John Stuart Mill versus Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Mill & Karl Marx

Comparative Analysis of the Political and Economic Theories of J.S. Mill and Karl Marx

Nineteenth century marked an unprecedented development of ideologies and schools of thought that paved the way for economic and political progress of human societies. Among the figures considered most prominent in the modern period, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx emerged as two influential political philosophers, promoting their "brand" of economies to describe the nature of capitalism and modern society.

John Stuart Mill was known for his development of the utilitarian movement, wherein capitalism is said to be the resulting effect of this phenomenon that occurred in the modern period. Under Utilitarianism, Mill promoted the idea of assuming individualism in pursuit of happiness, resulting to the concept of rationalism that gave birth to capitalism. Karl Marx, meanwhile, was synonymously identified wit the socialist movement in the midst of a rapidly-individualizing nature of human society under the capitalist economy. Under the socialist, specifically Communist, movement, Marx promoted the idea of achieving an ideal, egalitarian society through the dominant emergence of a proletariat class, occurring after a social revolution.

These core ideas developed by Mill and Marx have created an impact on how modern society viewed and perceived capitalism. When analyzed from the capitalist context, Mill and Marx share similarities and differences in their theories and ideas. The texts that follow outline, discuss, and analyze these points of comparison and contrast in Mill's Utilitarianism and Marx's Socialism. Four (4) main themes are used for the comparative analysis, wherein the first two enumerates their points of similarity, while the other two tackles their points of difference. Points of similarity include the themes of: (a) welfare of the individual as having greater value in the modern-capitalist society, and (b) achievement of ethical freedom through Mill's and Marx's proposed political-economic movements. Points of difference include the following: - individualism vs. socialism, specifically centering on the issue of "alienation," and (d) the right to property vs. The equal distribution of property in society.

Theme 1: Welfare of the individual as having greater value in the modern-capitalist society

Although Mill and Marx were known to subsist to opposing views about the modern capitalist society, they have a point of similarity when the issue of welfare of the individual is discussed. In "On Liberty," Mill expressed the need for an individual to address his/her needs and wants in life. In fact, he focused on this particular point in analyzing modern human society: more than just development and progress, it is the needs and wants of individuals that made capitalist society assume its modern nature.

In effect, by centering on people's desires in life, Mill reflected one characteristic that modern human society is known for: addressing the individual's welfare in the society. Addressing this issue became the core argument for Mill. In the passage that follows, achievement of human desires became an important gauge through which improvement of human society was determined:

Human beings are not like sheep; and even sheep are not undistinguishably alike. A man cannot get a coat or a pair of boots to fit him, unless they are either made to his measure, or he has a whole warehouseful to choose from: and is it easier to fit him with a life than with a coat, or are human beings more like one another in their whole physical and spiritual conformation than in the shape of their feet? If it were only that people have diversities of taste that is reason enough for not attempting to shape them all after one model. But different persons also require different conditions for their spiritual development; and can no more exist healthily in the same moral... The same things which are helps to one person towards the cultivation of his higher nature, are hindrances to another...Such are the differences among human beings in their sources of pleasure, their susceptibilities of pain...that unless there is a corresponding diversity in their modes of life, they neither obtain their fair share of happiness

This passage brings into fore the natural diversity among humans, wherein their differences naturally result to different desires in life. Mill acknowledged this natural diversity as a reality that must be addressed by the new, modern society, since progress and development in the society is signified by the quality of life lived by its people -- which is ultimately determined by the degree of happiness one feels about his/her life.

More than just a fulfillment of one's desires, however, Mill's elucidation was not confined only on this aspect. Further looking into the concept of happiness and liberty in the modern society, Mill's philosophy can be best applied in ensuring the welfare of each individual in the society, that is, the collective welfare of all members of the society. Liberty is signified by the ability of individuals to recognize their capacities to participate in public activities and forums, and fulfill their duties as members of the civil society. In effect, "[t]here is equality among citizens, all of whom have the capacity to deliberate on public matters" (Urbinati, 2002:345).

Marx's conception of individual welfare is similar to Mill's in that he also took into account not only the individual as s/he relates to civil society, but also the role of the individual as a member of this civil society (i.e., the individual as the civil society). While Mill equated individual welfare with the successful pursuit of one's happiness in both the personal and public realms, Marx synonymously associated individual welfare with specific determinants, which are actually characteristics of a socialist community. Some of the most important and relevant characteristics are identified as follows: (1) abolition of property, application of land rent for public purposes; (2) centralization of authority (governed by the State); (3) "equal liability of all to labour" [sic]; (4) combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries; and (5) free, public education.

Addressing and accomplishing these characteristics of a socialist state would result to the desired social revolutionary change in the modern society. It is through these efforts that individual welfare will be rightfully addressed and achieved, ultimately helping the individual to pursue a justifiably satisfying life. It cannot be said that these characteristics lead to the individual's pursuit of happiness, since Marx, instead, assumed that an ideal society would be an egalitarian society.

What these characteristics highlight is the achievement of an "unalienated, cooperative, and creative" society in the period of modernism, a society composed of the "free human" (Lovell, 2004:638). In Marxian terms, individual welfare is the achievement of basic human needs and similarly with Mill, the realization of one's role and importance in his/her participation in the endeavors of the society (such as participation in the workforce and compliance to a centralized authority).

