Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old talk

--- I've been trying to dig up information about Russell's views on eugenics. It's hard because to a non-native english speaker like myself it can be very hard to see if he is using some subtle sort of british irony (in other cases he certainly does, but I'm not so sure about eugenics). Look at this:

"Passing from quantity to quality of population, we come to the question of eugenics. We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad. Mr. Micawber, who was Dickens's father, would hardly have been regarded as a desirable parent. How many imbeciles ought to outweigh one Dickens I do not profess to know."

to ward off accusations that I'm quoting out of context, the source is [1]

Although he elsewhere in the text says that he views eugenics as an inexact science, if he did support it, in principle or in practice, I think it's important enough that it should be mentioned in this article.

---Vintermann

"The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before theirbirth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence.... Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary." --Bertrand Russell, The Prospects of Industrial Civilization (1923) --172.170.68.31 07:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

This sounds like an argument against eugenics, not for it. He does say that "reducing imbecility" is desireable, but I do not think this is meant to imply that eugenics would be a legitimate means to that end, merely that it would be good if there were (for whatever reason) less stupid people. The rest of the quote merely states Russel's opinion that eugenics would probably be somewhat successful in increasing average intelligence; again, this does not imply that he supports eugenics. Given that Russel strongly supported the right of people to criticise their governments, it seems unlikely that he would have supported eugenics if he thought that "in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility". Cadr 19:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just explaining what I did for the benefit of people who worked on this:

1. Moved links out of the body of the text, into the links section. We should not use links to supply content that we will ourselves have (someday). Please put external links in link sections.
2. Bolded text that needed to be bolded.
3. Added a few hyperlinks (more are needed).
4. Removed the extra title from within the article. The convention we've been following has been to let the article title be what's at the top of the page, then restate (if necessary, more completely) the title in bold, as part of a sentence.
5. Noted a few places where there are huge gaps, lest anyone think that we're done here. :-)
6. Reworded the statement of Russell's importance to emphasize his achievements in philosophy and logic. He was a famous popularizer of philosophy, but he was not a political philosopher. Among philosophers he was best known for his writings on logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and other technical aspects of philosophy.
7. General copyediting.
8. Removed picture of Russell. This was taken from someone else's server. We don't want to use their bandwidth. We should soon have a picture-uploading function.

--Larry Sanger

---

Did Russells' mother and father really die when he was young? This doesn't fit in with the accounts of his somewhat unorthodox sexual practices as a young man, which I thought I'd read in a biography (possibly auto-biography). It'd be good to get the facts verified.

User talk: David Martland

He was 2 years old when his mother died and 4 years old when his father died. -- Someone else 01:44 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

---

Russell pissed off T.S. Eliot because he was responsible for the sexual awakening of his wife, who was always frigid with her husband but not with smooth-talking Russell. Their affair should get a mention. Anyone else want to cover it or shall I? Kricxjo 17:56, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia naming conventions seem to suggest that such an article ought to be entitled "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell": see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage for further discussion. - Lord Emsworth 23:49, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't want to be rude, but I really do think retitling every article whose subject has a peerage strikes me as an inordinate waste of effort. I don't think the article will be worse for the change you suggest, but it certainly won't be any better. -- Finlay McWalter 23:59, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One finds that consistency is always a fine goal to aim for, and at present, there is no consistency whatsoever in the titles of articles on peers. Indeed, it would appear that the article might not be better, but, whereas consistency will have been provided, the entire group of articles on peers would have been significantly improved. -- Lord Emsworth 01:58, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are cases where the person is better known without the peerage, this being one of them (to me, anyway). Redirecting 3rd Earl Russell here would work, though. Adam Bishop 21:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this is an article where the title is not needed behind his name. Bertrand Russell was already famous before he became an Earl. As the article notes, he was seldom known by the title. My opinion is that the article is better placed at "Bertrand Russell". -- Infrogmation 22:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So that your views on the matter could be considered, please consider adding your comments to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage, where the idea that all articles whose subjects are peers should have the peerage listed in the title is being discussed. -- Lord Emsworth 01:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Advocate of social engineering?

The following text in the article:

Politically he envisioned a kind of benevolent democratic socialism. He was extremely critical of the totalitarianism exhibited by Stalin's regime. But perhaps paradoxically, he was also an early advocate of social engineering:

is followed by a quote which is clearly critical of social engineering, and seems to be a rather astute anticipation of the increased importance of propaganda in government control of the public (or more generally, control of the lower classes by the upper classes). Either the quote should be replaced with one which actually suggests that Russell was in favour of social engineering, or this paragraph should be removed. What does everyone else think? Cadr 11:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No comments on this, so I'm removing the paragraph. Cadr 15:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name

This is the only page for a hereditary peer (who was not formerly a Prime Minister) that doesn't include the peerage in his/her name... ugen64 23:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's because he's never referred to by his peerage (especially as he only inherited it at the end of his life). I know the suggestion on WikiProject Peerage is that only first holders should be excepted, but Naming conventions (names and titles) makes an exception for "individuals [who] received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister, or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names", the latter part of which certainly applies here. There are other examples of peerages not being used in titles because they were only inherited at the end of someone's life and are never used to refer to them, like Frederick North, Lord North (not Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry) and Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham (not Daniel Finch, 7th Earl of Winchilsea). Proteus (Talk) 11:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Add book

There should definitely be a mention of the History of Western Philosophy, which remains an important work to this day

Liberal or Democratic Socialist?

... was one of the most influential mathematicians, philosophers and logicians working (mostly) in the 20th century, an important political liberal, activist and a populariser of philosophy

Politically he envisioned a kind of benevolent democratic socialism

So, what was his political affiliation?

