The Salisbury Review has harsh words for Singer, calling his foundations “filth” and also for the work of Bentham, dubbing his felicific calculus “crude” (perhaps the strangest insult imaginable for anything so elaborate…)

However they seem to struggle with actually presenting anyreason that their own premise is correct. It is true that “human exceptionism” is what they base their ethical code around. But has it entirely passed them by that their ideology could be rotten the core?

The answer to this would seem to be an unfortunate negative, which is a great pity. I am interested in seeing this matter debated and this promising article is a distinct failure, simply asserting their core assumptions firmly and doing nothing at all to fend off the attacks made. Indeed, it serves solely to demonstrate quite how devastating Singer and Bentham’s thought is to their viewpoint, with the absence of any adequete engagement perhaps acting as implicit admittance that they are incapable of self-defence.

In the entire paragraph in which they attempt to describe what “Humans are…” they demonstrate an immense ignorance of Singer’s work, which even with the very light reading which I have done personally I can detect. Singer attacks humanism at its weakest point: not all humans share the capabilities which are the norm.

If it is do to a certain set of traits rather than the inherency of humanity then those humans who lack those traits (those suffering from severest defect of or damage to the brain) are no longer human. If it is only our “advanced facility with language enables”, our “‘I’-thoughts, ‘you’-thoughts, ‘he’, ’she’, ‘we’ and ‘they’-thoughts” then how can those humans lacking these capacities truly be considered “us” at all?

This issue is not addressed by the Salisbury editorial, and this is immensely telling. They worsen affairs by remarking in passing that rights given to animals would be ones “which animals cannot defend themselves”. This is the case of with children and the infirm as much as it is with a bull or parakeet. I see very little heft behind this observation.

Having made a major attack upon a minor remark perhaps I should offer one of my own as a closer: if the argument that “Other animals, even our closest relatives, are incapable of doing these things” in reference to a list that includes the word “Sing” is made entirely in earnest then I (nocturnalist though I am) would advocate that the Salisbury Review’s editors start getting out of bed earlier.

Inspiration for these has, by now, deserted me. So, the only successful poem I’ve ever written instead:

A tree;
It be.

So there.

It truly does take an extensive effort to create the impression of being more interested about matters concerning sexuality and genitals than I am. From around March 2006 until the tail end of last year I was immersed in an trans-Atlantic effort to convince American mothers-to-be not to circumcise their healthy newborn boys. This was on the sound grounds of subjective decisions being best made by the subject and the fact that removing erogenous zones tends to decrease pleasure, but despite this solid logical foundation the matter proved considerably time consuming. Debates with advocates of “Parental choice” (as opposed to “Personal choice”) could be persistent drains of my time, frequently leaving little spare. It is quite a challenging task to exceed me along this front, then; but William Saletan is unquestionably one of the few men up to the task.

Seemingly endlessly fascinated with matters ranging from why parents should talk to their children about anal sex instead of oral and his bafflement about other sections of the media not being as interested over the matter as he is to the legal impact and importance of pornographic hypocrisy he seemingly rarely lays finger to key on another topic. And his seemingly indefatigable energies have led him to write an endless torrent of articles on the matter for years. Thus it was not entirely a surprise to observe that he had been given the task of writing about the birth of a child to a man. The results are perhaps not entirely tasteful, but certainly succeed in rousing further an issue kicking around in my head since the Liberal Conspiracy “Blogger’s Summit” (the pretentious absurdity of that title still threatens to overwhelm me…)

I was directed towards this series by Deborah Cameron, one of the writers cited, during her talk at Marxism 2008. It is perhaps the antithesis of the pieces written by Saletan late last year, on one of the few occasions he was able to drag his attention away from what lay between the humanity’s legs. Unfortunately in considering instead what coated their bodies he improved precious little, stating the case for inherent racial difference of intellect in a manner that at least partially relied upon the “research” of a notorious racist who’s dedication meant he pursued methods best understated as of sub-optimum scientific worth. Amongst them were comparing the brain size of the average “negro” to his penis.

