Although both Mill and Marks associate great value to liberty and freedom, both philosophers have a very opposing notion of liberty. To say that both these philosophers have very similar views on liberty is not a correct assessment. A close scrutiny of their works would depict that in essence Marx and Mills hold very different views with regards to the individual liberty and the role of society in this regard. While Marx believes that a total conformity to communist norms is the true liberty, Mills contends that the freedom of nonconformity is the only way to ensure an individual’s liberty.
Broadly speaking, there is extensive difference between Marx and Mill’s viewpoint regarding the notion of freedom and liberty. Marx considers liberty as the advancement of human capacity through non-instrumental work, and thus an end in itself. In capitalist enterprise, labor turns into a form of commodity. Instrumental labor, Marx remarks, is a work decreased to pointless assignments only to amplify production, yet strips the worker of the inventive experience. It serves to benefit the bourgeoisie, who are holders of the working class and deny them the methods and opportunities for self-cultivation. Marx contends that this bourgeon control of means of production not just alienates the working class from their labor, but also distance them from one other. On the other hand, non-instrumental work embodies human creativity. By intentionally focusing and striving for non-instrumental work as an end, people and society can be free from the estrangement of capitalist shackles that precludes proletariat from claiming the human quintessence. This is the true liberty and, therefore, Marx declares liberty as an end in itself.
Conversely, for Mills liberty is simply the absence of force and coercion, and it has two aspects legal or political coercion and social coercion. Mill fears that through a democratic regime, majority has the power to obtrude its will and views on the minority. This will of the majority would translate into the legal coercion and would undermine the liberty of the minority. This fear of tyranny of the majority compels Mills to forcefully present the case for freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of action. More importantly it is the fear of the imposition of conformity that concerns Mills the most. Conformity to customs and to norms, Mills believes, is the gravest danger to the individual liberty. Under the rule of conformity, open deliberation with an opposite perspective would be disallowed, and without the liberty to express oneself and to act freely there can be no diversity and the society would become stagnant. Liberty, consequently, is the essence of social advancement and development.
Marx advocates for more conformity among different parts of the society, instead of breeding nonconformity, as Mill contends. Mills makes the point that advancement and new thoughts that prompt social advancement will prosper only in a free environment. He remarks, “Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.” Mill would contend that a communist environment would not allow the liberty to express new thoughts, and, in this way would block social advancement. In Mills’ opinion, " If from timidity they consent to be forced into one of these molds, and to let all that part of themselves which cannot expand under the pressure remain unexpanded, society will be little better for their genius” Obviously, Mill would hold that a conventionalist society or a communist arraignment like one depicted in the writings of Marx, would barricade social advancement and thus it is diametrically opposite to liberty.
In addition, there are stark contrasts in how each philosopher sees the role of government in the light of individual liberty. Mills on his essay on liberty presents contentions on the restrictions of society and the legislature over the individuals and individual values, offering affirmation to individual rights and freedoms. He holds that the society or the majority is not justified in rebuffing or judging sentiments, ideas, and activities of the individuals, as long as they are not harmful to others. Hence, Mills prescribes a minimalistic role for the government and he contends that any further exaggeration on the part of the government would be deemed as a hindrance to individual liberty. Conversely, Marx and Engels advocate a tremendously incremented part of the government in the public arena and feel that the communist class is justified in exercising its power and interfering in the lives of individuals. The abrogation of private property and the centralization of the economy are only two illustrations of stifling individual liberty in a perfect communist society as envisaged by Marx.
Clearly, the hindrance to liberty is conceptualized differently by both Marx and Mill. While Marx contends that the society assists the human requirement for improvement toward oneself, Mills stands for non-interference in the lives of individuals. Marx claims that people realize their true potential only under the auspicious of a true community and in the absence of the vanity of uniqueness and the alienation from fellow men. Thus, he pens, "Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all direction.” Clearly, it is inside the society that one understands oneself close by his kindred men through labor that is for oneself and correlative to others.
Alternately, Mills contends that the society or the government should not meddle into the private affairs of individuals. Mill verbalizes that while the community makes opportunity conceivable it can likewise annihilate it through the requirement of congruity with traditions – a type of social coercion. Therefore, the role of community and government must be restricted to ensure true liberty through the principle of non-interference. This is reflected through the famous “harm principle” put forward by Mill that so long as no damage is carried out to another person, liberty must be regarded supreme. The motivation behind the “harm principle” is to permit the development of individual in such a manner that the more nonconformity one develops the more impervious to external control one becomes. Henceforth, as opposed to depending on the classless community to realize and acknowledge self-actualization and liberty, Mills concentrates on the capabilities of the individual alone as the prime source of the notion of liberty.
Work Cited
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1859. Print.
Tucker, Robert. The Marx-Engels Reader. W.W. Norton, 1978. Print.