What do you mean? Being a liberal (in the general sense of the word) and being a socialist are not incompatible. In any case, it's obviously not possible to reduce anybody's political affilitation to a couple of words. Cadr 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

/* Liberal or Democratic Socialist? */

Liberalism is diametrically opposed to collectivist, and socialism is by definition collectivism.

Liberalism isn't diametrically opposed to all non-market economic systems (e.g. free association/cooperation, as in anarcho-syndicalism), unless you take liberalism to refer to one particular political dogma instead of a broad range of views. Obviously economic coercion is generally illiberal, but not all socialist/collectivist ideologies are based on coercion or central organization. Cadr 19:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, I employ the term "liberal" in the sense attached to it every-where in the nineteenth century and still today in the countries of continental Europe. This usage is imperative because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals for slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Introduction to the 3rd Edition

That's hardly an incontestible definition of liberal. Russell may not have been in favour of a free market, but in every other sense he was a liberal, both in the sense of classical liberalism and modern liberalism (whatever that is exactly). It's been common since the 19th century to associate liberalism with the free market, but it's not really a fundamental part of it. Indeed, there's also a liberal tradition which argues against wage slavery, etc. (see for example wage slavery, Henry George, Thomas Paine). Cadr 22:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I have been an active, consistent and absolute free trader, and an opponent of all schemes that would limit the freedom of the individual. I have been a stancher denier of the assumption of the right of society to the possessions of each member, and a clearer and more resolute upholder of the rights of property than has Mr. [Herbert] Spencer. I have opposed every proposition to help the poor at the expense of the rich. I have always insisted that no man be taxed because of his wealth, and that no matter how many millions a man might rightfully get, society should leave to him every penny of them" (A Perplexed Philosopher, pp. 70-71). - Henry George

"In all my publications, where the matter would admit, I have been an advocate for commerce, because I am a friend to its effects. It is a pacific system, operating to cordialize mankind, by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other..." - Thomas Paine

Neither Henry George and Thomas Paine argued against free markets, but argued for as with Henry George for land tax (single tax on land) and Thomas Paine for social security. "Liberalism utterly denies the whole creed of socialism". Herbert Hoover, The Challenge to Liberty

Liberalism is against anarcho-syndicalism if it is not voluntary, but any type of voluntary association is compatible with liberalism: "Your property is that which you control the use of. If most things are controlled by individuals, individually or in voluntary association, a society is capitalist. If such control is spread fairly evenly among a large number of people, the society approximates competitive free enterprise -- better than ours does. If its members call it socialist, why should I object? Socialism is dead. Long live socialism." - David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism

But that's beyond the point, Russell was an Fabian socialist (statist) and not anarcho-syndicalist or a liberal.--Stratofortress 21:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read the article on Henry George. Although he was in favour of free markets generally, he also advocated extensive social programs funded through taxation and regulation of natural monopolies. This is no so different from what Russell himself sometimes advocated (e.g. read "In Praise of Idleness", where he argues that a small amount of regulation could create dramatic improvements in quality of life). You also have to remember that the free markets adovcated by (for example) George really were free markets. It's debatable whether markets dominated by corporations are free in the classical liberal sense (i.e. in the sense of free markets existing in a context of "perfect liberty", as analysed by Adam Smith).

The Friedman quote entirely misses the point: it is precisely the distribution of ownership that separates many political philosophies, and it shouldn't be trivialised. Anyway, it's still the case IMHO that you can be a liberal in a broad sense (or in a specific sense, e.g. a social liberal, which Russell certainly was) without favouring free markets. I'd be willing to concede that many people think that free markets are inherently a part of liberalism, but this would still leave Russel's undoubted social liberalism to be contended with. Cadr 16:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Taxation and regulation of natural monopolies." Taxation of land was even proposed by Adam Smith: "A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent." - Adam Smith

I know that it's a common misreading of Adam Smith to say that he advocated perfectly free markets, but I didn't do that. I just noted that he analysed the effects of perfectly free markets in conditions of perfect liberty. Cadr 17:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"regulation could create dramatic improvements in quality of life" "Governmental interferences and regulations and bonuses are in their nature restrictions on freedom, and cannot cure evils that primarily flow from denials of freedom" (A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 66). - Henry George

But George was clearly not against government interference to alleviate social problems. Cadr 17:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"This is no so different from what Russell himself sometimes advocated" Henry George was a fierce anti socialist and as he himself said: "At the opposite extreme are the Anarchists, a term which, though frequently applied to mere violent destructionists, refers also to those who, seeing the many evils of too much government, regard government in itself as evil, and believe that in the absence of coercive power the mutual interests of men would secure voluntarily what cooperation is needed. The Philosophical Anarchists of whom I speak are few in number. It is with Socialism in its various phases that we have to do battle." - Henry George

Let Russell be a Socialist by definition X, and George be an anti-Socialist by definition Y. You need some evidence that X and Y can be unified. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Russel and George had identical political views, I'm just saying that there are some significant similarities. Cadr 17:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"where he argues that a small amount of regulation could create dramatic improvements in quality of life" Apparently he moved into a more radical position later and didn't belive into small ammount of regulation but into a transformation of society into Democratic Socialism.

