In terms of the human emancipation sought by socialism, some might draw similarities between John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle and Marx's vision of Communism. However, Mill's liberalism ignores the context that conditions the ability of the individual to practice their liberty, a context squarely focused on by Marx, a distinction that generates an insurmountable divide between the two traditions. It is possible that the habit of ignoring such contexts is derived from the experience of the bourgeoisie as they determined their society from between the aristocracy and peasantry of feudal Europe, an experience no doubt lending itself to a particular self-made vision of the individual that perseveres despite the context one faces. This borugeois liberty is certainly imbued with a disdain for those unable to exercise independence, as if such a failure to do so was a choice.
From John Locke, through the likes of Gustav Le Bon, up to Ludwig von Mises, Samuel Huntington and Margaret Thatcher, we can chart this burgeois disdain for the poor through the last three centuries, and from it, surmise the limits of their liberty. The erosion of social solidarity and the suppression of groups with no financial recourse, left only to act collectively to gain leverage against an oppressive capitalist economy, are symptomatic of bourgeois liberalism. Yet as Mill's harm principle states merely that one must not attempt to hinder the liberty of others, today's billionaire class, distanced from the negative impacts of their daily decisions, are excused by this principle. For the system bourgeois liberalism envisions is that whereby each individual cares for themselves and buffers from the unintended negative impacts of the system, a colletaral deemed worthy when placed in the balance with liberty. And this will remain the case as long as we ignore the context that conditions the individual's ability to exercise their own liberty.
In recognising this context, the left does not seek to wrap everyone in cotton wool, as this is an absurd extreme of such a logic. But our current situation is close to its opposite, the absurd extreme of the alternative logic of exploitation. The capitalist system has always generated philanthropists who endeavour to mitigate against this exploitation. But never have they sought to redress the systemic possibility of such systemic manifesations. This podcast argues that we must acknowledge the material impositions of powerful people, that due to these impositions most people lack the capacity to exercise their liberty, and that therefore Mill's harm principle, in championing the liberty to conduct business in a capitalist economy, is a self-undermining principle without scope for reconciliation. The frame for such a critique is opened up when instead of interpreting Mill through the lens of individualism, we do so through a lens of class. The generation of surplus value by capitalist enterprise and its collection by owners of capital drives a continuously widening wedge between those few owners and the vast majority of people who must sell their labour to those enterprises in order to survive. What is more, once the ability of capitalists to generate surplus labour has diminished, they turn from economics to war, at the front of which dies millions of those poor with nothing to survive by but the sale of their labour.
How do we reconcile capitalism with liberalism and Mill's harm principle when capitalism objectively impedes the ability of individuals to pursue their own good in their own way? Mill's harm principle pits humanity instead in a constant and violent struggle with itself. We need to recognise that possessive individualism is a patently incorrect stance, that the context that conditions individuals' ability to act is as important if not more so, than their endowments, and that capitalism is a compulsion binding humanity to constant struggle rather than any form of emancipation. If we seek human emancipation we must pursue a moneyless, classless society where we can at least choose to acknowledge human vulnerability in the face of their particular contexts. This is neither moral nor ideational, but a material necessity for the socialist mode of production whereby each individual works according to their ability, and what is produced is consumed then in terms of need. This requires solidarity among workers and is antithetical to bourgeois liberalism.
