Mohsen Abdelmoumen interviewed Belgian economist, journalist and professor Xavier Dupret for Algérie Patriotique.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: With the arrival of AI and the widespread adoption of robotics, we are being told of massive layoffs in all sectors that will not be offset by the creation of more skilled jobs in new or specialized sectors, as was the case in previous crises. Do you think we are experiencing THE great crisis of capitalism, or worse, the culmination of the Malthusian and eugenicist elites’ dream?
X. DUPRET: Regarding the development of artificial intelligence, it is important to remain modest and nuanced in assessing the consequences of this wave of capital-labor substitution. It seems preferable to observe the impacts sector by sector as an exercise in discernment. However, this caution should not prevent us from making diagnoses that correspond to underlying trends. We can already anticipate that service sector jobs will be primarily threatened. Last year, the Financial Times reported that more than 200,000 jobs in the European banking sector could be automated by 2030. By 2025, artificial intelligence had served as a fundamental technological driver, enabling the implementation of several thousand restructuring operations by the companies involved. These operations resulted in more than one million layoffs in total, the highest level since the Covid crisis. This development, which Western neoliberal elites seek to impose uncontrollably and unregulated on workers worldwide, could pose a major macroeconomic problem. Following Keynesian principles, it is worth noting that job losses can lead to imbalances between production and consumption. In an economy as service-oriented as those of the United States or Western Europe, the weight of service sector workers is economically significant. In North America, white-collar workers represent 50% of employment and finance approximately 75% of consumer spending. The jobs that AI is destroying constitute the core of the American middle class. In the longer term, however, a clear diagnosis remains elusive. Nevertheless, a trend toward increased unemployment due to technological factors can be discerned. The computerization of middle-class jobs is not currently offset by an equivalent creation of new jobs in the service sector. These jobs exist, but not in sufficient numbers to replace the eliminated positions or offset the resulting loss of income.
The tragedy of automation and computerization lies in the fact that information technologies enable the development of new activities but do not create as many paid jobs as they destroy. The proliferation of opinion blogs does not compensate for the decline in paid jobs in professional media. Let’s compare the number of jobs created by information technologies to the number of jobs eliminated and extrapolate existing trends over several decades. It becomes clear that it is impossible for 70% of tomorrow’s jobs worldwide to be those of programmers and designers of computer software and applications. This consideration at the global level is important because we have not yet addressed the situation of emerging economies. In these economies, we do not see such development of services. On the contrary, the question of industrialization on an autonomous basis—that is, national and sovereign—constitutes an adequate response to the challenges we have just described. This perspective on the Global South is important because it sheds light on the underlying political current that accompanies the rise of information technologies and the monopoly capitalism that sustains them: technofascism, reflecting the alliance between Silicon Valley and the reactionary right. This ideology, a novel blend of libertarianism and an old fascist and neocolonial undercurrent that has always existed in major Western countries, aims to dismantle social policies with a chainsaw to give free rein to markets and allow the spread of technological solutions that are hoped will boost productivity gains in North America and Western Europe. I hasten to add that I reject this technological illusion. Indeed, the deindustrialization that has plagued the West will not be halted simply by replacing professional interpreters with interpreting software. Therefore, regaining productivity gains under these conditions proves utterly illusory. So much for the technological aspect. On the other hand, we can fear that, in the long run, fascism will remain. This fear, unfortunately, is not a mere fantasy.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: Alongside the impact of this technological revolution, many heterodox economists remind us that the crises of 2008 and Covid have still not been resolved and that states are weakened by their budget deficits and massive debt levels. Is the European model of capitalism tempered by the welfare state threatened by these powerful demographic, technological, and political trends?
X. DUPRET: I belong to this heterodox school of thought, and indeed, the data is far from spectacular since our governments converted private debt into public debt after the 2008 bank failures, without, however, requiring any contribution from the main beneficiaries of financial liberalization since the 1980s—namely, the wealthiest 10% of the population. On the contrary, the quantitative easing policies of the ECB and the Fed have primarily benefited financial markets and the most privileged tax households. The very low level of interest rates then transformed public debt into cheap social lubricant. The Covid crisis was managed on the basis of these low interest rates. At the time, the “whatever it takes” policy characterized the approach of the European authorities. The injection of cheap money helped to save domestic demand. Subsequently, the desynchronization of value chains caused inflation to rise. This was accompanied by a significant tightening of interest rates. From 2022 onwards, the war in Ukraine resulted, at least in Western Europe, in a marked increase in the rate of imported inflation linked to the rising cost of Russian gas imports. The impact on interest rates was clear.
