Chapters on Socialism

by John Stuart Mill

It was in the year 1869 that impressed with the degree in which, even during the last twenty years, when the world seemed wholly occupied with other matters, the socialist ideas of speculative thinkers had spread among the workers in every civilized country, Mr. Mill formed the design of writing a book on Socialism. Convinced that the inevitable tendencies of modern society must be to bring the questions involved in it always more and more to the front, he thought it of great practical consequence that they should be thoroughly and impartially considered, and the lines pointed out by which the best speculatively-tested theories might, without prolongation of suffering on one hand, or unnecessary disturbance on the other, be applied to the existing order of things. He therefore planned a work which should go exhaustively through the whole subject point by point; and the four chapters now printed are the first rough drafts thrown down toward the foundation of that work.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Classics, Economics, History, Ebooks

120 pages, ebook

First published June 1, 1987

About the author

John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's.

Reviews

[Seyed Hashemi · Rating 3 out of 5]

خلاف‌آمدِ مشهورات؛
معمولا مشهورات ره‌زن اندیشه اند.



0- هر رشته و مقولۀ نوشتاری‌ای، معمولا یکسری متن و متفکرِ کلاسیک دارد. هم ادبیاتی بنام ادبیات کلاسیک داریم، هم مثلا یکسری متنِ کلاسیک در رشتۀ جامعه‌شناسی؛ کتاب‌های وبر و دورکیم اینگونه اند. احتمالا بتوان برای هر مکتب فکری و اندیشه‌ای هم یکسری متن-متفکر پایه‌ای و کلاسیک هم نام برد. یعنی ریشه‌های یک اندیشه را در چند متن اساسی و اندیشمند پیدا کنیم (البته مفهوم بینامتنیت و پژواک مفاهیم در تاریخ، شاید نقدی مهم باشه به این دید).

باری، اینگونه گفته می‌شود و گفته شده است که جان استورات میل، از متفکرین اساسی لیبرالیسم کلاسیک است.



1- یکی دیگر از مسائل اساسی در فهم اندیشه‌ها، دسته‌بندی و مقوله‌بندی اندیشه‌هاست. یعنی بگوییم فلانی چپ است و بیساری راست. فلانی در رستۀ آنهاست و بیساری در رستۀ اینها. یکی از مهم‌ترین ایراداتی که به این مورد وارد است، مقوله‌بندیِ متداخل/cross classification است. یعنی با چند معیار مختلف، به دسته‌بندی مفاهیم بپردازیم (برای همین برخی این مفهوم را به دسته‌بندی/مقوله‌بندیِ چندمعیاری ترجمه کرده اند). برای نمونه فرض کن بگیم ماشین‌ها یا ژاپنی اند یا دیفرانسیل جلو (فرض کنید این «یا» رو هم مانعه الجمع تعریف می‌کنیم). خب در این فقره بسیاری ماشین‌های ژاپنی که دیفرانسیل جلو هستند جایگاه مشخصی ندارد و... . خیلی از تقسیم‌بندی‌های اندیشه‌ای هم که داریم، مصداق بارز این ایراد فاحش است. فرض کن شما به استورات میل بگویی یک لیبرالی است همانگونه که آدام اسمیت بوده است. فرض کن بگویی فمنیسم لزوما و تنها از سنت چپ آمده... . انقدر مثال از این مورد دارم که شاید در حد استقرای تام بتونم گاف‌های این نوع تقسیم‌بندی‌ها رو نشون بدم.

باری، این تصویر لیبرال کلاسیک بودن استورات میل بسیار نادقیق است و خودِ من درگیر این برداشت بودم و مطالعۀ این کتاب، حدی مهم بر این برداشت اشتباهم زد.



2- در 1869 جان استورات میل، قصد نگارش کتابی مفصل در مورد سوسیالیسم را می‌کند. اما عجل مهلت نمی‌دهد و صرفا در حد «یادداشت‌هایی در مورد سوسیالیسم» از این پروژه باقی می‌ماند. مشخصا در این یادداشت‌ها سویه‌هایی اساسی از برداشت‌های سوسیالیستی (البته مشخصا نقدهایی بسیار بسیار جدی از استوارت میل نثار سوسیالیست‌ها می‌شود) را در ایده‌های استورات میل می‌بینیم (احتمال دارد مثل بسیاری از متفکرها، یک استورات میلِ متقدمِ لیبرال‌تر داشته باشیم با یک استورات میلِ متاخرِ سوسیالیست‌تر. خیلی با ادبیات اندیشۀ سیاسی مدرن و مشخصا استورات میل‌پژوهی و اینا آشنا نیستم).



