What does each political group want?

I would add to conservatism - strongly supports the profit motive and will fall back on the state when all else fails as regards health.

A good example of this is Ayn Rand who believed in individual rights embodied n laissez-faire capitalism. In 1974 she had surgery for lung cancer and two years later allowed herself to be enroled for Social Security and Medicare.

To your definition of socialism I would add "now unattainable"

Socialism An economic and political system where the community or state owns the general means of production (i. e. farms, factories, tools, and raw materials.)

Is that what Dr Google told you, Pippa? Because that is how I would describe Communism. If that is the true meaning of Socialism (though I suspect that it is a US take on it) then I would never subscribe to it.

I see Socialism as a halfway house between Communism and your definition of Social Democracy, i.e. where the state owns and manages the monopolies which contribute to the citizen's health and wellbeing, such as health & social welfare, water, energy, public spaces, some cultural institutions, education and public transport while goods and services are provided to state owned institutions and to citizens by private enterprise. A mixed economy.

(Sorry, couldn't do it in three lines!)

I'm not sure where Liberal Democracy fits in. Is it something to do with less state control of things like utilities?

??‍♀️ your guess is as good as mine

This isn't going to end well, is it?

MaizieD

^Socialism An economic and political system where the community or state owns the general means of production (i. e. farms, factories, tools, and raw materials.)^

Is that what Dr Google told you, Pippa? Because that is how I would describe Communism. If that is the true meaning of Socialism (though I suspect that it is a US take on it) then I would never subscribe to it.

I see Socialism as a halfway house between Communism and your definition of Social Democracy, i.e. where the state owns and manages the monopolies which contribute to the citizen's health and wellbeing, such as health & social welfare, water, energy, public spaces, some cultural institutions, education and public transport while goods and services are provided to state owned institutions and to citizens by private enterprise. A mixed economy.

(Sorry, couldn't do it in three lines!)

I'm not sure where Liberal Democracy fits in. Is it something to do with less state control of things like utilities?

Maizie, I think you are beginning to define what I could not, i.e., Labourism. I went for the two as there are, to me, two very disparate groups with very different fundamental beliefs.

Dinahmo, I was trying not to have an opinion but put forward what they felt they stood for. What they are "selling", perhaps. I included "Libertarianism" as I think it is the other strand of the Conservative Party in the same way that they are two opposed strands in the Labour Party. In both cases, some will overlap in the middle but I thought it would be interesting to work out what was fundamental to each group rather than what we might think of them. (I hope that makes sense

I think each party is made up of more than one group, each putting forward more than one creed.

kittylester

This isn't going to end well, is it?

It doesn't have to go badly Kitty.

But it will!

Be brave Kitty. I'm just seeking to pick other people's brains and understand this a little more.

PippaZ

Be brave Kitty. I'm just seeking to pick other people's brains and understand this a little more.

Oh dear. This could have been such an interesting, non confrontational thread.

Well, at least you tried, Pippa

Very interesting thread

Interesting take on the options we seem to have before us nowadays, in the UK at least. To my mind, they can be collapsed to four major groups:

Liberal Democracy and Social Democracy look like workable bedfellows;
Conservatism and Libertarianism likewise seem to go together;
I agree with Maizie that this definition of Socialism would equate in many minds with old style Communism;
then you have the Greens.

I hope this thread develops along constructive lines. I found it useful in clarifying my own thoughts.

I hope this thread develops along constructive lines. I found it useful in clarifying my own thoughts.

That's why I hope it continues. We all hurl accusations/labels at each other on political threads, but without knowing how people interpret the different 'labels' and really having no idea what their political 'philosophy' really is. A party preference can mean so many different things.

I do see what you are saying about the definition I gave of Socialism - but isn't it still what a proportion of the "Labourists" would have been putting forward as their aims in the recent past?

I'm not sure that rather "Hobson's Choice" produced that makes extremes stand on one platform allows a description of the parties core beliefs

I could suggest, as an example, that the only core belief that the Conservative Party, as a whole, shares is, say "hereditary". Could you be a "Conservative" and not believe it that. I wonder if it would be possible to make a list of core beliefs of each party and then come up with a description?

rather the rather

Quote from Maizie

"I see Socialism as a halfway house between Communism and your definition of Social Democracy, i.e. where the state owns and manages the monopolies which contribute to the citizen's health and wellbeing, such as health & social welfare, water, energy, public spaces, some cultural institutions, education and public transport while goods and services are provided to state owned institutions and to citizens by private enterprise. A mixed economy."

Maizie* You have described exactly the situation that existed in my youth, which generally worked well.

Some of the unions were too strong, for example the Print unions. Fleet Street was rife with people signing on as Donald Duck and Micky Mouse etc and jobs where handed down from father to son. No different to that which pertains now, such as the Murdoch family.

I suspect that most people would be happy if we could get back to a mixed economy as you describe it but there are too many invested interest who would oppose the changes needed.

Can you find any words that each political party would say fits their offering though Dinahmo?

Pippa The best that I can come up with.

Core Principles of Conservatism

Individual Freedom. The birth of our great nation was inspired by the bold declaration that our individual,God-given liberties should be preserved against government intrusion. ... (I'm not sure about this - it sounds a bit American and also was the Tory party around when the UK was founded? I think not.

Limited Government. ...
The Rule of Law. ...
Peace through Strength. ...
Fiscal Responsibility. ...
Free Markets. ...
Human Dignity.

Labour Party

The Labour Party’s constitution makes the following statement: “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.

In reference to the description of Socialism my Grandad used to say who was the first Socialist?
His answer was Jesus Christ.
So my idea of socialism would be the ideals of Christ before either were distorted by men.

I’m no Corbyn lover but I think “for the many not the few” is a very powerful aim. Simple and understandable and effective.

Polarbear2 sadly it didn't resonate with enough people.

A Capitalist economy is based on the private ownership of the means of production.
So conservatism and other right wing political parties hold world view that includes various ideological stances that can be characteristically recognise as right wing from authoritarian and populist to one nation paternalism. It is supportive of a capitalist system, and largely considers that it is no business of the state to interfere in the running of the economy such as regulation and stepping in to mitigate unfairness etc. An extreme of this would assume that everything is part of the profit motive including education, health etc.

No such extreme capitalist system exists, but some like Singapore are pretty near it. Thatcher flirted with the idea for 5 minutes, and there are undoubtedly some in the Tory party who would like to see a greater move to the form of laissez faire capitalism.

Socialism describes an economic system based on the shared ownership of the means of production. The economy is overseen and planned by the state.

There are no socialist economic systems, but some like Cuba are pretty near it.

However there are political parties to the left of the political spectrum that are ideologically married to the idea that it is the governments job to provide a safety net for those in need both economically, health and welfare. They also tend to agree that certain functions vital to a well run capitalist society should be state owned e.g. rail system. The CDU in Germany is a liberal Conservative party with these views from a conservative standpoint, and anywhere left of this centrist position will find what is termed a social democratic standpoint.

In the U.K. Labour, Lib Dem’s and Greens are ideologically married to this idea of a mixed economy as are many other European political parties.

Most policy will flow from these basic tenets.

Oh blimey I’ve just read I should have kept to 3 lines??

I am finding this very informative and interesting thanks PippaZ. As far as I can see no need for any confrontation !
I am politically ignorant so these “definitions” are useful.

Whitewave…must read the question ?