Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested. V.I.Lenin
Economic and Philosophic Science Review
Subscriptions (£12 p.a.) and circulation P&P Bulletin Publications. PO Box 50, London SW17 9NL [Post Office Registered.] Phone 0771 2639934  www.epsr.org.uk 
No 1509 8th April 2017                                                                                                        25p fortnightly

     
Foul Syria blitzing shows Goebbels BIG LIE  fascist reality of capitalist crisis warmongering and exposes craven Labourites as does “anti-semitism” kangaroo court Livingstone “judgement”

The Cruise missile attack on Syria by Trump’s Pentagon  is a monstrous escalation of the US-Western-Zionist fascist warmongering on the Middle East, “justified” by the most grotesque Goebbels BIG LIE yet produced, beyond the Gulf of Tonkin, Recak, Benghazi or WMD, eagerly and criminally deluged out without query by all the  stinking bourgeois “free” press and political establishment.
The blitzkrieg response is a war-crime of international aggression and vengeance. Timing to sabotage the Syrian peace talks is not a coincidence.
It was carried out quickly to prevent opposition or even rational consideration.  
There is no way to determine either cause or responsibility for the Idlib attack, let alone to declare it a “war crime”, not just within hours but virtually synchronously, as the Western warmongers have immediately done; evidence takes weeks if not months to gather and analyse with teams of skilled forensic investigators on the ground.
Jumping the gun to stampede “popular opinion” without evidence is the key issue exposing this as Nazism, not half-hearted “alternative explanations” though many possible causes and motives must be considered including a bombed gas store held by CIA funded rebels, a secret and deliberate-provocation by them, or by warplane or missile strike from the Zionist occupation in Palestine (it has the gas capabilities - unchallenged by the sanctimonious West), or by the US itself. Or NATO stooge Turkey.  
The lie is covered with a choreographed and synchronised propaganda operation drowning the world in a deluge of utterly cynical crocodile tear “concern for civilians” which is all the more grotesquely hypocritical  set alongside the barbaric onslaught on Yemen (see main story), or the total razing of Mosul and Raqqaslaughtering civilians (women and children) by hundreds at a time.
Collusion of the media stampeding the hysteria is a warcrime in itself; the ineffectual and wholly whimpering social-pacifist and “condemn terror” response of the fake-”left” utterly despicable (including those “supporting” Assad but who go along with the “war on terror” barbarities slaughtering tens of thousands).
And where does revisionist Bejing (and their “all hailing” Stalinist tailenders) stand as it meets with Trump?????? Moscow?
Fake-“left” treachery is equally revealed by current opportunist capitulation to the Zionist-CIA conspiracy to silence all criticism as “anti-semitism”, particularly as expressed in the disgusting Labour witch-hunt (by Corbynism, propped up by the fake-”left”) against Ken Livingstone’s correct and important attempts to make the fascist nature of Zionism clear with facts about its past collusion with Hitlerite Nazism.
Livingstone is a rank opportunist and anti-communist careerist, who supported war on Serbia and police suppression of anarchists in London; his episodic support for some progressive causes, like Ireland and the heroic Palestinian national-liberation struggle and hostility to the land-theft fascist occupation of their country is no guide to his philistine anti-communist essence and more to do careerist fake-“left” credibility .
But the campaign against him is reactionary garbage and needs challenging head on. 
Build Leninism DH

Reactionary Gibraltar war threats reveal crisis warmongering hate purpose of Brexit – but nervous disowning by the mainstream shows weakness and nervousness of the ruling class as the Great Catastrophe rolls on. Brexit (all sides) no solution for workers and a deliberate diversion. Only building a revolutionary movement fighting for a world perspective to lead class war to take power can change anything. Chauvinist poison encouraged by Leavers (and not remotely challenged by Remain moralising about “racism”) goes hand in hand with demented “war on terror” scapegoating, fearmongering and hate campaigns. Jihadism - however barmy - is part of world revolt against imperialism - “left” condemnation is craven capitulation. Irish national liberation continues forwards but Leninism needed

