This essay explores the dialogue On Liberty by Mill in relation to the Communist Manifesto by Mark and Engels. On Liberty can be understood through the lenses of his autobiography. According to Mill, On Liberty revolves around giving human beings full measure of freedom to “expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions” (Gray 6) Mill believed in the absolute freedom of human nature. In this regard, he rejected any attempts to limit the behavior and opinion of human beings in the name of social pressure and coercion. Despite his belief in the totality of freedom, Mill observed that coercion may be used when the actions of an individual causes harm to other people or individuals (Gray 9). In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels try to explain the fundamentality of communism. Communist Manifesto observes that the struggles by class have inspired historical developments. The class struggles usually lead to exploitation of the inferior class by the superior class. Marx and Engels identified the differences in means of production as the determinants class relationships (Marx & Engels 4). The two thinkers are at variance with each other. But it is easy to choose the oath of either because both their positive opinions are true.
Mill uses a utilitarian approach to underscore the value of liberty. Throughout his essay, Mill reflects the good side of liberty. Liberty is good for all people and the society at large. He perceives liberty as the ability of an individual or a society to progress by exploring the boundless freedom in a way that promotes and enhances the freedom of others. This progress is important because it prevents social stagnation. He categorized liberty as consisting of liberty of opinion and liberty of action. In the initial chapters, Mill brings his audience to the meaning of liberty and provides a clear defense on why respect of liberty should be paramount, to the extent that it poses no harm to an individual or society. This proposition implies that an individual or society may pursue their freedom by respecting and promoting the freedom of others.
Marx and Engels argue that as the forces of production increase, the relationships between classes come to an end. New classes emerge to take the place of the old ones through a revolution (13). The authors give an example of the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The comfortable relationship between these classes of people inspire a revolution by the proletariat which leads to destruction of private property. Since the proletariat cannot appropriate property, they simply resort to destruction. In this regard, Marx views capitalism as an unstable form of economic blueprint. Thus, the central idea of communists is to promote this revolution to ensure that the inevitable end of capitalism becomes a reality.
Communists argue that changes in government or reforms cannot remove the social classes that exist in the society. This proposition is true considering that in the world, so many governments have promised reforms to their citizens. However, these promises, or the actual fulfillment of them, have yielded no results in the eradication of social classes. There still exists a thick line between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat which has hitherto inspired uneasy relationship between them.
One would argue that Mills argument has placed so much attention on an individual regarding the subject of freedom. In fact. Mill proposition that an individual should have absolute freedom has been criticized for being populist and lacking reason. Dworkin argued that the absolute nature of this freedom may be harmful to the individual himself. This freedom may lead the individual to perform actions that he deems fit but which may pose harm to himself (399). For example, an individual who takes cocaine may do so in the exercise of absolute freedom when it is clear that cocaine has potential negative effects to his life. In this regard, Mill’s argument on the freedom of human beings should be challenged.
In the dialogue, Mill describes the evidence on the death of ideology as premature and recognizes that they share the burden of responsibility as “historical spokesmen.” On his account, Marx accuses Silone for opining that the future struggle of ideology would pity Marxists against ex-Marxists (Dworkin 403). He admits that he would rather bear the burden alone on the pretext that ex-Marxists preserve their ideologies. Mill acknowledges that he has something in common with Marx regarding their political philosophies.
It is discernible from the dialogue that the common thing between the two thinkers is their convergence of thought. That while pursuing the things of the world, people should do so in a manner that respects the ability of other people to pursue the same. The two thinkers converge at a utilitarian point. This is evident when Mill warns that the pursuit of freedom should be within the confines of individual and societal happiness. This implies that the behavior or actions of an individual should recognize the broader interest of the society. The individual is viewed a function of the society. Thus, hi behavior should not put the life of the society at risk. On his account, Marx and Engels recognize the emerging social classes that would inevitably pity one social class at conflict with the other.
The rising cases of industrial action across the globe buttress Marx’s theory of conflict between social classes. This conflict suggests a frustration of the greater societal pursuit of happiness and satisfaction. This essay has revealed the ideological positions of the two thinkers. Although they differ on certain ends, the study has discovered points of convergence especially on the call by the philosophers towards enhancement of happiness for all humanity.
Works Cited
Dworkin, Gerald. "Marx and Mill: A Dialogue." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
26.3 (1966): 403-414. Print.
Gray, John. Mill on liberty: a defense. Routledge, 2013. Print.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The communist manifesto. Penguin, 2002. Print.