In this, however, the rare argument is made that, despite the fathomless ocean of anecdote and entire self-help sub-genre dedicated to explicitly and solely outlining these differences between the two factions and then proclaiming them inherent and immutable, women and men are not really so different, after all.

That there is sound evidence to support this case is demonstrated by the fact that this is effectively six solid pages on constant references, links and explanations to and of scientific studies conducted in a reliable fashion. The importance of placing our faith in the scientific method rather than precise but limited annecdote is made finest by Cameron, who provides her own annecdotal tale of her father; who presumed females to be poor drivers and thus saw as much, earnestly surprised when she pointed out the many examples she noted of women driving just fine or men poorly.

More substantially during her talk at Marxism she outlined a study conducted where judges were made to listen to recordings of audio footage from standard conversations, then interviewed about them. The reaction of the subjects was to state that of the speakers the females had used the phrase “Like” in the context of informal quasi-Dadaist slang far more frequently than the males. In reality there was no difference. The cause of this is preconception: the judges imagined a female speaker using the phrase “Like” and their perceptions were scewed accordingly. This demonstrates the fallibility of informal observation of existence for gender disparrities: culture may succeed in shaping our prejudices more than it does in shaping our behaviour.

Furthermore it is valuable remembering firstly that the different treatment of the sexes begins before gender differences arise (babies dressed in blue will receive different treatment from nurses to those in pink) and secondly that while instances of culture impacting upon behaviour are clear and well understood the theories proposed by advocates of inherency are often based around ambiguous and sparse data (our knowledge about hormones, for example, is not nearly substantial enough to support the claims made in relation to behaviour). Especially given that differences in behaviour tend to be greater within genders than between them and the exact nature of the distinction varies widely across societies it seems inevitable that it must be accepted gender is a cultural construct rather than something that comes attached fully and indivisibly to sex and results in ready-conditioned newborn girls and boys that require “appropriate” treatment.

Considerable forces both in media and publishing, however, are unwilling to travel down this course of reasoning. This could be a matter of profit: with a society seeking reassurance that its fundamental components are still valid the provision of empty promises of inherency certainly sell well enough to sustain the aforementioned sub-genre. However I suspect that at least some of the defenders of the ineluctable gender binary are neither earnestly deluded dupes or profit seeking characters, but instead those willing to accept unsubstantiated arguments for fear of the alternative.

Perhaps then it is valuable to outline it: gender is a concept rather than an inherent outcome. Insofar as the differences between the genders are not imagined they are exagerrated and with or without this there is no evidence of inevitability. Accordingly gender is a creation of culture, one of the grandest memes rather than something largely biological in origin. This is not a position which should be underestimated: any idea which has such a substantial portion of the population in its thrall is clearly not to be underestimated and is sure to be thoroughly entrenched. But it leaves it susceptible to overturning in a fashion which limitations such as the inability for unaided flight can not be. Quite simply if gender is an idea, all it would take to put its power to an end would be for this to be realised and for it to be agreed that it is a bad idea.

This makes it perhaps understandable that such a determined effort would be offered by those reactionaries who have aligned themself in the defence of difference to describe the distinction of gender as innate and bound tightly to sex. If people are unclear where gender ends and sex begins or, better yet, consider the two terms to be interchangeable then they will find it impossible to evaluate whether the ideas which they permit bind them are wisdom or folly.

A concept central to the argument against this is interestingly one which was also relied upon by the early anarchists in their understanding of human nature: plasticity. The human mind, it is proposed, is set neither one way or the other but arrives unbiased and is largely an impression of what has been in contact with it. To the anarchists this allowed for an argument that those minds which were accustomed to living beneath hierarchy and under capitalism could adjust to life outside these confines with enhancement rather than simply continuing to act as they had done previously, but with less restraint. Instead a different environment would elicit a different response.