"It's debatable whether markets dominated by corporations are free in the classical liberal sense" I didn't say that liberalism is or has supported corporatism, but that free market is and has been a fundamental part of liberalism and it wasn't until 20th century this was challenged. Bertrand Russell was an Democratic Socialist (Fabian) and not even social liberal (wikipedia entry about social liberalism says that all liberals, even social liberals, tend to believe in a far smaller role for the state than would be supported by most social democrats, let alone socialists or communists.) --Stratofortress 19:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Free trade is a fundamental part of liberalism, but the free market has always been questioned to some degree by liberalism. Liberalism was created in opposition the capitalism that had been absolute until that point. This is difficult, because liberalism and socialism developed out of the same movement. The line between them is thin, and is sometimes blurred completely.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that liberalism developed in Great Depression when goverments moved away from laissez-faire to end the economic recessions? Or are you saying that French Physiocrats were not liberals (making Montesquieu not a liberal wich would be absurd) and later thinkers like Bastiat, Destutt de Tracy and Jean Baptiste Say not liberals? And liberalism was created in opposition to laissez-faire? Where do you get that idea, I think you are confusing social liberalism with classical liberalim. Socialism and liberalism have same movement? I don't get that, liberal thinkers were all in support of laissez-faire (some like Tom Paine added just more government functions than other liberals) and opposed against socialism the same way as against mercantilism.

Liberalism did not develop until the 1830s, out of the radical movement which also gave rise to socialism and to modern conservatism. You are applying the term liberal to earlier movements and people like Paine who were influential upon liberalism but came before it. That is not usual in history or political study. The first liberals opposed government intervention that favoured the rich not government intervention in and of itself. They opposed corruption and aristocratic rule and advocated democracy. They advocated free trade but they attacked the arbitrary excise of authority and that included laissez-faire management as well as protectionism. The physiocrats were agrarians and their influence on liberalism is extremely slight.

Liberalism did develop out of enlightment thinkers like John Locke, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and others, and even if your definition would be correct then you fail to include Frédéric Bastiat and others from French Liberal school and British Manchester School (both supported radical liberalism in economic policy: laissez-faire, free trade, government withdrawal from the economy, and an optimistic stress on the "harmonious" effects of free enterprise capitalism) into your version of liberals, who were fighting socialism and defending laissez-faire in 19th century. What about Herbert Spencer, as he was a radical laissez-faire supporter he is not a liberal?

"They opposed corruption and aristocratic rule and advocated democracy." Most liberals were not democrats. Neither Locke nor Voltaire had believed in universal suffrage, and even most 19th-century liberals feared mass participation in politics, holding that the so-called lower classes were uninterested in the principal values of liberalism, that is, that they were indifferent to freedom and hostile to the expression of diversity in society.

"They advocated free trade but they attacked the arbitrary excise of authority and that included laissez-faire management as well as protectionism." At best you are confusing individual anarchism with liberalism, or you are completley wrong.

"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law (that would make everyone in the French Liberal school not liberals by your standards)

"The physiocrats were agrarians and their influence on liberalism is extremely slight." Baron de Montesquieu can be identified as the first Physiocrat, thinkers like Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (who deeply influenced Smith), François Quesnay and Marquis de Condorcet were Physiocrats and thir influence on liberalism is anything but slight.--Stratofortress 09:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think for you to better understand what classical liberalism is, and differences of negative and positive liberalism, you better look into these entries: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552311/Liberalism.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ 

even the wikipedia article is pretty good if you haven't looked into yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism --Stratofortress 11:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That Encarta article undermines your stance on liberalism/the free market somewhat:

In the U.S., positive liberalism was further extended, with such developments as the social criticism of the muckrakers, the agitation for and enactment of legislation curbing trusts and extending the suffrage to women, the trade-union movement, the ?New Freedom? of President Woodrow Wilson, and the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Gradually these programs, movements, and laws prepared the way and provided sanctions for government intervention in the economy. The U.S. Supreme Court, which had long maintained a sturdy defense against such intervention, heard eloquent defense for state regulation of hours and wages by both conservatives, such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and liberals, such as Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis. Their opinions were accepted by the majority after 1936, when the Court sustained one act of New Deal legislation after another, asserting that individual citizens must be protected against overpowering economic groups and from disasters they have not brought on themselves. Legislative enactments provided for old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment insurance, federal control of various financial interests, minimum wages, supervision of agricultural production, and the right of labor unions to organize and bargain collectively.

If you like you can draw some arbitrary line in the sand where government/democratic organisation of the economy becomes too strong to be considered "liberal", but I can't really see any justification for such a line. I also emphasise again that Russell was an extreme social liberal, and this alone IMO makes the term "liberal" appropriate in the introduction. I just get the feeling that there would be something missing if the word was removed. I've always got the impression from what I've read that Russell had a profound respect for human freedom which is not implied by the term "socialist" (at least with the connotations which often go with it). Cadr 17:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read the first line from your quotation, it says "positive liberalism" (new liberalism of Keynes), and if you would have read all the text then you would understand that classical liberalism is opposed to state regulation (a laissez-faire doctrine) and new liberalism wich sees a more positive role for the state. From the same article: The crisis concerning economic power was more profound. One branch of liberal philosophy was its economics as developed by the so-called classical economists, notably the Britons Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Economic liberals opposed mercantilist restrictions on economic activity and favored unhampered private enterprise. Such thinkers as the British statesman John Bright argued against such legislation as maximum-hour laws on the ground that it infringed on liberty and that society, particularly its economy, would flourish best when it was regulated least. As industrial capitalism developed in the 19th century, economic liberalism continued to be characterized by a negative attitude toward state authority. The working classes began to suspect that the philosophy protected the interests of powerful economic groups, particularly manufacturers, and that it encouraged a policy of indifference and even of brutality toward the working classes. These classes, which had begun to acquire political status and organized strength, turned to the political liberalism that was more concerned with their needs—that of the socialist and labor parties.

The outcome of this crisis in economic and social thinking was the development of positive liberalism. As noted, certain modern liberals, like the Austrian-born economist Friedrich August von Hayek, consider the positive attitude an essential betrayal of liberal ideals. Others, such as the British philosophers Thomas Hill Green and Bernard Bosanquet, known as the “Oxford Idealists,” devised a so-called organic liberalism designed to “hinder hindrances to the good life.” Green and Bosanquet advocated positive state action to promote self-fulfillment, that is, to prevent economic monopoly, abolish poverty, and secure people against the disabilities of sickness, unemployment, and old age. They came also to identify liberalism with the extension of democracy.

