily. Let me see if I can go through this. The question is, this is known. This is seen. Many people ask, they see the bankers getting bonuses and so on. Now, I can't get a job, this kind of thing. There's a burning sense of indignation, a hatred of the rich. In the United States, you better believe it. It's a big part of the reason for the victory of Trump, although he himself is a very rich man. He's a paradox. If Bernie Sanders would have been able to stand as the candidate in the election, he would have beaten Trump. There's an opinion polls have shown that. It's not for his very left-wing programme. He called for a revolution against the billionaire class. When have you heard that in the United States and so on? He's got mass support, massive rallies and so on. When he was bumped, and the choice was with Hillary Clinton, who was an agent of American big business of Wall Street. Everyone knows he's a creature of Wall Street. And Trump, who demagogically put forth that I'm in favour of the worker and the working class and this, that and the other. By the way, it's the first time in history, in 50 years at least, that the working class was ever mentioned in American politics. Even the most left-wing politician in the system always referred to the middle class. I'm in favour of the middle class, with all middle classes. Trump comes in, oh no, I'm in favour of the working man, the working class, the miners and so on. Steel workers, demagogics of course, but it's struck a chord, you see. Now, this is, this is, what I'm driving at is, you see, from our point of view, as Marxists, what is important is not so much economics in and of themselves. We don't study economics to amuse ourselves, whether some people do, but the so-called academic Marxists, I think that's a contradiction in terms by the way, how can you be an academic Marxist? Neither a Marxist or you're not a Marxist. They're definitely not Marxists, you know, we don't study economics from an abstract view, but from the point of view of how it impinges on the consciousness of the masses and the working class and the class struggle, that's what interests us. And how does this situation impinge on the consciousness of the working class? You know, some people have asked me over the last ten years, hey, well, if the situation is so bad, where's the revolution? Where's the revolution? When are the workers going to move? To which I answer. Do you want to answer to that question? Yes. I'll tell you. I'll tell you exactly when the workers of Britain are going to move. When they are ready, not one minute before and not one minute after, OK? But it takes time. It takes time. Consciousness is something which is molded over a period of many years, even generations, decades, OK? The mentality of the psychology of an American worker, a British worker, was shaped by the past when they had decent living standards and so on. And people always think, well, we can go back to this. We can go back to it. They cannot, of course. They can never go back to this. It's finished, you know? The Economist carried an article, quite a perspicacious article a few years ago, in which they asked people, they said, well, people are asking, when will we return to normality? The Economist said, well, we will return, of course. Of course, we will return to normality. But it will be a new normality. And it actually quoted the question of pensions. You know, for decades, workers, people have considered that pensions is a right. That's it always existed. Pensions are not a right. They had to be fought for. It didn't always exist. I know the first man that introduced pensions in, some of you know, you heard this before. So don't put your hand up. No, there we are. I'll surprise you. Otto von Bismarck, the reactionary iron chancellor, introduced at the end of the last century, introduced pensions for workers, in order to stop the development of socialism and the social democracy. Yes, he introduced a pension for everyone above the age of 65, was it, or 70? I think it was 70, actually. The average life expectancy in Germany was 59 at that time. So it was a fairly safe bet, shall we say. But no pensions have not always existed and will not necessarily exist in the future. They're already raising the question, oh well, people are living too long. We can't afford this. It's enormous burden on the finances. In Spain, that's caused a revolution. Well, something like a revolution movement anyway. It's astonishing. It just exploded. Why? Because people found out I didn't know myself. The Spanish government, this gangster government of the PP, the so-called People's Party, the Spanish right-wing Tories, have spawned all the money, the funds set aside for pensions and other things. Don't ask me what, but they've spent it anyway. It's gone. It isn't there. And people have just found out about this and now there's massive demonstrations. Not just in Madrid, in Barcelona, but all over Spain. Militant demonstrations of all people, of pensioners. Broad into struggle, yes, as Lenin used to say. Politics is concentrated economics. We'll use a specific instance of that. But you see all this inequality and so on produces a colossal polarization between rich and poor, which wasn't supposed to exist according to these imbeciles in the universities. How I love them. University professors don't talk to me. I had seven years' experience of that, so I know what I'm talking about. I consider them to be the most ignorant and stupid people in society, frankly. Really. Above all ignorant about life, about politics, about anything. In their narrow little academic academia. Yes, there's a colossal polar. The word glass is not supposed to exist. You heard that. Oh, we're all middle class now. Come on. Don't give me a bellic. I'm too old for that. When you have the most colossal polarization in history