Evolutionary divergence between apes and humans may have occurred in Europe, not Africa

Philip Guelpa

A recent article published in the scientific journal PLOS One, “Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe” (Fuss, Spassov, Begun, and Bohme, 22 May 2017), presents the provocative hypothesis that the earliest human ancestor evolved not in Africa, as all previous evidence indicates, but rather in southeastern Europe.

The article describes two fossil specimens, a mandible from Greece, originally discovered in 1944, and a single tooth from Bulgaria found in 2009, which are both assigned to the genus Graecopithecus. The authors propose that these remains, dating to roughly 7.175 and 7.24 million years ago (mya), respectively, represent a very early hominin species (humans and their non-ape ancestors) that existed shortly after the evolutionary split in the common ancestor of both modern apes and humans. No fossils purported to be from this close to the ape/human divergence have previously been reported.

Greacopithecus mandible from Greece

Genetic dating techniques, which compare the degree of difference between ape and human DNA and estimate the time it would have taken for that amount of difference to have developed, have placed the split between the ancestors of these two lineages at somewhere between 5 and 10 mya, recently refined to 7-8 million. This would place Graecopithecus in the right time frame.

The fossil record contains specimens which have been found across Africa and Eurasia dating to the Miocene Epoch (roughly 23 to 5.3 mya) that could represent the common ancestor of apes and humans. However, remains that have been interpreted as early hominin (i.e., the earliest human ancestors after the split), dating to around 5 or 6 million years ago, such as Ardipithicus, are so far known only from Africa. The more abundant later fossils belonging to the genus Australopithecus, that are clearly hominin, including the famous “Lucy” skeleton, ranging in age between about 4 and 2 mya, have also been found exclusively in Africa.

Furthermore, the earliest known members of our own genus, Homo, are also from Africa, though it appears that they spread rapidly across Eurasia (e.g. the fossil specimens from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia). Therefore, the overwhelming preponderance of existing data support the interpretation that hominins originated and spent much of their early evolutionary development in Africa. The new report seeks to challenge that understanding.

A basic tenet in science is that “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” The basis for the current claim is that certain characteristics of the Greek and Bulgarian specimens, while clearly ape-like in the broad sense, nevertheless have traits indicating a diet adapted to living in grasslands, which is typical of later hominins, rather than in forests, home of primordial apes.

Two categories of data are presented as evidence that Graecopithecus is an ancestral hominin—thickness of tooth enamel and tooth root configuration.

The new data presented by the authors is derived from CT scans of the specimens, which were then used to create 3D “visualizations” of their previously unobservable internal structures.

Graecopithecus has thicker tooth enamel than do apes, resembling what is generally typical of hominins. This difference is thought to represent an adaptation on the part of hominins to eating foods available in grasslands (such as seeds), which require grinding and, therefore, produce more wear on the teeth than results from eating softer foods available to forest dwellers. Thicker enamel would extend the use-life of the tooth.

The canine tooth root is short and slender, suggesting that the canine itself was smaller than is typical of apes, but characteristic of hominins. Large canines impede the sideways motion of the jaw, necessary for grinding food.

Upper premolar of Gaecophithecus from Bulgaria

The researchers also point to the root morphology of premolars. Humans have a single root, apes have three roots, and the condition in earlier hominins is variable. Graecopithecus exhibits a reduction in the numbers of roots, suggesting a trend toward the hominin configuration, which may also be an adaptation to tougher foods.

The hypothesis being proposed by these researchers, that the split between the ancestors of modern apes and humans took place in Europe rather than Africa, rests on only two specimens, a jaw and an isolated tooth, recovered from two different locations. The sample size is thus extremely small and the attributes used to support their interpretation, absent a more comprehensive set of traits, could easily be the result of parallel evolution among a highly variable group of species rather than evidence of a specific ancestor-descendant relationship with later hominins.

Furthermore, given the extreme rarity of possible hominin fossils from the 5 to 10 mya time period, the chance discovery of these two specimens in Europe does not provide a reliable basis on which to postulate where these animals evolved. With the current state of knowledge, it is equally plausible that the hominin/ape split occurred in Africa, with some of the earliest hominins then spreading “Out of Africa,” as many members of the genus Homo later did.

Nevertheless, the researchers have conducted a very detailed and extensive analysis, which is certainly worthy of consideration and of further investigation, which they themselves call for.

Even if the origin of the hominin lineage is ultimately demonstrated to have been in Europe rather than Africa, or, perhaps, within a species spread over multiple continents, the basic understanding of the pattern of human evolution that has been constructed over the last century and a half remains essentially unchallenged, contrary to some sensationalist, and purposely misleading headlines in popular media.

The interpretation that ancestral humans and apes represent an evolutionary split prompted by the shrinking of forests and concomitant expansion of grasslands during the Miocene and succeeding Pliocene (5.3 to 2.6 mya) epochs is not contradicted. Indeed, analysis indicates that the environment of southeastern Europe, where Graecopithecus lived, was savannah, similar to that in the parts of Africa where later hominins are found.

Hominins adapted to the spreading savannah while the ancestors of the modern apes remained in the forests. These differing adaptations led to widely divergent evolutionary trajectories. The reconstruction of broad environmental context and resulting selective pressures is the same. Only the possibility of a change in the geographic setting has been raised.

Whether the substantial fossil record documenting the course of human evolution that has been found in Africa will now be supplemented by new information from Eurasia remains to be seen. The data necessary for paleontological research is subject to the vagaries of preservation. It may simply be that good contexts for the survival of hominin fossils dating to the late Miocene and Pliocene are more abundant in Africa than in Eurasia, perhaps skewing the available data and specifics of interpretation. If the claims made for Graecopithecus withstand scrutiny, exploration to discover geologic contexts of the relevant ages in Eurasia will no doubt be intensified.

India: Madhya Pradesh police shoot protesting farmers

Deepal Jayasekera

Madhya Pradesh state police shot and killed six farmers and injured eight others at a mass protest in Mandsaur district on Tuesday. The farmers, who were demonstrating over several demands, including better prices for their products and loan waivers, are continuing their agitation in defiance of the Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) state government’s repression.

