Bertrand Russell and the Anarchists

7/27/2019 Bertrand Russell and the Anarchists

1/7

A N A R C H Y N o . 1 0 93 s h i l li n g s 1 5 p e n c e 4 0 c e n t s

t

R u s s e l la n d t h eA n a r c h i s t s


2/7

Contents of No 109March 1970

Neither God nor MasterRichard Drinnon 65

Russell and the anarchistsVivian Harper 68

Counter-cultureKingsley Widmer 78

Kropotkin and his memoirsNicolas W alter 84

Observations on ANARCHY 10 4David Kipling 95

Cover byufus SegarRATES:Single copies 3s. (40c.). Annual subscrip-tion (12 issues) 36s. ($5.00). Joint annualsubscription with FREEDOM, the anarchistweekly (which readers of ANARCHY willfind indispensable) 13 19s. 4d. Cheques,P.O.s and Money Orders should be madeout to FREEDOM PRESS, 84B White-chapel High Street, London, E.1, England.Printed by Express Printers, London, E.I

Other issues of "Anarchy":Please note that the following issues areout of print : 1 to 15 inclusive, 26, 27, 38,39, 66, 89, 90, 96, 98, 102.Vol. 1 1961 : 1. Sex-and-Violence; 2.Workers' control; 3. What does anar-chism mean today ? ; 4. Deinstitutioni-sation; 5. Spain; 6. Cinema; 7. Adventureplayground; 8. Anthropology; 9. Prison;10. Industrial decentralisation.Vol. 2. 1962: 11. Paul Goodman, A. S.Neill; 12. Who are the anarchists?; 13.Direct action; 14. Disobedience; 15. DavidWills; 16. Ethics of anarchism; 17. Lum-penproletariat; 18. Comprehensive schools;19. Theatre; 20. Non-violence; 21. Secon-dary modern; 22. Marx and Bakunin.Vol. 3. 1963: 23. Squatters; 24. Com-munity of scholars; 25. Cybernetics; 26.Thoreau; 27. Youth; 28. Future of anar-chism; 29. Spies for peace; 30.Community workshop; 31. Self-organisingsystems; 32. Crime; 33. Alex Comfort;34. Science fiction.Vol. 4. 1964: 35. Housing; 36. Police:37. I won't vote; 38. Nottingham; 39.Homer Lane; 40. Unions; 41. Land;42. India; 43. Parents and teachers; 44.Transport; 45. The Greeks; 46. Anarchismand historians.Vol. 5. 1965: 47. Freedom in work; 48.Lord of the flies; 49. Automation; 50.Anarchist outlook; 51. Blues, pop, folk;52. Limits of pacifism; 53. After school;54. Buber, Landauer, Muhsam; 55.Mutual aid; 56. Women; 57. Law; 58.Stateless societies.Vol. 6. 1966: 59. White problem; 60.Drugs; 61. Creative vandalism; 62. Orga-nisation; 63. Voluntary servitude; 64. Mis-spent youth; 65. Derevolutionisation; 66.Provo; 67. USA; 68. Class and anarchism;69. Ecology; 70. Libertarian psychiatry.Vol. 7. 1967: 71. Sociology of school;72. Strike City, USA; 73. Street School;74. Anarchism and reality; 75. Improviseddrama; 76. 1984; 77. Anarchist grouphandbook; 78. Liberatory technology;79. Latin America; 80. Workers' control;81. Russian anarchists; 82. BraeheadSchool.Vol. 8. 1968: 83. Tenants take ov er;84. Poverty; 85. Anarchist conversations;86. Fishermen; 87. Penal System; 88.Wasteland culture; 89. France; 90. Stu-dents; 91. Artists; 92. Two schools; 93.Radio; 94. Machinery of conformity.Vol. 9. 1969: 95. Yugoslavia; 96. Playingat revolution; 97. Architects and people;98. Criminology; 99. Lessons fromFrance; 100. About anarchism; 101.Approved schools, Detention Centres;1 02. Squatters; 103. Rights of the young;104. Refusing; 105. Reich; 106. What isproperty?