Since then, the interest burden on public debt (which only concerns interest payments) has literally exploded. For example, in Belgium (my country), this burden will increase from €12.2 billion to nearly €20.9 billion between 2026 and 2030. However, this situation needs to be put into perspective. Indeed, the real cost of the debt, once the effect of inflation is deducted, has so far been lower than the debt burden and has even been negative in recent years, precisely because interest rates have remained low for a long time. For the time being, there is no sign of a growing burden of liabilities within public finances leading to a “snowball effect.” As a reminder, such an effect characterizes a trajectory in which the interest burden mechanically perpetuates itself, leading to an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio even if the deficit is kept to a minimum. It occurs when the average interest rate on the debt exceeds the GDP growth rate. We are not yet at that point, but in the future, if nothing is done to put public finances in order, this burden will increase to such an extent that a “snowball” scenario cannot be ruled out.
However, the solution is far from straightforward. Let’s even venture a slightly counterintuitive approach. What if the problem with our public finances lies not in excessive spending, but in insufficient revenue resulting from inadequate taxation of the wealthy and the upper and upper-middle classes? After all, when the Belgian state drastically reduced its public debt, from over 130% of GDP in the early 1990s to nearly 95% in the mid-2000s, the tax system was much more progressive than it is today. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that in countries where it existed, wealth taxes have been dismantled. It should come as no surprise, then, that our states are cash-strapped.
It is clear from this perspective—and here I see a link with the preceding question and the rise of fascism in the United States and many European countries—that the right-wing discourse places far too much emphasis on the fallacious theme of a “bankrupt state” in order to sacrifice the social-democratic model that served as the structuring framework for defining this branch of Bismarckian capitalism (also known as continental capitalism). This amounts to a social attack disguised as pub talk. Indeed, the economic consequences in Europe of the combined attack by Zionist and American forces against Iran clearly demonstrate that it is not the states themselves that are making drastic cuts in their public finances.
Indeed, from the ECB’s perspective, German positions currently ensure that interest rates will remain unchanged as long as inflation forecasts remain stable. If Trump fails to calm the situation or if he is too weakened after the midterm elections to fend off Netanyahu’s attacks, the scenario of oil reaching $150 a barrel will no longer be a marginal possibility. We will then see if the Germans remain so accommodative regarding interest rates. It is worth noting that, faced with rising inflation, government bond yields are already rising across Europe. These long-term interest rates, set by the markets, are what ultimately determine the price of debt. In this regard, it must be acknowledged that the yield spread between French and German debt remains wide. Spain, on the other hand, is holding up considerably better. Cervantes’ homeland, by implementing Keynesian demand-side policies and providing greater protection for the working class (which includes legalizing the residency of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers), is currently the champion of growth in Europe. Madrid is expected to see its GDP grow by 3% this year. Wage-driven growth apparently pays off more than a chainsaw. However, the rise in economic uncertainty does not preclude the possibility of making differentiated societal choices. It is therefore by no means a foregone conclusion that technofascism will prevail. After all, job losses in the private service sector can be offset by the development of public services, particularly in personal assistance, education, and care for the elderly. On this point, let’s not delude ourselves. It is still possible today to finance our welfare states. Under the onslaught of neoliberal policies, Belgian and French workers have lost the equivalent of 5 percentage points of GDP, corresponding to a decrease in the share of wages in our countries’ GDP over the last thirty years. 5% of the wealth created in Europe could therefore be redistributed from capital to labor. It’s a matter of political will.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: We are also witnessing a loss of confidence in free trade and international value chains, in favor of sovereignty, geographical retreat into more compact blocs, and a war economy, somewhat like at the end of the 19th century in Europe with the formation of political and military alliances on a global scale. Will the world commit suicide like Europe at the end of the 19th century, and is there still room for economics to mitigate these geopolitical tensions?
