Scan barcode
A review by ekul
The Revolt of the Masses by José Ortega y Gasset
4.0
This was a book that I appreciated quite a lot. In it, Ortega argues that modernity is defined by the rise of the "mass man," who could be from any class and is only defined by its status as not-a-minority. In Ortega's conception, the "working masses" is an entirely different concept from "mass man," although there is some overlap. Ortega finds that the crisis the West is facing (in the 1930s) is the disappearance of morality under the rapid changes of the nineteenth century. He finds that nationalists are a dying breed, who resurged as a form of conservatism before nations weakened ("The last flare, the longest; the last sigh, the deepest. On the very eve of their disappearance there is an intensification of frontiers--military and economic."). He dislikes Marxists, but he despises Bolshevism (indeed, he does separate the two: "[. . .] Marxian Socialism and Bolshevism mare two historical phenomena which have hardly a single common denominator."). He also despises fascism, which he finds more despicable than any labor movement.
Perhaps his most interesting insight (from the perspective of the historian, at least) is that he finds that Bolshevism may become more popular in Europe because Europeans want to do something to better their societies (perhaps this could be a source of morality), and the Bolsheviks seemed to do this quite effectively through Five Year Plans. However, Ortega rejects this and finds that it would be best to "[build] Europe into a great national State" as the only way Bolshevism could be counteracted. I don't think I quite agree with him on this, but it does seem that numerous architects of the European Community (and later, the European Union) would agree. In doing so, Europeans could establish a new form of Europe-wide morality, although he problematically seems to think of Slavs as not-Europeans (pitting a "Slavonic" code against a European code, and a Slavically-coded Bolshevik project against a more universalist European project).
Above all, Ortega seems almost to represent the pinnacle of progressivism. Although he finds it necessary to look to the past to root oneself in history, he rejects the insularity of nationalism, the specter of Communism, and the violence of fascism. Instead, he looks towards a fundamentally progressive, liberal, and universalist vision of the future that builds continuities with the past. I think, generally, his analysis is decent if flawed, but he does have an admirable vision of what the future may hold and I think it is one that we would all do well to remember, especially in these times of nationalist populism.
Perhaps his most interesting insight (from the perspective of the historian, at least) is that he finds that Bolshevism may become more popular in Europe because Europeans want to do something to better their societies (perhaps this could be a source of morality), and the Bolsheviks seemed to do this quite effectively through Five Year Plans. However, Ortega rejects this and finds that it would be best to "[build] Europe into a great national State" as the only way Bolshevism could be counteracted. I don't think I quite agree with him on this, but it does seem that numerous architects of the European Community (and later, the European Union) would agree. In doing so, Europeans could establish a new form of Europe-wide morality, although he problematically seems to think of Slavs as not-Europeans (pitting a "Slavonic" code against a European code, and a Slavically-coded Bolshevik project against a more universalist European project).
Above all, Ortega seems almost to represent the pinnacle of progressivism. Although he finds it necessary to look to the past to root oneself in history, he rejects the insularity of nationalism, the specter of Communism, and the violence of fascism. Instead, he looks towards a fundamentally progressive, liberal, and universalist vision of the future that builds continuities with the past. I think, generally, his analysis is decent if flawed, but he does have an admirable vision of what the future may hold and I think it is one that we would all do well to remember, especially in these times of nationalist populism.