[Podcast] Zarah Sultana calls for nationalising British economy + Trump plots coup in Venezuela Share TweetThis week, in Britain, Your Party – led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana – held its inaugural conference. Zarah Sultana spoke there about not only taxing the rich, but of nationalising the entire economy! What does this development signify? And what would it take for Your Party to pose a real threat to capitalism in Britain?Meanwhile, amid a growing dispute within the US government over strikes on alleged drug-running vessels, Donald Trump announced that he will soon authorise military action against targets inside Venezuela. What lies behind this latest act of imperialist bullying and escalation? And what consequences would a new war have on the global situation?In this episode of Against the Stream, Jorge Martín and Hamid Alizadeh explore these questions and outline the communist perspective on them.Against the Stream is the Marxist current-affairs podcast of the Revolutionary Communist International. New episodes air every Thursday at 6pm GMT on YouTube.Reading listBritain: Gary, Jeremy, and the super-rich – how do we make the billionaires pay for this crisis? – Adam BoothFrench lessons: what Corbyn can learn from Mitterrand's mistakes – New StatesmanUS imperialism and Latin America: Trump threatens war on Venezuela – Against the StreamThe High Stakes in Venezuela – The Wall Street JournalTranscriptHamidZarah Sultana, prominent ex-Labour MP. She's been coming out with very radical rhetoric. She's been talking about nationalising the entire economy, workers control over the economy.Sultana has gone to the core essence of the question, the wealth of the capitalist class and their grip on the economy. This is a great step, but it needs to be concretised. We need to link this to the idea of a revolution. This cannot be solved within Parliament alone.JorgeThis needs to be put out very clearly and it will connect with the mood that there is in society.HamidWelcome to Against the Stream, the podcast that analyzes world events in order to uncover the true class interests that shape them. While we aim for the highest objectivity, we do not claim to be impartial. We stand unapologetically on the side of the workers and the poor, the people who make this world go round. This podcast is for them.On today's show. With the obscene growth of inequality, the idea of taxing the rich has been gaining ground. But Zarah Sultana, a British MP who's also a member of the new Your Party, is saying that is not enough. What is needed, she says, is to nationalize the entire economy for which she's come under attack. We'll take up the discussion of increased taxation or the expropriation of the capitalist class. And finally, we also have a question from a viewer who asked the question: but isn't the primary force that determines the outcomes of revolutions the consciousness that emerges through struggle?But first, a brief update on the US attacks on Venezuela as the voices of warmongers are growing stronger, calling for invasion and regime change. My name is Hamid Alizadeh. I'm here today with Jorge Martin. Welcome back, Jorge.It's been a pretty intense week in Venezuela and I mean, there's been a whirlwind of statements, editorials. Yes, let's start with Wall Street Journal, perhaps. They wrote an editorial on 30 November.JorgeScandalous editorial, basically saying to Trump. They're basically saying to Trump, you're running out of options. You must invade Venezuela in order to carry out this regime change. Otherwise you're a coward.HamidYeah, it's like a schoolyard someone trying to go to school yard.JorgeAnd not only this, they said, this is all this invasion will not be an American. I don't know what, what it will be. You know, the United States invades Venezuela to carry out regime change, but this is not an American coup. Apparently. It's, it's according to the, according to the Wall Street Journal. It will be uh, a great day for democracy in uh, Latin America. It will be a massive step forward for freedom. So this is uh, Orwellian. Orwellian uh, doublespeak on the part of the, of the Wall Street Journal.HamidYeah, I'm just going to read out some of this editorial. It's called the High Stakes in Venezuela. It was published on 30 November, says “We think the opposing Mr. Maduro, the President of Venezuela, is in the US national interest. Given how he has spread refugees and mayhem in the region, no one should think this would be an American coup. Venezuelans voted overwhelmingly to elect the opposition in 2024 presidential race, but Mr. Maduro refused to cede power. Deposing him in favor of an elected president would restore democracy. But is, but it isn't clear how the Venezuelan military would respond to US Intervention. Let's hope the CIA is working the case well for a change and that total local force and that local forces would break for the Democrats.”Not the American Democrats, the Venezuelan so called Democrats. We'll see about how democratic they are. But anyway. But Mr. Trump would have to, Mr. Trump would have to be prepared in any case to help the new government defend itself. This is what we said last time, that if they go in, they're going to have to prop this government up, whoever they put in place. “If Mr. Maduro flees and the Democrats take over, it'll be a giant step for freedom in the region.”JorgeA giant step for freedom.HamidThis is what America has always brought to every region. Um, “would the Cuban people rise up against their dictators next? Obviously this is just the beginning. Mr. Trump would have his second foreign policy victory after bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. But as Mr. Maduro refuses to leave and Mr. Trump shrinks from acting to depose him, Mr Trump and the credibility of the US will be the losers. Mr. Trump chose his showdown and it will cost America and the region dearly if Mr. Maduro emerges triumphant.”I mean this is uh, I don't even know where to start. This is just scandalous.JorgeYes. I mean this is a major US newspaper basically agitating very intensely in favor of military intervention in another country so that they will remove the government there. Whatever you think about the Venezuelan government, it's for the Venezuelan people to decide who rules them, not for the foreign uh, power. And the idea that uh, it says in, that this is in the US national interest. They're not even hiding the fact that this isn't. Maybe they, it doesn't really matter.To them, whether this is in the interest of Venezuelans or the Venezuelan people or Venezuela as a country, they just say it openly. This is what the US Needs. And when they say the US they don't mean your Virginia mine worker or your New York restaurant worker. What they mean is the big corporations in the United States. And Wall Street. And Wall Street. The Journal is the voice of Wall Street, isn't it? So, yeah.HamidUh, well, we don't. We have a backup for this. We're not the only one saying it. It's not just Wall Street journalists saying it. Let's watch a clip from… What's her name? Maria Elvira Salazar, who is a congresswoman, a part of what's called the three Crazy Cubans.JorgeYes.HamidWho have been pushing for this. For this action, who are extremely hostile to the Venezuelan government, the Cuban government, Cuban revolution. And they want. They want their people in charge. They want regime change. And here's what she says in a Fox News interview a few days ago.Maria Elvira SalazarAh, for the American oil companies it will be a field day because it will be more than a trillion dollars in economic activity.HamidAnd just to add this is not the only thing she says. We're going to see another clip from her which just goes to show the people who are ruling this world, how mad they are.Maria Elvira SalazarThis guy is a thug, and he's good friends with Hezbollah. They are giving uranium to Hamas and to Iran and to North Korea and to Cuba and to Nicaragua. Come