John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx are undoubtedly two of the most influential political theorists of the 19th Century. Although they lived in the same time period and spent the majority of their adult professional careers living in a quickly liberalizing Western Europe, Mill and Marx offer a stark contrast in their critiques of society. Karl Marx’s main idea from The Communist Manifesto is for the proletariat to organize and overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie, and in this sense, Mill would disagree with Marx, for as he writes in On Liberty, just because the majority of the population holds a certain opinion, that opinion isn’t necessarily right. Mill calls this the “tyranny of the majority”, referring to popular opinion ignoring the rights …show more content…
Additionally, I will argue that Mill’s keystone idea that every person be afforded free speech and the right to their own opinion, no matter how unpopular, is similar to the principles of Marx’s ideal communist society, where there would be no state-sponsored religion. Mill’s argument for greater civil and societal liberties for all citizens throughout his essay, On Liberty, would undoubtedly lend great credit to his hypothetical support of Marxist theory. In his Communist Manifesto, Marx urges the proletariat to rise up in revolution against the bourgeoisie. In this sense, Mill would likely disagree with the premise of Marxist theory, as he is far from a revolutionist. That said, Mill would support some of the underlying arguments put forth by Marx as they push for greater liberties amongst historically marginalized members of society. One of Marx’s critiques of capitalist society is that it has ruined the family dynamic. The “bourgeois family”, based on the growth of capital and with the purpose of private gain has ruined the family relations of the …show more content…
Although Mill and Marx don’t use the same wording for these arguments, religion certainly falls under the realm of freedom of speech and thought. When taking into consideration the era these two philosophers lived in, religion was certainly one of the main ways states restricted the rights of its citizens. Through the outlawing of certain practices, states restricted the liberty and thinking of individuals in order to create a more homogenous society. Marx says that throughout history, social ideas have adjusted to the circumstances presented, but religion has remained unaffected. Religion, and all other “external truths” must be outlawed, Marx says, as it has allowed class antagonisms across all societies, allowing for the exploitation of one religious following by another. Marx refers to the communist uprising as the “most radical rupture with traditional ideas”, and this proposal certainly exemplifies that claim. I don’t think Mill would support the full abolishment of religion, but he would certainly be open to the message Marx is trying to convey here. Given Mill’s main theory that all citizens should be able to do as they choose, as long as they don’t harm anyone, it is difficult to imagine that
He is was total opposite of Metternich. Mill’s “On liberty” essay was about the individual liberty. To Mill’s, the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be accomplished in an enlightened society, in which people are free to partake in their own interests. Thus, Mills stresses the important value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, an educated person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill held this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He emphasizes that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Also, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, and for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully
His ideal society is that of conformists, one where the government controls every aspect of a citizen’s life. For instance, Marx assumes that the only way to diminish the unequal distribution of wealth is to abolish private property and make everything government owned. Under the communist rule, the following measures will be enacted: abolition and confiscation of all property from every person, a graduated income tax, abolition of inheritance rights, the unification of agriculture and manufacturing, free education, eliminating the distinction between urban and rural areas, and forced labor for all citizens; the following industries will be entirely government owned and operated: the economy, communication systems, agriculture, manufacturing, education, military, and basically everything else (Marx 176). His rational behind this is that private property is out of reach from the majority of the current society and the reason for that is because the minority holds control of it; “private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths” (Marx 171). It is obvious that Marx has no assurance for individual freedoms in his ideal society, which is vital component in Mill’s ideology. Mill believes that the government should be as least intrusive as possible when it comes to the running of society. He argues that the best form of government allows the people to act freely, based on their own accord, as long as their actions do not directly harm or infringe upon another persons liberties; “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 6). By allowing for complete individual sovereignty, Mill promotes the general progress of society and the free movement of ideas. Unlike how Marx calls for
Richard Lebow’s analyzed Mill’s arguments sustaining that it can be identified two contrary visions; one arguing for the market on its own and the other for the necessity of a state’s intervention. This classification of two clearly opposed views is also raised by Gide and Rist in the following statement “During the first half of his life, Mill was an individualist who was deeply committed to utilitarianism. During the second half, he was a socialist who remained a champion of individual liberty” (1947, page
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
From the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century major historical events such as the Industrial revolution had occurred. During this period of time Europe was switching into an economy that is focused mostly in the industrial field. From this emerged two social-economic classes, the rich bourgeoisie and the poor proletariats. Furthermore tension brewed from the two groups since the bourgeoisie source of wealth was from the exploitation of the proletariats. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ book The Communist Manifesto responded to the situation and created a vision of an equal communist society. The Communist Manifesto was defined by the abolishment of the bourgeois sovereign rule that followed to a revolution against capitalism
Karl Marx is living in a world he is not happy with, and seems to think that he has the perfect solution. I am a strong believer in his ideas. We are living in a time period with a huge class struggle. The Bourgroise exploits and the proletariat are being exploited. Marx did not like the way this society was and searched for a solution. Marx looked for “universal laws of human behavior that would explain and predict the future course of events" (36). He saw an unavoidable growth and change in society, coming not from the difference in opinions, but in the huge difference of opposing classes. He speaks of his ideal society and how he is going to bring about this utopia in his book The Communist Manifesto. I am going to share with you more on his ideas of this “world-wide revolution” (36) that would put an end to social classes and allow people to live with equal sharing which would result in a harmonious and much peaceful world.
Wright Mill’s, regarding the fact that freedom, wealth, and equality are things that are not properly exercised in the “new society of America”. “We confront there a new kind of social structure, which embodies elements and tendencies of all modern society, but in which they have assumed a more naked and flamboyant prominence”. Essentially Mills is stating that the methods in which we as a society used to interpret politics, economics, etc. cannot be applied anymore due to the fact that modern society has evolved so much. Due to the fact that in modern day, the upper class elites have the largest influence on how essentially all aspects of society are run, it disregards the lower class’s abilities to exercise their rights to freedom and
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto explores class struggles and their resulting revolutions. They first present their theory of class struggle by explaining that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx 14), meaning that history is a repeated class struggle that only ends with a revolution. Marx and Engels’ message in The Communist Manifesto is that it is inevitable for class struggles to result in revolutions, ultimately these revolutions will result in society’s transition to communism.
Born from the revolutions of 1848 throughout Europe, Marxism sought to end the class struggles that were destroying the continent. The solution to the problems of all nations occurred to Marx to be Socialism, a branch that is presently known as Marxism. Under this seemingly “utopian” socioeconomic system, equality was granted to all citizens who were in essence a community of one. “. . . universal free education; arming of the people; a progressive income tax; limitations upon inheritance; state ownership of banks. . .”(Palmer 506). These rights of which constituted Marxism eventually went on to be incorporated in Leninism and modern-day socialism. At least in its beginning, the intent of Marxism and the Communist League were noble towards the goal o...
The second section of The Communist Manifesto is the section in which Karl Marx attempts to offer rebuttals to popular criticisms of his theory of governance. These explanations are based upon the supposition that capitalists cannot make informed observations upon communism as they are unable to look past their capitalist upbringing and that capitalists only seek to exploit others. Though the logic behind these suppositions are flawed, Marx does make some valid points concerning the uprising of the proletariat.
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.