Farmers responded to the attack by extending their protests on Wednesday to six other districts, including Neemuch, Dewas and Ujjain. Mandsaur farmers refused to allow the cremation of the bodies of the murdered farmers until BJP Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan visited the area. In Bhopal, the state capital, farmers burned an effigy of Chouhan.

The government initially denied the shootings but later attempted to justify the police actions, claiming officers opened fire “in self-defence.” It then promised to pay 10 million rupees’ compensation to the families of the dead farmers and hold an investigation into the incident. As in the past, any official inquiry will either exonerate the police or find convenient scapegoats.

At the same time, state authorities imposed a curfew throughout the Mandsaur district, with police declaring it would not be lifted “until the situation becomes normal.” On Wednesday, police were mobilised throughout Bhopal to stop farmers marching into the city. The Madhya Pradesh home ministry called on the Indian government to provide additional security forces to suppress the growing protests. The state curfew was partially lifted yesterday, between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., for women and children.

Farmers began their agitation on June 1, dumping vegetables and milk on the roads in protest against the low prices for their products and demanding debt forgiveness. The state government responded by deploying police and claiming the farmers’ campaign was instigated by the opposition, mainly Congress, the traditional ruling party of the Indian bourgeoisie. The first clashes between farmers and police occurred on June 4 in the Sehore, Indore and Bhopal districts.

To try to end the demonstrations, Chief Minister Chouhan called a meeting on June 4 with the Bharatiyaa Kisan Sangh (BKS), a farmers’ organisation affiliated to the extreme-right RSS, the ideological mentor of the BJP.

While the BKS agreed to call off the protests, the farmers were not ready to end their campaign without their demands being met. Two other farmers’ groups—the Rashtriya Kissan Mazdoor Sangh (RKMS) and Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU)—decided to continue demonstrating.

Later that day, Chouhan belatedly announced the government would purchase onions at eight rupees per kilogram. The announcement only further inflamed farmers. The next day, he called a press conference and announced a 10 billion-rupee price stabilisation fund in a bid to counteract a precipitous fall in vegetable prices this year.

Farmers’ demonstrations have also occurred in the neighbouring western state of Maharashtra and are spreading to Rajasthan, intensifying the political crisis of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP-led national government. Last month, Modi declared his government would double farmers’ income over the next five years.

Maharashtra farmers continued their protests this week. Devendra Fadnavi, the state’s chief minister, previously promised that the debts of distressed farmers would be waived before October 31. Rajasthan farmers will strike indefinitely next week to demand higher crop prices, pensions and loan waivers.

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Chouhan claims the state recorded a 20 percent growth in agriculture during 2014–15 and boasts about it wining India’s national agricultural award for five consecutive years. The situation facing farmers, however, is desperate. For the second year in a row, there have been almost no buyers for the state’s bumper onion crop. Prices have dropped as low as one rupee per kilogram. Farmers have also been forced to sell winter crops, like tomatoes and potatoes, at giveaway prices.

Falling prices, droughts, small plot sizes, inadequate irrigation and production methods, and large, high-interest debts have made conditions impossible for farmers. Thousands commit suicide each year.

In Madhya Pradesh alone, 1,982 farmers took their lives in the 12 months to February. This is nearly one-tenth of the farmer suicides recorded in the state over the past 16 years. In drought-ravaged Mandsaur district, the centre of this week’s protests, one farmer committed suicide every five hours during the past two years.

While the Madhya Pradesh state government has blamed the protests on Congress and other opposition parties, the desperate situation facing farmers is a direct result of the big-business policies imposed by governments of every political colouration at the national and state levels.

While the opposition Congress is posturing as “pro-farmer” to seek to exploit the situation for its own advantage, it has the same political record as the ruling BJP.

In 1991, Congress initiated pro-investor economic reforms that transformed India into a cheap labour platform of global capital. Successive BJP-led and Congress-led governments deepened these neo-liberal economic reforms at the national and state levels. Meagre subsidies for farmers were dismantled.

On Wednesday, BJP national vice president Venkaiah Naidu cautioned Congress against exploiting farmers’ protests. “I just want to warn the Congress not to fuel violence in the name of farmers,” he declared. “It will boomerang on you.”

Naidu’s comments reveal fears that the farmers’ protests could escalate out of control and precipitate broader struggles by working people and the rural poor throughout the country.

On Thursday, Sitaram Yechury, the general secretary of the Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM, declared in a tweet: “Are we all paying the Krishi Kalyan Cess to the Central government so that it can buy more bullets to fire on farmers?”

Yechury’s reference was to a 0.5 percent tax introduced last June by the BJP-led national government that was supposed to finance the agricultural sector and farmers’ welfare.

The attitude of Yechury’s CPM toward farmers, however, is not fundamentally different to that of the current state and national governments. In 2007, the CPM-led Left Front government in West Bengal mobilised thousands of state police and party goons to attack farmers in Nandigram who fought its attempt to expropriate 14,500 acres of their land, to build a special economic zone for foreign and local investors. Twelve farmers were killed in the bloody clashes.

US secretary of state visits New Zealand to counter China

Tom Peters

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson landed in New Zealand on June 6 for talks with Prime Minister Bill English, Foreign Minister Gerry Brownlee and Defence Minister Mark Mitchell. They reportedly discussed the US wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, as well as North Korea and China.

The previous day, Tillerson and US Defence Secretary James Mattis held talks with their counterparts in Australia, where Tillerson denounced China for “militarising islands in the South China Sea” and “failure to put appropriate pressure on North Korea” to denuclearise. A joint US-Australian statement affirmed support for “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea, where Washington has provocatively sent navy vessels into waters claimed by China.

In the past, New Zealand’s National Party government had been wary of alienating China, NZ’s largest trading partner. Wellington has claimed it does not “take sides” between the US and China. This has changed as Obama’s administration, and now Trump’s, became increasingly reckless in their threats against China and North Korea.

Tillerson told a press conference in Wellington that he and English were “of one mind ... in conveying to China that these actions they’re taking to build islands and, more alarmingly, to militarise these islands threatens the stability” of the region. He reiterated the Trump administration’s threat to North Korea, calling on “all nations” to put “pressure on the regime in Pyongyang” to abandon its nuclear program.