between rich and poor, it's like in the States, it reminds me of 100 years ago, the time of what was in the first Roosevelt, Terry Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt, who was an extreme right-winger imperialist, he was also a clever demagogue who appeared like Trump in a way, appeared in the working class. He referred to the ruling class as the robber barons. Not a bad title. Obscene wealth. Really obscene wealth at the top and terrible grinding poverty at the bottom. You don't have to go to Pakistan to see this. You can see it on the streets of London. Homeless people and so on. People suffering terrible misery and poverty in a wealthy country, should be wealthy country like Britain. But we'll deal with that under the British perspectives. This colossal tension developing between the classes, and this is reflected in politics. Polarism between the left and right. This collapse of the centre. That's what they're all weeping about that. Oh, the centre, the centre. This means the death of the... Yes, it does. It means the death of a lie. The death of an illusion. What's the centre for God's sake? Liberals like Hillary Clinton. What a liberal. What a great person. A woman too, just imagine. Imagine if she'd have won. Everything would have been hunky-dory in the States. If only they had a woman president. Wouldn't they be? Same as Margaret Thatcher in Britain. Soled everything, didn't it? Yes, it did for some. But in any case, to go back to the... The collapse of the centre. This liberal fraud. That's what it was. Was a reflection of the past. Not the present, certainly not the future. The past. When the capitalists were able to make concessions, they could do so, and therefore they did so. Now they can't, so they won't. And they don't, and they will not. Give concessions. Can't. Not unless they threaten with overthrow. That's another scenario. The centre's collapsed. That's why Hillary Clinton was defeated. Not because of the rations. The rations for Christ's sake. You've got to be simpler. You've got to be simpler. You know it's... That's like a school for... I don't know. For idiots. The weather's bad. It's the rations. You wake up in the morning with a pimple on your ass. It's the rations. The beast from the east. Where did I come from? Siberia, obviously. It's the rations, isn't it? It's just so childless. It just makes you... You might as well make you laugh because otherwise you'd make you weep. The centre's collapsed because it's a gigantic fraud. A gigantic zero. And people realise this. Liberals. All that liberalism is, it's capitalism, the ugly face of capitalism covered with a smiling mask. A smiling, benevolent, humanitarian mask. And that's all it is, is a mask. What Trump has done, that's why they don't like him. Because they don't like him. Rhywun class, he wasn't their candidate. Hillary Clinton was their candidate. They don't like Trump and they're doing their best to get rid of him. Why? He's a fierce reactionary. He's one of their own class. He wants to solve the problems of the capitalism with his own peculiar methods, it's true. He can't be controlled. That's the first thing they don't like about Trump. He's completely and absolutely uncontrollable. Rob and I had a conversation when he was elected. I said, well, Rob, the boosers, they've got different ways to control in maverick politics. You think they'll succeed and after a moment's silence, we both shook our heads. And we were right. They can't control Trump. That's what they don't like. But above all, he shows the real crude ugly face of capitalism without restriction. That's what it is. And that is causing colossal polarization in the States. Ultimately it will cause colossal radicalisation. It is doing so already. You saw the woman's march at the very day that he was inaugurated, the biggest march in the history of the States. And now, by the way, it's a different subject in Spain. On the 8th of March, you saw. What did you see? Six million people on the 8th of March. And it wasn't just on women's question, but that was undoubtedly the year. The catalyst, if you like, that brought together many people, pensioners and workers and so on. Six million on strike and hundreds of thousands demonstrating on the streets. Six hundred thousand in Barcelona. And a similar number in Madrid demonstrating on the 8th of March. When has it ever been seen? Not organised by the Labour movement. Forget it, the Ted Unies did nothing. Of course, they're useless. They're useless, these bureaucrats. In effect, they're part of the system. And that goes not just for Spain, but other countries as well. They did nothing. Even if they wanted to do something, they seemed to be organically incapable of it. This was a reflection of a mood, a subterranean mood of discontent, of anger, of frustration, above all I'd say of frustration, which exists everywhere, my friends. Including Britain. Everywhere. Same mood exists. And all of it is a catalyst, a point of reference whereby you can express yourself somehow. Everyone knows that the existing system is rotten. The parties are rotten, the leaders are rotten, they corrupt, they useless. People know this. You don't even have to argue the case. It wasn't the case in the past. In the past, people trusted the politicians, the judges, the police, the law, the church. Look at all these scandals that have come to light. Terrible things about sexual abuse of young kids, even murder in the case of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. They've dug up hundreds of in-convents, hundreds of unmarked, of poor little children starved and tortured to death by these creatures, by these monsters covered with a cloak of sanctity and covered up also by the church, not just the Catholic, it's all churches. You know, they all had the boy scouts, they all had the school master, the scout