Why do commonwealth countries have labour and continental european countries have social democratic?

[buritobr]

Commonwealth countries like UK, Australia and New Zealand, and former commonwealth country like Ireland, have Labour parties. Continental european countries have another name for center-left parties: social democratic

[Mike88]

I assume that's because of the labour movements that started in Britain and its colonies in the late 19th century due to the industrial revolution. Social democratic parties back then all have labour or workers labels in their names, but in some European countries the labour/workers labels were drooped, with examples like the Danish, German and Finnish social democratic parties. Commonwealth countries kept the labour/workers label, although the Swedish and Spanish social democratic parties still run with labour/workers labels.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I assume that's because of the labour movements that started in Britain and its colonies in the late 19th century due to the industrial revolution. Social democratic parties back then all have labour or workers labels in their names, but in some European countries the labour/workers labels were drooped, with examples like the Danish, German and Finnish social democratic parties. Commonwealth countries kept the labour/workers label, although the Swedish and Spanish social democratic parties still run with labour/workers labels.

Plus there's Norway and the Netherlands.

[Hnv1]

British Socialism was more influence by unions and less with Marxist teaching. A lot of battles were very focused on labour relations and less with grand political planning.
The SPD formed in 1875 was more influential with continental Europe and socialists educated in continental universities than Labour.

British Socialism was always a bit different than the continental version, more openness to religion, less Marxism, greater emphasis on localised struggles etc.

[parochial boy]

I by no means claim to have any expertise on the subject - but is it not the case that labour was more or less an amalgamation of various trade unions, socialist groups, left wing religious movements and so on? Rather than being set up as an explicitly ideologically socialist party.

Other countries that were early to industrialise like Belgium and Switzerland have Socialist rather than Labour parties, so I don’t think it’s just down to precocious industrialisation in the anglophone world. In Switzerland at least, the trade union movement grew out of the Socialist party rather than the other way round.

That said, it is interesting that in Latin Europe the parties tend to be called « Socialist » whereas in the Germanic countries they’re « social democratic »

Édit - HNV best me to it

[EastAnglianLefty]

Mich of it is just coincidence - one of the major contributors to the British Labour Party was the British Socialist Party, which grew out of the Social Democratic Federation. Sometimes a name is just a name, as is even clearer with one offshoot of the BSP that also ended up in the Labour Party, namely the National Socialist Party (which was basically Marxist in outlook, the National just indicating that it backed WW1.)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The question has already been answered pretty thoroughly, but I just want to quip my greetings from the country that has no labour/social democratic/socialist party because the original Italian Socialist Party imploded after Mani pulite and dissolved in 1994.

[Former President tack50]

And of course, my country just split the difference and called the main party of the left the Socialist Workers' party

A certain Adolf Hitler also called his party a "Socialist Workers Party" but as we all know his party had nothing to do with socialism or labour politics

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

And of course, my country just split the difference and called the main party of the left the Socialist Workers' party

A certain Adolf Hitler also called his party a "Socialist Workers Party" but as we all know his party had nothing to do with socialism or labour politics

I would say that the "National" and the "German" part that you just omitted from that party's name are... ahem... very relevant.

[CumbrianLefty]

The question has already been answered pretty thoroughly, but I just want to quip my greetings from the country that has no labour/social democratic/socialist party because the original Italian Socialist Party imploded after Mani pulite and dissolved in 1994.

There was a pre-1994 Social Democratic Party too, of course.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The question has already been answered pretty thoroughly, but I just want to quip my greetings from the country that has no labour/social democratic/socialist party because the original Italian Socialist Party imploded after Mani pulite and dissolved in 1994.

There was a pre-1994 Social Democratic Party too, of course.

Yeah, which was a split from the Socialist Party.
However it was pretty tiny and, well, it dissolved around 1994 too.

[gerritcole]

India and Pakistan do not have either

[CumbrianLefty]

Though of course India used to have a very powerful Communist party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

British Socialism was more influence by unions and less with Marxist teaching. A lot of battles were very focused on labour relations and less with grand political planning.
The SPD formed in 1875 was more influential with continental Europe and socialists educated in continental universities than Labour.

British Socialism was always a bit different than the continental version, more openness to religion, less Marxism, greater emphasis on localised struggles etc.

It's quite an irony that Karl Marx published his work in London in 1848, and there were suddenly revolutions all across Europe except for in the UK.

[DaWN]

British Socialism was more influence by unions and less with Marxist teaching. A lot of battles were very focused on labour relations and less with grand political planning.
The SPD formed in 1875 was more influential with continental Europe and socialists educated in continental universities than Labour.

British Socialism was always a bit different than the continental version, more openness to religion, less Marxism, greater emphasis on localised struggles etc.

It's quite an irony that Karl Marx published his work in London in 1848, and there were suddenly revolutions all across Europe except for in the UK.

I've always privately theorised this was partially because of the weather. Who wants to go to all the trouble of planning a revolution and then it turns out its raining on the big day?

[Hnv1]

British Socialism was more influence by unions and less with Marxist teaching. A lot of battles were very focused on labour relations and less with grand political planning.
The SPD formed in 1875 was more influential with continental Europe and socialists educated in continental universities than Labour.

