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 1498   27th September 2016                                                                          25p fortnightly

Washington “war-crimes”  accusations in the Middle East now glaring Goebbels Lies  – Western “accidental” cynical slaughter of soldiers during the ceasefire is the crime with proven perpetrators the UK and US,  along with all deliberate and cynical warmongering from 2003 Iraq invasion onwards now destroying Yemen, Syria etc. Capitalism needs war and destruction because production for private profit has reached a historic dead end, exactly as Karl Marx analysed, already stagnating and heading for the greatest Slump collapse in all history and world war. Only planned socialism under the firmest proletarian dictatorship can change things - only conscious Leninist revolution can get there

Demented Western accusations of “war-crimes” against Russia and Syria over the Aleppo siege are Goebbels lies of unparalleled cynicism.
Washington and its stooges like the British Tories are using this deluge of unverified and unverifiable allegations to deliberately cover-up their own atrocities and crimes. 
These include the “accidental” drone attack killing 60+ Syrian troops just one week previously, and the revelations of British and American weapons and “technical” advice poured into Saudi Arabia to maintain its brutal and vile civilian blitzing Yemen war.
The unprovoked drone attack was a deliberate diversion to sabotage the “ceasefire” and any settlement of the civil war, with an offhand “apology” for outright mass murder casually offered afterwards (an attack incidentally that revealed illegal UK participation in the war and use of its drones there).
The lies and distortions used by the West in the last week would be astonishing in their crudity if they were not piled on a decade of such warmongering lies; the systematically coordinated media fed accusations of “war-crimes” against Russia and Syria over the supposed “bombing” of a UN aid convoy, made not just without justification or evidence but without any being possible.
Only detailed forensic analysis of such an event could offer some clues, but nothing like that could be done in such conditions and especially within an hour or two when the accusations were made.
But facts did not get in the way of the bourgeois press, BBC and other TV news as well as US vice-president John Kerry and his stooge sidekick Boris Johnson.
The trick was for them to say “if” this should be proven to be the use of bombs on an aid convoy then it “would be” a war crime, a nonsense hypothetical repeated non-stop, also by such figures as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the most abject US puppet head of the organisation yet, and fed for Johnson to repeat again later by snivelling TV reactionary Andrew Marr.  
The only attempted serious analysis came from the Russians who commented on the video footage of the convoy after it was attacked, pointing to the absence of any bomb cratering, and the relatively intact condition of the aid trucks, still with their axles and wheels albeit burnt out.
That indicates not warplanes but ground attack, Moscow said, setting fire to the convoy, almost certainly done by the “rebels” against the Assad regime.
It would serve their purpose to sabotage any ceasefire.
Furthermore Moscow asked why would Damascus and itself carry out an action which would be pointless, breaking the ceasefire and attracting world opprobrium?
Who stands to gain from such a gross incident? 
But these statements and any response from the Syrian government, have not been given any air time at except for a brief sneering mention about “ho ho the Russians say it just caught on fire.” 
Instead the spokesmen from the West have repeated a stream of lies about the Assad regime being “responsible for all the atrocities” including declaring as if fact that it has “used chemical weapons”.
No proof of any such use has been produced but in classic fascist-imperialist style, the allegation is repeated endlessly until it is simply stated as a “fact”.  
The reporting on Aleppo has also been laden with the usual heart-wrenching and tear-jerking accounts of “rebel held” areas as if they were simply peaceful civilian suburbs peacefully going about their business with “hospitals, schools and homes being bombed.” It is an utter lie; these are strongholds for the reactionary movements funded by the West bedded into eastern Aleppo and constantly bombarding the civilian districts in the west held by the government. 
Not a word is reported on the much larger civilian areas in the west side constantly shelled by the “rebels”.
The entire civil war has been triggered by Western Big Lie provocations from the beginning - aiming to head off rising revolt in the Middle East itself triggered by Western blitzing and barbaric torture occupation from the Iraq war onwards), most particularly Cairo Arab Spring which shocked imperialism.
The West is now keeping devastating war going in Syria, and Yemen too, to keep the entire region in turmoil and the world more and more acclimatised to endless war.
Why? Because war and devastation is the only answer this degenerate system has to its Great Catastrophe about to lurch even deeper.
Intractable contradictions in the production for private profit system will always bring it to the point of Slump breakdown (see Communist Manifesto), with too much capital in the world chasing ever decreasing opportunities to make a profit.
Cutthroat trade and currency wars can only descend into  world war between the great monopoly capitalist blocs. 
The need to end this system by revolutionary overturn has never been greater. Leninist science to lead it needs building.   Don Hoskins

Labourite and fake-“left” cheers for oily hypocrite MP Keith Vaz (instead of using this exposé to demonstrate the lies and fraud of parliament) show the damaging and reactionary impact of “political correctness” and single-issue politics – now a central obstacle to developing vital revolutionary theory and understanding.  Labourite and “left” PCism helps scandalous cover-up of child abuse, props up Obama and Clinton and feeds warmongering

A stream of Corbynites, gay campaigners and fake-“left” have rushed to defend hypocritical Labour MP Keith Vaz after he was caught out by a gay prostitute and drugs exposé in the bourgeois press.
Some even applauded him at a Labour NEC meeting.
They thereby underline just how far the PC brigades of single-issue reformism are from any class-war grasp of the  catastrophically collapsing capitalist world.
Under cover of standing against “homophobia” and with much petty bourgeois moralising about the “right to a private life” the gross hypocrisy, duplicity and sheer deliberate deception of the masses by this particular oleaginous “MP”, by the Labour Party overall, and by the entire bamboozling racket of parliamentary representation, is let off the hook.
An enormous opportunity is missed to give a giant political and philosophical kicking to the entire stinking lie of bourgeois “democracy”.
Its foetid self-seeking opportunist racketeering worsens daily, currently dragging the world into desperate Slump and the appalling war horrors imposed on the Middle East, Ukraine etc, prelude to the general warmongering that will erupt as soon as the Great Catastrophe can no longer be held off by insane QE valueless money printing.
That could be any moment according to the latest UN reports on devastating destabilising debt levels rising throughout the Third World caused by swamping with QE dollars.   
Not only is the chance to expose the “democracy” fraud “missed”, it is deliberately avoided by the “left” of all shades, revisionist and Trotskyist alike, fearful of transgressing the self-righteous PC diktats which they substitute for genuine Marxism and which are stifling all debate and polemic, and fearful of the revolutionary conclusions that would otherwise have to be made.
This confusion and apologetics are all of a piece with their ludicrous support for the “right” to wear women-oppressing burkinis (!) even while simultaneously denouncing “reactionary and patriarchal Islam” and jihadists; the “feminist” wish for the monstrous warmonger, corporate stooge and coup-supporting Hilary Clinton to win the US election; their continued cowering at ridiculous (and meaningless) “anti-semitism” charges against the “left” (both in general, and specifically to sabotage even tame pseudo-“left” Corbynism); and even more their total failure to put the boot in exposing the Establishment’s massive cover-up and evasion of the child abuse and gay paedophile scandals, now seeing the third (!) breakdown and deferral of the supposed “inquiry” as the issue is swept ever further under the carpet.
Vaz’s humiliation and exposure needs to be ridiculed widely throughout the working class, not because of the homosexual element or even (much) the use of grotesquely exploited rent-boy east European prostitutes but because it makes even clearer the monstrous dishonesty, manipulation and sheer deliberate lying cynicism of the entire parliamentary game, permanently hoodwinking the working class with the pretence that someone “decent” is “representing them” and “looking out for their interests”.
In fact what parliament does, with the active and knowing connivance of all its participants, from the reactionary right through to the most “principled left”, MPs, councillors, organisers and everyone else, is maintain and continue the bankrupt capitalist system and its gross exploitation, ever increasing unfairness and inequality, warmongering, and corruption, the very source and cause of all problems facing workers (including the divisiveness of racism, sexism, disability, and “different sexuality” etc). 
As the EPSR said nearly two decades ago at the time of the Ron Davies scandal, when that very senior Labour minister (effectively prime minister of Wales) was caught cruising for gay pickups on Clapham Common (EPSR No 973 03-11-98):

