Now they tell us

See   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1940678.cms
But it's only what the editorial in the September issue of the Socialist 
Standard (below) suspected.
Adam

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.

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters