Proposed Roads to Freedom

Bertrand Russell

Description

Prodigiously talented and prolific British philosopher Bertrand Russell is credited with many important contributions to the discipline, including playing a key role in the development of analytic philosophy. However, instead of focusing his energies solely on academic pursuits, Russell often turned his incisive intellect toward political matters of his era, as well. In this volume, he explores a number of the emerging schools of political thought that defined the early twentieth century, including socialism and anarchism.

Informations

• Publié par: The Floating Press
• Date de parution: 01 juillet 2014
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781776583911
• Langue: English

Extrait

PROPOSED ROADS TO FREEDOM
* * *
BERTRAND RUSSELL
 
*
Proposed Roads to Freedom First published in 1918 Epub ISBN 978-1-77658-391-1 Also available: PDF ISBN 978-1-77658-392-8 © 2013 The Floating Press and its licensors. All rights reserved. While every effort has been used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information contained in The Floating Press edition of this book, The Floating Press does not assume liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in this book. The Floating Press does not accept responsibility for loss suffered as a result of reliance upon the accuracy or currency of information contained in this book. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Many suitcases look alike. Visit www.thefloatingpress.com
Contents
*
Introduction PART I - HISTORICAL Chapter I - Marx and Socialist Doctrine Chapter II - Bakunin and Anarchism Chapter III - The Syndicalist Revolt PART II - PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE Chapter IV - Work and Pay Chapter V - Government and Law Chapter VI - International Relations Chapter VII - Science and Art Under Socialism Chapter VIII - The World as it Could Be Made Endnotes
Introduction
*
THE attempt to conceive imaginatively a betterordering of human society than the destructive andcruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existedis by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato,whose "Republic" set the model for the Utopias ofsubsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates theworld in the light of an ideal—whether what he seeksbe intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, orall together—must feel a great sorrow in the evilsthat men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he bea man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire tolead men to the realization of the good which inspireshis creative vision. It is this desire which has beenthe primary force moving the pioneers of Socialismand Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of idealcommonwealths in the past. In this there is nothingnew. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, isthat close relation of the ideal to the presentsufferings of men, which has enabled powerful politicalmovements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers.It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchismimportant, and it is this that makes them dangerousto those who batten, consciously or unconsciouslyupon the evils of our present order of society.
The great majority of men and women, in ordinarytimes, pass through life without ever contemplatingor criticising, as a whole, either their ownconditions or those of the world at large. They findthemselves born into a certain place in society, andthey accept what each day brings forth, without anyeffort of thought beyond what the immediate presentrequires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts ofthe field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs ofthe moment, without much forethought, and withoutconsidering that by sufficient effort the wholeconditions of their lives could be changed. A certainpercentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effortof thought and will which is necessary to placethemselves among the more fortunate members of thecommunity; but very few among these are seriouslyconcerned to secure for all the advantages which theyseek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptionalmen who have that kind of love toward mankindat large that makes them unable to endurepatiently the general mass of evil and suffering,regardless of any relation it may have to their ownlives. These few, driven by sympathetic pain, willseek, first in thought and then in action, for someway of escape, some new system of society by whichlife may become richer, more full of joy and lessfull of preventable evils than it is at present. Butin the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interestthe very victims of the injustices which they wishedto remedy. The more unfortunate sections of thepopulation have been ignorant, apathetic from excessof toil and weariness, timorous through the imminentdanger of immediate punishment by the holders ofpower, and morally unreliable owing to the loss ofself-respect resulting from their degradation. Tocreate among such classes any conscious, deliberateeffort after general amelioration might have seemeda hopeless task, and indeed in the past it hasgenerally proved so. But the modern world, by theincrease of education and the rise in the standard ofcomfort among wage-earners, has produced newconditions, more favorable than ever before to thedemand for radical reconstruction. It is