X. DUPRET: I would like to begin by clarifying the terms of this debate. What we have called “globalization” is an approximation and an amalgamation of distinct realities. In fact, globalized value chains correspond to an internationalization of trade that resumed at the end of the Second World War and intensified from the 1960s onward.
When we talk about globalization, we are actually talking about a process that amounts to an attempt to Americanize the world. To understand the specific nature of this process, it is important to focus on the issue of financial liberalization, which has gradually accompanied the internationalization of trade over the past fifty years. Upon closer examination, it is quite possible to open trade between two countries on a free-market basis without necessarily accompanying this decision with the opening of their capital accounts. This financial dimension is what characterizes the Pax Americana of the post-Cold War era. By comparison, we can also see that China has benefited from the globalization of trade without liberalizing access to the foreign exchange surplus it has accumulated from its exports. This restriction imposed on the US financial sector can be considered a major point of contention between Washington and Beijing. It is, of course, not the only source of conflict between the two countries. In this regard, the desire of American industries to move upmarket is equally important. However, one might think that if China were to open its capital markets to Wall Street’s appetites, it would very likely have fewer problems with Uncle Sam.
It so happens that since 2008, the US model of capitalism, which can be described as financialized neoliberal, has been losing significant momentum. This situation reinforces China’s growing autonomy, positioning it to further advance its agenda on the international stage. Indeed, China’s rise among the major powers is astounding.
If I were to attempt to characterize our current era from a geopolitical perspective, I would prefer to avoid comparisons with the past, which carry the unverifiable, metaphysical assumption that history repeats itself. For my part, I favor a method that emphasizes experimental concepts rather than general assumptions. I will therefore situate the remainder of this analysis within the framework of the economist Charles Kindleberger (1910-2003). In this regard, it cannot be stressed enough that our era lacks leadership and coordination in the implementation of global public goods. These refer to services or resources (monetary stability, trade regulations) available to all states, but requiring cooperation for their production. The least that can be said is that this coordination is lacking.
Kindleberger’s work, however, should not lead to a proliferation of flawed historical parallels. His research aimed to identify the roots of the economic and political instability that culminated in the Second World War. According to Kindleberger’s analytical framework, the United States’ refusal to assume a hegemonic position in place of the then-declining United Kingdom explains the rise of nationalism and the ensuing cataclysm in Europe. It must be acknowledged that this analysis aligns well with the events as they unfolded in the aftermath of the First World War. Following their decisive intervention in Europe, the United States, in fact, chose as early as 1918 to refocus on developing its industries, which had reached the stage of mass consumption. It is precisely on this point that parallels between the 1930s and the current situation prove ineffective. Indeed, China wants to take its role as a great power seriously by providing international public goods, and it is the United States that is preventing it from doing so, as evidenced by Washington’s thwarted participation of China in the functioning of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
China’s rise to power has been accompanied, for the past fifteen years or so, by pressure exerted by Beijing to hold a larger share of the IMF’s capital and thus position itself more as a provider of international public goods. Under these conditions, one can only hope for the emergence of a multipolar world that will allow the Global South to have a greater influence on the international stage. In this context, the countries of the Global South are increasingly appearing as full-fledged actors in the reshaping of the international order.
For now, however, it is clear that the United States opposes this relativization of its power. The situation is therefore deadlocked, with all the dangers that such a situation inevitably entails. While Washington pursues an agenda of liberalizing financial flows and foreign direct investment, China, for its part, emphasizes the principles of sovereignty and national development rights. As long as the world remains divided between two poles of global power promoting such diametrically opposed approaches, clashes are likely to erupt across the globe. It is high time that Western nations finally realized that this world does not revolve exclusively around their interests and ideological frameworks.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: Does the European Union, built on economic integration, still make sense today, or should we return to the level of nation-states? What is your vision for a country like Belgium?
X. DUPRET: A country like Belgium, which has already suffered so much from two world wars resulting from the struggle for political hegemony in Europe, can only hope for the implementation of mechanisms for consultation in Europe. The question regarding European integration should, moreover, be less about its very existence. After all, the fact that Europeans resolve their differences through discussions within the European Council rather than on a battlefield represents considerable human progress.