During a meeting last month with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, English emphasised New Zealand’s support for the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the South China Sea disputes. The ruling was heavily weighted in favour of a US-backed case brought by the Philippines against Chinese claims.

A spokesman for China’s foreign ministry denounced the Japan-New Zealand statement as “inappropriate” and called on “countries outside the region” to “treat the South China Sea issue objectively and rationally, [and] not allow themselves to be taken advantage by other countries.”

The meetings with Abe and Tillerson underscore New Zealand’s increasing incorporation into the US build-up against China.

Despite its small size and remoteness, New Zealand is a valued US ally. Speaking to the National Press Club in Australia on June 7, former US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper emphasised that “the restoration of New Zealand as full-fledged intelligence partners [during the 1999–2008 Labour Party government] demonstrably strengthened intelligence sharing among the Five Eyes nations, and has accrued to our great mutual benefit.”

Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in 2015 that New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spies on China and other countries in Asia and the Pacific. Vast quantities of communications are intercepted by the GCSB’s Waihopai satellite base in the South Island and passed directly to the US National Security Agency.

Tillerson and English also discussed a US request for New Zealand to send more troops to Afghanistan. New Zealand currently has 10 soldiers there and is likely send two more. Successive Labour and National governments have sent hundreds of troops to Afghanistan, including the elite Special Air Service, which has been implicated in war crimes against civilians.

There are more than 100 NZ troops in Iraq and English has indicated he would be willing to send troops to Syria if requested by the US.

Behind the backs of the working class, the ruling elite is preparing the country to join Washington’s war plans. Last year the government pledged to spend an extra $20 billion on the military to make it “interoperable” with US forces. The opposition Labour and Green Parties supported the massive spending, while NZ First called for even more funds and recruitment into the armed forces to counter China’s presence in the Pacific.

The Greens and Labour made no criticism of US threats against China and North Korea or the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Labour leader Andrew Little, who had his own private meeting with Tillerson, told Newstalk ZB he wanted the US “to maintain good relations with New Zealand, with Australia, with other South Pacific nations. It’s very important for our sense of stability and peace.”

Little, echoing much of the media commentary, expressed concern that Trump’s “America First” policy could signal a withdrawal from the region. He warned that “in the South Pacific, we know that there are other countries that are seeking to have an influence.”

Since the end of World War II the ruling class has relied on its alliance with the US to support its own neo-colonial sphere of influence in the South Pacific. It is concerned about growing Chinese economic influence in countries like Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.

Among the broader population, however, there is widespread hostility toward the military-intelligence alliance with the US. Thousands of people joined protests against Trump’s inauguration.

Several reporters noted that members of the public held up their middle finger to Tillerson’s motorcade as it drove through Wellington. New York Times correspondent Gardiner Harris commented: “I’ve been in motorcades for a couple of years now... I’ve never seen so many people flip the bird at an American motorcade as I saw today.”

A survey of over 34,000 people by Fairfax Media and Massey University, published the day before Tillerson’s visit, found that “when asked to choose between building closer bilateral relations with the US, the UK and China, only 15.6 percent chose the US.” By contrast, “China came out tops, with 42.5 percent backing, while 42 percent said the United Kingdom.”

Another poll by TVNZ in April found overwhelming opposition to sending New Zealand troops to Syria.

These findings stand in stark contrast to the position of the opposition parties. Labour, New Zealand First and the Maori nationalist Mana Party have run a xenophobic, anti-Chinese campaign for the past five years, aimed at pressuring the government to align more explicitly with Washington against Beijing.

Labour and its allies have scapegoated immigrants, especially Chinese people, for the lack of affordable housing, unemployment and putting pressure on public infrastructure. They have attacked the government for allowing Chinese steel imports and investment in agriculture.

Whichever party or parties take office after the September 23 national election, the next government will continue to strengthen the alliance with the US, intensify nationalist and xenophobic propaganda and the preparations for war.

German police beat demonstrators attempting to prevent deportation

Sven Heymanns

Police brutally attacked protesters last week as they attempted to prevent the deportation of a student from Afghanistan studying at a training school in the city of Nuremberg.

Shortly after eight in the morning of May 31, police officers abducted 21-year-old Asef N. from the vocational school as he attended lessons. He was due to be flown to Kabul by plane with other Afghans whose applications for asylum had been rejected.

News of the abrupt deportation spread through the school like wildfire. The police car allocated for the young man was still in front of the school as Asef’s classmates assembled to form a sit-down blockade. They occupied the street in front of and behind the car shouting, “Nobody is illegal! The right to remain for everyone!”

Facebook and Twitter rapidly spread the message about the deportation of the student. Students from other classes streamed outside and nearby residents also joined the blockade of the police car. Refugee organisations spread the news online, calling on people in the area to come to the school and protest. In total, about 300 people participated in the protest.

The police responded by escalating their intervention. As it became clear that the police car could not leave due to the blockade, Asef was dragged out of the vehicle by officers and taken to another vehicle. Some demonstrators tried to prevent this taking place.

The police, reinforced with heavily armoured members of the Support Command (USK), attacked the protesters with blows and kicks. Asef fell to the ground and was dragged by several police across the adjoining lawn. Other police cleared the way. All those attempting to help Asef were dragged away by police, who lashed at the crowd with batons and pepper spray.

The police then released a dog on the protesters who had formed the sit-down blockade. One of the protesters quit the scene with a blood-stained face due to blows from the police batons.

A police spokesman later declared absurdly that demonstrators had not been hurt, but that nine police had been injured. Five demonstrators were arrested and Asef N. is also due to be prosecuted for resisting arrest.

Many of the students were shocked by the brutal police action. “This is a bit extreme,” one student told TV reporters. “They intervened in such a radical manner and injured people who were just trying to prevent someone from being deported. As you can see, quite a few were injured with pepper spray, or struck in the face.”

