Is John Stuart Mill Really A Socialist?

Written for the university subject Ethics of Capitalism.

According to John Stuart Mill, the most plausible form of Socialism involves pursuing the elimination of class hierarchy without pursuing the abolition of markets. What might this involve? Is it still a form of socialism? Either way, is it a plausible position?

Across a range of his writings, including Principles of Political Economy (1848) and Chapters on Socialism (1880), John Stuart Mill argues that the elimination of the class hierarchy, and therefore achievement of socialism, is most plausibly pursued without abolishing capitalist market systems. I will firstly analyse the mechanisms by which Mill suggests this can be achieved, including proposed capitalist reforms. Then, I will turn to the question of whether Mill’s socialism can be strictly considered socialist, arguing that whilst Mill may not have fit into socialist groups of his time, there is a place for his socialism in a modern context. Finally, I will provide a comprehensive evaluation of how Mill’s suggestions, given some flaws, present valuable insights into how socialism could be plausibly achieved.

Mill’s approach to socialism is one characterised by his strong liberal commitment to “liberty, equality, and fraternity”.  It emerges out of a utilitarian desire to reconcile “the standing feud between capital and labour [and] the transformation of human life, from a conflict of classes struggling for opposite interests, to a friendly rivalry in the pursuit of a good common to all”.  This reconciliation manifests as a socialised production which exists within reformed capitalist frameworks. But how could Mill legitimately integrate two philosophies of such contrasting thought? He contends that capitalist systems are not necessarily flawed, but instead that certain aspects are imperfectly managed, leading to economic inequality and injustice. Therefore, it is possible to reshape capitalist systems to create a market environment that leaves space for socialist organisation – a middle ground. This is initially achieved through a series of tax reforms which take a qualified view of private property. Firstly, Mill advocated for limitations on inheritance to assuage cyclical wealth inequality. In doing so, he distinguishes between the right to bequeath and the right to inherit: “although the right of bequest… forms part of the idea of private property, the right of inheritance… does not”.  Secondly, Mill believed that the state should tax passive property income (e.g. rent increases due to a rise in local population). Finally, that the land of owners who do not improve their land should be seized and redistributed by the state, as “when private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust.”  Landlords should only have “a right to compensation” for whatever land is seized.  The justification behind these three taxes traces back to Locke’s labour theory of property, based on which landlords have no right to land as private property if they do not apply their labour to it. Furthermore, and certainly most importantly, Mill declares that education must improve in both quality and accessibility. The state should require two things: that educational opportunities exist regardless of class and that it is the “duties of parents” allow their children to receive at minimum an elementary level education.  Mill believed that these reforms were invaluable in the elimination of class hierarchy.

Though Mill’s capitalist reforms form part of the pathway towards his vision of socialism, he also details the subsequent transition from capitalist to socialist ownership of production. Capitalist ownership violates workers’ individual liberty by isolating the worker from the product of, and control over, their own labour. Motivation and quality of production suffer as a result. In response, Mill’s educational reforms play a pivotal role in how he imagines the empowerment and emancipation of the working class. He predicted that growing intelligence and socio-political self-awareness amongst the working class would enable their rejection of class structures; “no labourers of any worth [...] would labour for a master if they could work for themselves”.  

In response, Mill expected workers would form democratically-controlled worker cooperatives. He describes these cooperatives as an “association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.”   Importantly, this kind of democratic organisation limits the scope of Mill’s socialism to the firm and community scale. This is largely a result of the decentralised nature of Mill’s socialism, since Mill expects the diaspora of socialist ideas to occur through the enterprise of small communities and individual firms. Miller provides a compelling analysis of this: “For Mill the question of whether a given form of socialism should be adopted is equivalent to that of whether enlightened workers in a reformed capitalism would eventually adopt it.”  Therefore, the decision to advance or not advance socialist practices is not a collective one, but a decision for individuals and small groups. This freedom of choice is a liberal quality unique of Mill’s socialism. Note that Mill places little reliance on state intervention. The only state involvement Mill suggests is the provision of loans to early worker co-operatives, and even this is not certain.  Therefore, this approach differs greatly from the national-scale implementation of centralised state planning and ownership axiomatic to other forms of socialism.

