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

• reminiscent?

Did the Czar exterminate 50 million? RobS 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote," Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work." Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree

RobS,

Given that it was you who placed that quote in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided compelling evidence that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.

Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to thank harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.

--Robledo 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right. Good way to wiggle out of an argument. The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards. Sounds like Marxist reasoning. RobS 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The point you just made is so absurd, especially in light of what I have written, that I do not even what to dignify it with a response. However, I will 

And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.

harmlesstree,

Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.

--Robledo 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)