Jörg Weissgerber, who was due to give a lecture on immigration to Asef’s class and observed the police operation, told Spiegel Online: “The violence clearly came from the police. I’ve seen a lot of demos, but I’ve never seen police use such disproportionate force against peaceful students. That shocked me.”

In response to the police claim that no demonstrator had been injured, Weissgerber asked: “How can you report an injury to someone who has just attacked you?”

Asef N. was well integrated into the vocational school in Nuremberg. He has been living in Germany for four years and, according to school sources, had good chances of obtaining training as a carpenter. His knowledge of German was good and both pupils and teachers were shocked when he was seized for deportation. The school, which focuses on construction skills, is committed to the integration of young refugees and has received an award for its work.

“There was a legally binding deportation order. This had to be done, because the plane was due to fly on the same evening from Frankfurt. That is why the Afghan concerned had to be taken into custody in Nuremberg and taken to Frankfurt for deportation,” declared police officer Bert Rauenbusch, thereby seeking to play down the deportation as merely an administrative measure.

The trainee was one of several dozen Afghans who were due to be deported to Kabul in the coming months.

Following the massive suicide terror attack in Kabul on the same day, which resulted in 150 dead, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière cancelled the planned deportation flight. This, however, was by no means due to humanitarian reasons. On the contrary, the German Embassy in Kabul is currently unable to complete the bureaucratic formalities for the arrival of the flight due to the consequences of the attack. The flight would take place as soon as possible.

Despite the attack, de Maizière declared that the government stuck to its position that Afghanistan is a “safe country of origin.” Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) personally endorsed his statement.

On the evening of the day after the police action in Nuremberg, which led to an angry response nationwide, Merkel announced that she had agreed with Germany’s state premiers to suspend deportations to Afghanistan until July. In the meantime the foreign office is to undertake a fresh assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan.

The halt to deportations, however, includes many exceptions—for criminals, suspected terrorists and rejected asylum seekers who persistently refuse to provide evidence of their identity. Under conditions where resisting arrest or being unable to confirm identity is a criminal offence, this is a list which includes very many.

The police action in Nuremberg was not an isolated event. Last week, 14-year-old Bivsi R. was abducted from a high school classroom in Duisburg, according to a report in the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. The tearful ninth-grader was informed in the teachers study that she and her parents were to be deported to Nepal the same evening.

Bivsi was born in Germany and has spent her entire life in the country. Her shocked classmates had to be reassured by an emergency physician and a teacher of religion. The headmaster was also stunned by the police action. The family was subsequently deported from Frankfurt Airport.

The actions of the authorities and the police in Nuremberg and Duisburg reveal the hypocrisy of the criticisms made by German political parties of the right-wing policies of US President Donald Trump. Since Trump took office in January, officials from the US immigration authorities have apprehended and deported thousands of immigrants. Germany’s parliamentary parties boast that, unlike the brutal methods used in the United States, Berlin pursues “a humane” deportation policy, examines each case individually and only deports to supposed “safe countries of origin.” The events of the last few days demonstrate that such claims are completely groundless.

It has since been announced that Asef N. will not be incarcerated in a deportation prison. The German Central Aliens Agency failed to convince a local court, which ruled there were no grounds for his detention. In front of the court building, Asef was welcomed by two dozen jubilant fellow students following his release.

With permanent state of emergency, Macron plans authoritarian rule in France

Kumaran Ira

After the government of newly-elected President Emmanuel Macron announced last week its intention to extend the state of emergency until November, press reports yesterday confirmed that Macron intends to pass a law making the state of emergency permanent. This would signify the indefinite suspension of basic democratic rights in France, the effective ending of any oversight of police by the courts, and an attempt by the ruling class to turn France into a dictatorship.

A law “to reinforce the struggle against terrorism and interior security” was approved in the Defense Council on Wednesday. A copy was provided to Le Monde, which reported its contents yesterday: “According to the bill, which Le Monde could access, the most severe measures of the state of emergency created in 1955 during the Algerian war—notably imposition of indefinite house arrest, the closing off of public areas, bans on public protests, and arbitrary searches and seizures during day and night time—will be inscribed in law with only marginal modifications.”

The judicial branch would be reduced to impotence, and the police and intelligence services given unchecked powers, Le Monde explained: “All these measures would be taken at the initiative of the Interior Ministry and the police prefects, without the intervention of a judge.”

Another measure, titled “surveillance and other individual obligations,” lays out punishments that can be applied to “anyone who gives serious reasons to think that his behavior constitutes a threat of particular gravity to security and public order.” It would also allow the interior ministry, which reportedly wrote the law, to force people to wear electronic tagging devices. Remarkably, this measure was reintroduced into the law even after it was ruled unconstitutional following its application under the state of emergency in December 2015.

Macron’s attempt to make permanent the provisions of the state of emergency is an illegitimate measure, based on political lies. It aims to shred basic democratic rights inscribed in the French constitution, including the right to strike and protest, as a result of the bitter experiences of the working class with fascist dictatorships in the 20th century. Without those rights, state-armed vast police powers can rapidly evolve into a criminal regime employing police terror against the working masses.

Until now, the state of emergency was imposed supposedly as a temporary measure, but constantly renewed, after the 13 November 2015 terror attacks in Paris. The media and the previous Socialist Party (PS) government justified it based on the claim that it was the only way to help the police deal with the existential threat of attacks by Islamist terror networks active in France. This claim is a reactionary lie.

These terror networks are closely monitored by France’s vast intelligence services and used as tools of the foreign policy of France and the other NATO powers. This is why all the organizers of major terrorist attacks in France were known, without exception, to the intelligence services—including most prominently the Kouachi brothers who led the Charlie Hebdo attack and Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who led the 13 November 2015 attacks. They were allowed to travel freely and prepare their attacks, as these networks are intelligence assets operating under state protection.

Though thousands of people are active in France and across Europe in the Islamist networks recruiting fighters for the Syrian war, only a handful were detained on terror charges under the state of emergency. While they continued to operate and receive NATO armament and assistance in Syria, they were used as an excuse to push through drastic attacks on democratic rights that would previously have been unthinkable.