master, they all were treated with respect and almost a servile at it. Not any more, and that's a fundamental change. It is. It's a fundamental change to go back to America. The centre's collapsed everywhere. We see the same polarization to the right and the left. And Mr Trump, you know he's the most unlikely ally that Karl Marx ever had for 150 years. He really is stirring things up. He really is stirring things up very nicely from our point of view, and I think he would continue to do so. Incidentally, something else about Trump. He didn't want him to be elected. All the press was against him. This is another one. Oh, you can't change this head because the press, the media will be against us. Yes, the media was against Trump. I think he only had one paper in favour of him, and I think that was a regional paper. It was a national American paper, but he won. Extremely hostile propaganda. They really had a hate campaign similar to the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, and look where that ended, by the way. The hate campaign, the press, the media, ultimately it counts for nothing. Once the masses are aroused, it counts my friends absolutely for nothing, and it counted for nothing in America. It counted for nothing in America. I'm running out of time, aren't I? I need an hour, are they? It counted for nothing. And that's a general picture. Look at the split. This is an unprecedented situation. The ruling class has split down the middle. Lenin said the first condition for a revolution is that the ruling class must be unable to rule as they did in the past, and they must be split. The American ruling class has split down the middle. Trump is the elected president of the United States. It's probably at war with the intelligence services publicly. Against the FBI, against the CIA, he's just taken someone on from the CIA to take Tillerson's place, but there we are. He said, well, when have you ever heard of you can't think of such a thing. Look, the secret services are supposed to be nothing else, they're supposed to be secret. They're not supposed to be in the public view, at least of all attacking in them, the president of their own countries. When has that ever been heard of? No, no, no. This is not just a crisis, a political crisis. This is a crisis of the regime. It goes to the heart of the regime, and therefore I think we're entitled to say, like a doctor that's analysing symptoms, these are symptoms indicating the decomposition of the capitalist system. Wherever you care to look, and the beginnings of the system you care to look, and the beginnings at least of a movement from below. Now I'm, as I thought, I'd be running out of time, and I am, the movement from below has begun. I mentioned Spain. It began in Spain in Catalonia, even before that, it began with the rise of Podemos and the collapse of the vote of the sources party. Everywhere the social democracy that have participated in cuts, that's the point, the workers can't forgive them for that. In Germany, now I see also, yes, they're going to have a Frau Merkel will be returned as president with a grand coalition with the social democrats. Although many social democratic members are unhappy about it. But the German social democrats in the last election were punished for participating in the coalition. They got the lowest vote they ever had in history. 20%. A astonishing, it's a collapse. The PSOE vote collapsed. In Greece, collapsed. And you see the rise of new formations, like the Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain. Yes, and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, but we're dealing with British perspective separately, but it's the same process, I'm telling you. The same process. In Spain, like in Britain, it started, you could say, in Britain in Scotland. Which wasn't really, at basis, a nationalist phenomenon. It was a national element, of course. But it was above all a burning decide that we're fed up with Labour. Labour's the same as Tories, aren't they, just? Labour's the same as to all the establishment. This Westminster establishment, we're going to kick against them. And the only way to free ourselves from the Tories is to have our own independent country. That's the way people were thinking. And the Scots-Nats were there, of course, demagogically had a more left-wing programme than Labour. Don't forget that. It started in Scotland. What happened in Scotland was a bit like a revolutionary movement in a way. It was diverted along nationalist lines. Then you had the movement around Corbyn. The same process. One man, Jeremy Corbyn, put forward, we would say, not even a particularly left room, it's very left by Labour Party standards in recent years. There was a colossal response which took all these idiots in the press and the Parliamentary but it took them by surprise. Why? Because that latent need was already present, not just north of the border but south of the border. Not just in England, but in Wales, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, wherever you get. Look, the states also, the same phenomenon. And in Spain, of course, you had the perhaps the socialist party. They may recover, I'm not sure. The rise of Padema, although they are now in crisis, but now you get first of all in Catalonia. The same thing is in Scotland. What happened? The movement in Catalonia last autumn was like a revolutionary movement. Huge mass demonstrations, people taking the streets, taking on the police and so on and so forth. And that's not gone away. But above all, the reason why this was occurring in Catalonia, like in Scotland, is look, we are fed up with this gang in Madrid and we don't see any other option to get rid of the PP government which has been re-elected several times than to separate. You can agree or you can disagree but you must understand the logic. I have to