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.