After all, it does not exactly make much sense to talk about 'common ownership of the means of exchange'; exchange implies a private property relationship and, therefore, the absence of common ownership. You can only exchange something with someone if that person does not have the right of access to whatever it is that is being exchanged - because it is privately owned by you.
Real common ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with state control, which Tony Blair assumes Marx meant by socialism. It means, and logically can only mean, universal free access to the wealth produced by society, with production being organised on an entirely voluntary basis. In other (or rather Marx's) words, 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'.
So it will be no bad thing if the Labour Party did scrap Clause IV. At least it will then be more apparent what it really stands for. And that is not, and never was, common ownership.
5 OctoberReuse content