Overcoming false dichotomies: Mill, Marx and the welfare state

History of Political Thought

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 657-681

  Lindsay, Peter ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034367282     PISSN: 0143781X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. I would like to thank Jeremy Goldman, Pratap Mehta, Glyn Morgan, Gail Presser, Steven Young and the anonymous referees for History of Political Thought for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
2. M. Weber, ' "Objectivity" in Social Science and Social Policy', The Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch (New York, 1949), p. 90. Parsons, following Weber, is somewhat clearer on this point. Discussing Toennies' Gesellschaft/Gemeinschaft distinction, Parsons notes that the 'importance here lies in its stating and classifying the facts in such a way as to bring out with especial clarity what are for the present analytical purposes highly significant points'. T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, Vol. II (New York, 1968), p. 694.
3. M. Weber, ' "Objectivity" in Social Science and Social Policy', The Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch (New York, 1949), p. 90. Parsons, following Weber, is somewhat clearer on this point. Discussing Toennies' Gesellschaft/Gemeinschaft distinction, Parsons notes that the 'importance here lies in its stating and classifying the facts in such a way as to bring out with especial clarity what are for the present analytical purposes highly significant points'. T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, Vol. II (New York, 1968), p. 694.
4. M. Weber, ' "Objectivity" in Social Science and Social Policy', The Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch (New York, 1949), p. 90. Parsons, following Weber, is somewhat clearer on this point. Discussing Toennies' Gesellschaft/Gemeinschaft distinction, Parsons notes that the 'importance here lies in its stating and classifying the facts in such a way as to bring out with especial clarity what are for the present analytical purposes highly significant points'. T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, Vol. II (New York, 1968), p. 694.
5. Weber, 'Objectivity'.
6. Ibid., pp. 92-4.
7. Ibid., p. 110.
8. The work of economic historians such as R.H. Tawney and Karl Polanyi comes to mind immediately, as does Durkheim's study of the division of labour and Weber's Economy and Society (Berkeley, 1978) - the latter being a model of good social science. There is good contemporary historical work being done as well. William Novak's recent work on nineteenth-century America, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996), being a wonderful example. In economics, Galbraith's work (in particular The New Industrial State (Boston, 1967)) is a constant reminder of how far actual economic relations have drifted from the model we have of capitalist enterprise. can think of no better work in my own field of political science than Charles Lindblom's brilliant book Politics and Markets (New York, 1977).
9. The work of economic historians such as R.H. Tawney and Karl Polanyi comes to mind immediately, as does Durkheim's study of the division of labour and Weber's Economy and Society (Berkeley, 1978) - the latter being a model of good social science. There is good contemporary historical work being done as well. William Novak's recent work on nineteenth-century America, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996), being a wonderful example. In economics, Galbraith's work (in particular The New Industrial State (Boston, 1967)) is a constant reminder of how far actual economic relations have drifted from the model we have of capitalist enterprise. can think of no better work in my own field of political science than Charles Lindblom's brilliant book Politics and Markets (New York, 1977).
10. The work of economic historians such as R.H. Tawney and Karl Polanyi comes to mind immediately, as does Durkheim's study of the division of labour and Weber's Economy and Society (Berkeley, 1978) - the latter being a model of good social science. There is good contemporary historical work being done as well. William Novak's recent work on nineteenth-century America, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996), being a wonderful example. In economics, Galbraith's work (in particular The New Industrial State (Boston, 1967)) is a constant reminder of how far actual economic relations have drifted from the model we have of capitalist enterprise. can think of no better work in my own field of political science than Charles Lindblom's brilliant book Politics and Markets (New York, 1977).
11. The work of economic historians such as R.H. Tawney and Karl Polanyi comes to mind immediately, as does Durkheim's study of the division of labour and Weber's Economy and Society (Berkeley, 1978) - the latter being a model of good social science. There is good contemporary historical work being done as well. William Novak's recent work on nineteenth-century America, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996), being a wonderful example. In economics, Galbraith's work (in particular The New Industrial State (Boston, 1967)) is a constant reminder of how far actual economic relations have drifted from the model we have of capitalist enterprise. can think of no better work in my own field of political science than Charles Lindblom's brilliant book Politics and Markets (New York, 1977).
