The Theory of Socialism According to Marx and Mill
John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx both have made a significant impact on the history of Economics. Mill supported the Capitalist movement that was going on during that time whereas Marx detested Capitalism. Mill, having worked as an administrator at East India Company, comprehended the fact that Capitalism, for the most parts, brought about positive outcome for the society. However, having studied Jeremy Bentham, he was also influenced by the Socialist view of Bentham. He believed that socialism should be integrated with classical liberalism in order for the society to maximize happiness and avoid the opposite. On the other hand, Marx had radical views about Capitalism. He believed Capitalism to be a system where the people sowed the seeds of their own destruction. He argued that the Bourgeois will always rule over the proletariats. Therefore, the thesis of my paper discusses the reasoning of Mill towards favoring Socialism combined with Capitalism, and that of Marx looking at Socialism as a temporary step before the society reaches the highest form of economic order, Communism. I shall discuss this through the two economists� view on labour, wages and capital, profit and private property, government intervention and competition and lastly through their views on �revolution�.
Mill gave a special attention to labour in his analysis of economic conditions. Although he believed in the fundamentals of classical economy that there should be division of labour and that trade was beneficial to the society as a whole, he also pointed out some corrections which show his Socialist side. He recognized the class conflict among the landlords and the rest of society. He believed that labour should be allowed to form unions in order to freely demand higher wages and better rights at work. He believed that working hours should be shorter and promoted universal education. Although Adam Smith had briefly touched on different types of labour, Mill distinctly talked about different types of labour according to their contribution, and introduced a social judgment on the types of labour. For instance, he considered women as a part of the productive labour force. Mill was one of the first Economists to give importance to women. He believed in analyzing long run benefit to the society.
�To community at large, the labour and expense of rearing its infant population form a part of the outlay which is a condition of production, and which is to be replaced with increase from the future produce of their labour.�
Marx�s view of labour is similar to Mill in that he promotes well-being of the working class, which he terms �Proletariat�. Although Marx advocated women�s right by arguing for divorce laws so that the bourgeois could not exploit women, what distinguished Marx from Mill was his extremist view on Labour. �The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed from almost time immemorial.� He believed that the society was divided into two major classes, the bourgeois and the proletariat, and that the proletariat was ruled by bourgeois. He believed the proletariat class to be the forces of production, and the one that ultimately affects the relations of production, which then causes the need for change in the society. He argued that as people form unions or get education in the Capitalist society, it causes changes in forces of production, and hence, this change should be accompanied by a transition to Socialism, and further changes in the orientation of labour would bring the economy into Communist state. Thus under Capitalism, Marx describes necessity of change in labour organization as follows:
�The laborer becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increase in value of the world of things arises in direct proportion the decrease of value of human beings. Labor does not only produce commodities, it produces itself and the laborer as a commodity and in relation to the level at which it produces commodities. The objectification of labor manifests itself so much as a loss of objects, that the laborer is robbed of the most necessary objects, not only to maintain his own life, but even objects to labor with. Indeed, labor itself becomes an object, which only with the greatest effort and with random interruptions can be acquired. Appropriation of objects manifests itself so much as estrangement, that, the more objects the laborer produces, the fewer he can own and so he plunges deeper under the mastery of his product: capital.�
Mill and Marx�s view of wages and capital also distinguishes them. Mill believed that wages depend upon capital and the proportion of population (the number of labouring class ). He believed that the demand and supply of labour determined the wage of the labour. Moreover, his socialist view of wages is clearly stated in the following lines:
�Wages, like other things, may be regulated either by competition or by customs. In this country there are few kinds of labour of which the remuneration would not be lower than it is, if the employer took the full advantage of competition.�
Therefore, one can immediately see that he believes in fundamentals of capitalism by saying that competition is the principal regulator of wages, but custom and individual characters are the modifying circumstances for wage of labor. Moreover, Mill believed wages to remain in the general rate (long run equilibrium) unless there is a change in the amount of capital or the number of labouring force. Therefore, we see that Mill established a direct relation with Wages, and agreed on this theory with Ricardo. In addition to this, he said that capital is the accumulated stock of the products of labor. After discussing such aspects and manifestation of capital, such as fixed versus circulating capital, Mill examined the social forms of production, such as cooperation, combination of labor, production on a small and large scale, and the increase of labor, which results in the increase of capital as well as production.