on. It's time for the United States to do what we need to do. And thank God that Trump is doing it.JorgeThis is another level, because we have seen. But, I mean, this is the same logic as Colin Powell standing at the United Nations Security Council and showing a vial of I don't know what, saying Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.So now Mariel Villa Salazar says, no, I'm going to trump that. I'm gonna. I'm gonna say that Venezuela is providing uranium to Hamas. I mean, no one's ever heard of Hamas having a nuclear enrichment program. And Venezuela doesn't even mine uranium. So this is completely made up. But the point is not whether it's true or not. The point is that this is made. This is set in order to justify military invasion of another country.But the first clip is more interesting because that's where the real reason lies, or one of the reasons she was saying this is about oil. There's all these resources in Venezuela that the US Companies can get their hands on. At least she is being clear about the real objectives or some of the real objectives of this. This is not about democracy or freedom. This is about the freedom of US Multinationals to exploit the resources of another country.HamidYes. And the people that want to put in charge, these guys want regime change. The people they want to put in.JorgeCharge is Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Gonzalez.HamidMaria Corina is a bearer of peace. Jorge.JorgeIt's a Nobel Peace.HamidShe won the Nobel Peace Prize.JorgeYes.HamidHere's what she says. Let's have a look at a clip.Maria Corina MachadoAnd this is amazing. Super exciting for me. We will open Venezuela for foreign investment. I am talking about a $1.7 trillion opportunity. Not only oil and gas, which is huge. And you know that. The opportunities. Because we will open all upstream, middle stream, downstream to all companies, but also in mining, in gold, in infrastructure, power. We have our grid right now as a 17 gigawatt opportunity of energy potential that needs to be rehabbed, certainly for technology.JorgeYes. Uh, Maria Corina Machado is not a democratic leader by any stretch of imagination. She's been involved in every single undemocratic attempt at removing the government of Venezuela by military coups all the way back to 2002. But not only this, she's been, uh. All this time, she's been a strong advocate of a foreign country, that is the United States, bombing the people of Venezuela in order to achieve her aims. And her aims is. And she's now basically selling the country.HamidShe was talking to a business forum.JorgeYes.HamidIn the US this is such a clear revelation.JorgeTransparent.HamidTransparent. This is what foreign policy is all about.JorgeYes.HamidObviously, normally you don't hear about it, but these guys are so…JorgeNormally they try to disguise it. Yeah.HamidThese guys are so deranged. And they've been living in this bubble of impunity for so many years.JorgeYes.HamidThat they're just blurting it out.JorgeYeah.HamidUh, for everyone to see.JorgeUm, now, so she's basically saying, yeah please invade my country and we will give you everything. Everything will be privatized. U.S. companies will have all these marvelous opportunities that she say 1.7 trillion. I don't know what oil, gas gold and everything.HamidAI, uranium.HamidUm, now, at the same time the Trump government, the whole how do you say, rhetoric around this is just falling apart. Yes.JorgeBecause they've been saying since the beginning, since the end of August, they've been saying, Trump has been saying that this is about fighting the drug cartels and fighting the drug boats, the speed boats that transport apparently drugs from Venezuela. And this was false. We have explained this many times. But now Trump has taken a decision that really proves that. He has decided to pardon the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez from the National Party, who was extradited to the United States at the request of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. He was put on trial for drug trafficking, we're talking about tons of cocaine that was being transported from Honduras to the United States and for arms dealing in weapons. And he was sentenced in a US court to 45 years in jail. So now President Donald Trump has decided to pardon him. He's now been released just because Trump wishes to intervene interfere in the elections in Honduras which took place on Sunday. But obviously you cannot say that you're fighting the uh, drug cartels in Venezuela while at the same time uh, releasing a guy who is being charged and uh, sentenced and imprisoned in the United States for being part or playing a big part in a drug cartel. Doesn't make any sense.HamidYeah.JorgeUh.HamidFurthermore, there's a question of the boats. There's another scandal about the boats that they've been bombing.JorgeYes apparently the first strike on one of these speed boats which took place at the beginning of September. There's an investigation by the Washington Post and other media that say that uh, there were survivors from the US Strike. US strike on a speedboat is already illegal under any international law. But never mind that there were survivors, the two survivors that clinging to the remains of this boat. And then the United States decided to bomb, to strike them again. So they make sure that they were killed.This is a further violation of whatever rules of war there might be. You do not kill an unarmed combatant that doesn't offer any danger to yourself. Uh, and this is very damning for them because Pete Hegseth had said at the time that he was watching this uh, strike live, that he kind of gave the order. And so now there's the implication whether he gave the order for this double tap strike and the killing of these unarmed people on this boat.Now Trump said on Monday at ah, the press conference, he said, well, I know nothing about this. This is all on Pete. Basically, he said, and then Pete Hegseth had said that the Secretary of War, now he's a Secretary of War, he said, no, I didn't give the order. I was there watching the thing uh, happen, watching the first strike. But then there was a lot of smoke and I was taken to another room. So he's basically saying, no, no, it wasn't me. It was this admiral who gave the order. I agree. I fully agree with the order. He did the right thing, but it wasn't me who gave the order. Why? Because he wants to escape any possible legal consequences further down the line.HamidYes. Now, we've already done a long episode about Venezuela, about what's behind these aggressions so we don't have time to go into that, but just to kind of rehash the main things here, this is obviously not about drugs. The whole, every part of this, this rhetoric is wrong. It's just false.JorgeThere's no basis on reality.HamidCartel of the Suns doesn't exist. It was a fabrication of the CIA.JorgeYes.HamidNone of these people have been proven to be drug traffickers. No evidence has been presented, no evidence whatsoever. But this is about regime change. But what does that regime change what is that regime based on? Is fundamentally based on this idea that Trump presented when he came into power, which Marco Rubio presented, which is America is overreached, is overstretched, it cannot police the world anymore, and therefore it needs to retrench itself and focus, first of all in its own backyard. It needs to reestablish dominance over Latin America and even Greenland and the Western Hemisphere, so to say, needs to push Russia and China out. Russia and China, obviously very closely linked to Venezuela. But at the same time, Trump is not necessarily interested in a war because a war is such a…JorgeFirst of all, he was elected on the basis of no more forever wars. A war in Venezuela might not be a short, ah, sharp operation as he might hope. And they've been telling him that this can get very complicated and that wouldn't be necessarily in his interest. He wants to achieve his aims