Comparative analysis of Mill's utilitarianism and Marx's socialism

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 4: Right to individual property vs. Communal property

Among the most concrete and directly influential difference between Mill's and Marx's political theories is on how each dealt with the issue of the individual's right to property. The radical difference between the two philosophers stems from the fact that Mill advocated for the right to individual property, while Marx subsisted to the ownership of property, equally distributed by the state.

Mill elucidated on the right of the modern individual to acquire property, going so far as to acknowledge the fact that there may occur an unequal distribution of property among members of the society:

It is known that the bad workmen who form the majority of the operatives in many branches of industry, are decidedly of opinion that bad workmen ought to receive the same wages as good... And they employ a moral police, which occasionally becomes a physical one, to deter skilful workmen from receiving, and employers from giving, a larger remuneration for a more useful service. If the public have any jurisdiction over private concerns, I cannot see that these people are in fault

This passage bears the truth of property ownership and right as concretely exemplified and discussed by Witztum (2005), wherein he clarified how Mill's conceptualization of the right to property is a changed attitude towards labor and human nature in general. In the capitalist social order, modern individuals have the "desire for wealth, the aversion to labor, and the desire for present enjoyment" (273-4). Arguably, this phenomenon in the capitalist society cannot be considered a negative one, since this is a natural event occurrence, a social response to the changing times, wherein the ownership of property and rights made it possible for the modern individual to assume ownership despite mediocre qualifications and standards.

Going back to the earlier cited "Manifesto" text, among the items advocated by Marx under the socialist movement was the 'abolition of land ownership and land rent' and the implementation of centralized authority of the state, which includes, most importantly, the equal distribution of property among members of the civil society. Under Communism, property becomes a necessity rather than a want or human desire, and this is supported by Steedman's (2004) analysis of ownership as defined by Marx, wherein he argued that "[t]here is in fact no common element in things; Being wanted gives them value; and a common relation to money makes them commensurable" (60). Through these distinctions between private and communal property as defined by Mill and Marx, respectively, property and the right to own it has become a multi-faceted issue that are actually arguable on various points -- that is, Mill and Marx argued equally satisfactorily their own political ideologies concerning property.

Conclusion

The preceding sections have enumerated the similarities and differences between Mill's and Marx's respective political theories. Looking into the aspects of ethical freedom, individual welfare, social order of modern society, and ownership and right to property, it can be said that while mainly, Mill and Marx have contradicting and opposing ideologies, there are also issues wherein they are considered similar in thought, especially in issues concerning the individual's welfare in the society and his/her eventual pursuit of ethical freedom in the new capitalist and modern society.