Yesterday, Macron’s measure met with bitter denunciations from legal experts and organizations representing the judiciary branch. “This is an unacceptable passage of the state of emergency into the law of the land,” Professor Paul Cassia told AFP. He warned that punishments “posing a particular threat to civil liberties” could be imposed “based on suspicion alone.”

Both of France’s principal magistrates’ unions condemned the bill. The Trade Union of Magistrates (USM) called it “scandalous” and the Magistrates Union (SM) said it is a “juridical monster.”

Macron’s moves to build a dictatorship in France must be taken as a warning by workers. Macron knows his plans for deep social austerity, a costly military build-up coordinated with Berlin, and the return to the draft are deeply unpopular and will rapidly face mass opposition. His target is not Islamist terrorists, but the working class, who face a confrontation with the Macron government with revolutionary implications.

Significantly, the day before the Macron government approved the bill for a permanent state of emergency, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe unveiled the explosive measures it intends to use to deregulate French labor law. These measures are to be imposed by the executive by decree, without a vote in either house of parliament, after an enabling act is voted handing over absolute power on social spending to the president.

This essentially dictatorial set-up is squarely aimed at the working class. In the name of boosting French corporate competitiveness, it aims to scrap the existing obstacles on corporations’ ability to hire and fire. Philippe called the cuts “indispensable and urgent.” The planned cuts also reportedly include new attacks on pensions and unemployment insurance.

By suppressing penalties for improper job termination, and allowing companies and trade unions to negotiate contracts violating industry-level agreements and the national Labor Code, the bill reintroduces all the measures removed from the labor law last year amid mass protests. Even without these measures, the law was opposed by 70 percent of the population. Now Macron intends to trample public opinion, forcibly reintroducing all the most unpopular measures and using them to attack social rights obtained in the 20th century by generations of struggle.

The government also plans to limit opposition from the trade unions by buying them off, resolving the problem of their illegal financing by the state and the employers by making this financing legal. Macron plans to install a so-called “union cheque,” a sum of money provided by the company to the workers, but that the workers are required to hand over to a trade union of their choice. While the money nominally transits through the hands of the workers, it comes not from the working class, but from corporate management, which intends to dictate the policy of the unions.

These policies are a political indictment of the policies of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the Unsubmissive France (UF) movement. Yesterday, he criticized the measures as a “social coup d’état” and endorsed the claim that the law signified a “return to 19th century conditions” for working people. He added that his movement was “alone in presenting a humanist and Republican opposition” to Macron.

In fact, the Macron government’s plans expose Mélenchon’s repeated attempts to stimulate illusions in Macron. After offering to serve as Macron’s prime minister in order to offer Macron “the trained hand of a wise man who knows where the happiness of the people lies,” he also said he would meet with Macron government ministers to discuss their legislation. With these demagogic claims, Mélenchon offered political support to Macron as he prepared the framework for a capitalist dictatorship in France.

EU sets up joint military command centre and European defence fund

Johannes Stern

Under conditions of growing transatlantic tensions and the departure of Britain from the European Union, the 27 remaining EU member states are rapidly pushing ahead with the establishment of an independent military policy.

In Luxembourg on Thursday, the EU finally decided to establish a joint command centre for civilian and military operations. It will initially be used to direct EU missions “without executive powers,” such as training missions in Mali, Somalia and South Africa. In the medium term, “executive” EU military operations could also follow, i.e. comprehensive war operations such as in Syria or Iraq, which have hitherto been directed from headquarters in the respective member states.

The day before, the European Commission had initiated a European Defence Fund of €5.5 billion per year. This year, the EU will “for the first time offer grants for collaborative research in innovative defence technologies and products, fully and directly funded from the EU budget,” the official press release said. In 2018, the Commission will then propose “a dedicated EU defence research programme with an estimated annual budget of €500 million, making the EU one of the biggest defence research investors in Europe.”

The second level of the fund concerns the “development and the acquisition of defence equipment and technology.” Some €500 million will be spent directly in this area, for example, to “jointly invest in developing drone technology or satellite communication, or bulk buy helicopters to reduce costs.” After 2020, “It could therefore generate a total investment in defence capability development of €5 billion per year.”

The aim of the measures is the development of the EU as an aggressive great power, able to intervene militarily and conduct war independently of NATO and the United States.

In a “Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defence,” also published by the European Commission on Wednesday, the following is stated: “The onus on improving European security lies first of all in European hands. The resources should be there: collectively European countries are the second largest military spender worldwide ... While acting together with our partners will remain the EU’s norm and preference, we should be able to act alone when necessary.”

The declared objective of the Commission is the massive rearmament of Europe in order to “help keep pace with new trends and generate the technological and industrial capabilities Europe needs to ensure its strategic autonomy.” In 2016, the defence budgets had already been increased, “but the road ahead is still long,” the paper warns. “Moving towards Europe’s strategic autonomy requires spending more on our defences, as well as spending better and spending together.”

The US, China and Russia are now the benchmarks for the EU: “The United States already invests more than twice as much on defence than all Member States combined and will increase its budget by almost 10 percent in 2018. China has increased its budget by 150 percent over the past decade, with a further rise of 7 percent expected in 2017, while Russia invested 5.4 percent of its GDP on defence last year.”

The message is unmistakable. Europe must also take part in the arms race in order to assert its global interests militarily against the other great powers. In the section “Europe in 2025—moving towards a Security and Defence Union,” the paper gives an insight into three rearmament scenarios that are being prepared behind the backs of the European population, all of which aim to build a veritable military-police state.

“In this scenario, Member States would deepen cooperation and integration further towards a common defence and security,” the document states. As a result, the EU would “be able to run high-end operations to better protect Europe, potentially including operations against terrorist groups, naval operations in hostile environments or cyber-defence actions.”

The new defence fund would provide “capabilities in areas such as space, air and maritime surveillance, communication, strategic airlift and cyber ... to ensure immediate responses.” In addition, Europe would have “detection and offensive cyber-capabilities,” and a “dedicated European Defence Research Agency” would conduct “forward-looking defence innovation and help translate it into the military capabilities of tomorrow.”