by increasing the military pressure, the bullying and so on. Now he's declared that the airspace in Venezuela is closed. They have 20% of the US navy in the region. That's what he wants to achieve. But whether he will achieve it or not.HamidThe other thing is that he doesn't want war. He wants to achieve his goals without war. But he set in motion forces that he can't control.JorgeExactly.HamidLike this woman who's obviously completely unhinged, not unlike himself, but in a, in a different way, let's put it like that. And the, the project 2025 people, Marco Rubio. There's a whole faction within Trumpism which is pushing for war. And Trump is now in a place where, as the Wall Street Journal correctly says, says you've come so far, if you back down now, you're going to be humiliated. He thinks that it's like before, you know, I think someone called him Teflon Don. Things used to just rub off, like, just fall off from him. Because what, because he had momentum, because he had support. But with his declining popularity, he just looks like flailing and he is actually humiliated by all of these things.JorgeYes, he's lost a lot of popular support because he hasn't solved any of the problems that he promised. And so therefore now is hostage to forces that he doesn't fully control.HamidUh, we have to keep an eye on this. And we'll be back obviously analyzing and following events as they move on. But let's move on to our main topic for today, which is a new party has been formed in Britain over the weekend. It already has 55,000 members. It has a program which includes the following: that it stands for the transfer of wealth and power now concentrated in the hands of the few to the overwhelming majority in a democratic socialist society. Of course we're talking about what's called Your Party, not, not your party or my party, but Your Party.Uh, that joke is getting old, I guess.JorgeBut uh, but still, it's not a very inspiring name. But anyway, that's the name they've chosen.HamidThis is a party of Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, and Zarah Sultana, who is a prominent ex-Labour MP. But from the beginning, from the word go, the party has been beset by drama. In particular a clash between these two.JorgeMhm.HamidUh, there's been drama, there's been intrigue. And uh, in the last few days we've seen. Well, in the last couple of months, Sultana has been voicing increasingly radical ideas. She talks about nationalizing the commanding heights of the economy. And she's now coming under severe attack by everyone and their uncle on the left. More, more or less. Um, and it's clear that, that the two trends are forming within Your Party. There is on the one hand the trend around Corbyn. Who is the old, you can say the, the, the established left is Corbyn. There's the independent alliance of MPs, there's a gang of MPs in, in parliament, the apparatus around Corbyn some people coming from the unions, from Unite, Len McCluskey and, and others.HamidThey see they don't have a very clearly defined program, but generally they see the problem not in Capitalism per se, but in neoliberal capitalism.JorgeExactly.HamidA vicious form of capitalism. And what they argue for, in fact.JorgeThe actual statement from the party started by saying this. We are against neoliberal capitalism. Then it was changed. Now they say we are against the capitalist order. I think it says. But yeah, basically this idea that there's something wrong, which is neoliberalism. No, not capitalism itself, neoliberalism.HamidAnd therefore it's an unfriendly kind of capitalism. We need to make a friendly kind of capitalism. And the ways to do that is to increase taxation on the rich.JorgeMhm.HamidUh, such as a wealth tax. And uh, by reversing austerity.JorgeMhm. And which they say it's an ideological choice. Governments can choose whether to apply austerity or not. This is a nasty government. They apply austerity. If it's a nice government, it won't.HamidExactly. Now just to rewind a little bit we have talked in this show we've been recording for more than a year now and we've been highlighting the enormous potential for a left wing force and the enormous vacuum on the left. Um, you know, when, when Trump came to power, lots of people on the left in particular were talking about the rise of fascism and Bonapartism and dictatorship. And we were saying no, this is a distorted reflection of class anger. A class anger in society which is not finding the expression in the left.JorgeBecause, because the left was proven to be bankrupt uh, in the previous period.HamidYes. And nobody was standing up.JorgeMhm.HamidAnd saying anything. And the, and the proof of this came when uh Zarah Sultana jumped the gun on this.JorgeYes.HamidThey've been negotiating, setting up this party for years now.JorgeYes.HamidUh, Jeremy Corbyn reportedly was not very interested.JorgeYeah, he was dragging his feet.HamidHe wanted like a loose movement. Sultana finally said no, let's just…JorgeShe just announced it in July.HamidIn July. And they had to move. They set up a website, you could sign up as a supporter. And within a very short period of time, 800,000 people signed up to, to join, show, showing their interest to join.JorgeWhich is, by the way, it's, it's more than the Labour Party had under the leadership of Corbyn at the time when the Labour Party grew to, what was it half a million members. But now in just in the space of three or four weeks, 800,000 people expressed interest in joining a party that was basically at that time was seen as a party that's against austerity and in favor of Palestine, against the genocide.HamidAgainst imperialism, against the rich, against all of these things.JorgeUm, which proves the point that we've been making this massive vacuum on the left for a radical or seemingly radical force.HamidBut immediately after what happened was a scandalous infighting. Bureaucratic infighting, at the top, clearly over control over control over the apparatus, over control over the money. And it was a completely demoralizing thing. And in fact you can say that in any ways, in many ways they squandered the opportunity.JorgeWhen they finally, actually when they finally opened the actual membership for, for signing up of the 800,000, only 55,000 went ahead and joined.HamidAnd in the meantime, the Green Party was taken over by Zach Polanski. I read an interview with him one year ago nine months ago. He said we need to have a populist, anti establishment, anti rich party. We need to have a left wing version of, of Nigel Farage. Basically.JorgeYes.HamidAnd that's what he did. He took, he took over the party even though it was doing relatively well. He won the leadership election.JorgeTook over the party in September.HamidIn September had introduced a program of nationalization, nationalizing utilities in particular.JorgeThey even talked about abolishing the landlords.HamidYes.JorgeThe question of housing, uh.HamidRelative to all other political parties. A very radical program.JorgeYes.HamidUm, anti austerity and all of these things. And they've gained, they've gone, they doubled more than double the…JorgeThey've gone from. I think they've gone from 70,000 at the time when Polanski took over at the end of September to uh, now 150,000, which is more than doubling members. The Green Party has now more members than the Lib Dems and also than the Tory party. And in some of the opinion polls, the coming second ahead of uh, Labour just behind reform.HamidYeah.JorgeAnd they, they gained massive traction amongst the youth particularly.HamidYeah.JorgeSo which is another. Sorry. Which is another demonstration of what we were saying. There is a massive vacuum in the left. There's a big appetite for, for something that looks like a radical challenge.HamidAnd a lot of these people obviously came from the movement around Corbyn and Sultana. But nevertheless, the fact the party was founded. It has a it claims to be socialist and anti capitalist. It was founded over