Featured
Reclaiming our Nature: Marx and Mill
Winner of the 2026 First Year Essay Competition
Congratulations to Eden De Luca our 2026 First Year Essay Competition Winner. No PPE student is a stranger to Marx and Mill, but Eden has given us a delightfully fresh approach in this essay comparing the two in their view of human nature. The Statecraft team thoroughly enjoyed reading this essay, and we hope you do too.
Writing in mid to late 19th-century London, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill were responding to economic upheaval caused by industrial expansion. Through the rise of the working class and bourgeoisie as the dominant social strata, humankind’s economic power had reached a level “far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals”. This however did not come without cost; Thompson highlights how the introduction of large-scale, machine-powered industry produced a new, alien ‘time, work-discipline’. He says that the past was centred around natural, task-oriented rhythms of artisanal life where “men were in control of their own working lives.” But with labour now synchronised, due to the capacity for mass produced devices of time, it had become a mandatory, socially imposed routine. This transition from organic autonomy to mechanised discipline led Marx and Mill to question whether a society and its citizens could really flourish under these new economic conditions.
This essay will argue that; though both Marx and Mill are discontent with the capacity to flourish in their current society, their arguments are grounded in opposing conceptions of human nature and that consequently, their end goals are fundamentally different. This will be demonstrated for each thinker through the structure (i.) What it means to flourish and its obstacles, and (ii.) the means of overcoming them and the resulting society. In doing so, Marx’s view of human nature as ‘species-being’ achieved through class struggle will be shown to be irreconcilable with Mill seeing our nature as self-development and resisting social tyranny through the harm principle — as it sanctifies individualism when Marx argues for community.
Mill:
i. What it means to flourish and its obstacles
Rooted in utilitarianism, Mill emphasises individuality as “one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.” It is only when there is individuality that there can be the dictate of reason which enables humanity to exercise their faculties of “perception, judgement, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference” through making a choice. Ikuta describes this as “orienting oneself towards one’s beliefs and actions in a certain way: as entities that one has reflectively endorsed (in the case of beliefs) and chosen (in the case of actions) as one’s own.” This describes a theory of flourishing which places the cultivation of the mind as absolute through self-reflection and improvement. Mill represents this in On Liberty where he describes human nature as “a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.” To realise our capacities is therefore a fundamentally individual endeavour, in which rather than humanity being a machine guided by a set code, everyone branches out in all directions guided by the tendency to improve upon ourself.
Given this theory of flourishing, a barrier would be anything that aims to prevent or impose an external guide to growth, something which turns the unbridled ecosystem into a neat garden. For Mill, this obstacle is not in the reign of a monarch or elite class, but a social tyranny which expects a uniform growth pattern for every tree. “Society can and does execute its own mandate… it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression… enslaving the soul itself.” Wilkinson describes this tyranny of the prevailing opinion as having a pressure so strong that “people conform because it does not occur to them not to conform”. The result is that individuals stop exercising judgment and instead fall back on imitation; flourishing is endangered because the higher faculties required for self-development atrophy under the steady force of prevailing opinion.
He argues class relations alone are insufficient at diagnosing the barrier to flourishing, as what is now ascendant is the “public opinion in the State”
Importantly, while earlier societies had this opinion reflect the interest of an ascendant class, Mill argues that modern democracy “practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority”. Therefore, he argues class relations alone are insufficient at diagnosing the barrier to flourishing, as what is now ascendant is the “public opinion in the State”.
ii. Progressing past obstacles to flourishing
A central underpinning of Mill’s On Liberty is a belief that truth and history advance through exceptional, original minds, not by the mass. Mill insists that “the initiation of all wise or noble things, comes and must come from individuals” and “genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.” This portrays an emphasis on the individual as the engine of progress, where for humanity to flourish, politics must give them space. This is the justification for what is known as Mill’s Harm Principle, where the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Mill’s society, after overcoming social tyranny by preserving liberty, would maintain a capitalist market. While the harm principle’s justifications for intervention can be interpreted as socialist, the most they become is reformist
Depending on the interpretation of what constitutes harm and its extension into the market, the justified level of government intervention in the economy changes. This initially seems incompatible to Mill’s separate doctrine on free trade which states that “both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free”. One is arguing for intervention when there are market failures causing self-regarding actions to harm others, while the other says to not interfere at all. Mabsout unifies this divide by highlighting Mill’s distinction of two separate spheres of life: “the social which delineates the scope of free trade and the individual which delineates the scope of personal liberty”. Furthermore, these spheres overlap considerably, since a restriction of potentially harmful commodities “interfere with an individual’s liberty to purchase them.” From this Mabsout poses that Mill is in favour of a synthesis of the two through “soft and liberty preserving interventions by the State to reduce the risk of harms”. This economic position highlights that Mill’s society, after overcoming social tyranny by preserving liberty, would maintain a capitalist market. While the harm principle’s justifications for intervention can be interpreted as socialist, the most they become is reformist. Mill does not reject private property or the competitive market institutions of society and instead advocates for liberty preserving interventions.
