"Scarcely had private property in land been introduced than the mortgage was invented" (Engels)

A Clause IV Primer:

Common Ownership through the Looking Glass

"Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice.

She could have been talking about the debate on Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution, where things were often not quite what they seemed.

Leadership apparatchiks, for example, seemed to like being described as "Bambinis," and referred to their opposition as "the forces of darkness." They blamed their failure to argue effectively for change on inadequate management of the party machine, despite their hot-line to the media. Yet, far from being cuddly creatures, the Bambinis revealed their Machiavellian origins by their phraseology, and the tactics they deployed to ensure that though they lost the argument, they did not lose the votes.

The forces of darkness, on the other hand, were revealed to be those who wished to stand by their principles, as they agreed to do when they joined the Labour Party.

Curiouser, and curiouser . . . another example:

 The opponents of the old Clause IV said that it was an outdated piece of extremism, yet the supporters of Clause IV said that it was a very clever compromise which kept all sections of the party happy. They also claimed that it was still relevant, and needs to be applied on a global scale if the planet is to survive. So . . .

What was the old Clause IV?

Clause IV was the section of the Labour Party constitution which described the party's long term aims and objects. It still does, in a wishy washy New Labourspeak sort of way.

The old clause four (part four, as printed on membership cards) contained three main commitments: the redistribution of wealth,common ownership, and the best possible system of popular administration.

It's difficult to see how anyone in the Labour Party could object to the first, although some did, and by their actions some presumably still do. It's difficult to see how anyone, anywhere, with any claim to democratic credentials, could object to the last. Common ownership, the bit in the middle, can therefore be identified as the main source of disagreement.

Many party members didn't know what the term means. Their attitude always softened when it was explained to them. Some preferred to give it another meaning, perhaps because its demise was a means to another end.

To judge by their comments, that included the party's leaders. John Prescott claimed it could be used interchangeably with public ownership, and used both interchangeably with nationalisation.

Yet (curiously) many advocates of common ownership say that they have never agreed with Labour's postwar nationalisation policy. For some, common ownership of banking and finance would have remarkable similarities to the German System, with its "independent" central bank.

The opponents of clause IV could argue that the confusion was a good reason for rewriting the clause. They didn't because the confusion worked to their advantage. They added to the confusion.

The supporters of common ownership believe that, by failing to educate members and the public, Labour has failed to capitalise on one of its greatest assets. They continue to explain the importance of the concept, and thereby their campaign to win the Labour Party back to its socialist roots.

What is common ownership?

The word "common" is used in a similar way to its use in common land and commonwealth. The usual examples that are given include various forms of national and municipal public ownership, community property, and some forms of cooperative organisation, but it is in fact a wider and more fundamental concept.

Common ownership means that people may possess and manage property, but the community as a whole has the right, if it wishes, to rule on the use of that property, or to redistribute it - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need . . .

People are thus fully accountable to their fellow citizens for their actions. Common ownership underpins equality, and complements democracy.

Democracy is the method by which people can express their will. Common ownership gives people the power to exert their will. Along with planning for the long term future, and universal and minority rights, they form the foundation of socialist society. 

What should be under common ownership?

Some people have argued that all property should be commonly owned, while others argue that it would be appropriate for some things but not all. The former are frequently attacked as "Utopian", but their proponents would mostly disagree, and insist that, on the contrary, they were very practical.

While not endorsing the latter view, there can be no doubt that, in some spheres of human activity, there is a more urgent need to apply common ownership than elsewhere. In the most extreme cases, not to do so could have disastrous consequences for the human race and the planet which we inhabit.

The following list identifies some priorities for common ownership. It is not intended to be a definitive list, but is intended to be thought provoking and to illustrate the scope for debate.

The Top Ten - a common ownership hit list

1. The atmosphere - we all breathe it, but what gives some people the right to pollute it?
2. Fresh water supplies - we can't live without them.
3. The oceans, seas and inland waterways.
4. The natural world - we must protect the world's animals and their habitats.
5. The world's finite natural resources - there's only so much oil, coal, etc., in the ground.
6. Space - the final frontier is a junk pile. Rockets will soon find it difficult to take off without a collision.
7. Means of communication - physical and electronic.
8. Means of economic control - production, distribution and exchange.
9. Education and access to information.
10. Health and other social services.

• Bubbling under: genetic engineering, crop breeding and other scientific and technological areas.

A short history of Common Ownership and private property

This may be a surprise to some, but common ownership was not invented in 1917. Like democracy, it has a long history, emerging in various guises in many cultures. Like democracy, its implementation in the recent past has often been incomplete, has rarely been widespread, and few instances have enjoyed any great longevity.

The history of common ownership begins with early man. Archeological evidence shows that it was the normal pattern within tribes, and this is supported by social anthropology studies. Personal possessions were restricted to a few items, such as weapons and tools. "What is made and used in common is common property - the house, the garden, the long boat" (Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).

The domestication of cattle generated supplies of milk, meat, skins, and fabric which could be traded, along with tools, between tribes.

The cultivation of grain began as fodder, but soon became human food.

Land remained tribal property, though it was sometimes allocated for the use of families or, at a later stage, individuals.  

The growth of civilisation brought with it wealth, and the concentration of wealth within tribes and families. It also produced a new division of labour, as prisoners of war acquired value as slaves.