the weekend. And this is a step forward. This is exact, this is, this is necessary. Uh, the, the talk about transferring the wealth and power from minority to majority is, is correct. Although it's, it's very, it's very vague. And it remains to be seen what that actually means.JorgeYes.HamidBut um, now in this process I think Sultana has stood out. She did apologize for her behavior over the summer. She stood out, openly said I'm sorry about that and she's come out… I remember we criticized her and Corbyn. We said this is criminal. The bureaucratic infighting is criminal. What they should be doing…JorgeNobody can understand what it's about, what they.HamidShould be doing is putting forward ideas which address the burning needs of the British working class.JorgeExactly.HamidAnd I think that's what she's done in the past few months. She's been coming out with very radical rhetoric. Mhm. She's been talking about nationalizing the entire economy. Abolishing the monarchy. The monarchy. Uh, abolishing NATO.JorgeYes.HamidUm workers, control over the economy of companies. Um, let's just watch a clip from a pre conference meeting. But this is more or less the same thing she said at the conference. But just to give our viewers a uh, a kind of hint at how radical her language is.Zarah SultanaPolicies are about redistributing wealth and power. We are talking about a super rich minority in this country that have seen their wealth treble since 2010. We have 50 rich families who hold more wealth than half the country. So we need a wealth tax but we also need to nationalize the entire economy. Obviously like I said, utilities, transport, energy are important but we need to look beyond that. We need to look at the banks, we need to look at construction, we need to look at the entire economy.JorgeYeah. What she says is that is that a wealth tax is okay, but it's not enough. She said we need to be more ambitious and we need to be looking at these 50 families that control most of the wealth of the country. And we need to be looking at the city of London, the banks, the finance sector.HamidYeah. I think construction sector.JorgeThe construction. Yeah.HamidNow you would have thought someone saying such openly socialist ideas, which is not by the way like particularly outlandish.JorgeNo.HamidThis is basically the clause for the Labour party.JorgeYeah. Clause four of the Labour Party that was introduced in 1918 talked about uh, talk about the, the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and a change.HamidBut what she has been met with. First of all Corbyn has been silent on all of these things but it's clear that he, that, that he disagrees with her.JorgeYes.HamidBecause he doesn't talk about any of these kind of things. And uh, in the past few days we've seen a barrage of leftist, so called leftist people.George Galloway who is now, I think has descended relatively into obscurity. But you never know with him. He's saying, oh, it is wrong. We have to, we have, we need, we can't abolish capitalism. We need a mixed economy another form of a good capitalism. In other words, like China, because everyone is doing so well in China and the Chinese ruling class look after their workers. So that's uh, that's another, another version of what Corbyn is saying.Owen Jones has come, was interviewing her. He didn't allow her to finish, didn't allow her to speak. People can see the interview with Owen Jones. It's a bit too long for us to show here.JorgeBut he was uh, raising the classic scaremongering arguments against nationalization. He said, oh, but you want to nationalize everything, the kiosks and so on.HamidBut we'll answer all of these things. Uh, the person who summed it up the best was Tariq Ali, the grand theoretician of, of some people on the left. Tariq Ali. I don't even know what's happened to him. But uh, he's still writing books, uh.JorgePerhaps, I don't know, probably for verso.HamidAnd these kind of things. Um, and he wrote “well meaning, but pure rhetoric. Both Benn”, that's Tony Benn, “and Livingston”, that's Ken Livingston, the left wing Labour people “had some very good socialist economists working for them who came up with credible plans. The entirely nationalized economies in the former Soviet Union and China and Cuba too simply did not work.” Simply did not work. “We had huge debates on this within the global left. Zarah has to get some help on this one. What she's saying will be laughed at and understandably given the experiences of the 20th century. We know this type of maximalism destroys economies. It should be debated in open and in an open and comradely fashion. I groaned when I first heard her saying this.” Oh yeah, we know that groan. We know that groan. The groan of the, of the old.JorgeTired left reformist.HamidThe responsible left. Yes, the responsible left who understands that you can't go too far. Ah, mhm. You can't go too far.JorgeBecause it's one thing, it's one thing to criticize the Soviet Union. There are obviously problems with the Soviet Union, but the problem was not excessive nationalization. The problem was bureaucratic management. But in any case, you can criticize the Soviet Union, but what he's saying here is counterposing that to Tony Benn. And Tony Benn was well meaning and uh, honest left figure within the Labour Party. But he was a reformist. He didn't, he was not against, he was not for abolishing capitalism or anything like that.HamidExactly. Tony Benn was a left reformist, a left wing character within, figure within the Labour party in the 80s.HamidUm, who I mean to be fair to Tony Benn had a lot more guts and gusto than Tariq Ali did. Um, but I think the main thing, what these three people are saying, Owen Jones.JorgeThis is too extreme.HamidGeorge Galloway, Tariq Ali, even uh, Jeremy Corbyn, all of these people, what they're saying is, George Galloway, we need to change capitalism, but we can't abolish it.JorgeMhm.HamidWe need to curb its worst problems.JorgeAnd this is something that uh, Sultana has argued against. She said you cannot tinker at the edges of the capitalist system. There's no good capitalist. Capitalism is capitalism and we need socialism.HamidI mean you have to be living on a different planet not to see that, not to see that this system as a system is not working.JorgeExactly.HamidUm, but I think we need to dive into this theoretically because there has been for months now increasing talk about a wealth tax. In France there's this thing called the Zucman tax named after Gabrielle Zucman, who has proposed to have a 2% annual wealth tax on uh, anyone with a net worth over 100 million euros. So anyone who's super, super duper rich has um, to pay 2% of their total wealth, all of their assets.And he says this is revolutionary because this is not the same as just taxing the rich, just increasing income tax because most of the rich find loopholes. Their money is not an income. In fact, most super rich people don't get, don't have any income because they take loans against their assets and they use their loans and then they die and the loans they paid off. Um, but he's been saying this a wealth tax has been discussed in lots of place in the Labour Party, even in the Labour Party conference it was, it was proposed.The independent alliance of five MPs and including Jeremy Corbyn are saying the same thing. Mhm. They're proposing we should raise taxes. Basically, instead of carrying out all this austerity and making the working class pay for the crisis, we should have increased taxation. Now Britain for example…JorgeSo that the rich pay.HamidExactly. Now in Britain we have 110 billion pound bill bill just to pay the interest rates every year on the state debt, just this year, not Every year. Next year is probably going to be more.JorgeGoing to be more. Yeah.HamidSo 2% is actually not covered. Going to cover that. But that's, that's another topic altogether. In France that would, this would mean 15 to 25 billion euros raised. They need around 60 billion