Although flawed in other ways Anarchy has provided a view of humanity which is broadly correct: although not decided entirely by their surroundings, as the Marxists would argue, minds alter depending upon their condition. In a society where throughout lives roles, modes of behaviour, patterns of speech and even colours are declared as belonging either to one faction or the other it is natural that the division along these boundaries shall become largely self-enforced. In this context being raised as one gender rather than (and frequently in contrast to) another results in the anticipated role, garb and other assorted defining features often being conformed to, an unpleasant set of consequences including the pay gap, the grade gap and cultural practices of the sort I tried to help wipe out. The mind was originally not set in any fashion; but after the conditions became clear the outcome was appropriate to the surroundings, which are gender dominated. This does not make it desirable and is not remarkable: indeed it is, if anything, notable that there is not a stronger bond amongst much of humanity to their assigned position.

To the extent that humanity is thus confined it is also unsurprising that where the unwritten gender laws (unwritten, perhaps, apart from recently in texts bearing the title template of Why women can’t X and men can’t Y and in antiquated Victorian etiquette texts) are not enforced upon the self there are other forces willing to ensure that it is by someone. When what effectively amounts to an ideology is mistaken for biology the consequence is naturally those who dissent, with the consequence being that the very flimsiness of the concept’s authority requires irrational responses in order to safeguard it. As “nature” is less thorough than genderists imagined they must enforce its laws with their own efforts or else realise it for the sham it is. These guardians are in no short supply: from the state-backed thugs beating women into burkas on the streets of Saudi Arabia to the unpaid but equally eager gentleman that recently set upon a young goth for wearing eyeliner and killed his girlfriend when she attempted to defend him. Pettier examples are rife, often more snide than vicious. I do not doubt that the vast majority of gender defenders deplore such tactics, but punishment is vital for such a system to remain in place; as well as an inevitable consequence of its existence: for as long as there is defiance of an idea its weakness will be apparent and those who’s reality demands its existence to be ironclad will protect it through crushing the deviant.

All the sake of fantasy.

But the very existence of this turbulent insecurity demonstrates the fragility of the concept which they will go so far to protect. If the foundations of the distinctions with which they define themselves were as deeply running as their ideology demands they would have no need to come to their aid. As it is their very efforts serve only to display the absence of substance in the supposed dichotomy.

This is what makes a struggle against the notion so valuable: not only is it not worth the blood spilt over it, not worth the brutal and unjust systems it props up firmly but it can be defeated. Already it has weakened enough to allow women in trousers, the work place and all manner of locations they would previously have been seen as shockingly innappropriate for. Already a man born a woman has given birth. Further triumphs are easily within reach and ultimately the entire rotten edifice is within fortune’s reach of receiving the tearing down it richly deserves.

After my post on Pragmatic Socialism the second in my series on homebrew ideology deals with a clash of philosophy and political in a hopefully none too contradictory cocktail.

Deterministic liberalism is my effort to reconcile the only rational way of understanding human behaviour and the political philosophy which states that they should be protected from oppression. Determinism is little more than a rejection of sapient exceptionalism, which states that as we are aware of ourselves we are in control of the mechanism which makes our decisions. This is a void viewpoint as simply getting a glimpse of the inner workings of our minds does not allow us to influence the eventual outcome or render us their masters. A slave who appreciates the mechanism of a lock remains in chains. Like all other events a thought is a consequence and all choices made are entirely based on thoughts, meaning that the extent to which anyone can truly possess autonomy is nil. When approaching a set of options that which you opt for is decided upon both by the values and views placed into your mind by culture or by the inherent nature of your mind. The dispute over which of these holds primacy is vicious but irrelevant: irrespective of which dominates neither can be chosen by us. As such the conclusions we reach are not within our control but instead simply more consequences of factors beyond our control.

For an extreme example, consider the 7/7 bombers. There are three schools of thought concerning them, all of which support determinism. There are those than consider it to be a consequence of them being Muslims, those that consider it to be a consequence of the Iraq War and those that consider it to be a consequence of them being “Evil” people. If it was Islam then had they been born into families other than Islamic ones the event would not have occurred, this was not decided by them and thus they are not in charge of the order of events. If the Iraq War was to blame then they were, again, beyond controlling the situation as they were not members of parliament. If they were inherently misanthropes and would simply have found another cause to support their loathing for those around them, which was inherent within them, then again they did not select their disdainful state for all humanity, or at least western society. They are not to blame for their views as they were a consequence of upbringing, their surroundings and what form of personality they were born with.