The European elites know that a more independent and aggressive European war policy also requires the internal militarization of the continent. “Security threats would be systematically monitored and assessed jointly, in close cooperation with national security and intelligence services,” the Commission says. “Contingency planning would be carried out at the European level, bringing internal and external security closer together. The interconnection of national security interests would lead to genuine European security interests.”

As expected, the loudest applause for the European Commission’s plans came from Berlin. The German government regards Brexit and disengagement from the USA as an opportunity to reorganize the EU as a military alliance under German leadership and the starting point of its own great power policy.

“I expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal on the future of European defence policy. It is ambitious and shows how far we have moved towards a security and defence union in the last twelve months,” declared German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU). We must “now take advantage of the momentum to reach the next milestones, such as the European Defence Fund and PESCO [Permanent Structured Cooperation] with our European partners in the second half of the year.”

Specifically, the German defence minister is working to establish the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) as a so-called “anchor army” for the European NATO states, to upgrade them and gradually subordinate them to the command structures of the Bundeswehr. One would have to think “again in larger federations,” wrote von der Leyen several weeks ago in a comment in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in which she explained her strategy.

In his new book, New Assessments, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democratic Party, SPD) leaves no doubt that the government is striving to build a European Army under German leadership. “It is a question of more closely integrating the armaments industry in Europe and concentrating forces. It is about creating a common European security identity that opens the way to a European Army through increasingly integrated structures,” he says in the chapter “Foreign policy following the election of Trump.”

As well as the SPD, the Left Party in particular is playing a key role in transforming the widespread disgust against the right-wing politics of President Donald Trump into support for an independent European and German great-power policy. On Thursday, the pro-Left Party newspaper Neues Deutschland ( ND ) published a comment backing the German Foreign Minister in his criticism of the Saudi Arabian offensive against Qatar, which is supported by Trump. “His [Gabriel’s] perseverance is desired in this,” ND wrote. “What Germany needs the least—and Gabriel is perfectly right about this—is a Trump-isation of its foreign policy.”

The attempt by the Left Party to market Gabriel and German imperialism as a more peaceful alternative to US imperialism and Trump is pure propaganda. In reality, the ruling elites in Germany and Europe have long since matched the right-wing billionaire in the White House. They are rearming and stepping up state powers at home, and preparing for war.

The Socialist Equality Party (SGP) and its sister parties in the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) are the only parties in Europe to reject the militarization of the continent and to advance a socialist programme. The SGP manifesto for the federal elections in September states, “We reject all imperialist alliances and military blocs. We are for the dissolution of NATO and the European Union and fight instead for the United Socialist States of Europe. Our ally in the struggle against German militarism is the European, American and international working class.”

Turkey prepares to send troops to Qatar in conflict with Saudi Arabia

Halil Celik & Alex Lantier

After a coalition of Persian Gulf sheikdoms led by Saudi Arabia presented an ultimatum to Qatar on Monday and blockaded its economy, the Turkish parliament approved two military deals with Qatar, enabling deployments of the Turkish military to Qatar. Turkish forces will also train the Qatari gendarmerie.

As part of an agreement signed between Ankara and Doha in 2015, Ankara is already building a military base in Qatar, where between 500 and 600 Turkish troops are to be stationed. The facility is reportedly able to house up to 3,000 troops.

The bill was brought to the parliament by Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), right after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticized the Saudi sanctions on Qatar. Speaking at an iftar dinner on Tuesday, June 6, Erdogan said, “I want to say clearly that we disapprove of the sanctions on Qatar.”

The bill passed with 240 votes in favor and 98 against, with support from deputies of the AKP and the fascistic Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

The pro-European Union (EU) Republican People's Party (CHP) criticised the bill for its “timing,” however. The CHP parliamentary group deputy chairman, Levent Gok, stated that his party was ready to support the government in every way its policies benefit the people. He asked, “Was it, however, really necessary to bring the Qatari deal forward, from the rank number 100 to the first row?”

The Turkish government has given a clear sign that it is siding with Qatar against diplomatic and trade sanctions and the threat of military intervention by five Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Yemen. They have accused Doha of supporting terrorism and having a “soft” attitude toward Iran. The Gulf sheikdoms had previously recalled their ambassadors from Qatar in 2014, over its support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

As in 2011, when the Saudi armed forces invaded Bahrain to put down mass protests shortly after revolutionary struggles of the working class in Egypt toppled Hosni Mubarak, Saudi Arabia couldm if it had tacit support from Washington, ultimately intervene militarily in Qatar. The Turkish decision makes clear that such an intervention could involve Saudi Arabia in a direct military confrontation with Turkey, however.

Turkey’s apparently good relations with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf sheikdoms have badly deteriorated since Washington and the European powers backed a military coup in Egypt that toppled President Mohamed Mursi. Mursi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is backed by Turkey and Qatar.

The Saudi move against Qatar is an extension of US aggression against Iran, aiming to whip the small sheikdom, which has economic ties to Iran, into line with Trump’s Mideast policy. On Tuesday, Trump wrote on Twitter, “So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!”

During his first foreign trip in May, Trump went to Riyadh and gave Saudi Arabia his full support, accusing Iran of supporting terrorism and adding that Arab states should not let "terrorists find any sanctuary on their soil.”

Following Saudi Arabia’s aggressive move against Qatar, however, US Defense Secretary James Mattis called his Qatari counterpart Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah. Mattis reaffirmed that there was no change in military cooperation between the United States and Qatar, whose Al-Udeid airbase is home to the forward headquarters of US Central Command and some 10,000 American troops. Nonetheless, a conflict has clearly erupted over Persian Gulf policy between Turkey and the Trump administration.

The danger of a major regional war in the Middle East is rapidly growing, amid deep tensions between Washington and the European powers over Trump’s policies, including in Iran, the NATO intervention in Syria, and the Saudi-Qatari dispute. As it moves to check Saudi Arabia, Ankara is relying on at least tacit consent from the European powers.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has already accused the US president of stirring up conflicts in the Middle East and risking a “new spiral in arms sales,” saying that isolating Qatar “is the completely wrong policy and certainly not the policy of Germany.”

