Phil 110: Mill, Capitalism and Marx's Critique

May 22: Mill, Capitalism and Marx's Critique

Last Day

Today

Feminist critique of ethical theory; Jaggar; constitutional differences Same-sex marriage; application of theory Medical ethics; real-world; applied Examples: distribution of resources; food and water; organ trade Doctor patient relationship; disclosure; assisted suicide To do for next class: 1) Read pp. 132-156. 2) What problems do you think there might be for laissez-faire liberalism? 3) What do you think of Marx's analysis of capitalism? Does it seem right, or misguided? Why?

J.S. Mill; laissez-faire; Adam Smith Problems for utilitarianism; kinds of pleasure; rationality's role in economic decisions; government and private citizens; liberalism Marx; structure of society; historic analysis Socialist critique of capitalism; current affairs 1) Read 156-199; 2) Should there ever be affirmative action? When? Why? Why not?; 3) Answer question 3. on p. 198.

Social and political philosophy

Social and political philosophy are often seen as the 'next step' in an ethical discussion. For some a social philosophy is simply an extension of an individualistic moral position to groups of individuals. In some ways, the questions of social philosophy seem to uphold this view. Such questions include: What's an ideal society? What responsibilities do I have to my neighbor? How should a group live such that each member is happy? What is the correct concept of society? However, to hold this view is to be a reductionist about society (i.e. social practices can be explained by reference to the individuals constituting it). There are also strong holist movements in social philosophy. Holism sees society itself as having important properties that aren't evident from a study of the interaction of individuals. Some, such as Hegel, believe that the individual should, in fact, be subordinated to the group (communitarianism as opposed to individualism).

Political philosophy is a sub-part of social philosophy. In general, political philosophy is concerned with discussions of the kinds of institutions and structures at work in society. More often, political philosophy has a normative aspect. As well, political theorists are concerned with discerning whether or not certain groups have a right to be obeyed and whether they have (and why they have) legitimate authority over their members. Often the institutions being discussed are coercive (institutions that sometimes employ force or threat to control people) and include families, countries, and world-organizations (like the United Nations).

John Stuart Mill

J. S. Mill was trained to be an intellectual weapon in his father's armory. James Mill, his father, was an avid follower of Bentham's (who we've already met) and a strict man (J.S. became a speed reader through necessity). Together, Bentham and Mill (Sr.) taught J.S. all of the ins and outs of utilitarianism and honed him to a fine literary weapon. After an initial devotion to the works of his father, Mill became an outspoken critic of certain aspects of utilitarianism, but he was always its supporter in some ways. He is also know as one of the first feminists in philosophy. He made the comment at one point that everything he ever wrote was a transcription of what his wife Harriet had whispered in his ear (he published 'The subjection of women' 4 years before he died).

What aspects of Bentham's utilitarianism do you recall? (good = pleasure; bad = pain; humans are purposeful; answers what ought I to do? and how can I reach my goal?; add and subtract pleasure; more is better)

What kinds of consequences would this view have for groups? (no experts on pleasure; justifies democracy; reduces people to numbers; removes claims of more or less 'refined' pleasure)

What problems are there for instituting this plan and how did the utilitarians try to solve it? (religion; superstition; class distinctions; ignorance of the best means to achieve an end; the solution: education! why?)

What is the result of these three answers? A combination of a psychological theory of motivation, a moral theory of the good, and a social theory of educational enlightenment which leads to a theory of liberal democracy. There is one other strong player at the time which was closely allied to liberal democracy, and that was the laissez-faire (French: allow to do) economic theory of Adam Smith which laid out in The Wealth of Nations. This theory supposed that entrepreneurs would invest their capital in land, workers, and factories in order to produce goods. These goods could the be sold without government interference at the price set by the marketplace. Smith argued that this setup would result in the best use of materials and happiest members of the state. His argument went something like this:

1. Consumers will spend their money to maximize pleasure for value. Thus, if a product got too expensive, they would simply buy something else.
2. Capitalists will put their capital where they can make the most money. Thus, if a product is being over produced, capitalists will switch their money to support another product. Also, if there was high demand for a product, more capitalists would invest in that area, lowering prices.
3. Thus, the capitalists are going to make the consumers happy by reducing the prices of over priced products, allowing consumers to better maximize their pleasure for value.

So, the result, according to Smith is that everyone, in the process of trying to maximize individual pleasure will help to maximize societies pleasure as a whole. Thus selfishness was good enough to make for a happy society. Do you see any problems with Smith's statement on p. 138? (What about 'buy American' campaigns).

Problems for utilitarianism

J.S. Mill, as mentioned, did not blindly support the utilitarianism of his father, Bentham, and Smith. In fact, he mounted three criticisms of the position. What were they?

1. He denied that any pleasure is as good as any other.
2. He denied that consumers could be counted on to behave in a rationally self-interested manner.
3. He denied that the government had any right to interfere in the private lives of its citizens.

The first of these denials had been argued since the time of Plato and Aristotle. They argued that the highest pleasures were those of thinking (unmoved mover). Like the Epicureans, the utilitarians had critics who claimed that the equation 'good=pleasure' was strictly hedonistic and emphasized the basest of pleasures. However, like the Epicureans (fish, small boys), the utilitarians tried to be careful in what they would allow and how to consider an act pleasurable. However, Mill was more inspired by views like those of Plato than those of the Epicureans. He argued that human beings had more elevated faculties and that this allowed them to surpass animals in the complexity of what pleased them. An argument from analogy took him to the view that there are indeed some pleasures that are more valuable than others. In particular, those which employ or excite the 'higher faculties' are more valuable. What do you think? What are the consequences of Mill's position for utilitarianism? (democracy is challenged; class distinctions could be renewed).