per year to cover the interest rates alone.Yes, but um, let's just, let's discuss this. Will this actually change anything? Uh, and I think the first thing to say is that, um. Well, we've discussed this last time. If you want to impose a, ah, wealth. If, if you impose a measure which the capitalists see as a threat to their interests.JorgeMhm.HamidThey will just move their assets abroad.JorgeThey will fight against by any means at uh, their disposal. One of them is um, tax flight. Capital flight.HamidAnd there's an example of that in France. when the Hollande.JorgeYeah. When the Hollande government introduced a wealth tax, a number of prominent people left the country and they took their residence somewhere else. Like Gerard de Pardier, famous actor who's quite wealthy. He took his tax residence to Russia first to Belgium. I think he. Then to Russia.HamidBecame a Russian.JorgeHe became a Russian, Yeah. He said, oh, I love Russia and this and that. He loves his money more than any country.HamidIt's a beautiful country.JorgeUh, Arnaud, I think his name is Arnaud, who's the owner of l'Oreal big cosmetics pharmaceutical company. He moved his tax residence to Belgium to places where they don't have the wealth tax. And also the rich and powerful. They have an army of lawyers and accountants, accountants that will look for any loopholes. So that's just one angle of, of what will happen.HamidBut I would say there's. There's exactly. Because there are other angles here. One I mean you, you can have wealth taxes in, in Norway they have a wealth tax every year about. It's around between 1.1 and 1.7%. And they raised it recently, which meant that, yeah, a few, some billionaires left the country taking away their assets, taking away tax income. And there's constant actually scandals about billionaires moving, moving abroad, but then still living in Norway and kind uh, of trying to move their assets into the, in the, into the names of their family members who live abroad or something like that.JorgeOh, and by the way, this is not a new thing. I'm reading Capital with a comrade now. And uh we're just going through a chapter where Marx talks about this. He is trying to explain the concentration of capital and he says, well this is just the official figures of what they declare for tax purposes, but in fact the real figures are much more so. Yes, this is what, 160 years ago?HamidExactly. But the point is, in Norway, nothing has changed.JorgeMhm.HamidYou know, 1%. Some bourgeois. In some situations, if the bourgeoisie, they have enough of a buffer or they see enough of a threat against their core interests, they could give that concession. One, because they might have the leeway, but also they will get the money back in different ways. The bourgeoisie.JorgeAnd in fact there are some, there's an organization, I think it's called Patriotic Millionaires or something like this. And they are advocating a tax on the rich because they say, because they say first it looks bad, but what they really worried is this massive inequality and cuts in social spending will create a revolutionary situation or social. And then we'll lose everything. So we'd rather pay a little bit.HamidBut the point, I think the most, the most crucial point is this. Who creates the wealth? I saw an interview where there was a TV show recently with our comrade Fiona, Fiona Lali, who was debating some millionaire plumbing owner. Yeah. And he was like, but why, what's, why would you call us rich parasites we are. You should call us wealth creators. And I was thinking, you have not created any wealth.JorgeMhm.HamidThe wealth that is created in this world is created by the working class. Everything we, we have here, this studio, this building, our clothes, the, you know, the electricity and the, the infrastructure that makes this show, the food that we eat, the houses we live in, the entirety of this society is built by the working class. That is where wealth and value come from. You're reading Capital so that you should be, you should be, you're just freshly, how to say. Refreshed on that.But the working class creates a surplus. Mhm. Which means that there's a part of the wealth created by the workers which is not paid to them.JorgeIt's appropriated by the capitalists.HamidAppropriated by the capitalists. That surplus value is what the class struggle is essentially about. And the capitalist class, the difference between the capitalists and the workers is that the capitalists own the means of production. Mhm. The factories, the big industries, the big banks and the workers do not own anything. That's the definition of a worker is someone who doesn't own significant property. This is not about a little shop, this is not about a little house. It's not about your toothbrush. This is about real property industry capital.JorgeMhm.HamidAnd as a worker, you don't own any. And you are forced therefore to sell your labour power in order to live. And the capitalists take your labour power and appropriate a chunk of the wealth that you create with it for themselves.Now maintain… to tax the. To have a government that taxes the rich means maintaining this position of exploitation. Exactly what does it mean in actual terms? Let's look at this here. This is from Oxfam. I think this is underestimates the real situation. But nevertheless, from 2020 to 2023, the 1% richest people on the planet appropriated 63% of all the new wealth that was created. That's 26 trillion dollars. Mhm. That they appropriated 16 trillion. Went uh, to the rest of the world put together.JorgeMhm.HamidI think if you add that to the 10%, the top 10% is even higher. Uh, a billionaire gained roughly $1.7 million for every $1 of the new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90%. It's insane. At the same time, 1.7 billion workers now live in countries where inflation is outpacing wages. And over 820 million people, roughly 1 in 10 people on Earth are going hungry. Women and girls often eat least. And last, and make up nearly 60% of the world's hungry population. The World bank says we're likely seeing the biggest increase in global inequality and poverty since World War II. Three quarters of the world's government… this is from 2023 by the way. It's just the best kind of uh, immediate figures I could figure I could find. Three quarters of the world's governments are planning austerity driven public sector spending cuts including on health care and education by 7.8 trillion over the next five years. This is before they decided to up NATO spend and defense spending to 5% in Europe, by the way. So we're talking about a huge transfer of wealth every year.JorgeMhm.HamidFrom the working class, from the poor to the rich. That's the class struggle that is capitalism.JorgeYes.HamidKarl Marx explained capitalism is a system of crisis stagnation, dislocations and the polarization of society into obscene wealth in one end and inequality in the other.JorgeThis is not an anomaly of capitalism that can be corrected or modified or tinkered. This is how the capitalist system works. Massive concentration of wealth, monopolization of wealth in fewer and fewer hands at the top. Uh, and a massive concentration of poverty at the other end.HamidYeah. And if you move, if you tax the top percent 2%, there's nothing.JorgeFirst of all, you're not transferring wealth and power to the majority by doing that.HamidBut what you do do is you create an illusion that this system works for everyone and that this system can work for everyone. So you're actually participating in maintaining this system.JorgeNot only this, but if you actually, if you're actually a wealth tax or tax on the rich, actually hits the rich in a significant way, then they will uh, take countermeasures. They will take countermeasures like as we said, capital flight, strike of capital, they will stop investing and other things. They will move against any government that carries out any such measures.HamidI have two great examples here. Uh, there's an article in the New Statesman, it was written in 2017 as a warning against Corbyn. It's called if anyone actually threatens. Sorry. Uh, it's called ‘French Lessons: what Corbyn Can Learn from Mitterrand's Mistake’. This was a time where Corbyn was talking about nationalization and utility reversing austerity and these things. And the new statement says, In May 8th, 1981, a left wing leader was elected on a program in France, on a program of mass nationalization, wealth taxes and higher minimum wage. Francois Mitterrand was the first socialist president of France's Fifth Republic and promised a complete rupture with capitalism. 