I make this observation while keeping in mind a comment I often heard when I lived in Argentina: “European culture is very violent.” It is true that Europeans have committed more than one genocide throughout their history. This fact encourages us to see European integration more as an opportunity than an obstacle.
In reality, it is the political content of Europeanism that must be seriously questioned. First of all, if Europe truly wants to be synonymous with peace, it is time for it to recognize the inherently criminal nature of colonialism. This starting point constitutes an absolutely essential moral and diplomatic imperative.
Furthermore, let’s not delude ourselves. Acknowledging past crimes will certainly be necessary, but by no means sufficient. It is also crucial that Europe develops genuine partnerships on an equal footing with the African continent and, more broadly, the Global South. We are expected to take firm action in this area. From this perspective, European leaders must absolutely understand that the emerging multipolarity represents an opportunity to be encouraged and supported, not with a cantankerous hand, but in a spirit of fraternity and friendship between peoples. Europe would benefit from forging truly balanced relationships with these regions, in a spirit of respect and cooperation, rather than limiting itself to its own interests. The idea of a European non-alignment that would reposition the Old Continent equidistant between Washington and Beijing is, from this perspective, a promising endeavor: never again should the Old Continent serve as a mere rear base for NATO.
Finally, the neoliberal orientation of the European treaties must be challenged. The inward-looking dimension you highlighted in your question is not unrelated to the immense social setbacks we have witnessed in Europe over the last thirty years. During the 1980s, the European movement capitalized on the challenge posed by the neoliberal currents then in vogue to state interventionism. A top-down liberalization was thus imposed under the pretext that it was the European level that decided it. In reality, sound sociological realism teaches us that European political elites, whether working at the national level or within European institutions, were convinced of the validity of neoliberal principles.
However, as we have seen, these latter developments constitute a fundamental trend embodying the implementation of a model of accumulation through dispossession. The regressions caused by this redeployment of capital fuel fascist, xenophobic, and racist movements which, by weakening relations with the Global South, undermine our shared future. While millions of workers from the Global South keep the European economic machine running, it is inconceivable that these workers should remain deprived of the most basic rights simply because they lack proper documentation. It is telling, moreover, that the Spanish government, in its characteristic commitment to promoting workers’ rights, has opted for the mass regularization of workers who had previously been kept undocumented.
It must be acknowledged, however, with complete clarity, that current political directions are hardly heading in this direction. Whether it be austerity treaties, cooperation with the Global South, or servile subservience to Washington, European leaders seem to have chosen to live in the past. Their reluctance to condemn the aggression against Iran, widely contested under international law, is a stark reminder of this.
Ultimately, European unification will only have meaning if this relatively recent political construct manages to move in the direction dictated by history; otherwise, it will be replaced by other structures. On this point, I am not among those who believe that a return to nation-states is the alternative to the regressive stagnation described earlier. What do 11 million Belgians or 40 million Spaniards weigh against giants like India or China? The old European nations are lightweights in the multipolar world of tomorrow. Consequently, groupings smaller than the current European Union could succeed it. We are already seeing the beginnings of this in the creation, for example, of the Nordic Council coordination forum in Scandinavia.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: What does my country, Algeria, the “Mecca of revolutionaries,” represent for you?
X. DUPRET: Perhaps this will surprise you somewhat, but I still define myself today as a Third Worldist. Admittedly, this is rather unusual for a man of my generation, and I’ve sometimes been criticized for it in Europe. Nevertheless, this framework, which favors positive non-alignment—without rejecting anyone and with respect for sovereignty—remains the best approach for guaranteeing peace and the right to development. Current events prove the validity of this doctrine to us, day after day.
Indeed, if rumors of war are swirling around the world right now, it is not, contrary to what the Western hegemonic media claim, due to a clash of civilizations between the benevolent democrats of the North and the wicked dictatorships of the South. This situation, worrying in more ways than one, stems from the fact that the United Nations doctrine, which recognizes states and not governments, is being increasingly trampled underfoot. It is true that the West still struggles to grasp that the era of colonialism is definitively over. In this respect, the United States’ gunboat diplomacy in the Middle East constitutes a monumental error that the West may well come to regret.