Theme 2: Realization and achievement of Ethical Freedom

The concept of ethical freedom is mainly characterized as the desire of the individual to be economically, politically, and spiritually independent; thus his/her actions are guided by these objectives in mind. This was the reality that both Mill and Marx believed to be driving people towards their chosen courses of action in life. For Mill, competition and rationalization of modern society was developed because there was a need for the modern individual to become independent in all aspects of his/her life, which is consistent with the individualist character of capitalism. Marx also subsisted to this belief, since it would be the individual's desire to have better living conditions -- primarily, to become economically independent -- that would also drive the proletariats to seek a social revolution to abolish the class system in the society.

Mill exemplified the modern individual's pursuit for ethical freedom through the changes occurring in different Churches during his time. In a period wherein individualism was creating a stronghold as religious belief in Western society, there had been a 'culture of tolerance,' wherein society has begun to acknowledge the existence of more than one religious philosophy. In so doing, Mill observed that "the rights of the individual against society have been asserted on broad grounds of principle...have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief." In this sense, he was highlighting how the increased tolerance for different and conflicting religious beliefs can be considered an 'assertion of freedom of conscience,' an act that contributed to the general concept of ethical freedom in the context of modern society.

However, this discussion of ethical freedom is only applicable in societies wherein the level of economy and technology is considered comparable to other advanced societies. Stafford (2004) clarified that for Mill, tolerance to different and opposing ideologies in the society will only be applicable to societies which have developed "mental and moral characteristics" (171). Unless these ethical components have been changed to adapt to the new modern society, such developments in the thinking of modern individuals have yet to occur.

The socialist movement promoted by Marx centered primarily on a comparison of life before and after the abolishment of the class system -- specifically, the bourgeois class. Mill talked of ethical freedom in terms of all areas wherein individual and society interacts and become involved with each other; Marx utilized the same viewpoint, although specified it in terms of proletarian-bourgeoisie relations.

For Marx, ethical freedom is self-realization within the individual, and primary in this realization was the acknowledgment that one needs to be economically independent in order for modern individuals, and society in general, to function progressively. Ethical freedom is said to have been achieved if there will develop a new social order, identified as the "industrial proletariat," described to be the modern individuals, belonging to the previously identified proletariat class, who embodies "fresh moral and political idea, but one rooted in the world of material reality" (Morgan, 2005:392). In concrete Marxian terms, self-realization is an event that will occur only once the following elements have been abolished, as cited in "The Communist Manifesto": "representative government, bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose..." This event, once it occurs, will lead to the development of a new social order, wherein the class system will no longer exist, for there will no longer be class stratification against the proletariat, in favor of the bourgeois class. What will exist in the new social order is the industrial proletariat, incorporating all modern individuals who experienced renewal and self-realizations -- that is, individuals who have achieved the longed-for ethical freedom.

Theme 3: Individualism vs. Socialism: Nature of 'alienation' in modern society

One of the main differences cited between Mill and Marx was their conceptualization of the nature of modern society, as it should be in the capitalist economic system. Mill advocated for individualism as the most ideal characteristic of modern society, primarily because this was what occurred that made capitalism a success in the modern period (19th to 20th centuries). Marx opposed the view that individualism should be pursued, and advocated for socialism instead, which he thought and felt to be the most appropriate response to the problem of alienation and suffering of the working class in the modern capitalist society.

Indeed, these opposing viewpoints on the nature of society centers on the idea of alienation, as applied in the capitalist economic system. Alienation was conceptualized by Marx to describe the condition of the working class in the capitalist society, wherein the individual experiences not self-realization, but the feeling that his/her work was inappropriate and limiting to his/her needs and desires as an individual. In effect, alienation results to the feeling of dissatisfaction most likely to occur if the living conditions in the society are antagonistic and oppressive.

The point of departure between Mill and Marx was not merely their belief in individualism and socialism, respectively, but on their conceptualizations of alienation in the context of capitalism. For Mill, alienation is but a natural consequence in a social order wherein competition and rationalization dominates over collectivism in the society. This was the state of society in the 19th century onwards, since humanity has become preoccupied in achieving progress through the discovery of authentic knowledge -- of the "truth," which can be achieved through empirical methods:

It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error...Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error...The real advantage which truth has, consist in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it...until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it.

It is in the pursuit of authentic knowledge and the truth that alienation becomes an accepted state among modern individuals. This is because alienation reflects the notion of competition in capitalism. In addition to this, alienation can also lead to an improvement in the quality of life, "opportunities for self-expression," which Brennan (2005) considered "are worth the cost." Further, alienation can be beneficial in a society that is predominantly not only in pursuit of happiness, but also of knowledge and truth, since alienation gives a "feeling of distinctness from one's environment, especially social environment, a distinctness that makes that environment unintelligible" (490). An individual's alienation is a conducive setting for him/her to pursue truth and authentic knowledge, since s/he is devoid of external influences that could cloud his/her judgment and thinking in the process.

Alienation for Marx remained to be an antagonistic and oppressive concept that is detrimental mostly to the working class. Marx illustrated alienation as the continued categorization of the working class as the suffering class, as workers become more "alienated" -- that is, segmented from their own society because of limited, even null, economic/material resources. It is then the objective of Communism to promote a socialist social order, as opposed to Mill's favoring of alienation -- in effect, alienation of the individual from the society. Under socialism, the state would actively establish a social order wherein "they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class...They want to improve the condition of every member of the society...Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class..."

Barnett (2005) expressed the objective of socialism in more concrete terms, illustrating this social order as an "idyllic and holistic reintegration of all those elements of human life that had become separated and estranged as a result of the development of industrial manufacture and the heightened division of human labour [sic]" (19). It is in this elucidation that in Marxian terms, alienation is a dysfunction in the society that needs to be abolished, mainly through the abolishment of the class system and the implementation of a new social order in the form of socialism (specifically Communism).