12. This statement, made by Salwyn Shapiro, is quoted in G. Duncan, Mill and Marx: Two Views of Social Conflict and Social Harmony (Cambridge, 1973), p. 14.
13. A good historical background on this work can be found in Eric Roll's A History of Economic Thought (London, 1938) as well as in Donald Winch's introduction to the Penguin Classics edition (London, 1970).
14. For a discussion of how the seven editions of the text change, see M. Ellis, 'Variations in the Editions of J.S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy', Economic Journal, XVI (June 1906), pp. 291-302, and L. Robbins, The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy (London, 1952). Some of these changes are discussed below.
15. For a discussion of how the seven editions of the text change, see M. Ellis, 'Variations in the Editions of J.S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy', Economic Journal, XVI (June 1906), pp. 291-302, and L. Robbins, The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy (London, 1952). Some of these changes are discussed below.
16. J.S. Mill, Autobiography, in Autobiography and Literary Essays, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. I (Toronto, 1981), pp. 1-290, p. 257.
17. Mill would clearly reject many elements that comprise contemporary understandings of 'welfare state capitalism', the most obvious perhaps being the giving of benefits without corresponding responsibilities (an element that is itself diminishing with the advent of so-called workfare schemes). As the purpose of this essay is to call into question strict allegiances to ideal types such as welfare state capitalism, I put aside the issue of how comfortable Mill would really be with this or any other label. That he fits the general mould as I have depicted it is all that really matters here.
18. Cf. J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, in Mill, Collected Works, Vols. II-III (Toronto, 1965), p. 979n j and p. 980n o. In addition to the volume and page number from Collected Works, all citations from Principles will also indicate the specific book, chapter and section from that work. In this case, the section to which I refer is II.i.3.
19. According to Keynes, the term 'the classical economists' originated with Marx, and was meant to cover Ricardo, James Mill and their predecessors ('the founders of the theory which culminated in the Ricardian economics'). J.M. Keynes, The General Theory. The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. VII (London, 1973), p. 3. While Keynes broke from Marx's lexicon, broadening the term to include the followers of Ricardo, I use the term 'classical political economy' in the sense he attributes to Marx.
20. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 199 (II.i.1). Except where otherwise specified, all citations from Principles are from the seventh edition (London, 1871). Here I follow the convention established by Robson. (For Robson's defence of the seventh edition as definitive see Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, pp. 1xxix-1xxx.) In no instance do my citations from that edition vary from the first edition.
21. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 199 (II.i.1). Except where otherwise specified, all citations from Principles are from the seventh edition (London, 1871). Here I follow the convention established by Robson. (For Robson's defence of the seventh edition as definitive see Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, pp. 1xxix-1xxx.) In no instance do my citations from that edition vary from the first edition.
22. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 199 (II.i.1). Except where otherwise specified, all citations from Principles are from the seventh edition (London, 1871). Here I follow the convention established by Robson. (For Robson's defence of the seventh edition as definitive see Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, pp. 1xxix-1xxx.) In no instance do my citations from that edition vary from the first edition.
23. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 199 (II.i.1).
24. Ibid., p. 200 (II.i.1).
25. 'Natural' here meaning that the distribution occurs under laissez faire.
26. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 207 (II.i.1).
27. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 760 (IV.vii.1).
28. Ibid., p. 770 (IV.vii.5).
29. Ibid., p. 795 (IV.vii.7). In the first edition, he belittled America as having created 'one sex . . . devoted to dollar-hunting, and . . . the other to breeding dollar-hunters' (ibid., p. 754 (IV.vi.2)).
30. Ibid., p. 795 (IV.vii.7). In the first edition, he belittled America as having created 'one sex . . . devoted to dollar-hunting, and . . . the other to breeding dollar-hunters' (ibid., p. 754 (IV.vi.2)).