What I also remember most about Algeria is, of course, its solidarity with all national liberation struggles around the world. I am particularly sensitive to this as I am Belgian. In this regard, the role played, albeit on a modest scale, by the Northern Front in supporting Algerian independence cannot be overstated. As a reminder, this Front refers to the solidarity movement involving Belgian citizens who fought alongside the FLN during the Algerian War of Independence. This network included “suitcase carriers” who provided logistical support to the liberation movement, as well as Belgian lawyers defending Algerian activists. This support also included press campaigns in favor of Algerian independence.
I would like to conclude this response on a slightly more personal note. Algerian sovereignty, still criticized in certain right-wing circles in France, is in no way accompanied by chauvinism or a closed-mindedness. As proof, I offer the fact that one of Algiers’ most beautiful squares pays homage to Maurice Audin. I had the opportunity to see it recently and I hope to see it again someday. To be honest, I sometimes miss Algeria. The light in Place Audin truly has something captivating about it, and certainly something unusual for someone from the north.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: What does the struggle of the Sahrawi people represent for you?
X. DUPRET: This question provides a very interesting transition from the previous one. I have already had the opportunity to visit the camps twice: in 2020 with a group of journalists from across Europe and in 2025 with the Belgian Committee for the Support of the Sahrawi People. I also attended the proceedings of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations, which deals with decolonization issues. Before going any further, I would like to emphasize the Algerian government’s unwavering and significant solidarity with the refugees living near Tindouf. It is exemplary.
The more I reflect on it, the more it seems to me that the Western Sahara issue demonstrates the validity of the Algerian perspective on international relations. To be convinced of this, one need only look at the facts as they stand. In 1975, we have a colonized territory in Africa and a small people, the Sahrawis, fighting for their freedom. An advisory opinion from the United Nations Court of Justice recognized the inalienable right to self-determination of this territory, but while Spain was preparing to turn the page on Francoism, France, a former colonial power that had not relinquished its role in Africa, literally armed its best client in the Maghreb, Morocco, and a war of invasion began. How can one not describe this situation as the most blatant and despicable form of neocolonialism? How can one fail to see that the persistence of colonial attitudes still hinders development and peace in the world today? More broadly, decolonization is not just a question of borders: it is also a question of international justice.
From this perspective, it is clear that Europe has not distanced itself from Paris on this important issue. The attempts to conclude trade agreements with Morocco, against the repeated rulings of the European Court of Justice, are particularly eloquent examples of this. The Commission’s support for the Moroccan autonomy plan represents a continuation of past practices. It cannot be stressed enough that this plan was conceived in the offices of the Élysée Palace under the leadership of Jacques Chirac. At the time, Paris was seeking to circumvent the implementation of the Baker Plan, which aimed to organize a referendum on self-determination. It is clear that if this referendum had taken place in the early 1990s, Western Sahara would be independent and sovereign today. Neocolonialism and democracy are decidedly incompatible.
In any case, the Sahrawi people’s struggle for freedom will continue under the leadership of the Polisario Front, their sole legitimate representative, and the bluster from Paris or the Makhzen will change nothing. When you visit the camps, this determination is, moreover, palpable. In the future, I predict that the Sahrawi struggle for independence will take on an emblematic and absolutely unavoidable dimension. Indeed, how is it possible that in 2026, there will still be a colony in Africa whose area is three times that of Portugal? The more time passes, the more this question, still so pressing today, will resurface.
In this regard, Morocco’s strategy of attrition and fait accompli could backfire on Rabat. In the shorter term, it will soon be clear whether Donald Trump still holds a majority in both houses of Congress after the November elections. Should Trumpism suffer a significant defeat in November, Washington’s support will be less politically significant. The European press, which only yesterday hailed a supposed “diplomatic victory” for Morocco, will have to revise its assessment. It can only be recommended that, in the future, it listen more closely to Algiers’ voice regarding the Western Sahara issue.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: What is your analysis of Trump and Netanyahu’s imperialist attack on Iran?
X. DUPRET: Imperialism is the military manifestation of neocolonialism in its most direct and brutal form. This is not a new phenomenon in the history of international relations.
