This thesis examines how the idea of Socialism was remade in Britain during the 1880s. It does so with reference to the two figures most receptive to the work of Karl Marx, H. M. Hyndman and E. B. Bax. It argues that, despite the progress made in others areas of the history of British Socialism, the historiography on Hyndman and Bax is still marred by the influence of Friedrich Engels. It demonstrates that the terms ‘Marxist’ and ‘Marxism’ are anachronisms. It shows that ‘Marxism’ was an invented intellectual tradition. It argues therefore that it is a mistake to take its existence for granted at the outset of the period. It shows instead how Hyndman and Bax interpreted Marx over time, with and without Engels’s mediation. It reveals, firstly, that Hyndman was not the Tory Radical of historical repute, and Bax, secondly, was one of the most serious internal critics of ‘Marxism’ of his generation, who did battle with Engels in print. The chapters on Hyndman reveal a fuller cast of characters than historians have usually been apt to acknowledge. For instance, Giuseppe Mazzini, Henry Fawcett, William Cunningham, John Morley, W. H. Mallock, and Arnold Toynbee all feature prominently. The chapters on Bax also reveal previously unacknowledged affinities: most importantly, perhaps, Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill. What also becomes apparent is the substantially different set of sources to those customarily proposed that at once both informed and facilitated the passage of modern British Socialist thought: briefly, the ‘culture of altruism’ that flourished among intellectuals from the 1850s to the 1880s, the rise of historical economics, the discourse of democratic Teutonism and the invention of primitive society, Comtian Positivism, and political economy in its post-Millian form.

H. M. Hyndman, E. B. Bax, and the Reception of Karl Marx’s Thought in Late-Nineteenth Century Britain, c. 1881-1893

John Stuart Mill’s self-description as ‘under the general designation of Socialist’ has been under-explored. It is an important feature of something else often overlooked: the importance of the French context of Mill’s thought. This article focuses on the role of Fourierism in the development of Mill’s ideas, exploring the links to Fourierism in Mill’s writing on profit-sharing; his use of the words ‘association’ and ‘friendly rivalry’; and his views concerning distributive justice. It then reconsiders his assessment of Fourierism as a desirable, workable and immediately implementable form of social reform, ultimately arguing it was Mill’s most-preferred form of ‘utopian’ socialism.

/pdf/john-stuart-mill-and-fourierism-association-friendly-rivalry-27xteekhrk.pdf

John Stuart Mill and Fourierism: ‘association’, ‘friendly rivalry’ and distributive justice

Law of the Land? Hacienda Power and the Challenge of Republicanism in Postindependence Mexico

The received view that John Stuart Mill opposed the use of violence to attain desirable political goals has been undermined by authors stressing Mill's defence of revolutionary causes during his lifetime and his efforts to outline a justificatory theory of political violence. In light of this scholarship, claims of Mill's ostensible ‘gradualism’ with regard to the appropriate methods and pace of social progress may merit reassessment. At the same time Mill's account appears to sanction violence that respects criteria of justice but not of expediency and vice versa, making it untenable as a cogent guide for carrying out or evaluating acts of violence. That this tension is analogous to tensions elsewhere in Mill's writings provides more evidence for the view that his theoretical project was a systematic one, and raises new questions about his philosophical enterprise.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0953820814000168

Michael Levin

Papers

John Stuart Mill: A Liberal Looks at Utopian Socialism in the Years of Revolution 1848-9 (1)