Template talk:Socialism in the UK

Scope of template
Should the template include only political parties and groups that are cited as socialist, democratic socialist, eco-socialist or revolutionary socialist (e.g., an explicit variant of socialism) on their respective page, or should it include parties and groups that are deemed to advocate ideologies with connections to socialism such as social democracy, green politics, communism and others? Would this potentially misrepresent parties that are not defined by reliable sources - nor define themselves - as socialist by the template's inclusion on pages where socialism is not mentioned or cited as an ideology of the party or group, or would the inclusion of the template still be justifiable? Helper201 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . I think there is an issue here in conflating the left and socialism. While those on the left are often socialist the two are not one and the same. One can be on the left and not be socialist. Some of the political parties listed are not socialist but are on the left. The template is called Socialism in the UK, perhaps something like British left or UK left would be better? Parties like the Greens for example are not cited on their pages as being socialist but are on the left. Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello!
 * I have not equated the two together. Socialism is a broad church and covers a lot of ideological ground, including influence into green politics. The EW Green Party believe in green politics which itself draws on social democracy, libertarian socialism, and eco-socialism which are all socialist principles, hence their inclusion.
 * This template is around socialism in the UK and its ideas, not "the left" overall. That would be a separate sidebar needed.
 * This would be similar with a template on capitalism that a a lot of parties on "the right" would fall into, even if they do not explicitly outline it. Jamzze (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me . "Socialism is a broad church and covers a lot of ideological ground, including influence into green politics. The EW Green Party believe in green politics which itself draws on social democracy, libertarian socialism, and eco-socialism which are all socialist principles, hence their inclusion" - you may well be right with this but it seems to fall under WP:OR. Also, if we go by what is related or connected to socialism then where do we drawn the line on what should and should not be included? I think the problem is that by listing parties here that are not explicitly cited as socialist it will confuse readers and make it seem as though these parties are all socialist, which is not the case. I think we need to find some solution or compromise for this. Helper201 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What parties would you consider need to be removed? Jamzze (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any and all that are not explicitly cited as socialist, democratic socialist, eco-socialist or revolutionary socialist as a whole in the ideology section of the infobox on their respective pages. So, upon a glance that would be the Green parties, the Scottish National Party, the Yorkshire Party (I know I added that and in retrospect I think I made a mistake), Mebyon Kernow and the communist parties. Helper201 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made the change. What do you think? Helper201 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The communist parties are part of socialism .... I have restored the previous version. I can appreciate removing the green parties if you think so - but I do believe they should be included. Communism is explicitly interlinked with socialism, though. Please do look at the socialism in america sidebar for what should be included. Template:American socialism
 * Please do think carefully before removing so completely parties next time, it would be best to reach consensus on this talk page beforehand. Jamzze (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These parties are not cited as socialist, democratic socialist, eco-socialist or revolutionary socialist. If we go by what is connected, interlinked or "part of" socialism there is no clear line that can be drawn about what to include and what not to and it strays into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of editors personal views as to what is or is not connected enough to include. If we just include what parties are explicitly cited as having a socialist ideology then we lessen the chances of edit warring about what does or does not constitute a reasonable connection. It will stop editors putting in their own personal judgements about what constitutes a good enough connection and keep to what reliable sources explicitly state, which is how Wikipedia should work. Whatever is done on other templates does not make that right or wrong by default, we should go by the merits of arguments not "X/Y" is done elsewhere so its correct. Helper201 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From the communism page on wiki: "Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism". Communism is a form of socialism. Socialism is a broad church and has many sub-sets. It is within the scope of this template. Jamzze (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, before either of us edit this any further, I have asked other editors to contribute to this discussion further to reach some form of consensus on the scope of this template. Jamzze (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Communism has its own template to distinguish it from socialism so mixing to the two together is both unnecessary and potentially confusing. I can't remember the exact Wikipedia guideline but as far as I remember we aren't supposed to ask specific groups or editors for help in situations like this because of potential personal connections or potential group biases, hence why I asked in the open requests for comment section. Helper201 (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "Communism in the UK" template. Communism as an ideology has its own template, which is fair enough - it is an old school of thought that deserves it for the rich history and work behind it.
 * However, the overlap between socialism and communism at a party level would operate severe overlap if two different templates were to be created for it for UK parties.
 * E.g. Labour has a communist faction – would you then place Labour into both templates? How would you then explain within that “communist UK parties” template that Labour predominantly adheres to social democracy, a centre-left socialist tradition?
 * Communism is under the umbrella of socialism, which makes it appropriate for parties that predominantly adhere to this ideology to be included within a socialist template for UK parties. Creating two different templates for "socialist" UK parties and "communist" UK parities would disrupt the readers' understanding of the spectra nature of socialism. That it can be a centre-left incarnation (e.g. Labour) as well as a far-left incarnation (e.g. communist or even moving into anarchist groups).
