Posted at 12.28.2018
MARX AND MILL'S VIEWS ON FREEDOM.
This article compares and contrasts Karl Marx and J. S. Mill on their understandings of independence and their analyses of the impediments to its realization. Both Marx and Mill agree that human beings are capable of making progress which the concept of freedom is an end in itself. Thus, they saw freedom as a way to realise specific potential and self-determination. However, both differ on the concept of liberty realisation and the impediments to freedom. Mill argues that the impediment to independence is the masculine world while Marx argues that the impediment to flexibility is the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, the essay discusses the intervention by state/society into freedom. Mill assert that the population can interfere into someone's independence when there is injury done to others. For Mill independence should be exercised so long as there is no injury done to others while Marx facilitates the freedom to overthrow the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, Marx views hold that the federal government/ contemporary society should intervene in individual liberty to avoid personality that brings about private property and therefore creating classes.
Both Marx and Mill see liberty as a finish in itself. Matching to Marx's definition of flexibility, was considered an end in itself. "Only in community has every individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the last substitutes for the city, in the State, etc. personal independence has existed limited to the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling category, in support of insofar as they were people of this school, " Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. For Mill, flexibility of speech, thoughts and opinions and the to affiliate with others, were important for the progress of mankind. Liberty of choice is and do what is desirable as long as no harm is performed to others is an result in itself. As Mill thus say that, ". . . although traditions be both good as traditions. . . yet to comply with custom. . . does not. . . develop. . . individual faculties. . . exercised only in making a selection. " (Mill 60). It is evident that freedom of choice is important to the development of individuality and improvement of the modern culture all together. Thus, freedom is an end in itself, because utilizing individual lead to make alternatives is effective for personal development. Hence, the view that perceives freedom as a finish alone can be related to both Marx and Mill.
On the other hands, there are extensive differences between Mill and Marx perspectives on views regarding liberty. For Mill, freedom is important for the goal of searching for truth and then for reasons to live and then for improvement ( Mill 29). Mill asserts a man must be free to pursue his pleasure and pleasure. Furthermore, Mill in "On Liberty" asserts that each liberty is the paramount chief for the improvement of society. The thoughts and opinions of the individual must be nurtured and permitted to expand so that he may use his resources and skills to profit the society most importantly ( Mill 63). Thus, Mill, can be summarised in On Liberty : "The only real flexibility which deserves the name, is that of seeking our very own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their attempts to acquire it. " An individual has the capability and the power to be creative in a society that recognises that capacity. As well, Mill argues for the flexibility of speech for everyone and that all individual view should be well known irrespective of its content. Mill also argues that independence/liberty is very important to the quest for delight (Mill 29). However, Marx asserts that individuals should not be individualistic and really should not pursue their own interests but should conform to the society's norms. For instance in "FOR THE Jewish Question: Zur Judenfrage, " Marx criticizes the liberal idea of flexibility and argues so it assumes a human being is "an isolated monad" ( Max 364) who pursues his own private pleasure and also attempts to avoid discord with others ( Marx 370). He dispute that an specific cannot be cured separately from society. The average person is part and parcel of society and there is nowhere he/she will operate in isolation without influencing the society all together. Hence, Marx argues that the communist system would make it possible for everyone including children and women to be free as they would not be forced to be employed by the anyone (Marx 72). For Marx, this is liberty. As well, Marx clarifies how "my free activity" transforms itself into "the alienated and inhumane power" with the fetishism of the product. (Marx, 554).
Furthermore, Mill and Marx give you a different point of view on the involvement by status/society into independence. Mill argues that there surely is no justification for interfering in other people's views and thinking. Not the government gets the right to interfere in someone's freedom. Maybe it's argued that this is the building blocks of modern individual freedom. You are free and eligible for your own opinions so long as you don't harm another ( Mill 4). "The reason behind not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with someone's voluntary serves, is thought for his liberty. His voluntary choice is facts that what he so chooses is desirable, or at least endurable, to him, and his good is on the whole best provided for him by allowing him for taking his own method of going after it, " Mill (14). On the other hand, Marx argues that there surely is a dependence on their state to hinder private property so that property possession might be abolished. The federal government must have the right and the means to control the individuals who have private property, in that way forming a perfect communist population. It should be noted that Marx 's quarrels were predicated on the view that capitalism was evil and therefore needed to be replaced by communism. As well, Karl Marx, in For the Jewish Question says that "None of the intended protection under the law of man exceed the egoistic man, man as he is an associate of civil population; that is, a person separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private pursuits and acting in accordance with his private caprice. " Hence, one has to comply with the society's norms. Thus, Marx views counter-argue the view by Mill that the society should respect the average person freedom. Alternatively, Mill warns from the tranny of the majority because sometimes the majority's opinion is not always right. Thus the safety of the individual is more important and have to be shielded.
In addition, Mill's and Marx' views are different on the exercise of independence. Corresponding to Mill, liberty and liberty is having free will and self- determination without being put through invariable rules ( Mill 32). Mill brings that technology and creativity can be achieved in a free of charge environment. Thus, he advocates for a free of charge environment which allows for development and development of new ideas. "Genius can only just breathe openly in anatmosphereof flexibility. Individuals of genius are. . . moreindividual than any other people" ( Mill, 65). Thus, independence of the individual will allow new ideas and result in the improvement of the modern culture all together. Aswell, he argues that the population or the status should not induce people to conform to this norms of the contemporary society and nor intervene in the actions of the individual which donate to the development of the community as a whole. However, Mill acknowledges that the only real time when the federal government or the society has to interfere is when it steps in to stop your harming other folks (Mill 68). Thus, Mill asserts that flexibility should be exercised as long as there is absolutely no harm done to others. Mill, a man's independence has to be protected and permitted to be explored without infringing on other people's freedom. Nevertheless, the training of independence should be inspected.
