Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:02 am

Part 1 of 2

Shripad Amrit Dange
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/16/20



Image
Shripad Amrit Dange
Member of the Indian Parliament for Bombay City North
In office: 15 April 1952 – 4 April 1957
Preceded by: Constituency established
Succeeded by: V. K. Krishna Menon
Member of the Indian Parliament for Bombay City Central
In office: 5 Apr 1957 – 31 March 1962
Preceded by: Jayashri Naishadh Raiji
Succeeded by: Vithal Balkrishna Gandhi
Member of the Indian Parliament for Bombay Central South
In office: 4 March 1967 – 27 December 1970
Preceded by: Vithal Balkrishna Gandhi
Succeeded by: Abdul Kader Salebhoy
Personal details
Born: 10 October 1899, Karanjgaon, Bombay Presidency, British India (now Maharashtra, India)
Died: 22 May 1991 (aged 91), Bombay, Maharashtra, India
Spouse(s): Ushatai Dange

Shripad Amrit Dange (10 October 1899 – 22 May 1991) was a founding member of the Communist Party of India (CPI) and a stalwart of Indian trade union movement. During the British Raj, Dange was arrested by the British authorities for communist and trade union activities and was jailed for an overall period of 13 years. After India's Independence, a series of events like Sino-Soviet split, Sino-Indian war, and the revelation that while in jail, Dange had written letters to the British Government, offering them cooperation, led to a split in the Communist Party of India, in 1964. The breakaway Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) emerged stronger both in terms of membership and their performance in the Indian Elections. Dange, who remained the Chairman of the CPI till 1978, was removed in that year because the majority of party workers were against Dange's political line of supporting Indian National Congress, and Indira Gandhi, the then Congress Prime Minister. He was expelled from the CPI in 1981. He joined the All India Communist Party (AICP), and later, United Communist Party of India. Towards the end, Dange got increasingly marginalised in the Indian Communist movement. He was also a well-known writer and was the founder of Socialist the first socialist weekly in India. Dange played an important role in the formation of Maharashtra state.

Early years

Shripad Amrutpant Dange was born in 1899, in the village of Karanjgaon in Niphad Taluka of Nashik District, Maharashtra. His father worked in Mumbai as a government officer and was a major landowner of the area and lived in one palace-like house in Karanjgaon. Dange was sent to study in Pune. He was expelled from college for organising a movement against compulsory teaching of the Bible. While in work, Dange was exposed to conditions of workers when he undertook voluntary work in the textile mill areas of Mumbai. Dange was drawn into active politics by the fervour of the nationalist movement against the British rule in India.[1] Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a veteran leader of the Indian National Congress from Maharashtra, the earliest proponent of [url]swaraj[/url] (complete independence) greatly inspired young Dange. Later, when Mahatma Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, Dange gave up his studies and joined the Independence movement.[1]

Swarāj (Hindi: स्वराज swa- "self", raj "rule") can mean generally self-governance or "self-rule", and was used synonymously with "home-rule" by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati and later on by Mohandas Gandhi, but the word usually refers to Gandhi's concept for Indian independence from foreign domination. Swaraj lays stress on governance, not by a hierarchical government, but by self governance through individuals and community building. The focus is on political decentralisation. Since this is against the political and social systems followed by Britain, Gandhi's concept of Swaraj advocated India's discarding British political, economic, bureaucratic, legal, military, and educational institutions. S. Satyamurti, Chittaranjan Das and Motilal Nehru were among a contrasting group of Swarajists who laid the foundation for parliamentary democracy in India.

-- Swaraj, by Wikipedia


He became interested in Marxism, while following the Russian Revolution of 1917. He grew increasingly skeptical about Gandhism, especially about Gandhi's promotion of cottage industries as the sole solution for India's economic ills, while overlooking possibilities of an industrial economy.