 * Looking at the categories as well for all these parties, "Communist parties in the United Kingdom‎" is nested under "Socialist parties in the United Kingdom", making it appropriate to include these parities within a socialist template for the UK.
 * I could concede, though, that anarchism is perhaps out the scope of this template and could be mentioned in a "see also" section as, although anarchism bleeds into the far-left of socialism, it does so as very much its own ideology. Unlike communism which is very much intertwined with socialism.
 * I think an issue as well is that there is fluidity between using the word “communism” and the word “socialism” within both academia as well as in the public. In a political party setting, this fluidity is dynamic and reflects the rich breadth of discourse found between the two that makes unravelling them problematic.
 * My overall input into this conversation is that I think it would serve best to include the broad church of socialist parties and their tendencies; from social democracy (e.g. Labour), revolutionary socialism (included within this would then be communist parties). This would include UK parities that adhere to socialist tendencies within their ideology across the breadth of centre-left to far-left socialist groups, capturing the dynamic nature that socialist parties operate across within the UK. My concession (although I do think there is room to include anarchist groups within this template at the blurring of socialist-anarchist ideology) would be that anarchist groups can be removed and a link within a “see also” section pointing towards them. Jamzze (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could concede, though, that anarchism is perhaps out the scope of this template and could be mentioned in a "see also" section as, although anarchism bleeds into the far-left of socialism, it does so as very much its own ideology. Unlike communism which is very much intertwined with socialism.
 * I think an issue as well is that there is fluidity between using the word “communism” and the word “socialism” within both academia as well as in the public. In a political party setting, this fluidity is dynamic and reflects the rich breadth of discourse found between the two that makes unravelling them problematic.
 * My overall input into this conversation is that I think it would serve best to include the broad church of socialist parties and their tendencies; from social democracy (e.g. Labour), revolutionary socialism (included within this would then be communist parties). This would include UK parities that adhere to socialist tendencies within their ideology across the breadth of centre-left to far-left socialist groups, capturing the dynamic nature that socialist parties operate across within the UK. My concession (although I do think there is room to include anarchist groups within this template at the blurring of socialist-anarchist ideology) would be that anarchist groups can be removed and a link within a “see also” section pointing towards them. Jamzze (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My overall input into this conversation is that I think it would serve best to include the broad church of socialist parties and their tendencies; from social democracy (e.g. Labour), revolutionary socialism (included within this would then be communist parties). This would include UK parities that adhere to socialist tendencies within their ideology across the breadth of centre-left to far-left socialist groups, capturing the dynamic nature that socialist parties operate across within the UK. My concession (although I do think there is room to include anarchist groups within this template at the blurring of socialist-anarchist ideology) would be that anarchist groups can be removed and a link within a “see also” section pointing towards them. Jamzze (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My overall input into this conversation is that I think it would serve best to include the broad church of socialist parties and their tendencies; from social democracy (e.g. Labour), revolutionary socialism (included within this would then be communist parties). This would include UK parities that adhere to socialist tendencies within their ideology across the breadth of centre-left to far-left socialist groups, capturing the dynamic nature that socialist parties operate across within the UK. My concession (although I do think there is room to include anarchist groups within this template at the blurring of socialist-anarchist ideology) would be that anarchist groups can be removed and a link within a “see also” section pointing towards them. Jamzze (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Labour has a communist faction Errrr who exactly are they? No one AFAIK in the Labour party is openly (or even seriously thought of as) communist. The tabloid press may sometimes accuse labour members of being 'lefties', but AFAIK, even they would not accuse Labour people of being 'communists'. Labour has a communist faction to approximately the same degree that Conservatives have 'fascist' factions. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is there is a spectrum that socialism operates within. An interesting communist group surrounding Labour include the "Labour Party Marxists" faction. Additionally, political parties are not a monolith - individuals operate a party and across those individuals hold different ideals of what that party should be, such as the group mentioned. My point from is that Labour is positioned mostly within the centre/ centre-left space, but hold factions that stretch further into the more left/ far-left space across socialist traditions. Jamzze (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support a broad definition here, in line with the existing practice of Wikiproject Socialism. The question of whether or not a group is socialist is an unavoidably political judgement and I don't think we can rely on narrow distinctions. Extua (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no "Communism in the UK" template - yes, true, I meant there is a separate template for communism - Template:Communism - and socialism - Template:Socialism, so maintaining separation here would be consistent with that and Wikipedia as a whole. I agree with Pincrete in that there is no serious communist faction in the Labour Party. I would disregard factions in this matter and just go with how the party is cited as a whole as going by factions further complicates matters and could lead to further misrepresentation. Personally, I don't think there is any need to create a communist template for the UK as no communist party in the UK has any elected representatives, so they aren't very notable. I understand that ideologies can be seen within the wider bracket of socialism, my worry is that readers - of which we should assume many will not have this knowledge - will see the parties in this template and mistakenly think it means all the parties in it are socialist. As for anarchism, it is described alongside socialism and has connections to it but as far as I'm aware isn't necessarily inherently socialist. Helper201 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Helper201, I think I've said everything I want to say around this - so will wait for further input from other users.