3- مفهوم‌کاوی‌های بسیاری در این کتاب هست که برای منی که دانشجوی اقتصاد هستم، بیش از این مفهوم کاوی‌ها، ادعای تاریخی و پیش‌بینی‌های آقای استورات میل و متفکرانی که بهشون ارجاع می‌داد مهم بود. یکی از نقدهای جدی سوسیالیست‌ها (واقعا سخته بدون این تقسیم‌بندی‌ها فکر کردن و اشاره کردن به افراد) به نظم بازار، این است که بذات و طبیعتِ بازار، نیروهای بازار گرایش به تجمیع سرمایه در دست چند بنگاه دارند و «انحصار نتیجۀ محتوم بازار است». به قولِ اقتصادی‌ها، این ادعا در حدِ یک کورسِ Econ 1o1 است که افراد با فروض بازارهای رقابتی و انحصار کامل و شرایط بینِ آنها- انحصار چندجانبه و رقابت انحصاری- آشنا بشوند و سازوکار آن را بفهمند. یعنی این حرف گل‌درشت را خیلی وقت است علم اقتصاد جواب قانع کننده‌ای بهش داده است و سطح بحث را بسیار بسیار ارتقاء داده است. یعنی این نقد در تئوری اقتصادیِ همین جریان اصلی بسیار محل جدل بوده است.

بعد در متن وقتی در مورد مالکیت حرف می‌زند، خلط‌هایی جدی بین مالکیت خصوصی و ملکِ مشاع اتفاق می‌افتد. تازه دارم می‌فهمم اهمیتِ تحلیلیِ این تقسیم‌بندی در اقتصاد جریان اصلی چیست (توضیحات داره که حالش رو ندارم واقعا).

ولی مثلا یکی از نکته‌سنجی‌های جالب متن، نکته‌ای است که در مورد «همگن‌نبودن نیروی کار» بیان می‌کنه. البته واضح است که نه به این ترکیب‌بندی. یکی از موضوعات مهم در تحلیل اقتصادی، فرض همگنی یا عدم همگنی کالا و خدمات است. در اقتصاد بازار کار، لااقل در مدل‌های ابتدایی، فرض بر این است که نیروی کار همگن است و هرشخصی که نیروی کارِ خود را عرضه می‌کند معادل دیگر اشخاص است (مشخص است که این مورد صرفا کارکرد نظری دارد و شاید در جهان واقع آنچنان کاربردی نباشه). ادبیات اقتصاد نیروی کار را مطالعه نکرده ام، اما به احتمال قوی در مدل‌های پیشرفته‌تر این فرض خلاف واقع را تعدیل می‌کنند.خلاصه نکته‌سنجیِ جالبی داشت این متن. ولی در همین فقرۀ نیروی کار، افزایش رقابت در بازار رو معادل اخراج نیروی کار می‌دانست که اصلا این ادعای بصورت کلی صحیح نیست و تاجایی که از ادبیات اقتصاد نیروی کار می‌توان فهمید، این مورد بسیار بستگی به ماهیت کار، ساختار بازار و بازارهای دیگر و... دارد.

یک مورد بسیار بسیار جالب برایم در این متن، اشاره به تله مالتوسی بود. ادد گلر در کتاب «سرگذشت انسان» یک تحلیل بسیار جالب از تله مالتوسی داشت که با شرح فرهاد نیلی در کلاس تاریخ اقتصادیِ جهانش بسیار جالب بود برایم. سعی می‌کنم این مورد رو بیشتر در مرور کتابِ گلر بنویسم، ولی به صورت کلی، زمانی که استورات میل و مالتوس داشتند با این مفهوم تاریخ را توضیح می‌دادند، تله مالتوسی توضیح‌دهندگیِ بسیار بالایی داشت (برای زمان خود و تاریخ پیش از آن) ، اما به واسطۀ صنعتی‌شدن و تغییر ماهیت دادن نیروهای اثرگذار، این برداشت از افزایش جمعیت که منجر به فلاکت می‌شه از حیز انتفاع ساقط شد.

