UDG

Essay

Mills notion of Stationary State

Mentor:

Student:

Mills notion of Stationary State

Podgorica, february, 2013. Essay Mills notion of Stationary State

About John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill is one of the most prominent representatives of liberalism. He was born in London 1806th year. He has studied the socialist doctrine, and he actively worked to improve the position of the working class. He was a member of the English Parliament since 1865. until 1868. year, when he failed to be re-elected, so he returned to France. He advocated public ownership of private resources, equality of women, compulsory education and birth control, and therefore was considered radical. The basic idea of Mill's liberalism thinking about the idea of progress. The man is guided by his own choice and need to take responsibility for them. Society has no right to interfere with a man's choice, because that choice for himself. But the idea of progress has a deeper significance, and that is freedom. And it civil and social liberties. It is undisputed that the Mill was a theorist who advocated a classical liberal principles of freedom and individual rights, free markets and private property rights, but also in their learning and have the premise of collectivism, allowing the state to, in some cases still be above the individual. A stationary state is one in which growth is neither positive nor negative. Until John Stuart Mill, the stationary state was, like the declining state, considered unwelcome, and growth was thought to benefit all three great classes of society: capitalists, landlords, and workers. In his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill for the first time raised the possibility that the stationary state could be desirable (and economic growth undesirable). In addition, whereas in all the earlier classical authors the systems movements were seen as governed by internal "laws of motion" that, while they could be identified and interpreted, could not be altered, in Mill, for the first time, the possibility that human intervention into the system could affect its outcomes was contemplated. Mills notion of Stationary State In his 1848 book Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill discussed the costs and benefits of economic growth in terms that remain salient and compelling today. John Stuart Mill in his treaties on the Principles of Political Economy discusses, in an obscure and tiny chapter, one of his grandest visions of the future: the stationary state. Contrary to opposing views at the time, Mill sees the stationary state as an ideal condition for society. 2

Mills notion of Stationary State

In the stationary state, socio-economic differentiation and class struggle would recede along with the money grubbing and drudgery associated with market society. Instead, society, resting on harmonious relations, would be characterized by the pursuit of higher pleasures. The quality of the mode of life would continuously improve. Society would be characterized by a well-paid and affluent body of laborers; no enormous fortunes, except what were earned and accumulated during a single life-time, but amuck larger body of persons than at present, not only exempt from the coarser toils, but sufficient leisure, both physical and mental, from mechanical details, to cultivate freely the graces of life, and afford examples of them to the classes less favorably circumstanced for their growth. Mill sees concept of growth as composed of three interacting elements: capital, population and the productive arts. Production drains the capital stock necessitating replenishment, and population produces more mouths to feed, wages to be earned and jobs to be attained. These two factors will forcefully balance out in the long run; incidentally, the population growth would conclusion that everyone would live on subsistence wages. Mill saw a different view of this stationary state however. Subsistence wages was a result of society allowing itself to end population growth by what could be considered the states carrying capacity. Instead, Mill viewed that moral restraint and birth control could result in a sustainable population. The reasons for this deviation can be understood by the fact incomes only generate a means to some end. When our individual income flow is no longer growing and we are stationary with our individual lifestyle the question arises as to how we want to live our life under these circumstances. The stationary state, for society, is that same notion. The sum of this would result in a prudent society making sensible choices. This brings up three key elements to Mills view of how to make the stationary state a beneficial end: the culture, the means and distribution. It is the relationship of these three variables that distinguish how a society may culture its prudence. Mill acknowledges the economical progress of society in terms of capitals population and the productive arts. But in contemplating any progressive movement, not in its nature unlimited, the mind is not satisfied with merely tracing the laws of the movement; it cannot but ask the further question of what goal? Towards what ultimate point is society tending by its industrial progress Mills question presumes that there is a point to economic development. Adhering to a philosophical anthropology which is concerned with human growth, there to be a point or an end so that material progress is inextricably connected with human selfrealization. The system lacks moral purpose and is nihilistic in being, literally, an endless growth, a growth with out end. Capital has to expand its values in order to accumulate the 3

Mills notion of Stationary State

capital necessary for the process to begin again. There is no end to this process other than further growth. This endless growth derives from the capital system and its central dynamic of accumulation. The capital system must continuously expand its values or die. This imperative to expand colonists every aspect of society. In the ideal stationary state, society would have achieved a sufficiently high level of wealth accumulation. Workers would be educated to realize the negative effects of population growth, and they would control their numbers voluntarily. As population growth reached a stationary stage, there would be no tendency for wages to fall and no reason for further growth in production. Mill was sure to note that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement, thus making the distinction between quantitative growth and qualitative development. He also pointed out that his analysis applied only to the presently industrialized nations, and that what would later be called "developing" countries have not yet reached the level of economic well-being necessary to turn to zero growth. Conclusion John Stuart Mill, developed the idea of the steady state economy in the mid-19th century. He believed that after a period of growth, the economy would reach a stationary state, characterized by constant population and stocks of capital. His words eloquently describe the positive nature of such an economic system: It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Mills concept of the stationary state is not an invitation to demonize economic growth or to view the cessation of growth as a primary means of achieving desired social ends. On the contrary, Mills reasoning is a call for balance. The task is to reject the narrative in which growth is seen as an overarching goal that trumps all other social, moral, and environmental concerns. Instead, Mill's challenge us to view material prosperity as simply one means of serving desired ends. Once we achieve this transformation of thought, the vision of a future characterized by material sufficiency, environmental sustainability, and social justice seems more achievable. It is clinging to false tradeoffs that paralyzes our thought and prevents us from turning the possible into the real. Literature:
Mill, J. S.. Principle of Political Economy with some of their applications to Social Philosophy . London, Longsmans, Green, & Co., 1888. Radonji R, Politike i pravne teorije, tree izdanje, Podgorica 2002.