There's two liberal traditions negative liberalism (classical liberalism) and positive liberalism (social or new liberalism) as explained in my links. As for Bertrand Russell beign social liberal is again wrong, because it would pervert the meaning of social liberalism, wich sees a positive role for the state but doesn't wish to destroy capitalism like favored by Russel. Correct word for russel would be civil libertarian, wich has been given already to some people in wikipedia entries who are in strong support of civil liberties, but have no objection to high taxation or other state programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarian --Stratofortress 20:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did read all of the text. The issue is whether we can call Russell a liberal, not whether or not we can call him a classical liberal. I only want to keep the term "liberal" to convey his generally liberal attitude on social issues. If you prefer the term "civil libertarian" I'd be happy with that too, although it seems unecessarily pedantic. As for the term "Social liberal" (when used in contrast to "economic liberal"), it is a widely used term for people who support sexual liberation, free speech, etc. etc. It is used in this sense, for example, on the political compass website.

Russell consistently described himself as a liberal, by which he meant both social liberalism and political (but not necessarily economic) liberalism. Read his autobiography for the full picture. In The Case for Socialism (collected in In Praise of Idleness) he describes his view of non-Marxist socialism. He wasn't a great political philosopher and it's difficult to see how his enthusiasm for world government and collective living (see various essays in In Praise of Idleness) could be reconciled with his undoubted passion for liberty and individualism, but there you are. Most of us in Europe don't see any conflict between liberalism and democratic socialism (or social democracy).

--Andrew Norman 19:07, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

First, I'm an European (from Estonia) and I have never heard the view that liberalism and democratic socialism have anything in common (excpet civil rights issues), that is to distinguish them from social-democrats who with their Keynesianism don't seek the destruction of capitalism. All the liberal parties I know and the Liberal International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_International) all support capitalism and don't support neither socialism or democratic socialism (they only differ on the degree to which they support an active role for government). "As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." - Joseph Schumpeter --Stratofortress 20:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seriously - read his autobiography (or at least the first book). It's very entertaining and it makes his political views absolutely clear. Liberalism does not just mean economic liberalism, and even in that area Russell's views were mixed (he changed his mind on all sorts of questions, which was consistent with his opinion that liberalism entailed keeping an open mind and changing views in line with new evidence). You mention the Liberal International - one of the UK parties affiliated to that is the Liberal Democrat Party, which was formed from a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (a breakaway group from the Labour Party). Russell's father was a Liberal prime minister, his son Conrad was an eminent member of the Lib Dems (http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.homepage/section.home/article.7602), Russell stood for parliament in 1907 on a platform of free trade and votes for women (apparently supported by the Liberal party but not as an official candidate, see p157 of the autobiography). In 1922 and 23 he stood for the democratic socialist Labour Party as an official candidate, having been a member of the Independent Labour Party for some time (p399). The ILP was one of the organisations which founded the Labour Party and was affiliated to it at that time, though generally arguing for a less cautious approach to reform.

--Andrew Norman 11:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I want to read his books, but unfortunatley not many bookstores (none that I've visited) in Estonia have books about Bertrand Russell. Liberalism does not just mean economic liberalism? Yes it doesn't, but if his ideas were not among new or classical liberal lines I think it's not acceptable to name him liberal or we have to name Ronald Reagan also a liberal because his economic policies were liberal and although Reagan wasn't a liberal in social issues makes his issue the same as Russell. Social Democrats don't seek the destruction of capitalism like Russell's democratic socialism does (The terms "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" have often been used interchangeably, and, indeed, they could be considered synonymous until recently. Today, however, they denote two different things: Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with just a few socialist elements to make it more equitable and humane. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialism is more left-wing and it supports a fully socialist system, seeking to establish that socialist system by gradually reforming capitalism from within. Thus, Democratic Socialism is an evolutionary socialist movement.) Russell's father was a Liberal prime minister? And his godfather was liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill who opposed the collectivist movements and defended economic liberalism, but that didn't seem to stop him from turning towards socialism. Russell stood for parliament in 1907 on a platform of free trade and votes for women? And what I've read about him is that he was a Fabian, so in earlier life he maybe was a liberal, but influenced by Fabianism he turned away form liberalism. --Stratofortress 19:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant his grandfather, of course (he was raised by his grandmother, and his grandfather is a much more real figure in his autobiography than his parents). Russell is one of the central figures of English liberalism, politically and socially, and claiming that he wasn't a liberal is just absurd.

--Andrew Norman 19:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well, if this is relevant to you guys at all, I'm currently reading his autobiography, and he was affiliated with the Liberal party for a good part of his life. He never ran for office, because the Liberal Party at the time asked all their elected officials to at least present the pretense that they were religious (ie go to church), and Russell refused. So to call him a liberal would definitely NOT be a mistake, as he clearly identifies himself with the movement, and supporting it, in his autobiography. Themindset 5 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Russell actually did stand for election to office whilst he was a member of the Liberal Party, but not with official party support. He lost by a significant margin. He later became a member of the Labour Party. For what it's worth, I have read all 3 volumes of his autobiography; the two volumes of his published letters; at least a half-dozen biographies concerning him; and, to date, 24 of his books...and, you are quite correct, he most certainly was a liberal by any definition. icut4u

liberalism

The essence of liberalism is the freedom of the individual, not of the market. That Russell was a liberal in this, most central sense, is evident in his ethics and philosophy of education.

That modern liberal political institutions put the emphasis on the market in the place of the individual is a shame to them, but not to describe Russell as a liberal would be a shame to the Wiki. Banno 22:40, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

For classical liberals liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life — including employing her labour and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994a; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.

