Page 260 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes the “most universal and one of the strongest methods of control”. However, he was aware of
potential tyranny within a socialist society, for he rejected all forms of paternalism as anti-
progressive. He supported local workers, retail cooperatives and schemes of sharing profits between
workers and managers, and other workers’ savings, investment and insurance schemes. He
cautioned that these schemes, however beneficial to the larger community, should not “dispense
with the inducements of private interests in social affairs”. This was because there was no substitute
for them, nor could one be provided.
Mill, therefore, could be classified as an “unrepentant defender of the laissez faire system of the
economy and a radical libertarian in his efforts to extend its practice and benefits from capitalist
employers and the self-employed to all peasant and industrial workers”. In 1866-1867, he was
prepared to serve as a bridge between Gladstonian parliamentary liberalism and working-class
causes. He described socialism as educative, but was not hopeful of its success. He classified
socialist perception in two distinct categories : (a) a vision of a new society based on free association
of small self-governing units; and (b) a more drastic scheme of managing the total productive
resources under a centralized authority. He favoured the first model, mistakenly attributing the
second to continental Europe. However, both these trends characterized British socialist thought.
Mill’s advocacy of the participation of workers in management and the need for just apportionment
in the ownership of property, one that united him with the Socialists of his time, had twofold
implications for his views on citizenship. First, it was just that the industrious should be
compensated for their contributions to the well-being of society; by not merely making them part
of the body politic, but also granting them economic benefits. This view has been reiterated and
refined by Rawls, who viewed productive capacities as social assets, but insisted on granting
incentives to the well-off to secure efficiency and productivity. Rawls ruled out rewards if they
were unearned. This was necessary if the difference principle had to be meaningfully implemented,
so that not only was the worst off elevated, but also the interests of the well-off protected. Second,
it was through participation, whether in running a factory or workshop or government, that an
individual learnt to exercise his judgement and work for the common good. Judgement required
thought, considerations of common good required altruism, and participation did away with
lethargy.
Mill contended that trade unions not only restored bargaining power between the workers and
the captains of industry, but also ensured just and orderly economic development. He was against
making membership within trade unions compulsory. Nor did he believe in prohibiting the right
to strike.
In 1869, Mill began a book on Socialism, which remained incomplete. He expressed the need to
reform the existing property laws, so that everyone could share its benefits. He disliked the
exploitation that private property entailed, but was more perturbed by the uniformity that
Socialism/ Communism enforced. He did not think that Socialism would solve the problems that
capitalism faced. Moreover, capitalism, far from increasing misery and injustice, decreased them
in the long run. He was convinced that Socialism would run into a dead end if it renounced its
liberal heritage and supported an all-powerful state. He alluded to the problem of maintaining
property rights within Socialism. He also warned against the submersion of individuality within
Socialism.
Already in all societies the compression of individuality by the majority is a great and
growing evil; it would probably be much greater under Communism, except so far as
it might be in the power of individuals to set bounds to it by selecting to belong to a
community of persons like-minded with themselves.
For Mill, Socialism prevented the proponents of laissez faire and the free market from becoming
complacent. It remained, for him, a set of arguments and was not a viable potent political force.
His views on Socialism were formed by reading Blanc, Fourier, Owen and Saint Simon, rather

254 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY