War, Plots
and Civil Liberties
Was there really a plot to
blow up transatlantic airliners or were the police just using a pretext
to fish for information by rounding up and questioning people they
suspected were up to something without knowing precisely what?
Will ministers eventually say, as they did after the killing of
Jean Charles de Menezes and after the raid on that house in Forest Gate
when another innocent man was shot, that it's better to err on the side
of safety? Better a few innocents are shot than a terrorist act in
which hundreds die?
Whatever the truth, the "security alert" last month in which a
terrorist attack was said to be "imminent" allowed the state to project
itself as the defender of the public. It is no such thing. The state is
controlled by pro-capitalist politicians who pursue policies they
consider to be in the general interest of British capitalism, even to
the extent of putting the lives of the general public at risk.
The present government, led by Blair, has decided that it is in
the best interest of the British capitalist class to tag along behind
the US government's global pretensions, especially its so-called "War
on Terror", which is really a struggle with certain Middle East states
and disaffected Arab elites and their supporters for control of that
oil-rich region.
The US government is committed to furthering the interests of US
capitalism, which don't necessarily coincide with those of British
capitalism, and there
are pro-capitalist politicians in Britain, some apparently within the
cabinet, who think that Blair might have gone too far in his pro-US
stance. But it is not up to us as socialists to judge which politicians
best represent the interest of the British capitalist class.
It is this pro-US capitalism policy option that has put the
"British public" in danger by making them legitimate targets in the
eyes of the Islamist opponents of US domination of the Middle East. It
is just plain ridiculous for government ministers to try to deny this.
What makes it worse is that neither the attack on Iraq nor (even less)
giving Israel more time to bomb Lebanon enjoyed majority popular
support.
But no government can leave such a vital decision as to whether
or not to go to war to a popular vote. This is because the role of
governments is to be "the executive committee of the ruling class" and,
as the interests of the capitalist ruling class are at variance with
those of the rest of us, such a decision cannot be left to us as there
is no guarantee that our decision will coincide with what the ruling
class judge to be in their interest. In fact, in the case of war,
people spontaneously tend to be against it.
It is true that, as most people do support capitalism, if a
government launches an effective enough propaganda barrage it can
generally persuade people to support a war. But this takes time and
decisions about war cannot wait. Blair is on record as saying that as a
leader it is his duty to give a lead on going to war, even against
majority popular opinion. In Britain, until recently and still
formally, going to war was a government decision that didn't require
even parliamentary approval.
Democracy and war are in fact incompatible. States have to have
a minimal degree of popular support to function, but this need not
extend much further than allowing the populace to decide every few
years which group of pro-capitalist politicians are to staff the state
and, exercising "leadership", use it to further national capitalist
interests.
Truth may be the first casualty of war, but civil liberties come
a close second.
Whether real or manufactured, "terror plots" and "security alerts"
provide a pretext for a state to further erode civil liberties
inherited from a more liberal past, as the string of laws introduced by
the Blair government to increase the powers of the state bears witness.
It can't be denied that there is a conflict going on involving
attacks on innocent civilians on both sides. In Iraq, Afghanistan and
Lebanon the US and /or its allies bomb villages and villagers. In
America on 11 September five years ago and in Britain last 7 July, the
other side killed innocent workers at or on their way to work.
Socialists condemn both sides. And we don't swallow the propaganda that
the state is there to protect us.
Top
Introducing The Socialist Party
The Socialist Party is like no other political party in Britain. It is made up of people who have joined together because we want to get rid of the profit system and establish real socialism.
Our aim isto persuade others to become socialist and act for themselves, organising democratically and without leaders, to bring about the kind of society that we are advocating in this journal. We are solely concerned with building a movement of socialists for socialism. We are not a reformist party with a programme of policies to patch up capitalism.
We use every possible opportunity to make new socialists. We publish pamphlets and books, as well as CDs, DVDs and various other informative material.
We also give talks and take part in debates; attend rallies, meetings and demos; run educational conferences; host internet discussion forums, make films presenting our ideas, and contest elections when practical. Socialist literature is available in Arabic, Bengali, Dutch, Esperanto, French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish as well as English.
The more of you who join the Socialist Party the more we will be able to get our ideas across, the more experiences we will be able to draw on and greater will be the new ideas for building the movement which you will be able to bring us.
The Socialist Party is an organisation of equals. There is no leader and there are no followers. So, if you are going to join we want you to be sure that you agree fully with what we stand for and that we are satisfied that you understand the case for socialism.
Top
|