Classical liberals employ a second argument connecting liberty and private property. Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people's liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. As F.A. Hayek argues, ‘There can be no freedom of press if the instruments of printing are under government control, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly’ (1978: 149).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

"Our doctrine is based on liberty. In fact, private property and liberty, in our eyes are one and the same; for one man is made the owner of his own services by his right and his ability to dispose of them as he sees fit." - Frédéric Bastiat

If modern liberals put emphasis on the market and not on the individual, then what was Russels plan? To sacrifice individual to the will of the Democratic masses and still retain the freedom of the individual? --Stratofortress 01:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of which, whist interesting, is directly relevant, nor does it contradict the argument I presented. Some liberals equate ownership of property with individual freedom. Others do not. Being a liberal is not a result of one’s economic attitude, but of one’s ethical attitude. A liberal is one who holds that the individual should be left as unrestricted as possible; it does not necessarily include a belief in the ownership of property. Banno

Russell played a defining role in developing liberal attitudes to education, sexuality, religious tolerance, and so on. Because of this, he counts as a liberal – more than that, he is perhaps the definitive English liberal of the last century. Not to have that in the Wiki would be quite absurd. Banno 02:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, in political rights issues he was a liberal (but had distincly illiberal features in economic issues because for classical liberals liberty and private property is intimately related and even Keynesian new liberals don't seek the destruction of private property). --Stratofortress 11:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About modern liberals putting market above the individual is the most absurd thing I've heard,

Ethically, which is of greater significance, the free market or the rights of the individual? Most liberals see the free market as the best way to ensure freedom of the individual, so the free market is a tool to that end. Russell at one stage advocated communal ownership, but as a tool to ensure the freedom of the individual. Given the social context I’d say he was advocating communal ownership as an alternative to no ownership. Banno 20:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

it is the market supporters who insist on the right of the individual to keep his property and use it as he sees it fit and then it's the people like Bertrand Russell who put social action (and say it is acceptable to take money or property from a nonconsenting individual because he is outnumbered in democracy)

Where did Russell propose to do this? Provide a reference, perhaps?Banno

above the individual and insisit on some kind of collectivist means to foster liberty, this is not liberalism this is collectivism in disguise. Some liberals don't equate ownership of property with individual freedom? All liberals from Smith to Keynes and Locke to Rawls belive in the right to private property, they only differ to the degree of state action they are accepting.

I think you misunderstand what Russell was proposing, but perhaps not - so provide a reference, if you could...Banno

Being a liberal is not a result of one’s economic attitude, but of one’s ethical attitude? Then we can make anyone a liberal as long he says he sees individual freedom as goal. Abandonment of economic liberalism is essentialy a betrayal of liberal ideals, because liberalism is about individual means to achive individual goals, not collective means to achive individual means (like proposed by Russell). the definitive English liberal of the last century? As one person said some posts ago "He wasn't a great political philosopher" and he wasn't even an liberal, and even if he was then I think that John Maynard Keynes was much more influencial liberal and greater English liberal then Russell. As [Austrian-American economist Joseph] Schumpeter remarked, "as a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." And it still seems as a good plan to disguise the enemies of free enterprise under it's lable. --Stratofortress 19:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike

Why does the article say that Russell "seemed" to call for a pre-emptive strike against the USSR? He called for one, period. 172.170.68.31 07:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Future of Science, and Self-Portrait of the Author (1959); from interview he gave for BBC Radio:

Q. Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?"

RUSSELL: It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now.... There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would ... .

Q. Suppose they hadn't given way.

RUSSELL: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can't threaten unless you're prepared to have your bluff called.

NPOV?

Does anyone else read the activist part as slightly NPOV? Perhaps I'm just biased myself though (since I generally like Bertrand Russell). Looking for a second opinion before I make any edits. -SocratesJedi 08:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should be NPOV (neutral point of view). That's how it strikes me - it's a factual summary of his activism, not an approving one. There perhaps needs to be a little more about his views on "companionate marriage" (what today we'd call an "open" relationship). There are a couple of magnificently vitriolic letters quoted in his autobiography from religious people who thought he was the most evil man in the world for advocating free love. --Andrew Norman 11:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Some new stuff

I've added a substantial amount of material to the article, and tried to clarify where I could, especially in the philosophy/logic sections, influence, and the bibliography, which I hope others will have occasion to improve. I've also started various stubs that others left behind in order to get rid of the unsightly red links. I'm done here for now! icut4u

Humanism

I'm not the person who tried to insert an external link into the opening section, but would a link e.g. [[humanism|humanists]] be appropriate with (possibly but not necessarily) the link that editor was suggesting moved to the latter page? Schissel : bowl listen 21:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. The reasons why I removed the link were (a) it was inserted in the opening section, as you noticed, and (b) I visited that external link, and did not find it relevant to either Russel or to proving that he was a humanist. Rather, that page was about humanism, and Russel was mentioned in passing.