مثلا یک مورد بسیار جالب دیگر این مورد بود که از کارگر به علت مشقت‌هایی که تحمل می‌کند، «نمی‌توان انتظار دوراندیشیِ امیدوارانه از کارگر داشت». این مورد هم در اقتصاد رفتاری (نک فقر احمق می‌کند) یا ادبیاتِ اقتصاد توسعه بسیار سرش بحث شده است.

یک مورد ارجاعی بود که میل به طبقه متوسط داشت و احیانا فهمی مثلِ «طبقۀ تن‌آسا» که وبلن می‌گوید بود (البته وبلن را نخوانده ام و صرفا حدس می‌زنم).

یک مورد بسیار جالبِ دیگر در این متن اشاره به «بیکاریِ تکنولوژیک» است. خیلی ساده وقتی ماشین ریسندگی آمد، شغل بسیاری از بافنده‌ها از بین رفت، اتوماسیون در کارخانه‌ها آمد و نان عده‌ای دیگر آجر شد و الان هوش مصنوعی آمده است و همه‌مون باید بریم توی قوطی. فارغ از این مورد، همواره این «روایت اپیدمی» می‌شده است که تکنولوژی باعث بیکاری فراگیر می‌شود (که دیتاهای تاریخی آن‌چنان موید این هیستیریِ جمعی نیست). مشخصا فراتر از ادبیات بسیار اساسی در کل اقتصاد در مورد این، در کتاب «اقتصاد روایی» آقای شیلر بسیار عالی شیوع این اپیدمی‌ها را توضیح داده است (راه دور نریم، همین جلال آل‌احمد خودمون هم وحشت بیکاریِ کشاورزان به علت تراکتور رو داشت!).

مورد جالب دیگر، اهمیت و رکن اساسی بودن «اعتماد» در داد و ستد اقتصادی است که در متن بهش اشاره شده بود.

مورد دیگر، بحث سرایت ورشکستگی در بازار است که می‌تواند کل سیستم را فلج کند. مصداق بارز و کلاسیکِ این مورد همین 2008 است. در همین مورد هم ادبیاتی بسیار غنی در اقتصاد بسط داده شده است.

جواب برخی ادعاهای کتاب رو هم به راحتی می‌توان با ارجاع به مفهوم مهمِ «کشش قیمتی» توضیح داد (حال ندارم توضیح بدم کجای کتابه...)

یکی از ادعای دیگر کتاب که تاریخ خط بطلانی بر آن کشیده است، این ادعاست که ذیل نظام بازار، دستمزد کارگران به مرور زمان کاهش خواهد یافت. اقتصادی‌ها با توجه به دستمزد حقیقی که همان تورم درفتۀ دستمزد اسمی است، به بررسی روند بلند مدت دستمزدها پرداخته اند که روند رشد و افزایش دستمزدهای حقیقی در همین 150سالِ پس از آقای میل، بی‌نظیر در تمام تاریخ بشر است. این مورد با یک بررسی در دیتاهای اقتصادی به راحتی نقض می‌شود. (به صورت کلی، میل در جاهایی از کتاب به دیگر سوسیالیست‌ها ارجاع می‌داد و در مواردی خودش ایده‌پردازی می‌کرد. مشخصا جاهایی که خودِ میل افسار را در دست داشت، بسیار بهتر از پس استدلال‌ها و مسائل اقتصادی بر می‌آمد تا آن دیگر دوستانِ در نقل قول‌ها. مثلا میل می‌گویند، سوسیالیست تصویری بسیار خام از رقابت دارند که به نظرم نقدی اساسی است.)

همانطوری که قبلا گفتم بسیاری از موارد استورات میل را می‌توان با اقتصاد خرد توضیح داد. این‌بار مفهوم اضافه رفاه وارد بررسی خواهد شد.

ادعایی دیگر از میل که ارزش بررسی تاریخی دارد، این ادعاست که «شاید رقابت باعث ارزانی شود، اما بعید است بتواند کیفیت را تنظیم کند» با اینکه اینجا ادبیاتی جدی در تنظیم‌گری و اینها وارد می‌شود، ولی بعید است از بررسی تاریخی، این ادعا نیز جان سالم به در ببرد. والا هرجا رقابت رو از بازار گرفته ایم از قضی کیفیت با کله سقوط کرده! یکی از مهم‌ترین نقدهای ممکن به این ادعا، اهمیت «برندینگ» در نظم بازاره. خیلی ساده، برای اینکه برندی درست و درمون داشته باشید که فروش خوب و تنضمین‌شده‌تری داشته باشید، باید بسیار به کیفیت توجه کنید.