3/7

6968

Bertrand Russel land the anarchistsVIVIAN HARPER

We had an anarchist from Holland staying with us, the secretary ofthe AIT. He was a charming and very intelligent . man, and has beena good deal in Spain with the CNT. He was a great admirer of yours.He said that he had recently writt en an article on anarchism foran Encyclopedia. in the bibliography at t he end he included "Allthe wor ks of Bertr and Russell" because, he explained, though theyare not actually anarchist, they have 'the tendency' as old anarchists say.--GAMEL WOOLSEY in a letter to Bertrand Russell, November 1938.

IN THE EULOGIES OF BERTRAND RUSSELL last month, much was saidabout the anarchistic character of his thought. Michael Foot calledhim an anarchist, Edward Boyle characterised him as a libertarian.Russell himself, years before, had confessed to "a temperamentalleaning to anarchism", and years before that, as far back as 1895,Beatrice Webb described him in her diary as "anarchic". Certainly,a mere glance at the titles of many of his books indicates that thepreoccupations of anarchist thought, the social and political issueswhich anarchists attempt to grapple with, were the same as the topicswith which he was concerned.Yet in only o ne of h is books d id Russel l g ive serious cons iderat ionto anarchism itself as a social and political philosophy. This was in

Roads to Freedom : Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism, publishedin 1918, and reprinted eleven times since then. Russell had beencomm issioned by an American publisher to write this book and com pletedit in a hurry "in the last days before a period of imprisonment" inApril 1918 .How did this book strike anarchists when it was first published?Fortunately we can tell, from the long review published in FR EED O Mfor March 1919, unsigned, and probably by the editor Tom Keen :"It is very interesting to anarchists to find a philosopher ofMr. Bertrand Russe l l 's s tanding w eighing the arguments for and againstanarchism; and a lthough he says that i t is ' for the present imposs ible' ,he admits that pure anarchism 'should be the ultimate ideal to whichsociety should continually approximate'. The author has divided hiswork into two partsthe first part dealing with socialism, anarchismand syndicalism from the historical point of view, the second part

being devoted to the author's views on 'Problems of the Future' andhow they might be solved."Mr. Russell in his first chapter gives a sketch of Karl Marxand his socialist doctrine and points out that although state socialismmight be the outcome of the proposals of Marx and Engels, as putforth in the Communist Manifesto, they cannot be accused of any

glorification of the State. It is their followers who have made anidol of the State. The second chapter on Bakunin and Anarchism'deals with the struggle between Marx and Bakunin in the InternationalWorking Men's Associat ion . The Germans and English fo l lowed Marx,but the Latin nations in the main followed Bakunin in opposingthe State and disbelieving in the m achinery of representative government.Although Bakunin did not produce a finished and systematic bodyof doctrine, he may be regarded as the founder of anarchist com mu nism.`There is something of anarchism in his lack of literary order.' Ifwe wish to understand anarchism, says Mr. Russell, we must turnto his followers, and especially to Kropotkin, who presents his views`with extraordinary persuasiveness and charm'. although our authorsays, 'the general tone of the anarchist press and public is bitter to adegree that is hardly sane'. In speaking of what he calls the 'darkerside' of anarchism, 'the side which has brought it into conflict withthe police and made it a word of terror to the ordinary citizen', hesays that the revolt against law leads to 'a relaxation of all theusually accepted moral rules'. In another part, however, Mr. Russellsays that 'those anarchists who are in favour of bomb throwing donot in this respect differ on any vital principle from the rest of thecommunity. . . . For every bomb manufactured by an anarchist,many millions are manufactured by governments; and for every mankilled by anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violenceof States'. Is it a 'revolt against law' that leads States to relax 'theusually accepted moral rules'?"The chapter on 'The Syndicalist Revolt' is a brief sketch of the