Ron Davies and New Labour are in trouble for telling lies and for falsely representing themselves at election times.
Like any modern politicians, they have relied to a considerable extent on presenting a clean-cut family-oriented image.
Homophobic prejudice remains a widespread factor in this. But it is not the main issue here.
The rotten fraud of ALL bourgeois-opportunist politics, — which permanently deceive the ENTIRE working class about EVERYTHING to maintain wage-slavery exploitation (& worse to come as the crisis of capitalism degenerates towards inter-imperialist warmongering), — is much the most important question.
The ‘democratic choice’, — whereby the voters every four years or so are supposedly able to scrutinise the character, beliefs, honesty, reliability, and policies of those seeking to represent them as the members of the nation’s parliament (and therefore government), — is a COMPLETE SHAM, financed by colossal central party-funding expense provided by.... who knows?
It is this grotesque FRAUD, — that “voters really get to know their MPs, to like them, and to trust them”, etc, — which the government, the establishment, and parts of the media are so determined to protect. The electorate know absolutely NOTHING about any of their supposed ‘democratic representatives’. They could ALL be the most emotionally unstable, socially deviant, sexually retarded, mendaciously opportunist careerists ever collected under one roof, for all that the voters REALLY know. And as we are periodically able to see due to the occasional scandal which somehow cannot be covered up successfully, that is EXACTLY what is likely to be revealed at some point or other.
But it is the whole hoodwinking mechanism ITSELF which is the real scandal, rather than the individual failings and idiosyncrasies of the ambitious slimeballs themselves, the MPs.

Whatever backwardness or homophobia might partly drive or motivate the bourgeois press the issue is not about Vaz’s sexuality nor even his private life as such.
Instead it concerns the further exposure of the trickery, deceptions and lying image building of bourgeois politics and the supposed probity and trustworthiness of the “representatives” upholding the interests and future prospects of ordinary people:
Now, EVERYONE has a history of some sorts, and it IS their own business, — except, of course, precisely in THESE circumstances of public politics, where the PERSONALITY of the would-be leader/representative involved, — their integrity, maturity, sense of public duty, etc, etc, — is virtually all there is that is consistently sold to the electorate, — not policies.
Blair & Co are engaged in a huge LYING FRAUD in their initial Davies cover-up because they fear that their whole deceitful presentation of politics could unravel over such deliberate misleading of the public. 
So it is NOT the fear of a homophobic backward response by the public at all which catches New Labour out in all these LIES.
It is their fear that one day, the public might grasp that the WHOLE POINT of bourgeois-‘democracy’ elections is just to put on a good PR presentation in order to con everybody, to make as few commitments as possible about what the government is really going to do about things, and to come up with the least meaningful but most effective advertising slogans and soundbites possible.
So this scandal is NOT about being homosexual, — as Chris Smith, Twigg, the Eagles, and others in the present parliament have demonstrated.
It is ALL about the bourgeois wish of parliamentary political parties to create as pleasing a faked-up image as possible of the party as a whole.
Such ruthless ambitious careerism knows that ‘family values’ are a good stunt to go for. And ambitious individuals like Davies chose to go along that same party path, together with all the rest of the completely opportunist and largely dysfunctional gang known as the parliamentary Labour Party, where alcoholism, corruption, careerism, and adultery are the only serious pursuits. 
It is THEIR choice, — the New Labourites, — that Ron Davies’s thrills and spills around a long trail of men’s public lavatories all the way from Wales to Clapham Common with complete strangers, looking for anonymous homosexual sex, — is not quite the electoral idyll that Blair & Co wish to put over to the public.
It is a complete joke that “nothing was known” about Davies’s fulltime, emotionally-vulnerable, dangerous and dissolute lifestyle, — that “it came as a total surprise to us all” as the New Labourites are still pretending  — for various opportunist party reasons.

Substitute the name Vaz and the image creating points being made are almost identical.
An additional element with Vaz of course is that his particular responsibility in parliament is as the powerful chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee responsible for investigating and instigating changes on matters of “public morality”, part of the ruling class’s high-handed pontifications to the “lower orders” on how they should “behave properly” - or else (as a useful part of class disciplining to allow exploitation to proceed with maximum compliance). 
It was even in mid-process inquiring into sex payments. 
The astonishing humbug of the parliamentarians has been smarmed all over this incident ever since, from Tory and Labour alike, all jostling like sharks around blood in the water for the career opportunity “opened up”, while gushing insincerely to the bourgeois press about “integrity” etc, including astonishingly, Vaz himself in his statement declaring that the public had the right to expect “accountability”:

After nine years in the post, Vaz has made the role one of the most high-profile and effective in parliament outside government. But he said he had to leave because of the effects of the intense publicity on his wife and children.
In a sombre statement, Vaz said he was “genuinely sorry” that he could not continue in the role. “It is in the best interest of the home affairs select committee that its important work can be conducted without any distractions whatsoever. I am genuinely sorry that recent events make it impossible for this to happen if I remain chair,” he said.
He conceded that as chair he was accountable for his actions.
“I have always been passionate about select committees,” he said, “having served as either chair or member for half of my time in parliament. The integrity of the select committee system matters to me. Those who hold others to account must themselves be accountable.
“I told the committee today of my decision to stand aside immediately from committee business, and my intention to resign. This is my decision, and mine alone, and my first consideration has been the effect of recent events on my family. I have recommended that in the interim, Tim Loughton MP, the senior Conservative member, should chair proceedings.
“After speaking to the house authorities, I will formally tender my resignation to Mr Speaker so that it coincides with the timetable for the election of other committee chairs, such as the Brexit committee, culture, media and sport, and science and technology, so that the elections can take place together.”
Should Keith Vaz step down as home affairs committee chair?
Commenting on the resignation, Umunna, a fellow Labour member of the committee, said: “Keith has done a fine job chairing our committee for almost a decade, a view widely shared across the House. I am very sad to see Keith step down but believe he has made the right decision by parliament and those we serve. It is incredibly important the committee carries on the important work we are doing scrutinising government.”
Vaz faced a string of claims against him after a Sunday Mirror sting. The newspaper accused him of paying for male escorts, discussing the use of recreational drugs such as cocaine, and encouraging others to use poppers.
Speaking the day after running a successful cross-party campaign to open the way for country by country tax transparency, Flint said: “Home affairs is a subject I have always been interested in. I’ll stand.”
Umunna, the former business minister, is one of the favourites for the job. When asked on Tuesday if he would stand, he said it “would not be appropriate” to announce his candidature before Vaz has submitted his resignation to the Speaker, John Bercow.
Other MPs have suggested that Yvette Cooper, the former home secretary, would also make a good chair. The election will be held in October, after the party conference season, by secret ballot.
Vaz attended his final home affairs select committee in the Grimond Room on Tuesday and was given a round of applause as he left the room.
Loughton, the interim chair, said Vaz gave a “very frank” account of what had happened.