Opponents of this basic fact cite “Free Will”, some mystical force of unknown origin that somehow exists despite a lack of any and all evidence, which we must trust in and base our worldview around irrespective of the tautology that holds our acceptance of it in place. We are to presume that somehow the fact that who were are is not decided by us, and neither is who we want to be, can be disregarded in favour of some fantastical energy that provides an input beyond conventional factors.

This is a nonsense, yet many philosophies depend upon it.

My wariness of the dependence upon this philosophy is the cause for my rejection of libertarianism, a philosophy with which I enjoyed an extended flirtation. Libertarians would argue despite the evidence that the actual brain structure of children who received stable love and attention differs from those that did not we should treat the two as precisely the same, assume that somehow the magic of “Free Will” renders both exactly identical, despite the physically observable disparities within their very cranial contents. Effectively this consists of a rejection of rationality, an ascendency of ideology over empiricism. Unsurprisingly the modern right suffers from much the same error, for in order to protect their longing for punishment they must shroud themselves in ignorance and evade true understanding of those they wish flogged and hanged. Or of any humans at all.

So let us settle upon liberalism, which suffers as well but to a lesser extent. This is due to its opposition to tyranny. The determinist argument against tyranny is obvious: the infamous Milgram electrocution experiment displays the tendency for humans given unrestrained power and mild encouragement from an authority figure to inflict all harm that is requested of them, indeed to the extent of inflicting fatal injury to another via excruciating pain. A similar finding was made in the Stanford Prison Experiment, where a group of young men given control over another quickly morphed from standard students to scheming totalitarian sociopath sadists. Indeed, even the experimental social psychologist in control of the experiment lost himself in total immersion to his role as guard. It is obvious from such studies that as a factor the influence of power upon humans is a malign one which leads to abuses and suffering. Thus it is a matter of ease to reconcile the wariness of liberals of the unrestrained state with the solely deterministic understanding of the corrosive influence of might on ethics.

It must be stressed at this stage that determinism and fatalism are far from the same view: a determinist accepts that those decisions he perceives himself making are beyond his control and need not be influenced by this understanding while a fatalist deems the inevitability as a mandate for apathy. The latter is not valid: humans are still perfectly capable of making actions that act as factors for the decisions of others, for better or worse. Although you are incapable of how you behave you may exert a positive influence on others. More importantly determinism does not lead inevitably to nihilism, nor are the two even mutually supportive: if we are trapped within a chain of cause and effect this means that the sense of agape that leads a person to work in a soup kitchen is much the same as the gravity which leads a rock rolling down a hill. If something internal to the mind is at times as powerful, if not more so, as the very force which holds the Universe together then what can this do save empower the sense of human importance?

So what values should the state support? Freedom, comes the traditional response, but to that I would add pleasure. This is what all humans seek in their own ways, be it through attempting to reach one paradise or another or endeavouring to earn enough to become secure and devoid of worry, to differing levels of success but invariably utterly intractably. However the best way in which the state can assist people in producing pleasure is to allow them support for their basic rights and requirements, reduce levels of inequality and then leave them to their own devices. To state that the purpose of the state is to protect and promote pleasure is not to say that it should have a more active role in people’s lives, indeed it seems that many find such intrusion immensely unpleasurable. Therefore a utilitarian approach to government and a restrained one fit hand-in-glove instead of contradicting each other. Although worth raising as an academic point the actual influence that this will have upon the role of liberal government in application is limited.