say, I make a slight confession. Those who know me know that I'm a fairly optimistic person as a rule, but I went to Spain and I know Spain very well. And I participated in the struggle against the Franco dictatorship in the 1970s and we've seen all kinds of developments since then. But I must confess that when I came away from Madrid Christmas time profoundly disturbed because there was a reaction of a Tory mood in Spain. Not in Catalonia but in Spain. The government whipped up an anti-Catalan mood. They played on the card of poisonous Spanish nationalism. I was quite shocked to see Spanish flags, that's a monarchic flags, flying in working class districts in Madrid. I've never seen such a thing. Ever. In 40 years I've never seen such a thing. I came back a little bit depressed. I must confess. But just the comment said Jordi said, well it's superficial. I said it didn't look very superficial to me. By God he was right. Within a couple of months it swept away. 8 March. Mass demonstrations throughout Spain and even before that mass demonstrations of the pensioners. And in these demonstrations there were no Spanish flags, there were Republican flags. Anti-monarchy, anti-system, anti-government. That's the real moon. And Spain I've no doubt about it. If you like the rest of Spain is catching up with Catalonia now. And that can't be a bad thing. That's a colossally important development. I'd like to deal with Spain and other countries in detail, but the chairman is going to shoot me down in flames. Just to say that as far as Europe is concerned again nothing has been solved. There's colossal debt. Italy just had a general election. I don't know if you notice that. And the bourgeois were shocked. Again the collapse of the centre of this nice man Mr Renzi smashed. He's finished. He's washed up. And there's two populist. I don't like that expression. Two populist movements or parties. The five star movement led by a comedian Pepe Grillo. You could say well Italian politics has always been a little bit of a far. So one comedian more or less doesn't make much difference. At least he's a bit more amusing in the barrel of scone. He was also there. The night of the living dead. This and there is the league. We used to call the northern league. Now it's the league which is a right wing party, but they put forth populist arguments and so on. Between them they got 50%. Are you reading the articles in the press? It's full of doom and gloom. And Italy by the way is the third largest country in the eurozone. And by the way both these movements are fundamentally opposed to the euro. That's nice. That's a nice perspective for Europe. Of course we can add to this mix, this wretched mix. Brexit but I won't go on that grounds because we'll deal with that tomorrow. Suffice it to say the ancient Greeks had a saying, you know. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make them mad. I think Theresa May is slightly unbalanced, you know. By her side Mr Trump looks like a model of sanity, you know. I mean for goodness, picking a fight with Russia for goodness sake, you know. The royal family is not going to the football match in Russia. This is serious stuff, you know. Johnson says this is war, this is war. What are you going to do? We're not going to go to the football match. It really is a farce. And this same idiot woman thinks these Tories think they're going to get a deal of Europe. They cannot get a decent deal of Europe. They can't. Because Merkel can't give them a deal. If she were to do that, he would encourage the break up of Europe altogether. We can't do that. Got to make advantage of the Blitz and they will. So watch this space. Yes, I think I'm being sown the door here. Now I must say just a couple of words because what I've described here is a colossal social turmoil and radicalisation. All right, it's confused. It's being incoherent. It lacks body, it lacks a coherent problem, but that's our job. That's our job. That's why we're building an international and we're building an organisation and we're trying to provide the necessary clarity to this movement which already exists independently of us. We didn't create this movement. We must intervene to shape it in the proper manner. The same internationally. Now, before I I must go off the trans capitalist countries which is a pity, but a lot more to say. World relations, you have the same instability. The same instability. There was a time when America, first of all the Americans and the Soviet Union they ran the world. The Soviet Union collapsed. There was just one country, the Americans. They thought they were going to throw their weight around. They did throw their weight around for a while. They invaded Iraq. George W. Bush, I think he's seen too many John Wayne films, you know. They invaded Iraq. They destroyed the Iraqi army. What was the effect? Well, look, the first effect was they didn't because they foresee nothing, they understand nothing. They're a bit dim. The Yanks are particularly, well I don't know, the Blitz are more dim still than the Yanks these days. It didn't used to be the case. First they destroyed the Iraqi army so the Iranians keep. The Iraqi army was the only counter balance to the Iranian army in that area. Now the Iranians have gone in. I said thank you very much, they come in. I mean in effect together with the Russians they're running the show. In Syria, for example. In Syria they were trying. These disgusting people, these hypocrites. The Americans, the British, the French. For the last seven years they've been supporting the monsters in Syria. I'm not saying that Drasad is not a monster. He is of course. But these people, if you can imagine, they're even worse. The jihadis who go around murdering, slaughtering, torturing, kidnapping, raping, destroying everything in their path. They're financed and organised and