31. Ibid., p. 754 (IV.vi.2).
32. Ibid., p. 755 (IV.vi.2).
33. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 210 (II.i.4).
34. Ibid., pp. 114-15 (I.vii.6). That this very argument could be used to justify the abolition of the private right to capital did not seem to occur to Mill.
35. In The General Council of the First International (1870-1871): Minutes, Mill is quoted praising an address delivered by Marx, although the latter is not mentioned by name (Additional Letters of John Stuart Mill, Collected Works, Vol. XXXII (Toronto, 1991), p. 220). It is tempting to explain Mill's avoidance of Marx as the product of Mill's experiences with an earlier German system builder. Like many Anglo-American thinkers, Mill seems to have been disturbed by Hegel. In an 1867 letter to Alexander Bain, Mill writes: 'I found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one's intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self contradictions not disguised but openly faced and coined into science by being stamped with a set of big abstract terms, really, if persisted in, impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning and false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflection, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of.' (J.S. Mill, The Later Letters: 1849-1873, in Mill, Collected Works, Vol. XVI (Toronto, 1972), p. 1324.) It is perhaps understandable that Mill was in no hurry to take on anyone even remotely influenced by Hegel.
36. In The General Council of the First International (1870-1871): Minutes, Mill is quoted praising an address delivered by Marx, although the latter is not mentioned by name (Additional Letters of John Stuart Mill, Collected Works, Vol. XXXII (Toronto, 1991), p. 220). It is tempting to explain Mill's avoidance of Marx as the product of Mill's experiences with an earlier German system builder. Like many Anglo-American thinkers, Mill seems to have been disturbed by Hegel. In an 1867 letter to Alexander Bain, Mill writes: 'I found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one's intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self contradictions not disguised but openly faced and coined into science by being stamped with a set of big abstract terms, really, if persisted in, impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning and false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflection, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of.' (J.S. Mill, The Later Letters: 1849-1873, in Mill, Collected Works, Vol. XVI (Toronto, 1972), p. 1324.) It is perhaps understandable that Mill was in no hurry to take on anyone even remotely influenced by Hegel.
37. K. Marx, Capital, Volume One (New York, 1977), p. 654.
38. Cf. ibid., pp. 221, 639, 737, 744.
39. Ibid., p. 973.
40. Ibid., p. 556.
41. Ibid., p. 639; cf. p. 801.
42. Ibid., p. 98.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., p. 760.
45. Ibid., p. 98.
46. Ibid., p. 221.
47. It is perhaps imprecise to speak of a concern on Marx's part for equity, given the supposed 'scientific' nature of his critique and his rejection of equity, justice or morality as 'bourgeois' concepts. I have never been convinced by Marx's argument here, however, as his ontological starting point - humans as creative beings who express themselves through acts of labour - seems quite clearly to be an ideal standard against which to evaluate normatively social conditions which inhibit such expression.
48. K. Marx, Grundrisse: Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy (New York, 1973), p. 832.
49. K. Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program', in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. R. Tucker (New York, 1978), pp. 525-41, p. 531.
50. Ibid., p. 532.
51. This idea was integral both to his critique of rights (see On the Jewish Question) and the theory of history that he and Engels had already developed in The German Ideology.
52. Marx, Grundrisse, p. 87.
53. While Marx's emphasis was on the exploitive nature of production per se, one should not presume that he overlooked the role historically contingent events played in determining the concrete form that such exploitation took. Perhaps the most extensive discussion is found in Capital, Part Eight, Chs. 26-33. A particularly vivid example of how feudal power was transferred to capitalism is discussed in an article Marx wrote for both the New York Daily Tribune and the Chartist People's Paper (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Articles on Britain (Moscow, 1971), pp. 143-9). Marx reprinted excerpts of the article in Capital, pp. 891-2.