Gandhi Vs. Lenin

In 1921, Dange published a pamphlet titled Gandhi vs. Lenin, a comparative study of approaches of both the leaders; but, Lenin coming out as better of the two. This work proved to be a turning point in Dange's life. Prominent Marxist leader M.N. Roy read the work and went on to meet its young author, when he came to Mumbai. Ranchoddas Bhavan Lotvala, a flour mill owner from Mumbai who 'concerned himself for radical causes', also read this treatise and was impressed by its contents. Lotvala sponsored Dange's study of Marxism for several years, and together they built up a library of Marxist Literature and published translations of classics.[2]

In 1922, with Lotvala's help, Dange launched the English weekly, Socialist, the first Indian Marxist journal.[citation needed] Later Mohit Sen, Dange's contemporary and a well-known communist intellectual, wrote that Dange's articles in the Socialist impressed Lenin himself.[3]

Influence of Bolshevik Revolution

The second decade of the 20th century proved to be formative years for young Dange. The period also witnessed worldwide economic crises. There were long strikes in the industrialized world, especially in Britain. In India, the working class movement gained steady momentum during this period. It was during one of the long textile mill strikes that Dange got himself acquainted with the conditions of laborers.

The period also coincided with influence of Bolshevist ideas, following the Russian Revolution of 1917, manifesting in political events in countries outside Russia. This process was quickened by the establishment of the Third International or the Communist International, or in popular parlance—its abbreviated form -- Comintern, an international communist organisation founded in Moscow in March 1919. As a resolution adopted in the Founding Congress of the Comintern its stated objective was to fight 'by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State'.[4]

Meeting with M.N. Roy

M.N. Roy, an ex-member of the Anushilan Samiti, perhaps the most important secret revolutionary organisation operating in East Bengal in the opening years of the 20th century, went to Moscow in by the end of April 1920.[5] The new Russian government under Lenin evinced interest in him and encouraged him to form an Indian Communist Party. Roy went on to found the émigré Communist Party of India on 17 October 1920[6] in Tashkent. On his return to India, M.N. Roy who had read Gandhi Vs. Lenin met Dange in 1922. Dange at that time was closely associating with Lotvala to spread Marxian ideas. It was during this period that Dange grew in prominence as a Marxist; a sure way those days to invite antagonism from the British Government.

Foundation of the Communist Party of India

The British Empire saw the founding of Comintern as a disruptive force that would cause internal disorder. It viewed the nascent leftism in India with great suspicion. During the 1920s, the Government foisted a series of 'conspiracy cases'[7] against persons whom they suspected to have communist leanings.

Dange in the eyes of the British authorities

During this period M.N. Roy, the spokesperson of the Comintern, was seen as the most dangerous of Indian communists. During that time all the letters written by Roy from Moscow to Dange were intercepted and delivered.[8]

The British government initially did not think Dange was dangerous.

In 1923, they came to the conclusion that they did not have enough to prove anti-government activity as "Dange is a pure doctrinaire and nothing here seen of him indicate any real power of organisation." The Government of India soon changed its mind and the file notes that 'The evidence collected clearly shows that Dange has been an important figure in the conspiracy as constant reference to his name would be unavoidable in any event in the prosecution to be instituted against other members of the conspiracy at [Allahabad].[8]


The conspiracy referred to here is the Kanpur Conspiracy Case that would catapult Dange to a leader with national prominence.

Kanpur Bolshevik conspiracy case

On 17 March 1924, M.N. Roy, S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani, Singaravelu Chettiar, Ghulam Hussain and others were charged, in what was called the Cawnpore (now spelt Kanpur) Bolshevik Conspiracy case. The specific charge was that they as communists were seeking "to deprive the King Emperor of his sovereignty of British India, by complete separation of India from imperialistic Britain by a violent revolution."

The case attracted interest of the people towards Comintern plan to bring about violent revolution in India. Communist trials had taken place in India, in frontier towns like Peshawar where Russian trained muhajir communists were put on trial. "But no case had attracted public gaze like the Kanpur case. Pages of newspapers daily splashed sensational communist plans and people for the first time learned such a large scale about communism and its doctrines and the aims of the Communist International in India."[9]

Singaravelu Chettiar was released on account of illness. M.N. Roy was out of the country and therefore could not be arrested. Ghulam Hussain confessed that he had received money from the Russians in Kabul and was pardoned. Muzaffar Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani and Dange were sentenced for various terms of imprisonment.[9] This case was responsible for actively introducing communism to the Indian masses.[9] Dange was released from prison in 1925.

Formation of the Communist Party of India

The industrial town of Kanpur, in December 1925, witnessed a conference of different communist groups, under the chairmanship of Singaravelu Chettiar. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani were among the key organisers of the meeting. The meeting adopted a resolution for the formation of the Communist Party of India with its headquarters in Bombay.,[10] The British Government's extreme hostility towards communists, made them to decide not to openly function as a communist party; instead, they chose a more open and non-federated platform, under the name the Workers and Peasants Parties.