So what is its role? As I have already shown the influence of raw power upon humanity is invariably deleterious. The benign is diminished and all flaws amplified, damage invariably done and suffering caused to those beneath the wielder, often to those that wield as well. Humans are controlled by factors as much as any other physical being and the factor of power is a firmly negative one. The role of the state is to ensure that all such forms of oppression are smashed. This is a broader role than it might seem: a vastly wealthy plutocrat hoarding billions is denying the starving food, a mugger in a grimy alley is exerting unearned authority with the edge of his flip-knife, a social worker pulling apart families for superfluous reasons is using the secrecy intended to protect families and authority empowered to protect to harm them, a company suing the families of teens into financial oblivion for downloading nursery rhymes is blighting lives in defence of outdated understandings of property and causing vast suffering to emerge from a crime that has caused next to none. All of these are targets for the liberal state, all of them must be stripped of their ill-gotten might and all of them are, in their own way, tyrants.

To destroy tyranny is the only reason that liberals have accepted the validity of the state as an edifice. The engines of the state are present purely to crush injustice. Without a government there would doubtless be warlords and local dictators to take its place, thus the institution is required. This seems valid but more must be added: whereas classical liberals deem it not the duty of the government to assist citizens from natural woe, an ethos which seems to have initially dominated in response to Hurricane Katrina, but to my view this is an overly narrow understanding of the remit of protecting freedom. If humans are vulnerable to their surroundings and constantly at risk of destruction by forces other than human then they are not truly free. Simply because they are enslaved by cosmological forces rather than capitalist ones does not render them any closer to liberation. Humans are physical beings and work through methods far more complex but not dissimilar to the tides, winds and heat waves. Without the state all the basic infrastructure required to live modern existence would collapse and disintegrate and in much the same way that it is expected to maintain railways and roads it should be expected to protect them from plague and starvation. Ideologues argue that this is beyond its role but the consequence of it leaving this to private institutions is vast amounts of suffering.

Worse still it effectively constitutes submission to tyranny: to allow insurance companies to control healthcare is to allowed profiteers form the sole supplier of medication required for a contended life is to ensure access is controlled in a fashion that only those that expand the wealth of those holding shares are to be covered, those being the ones least likely to be treated. This madness is clearly submission to tyranny but no better is allowing the immensely wealthy to wallow in their abundance while humans elsewhere starve and rot. This is to emphasise the importance of the minor freedoms of one group as of far greater importance than the basic needs of another, clearly in violation of liberalism’s grip on equality. Even if we accept the premise that this is indicative only and solely of their “Success” {rather than wealth given by their parents or the fruits of an expensive and exclusive education} determinism shows that their merit is inherent. That they were born able financially does not make them of more worth than those who were not.

The most radical shift in government policy is with regards to justice. Whereas at present the vestiges of the Victorian perspective of “Punishment” remain prominent within our judicial processes determinism rejects entirely the notion of true responsibility, as all actions are inevitable. Instead the reason for the existence of the justice system for a determinist liberal is that the state serve as a factor in promotion of untyrannical conduct. The meaning of this pretentious piece of nonsense is that a mugger belongs in jail not because his misbehaviour must cause him to endure pain but because his behaviour shown a disregard for the sovereignty of others. He has displayed an urge to dominate those around him despite their lack of consent. This can be altered in many cases and all measures should be taken to determine whether this is the case. In most instances criminals are uneducated and disadvantaged and thus manifestations of the state’s previous failures more than inherently malign forces. In many cases poor parenting is a cause of criminality but here, again, it is hardly the fault of the child that it received poor treatment. Although liberalism is inherently wary of the state until a feasible alternative presents itself here it is required.

It is not, however, to be entrusted with the role of institutional cane with which the ill mannered are to be beaten.

Let this not be understood as a “soft” method of dealing with criminals, though. In cases where it seems impossible to redeem behaviour and the tyrannical tendency is either inherent or indelible then it is irresponsible for them to be permitted back into the circulation of society. Perpetual confinement is unpleasant for the individual but in many cases causes a lesser amount of suffering than them being allowed to roam free and force themselves upon those around them would be. If we are to assert rights and liberties as of significance then they must be protected as firmly by the state as from it, especially since that is indeed the only thing that justifies its existence. With murderers the potential for re-offence and the harm caused is so immense that I can not imagine freedom of motion ever being appropriate. They should remain incarcerated purely because the chance of re-offence, no matter how small, outweighs all good done by their release.