54. While Marx's emphasis was on the exploitive nature of production per se, one should not presume that he overlooked the role historically contingent events played in determining the concrete form that such exploitation took. Perhaps the most extensive discussion is found in Capital, Part Eight, Chs. 26-33. A particularly vivid example of how feudal power was transferred to capitalism is discussed in an article Marx wrote for both the New York Daily Tribune and the Chartist People's Paper (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Articles on Britain (Moscow, 1971), pp. 143-9). Marx reprinted excerpts of the article in Capital, pp. 891-2.
55. While Marx's emphasis was on the exploitive nature of production per se, one should not presume that he overlooked the role historically contingent events played in determining the concrete form that such exploitation took. Perhaps the most extensive discussion is found in Capital, Part Eight, Chs. 26-33. A particularly vivid example of how feudal power was transferred to capitalism is discussed in an article Marx wrote for both the New York Daily Tribune and the Chartist People's Paper (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Articles on Britain (Moscow, 1971), pp. 143-9). Marx reprinted excerpts of the article in Capital, pp. 891-2.
56. K. Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (New York, 1964), pp. 117-18. Cf., Capital, p. 769.
57. K. Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (New York, 1964), pp. 117-18. Cf., Capital, p. 769.
58. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 208 (II.i.3).
59. Just how far actual worker cooperatives and profit sharing schemes - or any other welfare state reforms - go towards altering the nature of labour is another matter. The issue here is the welfare state's theoretical potential, not its actual performance.
60. '[T]he Ten Hours' Bill was not only a great practical success; it was the victory of a principle; it was the first time that in broad daylight the political economy of the middle class succumbed to the political economy of the working class.' 'Inaugural Address of the Working Men's International Association', in Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Tucker, pp. 512-19, p. 518.
61. Tucker raises this point. See Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Tucker, p. 512.
62. Marx argued that this spelled not just their inadequacy, but their doom ('Inaugural Address', p. 518), while Mill supported cooperatives only if they were voluntary, that is, only if a right to traditional capital ownership was left intact. Mill actually argued that cooperatives would be well-served by competing with non-cooperative firms (Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 793 (IV.vii.6)).
63. Marx argued that this spelled not just their inadequacy, but their doom ('Inaugural Address', p. 518), while Mill supported cooperatives only if they were voluntary, that is, only if a right to traditional capital ownership was left intact. Mill actually argued that cooperatives would be well-served by competing with non-cooperative firms (Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 793 (IV.vii.6)).
64. Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 810-11 (V.ii.3) (first and second editions only).
65. From the third edition on, this sentence reads: 'I am as desirous as any one, that means should be taken to diminish . . . inequalities, but not so as to relieve the prodigal at the expense of the prudent.' I use the earlier version because it seems a more precise statement of his argument.
66. Marx, Grundrisse, pp. 87-8.
67. The shortcomings here are not unique to Marx and Mill. More nuanced accounts of property really only begin to appear in the twentieth century.
68. Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Tucker, p. 42.
69. Marx, Capital, p. 927.
70. Ibid.
71. In his discussion of colonization in Capital, Vol. 1, ch. 33, Marx draws another distinction between two types of property, but here the distinction is between two sorts of justifications for the same set of rights.
72. Marx, Grundrisse, p. 102.
73. Ibid., pp. 252, 275-81.
74. Ibid., pp. 87-8.
75. Ibid., p. 88.
76. For instance, Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 987 (II.i.6) (1849 edition).
77. See in particular the 1849 edition (III, Appendix A).
78. J.S. Mill, 'The Condition of Ireland [1-43]', in Newspaper Writings: January 1835-June 1847, Mill, Collected Works, Vol. XXIV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 879-1035.
79. J.S. Mill, 'The Condition of Ireland [1-43]', in Newspaper Writings: January 1835-June 1847, Mill, Collected Works, Vol. XXIV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 879-1035.
80. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
81. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
82. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
83. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
84. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
85. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
86. Cf. J.S. Mill, 'Land Tenure Reform', in Essays on Economics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. V (Toronto, 1967), pp. 687-95; 'What Is to Be Done with Ireland?' and 'England and Ireland', in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, Collected Works, Vol. VI (Toronto, 1982), pp. 218-20, 502-13; 'Centralization', in Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works, Vol. XIX (Toronto, 1977), pp. 594-6; 'The Right of Property in Land', in Newspaper Writings: December 1847-July 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXV (Toronto, 1986), pp. 1235-43; 'Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill', The State of Ireland' and 'The Westminister Election', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: November 1850-November 1868, Collected Works, Vol. XXVIII (Toronto, 1988), pp. 75-83, 247-61, 355-8; 'Land Tenure Reform [2]', in Public and Parliamentary Speeches: July 1869-March 1873, Collected Works, Vol. XXIX (Toronto, 1988), pp. 425-31; 'Maine on Village Communities', in Writings on India, Collected Works, Vol. XXX (Toronto, 1990), pp. 222-5.
87. In Mill, Collected Works, Vol. V, p. 749.
88. He often does sound closer to Locke than to Bentham, as for instance when he argues that 'property which a person has in things that he himself has made . . . resolve[s] [itself] into the right of every person to do as he pleases with his own labour' (Mill, 'Right of Property', p. 1235).
89. R.H. Tawney, The Acquisitive Society (New York, 1920), p. 28.
90. Environmental legislation offers a similar example with regard to the right of ownership in natural resources. Here the issue of externalities renders problematic the idea that our ownership of natural resources is a strictly self-regarding or private concern.
91. See P. Lindsay, Creative Individualism: The Democratic Vision of C.B. Macpherson (Albany, 1996).
92. While I have maintained that Mill was unaware of how his 'possibilities in the future' involved changes to production, there are at least two possible grounds for objection here. One begins by pointing out that Mill's thoughts on the future changed quite dramatically through the editions of Principles, and even afterwards (in his posthumously published essays in the Fortnightly Review, he seems to return to the more cautious tone of the early editions of Principles - see Mill, Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 701-53). As he states in his Autobiography: 'In the first edition the difficulties of Socialism were stated so strongly, that the tone was on the whole that of opposition to it. In the year or two which followed, much time was given to the study of the best Socialistic writers of the Continent, and to meditation and discussion on the whole range of topics involved in the controversy: and the result was that most of what had been written on the subject in the first edition was cancelled, and replaced by arguments and reflections which represent a more advanced opinion.' Mill, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 241. In light of Mill's intellectual development, a case might be made that he understood his future possibilities as involving changes to the natural laws of production, and that any discrepancies between his vision of the future and his claims about not altering production should be understood in light of the obvious difficulties involved in revising a text so many times over a twenty-three-year period. The difficulty with this argument is that some of Mill's most extensive changes regarding future possibilities were made in the very same chapter (II.i) where the production/distribution distinction was made and left unchanged. While it might be difficult to keep track of how changes to one section of a four-volume work render another section contradictory, such a difficulty is less easily understandable when the change and the contradiction occur within fifteen pages of each other. A more plausible case for Mill's being aware that his future possibilities involved changes to production can be made if we suppose that in his speculations on the future he was anticipating the changes to human behaviour that would allow for changes to production. He did, after all, go all the way to embracing a distant communist future, and in doing so clearly accepted a change in production. In the preface to the third edition (London, 1852), he writes that the question of 'whether . . . individual property in some form (though a form very remote from the present) or community of ownership in the instruments of production and a regulated division of produce' will prevail is one left to a future 'when this state of mental and moral cultivation shall be attained' (II.xciii). But were his 'socialist' proposals (what I am calling his welfare state) predicated on such changes in human behaviour and, as such, free from his stricture against changes to production? I would argue that they were not. He was quite explicit that the changes were in keeping with the present state of man (Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 758-96 (IV.vii)), a fact which would call into question any claim that he was consciously proposing changes to production.