This grassroots approach to the advent of socialism was also a highly experimental one. Mill predicted that workers’ experimentation with communist, utopian, and socialist arrangements would precede any large-scale commitment to socialism. My reading is that Mill anticipates the emergence of a marketplace of ideas on social and productive organisation; a society where well-constructed overarching capitalist structures give any new scheme “that fair trial which alone can test the workableness of any new scheme of social life” . So, if socialism is the most ‘workable’ way forward, then it will show itself to be so through experimentation. Therefore, despite what Mill believed was an ultimately socialist future, his path towards socialism is experimental and tolerant in its construction. 

With a close understanding of how Mill’s socialism aims to ameliorate class hierarchy, the question remains: Is all this really socialism? In his autobiography, Mill identifies himself as socialist, as his “ideal of ultimate improvement went far beyond Democracy, and would class [him] decidedly under the general designation of Socialists”.  However, this is a classification extensively debated by academics since Mill’s time of writing. I believe we can reconcile this ongoing conflict by understanding Mill’s socialism firstly in its socio-historical context, but then more broadly as a part of the socialist history since. In the first case, Mill’s socialism is rejected by all dominant socialisms of the time. 19th and early 20th century revolutionary socialists argued that socialism cannot come to exist practically nor legitimately without the dictatorship of the proletariat and absolute usurpation of the bourgeoise.  Even if Mill’s reforms succeeded in socialising production, whatever resulted would not be true socialism because of a) a lack of state control, and b) the persistent reliance on capitalist frameworks. By their analysis, Mill’s commitment to market structures is inherently paradoxical to the nature of socialism: if there is capitalism there cannot be socialism. Furthermore, Mill’s criticism of the welfare state excludes him from social democracy. He believed that “most redistributive policies of the modern welfare state are incompatible with his aims of self-help and economic development”.  We also cannot identify Mill with utopian socialism as some scholars have mistakenly done.  For Mill, competition between worker cooperatives and (in the early stages) other communist and capitalist organisations was “not pernicious, but useful and indispensable” in stimulating efficiency and innovation.  By comparison, an axiom of utopian socialism is anti-competition and the communal sharing of ideas and resources, as championed by Saint-Simon and Fourier. Therefore, Mill’s socialism is also distinct from utopian socialism. Hence, key aspects of Mill’s socialism stood at odds to effectively all dominant socialist thought within a century of his writing.

However, I believe it would be a mistake to disregard Mill as a socialist purely because distinctive aspects of his socialism were not appreciated around the time of their conception. Such a narrow view ignores the ability of philosophy to develop and evolve. Instead, the legitimacy of Mill’s socialism is best evaluated with a modern understanding of socialist thought. Categorically, I find that Mill’s socialism best identifies with democratic socialism, more specifically liberal socialism. Mill’s focus on decentralisation, the preservation of markets, workplace democracy, and individual rights aligns exactly with the current understanding of liberal socialism. This kind of socialism has had a genuine and ongoing place within socialist literature for the last century, with significant contributions from philosophers and politicians including Eduard Bernstein, Franz Oppenheimer, Oszkár Jászi, and Lula da Silva. Even principally, I believe that if Mill succeeds, the socialist organisation of eventually all firms is enough to classify him as a socialist. Mill himself highlights that if socialism proves to be the most effective form of production, then all labourers will self-elect to operate in this way, thereby creating a socialist society. Furthermore, it would be ignorant to downplay the emancipatory impact of power-sharing firm structures that Mill achieves. When combined with his redistributive capitalist reforms, he seems to achieve attain principally the same result as other kinds of socialism. Though their futures may look structurally different, Mill’s vision still succeeds in ameliorating a large part of the economic and social injustice previously fraught by capitalism. Is this not the crux of socialist philosophy? 

Regardless of whether Mill’s socialism is legitimate or not, we can still question whether it is a plausible approach. His proposed mechanism of worker co-operatives and profit-sharing business structures was admittedly successful for a large part of the century following his writings. This can be seen in the cooperatives of Britain and France post Industrial Revolution.  On a small scale, as in the British and French examples, worker cooperatives are valuable for their moral appeal to equality and liberty and their practical appeal to productivity, economic resilience, and stability. However, the practicality of their widespread operation, especially if we consider the application of Mill’s socialism today, is very limited. This is due to bureaucratic inefficiencies due to democratic organisation, small size which limits economies of scale, and limited access to investment capital and therefore business growth. 