armed by the American imperialist and of course the Saudis. These gangsters who just came to London and the nice British ruling class were licking their ass in effect. Disgusting. Falling and falling over them. For the loot. For the money, that's their principles and their humanity. While these gangsters are slaughtering people in the Yemen. Yes, it's a lamentable picture in the Middle East. But these are the reactionary forces. Russia stepped in and that was the end of it. Russia doesn't just stop sending the royal family to the football match. They send bombers and guns and rockets and tanks. They mean business and by God. They've turned things down in Syria now. Assad is sitting pretty. They will not remove Assad now. It doesn't solve anything because the Turks have moved in. It's a colossal mess. So what is the beacon of hope? Well, there is a beacon of hope. You know, Galileo on his deathbed he was forced to recount his opinions about the stars and so on by this marvellous Christian institution the Spanish Inquisition showed him the instruments of torture and he changed his mind. But on his deathbed he said the famous words I por si mau ave and yet it does move referring to the rotation of planets around Jupiter which destroyed all the old things and yet it moves in the Middle East in spite of all the terrible suffering and black reaction which does exist. The other day some leaders of the Iraqi Workers' Communist Party at the centre gave us some useful information about that. But you see it's not over until it's over. Iran is the key. We've said this before Iran and Turkey not over in Turkey either despite Erdigan's monstrous rule. In Iran despite all this monstrous repressive regime after many years the rule of the mullers in my opinion is finished. There have been movements in the past big movements but there were mainly movements of students and middle class people they were important but ultimately they were defeated. But in the last few months it's changed. In January there was an absolute explosion which came from nowhere, took them by surprise shocked them, not students unemployed youths, poor people in the very areas which is the heart land of the mullers of the Islamic Republic. Huge movements and it took everyone by surprise against what? Against the cost of living because there's a crisis the same capitalist crisis in Iran aggravated by sanctions rising cost of living, unemployment these were the main demands the social economic demands class demands to give them the word and what I noticed was this these demonstrate is tore down posters of Chaminet the supreme leader, this is astonishing that's a death sentence in Iran they tore down posters of Chaminet not only that, they tore down posters of the other Ayatollah Khomeini who was the chief man of the Islamic reaction in Iran all of that died down they made some concessions, they arrested a couple of people they died down. Now it's fled up against suddenly without warning and it's sped to other towns students farmers this time yes, peasants and workers steel workers are on strike now as well which is a death now for that system, it's finished I'll make the following prediction the Iranian Revolution is on the order of the day but no doubt about it this regime is rotten, it's corrupt it's on its last legs, it's staggering forward just on the basis of a kind of inertia it can't last the Mullahs were supposed to be clean that's how they sold themselves, they're clean, not corrupt not like the Shah and so on everybody in Iran knows that there's nobody more corrupt than the Mullahs, everybody knows this it's a well known, the women are rebelling against the system that forces them to do ridiculous things can't do this, can't do that it's finished and therefore I'll say this, if you ask me what form will the future Iranian Revolution take, I can't answer I don't know precisely what we don't know what precise form it would take but I'll tell you one thing there's one form which it will not take and cannot take it cannot be an Islamic Revolution it cannot be religious in curry because that's finished that's discredited, it's hated by the people in Iran particularly the youth and the women and therefore a revolution in Iran will transform instantly the entire situation starting in Iraq in Syria and so on, it will be transformed it requires a movement of the working class to break this nightmare, this steel that exists and so finally because I have run out of time to bring the threads together what conclusions do we draw this is the most unstable and predictable also in many respects unstable and turbulent period in human history and also potentially the most revolutionary period in history let nobody think or believe the the opposite and the main characteristic of this period is what sharp and sudden changes in the situation everywhere expectly unexpected many unexpected things have occurred and people there are many unexpected things have occurred and people there are with their mouths open you know oh we weren't expecting this oh we weren't expecting that oh how is this possible your Trotsky once said the theory, Marx's theory is the superiority of foresight over astonishment we must not be astonished by anything comrades we must be prepared prepared for sudden dramatic events in Britain now anytime this government can discuss that tomorrow there can be a big movement to the class our task however is not to do that we can't influence the general course of events we must prepare for revolutionary movements we must build the necessary cadres and develop and recruit above all recruit and build our small forces until they become a viable element in the equation that's actually able to influence events that is our task upon our success the success or failure of the world revolution and the British revolution ultimately will depend