syndicalist movement in France, which arose as a protest againstparliamentary socialism. Syndicalists wish to destroy the State, whichthey regard as a capitalist institution, designed essentially to terrorisethe workers. They wish to see each industry self-governing. Similarin its aims and m ethods is the IWW (Indu strial Workers of the World),an Am erican organisat ion which h as branches in mo st Engl ish-speakingcountries, and whose clear-cut policy has been summed up by itssecretary in one sentence : 'Complete surrender of all control ofindustry to the organised workers.' Mr. Russell finds something toaccept and something to reject in each of the 'isms' he deals with,but says that 'the best practicable system, to my mind, is that ofGuild Socialism, which concedes what is valid, both in the claimsof the State Socialists and in the syndicalist fear of the State'. Wecannot deal with Guild Socialism now, but will turn to Mr. Russell'scrit ic ism of anarchism in the second part of the book.


4/7

701"The author first deals with the questions of production anddistribution under anarchism. He quotes largely from Kropotkin'sAnarchist Communism, which is the basis of his criticism. Mr. Russelladmits that the production of food and other necessaries of lifesufficient for the wellbeing of all could be so easily maintained thateveryone would be able to take just what he or she required withoutany check being necessary. But as to the other anarchist proposal,that there should be no obligation to work, and no economic rewardfor work, he has his doubts. He thinks that idlers could only beinfluenced if society were divided into small groups and each grouponly allowed to consume the equivalent of what it produced. Themembers of each group would thereby be interested in seeing thatall did their share of work. But, of course, that would not beanarchism, he admits. He then deals with the socialist theory, thatwork alone gives the right to the enjoyment of the produce ofworkall who can should be compelled to work, either by the threatof starvation or by the operation of the criminal law. Mr. Russelldoes not agree with this, as he says that 'the only kind of workrecognised will be such as commends itself to the authorities', whichwill leave little freedom of choice to the individual. 'If the anarchistplan has its dangers, the socialist plan has equal dangers.' Anarchismhas the advantage as regards liberty, socialism as regards inducementto work. So he suggests as a combination of these two advantagesthat a certain small income, sufficient for necessaries, should be givento all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income should begiven to those who are willing to engage in some work which thecommunity recognises as useful. This, of course, means that agoverning body of some kind would be necessary, an argument thatruns through the whole book.

"In the chapter on 'Government and Law' Mr. Russell gets togrips with the anarchist position, and in this is very disappointing.At times he uses arguments against anarchism which anarchists useagainst government. For instance, he says : 'Envy and love of powerlead ordinary human nature to find pleasure in interferences with thelives of others.' Surely that should be a powerful reason why powershould not be put into the hands of any body. Again, he says thatwithout government : 'the strong would oppress the weak'. DoesMr. Russell really believe that governments exist to protect the weak?Up to the present every government has protected the interests of thestrong, and any government in future will be compelled to stand bythose who put it in power. In dealing with the question of 'crime'such as theft, cruelty to children, crimes of jealousy, rape and soforth, he admits that some of these are due to our present system ofsociety, but says they are almost certain to occur in any society tosome extent. Granted, but in an anarchist society people wouldlearn to protect themselves from such anti-social acts. At presentpeople look to the police and government for such protection; in fact,we are frequently told by magistrates that we 'must not take the

law into our own hands'. But the spirit of mutual aid is still alive,and ana rchis ts have never preached non-res istance. But w e have foundby experience that government an d police do not protect us. M r. Russell'ssentence of s ix months' imp risonment taught him tha t lesson."In spite of his belief in the necessity of some central organisa tion,backed by law and force, Mr. Russell shows very strong leaningstowards anarchism in his constructive proposals. He says, 'From thepoint of view of l iberty, what sys tem w ould be best? In what d irect ionshould we wish the forces of progress to move? From this point ofview, neglecting for the moment all other considerations, I have nodoubt that the best system would be one not far removed from thatadvocated by Kropotkin.' And later he says, 'The system we haveadvocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more, perhaps, towardsanarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly approve. It isin the m atters that pol i t ic ians usual ly ignorescience and art , humanrelations, and the joy of lifethat anarchism is strongest, and it ischiefly for the sake of these things that we include such more or lessanarchist proposals as the "vagabond's wage! " ' Altogether Roadsto Freedom is a very readable book, and an exceptional feature with

crit ics of anarchismthe author certainly understands the principles hecriticises,* even if he does not agree with them."