“Frank”? - after keeping this secret for nine years???? (Or longer for a parliamentary career going back decades).
“Those who hold others to account” were not “themselves accountable” because the issues that potentially compromised their judgement were hidden and because the public and the electorate has been completely hoodwinked for decades by the entire “family man” image which has been assiduously maintained, and which is still outrageously being tapped by Vaz for sympathy even now as if the “effect of recent events on my family” has somehow nothing to do with him.
The apologetics surrounding the “events” are sickening in themselves, both generally and in detailed aspects such as Vaz’s willingness to participate in unprotected male sex – known to be a significant risk for AIDs and other STDs – despite having pontificated in public against such practice as part of his “moral guardian” role and in his encouragement of the illegal purchase and use of the hard-drug cocaine – which the sympathetic press reports and apologists slip quickly over on the technical ground that Vaz “did not actually use it himself”.
The excuse that his homosexuality had to be kept secret in order to achieve public acceptance is also nonsense; even more than in the Blairite years, multiple public figures can openly declare themselves without detriment.
But instead of taking up these issues with a class revolutionary attitude, ready to use every possible weapon against the complex web of lies and “democracy” pretences that capitalism has developed over centuries to hide its brutal and greed-ridden class dictatorship rule, the “left” help defend the status quo.
“Nothing to see here” they all say effectively.
Half of them have got a vested interest anyway, having piled into the Momentum movement around the Corbynite Labour leadership surge (driven to the surface by rising discontent and disillusion as the 2008 Great Catastrophe continues to unfold) all hoping to ride the back of this temporary Labourite populism, and push their careers forwards, while pretending that “this is the chance to win the Labour Party to socialism”. 
That is total rubbish.
The Labour party is completely part of the capitalist parliamentary structure, thoroughly bourgeois, and only ever going to be part of the racket.
Helping boost the deliberate “left safety valve” of the Corbyn movement, an integral part of the Labour confidence trick to give it a “left” cover pretending that “one day” there will be socialist movement if only “we all push hard enough”, is to further confuse and fool the working class and tie it back to these old illusions.
The ostensibly “anti-Labour” Stalinist revisionists are just as cravenly in thrall to the parliamentary path too, still clinging to the idea that progress can be measured by the willingness of the working class to go out and vote, instead of grasping that the contempt and dismissal of the racket by the majority of workers is the sign of real progress – forcing understanding of the bankruptcy of “democracy” to the surface and posing more sharply the need for some other way to change things.
That can only be revolutionary change.  
But the reluctance of the “lefts” to use the Vaz scandal as a lever to further this crucial understanding reveals their petty bourgeois class position and lack of revolutionary spirit. 
Ironically there are outraged comments from other single-issue politics, this time one wing of the feminists, who want to blame men for the agonies and deprivations of capitalist society which women suffer, and especially for prostitution, imposing the so-called Nordic model making payment for sex illegal (but not selling it).
This is itself a diversion, attributing to some 50% of the human race (the males) a problem actually caused by screwed-up nature of all human relationships under capitalism, which commodifies everything, alienates all humanity, and impoverishes most of it, leaving a small minority of men (and some women) desperate enough to use the sterile solution of paid sex “services” and a minority of others desperate enough to sell them (including men). But this infighting between the single-issue factions makes some useful points:

maybe it is not so remarkable that at least one of the parliamentarians deciding on the future legality of prostitution may also have been a sex buyer.
It’s more surprising, really, that no one on the committee, principally its chairman, Keith Vaz, seems to have questioned whether, with that level of gender imbalance, it was the ideal investigator of the overwhelmingly gendered issue of prostitution. During its second hearing, an entirely male committee would question two women, both former sex workers. Vaz assured witnesses that he approached the hearings with no “preconceived views”, as required
....As with so many Westminster scandals, insiders have been quick to assure the public that they always found this fallen star distinctly creepy – “fishy,” said one. As a more gullible spectator, I was inclined, if I never noticed anything actively virtuous about this MP, to assume there must be some basis for his occasionally homiletic manner. Vaz has not been reluctant, for instance, to shake his head over threats to “moral development”, or to diagnose hypocrisy, or to draw attention to his endearing naivety, in comparison with worldly colleagues, where a sex-related commodity such as poppers is concerned. Besides, some superior qualities must have earned him the chairmanship from which he last week resigned, having allegedly paid two Romanian prostitutes for sex.
For his supporters, of course, none of this, any more than his alleged unsafe sex or companions’ use of cocaine (and poppers), has a bearing on the Vaz prostitution report. We would not, Peter Tatchell argued, “demand that MPs who drink and smoke declare an interest when they discuss legislation affecting the alcohol and cigarette industries”. No, not unless the covert smoker or drinker in question were an esteemed committee chair tasked with advising parliament on prohibition (or its opposite) and was later shown to have feigned complete ignorance of the habit. That degree of concealment might well fascinate the public.
Earlier this year, the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, having exhorted the nation to copy her in drinking tea, not wine, was pilloried after photographs emerged suggesting only inconsistent domestic enforcement of her rule.
On the other hand, if personal habits – Davies’s occasional glass, Vaz’s alleged use of prostitutes – really have no bearing on their official advice, this is marvellous news for MPs on all sides, from surreptitiously devout opponents of the right to die to the Labour elite now struggling, having sent their own children to strenuously selective schools, to muster some non-hilarious-looking opposition to Theresa May’s revival of grammars.
Far from being some weird, thoroughly sex-minded exception to an indulgent rule, public interest in Vaz’s alleged involvement in prostitution surely accords with a growing expectation of openness from – or refusal to be lectured by – MPs whose personal sympathies, as well as personal finances, can shape legislation. Though in Vaz’s case, maybe these could have been guessed at.
Long before leading the inquiry, he advertised, in a 2009 debate, his opposition to interfering with paying sexual transactions. To be fair, a tender concern for prostitutes, or fallen women as they used to be known, is something of a parliamentary tradition, dating at least back to Gladstone. “Ministers have used the phrase, ‘Let us tackle the demand for sex,’” Vaz objected. “We cannot just say to people, ‘Do not have sex’, or, ‘Do not have sex in these circumstances’; governments should not be involved, in my view, in making such statements.”
Presumably this very clear position changed at some point before he assumed command of a government inquiry set up to, among other things, examine the “demand which drives commercial sexual exploitation”. Anyway, full disclosure: I was recently a member of a commission that supported the introduction in Britain of “Nordic model” legislation that aims, precisely in the way once unacceptable to Vaz, to reduce demand for prostitution by penalising the buyers and not, as now, the sellers of sex. Introduced in Sweden in 1999, and now enacted, with variations, in four more countries, including France, the legislation proceeds from the principle, endorsed by the European parliament and many women’s organisations (and opposed by an equally vehement lobby), that prostitution amounts to acutely gendered exploitation, with horrifying costs to the many of the women and girls whose bodies are thus commodified.
To take just one figure that emerged in the Vaz hearings, when assistant chief constable Nikki Holland wanted to illustrate prostituted women’s vulnerability: “We have had 153 murders since 1990, which is probably the highest group of murders in any one category, so that gives the police cause for concern.”
But murders, such as those of five women in Ipswich, and a recent homicide in Leeds, did not appear to worry Mr Vaz overmuch. He was more captivated, for no obvious reason, by the number of eastern Europeans in prostitution and, equally, with websites where, he explained to uninitiated witnesses, young women advertise for “sugar daddies”. “Is it perfectly fine,” he pressed, “if they do this with consent on either side?” What was wrong, he persisted, with “two consenting adults being able to come to an arrangement such as a prostitute would have with someone who is involved with her? What role does the state have in this?”
Thanks to the Sunday Mirror, his chairmanship can now be understood as something more complex than, as it earlier appeared, mingled indifference and inattention. Indeed, to go over these transcripts is not unlike, at key moments, rereading a novel featuring an unreliable narrator, so as to identify the places where vital information has been withheld.
True, the Vaz inquiry is not exactly Villette, nor even Gone Girl, but what went through Vaz’s head when Chuka Umunna speculated about “often everyday guys who just do this because they think they can get away with it and can exploit women”? Alas, buyer-witnesses were thin on the ground. “What about that guy who is in a stable, happy situation and has children?” Umunna asked ACC Holland. “That person really often gets away scot-free.”
If Vaz’s interim report is not dismissed as fatally compromised, family guy now buys sex with the official blessing of the home affairs committee... 

