The Subjection of Women, On Liberty, and Communist Manifesto - Assignment Example

May 2, 2006 John Stuart Mill was the of "On Liberty" and "The ion of Women". Are there connections between the arguments he makes in both books? John Stuart Mill was one of the most distinguished liberal thinkers of the 19th century. He is both a political economist and a philosopher. Two of his most notable works are the essays, “On Liberty” and “The Subjection of Women.” There are arguments in these essays that apparently look connected and these will be the subjects to be addressed in this article. But first, let us be acquainted with the background of these two works. On Liberty The essay “On Liberty” is said to be one of the most powerful and certainly most influential work in most political ideologies, especially in the all the fields of liberalism. The concepts of freedom, tyranny, his famous “Harm principle,” and the society were immensely covered in the essay. His views on these concepts may have led all those who study his works that his reasons were motivated by the utilitarian concepts credited to his upbringing. The Subjection of Women Mill has been a known advocate of women’s emancipation in his time. And in “Subjection of Women,” he has laid all the arguments and his eloquence as to how society is imposing inequalities upon women. Women’s suffrage was raised; the marriage law in his time as well as other legislations concerning the debasement of women were also assailed. Credit The connections between the essays “On Liberty” and “The Subjection of Women” may be credited to John Stuart Mill’s wife, Harriet Taylor. The latter piece was, as claimed by Mill, co-written by her and the former, “On Liberty,” was written after her death. Utilitarianism Firstly, Mill’s advocacy of utilitarianism was clearly manifested in these two essays. His defense of liberty and women were all based on his belief it will be for the greater good, for the enrichment of society and individual development. In his essays, whether it is freedom from tyranny discussed in “On Liberty” or freedom from societal restriction on women, found in “The Subjection of Women,” they will bring about positive consequences on society rather than they are some form of natural rights. Mill firmly believed that the moral and intellectual advancement of humankind would result in greater happiness for everybody. He cited how the advancement of the intellect will yield greater pleasure than those yielded by the senses. It is in this light when he demanded suffrage for women. In his view, to vote is to stand independently, morally and intellectually that is why he argued with such passion that a woman is an equal to a man. “"I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely." Mill described how the emancipation of women could benefit men as well. He explained that the stimulus of an educated female in companionship and competition would lead to the intellectual advancement of all. “On Liberty,” as mentioned earlier, was a guiding principle to ideologies. And the following connections describe this relationship of “The Subjection of Women,” as a specific example, to the concepts raised in the former. Tyranny of the majority “On Liberty” gave birth to the concept of the tyranny of the majority wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things. "The people who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised". This true in the case of the majority when it wish to criminalize, outlaw or outcast a section of society that happens to be a minority — whether a race, gender, faith, or the like — it would be easily be done despite any opposition from the minority. In “The Subjection of Women,” we are given the specific example. Mill elaborated how the society, which happened to be patriarchal, imposes social and legal inequalities on women because the social norms dictate that women are physically and mentally less able than men. Freedom In his view, Mill believed that there is no liberty without “freedom of speech,” “freedom to unite” and “freedom to pursue tastes and pursuits,” even if they are immoral so long as they do not cause harm. These standards were followed in “The Subjection of Women” to illustrate how women are being enslaved by the society. It was stressed that in Mill’s time, women are subject to the whims of her husband and/or father. Hence, he assailed legislations pertaining to marriage, he argued that the marriage be reduced to a mere contract without any restrictions on either parties. He also attacked unfair inheritance laws, reasoning that women should be allowed to keep and acquire their own properties. In his own words: "Legal subordination of one sex to another is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a system of perfect equality, admitting no power and privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other." Conclusion Some of Mill’s critics point out that his works are sometimes contradictory. However, in these two essays: “On Liberty” and “The Subjection of Women,” he has interpreted his principles solidly in the context of a specific subject. The connections are established by his arguments, which are anchored on the grounds of utilitarianism. We are reminded that, most importantly, these two works reconcile his concept of the good of society. Both of the principles advocated in the two essays are both radical for their time. Nevertheless, they had both made a dent not only on his contemporaries but the following generations, which would prove the points he raised to be true and universally acceptable. Marx and Engels, in 1848 "Communist Manifesto", predicted that class war would dominate Europes politics, society, and diplomatic relations and would intensify. This was not entirely true. Why was this? The Communist Manifesto, was the collective purposes and programs of the Communist League who met in February 1848. The League commissioned the two leading communist theorists Karl Marx and Friendrich Engels to write the document. This manifesto became one of the immensely influential tracts that would influence many communist ideologies around the world and is specifically critical of the capitalist system. The Manifesto, as it is popularly called, aims to achieve a classless society by encouraging a political movement to overthrow capitalism. The Manifesto, then, predicted a socio-political imbalance in Europe due to the