If Roads to Freedom were a new book, published fifty years later,an anarchist reviewer would have much the same comments to make.But would Russell's own opinions have changed? In a new editionin 1948, thirty years after the original publication, he contributed anew preface in which he remarked :"So much has happened since that time that inevitably th eopinions of all who are not impervious to experience have undergoneconsiderable modifications. The creation and collapse of the League

of Nations, the rise and fall of Fascism and Nazism, the second worldwar, the development of Soviet Russia, and the not remote possibilityof a third world war, have all afforded political lessons, mostly of asort to make the maintenance of optimism difficult. The creationof an authoritarian undemocratic form of Socialism in the USSR,while very relevant to many of the discussions in this book, doesnot, in itself, suggest any need for modification of the opinionsadvocated. The dangers of a bureaucratic regime are sufficiently*A few months later in an article. in FREEDOM (August 1919) "False Roads toFreedom", W. C. Owen remarked that Russell "refers to Proudhon more thanonce, but one feels that he has no conception of what Proudhon taught". Andon 29 September, 1919, Harold Laski wrote to Russell, "in any new editionof that book 1 wish you would say a good word for Proudhon! I thinkthat his Du Principe Feder atif and his Justice dans la Revolution are verygreat books".


5/7

72emphasised, and what has happened in Russia only confirms thejustice of these warnings. In one respectand this is my chief reasonfor agreeing to a reprintthis book is rendered again relevant topresent circumstances by the growing realization among WesternSocialists that the Russian regime is not what they desire. Beforethe Russian Revolution, Syndicalism in France, the IWW in America,and Guild Socialism in England were all movements embodyingsuspicion of the State and a wish to realize the aims of Socialismwithout creating an omnipotent bureaucracy. But as a result ofadmiration for Russian achievements all these movement died downin the years following the end of the first world war. In the firstmonths of 1918, when this book was written, it was impossible toobtain reliable information about what was happening in Russia, butthe slogan 'all power to the Soviets', wh ich wa s the Bolshevik battle-cry,was taken to indicate a new form of democracy, anti-parliamentaryand more or less syndicalist. And as such it enlisted left-wing support.When it turned out that this was not what was being created, manySocialists nevertheless retained one firm belief : it might be the o ppositeof what Western Socialists had been preaching, but whatever itmight be it was to be acclaimed as perfect. Any criticism wascondemned as treachery to the cause of the proletariat. Anarchistand syndicalist criticisms were forgotten or ignored, and by exaltingState Socialism it became possible to retain the faith that one greatcountry had realised the aspirations of the pioneers."

He remarks that those w ho could n o longer give uncritical adorationto the Soviet Government were impelled to look for less authoritarianforms of socialism, like those described in his book. Guild Socialismwhich he favoured in 1918 "still seems to be an admirable project,and I could wish to see advocacy of it revived".Not so anarchism. For he goes on, "But there are other respectsin which I find myself no longer in agreement with my outlook ofthirty years ago. If I were writing now, I sho uld be mu ch less sympa theticto anarchism. The world is now, and probably will remain for aconsiderable time, one of scarcity, where only stringent regulationcan prevent disastrous destitution. Totalitarian systems in Germanyand Russia, with their vast deliberate cruelties, have led me to takea blacker view than I took when I was younger as to what men arelikely to become if there is no forcible control over their tyrannicalimpulses." What an exasperating non sequitur ! Once again, as