In addition, Marx argues that the majority of the working course should fight for their freedom and get over the tyranny of the bourgeoisie (Marx 73). This appears to be the views of Mill who argues that the individuals are to have independence and their state, which is within small minority, shouldn't exercise tyranny over them. Mill, on the other hands, argues that the flexibility to unite needs to be done in such a way that there surely is not injury to others. Mill would start to see the discussion of Marx advocating the overthrow and taking the house of the bourgeoisie as harm done to others. Inside the Manifesto, Marx calls for the freedom of the working school to unite and in the long run to revolt resistant to the production owners also called Bourgeoisie (Marx & Engels, 34). The working category will rise for their flexibility. Marx asserts that independence may be accomplished through ideology. If the working course would learn and know the ideology of the bourgeoisie, they might have the ability to develop a counter-top ideology and hence the proletariat would become self-conscious and self-aware and thus be able to deal with and control the method of production (Marx 173. ) Thus, Marx argues that the working class would be freed from alienated labour if indeed they knew the ideology of the bourgeoisie. This is one way the proletariat can beat the exploitation of the bourgeoisie. For Marx, the working school should be united and fight for their specific freedom.
As well, regarding to Marx, flexibility could be achieved if the working category owned the method of production. It can also be looked at that capitalist system dies liberty to the working school in the present day era. For example, even if you desire to have a certain type of work, you are not absolve to choose your boss. On the same point people who controls the means of production hold the flexibility to choose among the list of abundance supply of labour. I'd concur that communism where the means of production is owned or operated by many might have been a good world for mankind. Capitalism denies the independence of choices to many people especially the poor. It lead to some of individual managing all the riches. As well, I'd argue that in the modern era, scheduled to capitalism, most working class people don't have freedom. In the world of today, who owns the method of creation decides which work you are supposed to do however the working category person is not absolve to choose his work and establish his own wages. This may be seen as a lack of freedom as the working school do not have a choice but instead to work under the conditions establish by the grasp. For Marx, the perfect modern culture was communism that offered everyone an opportunity to own something and liberty to majority. Aswell, Marx argues that there surely is a need for contemporary society to interfere to help the average person realise his potential/ self-cultivation. That is so because Marx is convinced that the population should be classless. Marx asserts that classless society is the building blocks of freedom for all because the working school will have vitality in the creation of goods and commodities and hence contain the interest of everyone. If the bourgeois has the method of production the majority of the individuals who are the working class are left out.
Furthermore, Marx asserts that the impediment to freedom is the bourgeoisie. For example, Marx argues that the bourgeoisie controls the means of production, robbing flexibility from the working school by exploiting their labour. The various classes brings about the working school being oppressed. The school of the bourgeoisie infringes upon the independence of the working category in what he message or calls the " class have difficulty" to refer to a predicament where one group comes with an advantage on the other group. This is so because the class that has an advantage will attempt and keep maintaining its status quo and in so doing will establish norms that maintain that class. The working school person has no flexibility in the capitalist world since he depends on the wages of his master. As well, because the laborer does not have any gains to be gained from the production that he doing, he's alienated him from the procedure of the revenue making, which is a violation of his independence. Furthermore, Marx argues that the majority of the working course should fight for their freedom and triumph over the tyranny of the bourgeoisie (Marx 73). This feels like the views of Mill who argues that the citizens are to have independence and the state, which is in small minority, shouldn't exercise tyranny over them. Nevertheless, for Mill, the impediment to independence is the " masculine state, " (Mill, 219). For instance, Mill argues that men control the affairs in public areas life and therefore the ladies are forced to execute the tasks of the private life. This implies that the 1 / 2 of mankind who are women aren't free.
In finish, this article argues that Marx and Mill both share similar understandings of freedom like the possibility of progress in world, the views that carry that freedom can be an end in itself, and the theory that human nature for self-determination must be valued. However, both Marx and Mill go after a different street in their finish of the concept of freedom. As identified above, Mill's discussion argues that masculine is the impediment to liberty. This is so because the majority of the domestic work is performed by women. Marx on the other hands views that the impediment to flexibility is the bourgeoisie. Marx thinks that capitalism is the challenge for freedom and hence advocated for communism. Aswell, Mill advocated for independence without the treatment from anyone or from the state of hawaii as long as their action done will not influence others. Mill also argues resistant to the norms of culture that require the individual to conform. Aswell, he argues that their state shouldn't interfere in the specific`s affairs as this is a violation liberty. Alternatively, Marx shows that the individual can't be segregated from the society. Thus their state can intervene in order to bring the culture together and prevent other folks from acquiring all the wealth. Ultimately Marx's vision of communism is valuable since it is a perspective that allows for the critique of modern-day society. As well, I would in conclusion, I would claim that capitalist system denies the majority freedom. For instance, Even if you desire to truly have a certain type of work, you aren't free to choose your manager. On the same point the folks who control buttons the means of production hold the independence to choose among the list of abundance way to obtain labour. I'd agree that communism in which the means of production is possessed by many might have been a good modern culture for mankind. Capitalism denies the freedom of choices to many people especially the indegent. It lead to a few of individual managing all the riches.
NB: The word independence has been used interchangeably with the term Liberty.
John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty "Broadview Press.
Mill, J. S. 1869 The Subjection of Women.
Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Robert C. Tucker. Ed. "The Marx-Engels Audience. "W W Norton & Co Inc (Np); 2nd Modified edition: March 17, 1978.