extreme wealth of one class and those with little or none of it. Hence, the class conflict or the sharpening of it should have commenced in 1848. However, this prediction did not materialize. This essay seeks to identify the reasons why the class conflict that Marx predicted failed in Europe and in successful capitalist societies like the United States. The Russian Factor In 1917, communism was adopted in Russia after the revolution overthrew the ruling monarchy. With the leadership of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, who renamed itself as the Communist Party, tried to spark a global to overthrow capitalism as advocated by the Manifesto. However, the Soviet Union’s case proved to be a deterrent for the communism’s advance, as it was increasingly perceived to be undemocratic. We are reminded that the Manifesto identified the two classes that consist a capitalist society – the proletariat and the bourgeois. The proletariat is the wage-workers who must sell their services to live, while the bourgeois, whom Marx critically referred to as the “new ruling class,” are those who control the production of goods. According to the Manifesto, such system is not unlike “freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed” where the classes stood in constant opposition to one another. Hence, the idea of common ownership of property or that workers should control the means of production is seen as the solution to eliminate the class system. However, in the former Soviet Union, the leading political party and its leader have taken the role of what critics call as “the communist ruling class” - controlling the state’s means of production. The Soviet Union was turned into a dictatorship based on total state control of the economy and the suppression of any form of opposition. As a result, many people have come to regard communism and the ideologies it stands for as totalitarian and undemocratic. Marxist Divisions While the Marxist principles flourished in 19th century, especially among countries whose urban populations are poor and intellectuals have no voice in running the government, it waned at the onset of 20th century. This is partly due to the differing views of the followers of the Marxist principles themselves on contemporary issues laid before them. For example, there are many communists who do not adhere to the idea that political revolution is necessary to achieve social transformation. A modified Marxist principle emerged amidst this sector, which later came to be known as the Marxist revisionism. Their ideology is that “public control of the economy could be achieved by peaceful means, such as by electing Marxists to government positions.” (MSN Encarta) This principle seem to seek a compromise since it wants the socialist principles being espoused by Marx to be integrated within the capitalist system itself and become a stabilizer, in effect. Eduard Berstein, one of the leading voices of the Marxist revisionism, argued that “the socialist movement should forge political alliances and push for evolutionary reforms within the capitalist system.” (MSN Encarta) The communists who favor stricter implementation of the Marxist Manifesto have taken the name of anti-revisionism. To them, any modification on the Marxist principles would abandon the principles of communism as a whole. Anti-revisionists claim to have the healthier and more solid and scientific ideological road – pure and without the taint of corruption they despise in the revisionist principles. This division is what will split the USSR and China, with the former taking the socialist leaning of the revisionist theory under Khrushchev, while the former maintaining the Maoist-anti-revisionist line. Today communism has differing versions ranging from Marxist, Maoist, Leninist, Trotskyism, Reformism to Left Communism. It is no wonder that communism’s power and, thereby its influence on world affairs, have been diluted. Finally, the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 has dealt a serious blow on the communist movement that even China is embracing capitalist principles in our time. Some political scientists believe that it is the Marxists who have thoroughly betrayed Marx and his Manifesto. Most interesting of all is the notion that Marx theories were never ever been attempted and if his original ideas were implemented, it would have proven some degree of success. Fallibility The Communist Manifesto proclaimed that the struggle between classes is what fuels the evolution of societies through revolution, leading history from one epoch to another. Whichever way we see it, it failed to recognize that class antagonism is not the sole factor that could trigger social upheaval. There are other social divisions that must be taken into consideration such as nationality, ethnicity, religion, language and gender. These factors even affect, interact, mute and confuse class struggle. For instance, there are cases when the issue of ethnicity alternately moderated and intensified the class tension between the white proletariat and capitalists back in apartheid-era South Africa. The fallibility of Marx’s prediction was shown on how he predicted that Germany would be the center of socialist movement in the world. It would have been realized had it not nearly collapsed when the Socialists thrown its support to launch World War I. Furthermore, we have Marx’s statement that working people are not attached to their countries – clearly it must mean communism is for the abolition of countries and nationalities. History has proven time and time again that nationalism and patriotism are so persistent and powerful. Even Stalin has to call on to the patriotism of the Soviets to rally behind him in his war. Even Engels has to contradict himself, pointing out that the ten-point program outlined in the Manifesto is very conservative and preliminary, and that could have been better laid out had it been written later. References Marx, Karl, Engels, Friendrich, & Malia, Martin. (1998). “The Communist Manifesto,” Reprint Edition. Signet Classics Mill, John Stuart, & Gray, John. (1998). “On Liberty and Other Essays,” New Ed. Edition. Oxford University Press Mill, John Stuart. (1997). “The Subjection of Women,” Reprint edition. Dover Publications MSN Encarta, (2006). Communism. Retrieved May 2, 2006, from http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/Communism.html Read More