Similarities Between John Stuart Mill And Karl Marx

Many politicians argue that there is a need for institutional reform in the United States—the sole purpose of such reform should be to develop a more efficient system for the state as a whole. However, others argue that there are existing institutions in the United States that are structured efficiently. In order to help determine where an individual will stand on the debate about institutional reform, one must compare the effects of different forms of political institutions with the existing form in the United States. There are three new proposals of reform to discuss for the United States: 1) change in the electoral system for the House of Representatives, 2) change in the executive structure

However, what happens when the roles of the classes turn? This is Karl Marx predicts within his book The Communist Manifesto. The proletariats are the class considered to be the working class, right below the bourgeoise in terms of economic gain. Karl Marx discusses the number ratio between the two classes and discloses the fact that the proletariat outnumber the bourgeoise. Within the class is a sense of belonging, the bourgeoise live their lavish lives and have most of the say so when it comes to power. Most laws and regulations work in the favor of the bourgeoise class, while the working proletariat class is the class of struggle. This is where it ties into man’s self-alienation. Marx’s idea that the working man has alienated himself from humanity by becoming a machine of society, no longer being able to think for himself but rather only thinking of survival and mass production. By focusing on production for the bourgeoise, man is unable to relate to himself or others around him. He is alienated in the fact that he no longer belongs to a community but more so to a factory. This is beneficial to the bourgeoise because they would not have to fear the alliance of the workers against them if each worker felt isolated from one another. Karl Marx describes within his book the overview idea of the working man as a tool for production, a machine himself, isolated

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

In today’s paper, I will be discussing Mill and Nietzsche. These two have differing opinions on what the biggest threat to society are: Mill argues that Freedom of Speech is essential to finding the truth (Mill, 2006, p. P12)– so even controversial opinions should be listened to. He fears that the tyranny of the majority could mean the Truth could be lost because alternative opinions are not listened to. The other threat to society to Mill is that women have fewer rights then men – such as voting – he believes women should be allowed to have the same opportunities (John Stuart Mill; Alan Ryan, 2006). In contrast, Nietzsche believes the biggest threat to society is the assumption that morality is natural. Morality is dangerous because

Two of the most influential and celebrated modern political thinkers, Karl Marx and John Locke, have made countless insightful and compelling arguments, expressing their ideas on various conditions of the individual, state, and the interactions between the two. Marx was a German political thinker who was best known for his works with idea of communism and social class divisions. Locke was an English philosopher famous for his social contract and is known as the Father of Liberalism (CITE). Despite the paramount success these men achieved, they had radically different views on the idea of property and the description of freedom, finding only minimal similarity on their views on the right to revolt.

This quote is strongly related to Karl Marx’s main argument in his “The Jewish Question,” where he explains the strong connection between inequality and freedom, the types of freedom in everyday society, and the difference between human emancipation and political emancipation, all of which Obama’s quote demonstrates and alludes to. They prove that there is an ultimate connection between the state’s idea of freedom and equality and that of society.

Karl Marx believed that a capitalist society was to blame for alienation of the workers (Sociology, 2013). Alienation involves workers feeling isolated and away from the end product. Which dehumanizes them making workers feel unsatisfied and feel as though they are unable to improve their lifestyle. He found particular ways to which capitalism alienates those who work. Those ways were split in to four different categories, which are: Being alienated from the act of working which is being alienated from their own choice as they are not given a right to decide what product to make and how they are going to make it.

Although both Mill and Marx’s 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.

With such an interesting and different election year with results that where unexpected many people where left wondering why things happened like they did. Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill both have philosophies that can be applied to this election. Marx would agree with the results, because many of his theories match up with what happened with this election while Mill would disagree with the results and would have problems with what happened. Marx would say that this election is an example of a proletariat revolution and commodification, while Mill would disagree because of his views on maximization, and sacrificial lambs.

"The German Jews seek emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they want? Civic, political emancipation"(Tucker, p. 26). From his opening sentences on, Marx looks to the case of the Jews to shed light on how people can become free. Bruno Bauer had argued that Judaism, with its arrogant particularity, prevented Jews from participating fully in the life of the state. If they would agree, for instance, to attend legislative sessions even when they took place on Saturday, then Jews would be eligible for the full set of rights political emancipation (Fischman, p.762). If Jews, Christians, or Muslims hold onto their religious practices, it is evidence that the state is not fulfilling their needs, and that the nonpolitical still exerts great power over their choices. The incapacity of purely political means to make people free is not, however, confined to the state's defeat by religion. The political elevation of man above religion shares the weaknesses and merits of all such political measures. For Bauer and Marx, "the existence of religion is the existence of a defect" (Tucker, p. 31). Marx and Bauer want the Jews to give up there religion in order to be one with the state. They feel like the Jews will never understand political emancipation without first putting the state above their own religion. They have to want the state to come first in both their public and private lives. Marx does not take the Jewish faith that seriously. Marx views the Jewish religion as lacking the power to produce illusory happiness. Marx identifies Judaism with the economic arrangements he finds prevailing in capitalist society and the abolition of Judaism with the transcendence of capitalism (Fischman,