به نظرم یکی از اساسی‌ترین مفاهیمی که خودم هم جرئت ندارم در مورش حرف بزنم و خیلی هم مهم است، مفهوم ریسک است. خیلی خیلی اشتباه برداشت می‌کنن این مفهوم رو و خیلی اساسی است در زندگی و مشخصا در اقتصاد.

ثابت بودن تاریخی سهم سرمایه از درآمد ملی و نیروی کار از درآمد ملی هم موضوع مهمی است که واقعا حال اشاره بهش رو ندارم.

خیلی خیلی موارد دیگر هم هست در متن که اهمیت اشاره دارن، ولی همینجوری‌ش هم این مرور زیادی شده. آخرین موردی که به نظرم بسیار مهم است، این نکتۀ میل است که برای اجرای سوسیالیسم به انسانی غیر از انسان موجود نیاز داریم. به نوعی همان «انسان تراز نوین». البته میل کلا نافی امکان وجود چنین انسانی نبود و صرفا می‌گفت با این انسانِ موجود ناممکن است سوسیالیسم. کلا با این نقد که شوروی رو چماق کنی و بزنی بر سر سوسیالیست‌ها مشکل دارم، ولی واقعا در فقرۀ همین ساخت انسان تراز نوین، پروندۀ خونینِ استالین از مواردی است که باید هر مدعی‌ای موضع خودش رو باهاش مشخص کنه.



- حس می‌کنم با زاویۀ دید نگاه کردن به آثار کلاسیک، خیلی می‌تواند آوردۀ مفهومی و تحلیلی داشته باشد.شاید البته :))





این مرور خیلی اقتصادی شد و خیلی از موارد رو تعریف نشده رها کردم، اینجا سعی کردم صرفا از ذهنم ردی گذاشته باشم.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mill died before completing this work and we have but the first three chapters of the book to work with. But there are ideas imbued herein that are worth noting. First that it is valid that the poorer classes of society, having but an inconsequential amount of property to begin with, should lack the esteem and high regard for property held by the wealthier classes; that many questions regarding the socio-economic matters pertinent to society should be re-argued anew by every successive age and that we should not dismiss certain questions simply because they have been disposed of in an earlier age as they may hold truths beneficial to the current time. He also provides a thorough discussion of the various Utopian Socialists of the 19th century. A worthwhile read.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Imagine if ... policy makers were as smart, open minded, and disinterested as Mill.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an indispensable book; had Lenin and Mao heeded Mill's analysis on Socialism (he does not condemn the idea--actually he praises the spirit of human charity which pervades the theory-- but only highlights the details that many Socialist thinkers overlook), history would have been spared a great deal of bloodshed. While this book was not finished (he died before finishing it), in the last chapter that he wrote Mill makes it very clear that Socialism would only work in a well educated society; it should not shock us therefore that the countries which most successfully utilize Socialist policies in their governments are the Scandinavian nations, whose populace is among the most educated in the world.

[David]

This work is available free from Project Gutenberg.

Mill tries to make an objective analysis of the functionality of capitalism and socialism - based on capitalism up to 1869 and selected socialist writings. Written 150 years ago, Mill never saw the World Wars, fascism, the economic predominance of corporations, the big economic crises, environmental and climate crises, globalization, multinational companies, factories larger than most 19th century towns, planned obsolescence, etc. But then again, Mill might point to the fact today most people have more possessions than in the 1800's, or use the USSR as an example against socialism.

If you take this into account, one might find some of Mill's questions worth thinking through to find a plan for socialism with fewer side effects. With the advantage of 21st century science, we might conclude that even with some side effects we'd be better off with a system that hasn't driven us to the brink of a climate precipice (among other things.)

Mill notes there are various types of socialist beliefs. Yet, the only "target" he uses is an extended quote by the French socialist politician Louis Blanc. Mill wrote this 20 years after the Communist Manifesto, but there's zero mention of Marx and his ideas. This is significant as Mill ends up focusing on how socialism might work on the scale of a town and if everyone got the same pay starting on Day One. That's not what most Marxists propose.

