It’s been a week now since the Labour Party Conference 2016 and I am still unclear about what Socialism for the 21st Century actually means. Socialism for the 21st Century is more than just this Sound Bite and Socialism is not just about being nice to everybody Mr Corbyn: it’s a system of Economics. Socialism does have the end result of being nicer and a whole lot fairer than Capitalism but that is only as a result of having real socialist policies to back it up. I just get the feeling that JeremyCorbyn’s interpretation of Socialism is just the end result without implementing the system to actually make it happen. Up to now and perhaps for sometime to come I will continue to support Mr Corbyn as the most viable left wing candidate but my support is not blind and there are limits. For me the limit is when I think and believe that Mr Corbyn cannot deliver a proper version of Socialism for the Labour Party backed up by an economic strategy to match the ideology. That time is getting close with this new development and lack of understanding shown by Mr Corbyn and his team who seem to have resorted to dropping in Sound Bites instead of real policy.
Is Mr Corbyn’s idea of Socialism just another Blair Style interpretation?
Jeremy Corbyn needs to understand that he cannot have the ideology and ambitions of Socialism without having some resemblance to an economic and fiscal policy that resembles in some way the ideas of Sidney Webb who introduced the concept of socialism to the Labour Party with an introduction of Clause IV as a part of its Constitution. It was only at this point that the Labour Movement actually became a Socialist Movement. Recent Labour Party administrations have attempted to retain the ideology of socialism and abandon the commitment to Clause IV and it’s economic and fiscal systems which it implies. Most notably Tony Blair but what you got in return was a watered down version of Socialism with an unstable fiscal policy and economic approach. This smoke and mirrors approach to Socialism is no longer viable because more often than not it ends up with a government which has lofty ambitions and ideals without any means to fund it’s ambitions. This, as we saw in the case of Blair / Brown, led to out of control public borrowing which eventually leads to a form of bankruptcy.