If we were to read "On the Jewish Question" by Karl Marx for the first time we would probably ask "Why is Karl Marx so anti-Semitic?”. If you wanted to read Marx just for fun than yes it would see so, but if you were a serious reader than you would know this is not true. The questions any reader should ask him/or herself is what did nineteenth-century Germans mean by "the Jewish question"? What did the phrase mean to Marx? What was Marx 's own experience of Jews and Judaism outside his immediate family, and how did it translate into what he had to say on the issue? If the Jewish question is tied up in Marx 's mind with his ideas about how people become free, then what does his stance toward the emancipation of the Jews tell us about his notion of freedom? At the beginning of the nineteenth century, German liberals began to follow the ideals of the French revolutionary leaders and start to draft a constitution just like the French people (Fischman, p.769). However, the status of the Jews throughout the kingdom remained the same as it was during the ‘Middle Ages’. For explain Jews were not citizens in Germany, they were not even consider humans under the law (Fischman, p.769). They existed as ‘serfs of the chamber’ the personal property of the king; however under Napoleon’s rule the Jews of Germany became citizens before the law (Fischman, p.769). However that was only a short lived freedom. After the defeat of Napoleon most of the Jews in Germany were pushed for fighting

The concept of living the “best human life” and how to achieve it is central to both John Stuart Mill’s and Karl Marx’s theories on how the government should be run. What that best life entails depends on which school of thought you refer to. The two philosophers present contrasting, and in some aspects logically incompatible conceptions of the best human life. The core divergence between the two lies within their definition of freedom, the impediments to its realization, and its relationship to the individual and society as a whole. Mill’s conceptualization of freedom is rooted in idealism, and Marx’s conceptualization of freedom is rooted in materialism. For Mill, freedom is defined within the constraints of one’s mind; the liberty to think,

Alienation occurred after the periods of slavery and serfdom arose a capitalist society, workers selling their labour skills in order to earn a living wage. In comparison to feudal societies where wealth was inherited, capitalist societies through the bourgeoisie was about owning the means of production enabling them to own private property and this being wealth. However, the cost price of the goods produced was significantly higher than the labourer’s wages resulting in a profit for the bourgeoisie, this being the method of attaining wealth. The capitalist mode of production generates its wealth through exploitation of the proletariat. Karl Marx (1970) stated ‘…the accumulation of wealth at one pole of society involves a simultaneous accumulation of poverty, labour torment, slavery,

According to Marx capitalism has a structured relationship between labor and capital which creates alienation. First the proletariat are alienated by repetitive work and assembly line like jobs. Many of these jobs do not require creativity or intelligence. The proletariat do not own what they produce so they do not take pride in their work. Capitalism promotes competition between collages which can promote alienation between themselves. I like to think of a skilled painter, it takes a lot of knowledge to paint a beautiful canvas. The artist knows his reputation is on this painting so he/she takes his/her time to make sure it is a work of art. Each painting they do will be unique in some way. Whatever they paint will be his/her property to sell or keep.

Before the industrial revolution, people were defined by their work. For example, a bread maker. They were in charge of the process of making bread, selling the bread and the profit. According to Marx, under capitalism the proletarian experienced “alienation.” This is where an individual is isolated from society, work and sense of self. Marx discussed four different types of alienation: alienation from product, process of labor, from species and of man from man (Murray, Lecture 3). The first being alienation from the product. In Marx’s time and today’s world, we engage in a lot of mass production in our capitalist system. People often are placed in positions where they are responsible for making a small part of the product or engage in a very specific task. Going back to the bread example, under capitalist system, a person may only be in charge of adding the flour to the machine and the rest of the work is done by the machine. The person is not involved in any other aspect of the work. Today many people work to make a produced that they do not own for other people to consume with the purpose of being to sell of that product and make the maximum amount of profit. But in today’s world, the profit is owned by the capitalist owner who is in charge of the production, and distribution of the product. The second type of alienation is the alienation from one’s own labor. Making products in the capitalist system puts people in a repetitive position. The laborers end up going through the motions they have one highly specialized job in production the whole product. The labor does not give input into the purpose design distribution or marketing of the product. Simply, the worker is a small piece of the puzzle. The third is the alienation from others. To Marx, this human essence was not separate from activity or work, but being separate from other human species. The fourth is alienation from man to man where the worker can’t connect to other worker. Workers compete with each other. A capitalist system sees the labor of the worker to a commercial commodity that can be traded in the competitive labor-market. It does not view labor as a constructive socioeconomic activity that is part of the collective common effort performed