In contrast to this, Marx viewed wages and capital in an extremist view. He believed that labourers earn the least amount of wage for the amount of work they do. As they become more productive, they get less and less for the amount of work they do. Marx believed that the price of the commodity is composed of wages, rent and surplus profit. He argues that in order for the wages to increase, and the labour to be better off; the rent and surplus profit should also come to working class. The rent and surplus would go to the proletariat only when they were allowed to own the capital. This is his reasoning to promote ownership of capital in the country be controlled by the Proletariat. Therefore, he establishes the relation that labour and capital compliment each-other, and therefore, the capital should be used to create a better life for labourers.
�And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the interest of the capitalist and of the laborer is the same. And in fact, so they are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep him busy. Capital perishes if it does not exploit labor-power, which, in order to exploit, it must buy. The more quickly the capital destined for production � the productive capital � increases, the more prosperous industry is, the more the bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so many more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does the worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of productive capital is, therefore, the indispensable condition for a tolerable life to the laborer.�
Among the proposal of Communist beliefs, Karl Marx and Engels clearly state: �Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.� Once again, Marx seems to claim the formation of unions, or institutions to lobby for increase in wages, and lower the surplus profit for the bourgeois (Mill�s proposal of socialism into capitalism) as a step towards reaching the perfect state. His claim is that once labour forms such unions, all must unite as one to take the capital in the hands of the state, and hence, maximize the happiness for the proletariat. This state, he called, Communism.
We further discuss profit and private property in order to see the different views of Mill and Marx. Mill agreed that property can be owned privately, and that this allows the rent to be lower since the landlords compete among themselves. However, Mill feels that there should be some form of control by the government so that the landlords do not exploit the labourers.
�If private property were adopted, we must presume that it would be accompanied by none of the initial inequalities and injustice which obstruct the beneficial operation of the principle in old society�..�
Mill goes on to talk that even if complete public ownership was appointed in the society, �the division of profit might be either that of complete equality, or of apportionment to the necessities or deserts of individuals, in whatever manner might be conformable to the ideas of justice of policy prevailing in the community.� Therefore, once again, we see that he brings out the idea that how profit is divided in either privatized market or a centralized government depends upon the social ideas, culture, and what is believed to be right by the society. As far as private property is concerned, Mill believes that humans are in control of private property.
�In the social state, in every state except total solitude, any disposal whatever of them can only take place by the consent of society or rather of those dispose of its active force...the distribution of the wealth therefore depends on the laws of the society.�
Mill argues that the methods employed to distribute wealth, and hence decide how much private property is held, is through trial and error. He states that if people are allowed to own private property, then people will have more incentive to work because they would be the owners. He believes that society should be set up in a way that everyone gets to control a certain amount of property, even though not everyone can have equal amounts.
As opposed to this, Marx�s view of profit and private property is extreme. He believes that a Bourgeoisie is nothing but a lazy pig who tries to make profit from the work of the Proletariat. �But does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit.� He, therefore, argues that the surplus amount gained from produce does not go to the labourers who deserve it, but goes to Capitalists who exploit wage labour. Moreover, Marx argued that private property is useless because it only supports Bourgeois. He therefore argues that the concept of private property should not even exist in the society. In fact his proposal as a Communist is �abolition of property in land.�
�You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, 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. You reproach us; therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.�
Therefore, one can almost see that Marx would have considered Mill�s step as anti-thesis on the existing Capitalist society, and ultimately his step as the theory. Therefore, Mill�s Socialism is seen as a step towards Communism by Marx.
The next topics to be discussed are Government Intervention and Competition in order to differentiate the views of Mill and Marx. Mill believed that government intervention and competition were both very important aspect of a fair society. Mill recognized the fact that perfect competition had its flaws. Despite this, he still favored Competition compared to a society where people do not have to compete. He also argued that competition, overall, is for the betterment of the society. This is also one primary area where he directly talks against the extreme Socialists, and points out that although he favors socialism to a certain extent, he would not agree with extremist point in this one.
�But while I agree and sympathize with Socialist in this practical portion of their aims, I utterly dissent from the most conspicuous and vehement part of their teaching, their declamations against competition� They forget, too, that with the exception of competition among labourers, all other competition is for the benefit of the labourers, by cheapening the articles they consume�But if competition has its evils, it prevents greater evils.�
As far as government is concerned, Mill recognizes that there should be limitations as to how much of interference there should be from the government upon a society and a business. He discussed how most people thought the role of the government is to prevent and suppress force and fraud. One can argue, that by mention of force, Mill pointed against Monopoly, and by fraud, he meant that no individual shall do wrong onto another.