 * I think this will take longer than I imagined to settle, so I hope you will be okay with me editing the template further, however I will leave the parties section alone and will not populate further articles with it until this discussion has reached an end point.
 * Thank you for the lively conversation and critique - sincerely. I hope we can find consensus soon. Jamzze (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Marx in the section 'Intellectuals'
Hey @Alejandro Basombrio, Karl Marx was and should still be here due to spending most of his intellectual life in London, where he was permanently based since mid-1849. –Vipz (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Just because he life most of his life in the UK doesn't mean he is from there. He never adopted the British nationality and his philosophical contributions and influences mostly derivate from German philosophy. He was even a German philosopher, being the main representative of the Young Hegelians. The article of German philosophy includes him as part of the German philosophical tradition while the article of British philosophy doesn't even mention him. Don't add Marx there. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the edit summary I provided in my last revert. This is something to seek a third opinion about. That said, I respectfully disagree 1) (not) having a nationality in the country he lived in is irrelevant here; 2) this sidebar is not about influences on Marx nor British philosophy, but influences on socialism in the UK (both historical and contemporary), for which Marx is arguably a central figure coupled with activities and work during his lifetime there. –Vipz (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. its about socialism in the uk, not british socialists. 81.104.87.43 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

social democracy?
there is a separate social democracy template. this template relates to the British left and British socialists. seems silly to include liberals such as macdonald who would have hated people like corbyn or scargill with all their might 81.104.87.43 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @81.104.87.43, I appreciate your concerns regarding the inclusion of social democrats into socialism in the UK. However, there is an argument to be made that their inclusion is accurate to the overall consensus on social democracy and its relation to other variants of socialism. Social democracy is widely accepted on Wikipedia as a variant of socialism, regardless of its evolution as an ideology. Social democracy is a revisionist ideology deviating from Marxism, espousing reformist ideas of retaining capitalism, with new socialist policies designed to bring about - in effect - the goals of socialism, equality, the common good and solidarity. This contrasts with fundamentalist socialism advocating for the full replacement of capitalism with socialist economics, but that doesn't contradict the fact that social democracy is still a socialist ideology. Its application of socialist principles being mild and favourable to capitalism doesn't exclude it, regardless of personal preference. This is indeed the consensus, and expecting consistency, should be the same for this sidebar. If you dispute this and want to argue that social democracy is too far separated from socialist values, politics, or economics to be considered socialist, I advise you take this dispute to the talk page on social democracy.
 * It is also irrelevant as to whether moderate or revisionist figures like Ramsay McDonald would disagree with modern socialists like Jeremy Corbyn or Arthur Scargill. Ideological and tactical disputes permeate the history of socialist thought, and it is obvious with the inclusion of the ideologies section that socialism in the UK isn't a single set of views and beliefs, and features a variety of perspectives that since their conceptions have conflicted with one another. And one could perhaps make the argument that McDonald is more liberal than socialist, but again, the widely accepted consensus - that which you are free to challenge and argue against if you so choose - is that McDonald is a social democrat, and as previously described, social democracy is still socialism. It is certainly not a silly inclusion. I hope you consider these points, and final decisions on this issue can be made once resolved. @Grettoonist 16:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry, this is simply incorrect. social democracy, whilst originally used to refer to groups like the bolsheviks, is now a synonym for social liberalism and Keynesianism. if we are taking the the original definition of social democracy, then figures like ramsay macdonald would not be included. if we are using the more contemporary definition, then macdonald does sit right besides figures like Blair and starmer - but these figures are not socialist, and regardless of what you claim, it is well established that social democracy is in its contemporary form not only unrelated to marxism and socialism, but actively antagonistic to it. 81.104.87.43 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @81.104.87.43, apologies for a late reply. I realise that with no-one else offering their perspective on this dispute, and being at a stalemate regarding whether to include social democracy with socialism, I am willing to compromise for a consensus. As social democracy still resembles capitalist economics and principles in combination with some socialist goals, we omit the following intellectuals and political figures on the basis of not fitting in socialism in the UK (but instead social democracy in the UK): Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Anthony Crosland, Emily Thornberry. However, I still stand that Lloyd Russell-Moyle should still be listed in the political figures section. His positions are closer to democratic socialism than social democracy, and he is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, of which other prominent members of the caucus like Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Sam Tarry, Olivia Blake and Richard Burgon, who also express democratic socialist views, should also be included.
 * Given that no-one has offered a third opinion, I argue that this is the most civil venue to go to prevent the issue escalating. Omit the social democrats, but keep Russell-Moyle, who isn't a social democrat anyway, but a democratic socialist. I hope you consider this arrangement so that this dispute can be resolved. Grettoonist (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)