For instance, Mill says morality is better at hindering bad acts than increasing good acts. So, he says people need other motivation - more money - to put in their best effort in professional jobs. It may be that on Socialism Day One many professionals would be unmotivated (or rebellious) if expected to give their best professional effort for the same pay as manual laborers. Most people molded by life under capitalism will have acquired expectations. They'll need time to learn that social conditions aren't dog-eat-dog and personal finances aren't so uncertain. (Some people will never relearn / adjust.) So, these kinds of changes may be phased in. There are many professional jobs which are more for maximizing profits than for ensuring production of truly useful, beneficial products. When eliminating the only-for-profit jobs, it may be worthwhile to give early retirement to those least able to adjust to the new society. These are questions that socialists should explore before Day One. And since we can't be sure in advance how a good-sounding plan will go, it could be wise to have a Plan B and a Plan C on ways to move toward socialist goals with fewer unintended side effects.

Mill seems to be better at thinking of ways capitalism may be able to repair some of its known weaknesses (Mill not seriously asking how resistant capitalists would be to these), but is more inclined to simply see the weaknesses in socialism (or at least selective types of proposed socialism.)

Mill argues against socialist claims that economic competition is harmful - that capitalists make workers compete for jobs thus working for less pay, and businesses keep prices high by seeking consumers willing to pay more. He says workers can go to various bosses to get more pay and consumers can go to various sellers to find low prices. In the abstract, it's true. But it's not a level playing field. Businesses have relatively large numbers of workers and consumers from which to pick low-pay workers and high-price consumers. Workers and consumers have a smaller number of businesses from which to seek a better deal. In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Yes, workers / consumers can band together to pressure business, but their larger numbers and more desperate finances make it harder for them to do so. And, today with globalization, workers / consumers would have to unite on a global scale. The wealth of business also lets them influence government in their favor. I was reminded of Anatole France's quote, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

Mill also says socialists are wrong about capitalism tending toward the development of monopolies. Maybe, the evidence wasn't clear in 1869, but the tendency toward a small number of huge companies - even with anti-trust laws - should be less questionable now.

Mill argues that it's feasible for a village to function under a system of public ownership of production, but it's unrealistic on a national scale. In the 1860's, businesses were of small enough size to consider this, but today it would be necessary to go back to a previous type of production to organize on a village level. Various kinds of socialists may differ on whether the USSR showed a non-capitalist system could function on a national scale - some describe the USSR as "state capitalist" and others may view it as otherwise dysfunctional.

Mill says a private owner takes a loss or gains more profit depending if the business has good management. He says this gives private owners more motivation to do his best. On points such as this, Mill speaks as if success is just a matter of "excellence." In reality, it's in part, "My competitors may be gaining by lying and cheating, so if I don't want to lose, I better, too." Or, "Customers want lower prices, so I'll sneak in some filler." Or, "I'll have continuing income if I start customers on habit-forming products." The current system gives this kind of motivation.

[Aleksi Puusaari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uus suomennos! Keskeneräseks jääneenä tää on ehkä enemmän kuriositeetti, mutta Millin kyky katsoa ns. omaa nokkaansa pidemmälle on kuitenki vaikuttavaa! Myös Mikko Lahtisen jälkikirjoitus täydentää ja valaisee muuten lyhyttä vihkosta!

[Salivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

غیر از بخش سه که شامل گل‌واژه‌های بلان و فوریه و سایر رفیق رفقای هپروتی می‌شه، بقیه‌اش جالب و قابل تأمله؛ حتی قسمت‌هایی که قبل از این فکر می‌کردم موضعم در برابرشون کاملا مشخصه. فقط این که یا سخت نوشته شده یا سخت ترجمه شده (یا هم سخت نوشته و ترجمه شده) یه‌جاهایی اینش یکم اذیت‌ می‌کرد.

[Josh Whelpley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Old World View on Socialism

Sums up a period view on a socialism based society.
Helped me better understand socialism.
I wanted to examine socialism due to the up coming presidential election. Bernie Sanders is often referred to as a socialist, I thought this would be a good starting point.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mill begins his book by noting America's nearly universal male suffrage, and laments that Great Britain is behind. This class-less diffusion of political power will push the power of government towards the "general welfare" of society. He notes, despite the calls of the socialist revolutionaries, that non-violent social reforms of the "last two generations" have been greatly consequential.

