Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

THE THOUGHT OF BERTRAND RUSSELL

From Stead's Review, June 11
(AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL SEMI-MONTHLY)

BERTRAND RUSSELL'S love of freedom-political freedom, industrial freedom, freedom even for children in education - is a characteristic that has developed within his family for generations. His grandfather, Lord John Russell was one of the greatest of Liberal Prime Ministers of the last century. He fought year after year for the emancipation of the Jews, was a staunch freetrader, promoted education, and was a champion of freedom for Canada and Australia. He upheld a standard of honor that would be welcome indeed in the political life of to-day. "To his principles, as he understood them, he was never false, and it was when they were most unpopular, that he clung most closely to them. Liberals were not charged with timidity when Lord John Russell led them.' Such is the tribute of Herbert Paul, who criticized Russell's policy in some matters severely, yet could proclaim him 'the noblest work of God'- an honest man. He was such a stickler for clean politics, that he excluded from his Cabinet one who had accepted a popular testimonial in money though that one was none other than Cobden.

[blocks in formation]

cell, with the same firm loyalty to what he believes to be true.

Before leaving the personal history of the Russells, the reader may wish to know that Lord John became the first Earl. Bertand is brother to the third Earl, who has no son. The Russells have always been comparatively poor. Lord John was partly dependent on his brother, the Duke of Bedford, and was allowed by Queen Victoria to use a royal'cottage.' Bertrand speaks frankly of having to earn his living by his lectures. It is of interest to Australians to know that two of Bertrand's cousins have been prominent in this country. One was Sir Arthur Stanley, lately Governor of Victoria; the other, Captain G. Pitt-Rivers, who was recently here as private secretary to the Governor-General, Lord Forster, but left some weeks ago for New Guinea.

Of Bertrand Russell's claim to philosophic eminence we unlearned must be content to accept the judgment of other thinkers. He has his critics, of course, but few who will not admit his originality and power. He is 'respected by opponents and followers alike as possessing one of the few genuinely distinguished and brilliant philosophic minds of the day.' This was the statement of Professor Ralph Barton Perry, of Harvard University, in a discussion of Russell's last pre-war book on philosophy. Professor Bradley has said, "There is no living writer with whom I am acquainted whose work in philosophy seems to me more original and valuable than that of Mr. Russell.' Professor Bosanquet and Professor Royce are among others who

speak in high praise of his thought. While we must refrain from the hopeless attempt to compass his technical philosophical works in the few sentences of this sketch, we may take courage from the fact that his language is simple and lucid, and makes delightful reading to anyone of thoughtful mind. His principal pre-war publications were: German Social Democracy, Essay on the Foundations of Geometry, Philosophy of Leibnitz, Principles of Mathematics, Problems of Philosophy, and (written in collaboration with Dr. A. N. Whitehead) Principia Mathematica.

'My opposition to war is based not upon religious grounds, but upon common sense and common humanity,' Bertrand Russell has stated. Very soon after the outbreak of the European war he published the small book, Policy of the Entente, 1904-1914. Hardly anyone in Australia has seen that book. It was perhaps the finest antidote to the hate. propaganda that could be presented to any Briton. Its brevity, its calm tone, its freedom from bitterness added power to its statement of the part France, Britain, and Russia had played in the ten years of intrigue and outrage that culminated in the war. Of course, he did not for a moment excuse Germany for her part; but, as he said in the early pages of the book, we can never bring in a better world by emphasizing our own righteousness and crying out against other people's wrong-doing. It was for Germans to denounce the wrongs committed in Germany's name, and for Britons to make their protest against such diplomacy as that which gave Morocco to France by a gross breach of faith, or that which led to the 'crucifixion of Persia,' under the AngloRussian agreement. All that Russell wrote in that book has been more than confirmed since the war by such authorities as Lord Loreburn. But if it had been as widely read and proclaimed as

Lloyd George's speeches, or the sermons of hate in the early days of the war, it would have dealt a severe blow to British self-righteousness. Probably some of the finest fighters would have refused to respond to the appeal to their chivalry if they had had before them Russell's calm statement of facts. At any rate, the authorities feared that such would be the effect of his teaching. Therefore Bertrand Russell had to be gagged.