A subjective assessment, perhaps. But as they have performed the objective destruction of a subject they can not be trusted amongst others.

As with all that is rational this must be based upon the empirical: only through past form can we establish precedent and thus determine what may occur in the future. People can truly have moments of redemption but we must ensure that the determinist enjoyment of factors does not result in speculative profiles and pre-emptive condemnation. To assume that we can predict a process as intricate as human internal workings simply because we are certain they are standard physical continuations is the height of presumptuousness.

Deterministic Liberalism then is in many ways strikingly radical but the result of this is less invasion of daily existence. The state can act as a factor in the destruction of tyranny, vital for happiness, but must stick to this, where it belongs. The purpose of it is not to create legislation that “Sends out a message”, or to attempt to alter society into a more aesthetically pleasing shape {an admirable aim but one far too vague to cater policy for and far beyond the powers of the most skilled legislator}. It is quite simply there to defend the people from tyranny, in all its guises. The state is required in order to ensure protection of rights and once understood as a grand factor it can be aimed in directions highly beneficial to general happiness while also safeguarding liberty. Indeed the former follows the latter neatly and near inevitably.

There are obvious differences, I know, he would have faced the prospect of either tying himself firmly to the Blairites and losing some of that “New Broom” shine or else aligning himself with Old Labour and losing all of it. Furthermore Brown, unlike Clinton, actually has had a vast amount of experience in high government.

But still…A challenger striking entirely from the blue and decapitating someone who had, for many years, seemed like the unquestionable successor that there was a ubiquitous consensus was beyond challenge? A fresh face leapt for by a party that had seemed unquestionably certain to opt for the politician that had long bided their time and not taken earlier opportunities to make a lunge for the throne, no matter how ripe? A young spark upsetting the order and using charisma and longing for change to upset the order to his own advantage? Sheer momentum devoid of true message defeated by charm and an offer of something else, something completely different?

Surely Milliband can not be so loyal as to have elucted the mildest pangs of regret at his earlier prudence.

Given that I have begun my newly filled profile with a pair of philosophies that I came up with off of the top of my head I consider it appropriate that I define terms and in this series this is exactly what I intend to do. Firstly I shall deal with, as this title suggests, “Pragmatic Socialism”.

On the blog of Catholic wench The Anchoress there is an entire, well filled, category entitled “Socialism doesn’t work”. This struck me as strange and has stayed with me ever since, primarily for the reason that most such phrases do: the obvious lack of validity.

Indeed the only reason that I have been able to embrace socialism is for reasons of the empirical rather than mere ideology. I have no real affection for Marx {his failure to predict the massive ascension of the middle classes and its implications makes him a poor profit} and struggle to consider the rich to be the uniform scum that often inspires ire amongst movement socialists. The only real reason for me accepting socialism is that where it is present it seems to be beneficial to those living under it so long as it is applied correctly.

Indeed my main objection with its present primary challenger, neo-liberalism, is that under it human are sacrificed upon the alter of ideology. They are more concerned with the freedom of markets than sentient beings, an order of priority that I find most unsettling. It seems clear to me that anyone arguing in proposal of “Trickle down economics” or systems similar are effectively staging a denial of reality. The proposal is that if markets are freed then the world will improve for all but it seems obvious to anyone that merely observes the facts that such benefits are only brought as a consequence of exploitation. Some make benefit and the economies improve but there are invariably those who suffer and will not be assisted.

There is a limit to any form of pragmatism. Without an ideal to work from what exactly you opt to do with reality is solely instructed by the outcome which you desire and this is invariably based upon some ideal or other. The reason that I use the term is that I consider socialism to offer results that simply can not be matched in countries that spurn it. Witness the social harmony of the Scandinavians, the vast amounts of death prevented by the nationalisation of Venezuelan oil, the folly of delaying similar treatment to Northern Rock. In these cases, and copious others, there was an alternative but it was not one that was rational, so long as you value human life and happiness. Pragmatic socialism is a term which means nothing more than accepting this as reality and adjusting the policy which you advocate accordingly.