But the feminist argument no more gets to the real issues either, and equally gets in the way with their obsessions, ready to override all other understanding to blame men for example for the double oppression of women within capitalism which, while real enough, is not solved by such shallow one-sided nonsense. 
Such gains as are made for a few women here and there for example (mostly middle class anyway) can only ever be a pinprick against the great deluge of corrupt injustice and exploitation imposed on most women and men alike, and do nothing to stop the slide into Catastrophe that will reimpose far worse, and is already doing so by tearing up, selling off or deliberately letting collapse (NHS eg) the remaining “gains” of past Labourite reforms which were supposed to be permanent foundation stones for a better society.
And the horrifying war destruction imposed by capitalism on country after country like Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, Somalia and Yemen destroys all lives, men women and children indiscriminately.
All these self-righteousness forms of PC-ism becomes ever more of an obstacle to the development of revolutionary perspectives urgently needed by the working class as the festering and stagnating capitalist crisis heads ever closer total Slump breakdown and world war. 
Long before the Great Catastrophe broke in 2008 and the endless stagnation and austerity which has followed for many (and due to get much worse once QE Mickey Mouse valueless money printing no longer works) PCism has been a total diversion and distraction.
It has long been eagerly embraced by the fake-“lefts” as a way of extending the failed perspectives of general reformism (particularly in discredited Labourism after Attlee and Wilson) with new “super”-reformist single issues, which supposedly could be fought for within capitalism.
But even on their own terms these single issue causes do not advance society in general but instead set back the only possible way that injustice and division of all kinds can be ended, namely the overturn of the capitalist system which will constantly generate and re-generate societal conflict and antagonism, at all levels and between all kinds of people, for as long as it continues to exist.
But posturing around such issues has long allowed the “left” swamp to evade the revolutionary conclusions and theory needed to end this defunct profit system, taking the power into the firm control of the working class (proletarian dictatorship) to command and develop all the resources of society taken into common ownership, seized from the capitalist class, so that planned socialism can allow a fair society that can finally develop all humans to their full extent in balance with nature.
Not only does PCism avoid and divert attention from this only possible route out of the epochal disaster being imposed on the world by fatcat greed, contempt, arrogance and incompetence, it increasingly becomes a proactive censorship tool used to stifle and block the crisis-driven debate erupting everywhere in the working class as it ever worse chaos, slump and destruction drives lives deeper into misery, pain and penury.
What this growing ferment of discussion needs is leadership by the revolutionary party to work through the living arguments to reach a scientific and agreed class understanding of the challenges and needs of the coming titanic class war to finally finish with the ossified and ever more destructive monopoly capitalist system.
Instead of this vital conflict of ideas being encouraged, guided  and developed (on foundations of already existing Marxist and Leninist science – 100 volumes of Marx, Engels and Lenin to start with) to sound conclusions, to constantly enhance revolutionary theory, it is stifled with demented (and increasingly violent) accusations of “sexism” or “homophobia” or “racism”.
PCism, and the fake-“left” Trotskyism which has adopted it and elevates it to the supposed “first priority” of struggle (as the capitalist supporting reactionary AWL Trots declare for example), is rooted in petty bourgeois class feeling and its deep down hostility to communism and the workers state discipline which is necessary to achieve it.  
This idealist moralising and pomposity finds its disruptive form currently in the “No platform” blockades, and the “safe space” imposition of censorship and suppression of argument across universities, schools, meetings and rallies, a stifling of argument which has reached book-burning levels which plays right into the hands of the ruling class fearful above all of the working class finally shaking off a century of anti-communist brainwashing, and even longer “democracy” illusions, which have kept all class-war instincts corrupted, hoodwinked or hamstrung.
No need for Nazis in this subjective idealist world which ignores reality and the material struggle erupting everywhere in the Third World against capitalism, to declare that its moralising prescriptions must be adhered to by the working class.
No imperfect or flawed individuals  are allowed, only robotic, approved, “anti-racist”, ultra-feminist, pro-gay, “gender fluid” people can even contemplate setting out on the path towards the “perfect revolution” as blueprinted in advance by these Trots’ utopian fantasies.
This idealist nonsense, solely in their heads, has never and will never make a revolution.
It ignores completely the endless complexity of the developing world struggle in all its imperfections and complications – the reality of the world class struggle which is sole starting point for the materialist science of genuine Marxism. 
In practice its castles-in-the-air just leave capitalism permanently in charge with its “parliamentary rule” fraud (which they have all jumped into) which is all, secretly, their tiny souls can contemplate, having not the remotest grasp of the epochal transformations already underway.
Small wonder sections of the working class are driven into the arms of the worst reactionary backwardness like UKIP and the Trump bigotry and their pretence of iconoclastic anti-establishment politics (a total lie of course, as was “national” socialism in the 1930s.)
These narrow and petty bourgeois moralising PC “principles” sit right alongside the official bureaucratic Prevent programme of capitalist state-dictated, approved, quiescent thought patterns, increasingly drummed into young minds at school and university by bourgeois decree, while some unspecified, suitably vague catch-all “extremism” (meaning communist and revolutionary ideas at root) is banned and made “illegal”.
The 1930s German Nazi regime and its obligatory “Heil Hitlers” could not have wanted anything more reactionary than the “British values” of enforced “support for democracy” and the fraudulent “rule of law” now being imposed. 
The notions of mind-control and thought police manipulation elaborated in George Orwell’s 1984 novel are all in full flow, but not under the fanciful “totalitarian communism” that the little MI5 secret-police fink’s Trotskyist hatred of the Soviet workers state lyingly attributed it too, but in the slump-ridden British (and all other) capitalist “surveillance” society (that even in 1948 was the actual concrete inspiration for Orwell’s sinister propaganda ideas, which reflect not “communism” but the bourgeois dictatorship reality hidden behind a mask of parliamentary “freedom”).
The “voluntary” censorship by the PC lobby, imposed by shouting down of every attempt to explore or analyse difficult issues like homosexuality and most crucially the reactionary political role that such single-issues play, reinforces this state suppression with its declarations that such analyses or investigation be deemed “homophobia” or “sexist misogyny” if they do not fit with the prescribed single-issue formulas (that “gay is normal” etc.)
And its idealist subjective absurdities have even reached the point where the past “heroes” of feminism and gay rights like Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell find themselves banned and pilloried, ludicrously even denounced as “fascists” such are the convolutions that PCism has twisted itself into with its self-righteousness and endlessly graded subjective idealism (where the world can be changed merely by proscribing words).
What feminism, (and “LBGT” rights, black nationalism, animal rights, etc) do is distract attention from the real cause of such oppression, namely capitalist exploitation, as well as breaking up and fragmenting the class unity for the revolutionary fight against it, which is the only real solution to all alienation and oppression and the only way all differences can be overcome and individuals develop their full potential.
Worse they have increasing undermined such struggles as the Palestinian intifadas, contemptuous of their heroic fight against the endless agony of repeated Zionist imposed massacres, constant terrorising and daily siege suffering, all ignored because the current Islamic culture and leadership is deemed not to match up to the alleged “correct” attitude of asserting, (wrongly), that “gay is no different to heterosexual” (see EPSR 1242 20-07-04 - quoted two issues back in No 1477).
Increasingly this PCism goes far beyond merely heading off and blocking the rising debate and the openings it offers for revolutionary theory and understanding to be fought for again, after decades of smothering consumerism, philistine celebrity and fashion “culture”, becoming ever more openly a complete tool of reaction, its twisted perspectives of single-issue subjectivism feeding into the growing world imperialist aggression as capitalism desperately tries to keep warmongering on the boil (as its crisis “solution”).
Most obviously PCism is used to sustain imperialism’s vile torturing depravity and destruction in its endless “war on terror” feeding the anti-Islam scapegoating and demonisation which is used a cover for the deliberate war destruction by imperialism and its stooges, and more and more turned to the demonising of Russia as well – eg with such figures as Stephen Fry whipping up anti-Russian hatred because it refuses to declare homosexuality to be “normal” and to teach such to its schoolchildren.
It is pure sabotage and its real target is communist understanding.
Small wonder the increasingly reactionary ruling class has not only embraced but actively advocates all these single-issue causes.
The “gay rights” and civil rights “black nationalism” issues have been used to keep the entire America presidential “democracy” circus on the road (and the equally warmongering and Slump austerity-imposing David Cameron Tories) despite the gradually developing and wholly correct contempt by the US working class for the whole bourgeois “democracy” racket (as in Britain, increasing cynical and turning out less and less for elections and certainly without any positive enthusiasm even when they do).
Near terminal humiliation and breakdown under the previous George Bush presidency, shattered by Middle Eastern war resistance and setbacks, was salvaged first by the “black vote” and feminism, and then with “gay marriage”, notably taken up and fostered to give the drone-warfare and death-squad killer presidency of Barack Obama a second term.
The “feminist” card is being played once more by Hilary Clinton, the supporter of Wall Street fatcats as well as multiple coups, invasions and blitzkriegs, from Honduras in 2009 (thousands killed since) to the destruction of Libya with its barbaric killing by steel blade buggery of Muammar Gaddafi, the deliberately inflamed Syrian civil war, the Yemen war and war crimes, the Egyptian street-killing overturn of elected president Morsi and the illegal death squad assassination in a third country, of Osama bin Laden.
Playing into this war agenda is the across the board capitulation of the “left” of all shades to imperialism’s “war on terror” scapegoating and demonisation of the Third World anti-imperialist resistance.
Their condemnations of “jihadism” and denunciations of “terrorists” as just “reactionary Islamists” or “headbangers” are a million miles from any Marxist way of analysing the world, setting up as they do a supposed “new kind of reaction” which is supposedly “just as bad” or even worse than imperialism itself (or in some cases where the “lefts” feel this line is a little too obviously anti-Marxist, just declaring it “the same” as imperialism because allegedly all jihadism is “the creation of the imperialists” and either “run by the CIA” or “mercenary tools” of imperialism).
This nonsense lets all the “left” go along with the public “anti-terrorist” hysteria which is a main prop for imperialism’s continued non-stop warmongering – and complete invalidates their posturing pretences to be “opposed to war”.
It gets into a million contradictions, especially when trying to explain what the Palestinian resistance might be (surely Sunni religious ideologues too?? – therefore “headbangers” according to this view????) or why the Muslim Brotherhood presidency in Egypt (more Sunnis with a “terrorist” record) should have been overthrown by the Western “colour” revolution of 2013.
The middle class and reactionary bureaucracy in Egypt was whipped up with maximum Western media propaganda (including interventions from war criminal Tony Blair) after months of deliberate economic sabotage by the military bureaucracy (as now pursued in Venezuela, Bolivia etc), to discredit and bring down the MB, installing a new version of the bloody Mubarak dictatorship under General Sisi.
Thousand of civilians were butchered in cold blood in Cairo to do it and the vicious dictatorship since has imposed mass executions and torture incarceration on any opposition since, all backed by Washington and Saudi funding.
This was supported by the “left” because of its allegedly “secular and democratic” agenda, the “left” PCism concentrating only on PC moralising about the conservative traditions of the MB’s religious ideology (patriarchal suppression of women and admittedly backward homophobic attitudes) and therefore missing completely the overriding material fact of the defeat which the 2011 Cairo Arab Spring had imposed on imperialism, a shattering spontaneously revolutionary blow that threw the West into a panic.
Blinded by single-issue obsession they miss the obvious counter-revolutionary nature of the subsequent colour “revolt”.
But having denounced the backwardness of the Islamists’ religious ideology (reinforced with further hate campaigning because the entire region’s culture does not accept the “gay is normal” lobby) the PCism then gets into further tangles.
Feminism stands against the patriarchal suppression of women in the severe conservatism of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalism, part of which is the insistence on them “covering themselves” with the hijab (as possessions not to be shared with other men) but ends up calling for the “right” to such backwardness in France, against the insistence of the bourgeois state that it is merely enforcing bourgeois republican state secularity. 
And while the hijab and burkini issue is certainly used by the French extreme right to further anti-Islam demonisation (for imperialist warmongering purposes), there is still no reason to suppose the French state is yet using it for a general suppression any more than ten years ago when the EPSR pointed out the diversionary nature of getting involved (EPSR No1220 17-02-04):

