Marx's critique of “eternal” political economy: how Mill is alien to Marx's attacks

Abstract

Marx deplored political economy's claims to establish “eternal” – or “natural” – laws. This paper seeks to defend John Stuart Mill from his critique. It argues that, contrary to what Marx alleged, these two economists have a great deal more in common on this topic than is frequently realised. Both on the theoretical level and on the political one, Mill's views about the relativity of capitalism seem very close to Marx's. This paper also suggests that Marx may have ignored Mill's insistence on the relativity of economic theories because it may have challenged his own “scientific socialism”.

Keywords:

• Karl Marx
• John Stuart Mill
• critique of political economy
• “natural” laws
• socialism

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Ragip Ege, Jean-Daniel Boyer, Simon Hupfel and Lionel Rischmann, as well as the participants of the 2012 ESHET Conference, in particular Wade Hands who discussed an earlier version of the article, and two anonymous referees, for their helpful comments and criticisms. I am especially indebted to Herrade Igersheim who provided me funding for the translation.

Notes

1 Vardaman Smith suggests that Mill and Marx should be compared on the distribution–production distinction (Smith 1985, note 5, p. 278), but does not carry out this comparison himself, instead treating them in part separately (see Smith 1984, 1985), and in part inappropriately (see footnote 8). Evans did announce that he has “dealt with this issue in a separate paper” (Evans 1989, note 90, 295) but without giving any bibliographic reference: indeed, it appears that it has not been published in either a journal or a book.

2 On Mill's socialism, see Feuer (1949), Hollander (1985, 770–824), Duncan (1977, 244–8; 287–97), and Robbins (2004, 231–7).

3 On this topic, see Feuer (1949) and Légé (2005, 91–2, note 112).

4 Here Marx is probably targeting all reformist policy measures compatible with capitalism (modification of the duration of the working day, taxes, etc.) as opposed to a complete abolition of capitalism. See Critique of the Gotha Program, Randglossen I.

5 See also the manuscripts from 1857/58 : “J. St. Mill holds the relations of bourgeois production for eternal (ewig) but the forms of the distribution for historical (historisch)” (Marx 1981, 631).

6 Indeed see Ricardo (1817, 5).

7 One must therefore acknowledge that it is thanks to the reading of Marx that Mill's own thought can be made clearer.

8 The existing literature seems also to have missed this point. See, for example, Smith (1984, 150, 159) or Oakley (1985, 176).

9 Mill, however, explicitly opposed Montesquieu's definition of “natural laws” (Mill 1874, 378).

10 Mill uses the concept of “custom” to designate a set of tacit and explicit obligations as opposed to individual free choice.

11 Moreover, Mill had always been against any attempt to naturalise human characters, and in particular against all claims to affirm the existence of a so-called nature of women or Negroes. See, for example, Mill (1869a, 304–5, 313, 320) and Mill (1850, 42 sq, 93 sq).

12 See Mill (1873, 241).

13 On this issue, see the detailed study by Evans (1989, 276).

14 For a discussion of the consequences of this recantation on his attitude vis-à-vis trade unions, see West and Hafer (1978, 1981) and Ekelund and Kordsmeier (1981).

15 The wages-fund represents “la valeur d'une certaine quantité de subsistances dont la nature pose à chaque moment les bornes fatales, que la classe travailleuse s'escrime vainement à franchir” (Marx 1875b, 1118).

16 For a discussion of this latter question, see Evans (1989, 279–80) and Hollander (1987, 375–6).

17 See, for example, Mill (1848a, 216, 1848b, 811, 819, 821).

18 See also Principles, 766–7.

19 S. Collini points out that Mill was a rather demonic figure within liberal circles when he died (Collini 1991, chap. 8).

20 Marx says in this letter that if James Mill was the initial target, his son could also be blamed as he merely repeated what his father said on this issue.

21 Indeed, Mill was the president of the “Land Tenure Reform Association”. In his Explanatory Statement of the Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association of 1871 (Mill 1871, 687–95), he advocated among others a tax on unearned rent (due to the increase of population).

22 Although Marx acknowledged that he himself defended this measure, in the Manifesto of the PC (section II), but only as transitional.

23 Marx comments here on a book of Henry George (1839–1897), Progress and Poverty (1879). This American economist was the founder of the Land Reform Movement.

24 He began to study economics from April to June 1844 reading Smith, Ricardo, James Mill, MacCulloch, Boisguilbert, Say, Sismondi, etc. When he started reading Mill in 1845, it was first the Essays, a set of texts that already stressed the relativity of classical economics but in a less pronounced manner than the later Millian writings.

25 We do not know if Marx read this book, and in particular Book VI on the moral sciences. He refers to it only once in passing, in Capital (Marx 1867, 616, note 31).