Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good
simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined
himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of
history.
Rod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> James Mill was indeed a classic Benthamite utilitarian, and a very close
> friend of Bentham's to boot. You are mistaken, though, if you think that John
> Stuart Mill, the son of James, was opposed to making pleasure the sole good.
> He just had a more nuanced conception of pleasure, or to use his word,
> happiness. Of course James M and Bentham extended the principle of utility to
> politics, education, economics, law, and education, not just individual
> conduct (which did not much interest them); not for nothing were they called
> the Philosophical Radicals. There was no debate bewteen James M and Marx,
> since James M was dead before Marx was up and running, but Marx's attack on
> James M is hardly what I would call approving. He was likewise dubiousabout
> son JS, the preeminant political economist of his age. (And later a market
> socialist, as we would say). --jks
>
> In a message dated 6/21/00 4:19:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of
> Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to
> read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the
> moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism,
> sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's
> individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that
> pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of
> individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas
> other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam
> notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the
> debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly
> clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James,
> if not very supportively.
> >>
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