what the ‘Muslim’ communities and nations need is the same that everyone else needs on Earth, — a Leninist revolutionary party to take state power internationally off monopoly imperialist economic slump-corruption and warmongering degeneracy.
Making a specific issue (one way or the other) of anyone thinking a hijab will help them get there, or bring this about, hardly seems the most fertile furrow to plough, — or any other belief totem or personal idiosyncrasy.
A 100% concentration on Marxist scientific truth about the world and civilisation’s understanding is surely the best approach, leaving individuals to personally grapple with their own emotional or ideological crutches.
Any individual reformist fight against ‘authority’ over such an issue (e.g. French Muslims v state schooldress-code policy) needs treating as such, i.e. pure single issue reformism.      
... By all means let such reformist agitation get on with it.
But any ‘left’ urging to join-in needs watching for any diversionary opportunist tendency to use such ‘causes’ for completely obliterating the really crucial perspective for ALL the people of France of the forthcoming revolutionary downfall of the clapped-out imperialist system and state.
If it is merely French state hypocrisy to be claiming “rational secularism” rather than “racial prejudice” as the reason for the anti-hijab school dress code ruling, then it still, at this stage, hardly registers on the whole-system-crisis cause for the TOTAL overthrow of imperialist class rottenness, inflicting decay and corruption on France from the head down.
That would change, however, were the French imperialist state to start to use the attack on the hijab as a provocation or stalking horse for an all-out counter-revolutionary coup against ALL “human rights” in France.