The establishment quickly backed off the inflammatory “war for Gibraltar” threats by reactionary Tory throwback lord, Michael Howard but he gave away the real nature of the Brexit game.
War is exactly where it is heading – the only solution the bourgeoisie has to its onrushing crisis – and not just with Spain.
Brexit xenophobia and nationalism goes hand in hand with the demented Goebbels hate campaigning of the “war on terror” and against “rogue state tyrants” whipped up by crude non-stop big lies such as the latest ludicrous “chemical weapons” nonsense against Syria (see side bar).
It is all to get the population on board with a “kill them all” atmosphere needed for devastating inter-imperialist conflicts to come as the Great Catastrophe of 2008 returns in hurricane force.
But things are not quite ripe yet, and the ruling class is split, so a stream of downplaying news and comment stories was hastily planted in the compliant bourgeois media by the intelligence agencies, from the admiral brought onto Radio 4’s Today programme to “chuckle” over a decade-old diplomatic incident when “marines on exercise landed on the wrong beach off Gibraltar and accidentally invaded Spain, ho-ho”, various “ignore him he’s gaga” bourgeois commentaries and even the Labour-riding bogus “left” poseur Paul Mason in the “liberal” but relentlessly anti-communist Guardian, declaring that “we should concentrate on the real threat of Russia and jihadism”(!!).
If the mainstream Tories (and their craven Labourite servants and assorted “lefts”) quickly disowned Howard’s comments it is not out of “principles”, rationality or even basic humanity – one look at the sick and degenerate fascist mayhem being rained down on the hapless Middle East, is proof of that. 
Endless slaughter and grotesque butchery of civilians by the thousands continues in the ostensible “war on terror” Nazi-razing of Mosul and Raqqa (largely unreported, or uncritically so by the bourgeois media); in the equally played-down feudal Saudi destruction of Yemen (with massive British arms-sales and operational support) leaving more than 2 million people facing agonising death by starvation; in the warlordist hell left in nazi-NATO invaded Libya; in the sectarian mess created in Syria by Western provocation; and with millions more who have been tangled in horrific Western induced war or civil war facing horrible famine throughout South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria etc (see last EPSR).
The virtually senile British ruling class, long since stripped of its Empire and significant world power, though not its “patrician” arrogance, knows there is not the remotest possibility it can seriously take on the massive monopoly capitalist bloc in Europe, and particularly its central element, the enormous economic and political power of Germany.
The immediate response of the Europeans, threatening to remove London’s Euro-currency trading arrangements, chopping at least 200 000 jobs in the City (plus many more service jobs), showed the kind of economic blows that will be exchanged, devastating for the most parasitical finance capital economy in the world, which has few other (industrial or agricultural) strings to its bow and those wholly foreign owned anyway or mortgaged to foreign banks.
However much the British might tag behind Washington militarism and mock the EU countries’ “inadequate contribution to NATO” etc the ruling class knows that political or military defeat would soon be staring them in the face if things escalated, especially remembering that the Franco-German core of Europe has long been quietly getting on with building a European military outside the Anglo-Saxon dominated NATO, as inter-imperialist tensions increase. 
The British ruling class is not yet driven so frantic by its failures and bankruptcy as to go for an all-or-nothing beserker war challenge – possibly even playing its nuclear card (though nothing is ruled out as the world economic disaster runs out of road from the Quantitative Easing boost).
But that does not mean the warmongering atmosphere being stirred around by the Howards and others of the nostalgic empire wing of the ruling class, (and their fascist tools like UKIP) is just a joke – exactly the opposite.
It is the essence of where capitalism is unstoppably heading.
And capitalism as a whole is what the working class needs to concentrate on as the only sound starting point to understand many of the chaotic developments now underway.
All the arguments about whether Britain is “better off” inside or out of Europe, and “left” versions of the same about “the best place to fight against austerity” are so much diversionary flannel.
They deliberately keep attention away from the real problem – that no one is going to be “better off” anywhere while capitalism lasts.
There is a real argument in the ruling class on Europe and it can be usefully explored further (see below) but only as part of a world perspective to help see the weakness and paralysis of the ruling class, tearing recriminatory chunks out of each other over the best line to follow.
For workers to get caught up in taking either side is to miss the critical question and get tangled and split, as well as being headed-off from the only possible solution to all this chaos, the revolutionary struggle against all the capitalist system.
Oncoming crisis is going to hammer all economies and most of all the working class whether they are inside or out of the European Union.
They will remain exploited victims of major international corporations and capitalist big power interests and will be driven downwards whether Volkswagen, Toyota or General Motors is running the factory eg.
What workers in every country need to hear is a message of class war explaining that only ending the entire system totally will suffice to take mankind anywhere.
That means defeating their own ruling class wherever they are.
Brexit needs to be understood as a symptom only of the Great Catastrophic economic and politic failure of capitalism. It is this crisis which is the sole cause beneath the collapse into horrific devastation and agonising turmoil in the world and escalating inter-imperialist tensions. It needs restating.
Once a driving force for human progress, capitalism has long since long since transformed into an ever more destructive and wasteful drag on society – most horrifically expressed in the economic collapses of the early twentieth century and the subsequent World Wars on a scale of butchery, savagery and destruction never seen before, and in the subsequent domination and suppression of the essentially enslaved Third World through endless wars all just as barbaric and genocidal, gruesome massacres, collective punishment, coups, fascist stoogery, and torture and depravity beyond anything medieval feudalism could invent. 
A third, and greatest ever crisis has been unfolding for decades, particularly accelerated since 2008 and still taking shape, deferred only temporarily by deranged and unsustainable credit creation, the Quantitative Easing swamping the world in utterly valueless new Mickey Mouse dollars.
Production stagnation is now the norm, as it has been in Japan since the 1990s, even before renewed financial collapse. 
Massive further collapse is due anytime.
QE has salvaged nothing. It only further pollutes the already poisoned world currency system, adding to the eventual implosion (one symptom already emerging in soon-to-be-uncontrollable inflation, another the consumer credit bubble back to 2008 levels). 
Every capitalist ruling class faces hugely intensified cutthroat world competition as long developing trade world conflicts, ripening for decades, reach a point of total and open trade war and vicious protectionism à la Trump-ism.
It is rapidly becoming a battle not just for market dominance, (the “normal” antagonistic condition of both “legal” and even more normal mafia capitalist rivalry) but for life-and-death survival itself. 
While unprecedented exploitation and profiteering continue to increase obscene inequality, this system’s ever worsening Slump conditions are imposed on the working class everywhere (stepped up even in “rich nation” Britain again this month as yet more euphemistically named “austerity” measures punish the poor), and with far worse to come once the fantasy of Mickey Mouse QE dollar “recovery” implodes.
It is not stoppable by “left pressure” or “better regulation” or “returning to a period before neoliberalism” (which is only a name for reassertive capitalism) – or any other of the reformism which has been tried for the last century or more and which has only brought the world back to rampant inequality and crisis collapse.
Such reformism is deluded complacency at best or outright anti-communist treachery disarming the working class. 
As Marx understood in the titanic analysis of Capital and Lenin further analysed for the imperialist era, (Imperialism - the highest stage of capitalism) monopoly capitalism’s contradictions can only drive towards ever worsening disasters and total destruction of the vast piles of “surplus” capital swamping the world, to “unclog” this greed ridden and wasteful system of production for private profit.
At the same time the ruling class needs to “rebalance” the “pecking order” for the constantly shifting strength of the unevenly developing monopoly powers, to sort out who will get the lion’s share of future exploitation (if anyone comes out of the next round of devastation at all, that is). 
The only way capitalism knows how to do this is by main force and war conflict.
All the grotesque torture, starvation blockades and civilian-butchery blitzkriegs imposed on the Middle East for nearly three decades (starting with the first Gulf War and 10 years of subsequent killer “sanctions” against Iraq), as well as Serbia, Ukraine etc plus sabotage, nazi coups and subversion elsewhere (like Latin America) and the belligerent threats and chauvinism increasingly breaking out between the major capitalist powers themselves (Trumpite aggression and scapegoating, hostility to German-led Europe and to the revisionist Chinese workers state, Brexit antagonism within Europe) are the early symptoms of this epochal collapse.
And the propaganda around them is part of the drive to war, trying to hoodwink and dragoon the working class behind the narrowest chauvinism and international antagonism, being lined up to blame outsiders, “terrorists”, other countries, other working classes and scapegoated victims of all kinds for “unfair practices” or “dumping” or just being “to blame”.
Howard’s comments fit right alongside all the deliberately fostered xenophobia creating such murderous hate attacks as the foul Croydon near-murder of an asylum seeker, the demented scapegoating of islamic minorities and the ridiculous hysteria around the Westminster “terror” incident, inflated with absurd and hollow “Churchillian” rhetoric about “standing together” and “carrying on as normal” as if an invasion force was imminently to land on the beaches, a hollow onion-holding pantomime of pretend concern of astonishing cynicism in order to “justify” yet more censorship, surveillance and domestic repression.
But the ruling class has never been more uncertain.
Most do not seriously believe in “Brexit” at all, including the preposterous careerist Mussolini-style buffoonery of Boris Johnson and the utterly hollow, unelected pretender Theresa May herself, a shallow impressionist, desperately play-acting to try and look like Churchill or even the supposed “Iron Lady” Thatcher (a narrow and limited petty bourgeois philistine in fact) but sounding and looking more empty and desperate with every speech. 
They go along with it in a cynical game to distract and divert the working class from grasping and focusing on the only real issue there is, the gigantic “elephant in the room” of the capitalist collapse.
The split that has emerged into the open with the most of the Tory “big guns” like Michael Heseltine, John Major, Chris Patten, and Kenneth Clarke all recently expressing astonishingly vitriolic or contemptuous disdain for the “Brexiters”, shows the mainstream despair in the ruling class.
British imperialism is trapped effectively between two huge millstones, the huge economic and military power of the topdog US imperialist power, allegedly its traditional ally (though ready to stab anyone in the back for its own advantage, especially now in the crisis with the unstable Trumpism at the wheel), and the more recent coalition of the European nations which was formed after the last world war to try and contain the unstoppably growing power of the big German economy, each trading some local sovereignty for joint strength eventually against the other major blocs, Washington, the Japanese dominated Far East and any emergent powers.
For decades the British ruling class has seen obvious economic advantage in the access to the European market, and ultimate trade war protection, despite having to cooperate with the twentieth century’s major rival in Berlin and even to play second fiddle (salvaging its pride by grovelling to Washington warmongering and insisting on its poodle-like (and mostly unreciprocated) “special relationship”).
It could console itself with the notion it was keeping Germany “under control”, as Heseltine insisted recently, as he despairingly declared Brexit, and withdrawal from European councils, to be the “greatest sacrifice of British influence” he knew. 
Strategically the EU (and the expanded Cold War NATO) was also a mechanism to keep the post-1991 capitalist counter-revolution alive in East Europe as its nazi-reactionariness inevitably and quickly became increasingly obvious – (giving the lie incidentally to the vile Trot poison of the “political revolution to carry the working class forwards” which helped all this anti-Soviet fascist backwardness (like Solidarnosc) etc into place).
Brussels funds could hold down the constant tendency of populations there to hanker nostalgically for the “better times under communism”, always with a background threat of revived revolutionary developments (which are still fermenting, as the eastern Ukraine workers’ fight against the Swastika-waving CIA-manipulated Kiev coup regime demonstrates).
Widening the membership and then ensuring massive European loan and grant fund transfers into the eastern economies for infrastructure and trade projects, along with access to (relatively) better paid jobs in the West to bribe younger, healthier and more adventurous workers, who would otherwise face the domestic unemployment and the raw economic savagery of the counter-revolutionary oligarch owners and their crude fascist-mafia carpet-bagging (the only reality of “free markets” and western “democracy” etc), have been vital for preventing threatening upheavals (and also to some extent in the poorer Western countries too like Spain, Portugal and Greece).
It also keeps alive the petty bourgeois anti-communism of the opportunist elements from the former workers states (always notably virulent among some - albeit not all – migrant workers), who thrived in the philosophical vacuum left after Gorbachevite revisionist confusion had pointlessly liquidated the giant achievements of the Soviet Union, and whose on-the-make pettiness backed the counter-revolution.
Without such funds, and the shallow consumerist “delights” they bring for a few (for the moment), the same workers would be forced to turn to revolutionary struggle in all these countries.
For British imperialism there is a double bonus of draining funds from rival states, the German economy in particular, helping contain the competition, while also providing a pool of cheaper labour throughout Europe and particularly in the UK, undercutting wages and undermining local working class efforts to organise. 
Cheaper production facilities in the eastern countries play a similar bribery jobs role, if also benefitting more the biggest investor, German capitalism.
Despite the “bag of cats” reality of the non-stop monopoly capitalist jostling within the supposed EU “union” – which can never be more than a gerry-built lash-up struggling to contain the rivalries and antagonisms that permeate capitalism permanently – this complex balance was still considered its best option by the British ruling class. 
The reactionary “Empire” wing of the establishment however, fretted at Brussels’ “bureaucracy” (which is dominated by Franco/German influence on regulations and law, tailored to give their corporations the advantage – remember the “mad cow” beef bans eg? – and to contain British finance power).
But its fantasy of a freelance “independent role” for Britain was deemed unrealistic by the mainstream Tory establishment (and their Blairite alter ego), because it ignores Britain’s declining imperial status.
The sudden switch now in British bourgeois policy to “leave” reflects less renewed confidence than desperate expediency driven by the Great Catastrophe which has been pushed down hard onto Europe as US imperialism has stepped up its trade and financial pressure, particularly using the control it exerts over the world reserve dollar currency and massive QE credit to force the impact of the great crash outwards.
Combined with economic weakening in Europe was the need to head off rising domestic “populist” turmoil (i.e potential revolutionary upheaval) diverted with the referendum.  
Of course Brexit is nothing to do with a tediously repeated “following the will of the people” any more than the rest of bourgeois “democracy” has ever been anything but the most giant hoodwinking fraud.
To the contrary, use of the plebiscite reflects the trickery of the German and Italian fascists pre-WW2 when bourgeois democracy pretences like Weimar reformism  were faltering and revolutionary ferment rising; it is a desperate attempt to refresh the “parliamentary democracy” racket, now completely threadbare and despised.
As every election demonstrates, over decades the working class has steadily and deeply learned (rightly) utter contempt for the pocket-lining careerist parliamentary pantomime, which is, and has always been, nothing but a cover for the real dictatorship of capital and the bourgeois class. 
Referendums, with narrow and limited questions carefully worded to prejudge the outcome, backed up with heavily manipulated and distorted lying campaigns, and a supposedly absolute “decision” at the end with even less opportunity to modify the outcome than usual, are even less “democratic” than the laughable once-in-five-years votes for parliament.
They are a joke pretence of “participation” which has only ever meant anything for working class struggle when they backfire on the ruling class, or cover-up and hide a ruling class retreat caused by real class war, as in Ireland over the Good Friday Agreement (of which more below).
It is sheer mockery to pretend workers will “get back sovereignty”. Since when did the working class ever have any real say in anything???
And if it did, how certain is it they would soon see a coup or takeover, as bloodily imposed as deemed necessary??  All history gives the answer, from Chile to Egypt – 100%.
Whether or not the result was a “miscalculation” by the Cameron Tories, the “Brexit is Brexit” has been cynically adopted to try and head off growing working class discontent as never-ending austerity is constantly increased (and which will continuing increasing).
It is this factor which seems to have tipped the balance for the ruling class in going all out for the Brexit referendum in the first place despite the obviously disastrous effects of trying to cut loose and survive the oncoming world trade war as an “independent” power.
The whole shallow farce is a panicked reaction for fear of working class turmoil, potentially far beyond the Poll Tax upheavals which toppled Thatcher, or the 2012 riots which forced the Coalition to back down from some of its more immediate Slump imposition.
The astonishing abrupt reversal of the first May government Budget reveals similar fearfulness, not least because such a U-turn defeat would have caused Government resignation in the past – (so much for “democracy” under an unelected government). As the bourgeois press occasionally analyses the “populism” allegedly channelled through Brexit (or Trumpism) mostly expresses much deeper running currents and is not particularly tied to the EU question at all – it was about kicking the ruling class in some way:

Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism.
Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity.
Anybody seeking to understand why Trump won the US presidential election should take a look at what has been happening to the division of the economic spoils. The share of national income that went to the bottom 90% of the population held steady at around 66% from 1950 to 1980. It then began a steep decline, falling to just over 50% when the financial crisis broke in 2007.
Similarly, it is no longer the case that everybody benefits when the US economy is doing well. During the business cycle upswing between 1961 and 1969, the bottom 90% of Americans took 67% of the income gains. During the Reagan expansion two decades later they took 20%. During the Greenspan housing bubble of 2001 to 2007, they got just two cents in every extra dollar of national income generated while the richest 10% took the rest.
The US economist Thomas Palley* says that up until the late 1970s countries operated a virtuous circle growth model in which wages were the engine of demand growth.
“Productivity growth drove wage growth which fueled demand growth. That promoted full employment, which provided the incentive to invest, which drove further productivity growth,” he says.
Unpopulism was touted as the antidote to the supposedly failed policies of the postwar era. It promised higher growth rates, higher investment rates, higher productivity rates and a trickle down of income from rich to poor. It has delivered none of these things.
James Montier and Philip Pilkington, of the global investment firm GMO, say that the system which arose in the 1970s was characterised by four significant economic policies: the abandonment of full employment and its replacement with inflation targeting; an increase in the globalisation of the flows of people, capital and trade; a focus on shareholder maximisation rather than reinvestment and growth; and the pursuit of flexible labour markets and the disruption of trade unions and workers’ organisations.
To take just the last of these four pillars, the idea was that trade unions and minimum wages were impediments to an efficient labour market. Collective bargaining and statutory pay floors would result in workers being paid more than the market rate, with the result that unemployment would inevitably rise.
Unpopulism decreed that the real value of the US minimum wage should be eroded. But unemployment is higher than it was when the minimum wage was worth more. Nor is there any correlation between trade union membership and unemployment. If anything, international comparisons suggest that those countries with higher trade union density have lower jobless rates. The countries that have higher minimum wages do not have higher unemployment rates.
This quest for ever-greater labour market flexibility has had some unexpected consequences. The bill in the UK for tax credits spiralled quickly once firms realised they could pay poverty wages and let the state pick up the bill. Access to a global pool of low-cost labour meant there was less of an incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing equipment.
The abysmally low levels of productivity growth since the crisis have encouraged the belief that this is a recent phenomenon, but as Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, noted last week, the trend started in most advanced countries in the 1970s.
Bolshie trade unions certainly can’t be blamed for Britain’s lost productivity decade. The orthodox view in the 1970s was that attempts to make the UK more efficient were being thwarted by shop stewards who modeled themselves on Fred Kite, the character played by Peter Sellers in I’m All Right Jack. Haldane puts the blame elsewhere: on poor management, which has left the UK with a big gap between frontier firms and a long tail of laggards. 
Populism is seen as irrational and reprehensible. It is neither. It seems entirely rational for the bottom 90% of the US population to question why they are getting only 2% of income gains. It hardly seems strange that workers in Britain should complain at the weakest decade for real wage growth since the Napoleonic wars.
It has also become clear that ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing are merely sticking-plaster solutions. Populism stems from a sense that the economic system is not working, which it clearly isn’t. In any other walk of life, a failed experiment results in change.

