Marxism

Professor ....

TA:

"None of the supposed rights of man go beyond the egoistic man, man as he is a member of civil society; that is, an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interests and acting in accordance with his private caprice."

Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question

"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

While, after reading the above two quotations, it may appear that Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill take seemingly opposing views on the proper relationship between an individual and his or her community, a closer reading of the texts of Marx and Mill reveals that both Marx and Mill articulate a much more nuanced view on the ideal relationship between man and his society. By first analyzing Mill's views on the proper relationship between an individual and his community and then moving on to address Marx's views on the subject, this essay will argue that while Mill leaves the individual sovereign over his own actions, he does not deny the existence of obligations or duty to others. Marx, on the other hand, while trumpeting the ideals of communism, never looses sight of the importance of the personal development of man as an individual. Furthermore, Marx's view on the relationship between man and his community exists in an entirely different paradigm than that of Mill's. Mill views his "political emancipation" of man entirely within the context of previous human experience. Marx, however, longs for "human emancipation" and, with his materialistic worldview, is ready to throw out history in order for the creation of something better. Finally, this essay will conclude that Mill sees man's individuality as society's savior, while Marx sees it as its downfall. The real truth, however, falls somewhere between these two poles.

Mill on the Individual

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection...His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

Mill is extremely clear as to why the individual should be sovereign over his or her body and mind--to counter the effects of a possible "tyranny of the majority." Mill states, "It (the majority) practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself" (63). Society, then, has the potential to totally consume the individual, to enslave his soul, and Mill devotes a good part of On Liberty to describing ways in which society works to mold all individuals into its destructive commonality. Since society has a way of being more powerful and repressive than governments themselves, especially in modern times, individual freedom has to be given a high priority.

Mill, then, while being firm in the fact that society should effectively leave the individual alone, does not yet answer the question as