John Stuart Mill and Socialism

Introduction

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 at Pentonville on the outskirts of London, and was the eldest son of James Mill. His father was a friend, and close political associate of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was a Utilitarian philosopher and radical reformer. James Mill along with the help of Bentham believed that that far more could be achieved through rigorous education than before. So John was entirely homeschooled, where he learned Greek at the age of three, Latin and algebra by age eight, and was effective at reasoning by his early teens.

Responses to Mill

Mill's View on Socialism

John Stuart Mill, along with Herbert Spencer, follow an egalitarian ideology. Mill believes that all people within a society shall receive political, economic and social equality. Simply put, everyone counts as one. The theory of egalitarianism is contended by Charles Darwin, who takes an opposite approach. In accordance to Darwin's famous "natural selection" theories, he believes a hierarchy evolves since people are fighting for the "general good." The "general good" revolves around individual utility, referred to as a capacity of happiness. The contending views of Mill and Darwin can be found in Vanity of the Philosopher?

Mill contends the topic of "capacity of happiness," with an utilitarian views, Mill believes that if they majority of people are happy, then our society as a whole has a high capacity of happiness. Whereas Darwin carries his natural selection theory in explaining evolution, Mill agrees with Spencer in stating that sympathy is the backbone behind evolution. One's capacity of sympathy is crucial, and creates a backbone of moral obligation, justice and beneficence. In evaluating happiness, Darwin relies on a more quantitative backing. Darwin believes that people can judge happiness, but not perfection. For Mill, he agrees with Spencer in that a "calculus of social welfare" exists when people in a society are connected by sympathy. (ADD MORE ABOUT CALCULUS OF SOCIAL WELFARE)

Economics is NOT a Dismal Science

Early economists such as Thomas Carlyle have pinned economics as the "dismal science." Based of Thomas Robert Malthus's theory, Carlyle believes that starvation will occur, since the rate of human growth far exceeds the food supply. Mill attacks Carlyle's viewpoint in his book, Principles of Political Economy 1848.

Mill believes that labeling economics as a "dismal science" is highly far-fetched and radical. Such a dilemma should not occur given that humans control and limit their population. Mill states that humans need to value both limiting growth and protecting the environment, which should take priority over economic growth. Economic growth can be labeled as a catalyst towards disaster. There exist a variety of benefits when limiting human growth. Clearly, we are preserving our available food supply and minimize the poverty percentage. Basically, the study of economics should be pinned for blame, rather people need to exercise better judgment when it comes to growth rates.

In Principles of Political Economy, Mill goes on to discuss his pro-socialism standpoints. Mill begins by stating that there is little to no economic research that disproves the workings of socialism. Again, Mill draws on his "capacity of happiness" arguments. Published in 1861, Mill wrote a book Utilitarianism, which captured his happiness arguments. The welfare of a society and moreover, humanity comes from their degree of happiness.