However, a political and ideological element must be noted that alters this situation in the case of the attack against Iran. Usually, when the United States decides to confront a government that deviates from what Washington considers the norm in international relations, the United Nations is put under pressure. Immediately, the major media groups serving the oligarchy take up the cause and work to fabricate an international community that, coincidentally, identifies with Washington’s message. And if it is necessary to spread lies, such as the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the outbreak of the second Gulf War, American diplomacy will do so without hesitation. That said, this concern to demonstrate the legitimacy of an operation, even a fictitious one, revealed a demand for formality on the part of Washington. This desire to maintain appearances ultimately corresponded to a desire to create law, much like a defendant who lies in self-defense.
It is precisely at this level that we can identify a reorientation taking place under Donald Trump’s leadership. The joint intervention of the Zionist bloc and the American military has never been debated within the UN. This point deserves emphasis. International law has been deliberately sidelined by the Trump administration. This constitutes an unprecedented break. Their alignment with the practices of the Zionist entity, which are deeply reprehensible from the perspective of international law, is now evident.
This worrying shift reflects a process of radicalization on the right wing of the American political scene. The parallels between the MAGA movement and the fascist militias active in Europe during the interwar period are well-known and documented. This authoritarian radicalization has clearly fostered a rapprochement with the far right of the Zionist entity, embodied, in a most sinister way, by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Fascism doesn’t fall from the sky. It is the reaction of a decadent power confronted with its own limitations. This is precisely what is currently unfolding in Iran. Despite all the sanctions imposed on Tehran since 1979, Iran is on the verge of closing the strategic gap with the Zionist entity. The anxiety within Zionist circles, both in Washington and Tel Aviv, is palpable. This psychological factor helps explain the violence of the reaction.
Moreover, it is perhaps in Iran that the end of Western, and more specifically American, hegemony will play out, a process whose starting point can be traced back to the 2008 financial crisis. In any case, it is important to emphasize Iran’s military power, whether in terms of its drones or the strike capability of its missiles. The Iranian side must be taken seriously when it says it is not afraid of a protracted war. This factor seems to have been underestimated by the West.
M. ABDELMOUMEN: What explains the unconditional support of the United States for the Zionist entity of Israel in perpetuating the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and in their war against Iran?
X. DUPRET: A nuanced answer to this question requires two levels of analysis. There has traditionally been a strong connection between Washington and the Zionist entity. This collusion can be explained by a series of structural factors that have profoundly shaped both domestic political life in the United States and the architecture of international relations. The American political system is characterized less by ideological clashes than by a juxtaposition of diverse sociological realities, giving rise to a kind of “struggle for positions” anchored in the existence of various lobbies, some of which correspond to specific communities. It is at this level that a pro-Zionist lobby operates in the United States.
It would be wrong, moreover, to identify this pressure group solely with American citizens of Jewish faith. Indeed, millenarian evangelical sects actively support reactionary circles within the Zionist entity, while anti-Zionist American Jews (Norman Finkelstein, for example) oppose colonialism in Palestine. On a broader macropolitical level, the importance of the Cold War as a factor that cemented the alliance between Washington and the Zionist entity must also be highlighted. Faced with a Soviet Union that supported national liberation movements in the Arab world and the rise of the Non-Aligned Movement, the United States favored closer ties with Tel Aviv.
US hegemony is now nearing its end, and Washington is aligning itself with the aggressive policies of the Zionist entity, in accordance with Netanyahu’s neo-colonial and fascist ideology. Ideologically, this strengthened collaboration reflects a greater appreciation of the Zionist entity’s role as a bridgehead for the West in the Near and Middle East. China’s rise in the region is a major source of concern for Washington. However, since Iran is an ally of Beijing in the region, the conflict with Iran can be seen as a proxy war with China.
The war against Iran is a power grab against the emergence of a multipolar world. This attempt, in addition to the damage it inflicts on the global economy, is also a rearguard action. Indeed, we are not sufficiently aware of China’s incredible rise to power in barely two generations. Since the beginning of the century, of the billion people lifted out of poverty worldwide, 800 million are Chinese.
Personally, and in conclusion, I am among the Europeans who wish to collaborate more closely with China. Beijing’s remarkable economic success proves that it is possible to increase a continent’s prosperity without bowing to the dictates of Wall Street. For the welfare states of the Old Continent, this is, of course, an extremely encouraging prospect.
