Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stratofortress (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 24 October 2004 (→/* Liberal or Democratic Socialist?: */). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

--- 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 

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 ---

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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. 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

"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

"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

"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 calssical 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/Liberalism --Stratofortress 11:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)