I don't know almost anything about Russel (I still think my decision to remove the link was correct though :) If good reasons can be found for calling Russel a humanist, then a link to [[humanism|humanists]] is certainly most welcome. Oleg Alexandrov 22:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prima facie he's listed in Humanism and The Bertrand Russell Society's link section has a subsection devoted to humanism, so while you're right that such a claim (that Russell was a humanist) must be backed up point for point I will at least say that I'm not alone in holding it ;) Let me see what I can think of meanwhile regarding the connections or lack thereof between his beliefs and those associated with humanist philosophy... Schissel : bowl listen 22:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right that Russel was humanist. My whole point was that the link was neither appropriate where it was nor relevant at elucidating the matter. So you are more than welcome to make a link to humanism. Oleg Alexandrov 22:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hrm... actually, I was in the midst of removing it myself and replacing it with a wikilink to Humanism when informed there was an edit conflict, hence all this; a friend calls this heated agreement ;), I'd say, no disagreement to speak of. Schissel : bowl listen 22:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

announcing proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The current article doesn't seem to use BC, AD, BCE, or CE. So the proposal is irrelevant here. Unless you want to convert the dates in it to the perfectly NPOV YBW (years before Wikipedia)? - Nunh-huh 01:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

How is YBW perfectly NPOV? YBW is clearly in favor of Wikipedia. ;p Adraeus 02:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Curses! Foiled again! - Nunh-huh 02:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, BCE/CE could be POV in favor of the "Common Era"... so... y'know... Adraeus 02:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, assuming Nunh-huh is not joking, this is a general proposal that I think all sorts of Wikipedians would be interested in. I bet Bertrand Russell would have been interested in it, and maybe even have something to say. In any case, I was assuming that people interested in this page were interested in all sorts of things. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

By that logic you could announce your proposal on every page in Wikipedia. I don't think that's necessary, appropriate, or a good idea. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with Nunh-huh. Themindset 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section Order

I believe that the section on his life should come first, as that is the normal convention for encyclopedic entries. What do you folks think? Themindset 19:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Done and nominated for a featured article. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 12:35 (UTC)

World government

I have recommended on the FAC page that more info about Russell's world federalist ideas be included. Russell wrote Has Man a Future? circa 1961. According to the review at http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Bertrand_Russell/future.htm , As a solution to our dilemma he not only sets out a reasoned scheme of world government, but goes on to show what first steps can in practice be taken now towards such a solution. Nathan256 29 June 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Too many links

Why are so many mundane words linked to totally unrelated articles? e.g. the word "deaths" links to Death. It hardly needs defining, is this really necessary? How does it help the reader to read this article? Just seems to break up the flow. --Crazeman 29 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's nuts to link every fourth word. --ifs-ffm

I also agree with this. This is a rampant problem on all of wikipedia. It's fine to link words and people, who's entries are relevant to the article, but it does get to the point of being ridiculous. Themindset 5 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page because User:Cognition, a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, kept inserting that Russell was a Nazi. If any of the regular editors on this page want to edit it, just give me a shout on my talk page or e-mail me, and I'll unlock it. If I'm not around, you can ask any other admin, or leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests for protection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 16:35 (UTC)

BR and Nazisim

Please provide references to sources who regard Russell as having been a Nazi. Then we can discuss how to describe those references from the NPOV.

Also, why is it important to say he was a Nazi? And to which groups is this important? How does it advance their agenda to say so? Without answers to these questions, the article is better off merely saying:

• Some opponents of Russell have claimed he was a Nazi.

I await your response. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

I am not claiming in the article that he was a Nazi. I am claimin that, like many Nazis he supported eugenics, which is backed up by one of two inline references that I had added to the article. Cognition 6 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

• Russell, like many Nazis of his time, was also a supporter of eugenics. [2]

That is a style of writing which invites reversion to a more balanced viewpoint -- it is the custom of Wikipedia, to give view A, and then to balance with view B. Right now, the article is the vehicle of POV A (with references A'), with no counterbalancing B (with references B') to give perspective to POV A. Keep it up, and see what will happen to your efforts on the article. I presume you value your time. See the writing guides. Ancheta Wis 6 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

This wording suggestis that Russell was a Nazi. A casual reader could easily mistake X, like many Y for X, like many other Y. So it would be better to remove the Nazi reference. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Disputed positions

1. However, following World War II, he supported an unprovoked nuclear attack on Russia in order to establish a one-world government. [2]
2. Russell, like many Nazis of his time, was also a supporter of eugenics. [3]

I did a bit of googling. It looks like BR was opposed to a one-world government, on the grounds that it would fall apart.

• Bertrand Russell (1948): "When we pass beyond the limits of the family it is the external enemy which supplies the cohesive force." A world state would break down through lack of cohesive force. [4]

He seemed to think a social unit needs enemies to maintain its cohesiveness. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Position on eugenics

• we come to the question of eugenics. We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad. [5]

This sounds like an argument against eugenics. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

• ...These are, of course, delusions; a reform, once achieved, is handed over to the average citizen. So, if eugenics reached the point where it could increase desired types, it would not be the types desired by present-day eugenists that would be increased, but rather the type desired by the average official.

This also is a rebuttal of eugenics. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

• If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative.

This sounds rather anti-eugenics. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Regarding the Quotation template...

Personally, I think the Quotation template looks fine when surrounded by other text, but the Quotation template doesn't look that great in the Comments about Russell section. In fact, its usage seems like overkill, especially when the quotation is rather... dinky. Adraeus July 7, 2005 22:04 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I didn't use it when I put most of them there. Maybe a couple could be eliminated? I don't even understand the Solzhenitsyn quote, myself. It would appear to be something that ought to be read in context. icut4u

I agree also. It looks awful, and it's distracting.Themindset 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

I removed the Quotation templates from the Comments about Russell section and reformatted the quotes, and corrected some spelling errors. Adraeus July 8, 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Good job. (although I don't even like the quotation templates anywhere) Themindset 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

There's a need for the Quotation template. Too many articles use quotations and leave them unformatted. Adraeus July 8, 2005 02:05 (UTC)

A very nice result. The long quote from his Reflections is especially suitable for the template. icut4u

Liberal vs. libertarian

I changed the description of Russell in the introduction as a libertarian back to what was there before, namely, liberal. Russell falls squarely within the British tradition of liberalism....from Locke, to Mill, to Berlin. To the best of my knowledge, he did not ever refer to himself as a libertarian. After WWI, he subscribed to a modified kind of Fabian or guild socialism, as opposed to state-sponsored ownership of the means of production or the complete abolishment of private property. H.G. Wells said his socialism was "tepid voluntaryism," and not full-blooded enough. Russell often called himself a liberal and frequently praised a liberal outlook. He certainly was not an economic or political libertarian along the lines of Hayek or Nozick, and, at the same time, to call him a libertarian and then have that term link to the libertarian socialist page is more than mildly suggestive of the POV-ideological wars conducted on those two pages, ad nauseum.