The second denial is a straightforward challenge of the validity of the psychological theory being assumed by laissez-faire economics. What is that theory? (rational actor, self-interested pleasure maximization; ability to get most pleasure for value) What was Mill's challenge? (role emotions play in decision making; familiarity; custom) What other examples could you think of that support Mill's challenge? (add campaigns; propaganda; brand recognition; marketing). What do you think of Wolff's distinction of calculable and predictable? First, what is the distinction? (calculable: use a universal assumption (law) to predict behavior; predictable: making probabilistic predictions based on a large amount of data) This is a terrible distinction because the terms overlap (in both cases calculation and prediction are going on) and it doesn't seem to relate to what Mill says (he neither uses the terms nor seems to think of the behavior as predictable in any particular sense). Finally, what are the results of this insight of Mill's, if it is true?

The third and last denial of Mill is that of government having any right to interfere in the lives of its citizens. This position manifests itself today in what is called 'libertarianism'. The early history of the U.S. had very libertarian policies which did not seem to work as well as hoped (Robber Barons). However, Mill makes room for the intervention of government in some of his writings. It is still a matter of debate how much room. However, no matter how much one thinks Mill may have allowed government interference, his emphasis, like that of his father (and friends) remained on one of personal liberty in the market place and in politics. They assumed that this liberty would result in the happiest of societies. Some, however, strongly disagreed.

Karl Marx

Marx was not alone in his criticisms of capitalism. A number of philosophers in France and England had witnessed the same divergence between the working class and the entrepreneurs. Marx, however, is the best know critic for a number of reasons. First, he argued that laissez-faire liberalism was not, in fact, rational as claimed. Why is this a good argument? (It challenges a fundamental tenet). The reason for Marx's claim can best been understood after we are familiar with his analysis of capitalist society. What were the four stages of society for Marx? (means of production; social relationships of production; law and the state; religion, philosophy, and art).

What do each of these 'levels' of society stand for?

1. Means of production - the 'material' base; the fundamental transformation of raw materials into food, clothing, shelter; economic production; means and forces.
2. Relationships of production - these arise from the fact that no one person can produce everything they need, thus they trade what they produce with others; this is the marketplace; however, from a bit of historiography (theorizing about history), Marx concludes that these relationships have never been equal. Some groups have seized control of vital means of production and gained an upper hand, exploiting the others by taking the products of their labor unfairly. Through time, this division permeates everything about society, resulting in a privileged ruling class who believe they have a right to their position.
3. Law and the state - This privileged group creates and upholds the laws,which are unfairly biased in their favor; thus the state becomes the instrument by which the ruling class maintains power
4. Philosophy, religion and art - since churches aren't economic producers, they are at the mercy of the ruling class and thus provide them with spiritual justification

Marx felt that this structure was as true for capitalism as for the monarchies it replaced. The bourgeoisie (bourg - walled city) now exploit the proletariat (wage earning urban workers). Thus the capitalists controlled the state for the exploitation of the workers. Thus feudalism (where lords held all the land and serfs/vassals paid for the privilege of working it for them) grew naturally into capitalism.

Socialist critique of capitalism

Marx was an optimist - he saw a light at the end of the dark tunnel. In fact, he believed that the prominent struggles (English Civil war, French and American revolutions, etc) were attempts by the capitalists who controlled the new means of production (i.e. factories, etc) to overthrow the landed aristocracy who controlled the old means of production (land). Marx's critique relied on using the capitalists own justification of laissez-faire principles against them: namely, rationality.

Marx claimed the capitalists were irrational in two central ways:

1. Instrumentally irrational -- it chooses inefficient means to attains its goals. In particular, capitalism, though unsurpassed at manufacturing goods, does not efficiently distribute what is produced. Because production is driven by profit, and nothing else, a very useful product might not continue to be produced if it doesn't generate high profit (and vice versa for a useless product). As well, capitalists must keep wages low in order to make profit, but by doing so, their workers are unable to afford the products they produce. The depressions of nineteenth and twentieth centuries are evidence for Marx's claims (according to Wolff). They were a result of a cycle of overproduction, layoffs, recession, depression, misery and then an upswing to new overproduction.
2. Substantively irrational -- capitalism is inhumane in its treatment of the workers. This was the result of alienation. Alienation was a result, according to Marx, of the basic fact that people are transformers of nature and that capitalism perverts this basic mode of creation. Specifically, Marx argues that we externalize our creativity by it being embodied in the things we create. This externalization makes our creations part of ourselves, but also lays those creations and the process which forms them (work) open to the effects of foreign powers. For Marx, capitalists play the role of this foreign power in a negative light, stealing the labor and its fruits to use for their own purposes, thus alienating the creation from its creator. labor becomes non-autonomous, harmful, and misdirected.

Marx's solution to the problems of capitalism is a revolution by the workers against the capitalists. A successful revolution would 1) the system of ownership of the means of production would be brought to an end 2) production would become for need, not for profit 3) distribution itself would become driven by need rather than profit. The slogan of Marxism is: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." These changes would overcome the irrationality of capitalism.

How has history born out Marx's solution? Russia, China (Hong Kong, and coastal rivals). What about pure capitalism? (Robber Barons, Standard Oil, Microsoft) Is the U.S. a purely capitalist society today? What do you think of Wolff's critique on p. 156? What is the cause of these absurdities? Is Marxism likely to be the answer?

To do for next class

1) Read 156-199; 2) Should there ever be affirmative action? When? Why? Why not?; 3) Answer question 3. on p. 198.