While the PCers can get themselves aerated over these incidental questions they continue to avoid the overriding central issue of the need to end capitalism which alone can now solve anything.
Without this perspective they continue to miss far more telling opportunities to expose the ruling class, such as its floundering conspiracy to suppress, delay or dilute investigations into grotesque child abuse in children’s homes and institutions, and particularly where there are links into the heart of the Establishment over decades. 
Even more than individual exposés of hypocrisy and fraudulent image building such as Vaz, or the general revelations about sleaze and corruption over cash-for-questions for example, or the widespread MP pocket-lining expenses racketeering,– this demonstrates the utter degeneracy and depravity of the ruling class.
After a stream of revelations confirming the long covered-up up boy’s home depredations of figures such as the gross Liberal MP Cyril Smith, and Thatcherite (Sir) Peter Morrison, as well as establishment figures like the senior MI6 spy-chief Peter Heyman, as well as multiple incidents of abuse being revealed at children’s orphanage homes throughout the country such as Bryn Est in north Wales, Kincora in “Northern Ireland”, Durham’s Medomsley, Jersey’s Haut de la Garonne and many London boroughs, mostly Labour run from Hackney, Islington to Lambeth, the ruling class is on the ropes. 
The old arrogant assumptions of patrician privilege being able to “get away” with anything including the psychological and often physical devastation of thousands of lives and, if some of the most extreme allegations were proven, even murder, have increasingly come under challenge, reflecting the declining power and capability of the ruling class as its system heads into total collapse.  
Endless attempts have been by the ruling class to ignore, dismiss and brush-aside these allegations (which are common knowledge around the Establishment) protecting the perpetrators through the freemasonries and clubby networks which make up the real power under capitalism.
Multiple files have been “lost” or “accidentally” destroyed (most significantly by the Home Office under Tory Sir Leon Brittan), police investigations stepped on, influence and pressure brought to bear, right up to Downing Street level and via the powerful “whips’ office” (as once revealed in a BBC interview with chief Tory Whip under Edward Heath,Tim Fortesque who declared that smoothing things over for errant MPs who might be have been “in trouble over little boys” was one of the tools used by the establishment to keep them in line).  
The bludgeoning power of the libel laws and the behind-the-scenes pressure on TV and news editors to shut down or limit investigations has been wielded extensively – notable cases being the way the a re-opened Bryn Estyn investigation, itself challenging the limitations of an original whitewash inquiry, was suddenly removed from the media limelight, and in curtailing any investigation of the Leicester MP Greville Janner and extensive allegations against him, eventually judged serious enough by the Department of Public Prosecutions to go to court and to continue be looked into despite his dementia (which rules out a normal trial) via an “investigation of the facts”.
The campaigning web publication Exaro which concentrated on this issue, has been forced to shut completely. 
And while in such cases it can be claimed that they “went too far”, the deluge of testimonies from multiple victims across the country and the public outcry has became impossible to brush off easily, despite the efforts of some sections of the bourgeois press to belittle witnesses and discredit complainants’ testimonies.
Hence the great pantomime of an “inquiry” designed as usual to “kick the issue into the long grass” and keep it out of public attention while supposedly investigating everything – an inquiry given a remit so far reaching it would take years, even up to a decade, to complete, as the Bloody Sunday, and Iraq War re-inquiries have done, by which time it is hoped the heat can be taken out of the issues.
So fearful is it of the damage that could be caused to its already corroded “authority” that the conduct of the inquiry has been kept severely limited to establishment figures, those who, as “one of us” figures, would carry through enough of an examination to pretend objectivity while never stepping over the unwritten boundaries of class interest.
But this itself has been a disaster, so crudely done that it has compounded the problem for the ruling class with the first two chairs having to step down because of glaring “conflict of interest”.
Once, as Lady Bracknell said, could be a misfortune but twice “looks like carelessness”.
Three times looks like a major conspiracy and particularly as the New Zealand judge Dame Lowell Goddard, brought in specially from abroad to pretend “no connections”, has now been forced to resign too.
Immediately the bourgeois press was full of planted stories about alleged “indolence”, “excessive salary” (not exceptional in bourgeois terms) and supposed “long holidays”; much more likely is that as an “outsider” she was taking the objectivity remit too seriously.
A particular concern has obviously been that she added a new “thread” to the inquiry, carrying out an “examination of the facts” relating to the multiple charges of abuse on boys by Janner – which Establishment sophistry suggested should be “laid to rest”.
All this threatened to get entangled with the continuing allegations of paedophile rings in Westminster which the ruling class has been playing down with much belittling of such accusations as being “just the product of deranged minds” etc and the product of “overheated conspiracy theories” (much as Teresa May has outrageously intervened to prejudge the legal processes of torture and abuse claims against the British imperialist military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, by declaring them in advance to be “vexatious”).
But enough cases have emerged to make very clear that establishment pressure to cover-up on these issues is widespread, as occasionally revealed by those sections of the bourgeois press which reflect disquieted middle class opinion:
A member of the Royal Family, a senior judge, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters all intervened to stop a Church of England bishop being prosecuted for sexual abuse 22 years ago, the Old Bailey has heard.
The scale of the intervention from senior establishment figures when Peter Ball was first accused in 1993 by a vulnerable young man of sexual exploitation and abuse was revealed for the first time on Wednesday.
Ball, 83, was in court to be sentenced for 15 years of grooming, sexual exploitation and abuse of 18 vulnerable young men aged 17-25, who had come to him for spiritual guidance and inspiration between 1977 and 1992 when he was bishop of Lewes.
Jailing him for two years and eight months, Mr Justice Wilkie said Ball had abused his position as a senior member of the established church. “You pursued selected individuals to commit or submit to acts of physical or sexual debasement under the guise of it being part of an austere regime of devotion.
Ball, who counted the Prince of Wales as a loyal friend, had first been accused in 1993 by Neil Todd, who had attempted suicide three times as a result of his abuse, and went on to kill himself in 2012.
The police investigated and six other victims came forward. But support flooded in for Ball from within the establishment and he was never charged. Instead he received a caution for gross indecency, resigned his post as bishop and was allowed to continue officiating at ceremonies for many years by the then archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey.
Bobbie Cheema, QC, prosecuting said: “The police report that accompanied the papers sent to the CPS in 1993 after the police had done their work stated they had received telephone calls supportive of Peter Ball ‘from many dozens of people – including MPs, former public school headmasters, JPs and even a lord chief justice’”.
She said there were many more letters of support, including from cabinet ministers and a member of the royal family.
After accepting the caution, Ball resigned and was given accommodation in a cottage on the Prince of Wale’s Duchy of Cornwall property.
The decision not to prosecute Ball was finalised by the then DPP, Barbara Mills, Cheema said.
At the time of the allegations Ball told other young men in his charge that Todd’s story was “total fantasy” and tried to deter them from coming forward.
Todd’s sister, Mary Mills Knowles, said in a victim impact statement: “Neil had already made three attempts on his life in 1993 before he summoned the courage to speak out ... The church wanted to sweep this under the carpet. They had no concern for Neil’s wellbeing. He was very distressed, vulnerable and distraught. He felt nobody believed him.”
He killed himself in 2012 unable she said to bear the weight of what had happened to him when a new police inquiry began.
Ball was arrested and charged after the new police investigation in 2012. After months in which Ball attempted to avoid justice by pleading unfit to stand trial, and argued his role as a bishop was not a “public office” he finally admitted his years of offending last month.
He pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office relating to the exploitation of 16 young men and two counts of indecent assault on two young men.
The court heard he ran a scheme to encourage young people to give a year of their life to the church, through which he met his victims, many of whom lived in his home.
Cheema said: “He was highly regarded as a godly man who had a special affinity with young people. The truth was that he used those 15 years in the position of bishop to identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable young men who came within his orbit.
“For him, religion was a cloak behind which he hid in order to satisfy his sexual interest in those who trusted him.”
The court heard the abuse included beatings, and victims who were in his sway were made to strip naked during baptisms in which Ball also was naked. One victim said he saw Ball as a “living Saint”.

