of equalities that a modern Labour Party should have at the centre of its concerns.
True enough, and it could be scarcely be argued that the Labour Party of 1918 would have considered adding the objectives of equality for women, black people, lesbians and gay men, and the disabled, had they been suggested.
But the reasoning of "modern Labour" is thoroughly fallacious. Socialists have always understood that genuine equality for those many who suffer from oppression in society can oniy be achieved by a fundamental change in society itself.
Liberals - even some Tories - can support such individual measures as an equal age of consent for gay men, or equal pay for women, or rights of access for the disabled, or condemning of racist violence.
Campaigning for all these is vital in itself. But while society as a whole is unequal because of the underlying economic system, it is impossible that fundamental equality can be won.
Hence the socialist commitment contained within Clause IV is not counter-posed to the fight for an equal, fair and just society. On the contrary, to achieve these goals demands a fombined struggle in both spheres.
The capitalist market operates on the basis that the few would undermine the domination of the much-promoted (if increasingly mythical) "Persil family", continue to be marginal, second-class citizens, at best tolerated providing we stay out of sight.
Divided
ety operates - in 1995 just as it did in 1918 - it will only treat the symptoms and never deal with the causes of oppression.
Socialists always argue for Labour to state its support for equality, and justice, loud and clear.