FREEDOM remarked thirty years earlier, he was using arguments againstanarchism which anarchists use against government. Totalitarianismis not the consequence of anarchy but its antithesis. It is governmentunbridled. **In the summer of 1920 Russell visited Russia, accompanying,unofficially, the British Labour Delegation. He met the Bolshevik

73leaders, and he also met some anarchi s ts inc luding Emma Goldman, andAlexander Berkman, who showed him round Moscow. He was notallowed to visit Kropotkin. The book he wrote on his return, T hePractice and Theory of Bolshevism, is a highly intelligent and fair-minded account of what he saw, and how it related to Communisttheory, and it was published at a time (and how many such timesthere have been since then) when, as Russell said, it was regardedas a kind of treachery for a socialist to criticise a Communistdictatorship.

When Emma Goldman left Russia, Russell and Col. Josiah Wedg-wood tried to persuade the Home Office to grant her asylum in Britain.She wrote to him from Berlin in July 1922, "Thank you very muchfor your willingness to assist me. . . . I was rather amused at yourphrase 'that she will not engage in the more violent forms of Anarchism'.I know, of course, that it has been my reputation that I indulged insuch forms, but it has never been borne out by the facts. However,I should not want to gain my right of asylum in England or anyother country by pledging to abstain from the expression of myideas, or the right to protest against injustice. . . ." Two yearslater she was granted permission to enter Britain. Two hundredand fifty members of the left-wing intelligentsia attended a dinner towelcome her. FREEDOM reported that "By far the best speeches ofthe evening were those delivered by Bertrand Russell and William C.Owen. Mr. Russell, who has the most acute philosophical mindinEngland, made the most complete avowal of anarchist convictionsof the evening." Emma Goldman's biographer, Richard Drinnonremarks that "When Emma rose, she was greeted with loud applause.Her vehement attack on the Soviet government and its merciless treat-ment of political prisoners, however, raised loud cries of protest.Was she going back on her past? Was she throwing in with theTories? When she sat down, Bertrand Russell recalls, 'there wasdead silence except from me'."

Drinnon notes that a comparable lack of enthusism met Emma'sefforts to form a committee to aid Russian political prisoners. Russellwrote to her to explain that he could not participate in this work:". . . I am not prepared to advocate any alternative government inRussia : I am persuaded that the cruelties would be at least as great

It has been customary for people to draw arguments fromthe laws of Nature as to what we ought to do. Such argumentsseem to me a mistake; to imitate Nature may be merely slavish.But if Nature is to be our model it seems that the anarchists havethe best of the argument. The physical universe is orderly. notbecause there is a central government but because every bodyminds its own business.-BERTRAND RUSSELL


6/7

74under any other party. And I do not regard the abolition of allgovernment as a thing which has any chance of being brought aboutin our life times or during the twentieth century. I am thereforeunwilling to be associated with any movement which might seem toimply that a change of government is desirable in Russia. I thinkill of the Bolsheviks, in many ways, but quite as ill of their opponents.. . . I am very sorry to have failed you, and I hesitated for a longtime. But the above view is what, in the end, I felt to be the onlypossible one for me."

Emma, says Drinnon, was "painfully disappointed" by this letter."Respect for Russell and diffidence about seeming importunate ap-parently prompted Emma to discontinue their correspondence. Butin her reply to Laski she ripped into Russell's argument. She held,ironically, that it was illogical. His point that there was no otherpolitical group of an advanced nature to take the place of theBolsheviki seemed to her completely 'out of keeping with the scholarlymind of a man like Russell'. Even if it were so, what bearing didthat have on a stand for political justice for the victims of thegovernment? Besides, with every other political organisation brokenup and the 'adherents wasting their lives in Russian prisons andconcentration camps, it is difficult to say what political group islikely to be superior to the present on the throne of Russia'. Onthis shaky foundation of illogicality and lack of evidence, was Russellreally suggesting that 'all liberty-loving men and women must sitsupinely by while the Bolsheviki are getting away with murder?' WouldRussell have hesitated to use his pen and his voice in behalf ofpolitical victims of the Czar?" 'The question, as I understand it, is the Dictatorship and theTerror, such as a Dictatorship must make use of, not the name ofthe particular Group at the back of it. This seems to me to be thedominant issue confronting various men and women of Revolutionaryleanings, and not who is being persecuted, or by whom.' "However, in the following year, when the volume Letters from