Initial years of labor movement in India

In 1920 the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) was formed at Mumbai by N.M. Joshi and others. Joshi was a philanthropist who was sympathetic to the workers'cause. At that time AITUC did not have a cohesive ideology, but it was sympathetic to the Indian National Congress.[11] When Dange wrote about the founding session of AITUC at Mumbai, he brought out the organisation's Congress roots:

The AITUC was guided principally by the Congress leaders. The masses at this period were being led by Lokmanya Tilak and his group, in which Lala Lajpat Rai from Punjab, Bepinchandra Pal from Bengal and others had a big place. Mahatma Gandhi had refused to sponsor the idea of founding the AITUC and so he did not attend.[12]


Communists were also largely excluded when, again in Mumbai, in 1923, jobbers and mill clerks came together and started Girni Kamgar Mahamandal (Great Association of Mill-Workers). They participated in the long textile strike in 1924.[13]

Girni Kamgar Union

The early trade union movement in India were not directly inspired by the communists. Dange played an important role in bringing the labor activists amongst Bombay textile workers under the communist umbrella. Girni Kamgar Mahamandal was split and the communists formed their own union, the Girni Kamgar Union during the general strike of 1928.

The linkages which were forged in this strike placed the communists firmly in control of the Girni Kamgar Mahamandal and enabled them to dominate trade union movement. They were now forced to confront problems forced by the structure of industrial relations. The initiative taken by the communist leadership in reflecting working class-militancy enabled them to establish their presence at the level of industry as a whole. To consolidate this position it was imperative that the Girni Kamgar Union as it is now called to penetrate the level of the individual mill...On 30 October 1928 the Girni Kamgar Union had a membership of 324; by the end of that they boasted 54000 members.[13]


Two long and bitter strikes in 1928 and 1929 involving the members of Girni Kamgar Union followed. Dange was the general secretary of the Girni Kamgar Union. For their role in the strikes he was arrested along with Muzaffar Ahmed and Shaukat Usmani.

Dange edited the Marathi journal, Kranti, the official organ of the Girni Kamgar Union from the time of its inception.

Comintern's involvement

Believing that the world capitalism was in crisis, during the 1920s the Comintern deployed its workers to various countries. Indian communists had forged a close relationship with Communist Party of Great Britain. In 1926 and 1927 members of the British Communist Party, notably Philip Spratt and Ben Bradley, came to India.[14] mandated by Comintern to work among the industrial laborers of Bombay and Calcutta(present spelling: Kolkatta). Workers' and Peasants' Parties were started in those cities and in the United Provinces.

The communists were addressing ground level problems and as a result "N.M. Joshi, in spite of money and no persecution from the government lost the leadership (of AITUC) to the communists.[15]" The communists took over the leadership of the AITUC in December 1929, when their rivals, led by N.M.Joshi, walked out of the session, and founded a rival organisation. Like rest of the world, it was a period of great unrest in India too.

In India throughout 1928 and 1929 there was a strong wave of strikes, on the railroads, in ironworks and in the textile industry. 31 million working days lost in 1928, through industrial disputes. Trade union numbers and organisation grew rapidly during this period."[16]


Muzaffar Ahmed, Usmani and Dange joined these later campaigns on their release from jail.

Meerut Conspiracy Case

Main article: Meerut Conspiracy Case

Image
Portrait of 25 of the Meerut Prisoners taken outside the jail. Back row (left to right): K. N. Sehgal, S. S. Josh, H. L. Hutchinson, Shaukat Usmani, B. F. Bradley, A. Prasad, P. Spratt, G. Adhikari. Middle Row: R. R. Mitra, Gopen Chakravarti, Kishori Lal Ghosh, L. R. Kadam, D. R. Thengdi, Goura Shanker, S. Bannerjee, K. N. Joglekar, P. C. Joshi, Muzaffar Ahmed. Front Row: M. G. Desai, D. Goswami, R.S. Nimbkar, S.S. Mirajkar, S.A. Dange, S. V. Ghate, Gopal Basak.

