In the current debate over Clause Four socialists have no choice. Against Blair's attempts to remove any commitment to a socialised economy we defend the existing wording. But that doesn't mean there are no problems with Clause Four as it stands. Here GEOFF RYAN looks at one of its weaknesses. 'TO SECURE for the workers... begins Clause IV (4) of the Labour Party Constitution. That little word 'for' speaks volumes. It marks a sharp dividing line between reformist and revolutionary socialists.
Inherent in the wording of Clause Four is a belief that socialism is given to, even imposed on, the working class by a government with a majority in Parliament. It does not conceive of socialism being achieved by the self-activity of the working class.
It is therefore hardly surprising that the authors of Clause Four, the Webbs, were such fervent admirers of Stalin in the Clause 4 was written as an alternative to the self-organisation of the working class displayed in the Bolshevik revolution.
Socialist Outlook supporters do not reject the need for a socialist government. Indeed, we recognise the need not only for a government but also a state that acts in the interest of the working class.
But such a government and state can only be achieved by the independent activity of the working class itself. They are "secured' bynot 'for' the workers.
As revolutionaries we do not believe that any Labour government has ever acted primarily in ing class.
This is not to deny that Labour governments have introduced measures that have benefitted workers. However, even the most radical of Labour governments - that of 1945 - did not 'secure for the workers...the full fruits of their industry...'. Nor did it try to do so.
Heading off
There is a certain irony in Blair's attacks on the forms of nationalisation introduced by Herbert Morrison: they were the policies of the most right-wing section of the Labour Party, designed to head off any independent working class activity. the interests of the work- Attlee's government: nothing to do with socialism They were precisely an example of the 'mixed' (i.e. capitalist) economy of which Blair is so enamoured.
The nationalisations of the Attlee government were carried out to prop up British capitalism. Mining, railways and other industries were bankrupt at the end of the second world war.
They could only survive under state control. The only profitable industry nationalised was steel - which is why it was the only industry ever de-nationalised by the Tories before the advent of Thatcher.
Rail and coal were not nationalised so that workers could travel to see friends or keep warm in the winter. They were nationalised in the interests of private capital, which needed a guaranteed supply of fuel and means of transporting goods. The nationalised industries were run as capitalist industries, by appointed management boards. Neither miners nor users of coal (except for big business) had any say in the decisions of the National Coal Board. Neither railworkers nor passengers 'owned' British Railways in any meaningful sense. Morrissonian nationalisation had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism: it was state capitalism.
Weakened
The bureaucratic, undemocratic and unresponsive nature of the nationalised industries ultimately weakened belief in the desirability of social ownership and aided Thatcher in her populist campaigns for denationalisation.
Thatcher's success is a condemnation of the failure to achieve any real social ownership by the right-wing of the Labour Party in 1945.
'Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange' requires very different forms of operating. Instead of appointed management boards they should be elected -by those who work in the industry and consumers.
They should be answerable to the working class and recallable if they do not carry out their mandate. Instead of large salaries they should receive the average pay of a skilled worker. Deliberations should be carried out in public, not behind closed doors. Decisions on' investment, staffing, service provision etc should be subject to popular approval.
Such demands are by no means pie in the sky. They were first raised - and put into practice - nearly 125 years ago by the workers of Paris. The Paris Commune of 1871 showed that the working class is capable of running society in the interests of the vast majority.
To believe that the emancipation of the working class can be handed down from on high is a contradiction in terms. It can only be achieved by a working class that acts independently in its own interests.
Any Labour government that tries to introduce such measures would very quickly come up against the determined resistance of the capitalist class -who would not hesitate to use extra-legal methods if they felt their interests were threatened.
Resistance to such sabotage requires not only the self-organisation of the working class. It also requires the smashing of the capitalist state machine.