This brings us to the debate of the principle of private property. Granting the working class - a class without property - political power via the vote, will force society to question this principle. Ever concerned about freedom, Mill notes that franchise itself will be insufficient, "No longer enslaved by force of law, the great majority are so by force of poverty; they are still chained to a place to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred by the accident of birth both from the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion.

"That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggled, the poor are not wrong in believing." He notes that any idea that links success with merit and exertion should be "relegated to the regions of romance." "The most powerful of any of the determining circumstances is birth."

And thus Mill, the freedom loving utilitarian begins his unfinished, brief, and often sympathetic commentary On Socialism.

While ultimately skeptical of many of the claims of the socialists, often critical of their superficial economic analysis, (the wages of the working class had actually been improving in the second half of the 19th century) Mill appears to favor far greater reforms for the poor. Ironically, he was entirely unaware of Marx's work, despite the fact they both lived in London and were contemporaries. Mill is responding to the other socialists of his day.

Mill quotes extensively from contemporary socialist pamphlets. A highlight is M. Louis Blanc, "The Organization of Labor" who very poetically shows that the reservation wage for labor is literally starvation. The poor will work for wages as low as one who is "strong enough to fast every other day." He notes how competitive practices can drive out competition, leaving one firm to monopolize in the end, or how the market is incapable to providing high quality goods, as firms have an incentive to lie or misrepresent quality to customers.

I find it fascinating, because modern competitive economic theory has identified all of these issues and confirms them - often providing policy solutions. We have labor protection laws, minimum wages, food quality regulations, and anti-trust laws. All of these reforms came over the century following the early socialist revolutions of 1848.

My review is getting a bit long, but I'm mostly doing it for my own notes to come back to later.

Mill is an early observer of what later became known as "natural monopolies." He notes that railways, due to their scale, cannot to afford many competitors. Thus "businesses which require to be carried on by great joint-stock enterprises cannot be trusted to competition, but ought to be carried on under conditions prescribed, and, from time to time, varied by the State." Rather than being broken up, Mill notes that the large capital necessary "permits the adoption of more powerful machinery." This efficiency benefits the consumers by supplying the "commodity cheaper than can be done on the small scale."

As for mercantile dishonesty, Mill laments the weak state in enforcing honesty, at the time. "All the advantage is on the side of the trickster." Again, we see how the small state capacity of the 19th century has since been answered with far more consumer protection regulations in the 20th.

In Chapter 4, Mill discusses some of the difficulties of socialism. Like many have pointed out (including Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy), the primary difficulty of socialism is the lack of risk taking. "Communistic management would thus be, in all probability, less favorable than private management to that striking out of new paths and making immediate sacrifices for distant and uncertain advantages." There are incentives against improving efficiency, "lest they should diminish the number of laborers required for the work. To combat this, Mill strongly advocates for a more democratic ownership of the means of production. Industrial partnership shares the profits "among all who share in the work, as a percentage of their earnings."

Communism "requires a high standard of both moral and intellectual education. "To force unprepared populations into Communist societies, even if a political revolution gave the power to make such an attempt, would end in disappointment." Thus we see (along with Marx's stadial historical predictions) the seeds to why unindustrialized, and uneducated Russia was a poor candidate for the true socialist revolution.

Mill quickly notes "the very idea of conducting the whole industry of a country by direction from a single center is so obviously chemerical, that nobody ventures to propose any mode in which it should be done." Rather than state-communism, he favors "a small Socialist community."

Mill ends the long pamphlet in chapter five by discussing the nuanced, changing, and impermeant definitions of private property that have existed. Sympathetically noting that modifications in what, how, and where to protect such property ought to happen.

[Allan Olley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short work is noted 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill's considerations of the political philosophy around Socialism. It was published posthumously. It is very lightly and engagingly written for Mill. It deals in specifics only with the arguments of French socialist Louis Blanc, the Fourierist doctrine as laid out by M. Victor Considérant and a passage Robert Owen. It does also summarize general arguments for various forms of socialism. So it lacks detailed discussion of developments of socialism in say Karl Marx that would be more historically interesting given developments since 1869 when the work was written.