I also find Mill’s assumption that educated workers will inherently tend towards his kind of socialism to be flawed. He relies heavily on educational reform as the main catalyst of workers’ conversion to co-operative organisations. I do accept the first part of this assumption, that intelligence and political literacy enables the working population to realise their socio-economic position. Such an awareness allows labourers to meaningfully engage in actions against class and wealth disparity. However, it is highly possible that workers may prefer arrangements other than democratic cooperatives. Mill attempts to consider this by acknowledging that the likelihood of experimentation with different kinds of organisation, but is still confident that inevitably, as “associations multiplied, they would tend more and more to absorb all work-people”.  However, should all workers find that they best prefer communism or anarchy, then Mill’s whole thesis is rendered useless. Though these examples are also kinds of socialism, Mill still fails to achieve his socialism. He fails to provide a compelling argument as to why all workers will eventually be satisfied working under the same cooperative labour conditions, and therefore why his socialism is a necessary future.

However, I do find value in Mill’s gradualist approach to socialism. Mill spends significant time criticising the opposing “immediate, violent, and wide-scale” breed of revolutionary socialism . In comparison, his decentralised socialism is desirable for its ability to be tested on a small scale. Even if Mill’s cooperatives fails in one community, the potential consequences are confined, a luxury not offered by a sweeping revolution. He contends that the revolutionist’s goal of suddenly seizing state control represents “a recklessness of other people’s suffering” ; that it stems from a hatred of the upper class rather than a desire to emancipate the working class. Whilst this second statement can hardly be proven in the case of every revolutionary socialist, there is merit to the first. Mill’s reformatory approach mitigates the social and economic fallout of a total political upheaval. Furthermore, even if Mill’s methodology is not innately socialist, as revolutionists would argue, the implementation of redistributive and educational reforms still advance the collective goal of social equality and justice, without risking a return to a Hobbesian state of nature. Therefore, even though some aspects of Mill’s socialism leave something to be desired, he still provides valuable insights into the most pragmatic, conscientious way in which socialism should be implemented.

John Stuart Mill’s position on socialism is a highly contentious one. However, this essay has ultimately shown Mill as a democratic, liberal socialist by merit of his capitalist reforms and method of institutional restructure through worker cooperatives. Though his discussion of competition, individual rights, and private property seem to exclude him from socialism, he qualifies these concepts to explain how liberal and capitalist principles fit into a socialist society. Furthermore, that though I have criticised various aspects of Mill’s argument, he ultimately still provides relevant observations as to how socialism should be effectively and plausibly implemented.

Bibliography

Feuer, Lewis S. 1949. “Discussion: John Stuart Mill and Marxian Socialism” in Journal of the History of Ideas, pp. 297-303. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).

Kurer, Oskar. 1991. “John Stuart Mill and the Welfare State” in History of Political Economy, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 713-730. (Durham: Duke University Press).

Lenin, Vladimir. 1961. “What is to be done?” in Lenin’s Collected Works, vol. 5, pp. 347-530. (Moscow: Foreign Publishing House). First published 1902.

Luxemberg, Rosa. 1986. “Social Reform or Revolution?”. (London: Militant Publications). First published 1900.

Marx, Karl. 1996. “The Communist Manifesto”. (London, Chicago: Pluto Press). First published 1848.

McCabe, Helen. 2020. “John Stuart Mill on “Legitimate Socialism” and the 1848 Revolution in Paris” in Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger, vol. 3, pp. 333-351. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).

Mill, John Stuart. 1880. “Chapters on Socialism”. American Book Exchange. https://dr.library.brocku.ca/bitstream/handle/10464/4917/chaptersonsocialism1880.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Mill, John Stuart. 1965. “Principles of Political Economy” in Collected Works of J. S. Mill, vol. 2-3, edited by J.M. Robson. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). First published 1848.

Mill, John Stuart. 1981. “Autobiography” in Collected Works of J. S. Mill, vol. 1, edited by J.M. Robson. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). First published 1873.

Mill, John Stuart. 1985. “Vindication of the French Revolution of February 1848” in Collected Works of J. S. Mill, vol. 20, edited by J.M. Robson. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). First published 1849.

Miller, Dale E. 2003. “Mill’s Socialism” in Politics, Philosophy & Economics, vol. 2, pp. 213-238. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications).

Persky, Joseph. 2019. “Mill’s Socialism Re-examined” in Utilitas, vol. 32, pp. 165-180. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).