Human Freedom: Mill vs. Marx, Essay Example

Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifest and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty are two seminal, politically-based treatises that describe each author’s personal philosophy regarding how the government should be structured and run. Mill conceptualizes a world in which all individuals are free to do as they please with limited restrictions and minimal government. Freedom within a legitimate government should focus on the greatest good. He contended in On Liberty that individual freedom must be perceived as a “sacrosanct” characteristic, and that there are very limited contingencies in which the state can infringe on human freedom.[1] Karl Marx proffers a different vision of government and human freedom, as he describes the ideology known as communism and how that system should be implemented based on the currency of equality for human freedom. Marx theorized about how society should evolve towards the attainment of true human freedom through various historical stages. Capitalism was an evil but necessary stage in the evolution towards human freedom, one in which the alienation of labor would spawn a revolution that would produce a truly egalitarian society that characterizes communist societies.  While both philosophers proffer varying ideas, Marx concurs to a degree with Mill’s portrayal on liberty that humans should never be oppressed.  However, the two differ in how to go about dismantling structural oppression, as Marx articulates a class-based conception of the world in which the oppression of the proletariat spawns the oppression of other groups for arbitrary purposes, an assertion that Mills eschews. Ultimately, it is clear that Mills possesses a liberal view of human freedom predicated on liberty, while Marx articulated a view filtered through a socioeconomic prism in which equality was the fulcrum of human freedom.

Mill intimates that an ideal society is one in which its citizens are granted a multitude of freedoms, and those freedoms are preserved by the government in place. As a result, he proffers a government structure in which citizens can act as they please as long as they do not harm others or encroach on the individual rights of others. In order to prevent chaos and anarchy, within this paradigm, the government can only impose limitations that prevent people from directly hurting one another, Moreover, human freedom can only be attained if they possess uninhibited freedom of speech, which opens up space for rebuttal and debate.[2] As such, the absolute right to freedom of speech opens up a space for possibilities and all opinions and voices to be heard, which serves to enrich rather than tarnish a society overall. Limiting censorship, rules, and government involvement enables citizens to live their lives to the fullest and pursue a lifestyle they are drawn to and desire. As long as humans do not deprive each other of their own natural rights and liberties or impede people from exercising their rights, then people deserve such latitude and freedoms.[3] From Mill’s perspective, all humans should be autonomous and in charge of themselves, which is why no government involvement is necessary. This form of government, from Mill’s point of view, would be the most efficient and the most liberal and accessible with regards to ideas regarding how people can make the most of their lives and do what is best without the fear of being harmed, silenced, or hindered in their endeavors.

The communist philosophy embraced by Marx puts equality rather than liberty at the core of human freedom, suggesting that the proletariat would eventually lead an insurrection against the bourgeoisie which would eradicate all private property, dissolve the notion of class boundaries, and institute full equality. This distribution of goods and services is based on the notion of equity.[4] The central mission of communism from Marx’s point of view is to organize members of the proletariat into a unitary group that retained the capacity to overthrow the oppressive government responsible for the stringent bifurcation  wrought by capitalism in order to put into a place a far more equal society. Marx’s Manifesto thus presents a way to structure, organize, and lay out a plan that would ensure equality would permeate and thus grant individuals in society true human freedom. Marx contends that the bourgeois have become far too rich in comparison to their working-class counterparts, and that eradicating the very conception of private property would effectively restore the ideal of fair and equitable distribution that would foment an environment in which human liberty could manifest. This notion forms the foundation of his rationale for the implementation of a communist government in which equality reigned supreme rather than unchecked freedom as promoted by Mill.

Despite differences at the macro level, several of Mill’s principles and Marxists idea are comparable and mesh well together within a matrix of government and philosophical theory. Marx postulates that communism would grant women and children more freedoms because they would not longer be forced to work in squalid conditions and live in poverty. The eradication of private property, and thus class barriers, in theory, would “do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.”[5] This notion of enhancing individual freedom for all aligns with Mill’s desire to expand more freedom to all individuals. The cornerstone idea of Mills’ philosophy is that all individuals should have a right to express their own opinion and the right to free speech regardless of the ideas and opinions are unpopular or offensive. The same intimation is true in Marx’s ideal communist society, as society would remain secular and state-sponsored religion was banned. The tyranny imposed by the elite classes must be dismantled in Marx’s point of view, and the government cannot oppress any of its citizens or impose a tyrannical form of rule and government structure in the same vein of Mill’s line of think. However, the notion of tyranny and oppression of citizens is one point of contention between these two seminal philosophers.

Marx expresses his disdain towards tyrannical government, especially those perpetrated by the wealthier classes, yet many people posit that the very idea of overthrowing the government and abolishing the private property of citizens is itself an act of tyranny. The wishes of the elite classes are ignored merely because they do not constitute the majority within that society.[6] This notion of the “tyranny of the majority.” which can be conflated with “social tyranny”, is admonished by Mill because he believes that just because an opinion is held by the majority of an entity or society, that does not mean that it is necessarily correct, moral or helpful.[7] As such, Marx’s scheme for a communist revolution, which entails the upheaval of extant socioeconomic systems in order to attain the equality needed for human freedom, Mill argues that the majority can never impose its will on the minority, which thereby arbitrarily strips the minority of their human freedom that is the natural right for all. As such, Marx embraces a more communal approach to human freedom while Mill steadfastly believes in the prominent role of the individual.

Bibliography

Editorial Board. “End Mass Incarceration Now.” The New York Times. file:///home/chronos/u- 02c710ee7512500a428058227636109084998a5a/Downloads/End%20Mass%20Incarceration%20Now.pdf (Accessed October 14, 2015).

Friedman, R.B. “A New Exploration of Mill’s Essay On Liberty.” Political Studies 14.3(1966): 281-304.

Hampshire-Monk, I. A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers From Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1956.

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Ed. Frederic L. Bender. New York: Norton, 1988.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Ed. Elizabeth Rapaport. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1978.

Rees, J.C. “A Re-Reading of Mill On Liberty.” Political Studies 8.2(1960): 113-119.

Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. United States: W&W Norton Company, 2011.

Strasser, M. Mill and Marx: Individual Liberty and the Roads to Freedom. Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 1991.

[1] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Indianapolis: Hackett Publisher, 1978).

[2]Ibid, 7.

[3]Ibid, 6.

[4]Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (United States: W&W Norton Company, 2011). 39.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid, 3.

[7]Mill, On Liberty, 4.