above allthe Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists(chiefly as the inspirers of Syndicalism), who havebecome the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard toboth Socialism and Anarchism is the association of awidespread popular movement with ideals for a betterworld. The ideals have been elaborated, in thefirst instance, by solitary writers of books, and yetpowerful sections of the wage-earning classes haveaccepted them as their guide in the practical affairsof the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident;but in regard to Anarchism it is only true with somequalification. Anarchism as such has never been awidespread creed, it is only in the modified form ofSyndicalism that it has achieved popularity. UnlikeSocialism and Anarchism, Syndicalism is primarilythe outcome, not of an idea, but of an organization:the fact of Trade Union organization came first, andthe ideas of Syndicalism are those which seemedappropriate to this organization in the opinion ofthe more advanced French Trade Unions. But theideas are, in the main, derived from Anarchism, andthe men who gained acceptance for them were, forthe most part, Anarchists. Thus we may regardSyndicalism as the Anarchism of the market-placeas opposed to the Anarchism of isolated individualswhich had preserved a precarious life throughout theprevious decades. Taking this view, we find inAnarchist-Syndicalism the same combination of idealand organization as we find in Socialist politicalparties. It is from this standpoint that our studyof these movements will be undertaken.
Socialism and Anarchism, in their modern form,spring respectively from two protagonists, Marx andBakunin, who fought a lifelong battle, culminatingin a split in the first International. We shall beginour study with these two men—first their teaching,and then the organizations which they founded orinspired. This will lead us to the spread of Socialismin more recent years, and thence to the Syndicalistrevolt against Socialist emphasis on the Stateand political action, and to certain movements outsideFrance which have some affinity with Syndicalism—notably the I. W. W. in America and GuildSocialism in England. From this historical surveywe shall pass to the consideration of some of themore pressing problems of the future, and shall tryto decide in what respects the world would be happierif the aims of Socialists or Syndicalists wereachieved.
My own opinion—which I may as well indicateat the outset—is that pure Anarchism, though itshould be the ultimate ideal, to which society shouldcontinually approximate, is for the present impossible,and would not survive more than a year or twoat most if it were adopted. On the other hand, bothMarxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of manydrawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to ahappier and better world than that in which we live.I do not, however, regard either of them as the bestpracticable system. Marxian Socialism, I fear,would give far too much power to the State, whileSyndicalism, which aims at abolishing the State,would, I believe, find itself forced to reconstruct acentral authority in order to put an end to therivalries of different groups of producers. The BESTpracticable system, to my mind, is that of GuildSocialism, which concedes what is valid both in theclaims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalistfear of the State, by adopting a system of federalismamong trades for reasons similar to those whichare recommending federalism among nations. Thegrounds for these conclusions will appear as weproceed.
Before embarking upon the history of recentmovements In favor of radical reconstruction, it willbe worth while to consider some traits of characterwhich distinguish most political idealists, and aremuch misunderstood by the general public for otherreasons besides mere prejudice. I wish to do fulljustice to these reasons, in order to show the moreeffectually why they ought not to be operative.
The leaders of the more advanced movementsare, in general, men of quite unusual disinterestedness,as is evident from a consideration of their careers.Although they have obviously quite as much abilityas many men who rise to positions of great power,they do not themselves become the arbiters ofcontemporary events, nor do they achieve wealth or theapplause of the mass of their contemporaries. Menwho have the capacity for winning these prizes, andwho work at least as hard as those who win them,but deliberately adopt a line which makes the winningof them impossible, must be judged to have anaim in life other than personal advancement;whatever admixture of self-seeking may enter into thedetail of their lives, their fundamental motive mustbe outside Self. The pioneers of Socialism, Anarchism,and Syndicalism have, for the most part,experienced prison, exile, and poverty, deliberatelyincurred because they would not abandon theirpropaganda; and by this conduct they have shown thatthe hope which inspired them was not for themselves,but for mankind.
Nevertheless, though the desire for human welfareis what at bottom determines the broad lines of suchmen's lives, it often happens that, in the detail oftheir speech and writing, hatred is far more visiblethan love. The impatient idealist—and without someimpatience a man will hardly prove effective—isalmost sure to be led into hatred by the oppositionsand disappointments which he encounters in hisendeavors to bring happine