 What is the theory that we have for the collapse of stable capitalism, let's say, and the rise of the right? So just in a few minutes, very quickly, it's one of the things about job loss that we don't often take seriously. The fact that each of these locations, the right has seized on endemic joblessness as an issue. This is, of course, very clear in Trump, but also in Erdogan, that idea that job loss is a main matter and that the previous governments are globalists who haven't cared about job loss, and therefore they haven't cared about the people of their own country. Their nationalism, at one level, is about jobs and about unemployment. Now, obviously, unemployment has been a long-term problem, perhaps exacerbated by the increase of labor under the regime of capital by 1992, when the Soviet Union collapsed and delivered Eastern European workers, say, to the European Union. Eventually, when the Third World collapsed, and autocratic attempts to have national economies broke down, and so even India delivers its labor to the world market, to the regime of capital. And then, of course, eventually the greatest surrender of all was when China delivered its workforce in 1992 to global capital and you started seeing Shenzhen and other places. So this vast pool of labor now allows global capital, the possibility of arbitrage, making distinctions between where to build your factories. And even investment becomes an issue because why invest in a giant factory when you can invest in six, seven, eight little manufacturing units, and you allow risk to be born by small factory owners in distant places rather than big capital have to take any risk in the new economy. So systemic risk is born by small factory owners and by labor in general. They bear the risk of the system. And the distribution problems, of course, are then very acute. So inequality begins to rise. I mean, what I found interesting reading Piketty's book is on the one sense, Thomas Piketty proved the obvious, which is there's enormous inequality, but I didn't really explain how it came to be. I didn't get a good explanation. One of the things I'm suggesting is that it is true that globalization produced a serious long-term problem. So in North Africa, trade unions start to be formed of the union of unemployed college graduates, people with college degrees finding it hard to get work. This becomes a serious problem in Algeria, for instance. They are known as the people who lean against the wall because they are seen in public places leaning against the wall, unemployed. So this endemic structural unemployment of millions of people, particularly among the middle class, has to be taken quite seriously. This is not agricultural unemployment. This is not necessarily manufacturing unemployment. This is now entering the white-collar arena. This is very important for the rise of the right, that it's entered the white-collar arena so that business process outsourcing has hit the United States very hard. Office parks closed down, and that's where the Tea Party comes from. It's basically not the white-working class, as the kind of brain-dead media suggests, but it's really the white-collar working class that has found itself displaced by business process outsourcing on the one side and then insourcing. That is, Tata Consultancy is sending people six months, one year tour, basically displacing workers in the United States, in Europe, et cetera, Ireland coming before India. And now India also losing work to China, Chinese business process outsourcing, et cetera. So this is the first concept I want to put on the table, globalization, which really does create massive inequalities. Second concept is the arrival of neoliberalism, which essentially is not the source of the problem. It's, to my mind, the first attempt to solve this problem. So it's actually a political project to solve the problem of globalization, but it further exacerbates the problem. And we don't have time to get into that, but neoliberalism's only claim is to move citizens into entrepreneurs. The suggestion being, if you're an entrepreneur, if everybody is out there trying to make money, then you'll have a successful economy. So neoliberalism actually is as much a cultural project as it's an economic project. It's to move citizenship into the terrain, not of consumerism only, but of entrepreneurialism. It's in this era that the age of the philanthropist, again, is reborn, that we have to then value philanthropists. Suddenly you have to be proud of the big philanthropists. Look, they're starting a university, art galleries. Somehow these are now very important people in our culture. You should emulate the philanthropists. Don't emulate the public servant, the Khadi wearing politician. You have to emulate the philanthropists. It's a very big cultural project. Obviously neoliberalism deeply fails. It's unable to solve the jobs crisis. As I said, it might have even deeply exacerbated the dip in unemployment. So you get in its place the emergence of this cruel populism, the rise of the right. Now, one of the interesting things about the rise of the right, and again, this is clear in Erdogan, in Turkey, and very clear with Donald Trump, is that on the surface of joblessness, they come out and say it directly. For instance, in his inaugural address, Donald Trump announced this category, which I thought is a powerful category, called American carnage. He said that there is carnage in the landscape of America, closed factories, unemployed people. Now, neoliberals are loath to talk about the world like that. They want to talk about things optimistically, which is a fake optimism, the optimism of entrepreneurialism, the optimism of venture capitalism, the optimism of the new device that's created by somebody which then has global manufacturing. They don't wanna go that far. Implications of neoliberalism are reined in to stay with optimism. But with the cruel right, they like to come in immediately and tell you the truth. But then rather than, again, draw out the full implications of telling the truth, they take the first exit that presents itself. And this has a lot to do with the class character of the new right. The new rights mass following is basically among sections of the middle class and lower middle class who have been battered by labor arbitrage, by them being priced out of the market in very many sectors. So it's interesting that in Donald Trump's election campaign, one of the things he used to talk about at length, at least I heard him in the two rallies which I covered one in Western Pennsylvania, he hammered against H1B visas and Indians. This first exit is interesting. It has to do with the class character. I don't wanna go into this in detail, but we could later. This first exit always is to target vulnerable populations. So Mexicans, Muslims, and Indians, as I said. In this way, I consider at least the Trump team and the Erdogan team to be like Nazis. Because Nazism, after all, comes from the full phrase is national socialism. The national socialists also came out there and talked quite openly about carnage. This has something to do with the character of capitalism, actually, this first exit, which is to say it was okay in medieval times. When you were angry, you went and burnt the Lord's manor down, or you went and killed a money lender, you burnt their books during the Deccan uprising in the 19th century. Money lenders were attacked. These were tangible symbols and actually personifications of domination, particularly lords in a medieval period. You go with your pitchforks and you put somebody's head on a stick. Under the regime of capitalism, what are you going to do? Are you going to go and burn ATM machines? I mean, I know the temptation was high during demonetization, but they were already not working. So what's the point of burning them? What are you going to do? Are you going to go and pitch light fires against banks? Are you going to go to certain posh neighborhoods and throw stones at people's homes? Capital is abstract social domination. So the possibility of having a visceral reaction against it is very difficult, very complicated. And the left is therefore always, even in different times, at a disadvantage because we can't create visceral reactions against abstraction. You have to have this very complicated and deep-seated understanding of how the system works and how you build class alliances and you build the confidence of the people and then we don't overthrow the capitalist class alone. We overthrow capitalism. The point is not only to overthrow the capitalist class, but to say, I mean, it's a bloody difficult thing to explain. You can imagine in campaign rallies, you always take a shortcut. So the shortcut is we are with you. We are for you, that kind of thing. The right wing's grammar is different. It's always blame the Jews, blame the Muslims, blame the Mexicans, blame the somebody, blame somebody for the ills of the system, typically a vulnerable population. Now, if I say that Erdogan, who's very much like a Nazi in the thinking, if I say that, I don't mean necessarily that Turkey is entering fascism or that the United States is entering fascism. If ideology is doing your work for you, you don't need fascism. Ideology is an amazingly seductive sphere of the system. If people believe that commodities are what is the end game of life, if credit is lightly available to enable you to get commodities, if generally you consent to the rules of the system, why would the Nazi kind of groups suspend the constitution? Because ideology is doing the work for you. Because there's no left in these countries that's available to capture the space of the middle. So in that sense, the right, this form of the right is certainly analogous to the Nazis in their thinking. But because capitalism and the spectacle is so greatly advanced today, there is no necessity of annulling democracy. They can be Nazis with democracy. And this is the great advance that they have made. And this is the great confusion that we sometimes have.