Another incident saw journalistic investigation shut down as noted in a House of Commons motion from MP John Hemming:That this House notes that an American journalist and author, Leah McGrath Goodman, has been banned from the UK Common Travel Area and refused a visa to visit Jersey; further notes that her objective was to investigate allegations of a cover-up following well-founded charges of decades-long child abuse at Jersey care home Haut de la Garenne; further notes that she had a clean immigration and travel record as a former Tier-1 visa holder and resident of the UK; further notes that there were no problems with the immigration service until she told them what she was intending to write about; and further notes that a Jersey-elected politician, Trevor Pitman, has tabled an electronic petition on Change.org calling for her to be granted a visa by the UK Border Agency so that she might continue her research in Jersey and write about matters in the Crown Dependency
The visa ban was lifted one year later after major publicity essentially confirming its sinister implications.
But hardly a word pursuing and exposing such ruling class cover-up and the obvious implications it has for lies about “democracy” and the “rule of law” has emerged from the Labourites or the “left”. 
Instead they have constantly attacked any attempts to draw out such crucial political lessons, most of all against the EPSR’s fight for Leninist science, decrying them as “homophobic”.
But it is the Labourites and fake-“left” of all shades which have major questions to answer - not least because they too are implicated in the abuse and the cover-ups on a massive scale – precisely  through their adoption of single-issues.
One of the first notorious cases taken up by the EPSR was that of Mark Trotter at the Hackney Council in the 1980s (EPSR No1242 20-07-04):  
where this homosexual borough official for children’s homes spent 10 years sexually preying on orphans and homeless infants before dying of AIDS, protected through countless publicised doubts, half-hearted police checks, and nascent internal inquiries about his suitability and trustworthiness for such a post, entirely by the “no homophobia” hue-and-cry raised by the local Labour leadership “politically correct” worthies,

Since then case after case has emerged of how paedophiles and abusers were able to insinuate themselves into swathes of children’s homes in various councils, particularly in London, because they could take advantage of an entire culture of “anti-homophobia”, and “anti-racism” which blocked off challenges and checks on individuals.
Most notorious is the Islington council where abuse went on at 21 different homes and where “left” Labourite Margaret Hodge was the council leader and assorted “left” Labourites were also beginning their careers, including Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn and Keith Vaz, a legal adviser:  As a later Telegraph story reported:
(Ian) White, then director of Oxfordshire social services, confirmed (in a 1995 investigation) that Islington allowed at least 26 workers facing “extremely serious allegations” to leave its employ without investigation. Staff accused of everything from rape to child prostitution had been allowed to resign, often with good references. He described Islington as a “classic study” in how paedophiles target children, aided by the council’s naïve interpretation of gay rights. “Equal opportunities… became a positive disincentive for challenge to bad practice… and a great danger”.
.... As the scandal raged, Islington destroyed records. Ian White confirmed that “this happened at assistant-director level”. He “found no evidence of collusion”. But he was not allowed to question Islington’s assistant director Lyn Cusack, or her staff...
Islington was deeply influenced by and had many connection to the Paedophile Information Exchange. In the fatally naïve 1970s to mid 80s, PIE openly campaigned for sex to be legalised with children from age four, and for incest and child pornography to be legalised. The National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - allowed it to affiliate and its then legal officer Harriet Harman wrote a paper effectively backing some PIE demands. The assumption in those “progressive” days was that paedophiles simply loved children and wanted to “liberate” their sexuality.
Mrs Harman, whose role has been exposed in recent media stories, has described Margaret Hodge as her best friend in Parliament. Mrs Hodge’s late husband, Henry Hodge, also an Islington Labour councillor, earlier chaired the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is unknown if they ever discussed PIE.
In 1985, Mrs Hodge announced that Islington Council would positively discriminate in favour of gay staff. It exempted self-declared gay men from background checks, and paedophiles pretending to be decent gay men cynically exploited this. It emerged that Islington deputy superintendent Michael Taylor was in PIE after he received a four-year prison sentence in July 2000 for abusing two boys at Islington’s Gisburne House in the Seventies.
PIE founding member, Peter Righton, then Britain’s top “expert” on children’s homes, had even founded a training course for residential workers. Paedophilia, he declared in one essay, was “no more bizarre than a penchant for redheads”.

This piece leaves untouched the issue of any direct connection between homosexuality and paedophilia in some cases, stating only that the child abusers posed as “decent gays” the problem being one of “naïvety” ostensibly.
It is a fundamental assertion of the homosexual lobby and its fake-“left” advocates that there is “no connection” with paedophilia and that even to raise the question is to be “homophobic”. 
And it is the case that there is no evidence that the very great majority of homosexuals are involved in, or likely to be, child abusers.
As far as is known in this highly fraught area a vast majority of paedophile abuse is by heterosexuals, and is perpetrated on both sexes often in family environments.
But neither is there any evidence at present that such connections do not exist – just the opposite, there is an overlapping area with strong correlation.
It is notable that in multiple abuse convictions, and investigations, the abuse is by men exclusively on male children and adolescents.
This suggests there is homosexual child abuse.  
Notably too the huge scale of abuse revealed over decades in the many children’s homes run by the Catholic Church in Ireland separated clearly into domestic physical and psychological abuse in the girls homes, with very few overtly sexual cases, and a strongly sexual character to much of the abuse in the boys homes.
The science on this issue is incomplete and it needs examination – and particularly in determining what might be cause and effect.
But that is an impossibility in a climate of PC censorship akin to 1950s McCarthyism where to query at all the assertion that “gay” is no different to heterosexual is declared out of bounds.
There is no scientific basis for the opposite PC insistence that no connection exists between homosexuality and paedophilia in a few cases.
Clearly large parts of the population are unhappy with the relentless insistence that any arguments to the contrary should be “out of bounds” and that the view child development in the round requires both male and female heterosexual parental role models is some “backward idea” advocated only by swivel-eyed bible-bashers or demented jihadists.
Would anyone set out to bring up a child as “gay” is another question worth asking, and with an obvious answer. 
The interest for Marxism is in how the monomaniacal insistence on this “normality” issue overriding all others, causes this PCism to play an increasingly reactionary role.
“No connection” is dementedly insisted upon with increasing vehemence because the entire edifice of “gay normality” is now widespread as part of the late imperialist culture, and a crucial part of its demonisation of rising anti-Western sentiment, declaring that anyone even suggesting otherwise is beyond the pale, and “obviously reactionary”.
So it is alright to bomb them into the floor then? 
If such questions were asked, and the psychological science pursued, then the PC “certainty” would be hugely undermined.
It should be.
What is required instead is pursuit of the great open debate led by Leninism, to establish clear understanding of the objective revolutionary necessities growing daily as crisis deepens. 
Build Leninism.
Brendan Jameston