Demand for change is precisely the point, and inability to head it off is the real fear of the ruling class.
What saves them is primarily the complete absence of revolutionary leadership and understanding from the entire circus of fake-“leftism” all posturing mightily as “Marxists” but failing to see the crisis and any of the real turmoil in the world as the emerging revolution or at least its precursor.
Instead of heads being cleared for the titanic international revolutionary class battles that the working has no choice but to face up to in the coming disintegration, they get treacherous class collaboration, and capitulation to backward chauvinism built on over a century of tailending of the imperialist ruling class.
But while Trumpism and Brexit are cynically used to fill the political vacuum, tapping the remains of deep-seated backwardness and chauvinism inculcated in the petty bourgeoisie and layers of the working class by centuries of Empire privilege, or gung-ho American supremacism, it has not notably been succeeding as well as hoped.
As the EPSR noted before the votes for either Trumpism or Brexit were not the storming flood tide the shallow petty bourgeois analysts present but reflect much more a further collapse in voting.
Even the momentum for Brexit that was there, is dropping severely as the shallow Lala land promises of the UKIP/Leave campaign have already proved nonsensical, notably the infamous “£350M a week to be spent on the NHS”, and with the continuing reality of Slump steadily being imposed: 
An explosive leaked document exposes how a national lack of funding has forced rail bosses to cancel a vast array of track upgrades in a bid to save millions of pounds.
The scale of axed projects has led to serious concerns over track safety and also threatens devastating consequences for the rail industry with contractors “hardest hit”.
Unions reacted with outrage, warning of a rail “disaster”, up to 1,000 job losses and claiming ministers are trying to bury the news amid the furore around Brexit. Labour accused the Government of more “broken promises”.
But it is only the latest blow in a broader darkening picture for Britain’s public services – with the NHS effectively ditching operation waiting time targets, defence chiefs considering downsizing the Royal Marines and schools facing the deepest cuts since the 1980s.
Mr Brooks wrote: “Because of significant overspends in some areas, including some enhancement schemes and the fact that the routes are more expensive to run than predicted, there is simply not enough money left in CP5 to continue as we have been.
“So the whole of Network Rail has to cut costs.”
Marines aside, this can only get worse once the crisis lurches deeper.

