Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour could restore its historic commitment to public ownership of industry – known as Clause IV – if he

[imposs1904]

Surprised that no one else dug out this old Socialist Standard article from 1989:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/08/labour-mps-in-confusion-1989.htmlIt's a bit of daft article, but of all the politicians written to, it was Corbyn who received the most begrudging praise – sort of  – in the piece.From the article:"Jeremy Corbyn wrote of an absence of exploitation, respect for the natural environment, and production for need and not profit. In this last phrase, he came dangerously close to a genuine definition of socialism. But the capitalist class need not fear; production for need cannot be introduced on the basis of minority control of the means of production, whether through private enterprise or through the state control which Corbyn stands for."

[Anonymous]

imposs1904 wrote:

 or through the state control which Corbyn stands for."

I don't know if that was the case in 89 but this is not true today. It doesn't help our case to misrepresent our 'opponents'. Elsewhere – as pointed out by Alb –  Mr Scarghill has been misrepresented too, in our zeal to condemn and seperate ourselves in a sectarian manner. 

[imposs1904]

Vin,I know it wasn't meant but your post gives the impression that I wrote that about Corbyn views on state control. That was in fact from the 1989 article itself.I had to clarify that becaue i'm a sensitive flower.

[ALB]

I never said we distorted what Scargill said, only that the Daily Telegraph journalist did.

[Anonymous]

Imposs1904, sorry if I gave that impression. I was of course referring to the article and the royal 'we'.  

[Anonymous]

Point taken ALB

[Author]

Posts