93. While I have maintained that Mill was unaware of how his 'possibilities in the future' involved changes to production, there are at least two possible grounds for objection here. One begins by pointing out that Mill's thoughts on the future changed quite dramatically through the editions of Principles, and even afterwards (in his posthumously published essays in the Fortnightly Review, he seems to return to the more cautious tone of the early editions of Principles - see Mill, Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 701-53). As he states in his Autobiography: 'In the first edition the difficulties of Socialism were stated so strongly, that the tone was on the whole that of opposition to it. In the year or two which followed, much time was given to the study of the best Socialistic writers of the Continent, and to meditation and discussion on the whole range of topics involved in the controversy: and the result was that most of what had been written on the subject in the first edition was cancelled, and replaced by arguments and reflections which represent a more advanced opinion.' Mill, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 241. In light of Mill's intellectual development, a case might be made that he understood his future possibilities as involving changes to the natural laws of production, and that any discrepancies between his vision of the future and his claims about not altering production should be understood in light of the obvious difficulties involved in revising a text so many times over a twenty-three-year period. The difficulty with this argument is that some of Mill's most extensive changes regarding future possibilities were made in the very same chapter (II.i) where the production/distribution distinction was made and left unchanged. While it might be difficult to keep track of how changes to one section of a four-volume work render another section contradictory, such a difficulty is less easily understandable when the change and the contradiction occur within fifteen pages of each other. A more plausible case for Mill's being aware that his future possibilities involved changes to production can be made if we suppose that in his speculations on the future he was anticipating the changes to human behaviour that would allow for changes to production. He did, after all, go all the way to embracing a distant communist future, and in doing so clearly accepted a change in production. In the preface to the third edition (London, 1852), he writes that the question of 'whether . . . individual property in some form (though a form very remote from the present) or community of ownership in the instruments of production and a regulated division of produce' will prevail is one left to a future 'when this state of mental and moral cultivation shall be attained' (II.xciii). But were his 'socialist' proposals (what I am calling his welfare state) predicated on such changes in human behaviour and, as such, free from his stricture against changes to production? I would argue that they were not. He was quite explicit that the changes were in keeping with the present state of man (Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 758-96 (IV.vii)), a fact which would call into question any claim that he was consciously proposing changes to production.
94. While I have maintained that Mill was unaware of how his 'possibilities in the future' involved changes to production, there are at least two possible grounds for objection here. One begins by pointing out that Mill's thoughts on the future changed quite dramatically through the editions of Principles, and even afterwards (in his posthumously published essays in the Fortnightly Review, he seems to return to the more cautious tone of the early editions of Principles - see Mill, Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 701-53). As he states in his Autobiography: 'In the first edition the difficulties of Socialism were stated so strongly, that the tone was on the whole that of opposition to it. In the year or two which followed, much time was given to the study of the best Socialistic writers of the Continent, and to meditation and discussion on the whole range of topics involved in the controversy: and the result was that most of what had been written on the subject in the first edition was cancelled, and replaced by arguments and reflections which represent a more advanced opinion.' Mill, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 241. In light of Mill's intellectual development, a case might be made that he understood his future possibilities as involving changes to the natural laws of production, and that any discrepancies between his vision of the future and his claims about not altering production should be understood in light of the obvious difficulties involved in revising a text so many times over a twenty-three-year period. The difficulty with this argument is that some of Mill's most extensive changes regarding future possibilities were made in the very same chapter (II.i) where the production/distribution distinction was made and left unchanged. While it might be difficult to keep track of how changes to one section of a four-volume work render another section contradictory, such a difficulty is less easily understandable when the change and the contradiction occur within fifteen pages of each other. A more plausible case for Mill's being aware that his future possibilities involved changes to production can be made if we suppose that in his speculations on the future he was anticipating the changes to human behaviour that would allow for changes to production. He did, after all, go all the way to embracing a distant communist future, and in doing so clearly accepted a change in production. In the preface to the third edition (London, 1852), he writes that the question of 'whether . . . individual property in some form (though a form very remote from the present) or community of ownership in the instruments of production and a regulated division of produce' will prevail is one left to a future 'when this state of mental and moral cultivation shall be attained' (II.xciii). But were his 'socialist' proposals (what I am calling his welfare state) predicated on such changes in human behaviour and, as such, free from his stricture against changes to production? I would argue that they were not. He was quite explicit that the changes were in keeping with the present state of man (Mill, Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 758-96 (IV.vii)), a fact which would call into question any claim that he was consciously proposing changes to production.