Vox pop news interviews are easily edited (selecting only those which suit the media/establishment agenda) but even those indicate deepening Brexit disillusionment and some shifting of popular opinion as “maybe mistaken in voting ‘out’”.
Even more tellingly, as “negotiations” begin, the admission by the Tory Brexiters is that immigration is likely not to be restricted.
The is one of the key fears for much of the working class which Brexism was supposed to deal with.
But how can it? Inefficient and under-invested British industry could not survive in the cutthroat “free market” without using cutprice imported labour, from inside or out of Europe, in an economy now more dependent on low wages than any other in Europe. 
Restricting migrant labour was not going to solve workers’ problems anyway - capitalism ruthlessly uses it to undermine and divide the working class, but if it were restricted by border controls capital would not suddenly start paying high wages and offering full employment.
Either it would demand British workers take hugely lower wages and conditions – or companies will go bankrupt.
Stirring around scapegoating of foreign workers as such, as UKIP and the other fascists do, is a reactionary diversion.
But “anti-racist” moralising against this by the Remain-side “lefts” is just as useless, its high-handedness and idiot calls for “open borders” and “welcome all immigrants” etc a fatuous non-answer to the real concerns of the working class (as explained by past EPSRs such as 1133-6).
The concerns of the working class are not particularly caused by “racism” or xenophobia even though past imperialist history, and the class collaboration it instilled, left a deep running legacy of such backwardness.
That has to be constantly countered and fought against but cannot really be tackled except by dealing with the source and cause of splits, division and chauvinism, the whole capitalist system.
Workers are driven by real concerns of limited resources, cut social services and an undercut labour market- and those cannot be solved within capitalism.
But this is the key point avoided by the entire “left” and Labour Movement.
Much of it goes along with Brexit, either from Little Englander narrowness and opportunism, or even despite (or rather because of) knowing it to be a gigantic diversion, hiding behind the cynical evasion that they have to “go with the will of the people”.
The treacherous mountebank Labourites, including the latest pretend “left” of the Corbynista wing, know very well that Brexit and its implied support for immigration controls, protectionism, and trade restrictions (such as “anti-dumping”) solves nothing and inflames the crisis.
But they makes no effort to give any leadership against it, because their only concern is opportunist riding of “public opinion”, fearful of losing the comfortable and lucrative career positions in the Labour mafia (or the positions they hope to get).
Even in limited parliamentary terms Brexit could be used to vote against the Government -and would almost certainly bring down this unstable and riven Tory regime tomorrow.
To do so would imply nothing about Europe as such, (and a Labour government is still capitalism) is but would inflict vital defeat on the ruling class.
Toppling this enfeebled and brittle Tory regime, it could be spelled out, would not imply any support for the Remainers – all equally opportunist and hopeless and avoiding the important questions.
The Corbynite Labourites refuse because the whole rotten parliamentary racket is so fragile and shot to pieces, that even this would raise a thousand questions.
Revolution is the unspoken central matter and they don’t want it coming anywhere near the surface.
The Remainers are no more raising this question. 
Their (mostly Trotskyist) “left” side, hides behind the notion of “keeping Europe together” in order to fight for the “Socialist United States of Europe”, a pie-in-the-sky unrealisable fantasy long ago demolished by Lenin* because it would head workers away from the concrete struggles emerging in their own countries (* see - Slogan for a United States of Europe Sotsial-Demokrat No.44 August 23, 1915).
This abstract idealist notion ends up excusing the need to look at and lead the revolutionary developments in each different country, the only form in which struggles actually emerge in the reality of still separately and unevenly developing capitalism.
More treacherously the Trots tap into a long history of poisonous hostility to actual workers states, declared to be “unworkable” because they “followed the Stalinist theory of ‘socialism in one country’.”
This is pure defeatism, wrong both in practice and principle; as Lenin was clear, (and later such figures as Fidel Castro) the business of the revolution is to get on with the fight to build the strongest possible workers state wherever the revolution can be achieved, and as much socialist progress as can be managed, from which solid base the international battle can be developed further. 
The practical example of Cuba, building in one tiny island despite the throttling US siege blockade, and its titanic influence on Latin America and aid further afield, adds weight to the huge impact of the USSR.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because the European revolutions of the early 1920s did not “come to its aid” (as Trotsky predicted) - in fact it lasted 73 years with giant (socialist) achievements, changing history forever and only “failed” because revisionism abandoned the fight for revolutionary theory.
Eventual liquidation did stem partly from the notion of permanent peaceful coexistence (instead of Lenin’s temporary early use of such diplomatic mechanisms to survive under threat), and that could be loosely be described as an extension of the theory of building socialism just in the Soviet Union (though even then it did provide huge internationalist support – including to Cuba).
But it does not untangle the real failings in Stalin’s leadership which came from a misreading of the strength of imperialism and its ability to grow as set out in his Economic Problems in 1953 (see EPSR Book Vol 21 Unanswered Polemics for analysis) and the complacent assumption that eventually socialism would outpace imperialism with only left-pressure “peace struggle” needed to contain its wilder aggressive tendencies.
The Trots'  academic “internationalism” and opposition to chauvinism ends up excusing them from raising the immediate revolutionary questions (ie nationally) while pouring defeatism all over any other efforts to do so, and simultaneously and much more significantly, saturating everything with their foul hostility to the twentieth century workers states and their giant achievements (enormous, despite the hamstringing of revisionist (“Stalinist”) complacency and weakness); they are more bitterly anti-communist than the bourgeoisie themselves. 
It reflects petty bourgeois hatred and detestation of the discipline of the dictatorship of the proletariat which is the only way forwards for the working class.
All this academicism, predicting defeat for the working class, actually evades the question of defeat for the ruling class the first step in opening up any kind of debate and movement.
No where is that more so than in the continuing grovelling capitulation of the bourgeois Labourites, the Trots, and the revisionist left alike, to the fascistic “war on terror”, which is now the main tool for bourgeois hate-campaigning and warmongering.
For all their “No to War” social-pacifism, they all line up with US monopoly capitalism in practice, either offering no effective resistance to its now non-stop destruction in the Middle East or actively supporting it with their characterisations of “jihadism” as either all run by the CIA (what - the Palestinian struggle? the Sinai resistance to General Sisi just given red-carpet treatment in the US, the ISIS- Sunni resistance to the American occupation forces in Iraq? etc etc?????) or “even more reactionary than imperialism" (really - when did this new theory of world class forces come into being?) 
They could barely avoid tripping over each other two weeks ago in the rush to “condemn” the one-man Westminster attack (though rather more quiet on the St Petersburg tube attack a week later) essentially joining in the monstrous “emotional” humbug poured out by Theresa May et al and their (virtual) cartful of peeled onions - with sombre performances so over-the-top they should sweep the board for the next Oscar’s.
Tragic as the event was for the random victims, the sympathy being shown for them in the absurd House of Commons “minute’s silence” was utterly bogus.
God only knows what rhetoric will have to be found should there be a serious attack on Britain (by jihadist or an inflamed EU perhaps?) given the extremes of “all standing together and carrying on without panicking” as if anyone in Britain could, or was going to, do anything other than go to work the next morning and pursue “life as normal” etc etc. In what way would a single lone maverick who turns out not to have even any past connections to anyone except maybe watching a video or two constitute an “existential threat”??
The real panic here is the fearfulness of the ruling class about the volcano of eventual revolutionary upheaval it knows it is sitting on, and has not got a clue what to do about.
Hence the rush to turn the notch yet again on the emotionometer, while stepping up yet further its police repression plans, universal surveillance and electronic eavesdropping (already at setting “11” surely?) and bureaucratic “Prevent” censorship and brainwashing which has had the effect so far only of alienating the entire quite tame and compliant Muslim community, which was previously mostly more “British loyalist” than anyone else.
But just as Brexit is not holding its ground, neither is the anti-terror hysteria.
The grotesque hypocrisy of endless devastating destruction visited on the Middle East is beginning to cause some discontent as the outraged nazi-minded Daily Mail (mis)reported, frothing at the mouth and attempting a viciously provocative character assassination on behalf of its stinkingly reactionary readership:
The fiancée of England footballer Chris Smalling has blasted the outpouring of public support for the victims of the London terror attack.
Former glamour model Sam Cooke wrote how she ‘can’t stand all this “prayforlondon” “prayforparis” “prayforbelgium” c***’ because ‘people are killed all day everyday all over the world’ in a shocking online post.
The 31-year-old photographer shared the Instagram post with her followers yesterday, just 24 hours after British-born jihadi Khalid Masood killed four people, including a police officer, in the horrific attack in central London.
It is not the first time Miss Cooke and her fiancée have found themselves embroiled in controversy. In January 2014 the couple came under fire when they hosted a fancy dress party and Smalling chose to dress as what appeared to be a suicide bomber. He later apologised for his ‘insensitive’ decision. 
‘What about the 30 civilians that were killed by an American air strike in Syria yesterday? Or do those lives not matter?
‘Yes it’s a tragedy and my heart goes out to the families involved but people are killed all day everyday all over the world, stop choosing who you care about dependant on who the media tells you to care about. A life is a life! PRAY FOR THE WORLD.’
The statement was posted alongside an image of a peace sign made from flags from around the world.  
On Friday 13 November 2015, a series of co-ordinated terror attacks were carried out across Paris, claiming 130 lives.
In the wake of the atrocities, social media users around the world took to Twitter to share their support with the hashtag #prayforparis.
The ‘prayfor’ hashtag has since been used to express solidarity with the victims of other terror attacks, including those on Brussels on the morning of March 22 2016, when three suicide bombings took place at the city’s airport and a busy metro station. 
This week #prayforlondon trended on social media as people around the world reeled from yet another devastating terror attack on a major European city. 
Dozens of Miss Cooke’s Instagram followers commented in support, with one writing: ‘I am so tired of it too, it seems nobody ever makes reference to the people that have had their whole country destroyed before their eyes all from greed!’ 
However one tried to explain the widespread support, writing: ‘Unfortunately when it’s just next to you , in your country, your city or the country where you live ,it touch you even more because you realize... that’s a little bit selfish but it’s true [sic].’ 
The comment prompted a response from Miss Cooke, who replied: ‘I understand! It makes you see. But then we should look at the bigger picture, we’re all part of one race! The human race and we need to realise we’re a global family. 
‘We can’t ignore situations happening across seas, especially when our country is playing a roll in the situation over there [sic].’

