Which Philosopher Benefits the Working Class - Essay Example

?Which Philosopher Benefits the Working Today’s society, as it is rapidly intertwining thanks to the movement of globalization, has been influenced by many philosophers and great thinkers of past times. Some of their ideas can clearly be witnessed as having been noted and implemented into various economic and political systems. For example, Karl Marx is well known as the Father of Communism and his theories are being followed by some modern governments. It is interesting to study the views and theories of these historical thinkers and see how they serve to explain modern day structures and events. Some philosophers can concretely be proved more accurate than others while some theories are still matters of debate. At the base, what truly matters is the individual and where they see themselves. One may take upon oneself a theory as their self-description while another may very well deny the same theory and choose an alternative or opposing view. Herein shall be examined the position of various philosophers: Lenin, Marx, Smith, and Ortega y Gasset, as they relate to the life of one who is deemed “working class.” Vladimir Lenin was one of the great Russian political figures and a great thinker of the twentieth century (Historical Figures n.p.). He is the one responsible for the political structure of the USSR. In Russia, he took up a fight on behalf of the working class. It was his position that the working class needed to be rescued from the capitalist oppressors that placed heavy burdens upon them. According to Lenin, a communist lifestyle greatly benefits the working class. They have the right to be free from those who would exploit them for the sake of financial gain. In his eyes, the capitalists regarded the working class as no more than a commodity and they used them to benefit their own pockets without regard for the suffering that the working class had to endure. However, Lenin acknowledged the fact that the tendency of the working class is not to take upon themselves a socialist society and that they, if the opportunity was presented, would simply switch from being the proletariat to being the bourgeois. As it has been reported, “…Lenin therefore concluded that if the proletariat was ever to realize its class interest the socialist idea would have to be brought to it “from without” by those who understood Marx’s science…”(Mayer159). It would seem that Lenin missed the mark in regard to the needs of the working class. The first and most obvious proof is the failure of his design, namely the USSR. Secondly, he neglected to fully recognize the cravings of the working class to be free from oppression. He did not see that his introduction of a socialist society is yet again just another form of oppression. For if the working class desires to advance in status, there ought be nothing to stop them but their own lack of determination. Yet, living in a socialist society, those who desire such freedoms would have to flee the country or abandon hope. Lenin is not accurate in the position of the working class from the view of a working class citizen. However, Lenin was not alone in his belief that socialism and communism are what will benefit the working class the most. His thoughts were greatly founded upon the views of another well-known philosopher, Karl Marx. Marx, often considered the Father of Communism, also felt that capitalism was a social ill because it degraded the working class to a commodity for the rich whom they would serve. Marx blames private ownership and the ability to get wealth for many of the problems of society. Therefore, he prescribed a system where there would be no private ownership. Still, his views are not accurate to the working class who, without the ability to own privately, ends up working endlessly for naught. At least those who are working class and living in a capitalist society have the ability to hope for greatness and wealth. It is this hope that excites and brightens the eyes. They work all the harder, not only in their positions, but to improve themselves in order to one day attain the goal. Under a system that follows Marx ideals, life for them becomes pointless and dreary as they struggle to survive. Citizens in countries where there is a communist system are notoriously poor and oppressed. From the stand point of the working class, this is no way to live. There is yet another philosopher whose ideas left seemed to oppress the working class; although he is not the last on such a list. Jose Ortega y Gasset was a Spanish philosopher who wrote much about the life of man. His works were not limited to political and economic theories, but he talked about the animalistic nature of man and his illusionary world. Unlike Lenin and Marx, Ortega y Gasset was not deluded about himself being a hero for the working class. Instead, his position was that those who are intellectually superior should be the rulers. It was his position that the masses had come into power and it was a very bad thing. According to Ortega y Gasset, the “mass man” has no appreciation for civilization and would destroy all that sets his own life at ease. As he reports, “As the masses, by definition, neither should nor can direct their own personal existence, and still less rule society in general, this fact means that actually Europe is suffering from the greatest crisis that can afflict peoples, nations, and civilization” (Ortega y Gasset). It is clear that Ortega y Gasset is for a dictatorship, or at least an aristarchy. Either way, those of the working class would ever be oppressed by this type of rule. They could not live as their own conscious dictates or work towards their desired goal. It might be argued that some of the working class, through the theory of Ortega y Gasset, could be elected to rule through their intelligence. However, the majority of those who are of a lower class also have a lower level of education and it would be all too easy for them to be discriminated against and denied freedom. Therefore, as one from the working class, the theories of Ortega y Gasset are not to be adapted. There is one philosopher, Adam Smith, whose thoughts more rightly fit the needs of the working class. Smith was for a laissez-faire economic and political system. It was his view that the production of the individual who has drive to get gain will benefit society through the perfecting of manners and goods. The working class works so hard that they should have the right to excel by their own ambitions. They should be free to arrive at a destination, instead of living on a financial and political treadmill where they work hard without ability to attain. To one from the working class, Smith’s view is the one that is the most accurate. Overall, Smith best serves to explain the position of the working class in today’s society. Their right to financial and political advancement does not need to be removed from them, as it has been claimed by Lenin, Marx, and Ortega Y Gasset. Instead, the working class does not mind their low estate because of the hope they possess of improvement. Adam Smith was on target to say that the products of the driven individual can serve to benefit society. Works Cited “Historic Figures: Vladimir Lenin (1870 - 1924)." BBC. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 May 2012. . Mayer, Robert. “Plekhanov, Lenin, and Working-Class Consciousness.” Studies in East European Thought 49 (1997): 159–185. Print. Ortega Y Gasset, Jose. “The Revolt of the Masses.” 1930. Print. Read More