Results 1 to 6 of 6
I just got a copy of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty"; and I was wondering what everyone thinks of him. He argues that any argument has validity, and that to extinguish it completely would be "immoral". Thsi gives us ground to argue for what we see as the just society, but with the history of Stalin, and how difficult it would be to hold down a new society, can we allow the Capitalist's argument?
Can we actually have a Socialist society where Liberty is key? Before anyone picks me up, yes I know that Capitalism is not governed by Liberty.
Surely in the true Trotskyist society (let's not get into the definitions debate), where nobody would rule but himself, there would be true Liberty, but how can we prevent a Capitalist junta?
Vive le Birkenhead
Vive le Revolution
Actually, the people with liberty under Trotskyism are the Central Committee. Everyone else is under their authority. Liberty and authority are opposites.
For libertarian socialist societies, I'd recommend you check out the history of the Anarchist movement in Catalonia, Spain, during the Spanish Civil War; the Autonomia/Autonomen movements of Italy and Germany respectively; and the organization of the autonomous Zapatista communities in the Chiapas, Mexico.
To be honest I am fairly sick of Mill having studied him for the third time recently, and I could probably quote most of that text from memory :P
My petty issues aside his arguments for free speech are rather important, and I generally agree with him. "Liberty" comprises more than just speech so it would be handy to differentiate between the two if possible.
If the question is on freedom and discussion then I guess I may as well try and briefly sum up Mill's argument so that people can chip in:Basically Mill is a falliblist, which isn't to say he thinks we are all wrong, rather he thinks that we aren't all right. Because of this he sees freedom of discussion as essential.
One of his arguments states that we may be wrong, and refusal of discussion may mean that we forfeit our chance to exchange error for truth.
Another states that we may be partially right, and that through discussion we may achieve a greater truth than we had previously (or raise doubts when justified if previously there were none).
His fina;, and perhaps most interesting argument is this; even if we are right we must allow free discussion because it is only through collission with what is incorrect that we know it as true and justified as such. Through allowing discussion (even if say it is capitalism that is being proposed) it is only through discussion that the superiority of the currently held position can be known.By rejcting discussion we rob ourselves of the chance to affirm truth, and lay to rest that wich is wrong.
These are very sketchy illustrations of the arguments, but I am tired, and a lttle bored of them...
I can see little reason to disagree with Mill in this respect at least.
Yeah, sorry my post only addressed the second part of the topic's question. I haven't read Mill in ages, and haven't felt particularly antsy to brush up on him.
Heh, mine only addressed the first part
Although I have done Mill to death I think there are some useful arguments to be drawn from him. It is also worth bearing in mind that Mill was writing before Marx, and during the earlier stages of capitalism, so as not to judge them by post-Marxian standards. They actually were quite radical in some respects, and advocated freedom and individuality to a greater extent than just about all before them. It is also one of the first attempts to reconcile individuality and utility.
Of course Mill has problems, but it is still easy and important reading.
I could say what I think but it is better said here.
if you have time for a fairly brief essay
http://www.denniskyne.com/media/articles/marxvmill
Man's dearest possession is life, and since it is given to him to live but once.He must so live that dying he can say, all my life and all my strength have been given to the greatest cause in the world, the liberation of mankind
Ostrovski
Muriel Spark:
If I had my life to live over again I should form the habit of nightly composing myself to thoughts of death. I would practice, as it were, the remembrance of death. There is no other practice which so intensifies life. Death, when it approaches, ought not to take one by surprise. It should be part of the full expectancy of life. Without an ever-present sense of death life is insipid. You might as well live on the whites of eggs.