�Again, however wide a scope we may allow to the doctrine that individuals are the proper guardians of their own interests, and that government owes nothing to them but to them but to save them from being interfered with by other people, the doctrine can never be applicable to any persons but those who are capable of acting in their own behalf. �Can it make over the interests of one person to the control of another, and be excused from supervision, or from holding the person thus trusted, responsible for the discharge of the trust?�
It is unclear as to what exactly Mill thinks about government intervention, and to what extent he favored such intervention. However, it is clear to us that Mill did indeed support a limited form of intervention.
Marx�s view on Competition and Government Intervention is contrasting to the one of Mill. Competition is a big part of a Capitalist society, and therefore Marx saw it as a hindrance to the ideal society. When humans loose touch with their humane side and are concerned with only earning higher profits, Competition is an excuse they use in order to exploit labour. Competition also made labour wages cheaper. In my opinion, Marx saw a lopsided picture of the economy, and refused to acknowledge that competition made rent cheaper for the labourers as well. He also failed to see labourers as consumers. Marx did, however, agree that competition decreases the profit for the capitalists, and eventually should shift the wealth to the Proletarians.
�The battle of competition is fought by cheapening the commodities. The cheapness of the commodities depends, ceteris paribus, on the production of labour, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitalists beat the smaller.�
According to Marx, the government intervention should be obvious in the society. While Mill believed that government should intervene in a few selected issues in the society, Marx took this socialist view one more step and say that government should provide for those who cannot afford or act. Moreover, Marx seems to give importance to education, minimum wages and other such benefits. As a communist idol he considers this Socialist approach a step towards the goal of a state-ruled society. He also believed in extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state. Therefore, he ultimately says that everything should be state controlled, and then only can everyone be better off in the society.
Lastly, we compare the view of Mill and Marx towards revolution in order to bring out their socialist and communist side respectively. Moreover, we also analyze their thoughts on each other�s philosophy to truly bring about the distinction between these two economists. Mill rejected the idea of revolution. He argued that a revolution is a change of government effected by force, whether it is by a popular revolt or by a military usurpation. Mill, being a socialist, believed that political and economic questions are solved with a maximum agreement among men if they are dealt with in a factual, empirical spirit. Marx, on the other hand, believed that he was constructing a political language which was intended to empower the working class. He believed that it was necessarily for people to act on solidarity, and that force is necessary in order to take over the current system which was suppressive. Thus, �the communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at communist revolution.�
Mill speaks against Communism. He points out the fact that communism was influenced by Socialism, but was taken to an extreme. He points out that when a Communist government promotes equal education for everyone, the work given to all labour would not produce the efficient results.
�A contest, who can do most for the common good, is not the kind of competition which Socialists repudiate. To what extent, therefore, the energy of labour would be diminished by Communism, or whether in the long run it would be diminished at all, must be undecided question.�
Moreover, how would the standards of measuring different kind of labour be decided in the Communist society, and who would do lower work, and who would do the higher work. Who decides that? These are the question Mill raised in opposition to Communism. He said that �communism exists only in ideas.� He also states that compared to the Capitalist society, if communism tries to balance the power, it would be as but �dust in the balance.�
Marx, on the other hand, argued that Socialism existed in different meanings for different classes of the society. It started with �Feudal Socialism�, where the bourgeoisie tried to show that it was good for the society to give power to them from the traditional Landlords or Kings. This gave rise to �Petty-Bourgeois Socialism.� This is where the small peasant proprietors become a class between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Marx argues that both these Socialism has proven fatal to the society. �It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour, and the concentration of capital in a few hands�� Therefore, Marx argued that the true Socialism was that of German Socialist movement, which was eventually led to Communism in the country.
Therefore, in my opinion, Mill�s ideas and theories are clearly a bridge to that of Ricardo, Smith and Marx. Marx was an extremist who believed that Communism should be reached through any medium, precisely the reason for failure of this theory. Mill�s theory balances out capitalism and socialism, which most societies practice now, without any major conflict. In my opinion, Marx contradicted his own theory at the end. He believed that due to changes in society, the on-going ruling government changed from Feudalism to Capitalism. He agreed that Capitalism would change into Socialism, but he assumed that once the society reaches Communism, the society stops to change. In this manner, Marx failed to predict the long term changes in future, and presented his point of their through a narrow stance. Therefore, I would agree with Mill as far as the theory of Socialism is concerned, in that, the government needs to help mold the Capitalist environment into helping everyone, and not just the ruling class.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx
2. Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill
3. The Letters of John Stuart Mill
4. Marxist Socialism, Shlomo Avineri
5. Utilitarianism and Other Essays, J.S Mill and Jeremy Bentham