Good on Sam is the only reasonable comment and bravo for some thoughtfulness – the only criticism being that if anything her comments underplay both the scale and the depravity of the horrors being imposed, as the very occasional bourgeois press reports from Mosul make clear:

Covered in dust, their hands raw from digging, Ali Assad and his cousin made a desperate choice – to leave their family under the rubble of their west Mosul home and flee while they still could.
The two men were among hundreds to be evacuated on Sunday, during a lull in the fighting prompted by outrage over the high civilian toll caused by multiple airstrikes that have battered the city and its trapped population over the past eight days.
With the ground war now suspended as a result, families that have sheltered in ruins or taken their chances in what is left of their homes have been leaving Mosul in droves, many arriving shell shocked and starving at refugee processing centres on its southern outskirts, where they spoke of more than a week of terror.
“There are six of my family still under our house,” said Assad, 32, cupping his raw hands. “My father, I saw him die in front of me, my brother, two sisters and two cousins. My mother survived, but then she was hit by some other explosion and a concrete slab fell on her. She’s badly hurt.”
Both men said that 15 people remained buried under three homes in the Yarmouk area of Mosul after a series of airstrikes on 22 March. The attacks took place amid a barrage of strikes by jets in support of a ground push by Iraqi forces that started around 17 March. On that afternoon, the Mosul Jadida neighbourhood was also repeatedly hit, leading to what could be the highest civilian toll of any airstrike in the region since the invasion of Iraq 14 years ago. At least 150 people are thought to have been killed, many of whom died during the five days it took for help to arrive.
At least 80 people are believed to have died while taking shelter in the basement of one of the houses hit, the largest in the neighbourhood, in which local families had sought refuge.
Assad said dozens of people remained buried under rubble in the Yarmouk and Jadida neighbourhoods. “There is no civilian defence, no rescue teams. It is only us and our hands. Everyone has to fend for themselves.”
The lack of a coordinated rescue effort is being blamed by local authorities on the fighting, which has ground to a stalemate as Isis attempts to consolidate its losses and dig in around the centre of west Aleppo, a densely packed area of homes and narrow roads.
Numerous survivors of the fighting have spoken of people, among them children, shouting for help from the ruins, but having no help from local authorities, or access to digging equipment to use by themselves.
“There was not a thing we could do,” said another evacuee, Abdul Wahab Hashimi, who said his neighbours’ bodies remained buried in the ruins of their home in the Mansour district. Residents of west Mosul had been seen as the most vulnerable population in the fight against the terror group. Up to 350,000 people are thought to remain in the city, some being used by Isis as human shields and others unable to flee until the fighting opens up a front for them.
Even then, the escape is typically a dangerous walk through a battlefield, before a long fraught journey to a refugee camp. Jonathan Whittall, project co-ordinator for an MSF medical centre south of Mosul, said: “We have ... witnessed a disturbing trend of some patients reaching our hospital after a significant delay of up to four days.
“One father and son that I met recently had been trapped under rubble for four days after an airstrike and they reached us exhausted, hungry and bewildered. Others who are wounded further away from the front lines into west Mosul can only reach us after the frontline has moved and they are able to escape. We are very concerned about the patients who are unable to reach us and whose treatment is delayed.”
The medical centre, the largest in the area, was nearly empty on Sunday for the first time since it opened several months ago. Since then, MSF alone has treated 1,500 people for conflict-related trauma, many of the cases severe or life threatening.
Medics supporting the Mosul operation said it is difficult to be specific about the proportion of casualties they are treating who were wounded by airstrikes as opposed to other weapons of war. However, the high number of people buried under rubble indicates that attacks from jets make up a significant component.
US military officials have acknowledged that the strike on Mosul Jadida was carried out by coalition jets and said it was requested by Iraqi officers. US Central Command has launched a formal investigation. While ground fighting stopped on Sunday, fighter jets were still present in the skies above Mosul. US officials said five airstrikes targeting Isis near Mosul were carried out on Saturday.
At the refugee processing centre, Brig Hisham al-Assadi, a senior intelligence official for Iraq’s special operations forces, said: “We try very hard to limit casualties, but Isis blends among them. They are happy when civilians are killed. This is war and we wish it was different. They don’t speak, they don’t say a word when they get here,” he said of the refugees. “We tell them, ‘you don’t have to fear any more,’ then we take them to the camps.”
On the road past the rubbish-strewn yard where army trucks disgorge Mosul’s latest refugees, an American convoy rumbled past, while more jets roared overhead. Their presence went unnoticed by men and boys who lined up to receive water and no one seemed prepared to blame any side for their misery.