The term liberal, considered in its brodest sense {property rights (however constituted), democracy, individual liberty, tolerance, non-ideological, etc.}, rather than the the narrower sense of classical liberalism or socialist liberalism, more accurately characterizes Russell's general outlook. The latter views, notwithstanding the differences regarding property, are species of liberalism, anyway, for they both purport to optimize individual rights in a democratic framework. In any event, one could more easily live with eliminating the appelation "liberal" altogether, though I would recommend against it; but to call Russell a libertarian is simply inaccurate, and after calling him one, to have the term link to the libertarian socialism page is just misleading. After years of studying him, I am quite certain both Russell and Russell scholars would settle for liberal. To pigeon hole him more narrowly is problematic, for his specific political views changed a great deal; however, I think it is fair to say he retained his liberal outlook throughout his adult life. icut4u

Agree. Cadr 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Ditto. Russell's political views were vague at times and changeable (e.g. his views on world government), but he doesn't seem to have ever been a supporter of minimal government, which is what "libertarian" implies to me (both right and left-wing forms). Talking of world government, it seems to me that the article (which unfortunately somehow dropped off my watchlist for a few weeks when all the LaRouchean fun was going on) tries to make out a case for Russell having one view on this, rather than a shifting and not terribly well thought-out view (see also eugenics). I'm going to look at how the article might reflect that - it's difficult to say of anything "Russell thought X", because twenty years earlier or later he would have thought the opposite. My Philosophical Development is full of descriptions of things he used to believe in but didn't at the time of writing. --Andrew Norman 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

Quotations

Given the huge volume of Russell's writings, and the way his views changed over the years, I think it's essential that everything in the article is clearly referenced and dated, especially the stuff on social and political questions. I can't find The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism online at the moment, but it seems to have been generally critical rather than approving - which is not the impression the "Communism" section here gives. The chapter on eugenics in Marriage and Morals is typical "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" liberalism, but it seems pretty clear that in 1929 he thought eugenics was impractical but had minor possibilities. The earlier approving quotation seems to be from a letter to Alys - he used the Quaker "thee" with her, but not elsewhere in his writings as far as I know. The only online sources are unreferenced, and generally on websites with an anti-Russell agenda. The "first strike on Russia" claim also needs looking at - my recollection is that this was an off-the-cuff remark and pretty swiftly withdrawn. --Andrew Norman 09:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. And yes, he loathed communism and Bolseivism, and he made that clear in many writings, including the one you referenced, which I have read. After his visit to Russia where he had an audience with V. Lenin, his anti-communist views were solidified. He thought if science could improve the lot of mankind, it ought to be used to do so, so, not unlike many intellectuals of the time, he saw some potential good from eugenics. He soon realized the problems with it and, in particular, the opportunity for abuse, especially by the state and its leaders. This is very different from what the LaRouche people suggest. He always used the New England Quaker idiom with Alys and her family, indeed, even in letters in the 50s when they began to correspond again. The bomb business is entirely overwrought and must be taken in context, as you suggest....first, it was on the heels of WWII and the development of nuclear capability...when many were worried that Stalin might do something untoward, not an irrational fear; second, he quickly recanted as evidenced by his becoming one of the founders and leaders (until his death in 1970) of the disarmament movement. icut4u

All of the quotations at the end of the article seem to suggest that Russell's later work on ethics and politics is wholly without value. It's of course fine to leave them in, but shouldn't other quotes be provided in the opposite direction? Surely they aren't terribly hard to find... (This was by 209.43.10.242, I've moved it down here - --Andrew Norman 09:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC))

I, for one, think several of his works on these subjects are quite worthwhile, though most do not rise to the level of his purely technical philosophy. Of course, he did not even consider such work to be within the province of philosophy, and he made that clear repeatedly. His detractors (Monk being foremost among them recently) overlook the fact that, despite his vast quantities of unremarkable journalism, Russell wrote more solid work on ethics and politics than most philosophers who specialize in the field. The sheer volume of his work and the enormity of his contributions to other areas have tended to obscure the fact that he did some really good things in this area. icut4u

As philosophy, his ethical and political writings are mainly very poor. They were hugely influential, and Russell was a very entertaining writer, but he was no Mill or Moore. --Andrew Norman 09:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that I would say "mainly very poor," myself, though some of it certainly was. Russell was vastly superior to Mill and Moore as a technical philosopher (and much more influential), however, I agree with you that Mill was his better on ethics and politics (I myself don't think Moore was as good). icut4u

Why not in the article include a specific criticism, then, rather than the vague blanket sort that's present now. (Which is rather impossible to respond to, and is of no help to anyone trying to understand why criticism is levelled against him.) --209.43.10.192 06:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the "Influence on Philosophy" section, and the quotation from Monk at the end of the article. Russell largely didn't see his ethical and political works as philosophy, and didn't put the same sort of care into them that he did with his work on logic, mathematics and so on. Most of what he wrote on those subjects was produced in a hurry for money, which he badly needed after losing his post at Cambridge and then needing to keep the school afloat. Having said that, a lot of what he wrote was immensely important socially - Marriage and Morals, for example, was scandalous in its day but largely unexceptionable now, because society's attitudes to sex and sexuality changed, in no small part due to Russell. The philosophy gave him authority, and he used that authority to "sell" other ideas, some good, some nutty, very few of them carefully thought out. --Andrew Norman 09:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree...though I'd hesitate to say most were not "carefully thought out." Russell, like Voltaire, often said things in his social writings and journalism for dramatic and rhetorical effect, and I think these were often calculated. icut4u