12 industrial conglomerates and 38 banks were taken into public ownership, including Paribas and Bank Rothschild. Rothschild, I don't know how to say it in French. And the minimum wage was increased by 10%. We want to develop a mixed economy. We are not revolutionary Marxist Leninists, Mitterrand reassured the French employers federation. Mhm, sounds like anything we heard.But this socialist experiments faced immediate resistance. Capital fled France at a rate of 2 billion francs a day and private firms launched an investment strike. Inflation meanwhile reached 12.6% and the country's trade deficit surged. The European Monetary system, a precursor to the euro, which pegged the franc to the deutsche mark, limited the scope for currency devaluation and capital controls. I am divided between two ambitions, constructing Europe and social justice, lamented Mitterrand. Uh, anyway, this is a long thing to go.JorgeBut one year later he was forced to carry out austerity measures and abandon.HamidMost of his programs under the Tournon de la rigueur, or the austerity turn. In 1982-83, public spending was cut by 44 billion francs, taxes on workers and consumers were increased by 40 billion francs. Budget deficits were kept at 3% of GDP and wages were delaying from prices. The most ambitious post war socialist experiment in Western Europe was over.JorgeMhm.HamidThat is what happens if you touch the core interest of the capitalist class.JorgeBecause the capitalists have uh, they derive their power, they exercise the power through the state, through the media, through the politicians. But their power comes from the ownership of the means of production. That's what gives them power in society. And they will use their power against any government and against any attempt to infringe on their property rights, on their God given right as they consider it, to exploit uh, workers and make profits.HamidEven Liz Truss, she wasn't even…JorgeNot a revolutionary communist.HamidBut she proposed a budget which there wasn't balance. The markets didn't like because it wasn't balanced. Mhm. What does market want? A balanced budget that hits the workers.JorgeThat means, that means austerity.HamidAusterity. She didn't have enough austerity. And they moved against her.JorgeThey moved against her, they maneuvered against her. Uh, they said oh, the markets don't like it and there's the bond yields are going up and this and that. And uh, she lasted less famously than uh, a lettuce even.HamidRachel Reeves, the present Chancellor, the Labour Finance Minister of Britain, for those who don't know what a chancellor means.HamidDidn't have enough austerity. Didn't carry through the austerity that they set themselves over the spring, which in return meant that the yields on the bonds rose. Which means the markets do not want to lend money to government, to the government. Mhm. Uh, and they demand higher interest rates, which is, which now means that the interest repayment is rising. Just the last one. There was um, a similar government in Britain in the 70s, the Harold Wilson government in 74 which later became the Callaghan government, which again had a program of maintaining capitalism but nationalizing some things. A wealth tax.JorgeMhm.HamidAnd this was in the middle of a crisis. And again you saw a run on the pound. Mhm. The guilt strike is called the City of London, the banks refusing to buy government bonds, massive spike in interest rates and they were brought to a heel.JorgeMhm.HamidAnd the, the, the enforcer was the IMF who came with a 3.9 billion pound loan to Britain which had what strings attached in the form of vicious austerity and cuts and attacks against the working class. All of the things that they said was reversed and then some to make a point.JorgeWhat these historical examples teach. Uh, us because the new statements had this article of warning to Corwin from. But what's the conclusion from this? There are only two conclusions. One, you cannot carry out progressive policies or two, you can only carry out progressive policies in the interest of the majority if you break the power of capital, and you can only do that by expropriating capital. As long as the capitalists own the means of production, they will use their economic power to bring any government to heel.You cannot plan what you don't control, and you do not control what you do not own. And this is a basic principle. Uh, this is why this idea of nationalizing the entire economy is correct. And when we say this, we don't mean, as Owen Jones implies, we don't mean the nationalization of your corner news agent or small shop. No, no, we're talking about, I don't know, the FTSE 100, the 100 biggest companies in Britain control everything in the economy. They have an enormous enormous power. Because the other thing is this, that however much you tax the rich, the problem here is not so much taxation and spending, but investment. Right?So if we want to build more houses for working people, housing is very expensive. You need to invest. You need to build these houses. Uh, but the problem is the capitalists will only invest if they see a profit at the end of it. Uh, they will not invest because there is a need for certain product or service or infrastructure. They will only invest if they can get a return on the money. And as you've been saying in previous programs, they now can get a better return by speculating on the stock exchange or buying Bitcoins or gold or whatever it is they're speculating with, rather than investing in production. So it's the whole system, the way it's rigged, the way it works is completely parasitical and cannot be forced to work in the interest of working people. Uh, only if we expropriate them can we then control the economy and run it in a democratic manner through a democratic plan of production in which workers, consumers and everyone is involved in order to satisfy the needs of the majority. That's why this debate between nationalization, that this nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy versus just taxing the rich and tinkering at the system at the edges is so important. It's a crucial, crucial debate.HamidYeah. Ah, and also I would say this by, by, by raising the slogan as taxing as, as in and of itself as the solution. We don't. We are in favor of taxing the rich. But the point is you need to go further. Yes, but if you stop at that you sow illusions. You sow illusions that this system can be reformed. You sow illusions that this system can be humanized, can be brought to heels, can be tamed in one way or another. It's like wanting to tame a tiger. Or was it Alan Woods always says, trying to get a tiger to eat lettuce? Yes, that's basically what it is.But that doesn't work. And what you're doing is you actually, you actually sowing the seeds for your own destruction. Because once you come to power and you try to carry out these, these uh, programs, for example, with the Labour government.JorgeMhm.HamidWhat did it mean that massive? Everyone's saying, oh well, socialism doesn't work, left wing politics doesn't work. There's a demoralization and disorientation of the working class and they're disarmed in the face of capital.JorgeMhm.HamidThey're told by their leaders that these people can be our friends if we act, but they're not the capitalist class.JorgeAnd that paves the way for then the entry of a more right wing government carrying out massive cuts. Precisely.HamidWhich is exactly what happened when Thatcher came to power. Right. And uh and the same thing we saw in Cyprus. In Greece. We just had another podcast, the Spectre of Communism. Excellent podcast that communists people should go and listen to about the failure of the Greek government. And what did Tsipras say? Oh, we will tame the markets, we will negotiate with the markets. Yes, more or less right.JorgeWe will accepting the limits of capitalism. We will repay this debt to mainly French and German uh, bankers, but later on when there is growth and we will negotiate and we will just basically tinker at the edges rather than addressing the fundamental problem. What happened?HamidDisaster. A complete disaster. Um, the capitalist class does not serve any purpose in this society. They are parasites as Fiona said to this guy, completely parasites. But they have the grip around power.JorgeExactly.HamidTwo forms of power. Economic power in the big banks, in the big monopolies, in the big industries and state power. 