Why the socialist Mill will not alarm his liberal readers: a reflection on Helen McCabe’s 'John Stuart Mill, socialist'

Abstract

McCabe's interpretation of Mill as a socialist is convincing but does not render his writings any less available to liberals. The term ‘socialism' was a slippery one in nineteenth-century Britain. For the likes of Arnold Toynbee, even self-proclaimed Tories could become socialists if they embraced the right policies. The existence of such ‘Tory socialists’ serves as a reminder of the hybridity of political identity at the time Mill was writing (hyphenated socialists were socialists nonetheless). Several aspects of Mill's socialism – his rejection of class antagonism, his discomfort with revolutionary change, and his focus on small-scale socialist experiments rather than achieving a socialist state – will reassure liberal readers that his socialism did not overwhelm his more liberal commitments. McCabe's book might thus be best read as supplementing the liberal reading of Mill rather than supplanting it. I conclude by suggesting that a Liberal-Socialist hybrid inspired by Mill could prove useful to the effort (begun recently by Axel Honneth) to re-found socialism on a non-Marxian basis.