Mill is sympathetic to the broad goals and concerns of the Socialists, but it also contains several critiques where he disagrees with the analysis of the economic nature of current society (Socialists tend to argue that wages and purchasing power of workers are shrinking, where Mill takes it as clear they have been growing) and also fails to compare their programs to potential reforms of the current system (Mill takes the prospects of say trying to pass and enforce laws against selling counterfeit and otherwise defective or low quality goods rather than requiring socialism to solve current problems). He also identifies what he takes to be deficiencies in the overall program (the dangers of elevated risk aversion in collective decision making, the need to account for non-material/financial causes of interpersonal conflict). Characteristically Mill lays heavy emphasis on the need to improve general public character to undergird broad social reform and may allow implementation of some socialist scheme. He also emphasizes the need to experiment and test socialist modes of life.

I read this book as the Gutenberg ebook. It worked fine and seems to be complete.

[Yaşar G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Stuart Mill yine çok açıklayıcı ve insanı düşünmeye iten harika bir kitap yazmış. Mill, yaşadığı dönemde yeni yeni ivme kazanmaya başlayan Sosyalizm’i bütün artıları ve eksileriyle ele alarak herkes için okunması gereken bir düşünce kitabı sunmuş bizlere.

Kitap bölümlerden oluşuyor ve bu bölümler bir binanın taşları gibi kitabın sonuna doğru üstü üste oturuyor, her şeyi daha iyi anlamamızı sağlıyor.

İlk bölüm giriş bölümü ve burada Sosyalizm’i, dönemin siyasi durumlarını, insanların yaşayışlarını anlatarak güzel bir bilgilendirme kısmıyla başlıyor Mill.

İkinci bölümde döneminin sosyalist düşünürlerinin ve bu ideolojiyi savunanların görüşlerini yorum yapmadan veriyor. Bu sosyalistler arasında M. Louis Blanc, Charles Fourier ve Robert Owen gibi isimler bulunuyor.

Üçüncü bölümde bu düşünürlerin ve sosyalist savunucuların yazdıklarına karşı sosyalizmin artılarını ve eksilerini değerlendirmeye başlıyor. İşçi maaşları, tüccarların sahtekarlıkları vb. gibi eksilerini anlatıyor.

Dördüncü bölümde sosyalizm ve komünizm farkından bahsediyor. Bu iki olguyu daha iyi anlatan ve karşılaştırmayı en iyi yapan yazarlardan birisi bana göre. Sosyalizmi savunan iki farklı yolun olduğu ve bu yolların kendi zamanında veya geleceğinde nasıl sonuçlar doğurabileceğini açıklıyor.

Son bölüm olarakta sosyalistlerin en çok eleştirdiği ve günümüzde bile doğru düzgün anlaşılamayan bir olguyu yani özel mülkiyeti açıklıyor tarihsel olarak.

Sadece siyasetle, tarihle veya ideolojilerle ilgisi olanların değil aslında herkesin okuması gereken kısa ama doyurucu, öğretici bir kitap. Sevdim.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was an incredible work, but it was unfinished, hence the 4/5. It was unfinished because this was the transcript of a work that was to be completed, if not for J.S. Mill's passing. I would say it details other forms of Socialism, which is to be commended because at the time, Marxist Communism and Bolshevism was gaining sway. Lots of people died because of those revolutions and fundamentally they led the world into more totalitarism. We can see, therefore, that J.S. Mill's searching analysis of history and future was prophetic. He understood, more than many, that in order to fully implement the socialist system, one needs to have most members of the population have good morals. This is primarily, to abridge J.S. Mill, because otherwise the intensity of competition for the spots at the top of the society would be too severe to handle, large amounts of people would be needed to A) keep the population at bay and B) indoctrinate them in order to obey. It's a searching analysis not just of the society, however, but private property as well. However, that's where the writings end: he ends as he is stating that the relations of private property are not really static: held in place. This was a tremendously beneficial work, and we end up with a document that largely disparages the more violent forms of Socialism, but states that a temperate, effective form of Socialism is the likely future of humanity. He saw Geoism as a particularly good example of Socialism as well. Great work.

