Political Ideals [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Bertrand Russell was a British mathematician, logician, philosopher, historian, pacifist and social critic. He possessed prodigious intellectual talents as can be surmised by the scope and quality of his activities. He is also a recipient of the 1950 Nobel Prize in Literature for his various humanist writings.

As someone who has a keen semi-professional interest in mathematics, and foundational issues of mathematics in particular, I have been familiar for a while with Russell's mathematical and logical works. His influence on those topics has been profound and enduring. Recently I have also read his short book The Problems of Philosophy. It is a short, pedagogical work that deals with some of the most enduring questions that have characterized philosophy. Russell is clearly an authority in the field, and this shows in his command of the topics that he discusses.

Having these things in mind, I was expecting "Political Ideals" to be a very stimulating and intellectually sophisticated work worthy of the reputation of this great man. Unfortunately I was severely disappointed. This book is no enduring tract on political philosophy. I can think of many bright undergraduate students that I've known personally, from all parts of the political and ideological spectrum, who would have presented a much more coherent and persuasive account of their own political ideals. The tone of the book is polemical in the extreme, without much thought being given to any deep analysis. Russell makes many sweeping statements and complete generalizations without as much as hinting at demonstrating their validity. Despite his implied concern for the common man, Russell's overall attitude is that of a naïve elitist. He seems to believe that the highest ideal that human beings aspire fro is the unbridled creativity. This sounds grand in principle, but in reality most people would much prefer to spend their leisure time engaging in some form of passive or semi-passive entertainment. One gets an impression that in Russell's mind an ideal society is one filled with identical replicas of Bertrand Russell. As I mentioned earlier, I am a big fan of much of Russell's work, but I'd rather live in a world dominated by ordinary Joe Schmos than in one filled with brilliant geniuses. And for that kind of world political ideals of Bertrand Russell leave a lot to be desired.

My understanding of this book is that Bertrand Russell thought nationalism (more commonly called "patriotism" and seen as a good thing) was one of the main causes of war by creating the feeling that one's country is always right, which caused the suspicion against other countries and peoples, and that the "possessive" feeling for material goods that leads to greed and the desire for power that not only makes the leader of a country want to take territory from another in order to increase his power, but was the cause of colonialism, and in his view is a part of the competition that is inherent in capitalism, although that view of capitalism can be disputed.

I think he viewed free trade as an important step, although a minor one, in reducing tensions among countries by showing that other countries had value to offer to us, which would make us more likely to want to cooperate with them in international affairs and therefore would reduce the likelihood of war and would show that other people in the world are more similar to use than they are different. It seems he also realized that the labor movement would be one of the principle opponents to free trade, although he didn't explicitly say that. Also I don't think he could have envisioned how rapid globalization caused by free trade would become and that it would not just be displaced workers in opposition to this change.

I feel it is refreshing reading a book about pacificism that was written in 1917, when World War I was still raging, and by someone who was thrown in jail for writing his views against senseless war and his ideas how it can be stopped, even if his idea of a one world government and the abolition of capitalism can be called unrealistic. Also keep in mind that the League of Nations wasn't created until 1919 and the UN in 1945.

This book is definitely worth reading, but look for it at a library because such a small book isn't worth an exorbitant price.

Page 84: "Universal free trade would indubitably be of economic benefit to mankind, and would be adopted tomorrow if it were not for the hatred and suspicion which nations feel toward another."

Page 36: "At present, owing to the fact that all industrial changes tend to cause hardship to some section of wage earners, there is a tendency to technical conservatism on the part of labor, a dislike of innovations, new processes, and new methods."

Page 85: "National pride as it exists now, is almost exclusively concerned with power and dominion, and with its capacity of enforcing its will against the opposition of other nations."

Page 88: "Men must learn to be conscious of the common interests of mankind in which all are at one, rather than of those supposed interests in which the nations are divided."