It appears that Turkey is coordinating its policy with the newly-elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, who is a close ally of Berlin. Macron called Qatar’s leader, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the day after Saudi Arabia issued its threats and, according to press reports, said that France aimed to maintain stability in the Persian Gulf and speak to all parties involved. Macron also telephoned Erdogan on the same day in order to discuss the crisis in the Persian Gulf.

The European powers have repeatedly come into conflict with Washington as they seek to re-establish trading relations with Iran. France’s energy company Total wants to exploit the massive South Pars natural gas field, the world’s largest, which is shared between Iran and Qatar.

Turkey and Qatar were also reluctant to participate in the last international embargo imposed by Washington on Iran, in 2008, which Turkey repeatedly violated. For now at least, both Turkey and Qatar are opposed to severe sanctions or possible military action against Iran, which would have at a minimum a devastating impact on their own economies.

On Wednesday, the same day that twin attacks targeted the Iranian parliament and the shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif visited Ankara to exchange views on the latest developments in the region. “There are concerning developments in the region for us. We need to have a close exchange of ideas with Turkey regarding these incidents,” Zarif told reporters, before meeting with his Turkish counterpart and Erdoğan.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards accused Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration in the terrorist attacks, stating, “This terrorist attack happened only a week after the meeting between the U.S. president and the [Saudi] backward leaders who support terrorists. The fact that Islamic State has claimed responsibility proves that they were involved in the brutal attack.”

On the same day, Reza Nourani, head of the National Union of Iran’s Agricultural Products, stated that Iran was prepared to provide Qatar with whatever food products the Arab country needs. “Considering the outbreak of tension in Qatar’s relations with Arab states, it is possible [for Iran] to satisfy all demands of Qatar for agricultural products,” he said.

According to the Iranian daily Tasnim, negotiations between Iran and Qatar are underway and “a decision on food exports will be finalized by next week.”

US surpasses most of the world in health care inequality

Kate Randall 

Being poor in America is a clear predictor that the health care you receive will be far inferior to that of your wealthy counterparts. This reality, documented in a new study published in Health Affairs, will come as no surprise to workers and the poor who struggle daily to gain access to health care and pay for it.

At the other end of the income spectrum, the superior health care received by the super-rich directly correlates to their ability to pay out-of-pocket for the best care that money can buy.

The new study, “The United States Leads Other Nations in Differences by Income in Perceptions of Health and Health Care,” examines self-assessments of personal health and health care among income groups in the period of 2011-13 across 32 middle- and high-income countries.

The study period does not take into account the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in particular its expansion of Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor. However, contrary to the claims of the Democratic Party, Obamacare has not led to an increase in the quality of health care for most Americans, and in many cases has reduced quality and increased costs. The Trump administration is now escalating the attack on health care, with plans to cut $1.4 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid.

The US has among the largest income-related inequities in health care among rich and middle-income countries studied. Over half of those polled felt that income-based health care inequalities were unfair; those among this group were also significantly more likely than others to support major health system reform.

Percentages of survey respondents in 32 countries who rated their health as fair or poor, by income tertile, and percentage-point differences between the top and bottom income tertiles, 2011–13 [credit: Health Affairs, June 2017, Vol. 36, Issue 6]

The study charted disparities in health care and attitudes between the top and bottom tertiles (thirds) of respondents by income. The first measure was on self-perception of health. The results showed that 38.2 percent of the bottom income tertile reported their health as “fair” or “poor,” compared to 21.4 percent in the middle tertile and 12.3 percent in the top tertile.

This means that there was a 25.9 percentage point difference in self-perceived health quality between those in the top and bottom income groups. The study’s authors consider anything above 10 percent as a large disparity. Only Portugal (26.7 percent) and Chile (33 percent) showed wider disparities between the rich and poor in self-perceived health.

Although the researchers did not document the various health conditions afflicting the poor in America, rates of diabetes, obesity, asthma, heart disease, cancer, substance abuse, domestic violence, and myriad other afflictions occur at higher rates in the low-income population.

Almost a quarter of the lower-income tertile in the US reported not getting the medical treatment they needed due to costs, about 16.5 percentage points higher than the top tertile. Only in the Philippines, at 20.1 percent, was there a higher disparity between rich and poor receiving care due to cost.

Asked the question: “In your opinion, how many people are there in the United States who do not have access to the health care they need?” 68 percent of Americans answered “many.” Asked: “Is it fair or unfair that people with higher incomes can afford better health care than people with lower incomes?” 54 percent responded “somewhat unfair” or “very unfair.”

The lack of access to quality health care is contributing to declining health and life expectancy for millions of Americans, which is documented in the following chilling statistics:

* Deaths from drug overdoses in the US jumped by the largest margin ever in 2016, according to figures compiled by the New York Times. An estimated 59,000 people died from drug overdoses, a 19 percent increase over 2015.

* Overall life expectancy in the US fell between 2014 and 2015 for the first time since 1993, the Lancet reports. Wealthy Americans can now expect to live up to 15 years longer than their poorest counterparts.

* Research by Princeton University economists shows that the sharp rise in the mortality rate for white, middle-aged working class Americans is being driven by “deaths of despair”—from drug overdoses, complications from alcohol abuse, and suicide.

* A study by the American Medical Association found a staggering 20.1-year gap between the lowest and highest life expectancy among all US counties.

* The maternal death rate in the US rose by 27 percent between 2004 and 2014, according to the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Reflecting the ongoing crisis of health care access, over a thousand people braved rain, fierce winds and cold temperatures last month to line up for the Remote Area Medical Clinic in Smyth County, Virginia to receive free treatment. People came from as far away as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire to receive medical and dental care they would otherwise be forced to go without.

On the other pole, in a growing number of cities across the US, a new crop of “concierge” medical practices now caters to the super-rich. The wealthy can pay as much as $40,000 to $80,000 per family annually to have immediate access without wait times to their primary care physician, the best specialists, the best hospital suites—whether in their hometowns or across the country.

The health care crisis is set to dramatically worsen. The centerpiece of the Republicans’ American Health Care Act, passed in the US House last month, is the gutting of Medicaid. Trump’s budget proposal incorporates the AHCA’s cuts to Medicaid and calls for $1.4 trillion in cuts to the health program for the poor, along with other massive cuts to social programs.

