Talk:Bertrand Russell

I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's "liberal bias." For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.

The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree

• hope they have given the world

LOL. RobS 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism. harmlesstree

• reminiscent?

Did the Czar exterminate 50 million? RobS 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote," Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work." Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree

RobS,

Given that it was you who placed that quote in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided compelling evidence that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.

Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to thank harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.

--Robledo 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right. Good way to wiggle out of an argument. The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards. Sounds like Marxist reasoning. RobS 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT

Wiggle! You have the audacity to accuse me of wiggling and obfuscating; when I am simply trying to defend Bertrand Russell against the scurrilous accusations made by a contributer to Conservapedia, while you try shift the focus away from this and make it about me, i.e. "sounds like Marxist reasoning." Please address the issue of Bertrand Russell. If you persist in this infantile game, I am going to end this conversation. harmlesstree

And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.

harmlesstree,

Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.

--Robledo 19:41, 15 May 2007

Let's discuss what we're discussing here; there is no evidence Russell abandoned these views well after all the genocides the Communists committed; well into the 1960s, Russell was a charter members of the "blame America crowd". And unlike Wikipedia, another Nobel Laureate in Literature, Mr. Alexandr Solzhenisyn's criticism of Russell and his support for the Soviet Union will not be censored and will go into this Conservapedia bio. RobS 21:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Never abondoned these views, he never had those views, which is precisely the point. And regarding censorship, you are the one who censored Bertrand Russell's writings, by posting only one tiny snippett from the preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, where I posted most of the preface, and quote from chapter 1.

I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born."

Does this sound like a man that had those views? If he felt like this then, do you think it is likely that later on he became sympathetic to the Soviet Union, when the crimes against humanity and the oppression became much greater.

"The blame America crowd" lol - jingoistic tripe that appeals to the ignorant and moronic rabble. Have you ever noticed that people with Russell's intellect, not just Russell, generally despise the irrational nationalistic sentiment that underpins that phrase you uttered. "Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein

Harmlesstree

Here is a short story examing the character of Joe Stalin that Russell wrote,

                                               Josef Stalin's Nightmare

                                                  by Bertrand Russell

Stalin, after copious draughts of vodka mixed with red pepper, had fallen asleep in his chair. Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria, with fingers to their lips, warned off intrusive domestics who might interfere with the great man's repose. While they guarded him, he had a dream, and what he dreamt was as follows:

The Third World War had been fought and lost. He was a captive in the hands of the Western Allies. But they, having observed that the Nuremberg trials generated sympathy for the Nazis, decided this time to adopt a different plan: Stalin was handed over to a committee of eminent Quakers, who contended that even he, by the power of love, could be led to repentance and to the life of a decent citizen.

It was realized that until their spiritual work had been completed the windows of his room must be barred lest he should be guilty of a rash act, and he must not be allowed access to knives lest in a fit of fury he should attach those engaged in his regeneration. He was housed comfortably in two rooms of an old country house, but the doors were locked, except during the one hour of every day when, in the company of four muscular Quakers, he was taken for a brisk walk during which he was encouraged to admire the beauties of nature and enjoy the song of the lark. During the rest of the day he was allowed to read and write, but he was not allowed any literature that might be considered inflammatory. He was given the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. And sometimes for a treat he was allowed the novels of Charlotte M. Yonge. He was allowed no tobacco, no alcohol, and no red pepper. Cocoa he might have at any hour of the day and night, since the most eminent of his guardians were purveyors of that innocent beverage. Tea and coffee were permitted in moderation, but not in such quantities or at such time as might interfere with a wholesome night's repose.

During one hour of every morning and one hour of every evening the grave men to whose care he had been entrusted explained the principles of Christian charity and the happiness that might yet be his if he would but acknowledge their wisdom. The task of reasoning with him fell especially upon the three men who were accounted wisest among those who hoped to make him see the light. These were the Mr. Tobias Toogood, Mr. Samuel Swete, and Mr. Wilabraham Weldon.

