Marxism, "Harm" Principle or Both?

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

           According to Mill, freedom rests heavily on the shoulders of the “harm” principle. Government or society should not intervene in internal affairs unless harm is being done by another’s actions. In this, our society is founded but only partially. Agreeing with Mill, his ideas allow us to determine whether or not our role in society is to help those in harm’s way or let them be if they conflict harm to themselves. Contrary to the fact, an individual seeking medical help in order to commit euthanasia would be denied in the United States. It would appear that assisted suicide would be legal according to Mill principle; however, government injects into the life of the individual in order to save him from himself. This brings my argument leaning toward Marx approach of economic philosophy or Marxism. Clearly these two philosophers are searching for a “just society” but due to modern society; Marx theory behind economic philosophy would appear to be more rational. As Marx states “people cannot eat ideas but must live on the material products of labor”, portraying his status in society (599). A quote like this usually comes from someone with economic problems. I find this quote to be the utmost reality pertaining to my social class; and as the famous cliché goes, “the rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer”. As I look back into the little biographies of philosophers in this textbook, I notice that the majority of philosophical ideas that still exist today are from many philosophers with little financial problems. Marx political philosophy on the other hand, was forced to move from city to city because of the rejection his ideas built in society. Which also provides support for his argument that “the changes in society and PHILOSOPHY are the result of underlying changes in technology and the economic system” (599). Power is dominant in any society and with wealth (meaning the most property, cattle, money, wives, etc.) comes power.

           In formulating my response for this week’s post (What are your thoughts on this?), I find myself looking deeply into both Marxism and the “Harm” principle. From my analysis, I conclude that Marxism is meant to oppose government allowing power (wealth) to be divided “equally” among the individuals in a society. I am convinced with this approach toward political philosophy because in a stable society, individuals are equal. There would be no need to “hate thy boss” or organize a strike because everyone would have equal power amongst each other. Pertaining to the freedom of the individual, those with greater power should enforce “equality” in society. Hence Mill’s “harm” principle; in stating that individuals are free depending solely on their actions in society. In the example of “going on strike”, the individual would lack the finances to provide for family, which is caused by the undivided “power” from government; therefore, government should then take actions on itself accordingly to keep society from hurting itself. Both Mill and Marx approaches would help society become Just.