Comparing Karl Marx And The Mill ' Mill On Their Understandings Of Freedom

Karl Marx was born in Prussia in 1818. Later in his life he became a newspaper editor and his writings ended up getting him expelled by the Prussian authorities for its radicalism and atheism (Perry 195). He then met Fredrich Engels and together they produced The Communist Manifesto in 1848, for the Communist League. This piece of writing basically laid out Marx’s theory of history in short form (Coffin 623). The Communist Manifesto is mainly revolved around how society was split up into two sides, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. I do believe that the ideas of the Communist Manifesto did indeed look educated on paper but due to the lessons of history communism is doomed to fail in the past, present, and future. Communism did not prevail in many different countries, two of them being Berlin and the Soviet Union.

This essay argues that John Stuart Mill's On Liberty presents a strong case for individuality of citizens, challenging the role of paternalism through autonomous social progress and utilitarian values. On the other hand, it is shown that Mill's arguments against public regulations are very narrow, and his own ideas frequently adhere to paternalism, thus creating a weak defence against state control politics.

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

Marx’s views of social obligation differ from Mill’s in that by Marx’s view, there are two classes with their own social agendas and obligations to their own class, whereas Mill’s idea is that all members of a society should act in a way that brings about the most benefit for everyone, without causing harm to others. Marx shows that there is a split in advancement of society due to self-interest since the Bourgeoisie is trying maintain the status quo when he says that there is “Constant revolutionizing of productions” and “uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions” (Marx 12), while the Proletariat is trying to break the status quo. Mill on the other hand believes advancement comes from the expression and discussion of all opinions, even those that don’t represent the favor of the majority. In addition to differences in social responsibilities, Marx and Mill contradict each other in regard to social tyranny because in Marx’s Communism, the social obligation introduced by the self-interest of the majority of would coerce the working class into

Marx’s primarily aims to explain how communism will free men, end the class struggle. The work argues that class struggles, and the exploitation of one class by another is the source of all inequality. Marx’s theories become one the motivating force behind all historical developments. The work strongly advocates the freedom of the proletariats which Marx’s claims can only be achieved when property and other goods cease to be privately owned. He see’s that private property has been a problem through out history, capital that aids the ruling class to maintain control. Marx argues that the lower class come together in a revolution and gain power and eventually take the power away from the upper class.

Marx’s conception of society has its grounds in a theory of action: as he put it, human beings make their own history. But Marx goes on to argue that they do this is circumstances which are not of their own choosing, and he develops an analysis of how action is organized by these circumstances as material conditions of production which structure and determine the social relationship that are primarily generated by the particular material forces of production utilized, which include not only raw materials but also the technology which is used to extract and work them into products (Jenks 15).

According to the humanities based themes, autonomy and responsibility are defined as “the individual person has the ability to make choices; with those choices comes a responsibility for the consequences of those choices.” [i] This can be related to the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx in the 1800’s. Even deeper though, it correlates the class struggles that were apparent in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Marx knew there was a division of classes; the bourgeoisie was the wealthy upper class and they proletariats were the lower working classes of Europe. This is where the theme of autonomy and responsibility steps in and

When reading Marx and Tocqueville one may find that both seem to stand on opposite ends of a spectrum. While Tocqueville, as a social theorist, appears to value stability in political systems over all else (Ratcliff, 2014), Marx believes revolutions are the way for which the history of humankind can progress, and that the end of history will arise from the revolt of the people for a communist society (Ratcliff, 2014). Indeed, while both Marx and Tocqueville value liberty and equality, their notions of the two are fundamentally different, resulting in different ideas of the political manifestations of these two ideals. This essay will explore the motivations behind the two works, compare the two conceptions of liberty and equality, and show why Marx and Tocqueville arrive at very different conclusions.

"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."

This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.

This essay will compare the ethical and philosophical ideas of Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx. First, this paper will discuss the similarities between Kant’s theory of the person as an end, not as a mean to Marx’s idea of equality through a communist society. Second, it will discuss how Kant’s idea of freedom for all as method of achieving good will contrasts Marx’s idea of

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.

Wars, death, and other acts of violence have all been part of a process to attain true freedom. However, what is true freedom? John Stuart Mill and Georg Hegel tackle this notion of freedom. Mills states that freedom is when individuals have unlimited liberty, while Hegel says that is a false freedom. He states that freedom is when the individual’s morals align with external laws within the nation state. Despite what many say freedom is more similar in Hegel’s and Mills than different. We can see this through Hegel’s notion of absolute mind and Mill’s value of liberty and notion of diversity.