The introduction of iron weapons and tools spurred on this process, settlements grew larger, agriculture became more productive, and craft workers more specialised. Trade expanded, often using precious metals as the means of exchange, giving rise to a merchant class. The growth of commerce in turn led to the development of the minted coin. The development of a class structure brought new tensions. The ruling class organised militia to protect their property and control the populace. The state was born.

By this stage, many rights of possession had given way to hereditary property. No longer under common ownership, land could become a commodity. "Scarcely had private property in land been introduced than the mortgage was invented" (Engels, ibid))

Common ownership was curtailed within the state, it persisted elsewhere, even in the lands which fell victim to the expansionism of the early states. It remained the norm among nomadic peoples. In Europe, land ownership among German and Celtic tribes was still based on the gens or clan. Elsewhere, there were large areas of common grazing land, and agricultural production and tools were often shared.

Feudalism brought a major shift in the relationships between the classes, but its exact form varied greatly from country to country. Various classes owed their land or other privileges to the services or goods which they provided for those above them. At the bottom of the pile, serfs laboured on their master's land in return for a few strips of their own, gave some of their produce in return milling, and so on. Even here, land was often set aside for "common" use.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was gradual, marked by a shift in population from countryside to town, where labour was not simply a payment in lieu of rent, but was a commodity. There were more opportunities for advancement, but for many, life became more arduous and uncertain. As slavery had given way to serfdom, now serfdom gave way to wage slavery. With the industrial revolution, the process accelerated.

Private property is essential to the functioning of capitalism. Those who were forced to sell their labour, the hungry and the dispossessed, instinctively recognised this, and those who could express what they felt would receive their support. Capitalism had arrived, and its victims yearned for a more equitable society. A succession of reformist and revolutionary groups responded to the needs of the new proletarian class.

The state responded, at first crudely, crushing any sign of opposition. Laws were passed, outlawing meetings and societies formed by working people. The people fought back, and the state developed more sophisticated techniques of social control. The organisations of the working class had many setbacks, but with each, lessons were learnt. Methods of organisation were improved, and ideologies were refined. A central theme of many was the need for common ownership. 

Having explained the concept and reviewed the history, the question must be asked:

Why is there so much disagreement?

There are several theories, and there is probably some truth in all of them.

People have been trying to get rid of Labour's socialist principles for a long time. They can make life awkward for career politicians dealing with the day to day politics of Westminster. For some, it's just so much intellectual baggage. It restricts, however tenuously, their ability to do and say as they please. Added to which, nobody wants to look like a hypocrite.

It's always been a target for the modernisers. Image conscious, they want to be rid of it for several reasons. The language is a bit old fashioned; it sits uneasily alongside their commitment to the market; and it is associated with the left of the party.

Neil Kinnock asserted his leadership through an often macho fight with Militant. John Smith chose euphemistically labelled OMOV on which to make his stand. The media was looking at Tony Blair's speech to see how he would prove himself. They were given a debate on Clause IV.

There is also no doubt that some ordinary members believe that a rewritten version of clause IV will not be a sellout. It would be nice to think that they were right, but all the signs point in the opposite direction.

A Socialist Dilemma?

In a way, the argument is between those who believe Labour must seek power, even though that might mean riding on the shirt tails of capitalism, patching the odd hole in its fabric, and distributing a few crumbs; and those who feel that it is more important to take a long term perspective which will enhance the survival prospects of the human race and result in a fair division of the whole cake - even if that means leaving the business of minor reform to others in the short term.

This has always been a dilemma for socialists. There can be no advance without power, but power is difficult to achieve without sacrificing advances.

The key to resolving the dilemma lies in understanding the power of ideas. Social control has always relied on the control of the flow of ideas. But you can only get away with telling people that the earth is flat for so long. 

Society needs to change. Though capitalism has shown great adaptability, as a system which can guarantee sustainable growth it is ultimately doomed. The Earth's resources are being plundered to provide capitalist growth. This cannot continue forever, and the most important task is to ensure that the collapse of capitalism does not usher in the barbarism of authoritarianism, or the total collapse of civilisation, or even the end of the human race.  

If you think that's a little melodramatic, try working out what would happen if the stock markets collapse catastrophically. Many economists concede that this is a real possibility in the era of highly computerised trading, with everyone chasing a faster buck, and laying off their risks on everyone else. Or imagine what would happen if oil runs out before we have sufficient quantities of renewable substitutes. Think about your great grandchildren saying: "How could they have been so stupid?"

This is why the debate on common ownership is important, and party unity must be secondary to principle. We must hope that, as a result of this debate, more people will understand and support common ownership, and that support will continue to grow. Losing the debate would be a setback, but when we are talking in global terms, it is just a minor skirmish.

If Labour abandons Clause IV, it will deny itself the means to effect necessary change. Harold Wilson once said that if the Labour Party is not a crusade, it is nothing. Not quite, but it is not willing to be a visionary party, then others will take its place. 

The Party may not be consigned to the dustbin of history immediately. If it is determined to become a popularist party, it will follow where others lead. It might even gain some of that elusive electoral success.

It will not, however, be the driving force for the social and environmental change that the world so desperately needs. The organisation that takes on that important task must care about what we bequeath to our children, and fight for a world that belongs to everyone.