Bombing Russia - in his autobiography, and the pamphlet Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, Russell claims that his speech advocated the threat of nuclear war with Russia, as a means of forcing it not to develop its own atomic bomb, rather than an actual war with Russia, and certainly not something to be pursued after Russia had its own bomb. He also claims to have forgotten about the speech until it was published (he comes across as rather shifty and defensive about the whole issue). Does anyone have access to the actual speech? He was certainly warning about the danger of atomic weapons prior to late 1948 - the autobiography quotes a 1945 letter from Attlee thanking him for his article What America could do with the Atomic Bomb, and he gave a speech to the House of Lords in November of that year warning of the dangers of a fusion (hydrogen) bomb and the need for control and disarmament. --Andrew Norman 13:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

World Government - there are approving mentions of World Government in In Praise of Idleness, published in 1935, and also in some of the letters quoted in the autobiography. It seems to have been a more pressing concern after the war, when he saw it as a way of preventing nuclear war, but it was an idea he stuck to for a long while. --Andrew Norman 13:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Russell also promoted this view in his book, Power (1938). However, both there and elsewhere he warned against highly-centralized and undemocratic governments. He also railed against state-sponsored creeds and ideologies...and, in Power, written before WWII, he used Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin as examples of purveyors of the same. icut4u

Oh, I meant to add, further illustrating the absurdity of some of the recent rantings from LaRouche people about Russell's sympathies for or agreements with Nazism, for he had none.icut4u

Icarus

--- Please forgive me if I err in any of this, but this is my first time "posting" to wikipedia. I noticed that although it is extensively quoted in the discussion, Russell's Icarus talk is not linked anywhere on the main page and certainly not in the "Online writing" where it should be. I'd (attempt to) rectify that myself but I presume there's a reason it hasn't been updated as such.

That's a good suggestion, anon editor. It belongs on the page. I put a link there. Sign up and join us, please. icut4u

Online writings

Can we rename the section "Online Writings" to something less ambiguous, such as "Writings online" or "His writings online"? -- Rmrfstar 06:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. Or perhaps, "Writings available online." icut4u

premature obituary

Can anyone find a source for or against 24.57.205.43's edit[6]? Was his premature obituary published in 1954 or 1921? Or could 24.57.205.43 himself defend his edit? -- Rmrfstar 01:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's well known that Russell fell very ill while he was in China. The time was March 1921. The _Manchester Guardian_ prematurely published his obituary, which Russell never forgot. His "death" was initially reported in the _Japanese Advertiser_ (see _Collected Papers of BR_, 15: lx; also the _Autobiography_ [London, 1968], 2: 132). BR did go to hospital in January 1954 for prostate surgery, but this event didn't lead to any obituaries being published. (From user 24.57.205.43)

Santa Barbara vs. UCLA

The article currently states "Russell moved to Santa Barbara to lecture at the University of California, Los Angeles".

This is confusing because UCLA is about 90 miles away from Santa Barbara. Some disambiguation is in order here.

h3h 06:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

First, for the summer of 1939, he and his family lived in Santa Barbara. Then they moved to L.A. for the academic year. So the passage needs rewording. It should say also that he moved from Chicago, where he had gone to teach in September 1938; otherwise, it would appear he went straight from the U.K. to California.

Milt 10:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening name convention too formal?

The entry opens thus:

"Bertrand Russell, as he preferred to call himself, or The Rt. Hon. Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell,"

Is "The Rt. Hon." standard practice in Wikipedia for mere inheritors of titles? It seems awfully formal.

Milt 15:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the problem was all the well known politicians were being given 'Rt Hon' - (see Winston Churchill) which lower ranking peers also hold (higher peers use a different style)- but only some of the peer articles. The decision about which peer had the style seeming to have no pattern - the feeling within the talk peerage and other related talk pages was we should edit consistently, whichever way we edited. The present situation is that the vast majority of peer articles now do have a style (see [[7]] so leaving some out (ie Bertrand) looks like inconsistency. In other cases where the person is a peer and famous with a different title the format is broadly:

The Most Honourable Michael Andrew Foster Jude Kerr, 13th Marquess of Lothian, PC, QC, MP (born 7 July 1945), known as Michael Ancram

I'd suggest that we alter this article to

The Right Honourable Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) known as Bertrand Russell

This obviously has the advantage of looking most like other peerage/politician articles. However I won't change it so people can discuss how they feel.

Names and forms of address are being confused. "The Right Honourable" is (or rather, was) appropriate for a roll-call in the House of Lords, but it is not part of Bertrand Russell's name. In general, Wikipedia is not addressing members of the nobility but naming and describing them. Calling the various Dukes of Bedford "The Most Noble" was appropriate in feudal times -- presumably, it helped to save one's skin. Nowadays it's an anachronism and (in entries that are supposed to start with one's proper name) an error.

I vote for

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970), known as Bertrand Russell

It's no use being consistent and wrong. Besides, the other entries will come around. I see that no one has altered the Queen's entry to include her form of address. Milt 13:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Queen's entry has HM The Queen as all the various princes have HRH see His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales. I'm not sure the other entries will come around as you say simply because they represent the majority of articles atm at least.

I believe the form proposed by User:Milt is more customary for an encyclopedia, as opposed to a formal oral or written address. I go with him on this. icut4u

Yes, let's omit the formal form of address from the entry as being more suitable to a reference work on the peerage. I've reverted the beginning of the entry and hope that no one minds too much. The analogy with royalty seems not to hold. The queen didn't earn any of her titles or forms of address, whereas Russell earned all the rest of his. Milt 14:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)