To an extent a pragmatically socialist tendency is present within almost ever British politician: the Conservative Party has accepted an inherently socialist institution, the NHS, and has no plans to abolish it, nor will they in the foreseeable future. In fact they suggest raising its funding and have run firmly on the slogan “Stop Gordon’s NHS tax cuts” in order to attempt to save it. The Liberal Democrats have spurned classical liberalism in doing much the same and are now reliant upon social liberalism to justify what is effectively a concession that socialist policy was correct. In other countries the alternatives make the failings of our system seem next to negligible: when left in the charge of private individuals healthcare reaches those that can afford it rather than those who need it, teenagers die when treatment was both available and advocated by all doctors, those who have a history of cancer and thus are most in need of care of all are denied insurance for that very reason, the rich man striking the poor child in his car is treated firstly and racial riots result. To suggest that this is a superior model to embrace instead of engaging in vigorous reforms of the existing system is to wave aside the tangible in favour of the idealogical imperative.

It is notable that the only reason America does not have levels of AIDS death prevalence comparable to those of Africa is due to a project launched by the UN to distribute retro-virals to all in need. When I confronted an HIV positive defender of privatised healthcare over the issue he used this in defence of the system without failing to recognise the irony of invoking an instance of international socialism, which obtained its funds entirely through taxes upon the contributors.

Here, socialism works.

Neo-liberalism has indeed made great benefits to the economies of the states where it is introduced. However to argue that this makes an open and shut case is to simply disregard reality, once again for the sake of ideological convenience. Firstly the suffering caused to other countries via the exploitation by the globalised market is simply immense. There is certainly an incentive for sweatshop workers to labour for absurdly long hours for a pittance provided by their circumstance but this does not constitute justification for the ruthless exploitation that they have endured, nor does it render the suffering that such working conditions causes them a phantom. The damage done to areas where production jobs has been overstated but remains considerable, thus both on the domestic and international levels such policies cause a considerable degree of harm.

Secondly the error made is to imagine that a towering economy results in a happy populace. It does not and it is clear that neo-liberals have mistaken the anvil for the blacksmith. The reason that economies are valuable is not inherent but in the joy that they bring, yet it seems that the powerhouse economy of England has resulted in people far less happy than the much fiscally weaker Netherlands. So precisely what benefit is created by such policies? Economy to figures, certainly, to the wealthy elite, or at least those not working themselves into an early grave for pure futility. But not to the most, not to the majority. And certainly not ethically. The cheap clothes are from those enduring forced overtime, the cheap chickens and eggs from tight cages. Suffering permeates these conditions and unease reigns. I am not under the impression that ethical qualms leave “Consumers” quaking with remorse, simply that their joy is originated in pain, irrespective of whether they realise and consider this or not.

In a much remarked upon perversion of all that is sane city boys rigged the system to pay less in tax than their cleaners, as if some form of repugnant Randian fantasy had been spat out into reality and come to life.

This creates resentment within society and various varieties of disorder follow. Neo-liberalism brings no joy and only once you accept a free market as an inherent good can this be accepted. The fantasy of free will is often cited by conservatives but, as so often with arguments against socialism, it is based upon false preconceptions, in this instance the notion that people have control over the decisions that they make. In reality choices are formed by who people inherently are and what environment they have lived and developed in, neither of which they have any semblance of control over. Yet somehow the mystical force of true autonomy, for which there is no real evidence for the existence of, is seen as to invalidate the role of the state. This falsehood aside it is clear to those that work from the evidence that socialism improves the rates of crime where it is applied properly, as demonstrated by the distinction between the crime rate of America or Britain as compared to Denmark or Finland.