He had been acquainted with these men in the days of his greatness. Not long before the outbreak of the Third World War they had journeyed to Moscow to plead with him and endeavor to convince him of the error of his ways. They had talked to him of universal benevolence and Christian love. They had spoken in glowing terms of the joys of meekness, and had tried to persuade him that there is more happiness in being loved than in being feared. For a little while he had listened with a patience produced by astonishment, and then he had burst out at them. "What do you gentleman know of the joys of life?" he had stormed. "How little you understand of the intoxicating delight of dominating a whole nation by terror, knowing that almost all desire your death and that none can compass it, knowing that your enemies throughout the world are engaged in futile attempts to guess your secret thoughts, knowing that your power will survive the extermination not only of your enemies but of your friends. No, gentlemen, the way of life you offer does not attract me. Go back to your pettifogging pursuit of profit gilded with a pretense of piety, but leave me to my more heroic way of life."

The Quakers, baffled for the moment, went home to wait for a better opportunity. Stalin, fallen and in their power, might, they now hoped, show himself more amenable. Strange to say, he still proved stubborn. They were men who had had much practice with juvenile delinquents, unraveling their complexes and leading them by gentle persuasion to the belief that honesty is the best policy.

"Mr. Stalin," said Tobias Toogood, "we hope that you now realize the unwisdom of the way of life to which you have hitherto adhered. I shall say nothing of the ruin you have brought upon the world, for that, you will assure me, leaves you cold. But consider what you have brought upon yourself. You have fallen from your high estate to the condition of a humble prisoner, owing what comforts you retain to the fact that gaolers do not accept your maxims. The fierce joys of which you spoke when we visited you in the days of your greatness can no longer be yours. But if you could break down the barrier of pride, if you could repent, if you could learn to find happiness in the happiness of others, there might yet be for you some purpose and some tolerable contentment during the remainder of your days."

At this point Stalin leapt to his feet and exclaimed: "Hell take you, you sniveling hypocrite. I understand nothing of what you say, except that you are on top and I am at your mercy, and that you have found a way of insulting my misfortunes more galling and more humiliating than any I invented in my purges."

"Oh, Mr. Stalin," said Mr. Swete, "how can you be so unjust and so unkind? Can you not see that we have none but the most benevolent intentions towards you? Can you not see that we wish to save your soul, and that we deplore the violence and hatred that you promoted among your enemies as among your friends? We have no wish to humiliate you, and could you but appreciate earthly greatness at no more than its true worth, you would see that it is an escape from humiliation that we are offering you."

"This is really too much," shouted Stalin. "When I was a boy, I put up with talk like this in my Georgian seminary, but it is not the sort of talk to which a grown man can listen with patience. I wish I believed in Hell, that I might look forward to the pleasures of seeing your blandness dissipated by scorching flames."

"Oh fie, my dear Stalin!" said Mr. Weldon. "Pray do not excite yourself, for it is only by calmness that you will learn to see the wisdom of what we are trying to show you."

Before Stalin could retort, Mr. Toogood once again intervened: "I am sure, Mr. Stalin," he said, "that a man of your great intelligence cannot forever remain blind to the truth, but at the moment you are overwrought, and I suggest that a soothing cup of cocoa might be better for you than the unduly stimulating tea you have been drinking."

At this moment Stalin could no longer contain himself. He took the teapot and hurled it at Mr. Toogood's head. The scalding liquid poured down his face, but he only said, "There, there, Mr. Stalin, that is no argument." In a paroxysm of rage Stalin awoke. For a moment the rage continued and vented itself upon Molotov, Malenkov, and Beria, who trembled and turned pale. But as the clouds of sleep cleared away, his rage evaporated, and he found contentment in a deep draught of vodka and red pepper.

Russell clearly thinks highly of Stalin, I don't think so!

harmlesstree

Why is this even an issue? Surely a discussion of Russell's actual philosophical outlook and contributions in all fields, as well as his biography, should be given pride of place here, rather than his ambiguous position on communism? Let's face it, a lot of academics, philosophers and thinkers supported the concept of communism at its inception, and it is not that important at all to put that in. It's just not. It's childish, and a way of using the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy against Russell due to a hatred of some of what he wrote and thought. Shouldn't you be a bit more grown up? Blackjuice 12:58, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Juice, there are those among us who believe that if there is one disagreeable thing about someone from the observers point of view, that it should color the entire person and render meaningless and immaterial anything else about the person, whether the issue they opposein the person is major or minor. That is a rather immature personality quirk. Thankfully, there are as many amongus who are NOT like that also =) Jros83 02:19, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (And I personally feel this article does a disservice to Betrand Russel, not that I am a fan OR an opponent, as I do not know very much about him, but it IS obvious that this artivle suffers from what I just lamented about...)