99% of the state apparatus is not elected, is not accountable to anyone except the capitalist class which controls it right from the top. All of the top echelons of the state are uh, appointed, ah, brought into play in how to say, in um, accordance with the interests of the capitalist class. And when left wing governments try to do certain things that is against the interests of that class, the state apparatus also moves against them.This is also why capitalists by the way can live with high taxation, because through their influence over the state, they can manipulate the situation and get around that. Like in Norway for example, where all of these, basically the bourgeois using all these loopholes to live in Norway and then move their assets out and the state kind of holding a hand over it.JorgeIn fact, when, when Corbyn was about to be elected in 2017 and Corbyn did not have a revolutionary socialist program, he had a program of anti austerity and so on progressive program nationalizing the utilities. But there was leaks, there were, there were army generals that were, they were briefing the media privately saying we will not obey the orders of a Corbyn government which destroys the myth of the independence and neutrality of the state.The state, as Engels very well explained armed bodies of men in defense of uh, private property. The private capitalist uh, property. So this is the other question that needs to be raised. It's not just about taking over the economic power of the capitalist class but also breaking the back of the capitalist state that will be used to resist any attempts uh, of the workers to take back what's rightfully theirs.HamidPrecisely. I think that brings us to the last part of this, the conclusion of this. We are in full support in this battle.JorgeMhm.HamidWe're in full support of the standpoint of Zarah Sultana.JorgeMhm.HamidAgainst the rest.JorgeAgainst those who talk about being maximalist.HamidYeah. In fact we say that they are the utopian ones who think that you can make this, the system work. But at the same time I think um Sultana has brought up. Sultana has gone to the, to the core essence of the question.JorgeMhm.HamidThe wealth of the capitalist class and their, their grip on, on the economy. Um, but I think there's more to be said because this is a great step but it needs to be concretized. First of all there's been a few instances where she hasn't been very clear. So for example there was an interview with Nick Robinson on the BBC.JorgeShe sometimes says one thing at a big meeting where there is a left wing audience. But then she seems to be a bit more afraid or unable or a bit more vacillating when she's faced with the onslaught of uh a BBC journalist asking her pointed questions and so on. And I think that this reveals that yeah, she's groping in the right direction but she doesn't have a full program to explain and back up what she is saying. And this is what is um, necessary.We are in favor of a uh, nationalized planned economy. And this will uh, will. This will be uh, workable and more efficient and will be in the benefit of everyone. And this can be achieved. But it needs to be, it needs to be explained very clearly and needs to be defended clearly as well.HamidUh, also on the question of NATO.JorgeMhm.HamidUh, she came out and uh, correctly opposed NATO.JorgeSay this is an imperialist, we must leave NATO immediately.HamidUh, but then when talk came about well what do you want instead? She was a bit, yeah, she was.JorgeSaying basically what we need is uh, international relations that will be based on diplomacy and peace and so on. But in reality this is also utopian because in reality as long as capitalism exists and imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, war will continue to exist. So what you need to say is we need, we need the struggle for socialism worldwide. That's the only way to achieve peace, not diplomacy.HamidUm, yes, and I would add the last thing which is um this is, this program, her program needs to be developed, it needs to be concretized, it needs to be written down and debated and carried out as a proper campaign and in an organized fashion. Not just from Sultana speaking at meetings.JorgeYes.HamidBut put on a more organized footing and connected. Obviously there should be a struggle to put this at the, at the, how to say uh, as the main program of, of your party. But. And at the same time there should be an effort made to connect this program to every single struggle that's going on out there in Britain. Mhm. Whether it's tenants, whether it's workers, whether it's school students or university students or lecturers, all of these struggles are fundamentally linked to the question of capitalism. And therefore it needs to be linked to all of those. And we need to link this to the idea of a revolution.JorgeMhm.HamidBecause in the final analysis, if you want to overthrow the system, abolish the capitalist class, abolish the monarchy, you're going to be faced with the entirety of the capitalist class. You can't just legislate your way out of that. This is not about parliamentarism. This cannot be solved within parliament alone.JorgeAnd I think that this, what you're saying about the need for a revolution, this needs to be put out very clearly and it will connect with the mood that there is in society. What's the mood that we've been describing that everyone can understand? There is, is a mood of hatred for the politicians. The opinion poll after opinion poll says that young people, population in general, think the politicians do not represent them, do not serve their interest, they only serve the Interest of the rich and powerful. So the idea of a revolution that brushes them all aside, the whole system turned upside down. That will be a very appealing, uh.HamidAnd as a part of that also the state apparatus. To abolish the present state apparatus. Mhm. And put in place of it a democratic socialist state, a Soviet state, in other words, which we'll discuss in future episodes. We can't go in depth into that now, but a state which is accountable to the working class and not to the capitalist and represents its interest and represents. Which is an entirely different form of state.Um, I think that is a good place to end today's topic. We'll follow this, these developments. We'll follow the development of Sultana and comment and analyze it in the next period.Okay, now let's move on to briefly to the question from one of our viewers. He writes the following. “Excellent discussion as usual.” That's good to know. “Always educational and inspiring. You said at the end that uncertainty as to the outcome of a revolution can be mitigated by. By getting prepared”, getting organized and educated, I assume you mean. “But isn't the primary force that determines the outcomes the consciousness that emerges through struggle? I say this