Mill and Marx’s Conceptions of the Ideal Society

John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx presented different conceptions of an ideal society. They also defined liberty differently based on what they believed an ideal society should be.  Mill’s and Marx’s philosophies both share the assumption that progress is possible in an ideal society. For Mill, progress is possible and provides the basis for advancement toward liberalism. On the political front, Marx asserted that the decentralization of power from lumps of persons to masses was the basis for the transformation of the state. In that case, liberalism was gradually attained through constitutionalism and representative democracy. Mill further emphasizes humankind’s ability to drive progress (Mill 29-33). Similarly, Marx points out that progress is established through an account of historical acquisitiveness. Historical materialism undertakes changes in the economic system as the foundation of transformations in the society’s superstructure.

Marx considers communism as the basis of an ideal society given that it is a frank resolution of the conflict between humans’ true resolution of the conflict between essence and existence, which is fostered by capitalism. He also established that humans are completely naturalized unto themselves. This enables them to recapture the completeness of humanity in its full liberty (Marx-23-26). He maintained that communism is an ideal society because living in a capitalist society does not guarantee individual freedom. Also, in a middle-class capitalist society, the person is divided into an economic actor and a political citizen. Such a duality exemplifies political alienation, which is also aggravated by the functioning of the middleclass state. Marx realized that the state had been used as an instrument for encouraging a society where the wealthy class dominates other classes. He also pointed out that ideological alienation usually takes diverse forms, appearing in legal, economic, and philosophical concepts. For Marx, the fundamental question that needs to be addressed concerns the capacity in which an individual owns freedom (Marx-23-26). In this context, Marx offers a solution to the aspects of class conflict and freedom. His theory of communism is founded on the ultimate component of human history, since there will be liberty or freedom for all humankind. It is evident that an ideal society is one that conforms to the communist ideals, which also support individual liberties.

Marx maintained that all aspects of a society’s structure rely on its economic system. Besides, he perceived conflict in society as the fundamental basis for change. From an economic perspective, he analyzed the conflict persisting between the middle-class, the upper-class, and the laborers. For him, communism provided a basis for establishing equality in society. He believed that capitalism emphasized private ownership and profit, thereby propagating inequality among the people (Marx 39-43). In that case, his objective was to inspire a system that fostered a classless society where everybody shared the profits of labor, and the state government regulated all wealth and property. He also noted that the settlement between personal freedom and communal freedom could be realized through the eradication of private property as well as the communistic regulation of production. Hence, for Marx, the idea of freedom or liberty cannot be realized through secluded human calculations of interests but attained through the collaborative efforts of the community. Liberty ensures that individuals have the capacity to utilize their capabilities for societal benefit (Marx-23-26). On the other hand, Mill’s conception of liberty rests on people’s collective use of reason or rationality that can advance their tangible social relations as an appropriate realization of human liberty.

On the idea of liberty, Mill maintained that every individual has the capacity to act the way they want, provided that their actions do not harm others. This ideal applies to both individual and political morality. It maintains that neither the state nor anyone else should inhibit anybody’s activities lest those activities affect somebody other than themselves. He defends the value of liberty through a Utilitarian perspective. Besides, Mill tries to demonstrate the positive impacts of liberty on all individuals and society in general. Notably, he connects liberty to the capacity to progress and avert social inaction. Liberty of opinion is considered crucial because the ostracized opinion may be right (Mill 16-21). Liberty of action is considered necessary for similar reasons. Marx pointed out that human beings can attain freedom or liberty if they establish their world in the final outcome of their productive activities. He maintained that productive undertakings become free only if people can discover their creative and free consciousness in what they do (Marx 31-37). Besides, alienated labor hinders workers from determining their rational lives in various aspects by minimizing their free conscious work. In the context of a representative type of government, Mill envisages the development and growth of liberty.

Marx conceptualizes freedom as the advancement of human capability through non-instrumental labor. Labor becomes a marketable component of capitalism. Contributory labor is labor minimized to worthless tasks to optimize efficiency, but stripped of the original experience. Perhaps, it functions to profit the middle class, who are the “owners of labor,” and denies them the basis for self-cultivation. On the other hand, Mill’s conceptualization of liberty is the absence of coercion that can be attained through social and legal means. Representative democracy gives individuals within politics the legal capability to enforce their will upon the minority (Mill 43-49). Most significantly, the majority can have the capability to enforce adherence by dictating customs. Liberty encompasses the capacity to live without coercion, a situation which made Mill condemn restrictions through social coercion on freedom of action, expression, and association.

Anyone can be persuaded by every aspect of Marx’s idea pertaining to a communist society. In this case, the focus is to appreciate the potential significance of what is being discussed regarding the realm of necessity in a society different from a communist one. Basically, Marx describes how the realm of society results in a changed society that facilitates self-actualization. This is meant to ultimately allow an individual to realize an intrinsic value that would allow the production to realize the society’s material needs in association with others (Marx 76-81). It is worth noting that the duty to clarify the issue is undoubtedly an important one for a society that seems to proclaim that freedom and self-satisfaction are integral components of a truly human form of existence. However, this can be attained through the organization of the production process, which ought to be designed in the sense that numerous people will end up lacking appropriate control over what to do or what to end up working with the central goal of realizing external ends (Mills 63-67). This is because there seems to be no apparent drive on the side of society, in general, to take advantage of technological developments to facilitate the shortening of working days.

To conclude, even though Mill and Marx defined freedom differently, they both perceived freedom as an end in itself. Certainly, freedom of choice is vital to the development of personality, and it is an end in itself since using human abilities to make choices is vital for personal development.  For Marx, communism is crucial and conducive to protecting as well as fostering liberty. Freedom is essential for progress since it enables geniuses to exist. The existence of geniuses who do not have to conform to majoritarian norms provides a crucial basis for improving society. It is the freedom that enables them to do that. Marx establishes the ideal way of attaining liberty within society.