Unemployment is another issue of note but here, at least, our government made the correct noises. The “New Deal” for the unemployed took glow from Roosevelt, who was amongst most successful progressives of the 20^th century, to try and alter the basic consequences of the present system. It did not receive funding, unlike a vast number of “Private Finance Initiatives”, a euphemism that effectively amounts to the government handing over vast slabs of taxpayer cash to create a hybrid of state and business that works together as well as an Everclear/fairy liquid cocktail. They could, of course, have given the unemployed jobs in the roles that they “Needed” the private sectors help with and paid their wages and training with the money that they would have saved once organisations arranged to maximise profit were removed from the equation but that would have not conformed to the ideology that had partly swallowed, partly birthed. Never mind that it would have made sense.

This aversion towards rational solutions has led to a wariness of the state that resulted in a raising of Hayek over Hegel. Despite the former’s strong allegations of association with reason it has become blatantly apparent that pure liberalism of this sort will not serve as a solution to the problems that confront the vulnerable. It is true that the number of unemployed present within society are too great and must be reduced by merely slicing the conditions under which those suffering from such conditions, as suggested by the Tories, does precisely nothing to create more jobs. This is the primary cause of the problem: those that seek jobs largely either have none available to them as a consequence of scarcity or else lack the credentials required. Without the state’s assistance neither of these are likely to alter.

The second cause of people lacking employ brings us to the point where every western politician save Ron Paul is a pragmatic socialist: education. That the state will have a role in teaching the young is now a crushingly overwhelming consensus that is effectively unchallenged in mainstream politics. It is true that classical liberals such as Mill considered learning to be of immense value but the system as it stands entails the government providing an education equally funded across the country. Amongst the major flaws is that of the religious being permitted to run fiefdoms within the service, bringing the counter-active force of selection into play and preventing a truly comprehensive system existing.

There are here immense reforms that must be made but it is clear that the only way to rationally approach the problem presented is with the state in provision of the service, at least to the firm majority of children. Where American states have attempted to alter this basic rubric with “Vouchers” they have empowered the companies attempting to profit through education and merely subsidised the rich, leaving the poor scrabbling for the cheapest on offer. This system simply seems to be observed to be dismissed as an alternative.

Once again, socialism works. Socialism is all that works.

In this way we can consider collective solutions to the problems confronting our species, those blights of ignorance, disease and raw boredom, can be addressed adequately with socialism and socialism alone. Only in attachment to the methods rather than the ends, a perverse focus if ever there was one, which has resulted in the “Free Market” being considered an ideal in itself rather than a bridge to joy, can have led to the continued attachment to it. Conservatives rely upon irrational attachment to tradition and their urge to protect the familiar has led them to accept the suffering as an inevitable part of society in much the same way that they accept the absurdity of a monarch. I am under no illusions that all pain can be eliminated but it is clear that in both many developing nations, as demonstrated by the benefit given to the Venezuelan people from distribution of the nation’s wealth amongst the people, or in those that have already developed, as demonstrated by the far superior standard of living within within the Scandinavian exceptions to inhabitants of national neo-liberal projects, great progress can be made and a vast amount of unnecessary agony prevented.

Despite many appalling and unacceptable practices this seems true even in the more autocratic of socialist nations: despite an American embargo Cuba retains a state capable of providing a superior standard of living than the United States. The primary reason that this distinction is apparent between these nations and others, such as Zimbabwe, is that their tyranny is coupled with a far superior system of provision for the people.

This does not justify the foul misdeeds of such regimes but it demonstrates further the successes of socialism, which if purged of such totalitarian elements obviously provides durable and tangible benefits for those who encounter it. The point of this is that all of the basic woes that have plagued humanity are resolved well by socialism and in its application no other has accomplished as much. The form which seems to function best is a fusion of markets and management which prevails in the Nordic states but it is notable that even the French seem happy enough, despite their flailing economy. Socialism has also improved the state of Spain and seems to be doing so throughout the tide of nations throughout South America that have embraced leftist populism. Inequality is rife throughout most nations that have not and inequality is simply code for unnecessary suffering. Unless there is to be seen a higher value than maximum global happiness, and there is little rational support for there being one, this demonstrates that socialism is the most reasonable policy to advance.

Purely because it works.