This is a far cry from the bland US military assurance of “precision bombing” unquestioningly reported by the BBC four weeks ago, but even this “objective” report  cannot resist the standard Nazi declarations that it is “fault” of the people being butchered and the utterly fascist garbage of “human shields” or that the ISIS “want to see people killed”.
How about it being the fault of the American and Western occupation, which illegally invaded someone else’s country on a big lie pretext in 2003 and has pulverised and devastated much of it more or less continuously, while deliberately fomenting the bitterest sectarian hatreds with El Salvador genocide death-squad methods?
How about them just leaving if they want the killing of civilians to stop (a cynical lie)???????? 
Or better still, how about this gruesome fascist butchery being defeated and humiliated, the only possible way that imperialist savagery and barbarity will be challenged and eventually be brought to an end, once the world turns again to revolutionary class war against capitalism to end it for good, taking into common ownership all land, farms, factories and finance to build planned socialism under firm control of the working class.
That is the Marxist revolutionary response and one which is utterly in contrast to the craven and cowardly snivelling condemnations of the fake-“left” who are neither Marxist nor revolutionary.
It does not imply any support, approval, or “justifying” of any particular methods or struggle,  or of the ideology of the great upheavals and rebellion which has been stirred by the crisis and great depravities inflicted on the Third Word, on Ukraine, on Latin America and on much of the poorer sections of the working class in even the richest of countries.
It does imply understanding that these are the beginnings of the great upheaval which is unstoppably tearing the world apart because the capitalist system itself has reached a point of intractable contradiction which cannot be resolved except by revolution.
This revolt will only grow, however much it is violently suppressed, bombed, tortured and massacred by whatever monstrous technology imperialism devises, increasingly working through its often self-defeating ideologies and sectarianisms by what ever convoluted path (including even disappearing and reviving in new forms) to reach a scientific Marxist world view capable of winning the struggle.
It also means understanding and assessing and grasping the significance of all the struggles on the way, including much anti-imperialism which pushes back and defeats imperialism.
None is more pertinent at present than the titanic Irish national-liberation struggle and its formal completion to be reached in the occupied north of Ireland, making a further mockery of British imperialist die-hard wing behind Brexit, as events have further shown around the Stormont election logjam and particularly around the funeral of republican hero Martin McGuinness.
Some of the most intransigent “old Empire” Tories have long smouldered at the settlement won by the dogged 40 year national-liberation struggle, arms in hand, which arose after 60 years of fascist colonist oppression and apartheid persecution of the minority Irish population, trapped in the artificial “Northern Ireland” pseudo-statelet, which was ripped out of the 32 counties in 1921 by Black and Tan bayonets.
Imperialism’s defiance of the overwhelming (85%) majority democratic wishes of the Irish population (so much for the vaunted “will of the people”), which handed the north over to the colonist population, dominated by landowners and bourgeois interests, with a built-in majority rule created by carefully gerrymandered borders (around some parts of just six of the nine Ulster counties) left the nationalists with no other path than armed guerrilla war once the peaceful civil rights protests were violently suppressed in the 1960s.
It finally forced the British into the accepting an IRA/Sinn Féin nationalist victory in the Good Friday Agreement, clearly set on a guaranteed path towards unification, albeit at such a “snail’s pace” that British imperialism could pass it off as an inevitable result of slow demographic change, and above all hide its armed revolutionary significance (a blurring of lines agreed by all sides as part of the eventual settlement deal) allowing it, and the rest of world imperialism, to avoid giving too many lessons to the masses everywhere in how it was beaten.
And the final result of a fully united Ireland is gradually being delivered bit by bit through the “democratic process” albeit with plenty of prevarication and intransigent to and fro-ing thrown in, (especially up to the 2006 St Andrews settlement) partly to further obscure the real nature of the nationalist victory and partly to avoid the colonist elements building up any steam for a possible unilateral declaration of independence (despite their position being much less powerful than in the pre-WW1 Carson Trail revolt.) 
The localised devolved authority through Stormont power sharing, participation of Dublin in decision making in the north, multiple cross border institutional and administrative arrangements and above all the virtual dissolving of the once militarised border, leaving the population freely crossing to and fro, has seen the this steady development of a unified island in practice, whatever the formal constitutional status remaining, and this too will eventually be overcome, as Sinn Féin picks up growing support in Eire and the north.
But the once supremacist fascist-colonists still have elements who still want to turn the clock back it seems, as do the backwoodsmen of the more reactionary Tory wing.
And with the recent British ruling class political weakness after the 2008 Catastrophe they possibly saw their chance to dig in their heels as a desperate ruling class only just got away with holding onto a parliamentary “majority” (as contempt for parliament has deepened further) with the 2010 Coalition a desperate stitched-up racket using the “emergency reserve” of the Lib-dems to keep the parliamentary pretence going (and even then succeeding only because of the craven Labourites’ deliberate refusal to enter an arrangement with the Liberals, fearful of being exposed if they imposed the oncoming austerity); the subsequent Cameron “majority”, produced by a tiny electoral turnout was a lucky fluke, and the May government is a bare-faced evasion of any electoral process at all.
To keep this parliamentary pretence going, the Tories had to rely on unionist votes, for which the DUP clearly demanded a deal in trying to turn back the clock; and it looks as if they got a nod and a wink, especially since their agenda suits the Brexiters’ frame of mind.
Hence the stubborn refusal of the colonist DUP to cooperate with the republicans in the Stormont power share and its provocative rejections of Sinn Féin measures, knowing that Westminster will go along with it. 
But it has backfired badly, with a firm Sinn Féin leadership (initially McGuinness) refusing to tolerate this contempt for measures such as the Irish language provision, and therefore resigning and precipitating the election.
The result has been the new absolute nationalist majority which can only push the unification agenda along faster, not slower as the colonist remnants were trying to achieve.
And this all merges with the potentially devastating impact of Brexit in Ireland which if it is to be imposed properly, particularly as the “hard Brexit”, must clearly have a “hard border” – or be a complete joke. 
Europe will demand it if the British try to slide around the issue and it is what the diehards want too.
But that raises all kinds of disastrous implications. 
The gradually “softening” border is a core, if not the core element, of the Good Friday Agreement and the removal of watchtowers, military patrols, concrete road blocks, customs posts etc etc both the symbolic and practical realisation of the peace settlement which ended the republican liberation war (and which the population, including large parts of the colonist community, wants to see continued).
Imposing the border is tantamount to tearing up the GFA as the Sinn Féin have made clear.
And whatever that might lead the Sinn Féin to, it would certainly create all kinds of instability and potential renewed armed struggle, at least by dissident republican elements.
So then the army would have to go back in.
Is that what Michael Howard, who played this kind of intransigent hard line during the John Major Tory government of the early 1990s, (which scuppered a peace deal already on the table with its contemptuous treatment of the republicans) would propose?
And how would the resources of the British military (with the marines being cut) provide the huge force needed when it is helping the Americans devastate Mosul, providing manpower for the NATO anti-Russian provocations on the East European border and, if Howard has his way, planning a full scale invasion around Gibraltar?????? 
And since decades of the most brutal suppression and state violence was not able to contain the war, finally settling with the GFA, why would an even weaker and further declined British imperialism be able to impose its will now?
It is no wonder that all kinds of heavyweight figures took advantage of the Martin McGuinness funeral to make clear the mainstream establishment position that this potential disruption of the GFA should be cleared away, notably former Tory prime minster, John Major, Tony Blair and Alistair Cambell, all writing extraordinary glowing eulogies, for someone deemed a “criminal terrorist”.
These were of course “justified” with yet further attempts to try and present the GFA as some kind of retreat and opportunist capitulation by the IRA/Sinn Féin (the scabby defeatist line on Ireland pumped out by much of the fake-“left”) and to declare McGuinness had somehow abandoned his determination to pursue the armed struggle, undergoing an “epiphany” transition to “democratic” methods.
The imputation that the armed struggle had “failed” and that the IRA had given up without achieving its aims - as sneeringly put forwards by such figures as Arthur Scargill – is a total misreading as the entire history of the long protracted GFA negotiations in the 1990s demonstrates and not least such landmark points as the breakdown of the first ceasefire, followed by the giant bombs in Docklands, the City and Manchester which pushed the ruling class into renewed talks.
Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams made the point in a Guardian article:
Martin was also a deeply committed Irish republican activist who in his youth was confronted by the naked sectarianism and injustice of the British state in Ireland, and stood strong against it. As a result he was imprisoned and spent long periods on the run.
Reading and watching some of the media reporting of his life and death, one could be forgiven for believing that Martin, at some undefined point in his life, had a road to Damascus conversion and abandoned his republican principles, his former comrades in the IRA and joined the political establishment.
To suggest this is to miss the truth of his leadership and the essence of his humanity. There was not a bad Martin McGuinness or a good Martin McGuinness. Martin believed in freedom and equality. He resisted those who withheld these by military means, and then he helped shape conditions in which it was possible to advocate for these by unarmed strategies.
Martin was a committed republican who believed that the British government’s involvement in Ireland and the partition of our island were at the root of our divisions. Along with others of like mind, he understood the importance of building a popular, democratic, radical republican party.
In this way he helped chart a new course, a different strategy. 

