Talk:Bertrand Russell
I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's "liberal bias." For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.
The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree
- hope they have given the world
- LOL. RobS 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism. harmlesstree