Like Obamacare, the Republican plan takes as its point of departure a health care system based on the subordination of the health needs of the vast majority of the population to the profit requirements of the health care industry and Wall Street.

A socialist solution to the health care crisis, and the vast social inequities that underlie it, must take as its point of departure the needs of working people and society as a whole, not the financial interests of the giant insurance companies and the banks, as part of a reorganization of the economy along socialist lines.

British general election delivers seismic political shock

Chris Marsden & Julie Hyland 

Britain has a hung parliament after Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to call a snap general election backfired.

May will form a government but only in coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland.

With one seat to declare, the Conservatives hold 318, down from 331 and not enough to form a majority. Labour has 261 (up from 232), Scottish National Party 35, Liberal Democrats 12, DUP 10, Sinn Fein 7, and six Others.

May’s argument for calling the snap election two years ahead of schedule was to secure a large majority to strengthen her position in negotiations with the European Union. These talks over the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU are set to begin in just ten days. But the Tories have lost their slim 17-seat majority. A coalition with the DUP just takes them over 322 seats required.

May’s strategy rested on winning the support of former UK Independent Party voters, and the constant media assertion that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable. When May first announced the poll, she was predicted to be on course for as much as a 150-seat majority and even on polling day, all the media were projecting a Tory win of between 50 to 120 seats. Instead, around half the UKIP vote went to Labour, while there was a surge of support for Corbyn amongst youth and in urban areas.

The undeclared seat is the prosperous London borough of Kensington, where there have been numerous recounts, amid reports that there are just 40 votes between Labour and the Tories. The Conservative stronghold was considered unassailable. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also saw his majority halved in Uxbridge.

Though the election result in part reflected concern over May’s hard Brexit strategy, the overwhelming issue was hostility to Tory austerity measures.

Labour is committed to Brexit but has said it will not sign a deal that involves leaving the Single European Market. It had also pledged to abolish tuition fees—currently at £9,000 per annum and rising.

London, which voted heavily to Remain in the Brexit referendum last year, saw the Tories lose five seats, three to Labour and two to the Liberal Democrats. Labour now holds 48 of the capital’s 73 seats.

The vote amongst those aged under 25 was 72 percent compared with just 43 percent in 2015—with record numbers signing up to vote for the first time, many of them students. This included more than 600,000 people registering on the final day before registrations closed, of which two-thirds were aged between 18 and 34.

The Tories one saving grace was in Scotland, thanks to the sharp fall in the vote for the Scottish National Party (SNP), which saw its massive majority slashed from 56 seats to 35. The main reason for this collapse was SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon’s threat to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence at the end of Brexit negotiations.

This produced the Tories best result in Scotland since 1983, winning 13 seats, including those of former SNP leader Alex Salmond and current deputy leader Angus Robertson. Labour also won seven seats, up from its disastrous one seat hold in Edinburgh South in 2015 where its majority increased by 15,000.

Tory hopes that it would even overturn Labour in Wales were dashed as Labour took its highest share of the vote for 20 years, with 28 out of 40 seats.

The alternative parliamentary arithmetic of a Progressive Alliance or a working relationship involving Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party’s one MP, does not appear possible at this point as it is still below the 322 seat threshold. That would only change if Sinn Fein decided to take its seats, but this has been ruled out by a party that refuses to recognise Westminster rule.

A DUP source said, “We want there to be a government. We have worked well with May. The alternative is intolerable. For as long as Corbyn leads Labour, we will ensure there’s a Tory PM.”

This still leaves May in an impossible situation.

Although it supported a Leave vote in the EU referendum and is feigning a hard line against Sinn Fein, the DUP supports a soft Brexit that excludes Britain leaving the Single Market and opposes the restoration of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic in the south. It also opposes large swathes of Tory social cuts, which will impact heavily on the North’s deprived population.

May herself is one of the political walking dead. Her reputation is in ruins and large sections of her party are baying for blood. Though it appears the Tories have ruled out an immediate leadership challenge, May’s days are numbered.

Hanging over everything is the beginning of Brexit negotiations. May will now head these as the lame duck leader of a government that is the very opposite of “secure and stable.” EU Commissioner Gunther Oettinger said that talks may have to be delayed, although this can only be done at the request of the UK and would need to be supported by all 27 member states and the European Parliament. Speaking to German radio, he said, “We need a government that can act. With a weak negotiating partner, there’s the danger that the negotiations will turn out badly for both sides... I expect more uncertainty now.”

Big business is furious with the election outcome. The pound immediately fell by 2 percent and banking shares by 4 percent. Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI Director-General, said, “This is a serious moment for the UK economy... Politicians must act responsibly, putting the interests of the country first and showing the world that the UK remains a safe destination for business.”

Politically the big winner in the election is Corbyn, whose promises of social reform successfully channelled anti-Tory sentiment back behind Labour. This was despite the two terror attacks in Manchester and London, and the incessant right-wing media campaign that Corbyn was a threat to national security and a friend of terrorists.

Many workers and young people will be celebrating the result, despite the fact that Labour lost. They will be called on to support Corbyn as he positions himself as a responsible opposition to the government and Labour as the focus of a possible political realignment in the event of a second general election having to be called.

This would be a grave error. Even as the election campaign was underway, and despite his social rhetoric, Corbyn had abandoned many of his supposed political principles—as evidenced in his manifesto’s support for NATO, immigration controls, Trident and the European Single Market.

He has called once again for party unity with the Blairites and will likely include them once again in his shadow cabinet.

Corbyn’s refusal to wage a struggle against the right-wing is the real measure of his political role. Moreover, any attempt to form an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, SNP and others will inevitably be accompanied by a further shift to the right.

Numerous political experiences—above all, that of the Syriza government in Greece—provide a warning. The working class can only rely on its independent political action and social strength to oppose austerity and war. Everything depends on the systematic development of the class struggle in opposition to the incessant demands that workers and youth tie their fate to the personality of Corbyn and the right-wing, pro-business and pro-war party that he heads.