Was Bertrand Russell an evil behind the scenes puppet master advocating biological genocide of non-white races and a policy of mutually assured destruction as the best way to peace? Did he advocate a scientific totalitarianism, and the engineering of the worldviews of the ruled through brainwashing techniques?
Or was he an activist against nuclear proliferation, and for social democracy?
Or some wierd combination of these two seemingly incommensurate views?
Anyone who knows anything about what I’m talking about, please inform.
My guess, having read some of his work, would point me towards the second option. I think he was opposed to war generally, and IIRC was imprisoned for opposing England’s involvement in WWI. I believe he thought that the Kaiser was on a relatively limited aquisition excursion, but was propelled into a larger conflict by English and Commonwealth involvement. I don’t know if he was correct or not, but that is what I remember reading.
Bertrand Russell organized the international War Crimes Tribunal during the Vietnam War.
Rather than examining someone’s selection of quotations (without knowing that person’s agenda), you might consider exploring Russell for yourself.
The Russell Peace Lectures are an annual lecture series that focuses on issues related to the maintenance of world peace based on respect for human rights, democracy and justice. Not much genocide advocated there. You will find a link to information about them at the Bertrand Russell Archives site.
I disagree that his politics was complex. He was a rather run of the mill pacifist. His work in analytical philosophy (epistemology) was far more important, in the end, than his work in politics.
I once heard Bertrand Russell speak, at a ban-the-bomb rally in London in 1961, So I know that one thing he believed in was unilateral disarmament for the UK. In fact, he was apparently a pacifist all his life.
He later denied this, of course, telling Nation magazine in '53 that the whole story was a “communist invention”, although by '59, he was forced to admit his embarrassing indiscretions. But despite what some people perceived as squirming, he had all along rationalized his view as prevention rather than aggression. His concern was that Stalin was the new Hitler, and that his hegemony would have no bounds. As a philosopher, Russell’s ethical take on eliminating the Soviet Union was along the lines of exterminating a cock roach infestation, or applying antibiotics to an infection. Like any pacifist pushed against the wall, he framed the issue as survival of others, rather than himself.
