Marx was right the working class rules. Down with Aristotelian aristocracy. The truth is they both were right.
Yes the working class rules but not the working class communist parties tried to portray as digging in the mud or hammer wielding muscular individuals that may have been the working class of the Neanderthal age. The working class or the modern age: thinking, imagining, designing and managing the production of our future rules the world. (In general if you can be replaced by a machine you are not working, just temporarily filling a place due to lack of technology). Does it mean we all rule the world collectively? No. That's not true look around only the best rule the world and those best ones are the aristocracy (that Aristotle was talking about) of the working class (that Marx was taking about). Yes we certainly have the rights unalienable as it is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it is only a potential that means nothing if we don’t fight for it.
Jesus said that the meek would inherit the world. Why the meek? Why not the arrogant bullies? I think it's because arrogance is ignorance and only the intelligent, passionate and loving people can rule the world. Their reign doesn't come easy though. Brute power often resists intelligence or even plain common sense. And intelligent people often doubt their own capacities because doubt drives inquiry and knowledge. That's why to succeed the meek need faith to follow the yellow brick road. To stand in front of that fraud who sells himself as the powerful wizard and proudly declare: We are the week and the meek. And we will inherit the world because we know who we are and that there is no place like home.
yes, we are to assert our inherent rights and fight for our dignity. but this fight should be done in humility rather than in arrogance. thanks for your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMind you, Jefferson was full of self-evident unalienable rights but his assumptions on man's natural freedoms expressed the liberty of enlightened individualism from the comfort of his study while slaves worked away, deprived of all to produce his wealth.His talent was envisioning the individualism of the new age and the going of aristocratic rule that blindly assumed power; his radical rhetoric compensated for his deep shame and though a great humanist in speech, his vanity and aristocratic privilege governed his frivolous and irresponsible action,indulging the mind and body with the extremes his wealth allowed. He was a pampered aristocrat who brazenly declared a new era of humanism, but audacity to negate past bondage and rational intensity about philosophical equality were bold claims he never felt a duty to enact
ReplyDeleteOf course he did and didn't. He was only human. We can only strive towards perfection. John Lennon and Paul McCartney created one of the most beautiful love songs yet suffered emotional setbacks. Enzo Ferrari said that no one can create the perfect car, but no one can stop him from trying.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge giving Article! I appreciate you. I completely agree with you. If we talk about current scenario then it is must be update. I enjoyed reading. I would like to visit more for more queries.
ReplyDelete