Marx:
i. What it means to flourish and its obstacles
Karsten J. Struhl defines Marx’s concept of human nature as split into two distinct parts, a “robust trans-historical concept of human nature as well as a historical one”. The former creates the framework for flourishing, while the latter represents the aspects defined by the specific epoch and will be returned to in Part ii. The trans-historical nature is what Marx referred to as ‘species-being’, an innate drive of humanity to produce within, and for, their community. Firstly, beyond satisfying immediate needs, Marx uses the “conscious life activity” character of man to show that we also produce to imbue our consciousness into nature to self-realise. This is expanded on in Capital where he separates man from animal; “but what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality… He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but also realizes a purpose of his own”. This demonstrates what Struhl called “a normative ideal of human flourishing” where no matter the epoch, humanity has an innate drive to produce. Secondly, this production is inherently a social process, and so the individual cannot be separated from their relations. Marx demonstrates this in The German Ideology: “a certain mode of production… is always combined with a mode of cooperation”. The division of labour means that humanity is interdependent on each other for the materials and method necessary to flourish. For Marx, flourishing is therefore inseparable from society, as to consciously produce must be a shared, purposeful endeavour.
Modern capitalist society actively denies species-being through an alienation of the worker from their labour, “estranged labor estranges the species from man.” Ownership of the fruits of one’s own labour is lost; the “labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital”. The capitalist class has thus alienated the worker, and the “icy water of egotistical calculation” reigns supreme over conscious activity. Consequently, the vital connection to work is severed and there is no object of realisation, since the individual cannot realise themselves in their product. Without this quality, work becomes that which denies the self, and so the labourer only “feels at home when he is not working”. The trans-historical human nature is reversed. The division of humanity into worker and capitalist makes labour that which is dreaded instead of loved, yet we can only flourish through conscious production.
For Marx, flourishing is therefore inseparable from society, as to consciously produce must be a shared, purposeful endeavour
ii. Progressing past obstacles to flourishing
Get Eden De Luca’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Marx is offering a theory of progress as driven by the antagonisms fundamental to a society built on hierarchy. This creates the grounds for Struhl’s historical aspect of human nature, which Marx would describe as “the ensemble of social relations”; it implies that society cannot be changed by the individual as long as the class structures remain the same. Rather, what determines hierarchy is the “economic structure of society… on which arises a legal and political superstructure”. Therefore, the nature of class struggle depends on a shift in our relation to production. This is made clear when Marx writes on the previous age of serfdom, “the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed… they were burst asunder.” The old relations were destroyed and from them sprang the burghers which produced the modern antagonism of bourgeoisie and proletariat. History, therefore, is brought about not through individuals or their ideas, but by class struggle as a structural contradiction embedded in the economic organisation of society.
Marx describes communism in one sentence: “abolition of private property”. In his vision, this will signify the end of class antagonisms since there will no longer be any economic grounds for a hierarchy to form. Thomas E. Wartenburg describes this as a “society in which people are able to engage in a maximum of self-realisation because of the social character of production.” Without the division in class, labour reunites humanity with our species being. Embraced by its social quality and liberated from capitalist ownership, production is no longer alienated. Only at this stage, after having removed economic constraints, do we reach what Marx describes as the “social formation [which] constitutes, therefore, the closing chapter of the prehistoric stage of human society.” This vision of the future therefore emphasises the ability of class driven by a desire to flourish, to overcome and replace the competition of capitalism with communal, conscious labour.
Conclusion and Synthesis
These accounts of Mill and Marx have revealed fundamentally opposed ideological frameworks at every stage, a division created by their competing priorities of the individual and the community. Mill defines flourishing as the private cultivation of individual faculties, whereas Marx defines it as species-being — the shared, conscious activity of a community. This creates contrasting obstacles; Mill denies the influence of class, identifying instead a social tyranny of the prevailing public opinion. Marx conversely argues that it is precisely because we are divided by class that the capitalist who alienates labour can exist. Their theories of progress follow this divide, Mill views history as advanced by genius individuals while Marx sees it as an inevitable class struggle driven by social relations. Ultimately, this culminates in incompatible visions of the future. Mill’s harm principle enshrining liberty causes private property and competitive institutions to be preserved, but Marx sees the abolition of private property as the necessary final component to achieve species-being and its social character.
Bibliography
Ikuta, Jennie C. “Mill as Ambivalent Democrat: The Corruption and Cultivation of Human Flourishing in Democratic Society and Politics.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 41, no. 7 (2015): 697–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714547895
Mabsout, Ramzi. “John Stuart Mill, Soft Paternalist.” Social Choice and Welfare 58, no. 1 (2022): 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-021-01353-8
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. Edited by Frederick Engels. Marx/Engels Internet Archive. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/.
Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Translated by N. I. Stone. Chicago: International Library Publishing Co., 1904. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46423/46423-h/46423-h.htm.
Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. Edited by Frederick Engels. Marx/Engels Internet Archive. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm.
Marx, Karl. “Idealism and Materialism.” In The German Ideology. Vol. 1. Marx/Engels Internet Archive. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
Marx, Karl. “Preface.” In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Translated by S. W. Ryazanskaya. Marx/Engels Internet Archive. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/
Marx, Karl. Theses on Feuerbach. Translated by W. Lough. Marx/Engels Internet Archive. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Edited by Jeffrey C. Isaac. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. In Three Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960.
Struhl, Karsten J. “Marx and Human Nature: The Historical, the Trans-Historical, and Human Flourishing.” Science & Society 80, no. 1 (2016): 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2016.80.1.78.
Thompson, E. P. “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.” Past & Present, no. 38 (1967): 56–97. https://academic.oup.com/past/article/38/1/56/1454624?login=true&guestAccessKey=.
Wartenberg, Thomas E. “‘Species-Being’ and ‘Human Nature’ in Marx.” Human Studies 5, no. 2 (1982): 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02127669.
Wilkinson, T. M. “Mill’s On Liberty and Social Pressure.” Utilitas 32, no. 2 (2020): 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820819000554.
Thank you to Eloise Taylor for editing this article.
