Nobody,of course,would have admitted this more cordially than Mill,and the admission would imply that we must here look beyond mere ,supply and demand ,or individual competition.When we sum up these admissions,it appears that Mill was well on the way to state Socialism.Lange,the historian of materialism,praises him warmly upon this ground.(146)Lange is enthusiastic about Mill's Liberty,as well as about his Political Economy.He praises the Economy on the ground that Mill's great aim is to humanise the science;and,especially,that in the various proposals which I have noticed Mill desires an active interference of government towards raising the moral level of society.Mill,in short,would have sympathised,had he come to know it,with the Socialism of the Chair,which was beginning at the time of his death to make a mark in Germany.Lange's appreciation was,I think,in great part correct;and suggests the question,How or how far was Mill consistent?Could a system essentially based upon Malthus and Ricardo be reconciled with modern Socialism?
Mill once more was an individualist in the philosophical sense.He assumes society to be formed of a number of independent units,bound together by laws enforced by 'sanctions.'The fundamental laws should be just;and justice presupposes equality;equality,at at least in this sense,that the position of each unit should depend upon his own qualities,and not upon mere outward accidents.In his articles upon Socialism Mill declared most emphatically that in the present state of society any idea of such justice was 'manifestly chimerical';(147)and that the main conditions of success were first birth,and secondly accident.In his first edition his discussion of Socialism ends by justifying 'private property.'The best scheme is that which lets every man's share of the produce depend on his own exertions.He complains,however,that the principle has 'never yet had a fair trial in any country.'Inequalities have been created and aggravated by the law.(148)This passage disappeared when he rewrote his views of Socialism.From the first,however,he asserts a principle for which he gives the chief credit to his wife.(149)Laws of production,he says,are 'real laws of nature';methods of distribution depend on the human will,or,as he says in the Political Economy,'the distribution of wealth depends on the laws and customs of society.'(150)Can the laws secure a just distribution?
Here,then,is a critical problem.As a Utilitarian he would reply that government should make fair rules for the general relations of individuals,and trust to the best man winning in an open competition.Mill's point of difference from the Socialists was precisely that he believed in competition to the last,and was so far a thorough 'individualist.'Yet,as a matter of fact,vast inequalities of wealth and power had developed,and exiled justice from the world --if,indeed,justice had ever existed there.So far as this could be attributed to laws,unjust because made by force and fraud,the remedy might lie in reforming the laws.That case was exemplified by land.'Landed property',he says,in Europe,derives 'its origin from force.'(151)English land laws were first designed 'to prop up a ruling class.'(152)By force,in fact,the landowners had secured the best places at Malthus's feast,and were enabled to benefit by,without contributing to,the growth of the national wealth.Rent,says Cairnes,is 'a fund ever growing,even while its proprietors sleep.'(153)Mill,of course,admitted that part of rent is due to the application of capital;and he does not propose to confiscate the wealth of the actual proprietors who had acquired their rights fairly under the existing system.But he is convinced that land differs radically from movable property.
Capital diminishes in value,as society advances;'land alone.has the privilege of steadily rising in value from natural causes.'(154)Hence we have the famous proposal of taking the 'unearned increment.'(155)If the landowner was dissatisfied,he should be paid the selling price of the day.A good many landlords may regret that they had not this offer at the time that it was proposed (1873).Thus land was to be nationalised;the state was to become the national landlord,as in India,(156)and at any rate nothing was to be done by which more land could get into private hands.He seems,indeed,still to believe in a peasant-proprietary,(157)but does not ask how far the doctrine is compatible with nationalisation.
If,then,the forcible acquisition of land by its first owners be still a taint upon the existing title,is property in other wealth altogether just?Mill admits in his discussion of Thornton's book that something is to be said against capitalists.
'Movable property,'indeed,has,on the whole,a purer 'origin than landed property.'It represents industry ,not simply force.
