ABSTRACT
John Stuart Mill economic thought is embodied in Mill’s economic writing. But the writing itself, i.e. the rhetoric, has rarely been subjected to systematic analysis. Anti-systematic writing, in terms of a response to political economy, such as John Ruskin’s, means challenging: mechanistic rationality; universality; homogeneity of economic inputs; and ‘science’. The problem of developing a language fit for analytical purposes is identified early in the work. If ‘truth’ in political economy is to be set forth in a systematic and logical manner, then close attention needs to be placed in removing confusing and inconsistent language. Mill has a refined understanding of the properties of language, conscious of metaphor, synonym, the nature of spoken conventions, and ambiguity. The desire on the part of others to avoid the use of the terms ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ labour, a distinction which Mill is anxious to promote, is seen as a confusion by them of ‘mere language and classification’.
