Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill represent liberalism’s division into its two main opposing branches, which diverge most clearly on the role of government in the administering of justice. One school of thought is concerned with procedural justice, while the other works toward achieving redistributive justice. Marx, an advocate of the latter type, wants to see equitable results, while Mill’s aim is to establish just laws for society to follow. For Mill, as long as the rules of the game are fair, the results don’t matter; however, Marx believes the rules of the game are rigged in favor of the oppressor class, and that redistributive justice is needed in order to level the playing field.
In order to better understand Marx’s departure from classical liberalism, it is important to grasp his worldview, which is aptly described in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. He opens with the observation that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” describing how the world is divided into two groups: the oppressor and the oppressed, bourgeois and proletarians (Marx 473). According to Marx, the current system is unjust; therefore, simply instituting political reforms based on individual liberties from government is not enough. Justice requires that the entire system be overturned in favor of a just redistributive model. That model would translate into the confiscation of private property, because after all, in a capitalist system, private property is virtually abolished “for nine-tenths of the population” anyway (Marx 486). The solution to this societal problem goes far beyond anything procedural justice could accomplish. For justice to prevail in the true sense of the word, the oppressive “bourgeois” class must be overthrown, which ultimately means “the abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom” (Marx 485).
Mill, on the other hand, focuses on rule of law under his liberty principle in On Liberty. His single principle states that, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mill 48). Unlike Marx, Mill does not stray far from his liberal philosophical roots in Britain. He does not see the need for total societal upheaval, and the idea that the majority proletarian class should rise up and violate the rights of their so-called oppressor class, the bourgeois, is quite alien to him. Marx’s advocacy on behalf of the masses seems to come close to striking at Mill’s idea of “tyranny of the majority” (Mill 44). Though Mill writes this concept more in relation to social tyranny, it can be applied to the general will of the collective over the individual. Where Mill upholds the individual as “sovereign,” Marx proposes that the collective’s interests must be served at the expense of individuals if need be.
The strength in Marx’s arguments receive their appeal from their intended audience of poor workers during the industrial age, a time when masses of people piled into dirty factories with dismal working conditions and monotonous labor. His persuasiveness goes beyond the nineteenth century day laborer; however, when even today the average person goes to work, day after day, doing the same drawn-out boring job, with little personal satisfaction or pride in the finished product. Marx’s clear understanding of human psychology helps him make a highly logical argument to an audience ready to throw off the shackles of everyday life. People shouldn’t be merely cogs in a machine to serve the wealthy. That’s a dehumanizing and wretched existence, and Marx offers the alternative of communistic distributive justice, to emancipate people from the slavery of capitalism.
Mill appeals to the individualist inside everyone. His works are for anyone who has ever thought to him/herself, “I am an adult, and can think and do what I please.” He recognizes the threat of too much power being allotted to minorities over majorities, and especially vice versa, which supports his liberty principle. The effectiveness of his arguments for procedural justice lay heavily on their appeal to a person’s practical daily life. Most people genuinely want to a system of basic fairness, where no one group is favored over the other.
Both Marx and Mill, perhaps more than any modern liberal philosophers, have shaped the arguments still being waged today. Marx still holds a valuable place in Western society, despite the rejection of most of his arguments, due to his analysis of humanity in work. Distributive justice holds sway over the modern psyche to an extent, but has been largely dismissed in favor of capitalism. The prevalence of capitalism has not overcome the desire for equality, however. Mill, alternatively, was instrumental in crafting the intellectual arguments for individual liberty, and is still regarded favorably in the United States, where procedural justice continues to reign supreme.
Sources
- Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
- Mill, John Stuart, Alan Ryan. Mill: The Spirit of the Age, on Liberty, the Subjection of Women. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print.
Daniel McDonald - Daniel McDonald is a student journalist for the University of Alaska, Anchorage newspaper The Northern Light as well as a writing tutor at ...
Join the Conversation