He was just over the military age, and was therefore not in danger under the conscription law. But he had decided that he should do all in his power to support those who refused military service, as he himself would have done if called upon. He wrote a leaflet for the NonConscription Fellowship, describing the treatment of one objector, and emphasizing that this youth was taking his stand for conscience' sake. Russell's name did not appear on the leaflet, but, when he learned that those engaged in distributing it were arrested and prosecuted, he wrote to the Times declaring his authorship. That was in 1916. Action was promptly taken against him. He was fined £100, and his goods were distrained for payment of the sum.

Russell was then a lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge. He had 'won the confidence and affection of students as few university teachers do,' if we may believe the statement of a pupil, quoted in the Nation at the time. He was dismissed from this position on account of the publication of the offending leaflet. He was under engagement to go to America in 1917, to give a course of lectures at Harvard University. He was forbidden to leave England. The American press severely censured the action of the British authorities, the Literary Digest describing it as 'shoddy Prussianism.' (The Digest, by the way, changed its tone a few months later when

America entered the war.) The Inde- would have given if he could have been pendent said:present.

One of the most grievous features of the war is to see the liberal nations of Europe gradually succumbing to internal tyranny while fighting against external tyranny.

Bertrand Russell is recognized the world over as one of the most profound and original thinkers of our times. More than one American university has tried to get him.

For the innocent purpose of earning a living, Mr. Russell tells us, he arranged a series of public lectures. He did not intend to deal with the war, but the military authorities intervened, nevertheless. They asked him to give an assurance that he would say nothing that would, in their opinion, militate against the successful prosecution of the war. Russell declined to give such a promise, saying that it was impossible for him to tell in advance what the authorities might consider dangerous.

May I say that I consider homicide usually regrettable? [he asked]. If so, since the majority of homicides occur in war, I have uttered a pacifist sentiment. May I say that I have respect for the ethical teaching of Christ? If I do, the War Office may tell me that I am praising conscientious objectors. May I say that I do not consider Latimer and Ridley guilty of grave moral turpitude because they broke the law? Or would such a statement be prejudicial to the discipline of His Majesty's forces?

Not only was he dismissed from Cambridge, but he was placed under restrictions arranged for those suspected of being enemy spies. The authorities were kind enough to assure him that such suspicion did not rest upon him. But he was not permitted to go to the coastal towns, or to Scotland. He had arranged to deliver a lecture at Glasgow, but was barred from going. He gave the text of his intended address to Robert Smillie of the Miners' Federation. Smillie read it to the audience, and at the end said that this was the lecture Mr. Russell

He was not to be silenced. He wrote an article for an anti-conscription paper, the Tribunal, warning English people that the employment of American troops in Britain involved serious danger. For this he was punished with six months' imprisonment.

Russell himself protested against the policy of repression.

Our soldiers [he said], who volunteered with generous enthusiasm in the early days of the war, are horrified when they return wounded or on leave, to find what 'patriots' at home have made of the country which was once the land of freedom.

He compared the soldiers with Cromwell's Ironsides, who fought for democracy, and established a military tyranny.'

The authorities repeatedly offered to withdraw all orders against him if he would undertake to cease agitating for better treatment for the conscientious objectors. But he felt bound to continue. He regarded the tribunals appointed to grant certain exemptions to the objectors as useless. Total exemption was almost never given. The men on the tribunals could not understand the mind of those who refused even noncombatant service. Russell thought that was the only reasonable stand for objectors to take. 'It should have been obvious,' he said, 'that a genuine objection to warfare involves an objection to the operations subsidiary to the actual fighting, just as much as to the actual participation in battle.' The purpose of non-combatant service, he pointed out, was 'to further the prosecution of the war, and to release others for the trenches.' So it was clearly unacceptable to a thorough pacifist. He sympathized even with those who refused to take the 'work of national importance, which was later offered as an alternative to war service, and accepted

by most of the conscientious objectors. Of these 'absolutists' he wrote:

Among such men are included most of the leaders of the movement, and probably a majority of those who realize the full implications of resistance to participation in war. They argue that they are already doing the work for which, in their own opinion, they are best fitted.

When it turned out that the 'work of national importance' to which men of high capacity were drafted was such as the weeding of prison footpaths, and the growing of turnips on Dartmoor at a cost of ninepence for each turnip (under the usual prison methods), it became apparent that fitness for the work was not taken into consideration, and that its importance was beyond discovering.

At the end of 1916 Bertrand Russell sent a message to President Wilson, appealing to him to intervene as peacemaker. He spoke of the prospect of two or three more years of war, and said:

This situation is intolerable to every humane man. You, sir, can put an end to it.

