First some reflection on this topic:
Among the many interesting posts in this topic, I see that many people use words without defining them.
Especially names of ideologies (communism, socialism, conservatism) are prone this this kind of usage. Therefore, I will first briefly explain how I view the political ideologies relevant to my political views. Perhaps these definitions can function as a focal point for further discussion? There are by no means complete or exhaustive (Please criticize them).
Ideology:
A set of political ideas which contains a description of the existing order, a vision to how this order should be in the future and how this change should be achieved.
Liberalism:
An ideology which focuses on the freedom and power of the individual. Because the individual is able to reason, he deserves maximum freedom. However, he is also to be held accountable for his situation, since it is his own doing. The emphasis is on negative freedom (absence of barriers to action) and the harm principle (any action is allowed which does not harm others).
Conservatism:
As the name implies, this ideology value tradition for its own sake. Furthermore, where liberalism assumes a good and reasonable human being who is the master of his own future, conservative ideology places emphasis on the shortcomings of man. The people need guidance from their community and authority to be morally good.
Socialism:
Socialism doesn't look at humans as powerful on their own, they are only able to overcome social and economic problems through cooperation. Therefore, socialists emphasize equal cooperation. Leftists strands of socialism also emphasize actual common ownership, while more modest version interpret this common ownership in a moral sense.
My views:
I have come to my views through my upbringing, my education and my reflection. Both my parents are Marxist (for those of you who watch Fox: this is not what you think it is), and I studied Political Science (which had a great deal of political philosophy in it). I would consider myself a moderate socialist. This means that I think many liberals overestimate the power of individuals (and thus their responsibility). An example is a discussion here in the Netherlands with regard to the super high salaries of public sector employees (especially public television). I am against this since I think people should be rewarded for their choices and work, not for their circumstances. Super high wages are suspect, because there is no way a certain person can work 1000x harder then someone else. I'm all for wage differentation, but it should only be used as an incentive to work hard, and as a reward for this harder work.
On the other hand, I disagree with the emphasis many conservative place on a common morality as well as their emphasis on tradition. I do not value tradition in and of itself, which does not mean traditions cannot have value. An example is the Dutch holiday Sinterklaas (the original Santa Clause). Instead of elves, Sinterklass is helped by knechten, which are some kind of slaves who do get paid a bit. Recently, this tradition has been attacked by international organization such as the UN for being racist (the knechten are stereotypical afro-americans which thick lips, black skin, golden earrings and curly hair). I do like this holiday ofcourse (tradition can have value), but that doesn't mean it can't be reinterpreted (Sinterklaas is what we make of it, instead of what our grandparents made of it). I think it would be reasonable to change the status and appearance of his helpers. Make them background neutral or diversified, or just place no emphasis on it anymore.
Finally, another point on which I can agree with socialism is the emphasis placed on cooperation. I think that if I would live in the U.S., I would be a big proponent of ObamaCare and a mandatory insurance. I think that individual freedom is very valuable, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't mean that it is right for the individual to place a huge burden on the society he lives in (by not insuring himself and thus being a burden later on). The individual is indebted to society in some ways as well (he would not be here, not be as smart and capable without what society offered him: a community of cooperation and care). Therefore, I think it is the duty of the individual to take care of himself in such a way, as to be at least of some value to his own community. Please note that within this duty, a lot of freedom remains. He or she can still live his or her life as he wants, even living from welfare if he or she wants. However, I do think that justice has a priority over the good. Which means that each individual vision of the good life is restrained by the vision of the good life others have. I hope that is not too abstract and the preceding examples were concrete enough.
I'm looking forward to a conversation!