[Jacob Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book plays out like this:
-make a really good point about the case for socialism, use some good material from other people to back that up, Mill agrees with said point and then proceeds to weakly explore a negative aspect of the comment. To the point he trips himself up with limited explanations and outdated data. You wonder if he really understands the argument.

He's a man of contradictions and a non firm stance. He just seems to have a very weak take on it all. These are very light criticisms that can easily be overturned even using this book. Towards the end he gets completely lost in the idea of property and freedom. His criticisms feel pointless because he's already spent much of the book giving the evidence of how it outweighs the negative parts he mentions later. Occasionally, it's interesting that he approaches it all from a philosophical point of view but I expected more of that.
Mill was always a strange one when it came to the topic of socialism. He half agreed but was critical. I haven't read too much about Mill apart from when I picked up a bit about utilitarianism at uni. Surely if your ethics were like that you'd be all for socialism.

[Ell, Ess Jaeva · Rating 3 out of 5]

it seems everything written before 1970 needs updating to the standards of the 21st century... Once the reader deciphers what the author is attempting to communicate, lots of wasted time. Not as bad a Shakespeare, but along those lines.

context: the USA is an infant compared to England. the ability for colonial-settlers to break indigenous treaties and steal lands, for future bootstrapping, is a milk/honey dream for an impoverished English-person. the rich have owned EVERYTHING (almost) in England for generations. scions of wealth inherit, they dont work... but, they will employ the impoverished. generally employment is subsistence for the poor while further enriching those who inherited property.

Mill here is philosophizing about socializing this property... giving the EVERYTHING to the masses who are mostly poor, uneducated and ignorant (of governing, managing capital, managing a vote, managing priorities). I'm assuming he witnessed protests or read a liberal editorial beseeching this then decided to pen a retort.

[Carlos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Socialism

It’s a good book, it gives the idea of how socialism works, by spreading the wealthy and equality to society. I’m not a supporter with socialism, because an individual that can achieve in life and wealth without the government help, will be frowned upon and be overtaxed. Also socialism can lead to communism when a administration comes to the office with a tyrannical ideas.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

It seems to me that J.S. Mill would have considered the Russian Socialist Revolution was doomed to fail due to the incomplete technological state of affairs of what was largely a pre-bourgeois feudalistic society where capital was not sufficiently collectivized in order to be transformed into a socially and evolutionary-developmental social force.

[Jerome Berglund · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seminal theory, illuminating and exceptionally detailed and coherent for how concise the text is. Excellent review and overview for those new to or well versed in concepts, and also provides some fresh insights and novel suggestions, observations and reflections. Worth reading and gifting to the young and old alike.

[Mitchell van Ineveld · Rating 3 out of 5]

Doesn't really give a full hearing to socialist ideas. Overly deterministic about the attitudes of the working class and human nature more generally.

[Kaan Taze · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.2/5

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

dry but breaks down the pros and cons of socialism well.

[Erik Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much suffering during the 20th century in Russia, China, and the other countries enamored with socialism will have been avoided if the prophetic warnings of this book had been headed.

[Aj Amster · Rating 4 out of 5]

One day read. Yeah. This is the stuff.

[Gerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

An article written by Mill published in 1879 with an introduction by Lewis S Feuer.

[Gav451 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its short because its unfinished. As before carefully written and full of ideas. Not a quick read. But very interesting in that much of what he says still applies today. I was quite surprised by that. I guess that we have the trappings of the future but as a society we have not moved on nearly as far as we think we have.

[Haythem Bastawy · Rating 3 out of 5]

What I like about this book is that it is one of very few and early attempt of visualising a way of putting the Marxist theory into practice. Even at this early stage of socialist thinking, Mill realizes that distributing the wealth onto the proletariat will lead to a state of routine work, where there is neither motivation nor anxiety, however he does not realise that this state of routine will devoid performance of excellence. What he realizes though is that this equality in ownership might need to a lack of managerial quality due to lack of extra bonuses for managers, however he turns it around by assuming that those capable of quality management will eventually decide to be in charge for the overall good of the community which includes there's. Mill is overlooking two points here: firstly that people including those most idealistic in them don't tend to do anything without reward whether emotional or monetary; secondly that even if these capable leader decide to take charge who says that the rest of the assumedly less capable community accept their leadership.

In spite of disagreeing with Mill, I respect him for being a pioneering thinker in many emancipatory fields.