The harm which has already been done in this war is immeasurable. Not only have millions of valuable lives been lost, not only have an even greater number of men been maimed and shattered in health, but the whole standard of civilization has been lowered. Fear has invaded men's inmost being, and with fear has come the ferocity that always attends it. Hatred has become the rule of life, and injury to others is more desired than benefit to ourselves. The hopes of peaceful progress in which our earlier years were passed are dead, and can never be revived. Terror and savagery have become the very air we breathe. The liberties which our ancestors won, by centuries of struggle, we sacrificed in a day, and all the nations are regimented to the one ghastly end, of mutual destruction.

The United States Government has the power not only to compel the European governments to make peace, but also to reassure the populations by making itself the guarantor of the peace. Such action, even if

it were resented by the governments, would be hailed with joy by the populations.

Like the rest of my countrymen, I have desired ardently the victory of the Allies; like them, I have suffered when victory has been delayed. But I remember always that Europe has common tasks to fulfill; that a war among European nations is in essence a civil war; that the ill which we think of our enemies they equally think of us; and that it is difficult in time of war for a belligerent to see facts truly. . . .

While all who have power in Europe speak for what they falsely believe to be the interests of their separate nations, I am compelled by a profound conviction to speak for all the nations in the name of Europe. In the name of Europe I appeal to you to bring us peace.

Perhaps Woodrow Wilson looks back to that letter at times, and reflects upon what might have been.

In spite of his hatred of violence and repression, Bertrand Russell is not an anarchist, even of the lovable type of Leo Tolstoy, or Rabindranath Tagore. He believes the use of violence by the police is justified, and he would have a league of nations, with an international police force. He thinks war even may be right when waged against an uncivilized nation. At least, he thought so in the past. Possibly his visit to China will have set him wondering which are the 'civilized,' and which the barbarous peoples.

During the past few months there have been published in this magazine reviews of Russell's writings on labor and social problems, and on the Soviet experiment in Russia. He is a Communist in theory, but he was keenly disappointed to find that the Russian Communists had established a government under which almost all the workers considered themselves merely the victims of a new tyranny. Since he went to Peking Russell has stated his attitude toward the class-struggle in a remarkable letter to an unnamed capitalist.

This friend of his had argued that the class-war was inevitable, and that the only thing to do was to take one's place in the ranks of one side or the other. Russell replied that there was still a chance of averting that war, and that he intended to work for peace so long as the least hope existed. If the war should come, a quick victory for the workers might do good. But

The most probable result would be a warfare lasting for many years, taking the form of unprecedentedly bloody and brutal civil war in all civilized countries, involving universal starvation and ferocity, destroying the means of industrial production, reducing the population of the world by about 50 per cent, and leaving at the end an uncivilized peasant population, terrorized by robber bands.

But, he said, the class-war was not yet by any means certain. One thing that would help to avert it would be the granting of peace and trade to Russia.

Russell disputes the capitalist's contention that the present system of industry and society is just. And he expresses surprise at the other's references to 'liberty':

house burned down, and his children shot before his eyes.

What liberty has a man of unpopular opinions in the United States? The liberty of being shot in his home, or being trampled to death by a hired mob.

What liberty has a moderate Socialist in France? The liberty of being publicly assassinated, and having his assassin acquitted.

What liberty has the Hindu, or the Korean, or the Japanese trade-unionist?

The letter closed with a denunciation of 'the rich foreigners, who cause Russia to be blockaded and exhausted by civil and external wars.' To these capitalists rather than to the Bolsheviki -he attributes most of the tragic misery in Russia to-day.

One would wish for space to review Russell's writings on religion. Though he hardly ever quotes Christ, his sentences constantly call to mind Christ's parables and principles. In his Essence of Religion he puts forth very simply and beautifully his faith that 'the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' He says that Christianity has three essences of religion-worship, acquiescence, and

love. In his attitude to children, too, he reminds one forcibly of the Nazarene. His powerful plea, that those who have

What liberty is there now except for rich authority over children should have the members of powerful nations?

What liberty have German mothers had since 1914? The liberty to see their children die of starvation, or grow up stunted and diseased because rival groups of rich men had decided that proletarians should kill each other.

What liberty has the Sinn Feiner at the present day? The liberty of having his

VOL. 310-NO. 4026

deepest reverence for the young soul, recalls the incident of Christ welcoming the children of Salem. 'For of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.'

Probably the best book from which to gain a glimpse into Russell's social philosophy is the Principles of Social Reconstruction..

« VorigeDoorgaan »