because we have in Europe a mainstream education system that doesn't educate for change, but it's designed to keep us pretty much addicted to continuity. Forgive me for putting it so crudely, but I hope you get what I mean. And therefore, what conscious preparation for change, especially the kind of seismic change you talk about. Can we expect it? There's a lot you've got me thinking about and wishing to say and question. But I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks again for your brilliant work.”Now, first of all, thank you very much for this comrade Mgate Navy who sent this comment. Um, you can contact one of our sections in any country, in whatever country you live in. We have sections all over Europe. And you can come to a meeting and discuss with some of us and ask as many questions as you wish.But I think this is a very, very good question to answer. Yes, consciousness. How can we overcome the enormous barrage of propaganda and distortions which are spewed through the education system, through the media, through every channel you can ask for. Because the capitalist state is not just the armed forces, is also the propaganda machine.JorgeYes. It's the media, the family, religion and everything. It’s tradition. Yeah, tradition. It reproduces the ideology of the dominant class. This is what Marx said that the dominant ideology in any given society is the ideology of the ruling class. They control the ideological apparatus. That is true. That doesn't stop a revolution. Uh, as the question correctly says, it is the consciousness that emerges through struggle. It's through struggle that people change their mind and through practical experience and so on. And this will happen.But what I think he is asking is the relationship between the objective and the subjective. Uh, yes. In a revolution, consciousness changes very quickly. And masses of people who never thought about participating in politics, in demonstrations, in barricades, in storming parliaments, they will do so uh, suddenly, from one day to another, apparently out of nowhere.But that is not enough. The spontaneous rising of the masses, which is happening already in many countries, in Nepal, in Madagascar, in the big strike in Italy, is not enough because uh, what is required is also the subjective factor. A leadership that can take this movement to its last. To its last conclusion, its final conclusion, to the victory of the working class.So there's the relationship between the two things. The party, the organized leadership and the movement of the masses. Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution, put it in the following analogy. He said, this is the relationship between steam and the steam engine, the steam box, the piston box in a machine, uh. Did he say a train engine or. Anyway.The steam is the spontaneous movement of the masses that arises when there is enough pressure. Uh, but the piston box is what directs that steam into one particular outcome and concentrates the strength of that steam. If there is no piston box, then the steam just dissipates into the air and leads nowhere.And we have many examples of this. There are many examples of revolutions throughout history that have been defeated for the lack of revolutionary leadership. And there is one example of a leadership in which the workers took power. Bolshevik revolution of 1917. And the one thing that's different between these two types of examples is that in Russia in 1917, there was a revolutionary leadership under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky that had prepared for many years. They had studied the theory. They had sunk roots in the working class movement. They were known and at the right time, they were at the right place. And they advocated the right slogans and demands. And led the working class to take power. This is the relationship between the two things.HamidYes. I think in ordinary times, the masses leave politics to experts.JorgeExactly.HamidTo people in the know. But the point is, what creates a revolution is not Communists, is not a good idea. What creates a revolution is a fundamental contradiction within a social system. A socioeconomic system that's come to the end of its line creates revolutions. We see that because it cannot move society forward. And it creates the dislocations, injustices, inequalities which spur the masses on forward.Now, in ordinary times, the masses believe the ideas of the ruling class, that this is the natural state of things, this is the best of all worlds. Nothing can be done, nothing can be done about it. And they get a distorted view of what reality is. That is what the propaganda is there for. But propaganda can't feed you in the last analysis. And therefore what you see is over time you can have people say, yeah you communist, you complain too much. Just go to work and do the work, be an upstanding member of community. And they say that and say that, and gradually they believe it less and less and less themselves. And precisely because in fact, they've been defending that system and arguing for it, at some point they're going to say, enough is enough, this doesn't work. And they're going to move into action in that, in the course of that action, consciousness develops very fast. And what is unconscious, what is latent in society, the contradictions of society become conscious. And you see that the rapid development of consciousness in every revolutionary movement is incredible. And if you left the working class in a vacuum, yes, in a revolution, it would move towards a communist consciousness or socialist consciousness. It would move towards, it would understand that it needed to take power away from the capitalist class, and that power rests in the economy and the state. And it would set up Soviets, it would set up workers control. And in fact, there are many examples of that in history.But the point is, this doesn't take place in a vacuum. There's an opposition who's constantly maneuvering. And being out on the streets day in and day out is an extremely tiring thing. And therefore a revolution is time limited.JorgeMhm.HamidBut the whole course of a revolution is a race between the capitalist class trying to tire the working class out before it gets to its aim so that they can regroup and strike back. And the revolutionary forces, the communists, the social, the subjective, the leading parts of the revolution to accelerate the process of the development of consciousness to reach its final conclusion before that, that is concluding that we need to take power, we need to take over the commanding heights of the economy into our own hands, we need to develop our own state, and so on and so forth. So therefore, what we prepare for is, is that particular moment when the workers of Europe will rise. And they will rise. They're already beginning to rise.JorgeMhm.HamidTo be able to help guide that movement, reach its conclusions faster. We can't do the work for it. People need to be convinced through their own experiences. But if there's.JorgeCan’t artificially create.HamidYou can't artificially create a revolution or revolutionary consciousness. That is created by events. But if you walk past it and gradually put that movement into an organized fashion and give it a program and link that movement to your program, you can make that process go much faster.JorgeYes. So to answer the specific question, what you can do to prepare in advance is precisely to join the Revolutionary party, the Revolutionary Communist International, and prepare the forces for that revolutionary leadership to be ready at the time when it's needed.HamidPrecisely. I think that's a good place to end here.Thank you so much for coming, Jorge. Thank you so much for all of you guys out there.Please keep writing your questions and your comments. We're getting a really nice alive comment section for these videos and podcasts. Uh, and we will be back again next Thursday, 6pm UK time. Thank you very much.
