To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4.
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.
It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
Tony Blair had in 1993, before becoming Leader of the Labour Party, written a pamphlet for the Fabian Society which criticised the wording of Clause IV for confusing ends with means.
Blair put forward a case for defining socialism in terms of a set of values which were constant, while the policies needed to achieve them would have to change ("modernise") to account for changing society.
After becoming Leader he announced at the conclusion of his 1994 conference speech that the Labour Party needed a new statement of aims and values and that he would draw one up and present it to the party.
The new version was adopted at a Special Conference at Easter 1995 after a debate.
The new clause did, for the first time, declare Labour to be a "socialist" party, though Blair generally prefers to describe himself as a social democrat.
Presentationally, the abandonment of the nationalising principles of the original Clause IV represented a break with Labour's past and, specifically, a break with its 1983 Manifesto ("The longest suicide note in history") in which greater state ownership was proposed.
PD de Advertencia al lector.
No se trata de una chicana, ni de una defensa justificatoria de los 90.
Solo señalo los riesgos de negarse a ver los Obstáculos Epistemológicos que enfrentan los “Orgánicos” del Oficialismo y las Oposiciones.
Soslayar reconocer lo que esta a la vista, y puede caracterizarse como “argentinización” del Atlántico Norte; es renunciar, lisa y llanamente, a la oportunidad de evitarnos un 1976.
Repito, no es joda;
Mercados y Democracia se están convirtiendo en Significantes Antitéticos; la supervivencia de uno de ellos implica la abolición del otro, incluyendo la opción de las bayonetas.