The point of the eulogies thus covered up, was top make known to the colonists that they should back off their footstomping intransigence.
Tellingly this was underlined by extraordinary presence of former US president Bill Clinton at the funeral, with a significance far beyond “personal friendship”, pointedly remarking during his eulogy speech that the peace agreement is “unfinished business” which needs to be completed. 
This was serious arm twisting by US imperialism telling the useless British ruling class to sort things out.
Clinton is an arch-operator in the bourgeois political business but he plays to a 40 million strong US population of Irish descent which has been a critical element supporting the entire Irish liberation struggle. And the US has leaned heavily on British imperialism throughout, insisting it get the stinking fascist occupation/colonist mess off the table, concerned at the damage it was doing to the overall “democracy” image for the “free world” and worried too that if it was not sorted out as a nationalist issue, the whole struggle might deepen into communist revolution, threatening Dublin as much as it did the north.
Meanwhile the Tories flounder, with Ireland Minister James Brokenshire, clearly taking sides with the disruptive DUP and failing to deal firmly with this nonsense; so he has left an unresolved stand off deferring the needed decision with a “time extension” for election call which Stormont rules demand. 
The Tories are desperate to avoid another election, fearful that Sinn Féin would do even better this time becoming the largest party over the DUP. 
An alternative of “direct rule” would be a kick in the teeth for the republicans and raises all questions of British enforcement with the spectre of troops etc.
It seems unthinkable - (though so haywire might ruling class frenzy become in the crisis that nothing is absolutely ruled out).
But its very unthinkability, and the staggering McGuinness funeral gives the lie to the fake-“left” nonsense that the Irish struggle “surrendered” or sold out.
And a telling signal is the (possibly last minute) presence of DUP leader Arlene Foster in the congregation at the funeral - this inheritor of the “No Papists - No Surrender” colonialist tradition sitting in a Catholic cathedral!!!
Of course the issue never was religious - and neither was this signal.
The fake-“left” has long failed to grasp the shattering significance of the Good Friday Agreement and its continues to miss it.
Sinn Féin it is not the end of the story, and its limited nationalism shows its weakness more as the crisis deepens, not least in Adams’ insistence that economic progress will follow unification and the republicans joining in “condemnation” of world “jihadism.
Marxist revolution is needed in Ireland too.
Build Leninism
Alan Moss

E P S R  BOX

Leaving the world to be run by the greed of the capitalist monopolies can never stop resulting in periodic crises where trade-war destruction MUST rule, and to which the only antidote is Revolution and a strong workers state, --- as these essentials of Marxist-Leninist SCIENCE explain.

Only the crisis events of collapsing imperialist rule interpreted in this Marxist-Leninist light will educate a mass workers party of leadership to do the necessary tasks.

The Revisionist retreat from the Soviet workers state because of crawling to shallow Western glitz and shame at their own past bureaucratic mistakes has only proved the soundness of Lenin's 'State & Revolution' science about a very long period of proletarian dictatorship being the only way for the world to see-off monopoly imperialist warmongering, now back with a vengeance.

***********

It is often said and written that the main point in Marx's teachings is the class struggle; but this is not true. And  from this untruth very often springs the opportunist distortion of Marxism, its falsification in such a way as to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the doctrine of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists;  they may be found to be still within the boundaries of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested. And it is not surprising that when the history of Europe brought the working class face to face with this question as a practical issue, not only all the opportunists and reformists, but all the "Kautskyites" (people who vacillate between reformism and Marxism) proved to be miserable philistines and petty-bourgeois democrats who repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat. V.I.Lenin

*********

"The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as if only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit." (Capital. Vol III. P568.)

*********

" For many a decade past", wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, "the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crisis a great part, not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity - the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary...they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them."

*********

The conditions of bourgeois democracy very often compel us to take a certain stand on a multitude of small and petty reforms, but we must be able, or learn, to take such a position on these reforms. (in such a manner) that - to oversimplify the matter for the sake of clarity - five minutes of every half-hour speech are devoted to reforms and twenty-five minutes to the coming revolution.

Name ............................

Address.........................

Postcode........................

For a £25 annual subscription to receive EPSR by first class post every Wednesday, write to (but send no money initially): EPSR, PO Box 50, L0NDON, SW17 9NL