Russian Prisons was published, Russell contributed an acid introductoryletter :"I sincerely hope that the publication of the following documentswill contribute towards the promotion of friendly relations betweenthe Soviet Government and the Governments of Western Powers.Misled by Western Socialists, the statesmen of Great Britain, Franceand America regard the present holders of power in Russia asidealists and therefore dangerous. If they will read this book theywill become convinced of their error. The holders of power inRussia, as elsewhere, are practical men, prepared to inflict tortureupon idealists in order to retain their power. There can be no reasonwhy Western imperialists should quarrel with these imperialists ofthe North-East, or why Western friends of freedom should support

them until there is a radical change in their treatment of politicalopponents ."

75A year later, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed in Boston. Russell'scomment was : "I am forced to conclude that they were condemnedon account of their political opinions and that men who ought tohave known better allowed themselves to express misleading viewsas to the evidence because they held that men with such opinionshave no right to live. A view of this sort is one which is very

dangerous, since it transfers from the theological to the political spherea form of persecution which it was thought that civilised countrieshad outgrown." ****His support for the persecuted anarchists of the nineteen-twentieswas probably Russell's last contact with anarchists, until, with hisinvolvement with the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear Warin the late nineteen-fifties and early nineteen-sixties, he came in touchwith anarchists of a completely different generation and background.The return to his first world war position of resistance and provocation.which earned him another prison sentence, did not indicate a shiftin his basic political outlook. In the leaflet Act or Perish, a call tonon-violent action by Earl Russell and Rev. Michael Scott, the authors

declare, "We are told that in a democracy only lawful methods ofpersuasion should be used. Unfortunately, the opposition to sanityand mercy on the part of those who have power is such as to makepersuasion by ordinary methods difficult and slow, with the resultthat, if such methods alone are employed, we shall probably all bedead before our purpose can be achieved. Respect for law is importantand only a very profound conviction can justify actions which floutthe law."Writing in FREEDOM (21 April, 1962), Nicolas Walter commentedperceptively on this phase of Russell's public activity, "Russell'scontribution to the unilaterist movement has been invaluable for anumber of reasons, the most important being that he is a very fine andfamous old man with charismatic qualities who is, as Pat Pottle saidat the Old Bailey, 'an inspiration to us all'. But his contribution tounilaterist thought has, I think, been far less usefuleven harmful.This may seem a hard thing to say, and even rather absurd, consideringRussell's intellectual stature and reputation, but if anyone doubts itthe best thing you can do is to read what he has actually said and

Men fear thought more than they fear anything else on earth,more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive andrevolutionary, destructive and terrible. Thought is merciless toprivilege, established institutions and comfortable habits. Thoughtis anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of thewell-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of Helland is not afraid. But if thought is to become the possession ofthe man y , no t the pr iv i lege o f the few, we m ust have done w i th fear .-BERTRAND RUSSELL


7/7

76written on the subject. . .

"Now Common Sense & Nuclear Warfare is full of interesting andilluminating information about and discussion of the course of thenuclear arms race, the growing probability of disaster if this armsrace continues, and the consequent necessity of an end to the armsrace and so on. But he begins as follows : 'It is surprising andsomewhat disappointing that movements aiming at the prevention ofnuclear war are regarded throughout the West as left-wing move-ments.' Well, it may be somewhat disappointing, but how on earthcan it be surprising to anyone at all? Again : 'It is a profoundmisfortune that the whole question of nuclear warfare has becomeentangled in the age-old conflicts of power politics.' Has becomeentangled? Surely notnuclear warfare derives from power politicsand can't possibly be disentangled from it, nor should it be. Thissort of attitude runs through the whole book. Nuclear war isconsidered as some extraordinary disease which has attacked humansociety from the outside and can somehow be cured without alteringthe form of society in more than a few details. This is why Russellcan rightly be cal led irresponsiblebecau se he proposes certain m easureswithout realising how utterly revolutionary they are and withoutapparently being prepared to answer for what would happen if theywere put into effect.

