Week 11

Collectivism and Individualism 
 "I am not a Marxist"

Karl Heinrich Marx (German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. 1818-1883)

  

The ideas of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx have been the basis of the two great economic and social currents of the twentieth century, liberalism and socialism, respectively. Mill's philosophical conception puts particular emphasis on the individual over the interests of the state and the society, and any power can exert actions against the will of the individual, except if it harms to third parties. Freedom proposed by Mill did not put brakes on human development, and politically and economically, it was interpreted as the right to excel without limits. For Karl Marx, this concept of freedom focuses on the individual and personal interest, in the freedom to dominate and exploit others to gain power and wealth, because those who take over the means of production (because their freedom permits to do it) have the ability to command and dominate the weaker.

From Mill's theories comes the idea of ​​free market where private industry has the right to extend its branches without the meddling of government and society. The growth of the individual is a natural human instinct, but Mill made ​​it clear "as long as it does not harm others", and this is not reflected when we see how the wealth-poverty gap is extending around the world. From Marx's theories arises socialism, where social being determines consciousness of men and justifies an egalitarian society in which a dominant group does not undermine the chances of others. It is important the collective consciousness around the individual, while it does not fall into oligarchies that put arbitrary limits.

Although the interpretations that emerged from these conceptions of freedom became antagonists, both Mill and Marx defended the individual freedom, civil rights, religious tolerance, equal rights, the abolition of privileges, free elections, private property, etc. The originating status of liberalism was clearly humanistic, concerned about individual liberties of every human being to carry out their life plan, but the subsequent manipulation placed it dangerously close to its antithesis. Today, liberalism is associated with certain factors which may even endanger those old ideals, because liberalists defend the absurd idea of it is justified, and even it is admirable, a despotic and totalitarian political regime as long as it keeps multi-million dollar trade relationships. Apparently, the only real freedom is market freedom. If there are suppression of civil rights or aberrant Human Rights violations, everyone looks away. This "false liberalism" is merciless with the idea of the state as something bad, like a perverse structure that systematically violates the rights and potential of people. Marx's theories have a great philosophical value, but they were reduced to mere power struggles that led to an economic and political doctrine, naive and unworkable, as communism, which inevitably becomes in a tyrannical and inhuman system where there is no room for non-Communists who have only one option: either compromise or death.

Both Marxism and liberalism destroy human solidarity. The key to the welfare of a country is not class solidarity, but solidarity among all individuals. It is necessary to bring closer as far as possible the interests of all, produce wealth and, above all, make available all necessary means to have a decent life, but respecting aspects of human nature as the desire for improvement, individual distinctions, certain grade of individualism, ambition, competition, etc, while they do not come into conflict with the collective interest.