Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Marx: Key Philosophies
Auguste Comte: Positivism and the Law of Three Stages
Comte proposed a socially conservative reformism that aimed to use science to solve the problems of the new times. He is the initiator of positivism, a philosophical current that defends direct knowledge of material reality as it is. This is scientific knowledge extracted from the recording of natural empirical phenomena. Comte defended his philosophy, stating that the same law is repeated in humanity. This law is the law of three stages.
Comte considered a first theological state (divided into fetish, polytheistic, and monotheistic) based on myths. The metaphysical state is based on abstract ideas, and the positive state is based on the principles of science. He is considered the founder of modern sociology and believed that positivism is the religion of humanity.
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism and Social Reform
Stuart Mill championed utilitarianism, equating satisfaction, not just pleasure, with happiness. He proposed that the state and society should be governed by the principle of maximum happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill looked at the notion of the common good and identified it with the effective means to obtain the highest possible satisfaction and happiness for the greatest number of people.
Regarding economic and social reform, Mill considered industrialization and the economic inequality of capitalism unacceptable. He wanted to end state intervention through measures that limited working hours by law and prohibited child labor. The common good, he argued, imposes humanizing social and labor legislation. Mill is the author of a new formulation of economic liberal policy that advocates for a fairer distribution of wealth derived from social cooperation. He challenged economic naturalism, the claim that market laws are natural, and sought to limit the right to inheritance. Mill saw solid cultural education and training as the guarantee of freedom that provides happiness.
In politics and morality, Mill opted for a system based on the fundamental value of individual freedom. He was an advocate of democracy and wanted to defend the right of every citizen to basic freedoms. Mill was a hedonistic thinker.
Comte and Mill: Similarities and Differences
Comte and Mill agreed in their opposition to the selfishness of the individual, their support for the nobility of altruism and the common good, and their desire to overcome differences between the sexes. They differed in their views on scientific studies, as Mill believed science to be a discipline too confusing and uncertain.
Karl Marx: Historical Materialism and Critique of Capitalism
Historical Materialism: Marx interpreted history as a class struggle and viewed humans as determined by material and economic conditions of life. He believed that class struggle is the engine of history. Historical materialism overturned the Hegelian conception of history and the subsequent presumption of political reality. For Marx, the material basis on which reality and thought rest is the economic infrastructure.
The Genesis of Marx’s Thought
Marx examined the course of human modes of production. Each mode of production (slave society, feudal society, capitalist, or socialist) is defined by forms of ownership of the means of production. The representation of reality, or ideology, that humans have at a particular time is a consequence of the relations of production existing at that moment. Marx distinguished between the economic base and the ideological superstructure.
Dialectical Materialism
According to Marx, human society undergoes a dialectical process. This involves the gradual onset of a new mode of production, followed by a moment of confrontation and breaking with the previous one. This culminates in the consolidation of new relations of production and the ideology that expresses them.
Alienation and the Economic Fictions of Capitalism
Marx saw private property as the expression of alienated labor. To understand fundamental alienation, he used the distinction made by economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In any object of labor, it is necessary to distinguish two dimensions: use value and exchange value. The first has a qualitative character, as it points to what is useful to society and responds to human needs. Exchange value has a quantitative dimension, representing the price of the object in a market.