"It is important to recognise that Russell isn't a pacifist. 'Ihave never been a complete pacifist and have at no time maintainedthat all who wage war are to be condemned. I have held the view,which I should have thought was that of common sense, that somewars have been justified and others not.' Fair enough. Nor is hean an archi s tindeed a l l h i s proposa l s for Br i t i sh u ni la tera l d i sarmamentand subsequent multilateral disarmament depend on the existence ofstrong national governments to carry them out and finally on theestablishment of a world government to ensure that they are carriedout properly. Fair enough again. But his rejection of pacifism andanarchism leads him into a highly inconsistent position. I am referringnot to the fact that he thought America should threaten Russia withatomic war after the defeat of Nazi Germany in order to enforceinternational agreement about atomic weapons and now of course thinksnothing of the kindhis explanation that he has changed his opinionbecause circumstances have changed is perfectly acceptablebut to thefact that he would put the responsibility for disarmament in the handsof the very institutions (and people) who already have the responsibilityfor armament .

"This seems to me to be the fatal flaw in Russell's unilateralism.Of course if the rulers of the world were governed by common sense,as he certainly is, they would immediately meet and disarm. In thesame way, if the rich of the world were governed by common sense,they would immediately distribute their wealth among their poorerneighbours; and if the scientists of the world, and the writers andworkers and all the rest, were governed by common sense, they

77would join and refuse to support any wars. So what? Everyoneknows this, and most people also know that the problem is that veryfew people in fact are governed by common sense.

"One particularly interesting side of Russell's unilateralism ishis view of the demonstrations organised by CND and now by theCommittee of 100. He sees them as 'a form of protest which eventhe hostile press will notice', and comments that 'for a time Aldermastonmarches served this purpose, but they are ceasing to be news', so`the time has come . . . when only large-scale civil disobedience.which should be non-violent, can save populations from the universaldeath which their governments are preparing for them'. What I wantto know is how such civil disobedience furthers the cause of worldgovernment. It is intended to be a publicity gimmick, but apparentlyit is also a way by which people can resist their belligerent government;then isn't itor something like ita far more promising way ofpreventing war by undermining the power of national states thanany complicated programme of conferences and compromises leadingto the emergence of a supra-national state? Has Russell withoutrealising it lent his name to a movement whose end is not worldgovernment but world anarchism? If so, he would certainly appreciatethe irony of the situation."

Ultimately, of course, it is not Russell's political opinions, noreven the work that his philosophical reputation rests upon, thatgives him his anarchist tendency. It is rather the advocacy of personaland social freedom and self-determination, that runs through so manyof his books and essays. Works like The Conquest of Happiness,Sceptical Essays, On Education, Marriage and Morals, or W by 1 a mnot a Christian, have had an enormous circulation in many languages,and have played their part in changing the whole climate of opinion.In books like these, modest, simple and casual, Russell argues, wittilybut persuasively for greater individual and social freedom. Forgenerations he has been a liberating influence.

If life is to be saved from boredom relieved only by disaster,means must be found of restoring individual initiative, not onlyin things that are trivial, but in things that really matter. I donot mean that we should destroy those parts of modern organisa-tion upon which the very existence of large populations depends,but I do mean that the organisation should be much more flexible,more relieved by local autonomy, and less oppressive to thehuman spirit through its impersonal vastness, than it has becomethrough its unbearably rapid growth and centralisation, withwhich our ways of thought and feeling have been unable to keeppace.-BERTRAND RUSSELL

Bertrand Russell and the Anarchists

Documents

Transcript of Bertrand Russell and the Anarchists