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

World Socialist Review
edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles
President Maduro condemns attacks on Venezuela

CARACAS.— Venezuela is currently experiencing the fiercest media and political onslaught of the last ten years, President Nicolás Maduro warned this, during a press conference in the Salón Ayacucho of Miraflores Palace in Caracas, in mid-May. 
   He stressed that the Venezuelan government will undertake a counteroffensive to ensure that the truth gets out to the peoples of the world, and to assert its national sovereignty, according to reports from avn.
   “We need to build a political, diplomatic counteroffensive, and call for mobilizing global awareness in defense of the right to peace, independence, and democracy in Venezuela,” he said.
   Accompanied by Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez and other members of the Executive Cabinet, as well as the head of the government’s parliamentary bloc, Héctor Rodríguez, the President provided an overview of the various forms in which right wing sectors have attempted to overthrow the Bolivarian government.
   “We have seen 17 years of constant struggle, and we know the means of interventionism, we already know the limits of imperialist, foreign intervention, of global capital, the right, of global oligarchies,’’ he noted.
   “They have not achieved the impact in the country which, no doubt, they did during other periods, but the international campaign has intensified,” Maduro stated, according to PL, on recalling the violence of 2014, when a plan called ‘‘La Salida” (The Exit) caused the deaths of 43 people, in an attempt to overthrow the President.
   According to Maduro, one of the key motives for convening this press conference were recent statements by former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe in the United States, who called for a military intervention in Venezuela.
   This country, a sovereign nation, has the right to choose its own destiny, the political system that best suits it, and the future it wants for its people, without interference in its internal affairs, Maduro warned, as reported by PL.
   According to the President, Washington has no moral authority to demand democracy - in any country, nor respect for human rights, as the U.S. interventions in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and its support for the armed opposition in Syria demonstrate the true imperialist and militaristic nature of its foreign policy.
   Maduro also denounced the alleged incursion into Venezuelan airspace of a Boeing 707 e3 Sentry, “which has all the equipment for electronic espionage.”
 “I am informing the world...a scenario of violence is being mounted in Venezuela in order to justify foreign military intervention,’’ Maduro warned.
 MEDIA ATTACKS
 Maduro condemned the media campaign against his government, led by ultraconservative press outlets in Spain, including the dailies El Mundo and abc, who recruit Venezuelan opposition members to slander their homeland.
 He asked heads of state, leaders and other honest people across the world to show solidarity with Venezuela given the attacks undertaken by the Bogotá-Madrid-Miami axis.
 “In Venezuela the peace of this America is at stake, as is the future of our own independence in this 21st century,” Maduro stressed, while noting that the foreign policy of his country is based on the union of the peoples of the world and in building peace.
 “Venezuela practices a diplomacy whose core idea is the building of peace, with equality, with justice, with integration; Venezuela has the right to grow, to develop, to confront its problems and overcome them ” he said.
 President Maduro presented research on the media coverage of Venezuela during the first four months of 2016 in the daily newspapers of Bogotá, Madrid and Miami, which demonstrated that of 1,315 both long and short pieces on the country, 97% constituted negative coverage.
 “There is no country, no issue, from this country itself or this very city, which has merited more attention than Venezuela,” the President said, adding that of these articles, 25 concern the Bolivarian Economic Agenda and only two are positive.
 The President demanded “an end to the global campaign of harassment, threats, the media campaign of hatred and manipulation against the dignified life of a people, who work, and love, and want to continue loving their homeland and its history.”
 At another point he called for strengthened solidarity among sister nations to curb the constant media attacks against Venezuela.
 “I call for a project to be deployed and unleashed of solidarity, accompaniment, of brotherhood that demands respect for sovereignty and peace in Venezuela, the rights we have and for the shady campaigns to cease,” Maduro expressed in statements broadcast live by Venezolana de Televisión.
 During the press conference, Maduro reiterated that the preservation and protection of the social conquests of the Venezuelan people is the fundamental task of the Bolivarian Revolution, an area which has seen increased efforts given the extreme onslaught of the Venezuelan right, allied with external agents in its attempts to attack the nation.
 “We are solely and exclusively dedicated’ to addressing all the issues affecting our peoples, and to preserving the social gains, the fundamental achievements: employment, pensions, public education, public primary health care, Barrio Adentro 100%,’’ the President noted.
  He explained that in this regard, the Bolivarian Revolution has also launched a new phase aimed at boosting the productive economy of the country, in order to overcome the current economic situation, stemming from the unconventional war orchestrated by imperialist sectors and low oil prices.
  Maduro highlighted the government’s Bolivarian National Economic Agenda, consisting of 15 productive economic engines.
  He told reporters that this economic revolution has also seen the active and enthusiastic participation of the people, through the Local Production and Supply Committees (clap), which seek to supply food products directly to Venezuelan families and stimulate local production.
  He added that there are now over 10,000 claps throughout the country and that these will join other measures and programs, such as Farmapatria and the free health care system, to ensure the basic needs of the population are met.
  This initiative will also allow the government to hit back at the right wing, which has attempted to defeat the people with hoarding, boycotts, usury and smuggling of goods and products, be they basic or other.
  “They are waging war with us in the private supply systems, with smuggling and bach-aqueo (black market reselling), so we must bypass the whole system and continue to successfully build with the claps direct distribution, that’s why all power is going to the claps,” Maduro explained, as reported by avn.
  Regarding the recall referendum, for which the opposition is currently collecting signatures, Maduro noted that the process must be conducted according to the Constitution.
  He stressed that Venezuela enjoys a participatory and protagonist democracy. He also noted that any vote on his removal should be held by January 11, 2017, as this would mark the half-way point of his presidential term.               Õ   “Let’s think about defending the Constitution, in defense of the people. Again they have tried to use a democratic resource to further their own interests,” Maduro’ said, explaining the various steps that must be followed in order to arrive at a recall referendum, having collected the necessary amount of signatures, “provided that the signatures are real.”
Finally, he clarified that the right “does not want a referendum, they only seek a coup, they want violence to cover up the disaster,” but stressed that the Venezuelan people and the armed forces would make history. “This revolutionary force of Bolívar and Chávez will never surrender,” he concluded. 

The world must hear the truth about Venezuela

VENEZUELA’S ambassador in Cuba, Alí Rodríguez Araque, spoke to the press at the embassy in Havana emphasizing that there are two very distinct explanations of what is happening in this country being disseminated by the press: a media campaign to destabilize the country, and another seeking to get the truth about what is happening to the world.
  The media destabilization campaign, he said, is in consonance with what President Nicolás Maduro has denounced regarding plans to distort the political situation and portray his government as a bloody dictatorship.
  Rodríguez, also the former secretary of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur),insisted on the need to report the Maduro administration’s declarations and its commitment to advancing the Bolivarian project.
 He noted the treacherous idea of some politicians calling for a foreign military intervention, which is indicative of the impotence felt by the Venezuelan oligarchy and the United States, given the failure of their attempts to destabilize the country.