95. J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, MA, 1996), p. 79 (italics added).
96. It is interesting to speculate whether Mill might have been more critical of capitalist property rights had he, like Marx, developed his thought through Hegel (see above, note 27). The latter's critique of 'abstract right' (in Elements of the Philosophy of Right) points, in the realm of theory, to many of the same inadequacies that Mill observed in actual social relations. Had he been able to place his observations in the theoretical context that Hegel was offering, Mill might have abandoned his unmitigated embrace of capitalist production. (That Marx did not do so reflects the profound philosophical differences that existed between Hegel and himself.)
97. J.M. Keynes, 'The End of Laissez-Faire', in Essays in Persuasion, The Collected Writings, Vol. IX (London, 1972), pp. 272-94, p. 285.
98. J.M. Keynes, 'Am I a Liberal?', in ibid., pp. 295-306, p. 304.
99. Keynes, The General Theory, p. 378.
100. Ibid., p. 383.
101. M. Weber, 'Science as a Vocation', in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H. Gerth and C. Mills (New York and Oxford, 1958), p. 152.
102. Keynes, The General Theory, p. 378.
103. It is interesting to note that even in the case of Hayek, the darling of the hyper-dichotomous thinking New Right, the arguments put forth are more nuanced than the rhetoric would suggest (a fact that seems to have eluded his inheritors).
104. In a 1944 letter to Hayek, Keynes, having just read The Road to Serfdom, wrote: 'In my opinion it is a grand book. We all have the greatest reason to be grateful to you for saying so well what needs so much to be said. You will not expect me to accept quite all the economic dicta in it. But morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.' J.M. Keynes, 'Letter to Hayek', in Activities 1940-1946: Shaping the Post-War World: Employment and Commodities, The Collected Writings, Vol. XXVII (London, 1980), pp. 385-8, p. 385.
105. 'Property is the most ambiguous of categories. It covers a multitude of rights which have nothing in common except that they are exercised by persons and enforced by the state. Apart from these formal characteristics, they vary indefinitely in economic character, in social effect, and in moral justification . . . It is idle, therefore, to present a case for or against private property without specifying the particular forms of property to which reference is made, and the journalist who says that "private property is the foundation of civilization" agrees with Proudhon, who said it was theft, in this respect at least that, without further definition, the words of both are meaningless . . . The course of wisdom is neither to attack private property in general nor to defend it in general; for things are not similar in quality, merely because they are identical in name. It is to discriminate between the various concrete embodiments of what, in itself, is, after all, little more than an abstraction.' (Tawney, Acquisitive Society, pp. 53-4.)
106. It may appear odd to some that I have not mentioned the parallels between the socialism/welfare state dichotomy and the Marxist/liberal dichotomy. I have not because the latter, being largely philosophical, does not lend itself well to Weber's 'confrontation with empirical reality', and so escapes the sorts of arguments I make here. This is not say, however, that liberal aversions to Marxism and Marxist aversions to liberalism are unrelated or even unimportant to the socialism/welfare state dichotomy.
107. R. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, 1985), p. 150. Seventy-five years earlier, another of Keynes' lost contemporaries, Hobhouse, expressed the same sentiment: 'We must not assume any of the rights of property as axiomatic. We must look at their actual working and consider how they affect the life of society.' L.T. Hobhouse, Liberalism (Oxford, 1981), p. 54.
108. R. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, 1985), p. 150. Seventy-five years earlier, another of Keynes' lost contemporaries, Hobhouse, expressed the same sentiment: 'We must not assume any of the rights of property as axiomatic. We must look at their actual working and consider how they affect the life of society.' L.T. Hobhouse, Liberalism (Oxford, 1981), p. 54.