British Socialism was always a bit different than the continental version, more openness to religion, less Marxism, greater emphasis on localised struggles etc.

It's quite an irony that Karl Marx published his work in London in 1848, and there were suddenly revolutions all across Europe except for in the UK.

The revolutions of 1848 were hardly proletariat, and Britain at the time had a more open parliamentary system than most of Europe.
One could even compare the intellectual environment of the UK in the 19th century that were more influenced by science and evolution (like Spencer), than the systematic philosophies of Hegel and Kant that still dominated intellectual life on the continent.

I find it ironic that when a party has both labour/worker and Socialist in its name it moves to the far left, it’s like Labour to the power of Socialist = Trotskyism

[Samof94]

There’s of course the United States, which has neither. I imagine that a lot of the same traits also apply to other English speaking countries but to a lesser extent.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well in the UK the last great Chartist agitation was in 1848, and it worried the authorities at the time.

[parochial boy]

British Socialism was more influence by unions and less with Marxist teaching. A lot of battles were very focused on labour relations and less with grand political planning.
The SPD formed in 1875 was more influential with continental Europe and socialists educated in continental universities than Labour.

British Socialism was always a bit different than the continental version, more openness to religion, less Marxism, greater emphasis on localised struggles etc.

It's quite an irony that Karl Marx published his work in London in 1848, and there were suddenly revolutions all across Europe except for in the UK.

The revolutions of 1848 were hardly proletariat, and Britain at the time had a more open parliamentary system than most of Europe.
One could even compare the intellectual environment of the UK in the 19th century that were more influenced by science and evolution (like Spencer), than the systematic philosophies of Hegel and Kant that still dominated intellectual life on the continent.

I find it ironic that when a party has both labour/worker and Socialist in its name it moves to the far left, it’s like Labour to the power of Socialist = Trotskyism

Notorious Trotskyite parties... the Spanish PSOE and Swedish SAP?

[buritobr]

Marx lived in England in the second half of his life because the police was searching him in France and in the German kingdons.
Revolutions take place in more authoritarian states.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

I assume that's because of the labour movements that started in Britain and its colonies in the late 19th century due to the industrial revolution. Social democratic parties back then all have labour or workers labels in their names, but in some European countries the labour/workers labels were drooped, with examples like the Danish, German and Finnish social democratic parties. Commonwealth countries kept the labour/workers label, although the Swedish and Spanish social democratic parties still run with labour/workers labels.

Plus there's Norway and the Netherlands.

AIUI, the post-war founders of the PvdA seem to have considered the UK Labour Party their model.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Before the twin cataclysms of 1914 and 1917 shattered the international Socialist movement forever, 'Social Democrat' had a very specific definition: it meant Marxist. Most of the parties so named were founded before 1914, and were Marxist parties modeled on the SPD. After 1917 the term came to denote those Marxist parties and organisations that chose democracy over than revolution, though some German writers continued to use the old definition; Walter Benjamin did right up until the very end. It only lost its Marxist connotations during the Cold War, when SPD formally renounced Marxism in 1959. These Marxist connotations are why George Orwell coined - or at least popularised - the phrase 'Democratic Socialist' to describe himself and other socialists opposed to the Soviet Union, rather than use the existing term 'Social Democrat': that term had baggage that he did not wish to be associated with.

It also happens that before 1914 the term 'Labour Party' also had a very specific definition: it meant a political party founded with the explicit intention of representing the interests of 'Labour' within a parliamentary system, and usually one with organic links to the trade union movement in the country in question. Specifically, with organic links to the whole of the trade union movement in the country (or with ambitions in that direction), rather than merely those formally committed to some form of socialist politics. This did not mean that Labour Parties could not be Marxist parties as well: both the Norwegian Labour Party and Poale Zion were Marxist organisations, and there was a small Marxist element within the British Labour Party that was particularly influential in and around London.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, which was a split from the Socialist Party.
However it was pretty tiny and, well, it dissolved around 1994 too.

In its last years it was essentially a lobbying group for certain civil service pensioners and had the highest proportion of its parliamentarians locked up when the Deluge hit. Though a case exists that this was still a more dignified fate than Craxism.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yeah, which was a split from the Socialist Party.
However it was pretty tiny and, well, it dissolved around 1994 too.

In its last years it was essentially a lobbying group for certain civil service pensioners and had the highest proportion of its parliamentarians locked up when the Deluge hit. Though a case exists that this was still a more dignified fate than Craxism.

Agreed. The funniest part of it all is how Craxi (and possibly by extension the last PSI) has ended up being revered by the contemporary centre-right.

[CumbrianLefty]

It also happens that before 1914 the term 'Labour Party' also had a very specific definition: it meant a political party founded with the explicit intention of representing the interests of 'Labour' within a parliamentary system, and usually one with organic links to the trade union movement in the country in question. Specifically, with organic links to the whole of the trade union movement in the country (or with ambitions in that direction), rather than merely those formally committed to some form of socialist politics. This did not mean that Labour Parties could not be Marxist parties as well: both the Norwegian Labour Party and Poale Zion were Marxist organisations, and there was a small Marxist element within the British Labour Party that was particularly influential in and around London.

Ah yes, the good old Clause One.

(shame almost everybody describing themselves thus on social media is a complete bellend )