19, March 2008
Matt Brickell
Dissent and Resistance One of the greatest issues for political thinkers is the proper relationship between the individual and the state. Karl Marx and J.S. Mill are no exceptions, as they have comparable beliefs on the matter. Although both theorists believed that dissent and resistance of their governments were necessary, Marx and Mill differed on how far an individual should go in opposition to the government. This difference of opinion is found primarily in each man's goal for society[what is it?, what are they] and in how each interprets the relationship between the government, society, and individuals in that society. Where is the government headed how does it get there. This paper has both ideas in it somewhat. But this paragraph is talking about capitalism. Because capitalist society is flawed for reasons I may state he wants to achieve a communist state that has benefits I might identify, he thinks revolution is the only way to get there. Go to p. 538. Marx believes that a proletarian revolution is necessary to create a communist society. In "On the Jewish Question," and "Critique of the Gotha Program" Marx prepares his argument for political, followed by social revolution. This is the endgame for each point he makes, as he argues for a different government. Marx defines states as "government machines," run by the bourgeoisie primarily through economic measures(Marx, p. 539). Based on Marx's writing, this is not what the state should be. He argues instead for a government founded upon the proletariat, the focus of many of his arguments on government and society. "The state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"(Marx, p 538). This idea shows the desire for extreme dissention in the form of revolution; whether a dictatorship of the masses would work, however, is another matter. Ultimately, Marx contends that the state must answer to the people rather than the people to it. "Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it"(Marx, p. 537). Marx goes on to connect politics and civil society, believing that "political life declares itself to be only a means, whose end is the life of civil society"(Marx, p. 44). Mill does not believe revolution is necessary for the needs of the individual to be met[case not proved in this graph]. In "On Liberty," Mill lays out his case for a government whose purpose is to protect the liberty of its citizens. A tyrannical sovereign is inadequate to this purpose. Mill argues that when people created governments they intended to restrict government power, "the aim... was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty"(Mill, p.2). Mill contends that an individual's liberty is his free will, "a person should be free to do as he likes in his own concerns, but he ought not to be free to do so as he likes in acting for another, under the pretext that the affairs of the other are his own affairs"(Mill, p.103). The freedom to act, just as it did for Edmund Burke, defines individual liberty, and this means the power of governments must be limited. is crucial to the individual, and in this case is also a limiting factor on the power of governments, "by liberty was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers"(Mill, p. 1). Democracy, by itself, does not solve this problem. Mill is wary of this type of government, describing it in order to show its flaws as another type of state whose authority easily can be over-extended. His biggest fear is that the majority will
assert so much control that it produces ill-effects arising from the tyranny of the majority. The majority may not always benefit the whole of society in its decisions; "the majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they now are...cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody"(Mill, p. 54). Were the democratic state not limited in its powers problems could arise because "the opinion of a similar majority, imposed as a law on the minority...is quite as likely to be wrong as right"(Mill, p. 81). In the struggle between authority and individual liberty, Mill favors the individual. In Mill's mind, a member of civil society has basic rights; his free will should not be restricted heavily as long as the society is not affected by the individual's choices. He even wonders whether the state should regulate for the benefit of the individual, arguing "a further question is whether the State, while it permits, should nevertheless indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary to the best interests of the agent"(Mill, p.. 99). Mill contends that allowing precautionary restrictions to be put on individuals for their safety would be detrimental to the society as a whole because it would create a state with many powers as opposed to limited authority. Mill contends that human advancement and improvement comes from choices between competing alternatives. Competing alternatives cannot be identified without liberty(if all citizens must follow the will of the majority in all things, they cant create as many alternatives as they can in a society with liberty, therefore they have fewer choices) therefore the proper role of the state is to protect human liberty, "the reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a person's voluntary acts is consideration for his liberty. His voluntary choice is evidence that what he so chooses is desirable...and his good is on the whole best provided by allowing him to take his own means of pursuing it"(Mill, p.101). By protecting human liberty, the state allows people to advance an improve by protecting their power to choose. Mill fears that through the tyranny of the majority, or another unregulated government, individuals will conform, becoming an unidentifiable mass, "individuals...are daily becoming more assimilated"(Mill, p.74). For this reason dissent is necessary. "If resistance waits till life is reduced nearly to one uniform type, all deviations from that type will come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature"(Mill, p. 71).He goes so far as to write "a government cannot have too much of the kind of activity which does not impede, but aids and stimulates, individual exertion and development"(Mill, p. 113). For Mill, it is the interests of individuals that should be protected at all costs because "the worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it"(Mill, p. 113). "the circumstances which surround different classes and "if the claims of individuality are ever to be asserted, the time is now while much is still wanting to complete the enforced assimilation"(Mill, p.71). Marx wants the tyranny of the majority, wants he the government to tell the individual how to do stuff. Marx wants a revolutionary dictatorship, something Mill might disagree with. The more we understand what Marx is calling for, the more we could understand what Mill is arguing against.
Marx contends that the will of the individual is most important, while also showing the distinct differences separating people in a society from each other, an argument that is not shared by Mill. Marx contends that society is created based on the freedom and desires of the men and women living in it (Marx, p. 42). Marx shares a view similar to Mill, that an individuals freedom is based on his ability to act without interference, "liberty is the power which man has to do everything which does not harm the rights of others" (Marx, p.42). The limits that Marx proposes are necessary restrictions and the individual for the benefit of society and are determined by society, "the limits within which each individual can act without harming others are determined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is marked by a stake"(Marx, p. 42). Marx's argument seems logical, however, he takes it a step forwarded by alienating man from each other. He argues first that the rights of two individuals are not necessarily the same, "a distinction is made between the rights of man and the rights of the citizen"(Marx, p. 41). This is an interesting argument as it stratifies civilization into different classes, what Marx is arguing t get rid of through revolution. He goes on to assert that, although human liberty can and should be limited by a society, it is not founded upon an individuals interaction with another, "liberty as a right of man is not founded upon the relations between man and man"(Marx, p 42). This is unique from other political theorists, as although they may not say that freedom is solely based upon individual's relationships, there could be arguments that, for these rights to be maintained and the society and state improved upon, relationships must exist. Mill argues that, although society as whole needs to be maintained, the individual is most important. Society is founded upon the individual wills of the people. "In the conduct of human beings toward one another it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person's own concerns his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise"(Mill, p. 75). Thus, the individuals who make up these societies should be, in Mill's opinion, largely free to act alone or with others as they please. The liberty of free-will does not necessarily always produce a constant state of good. While Mill acknowledges that individuals can make mistakes he asserts that these errors "warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good"(Mill, p.75) He furthers this by contending that men and women have long been fighting for these innate freedoms, "the struggle between liberty and authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history"(Mill, p.1). Despite the fact that individuals are distinct from each other, they must still be held accountable for their actions as long as they are members of society. Mill writes that people should not be restricted, and they should be allowed to make mistakes because restricting them would be a greater evil. He also argues that, as all individuals are equal before the law, when a person performs an improper act "the individual is accountable" (Mill, p. 93). The individual, as a member of society, is thus at the disposal of society as he "may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment if society is of the opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection"(Mill, p.93). This selfdetermination of punishment, where it is the society coming to the conclusion of what is best for it, is an idea that may suggest hope to Mill limit his desire for extreme measures. In order to achieve a better political and civil society, Marx promotes a revolution against the capitalist government that is in place. The revolution, however, must happen
in a particular way for it to be totally successful. In order for society to change there must be revolution against the state, "political emancipation is at the same time the dissolution of the old society...political revolution is a revolution of civil society"(Marx, p.44). It is through political liberation that Marx argues an individual gains his rights. The revolution of the proletariat, in order to create the communist society, breaks down society into its basic nature, "the political revolution dissolves civil society into its elements without revolutionizing these elements themselves"(Marx, p. 46). He goes further, however, by arguing that it also breaks down and improves the individual as well, "political emancipation is a reduction of man, on one hand to a member of civil society...and on the other hand to, to a citizen, to a moral person"(Marx, p.46). Mill, unlike Marx, does not support revolution by the time he wrote "On Liberty." At one time, Mill supported revolution, seeing it as a unified movement of change and improvement, "there has scarcely ever yet happened a political convulsion, originating in the desire of reform...that, without a revolution, the enemies of all reform would have the entire ascendancy"(Mill, Monthly Repository, 1833). Mill even defends the French Revolution, even its extremes. By "On Liberty," Mill's beliefs have evolved. In his writings in defense of the French Revolution, he supports their violence since it is for a just cause. This view changes, as we know from above; Mill now writes it is not a human right to act in a harmful member, no matter the situation. While Marx actively calls for the revolution of the proletariat, Mill has no such desire, believing instead in the ability of society to peacefully limit and improve the government. Mill understands that society will not let the government become overly powerful and that the state should understand this as well, "a state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished"(Mill, p. 113). Both Mill and Marx agree that the government must change, but it is in their opinions as to how and to what level that is in conflict. Although once a supporter of revolution, Mill has altered his view to argue that society can successfully limit the government, as long as it can regulate itself and its majority. Marx takes a more radical position, asserting that the only way to achieve a government that will fulfill his desired purpose, a revolution must occur. The issue itself is not simple, and this is seen with these contrasting views that still do not provide a solution to the problem.