The British Government was clearly worried about the growing influence of the Communist International. Its ultimate objective, so the government perceived, was to achieve "complete paralysis and overthrow of existing Governments in every country (including India) by means of a general strike and armed uprising.".[16] The government's immediate response was to foist yet another conspiracy case—the Meerut Conspiracy Case.

In more than one way the Meerut Conspiracy case trial helped the Communist Party of India to consolidate its position among workers. Dange along with 32 persons were arrested on or about 20 March 1929[16] and were put on trial under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, which declares,

Whoever within or without British India conspires to commit any of the offenses punishable by Section 121 or to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India or any part thereof, or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Government of India or any local Government, shall be punished with transportation for life,[17] or any shorter term, or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years.


The charges

The main charges were that in 1921 Dange, Shaukat Usmani and Muzaffar Ahmad entered into a conspiracy to establish a branch of Comintern in India and they were helped by various persons, including the accused Philip Spratt and Benjamin Francis Bradley, sent to India by the Communist International. The aim of the accused persons, according to the charges raised against them was

to deprive the King Emperor of the sovereignty of British India, and for such purpose to use the methods and carry out the programme and plan of campaign outlined and ordained by the Communist International.


The Sessions Court in Meerut awarded stringent sentences to the accused in January 1933. Out of the accused 27 persons were convicted with various durations of 'transportation'. While Muzaffar Ahmed was transported for life, Dange, Spratt, Ghate, Joglekar and Nimbkar were each awarded transportation for a period of 12 years. On appeal, in July 1933, the sentences of Ahmed, Dange and Usmani were reduced three years. Reductions were also made in the sentences of other convicts.[16]

Impact of Meerut Conspiracy Case

Though all the accused were not communists, the charges framed against them betrayed the British government's fear for growth of communist ideas in India. In the trial the accused were all labeled as Bolsheviks. During the trial of four and a half years, the defendants turned the courtroom into a public platform to espouse their cause. As a result, the trial saw strengthening of the communist movement in the country. Harkishan Singh Surjeet, a former General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) wrote about the aftermath of the Meerut Conspiracy case thus:

a Party with a centralized apparatus, came into being only after the release of the Meerut prisoners, in 1933. The Meerut Conspiracy Case, though launched to suppress the communist movement, provided the opportunity for Communists to propagate their ideas. It came out with its own manifesto and was affiliated to the Communist International in 1934.[18]


The CPI and the independence movement

During the period, prior to India's Independence, the Communist Party of India's responses to freedom struggle were dictated by the Comintern's views. After its admission to the Third International, the Communist Party of India was seen to be guided by the policies imposed by Joseph Stalin on the international communist movement. Stalin's policies were, in turn, dictated by Russia's geopolitical interests. As a result the positions taken by the CPI ran many times counter to popular nationalist sentiments, leading to erosion of the Party's popular base.

Up to 1934, the CPI viewed India's freedom struggle as a movement of the reactionary bourgeoisie politicians. The British government had banned communist activities from 1934 to 1938. When the Comintern adopted the Georgi Dimitrov thesis of popular front against fascism, CPI declared support for the Congress in 1938. The communist leaders like Dinkar Mehta, Sajjad Zaheer, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, and Soli Batliwala became members of the national executive of the Congress Socialist Party.

The Raj re-banned the CPI in 1939, for its initial anti-War stance. The line was changed when, following the Nazi-Soviet pact (1939-40). The Communist Party of India did not take an active stance against Adolf Hitler and his policies. But when Hitler attacked Poland, the Communist Party of India had called World War II, an 'Imperialist War'. But when he attacked the Soviet Union, the same Communist Party of India decided to call the war, a People's War[19].

After the USSR had sided with the Great Britain in the war, the Communist Party of India was legalised for the first time. Saying that the freedom struggle would impede the war against fascism, the CPI stayed away from the freedom struggle. The Indian National Congress was able to politically corner the communists, as the popular sentiments were overwhelmingly supporting Gandhi's Quit India Movement.

Dange in 'P.C. Joshi era'

After the sudden arrest of then Somnath Lahiri, Secretary of CPI, during end-1935, Puran Chand Joshi became the first general secretary of Communist Party of India, for a period from 1935 to 1947—or as it was called the 'P.C. Joshi era.'

In 1943 Dange for the first was elected to the Central Committee of the CPI.[20] In October 1944 he attended the XVII Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain in London as a fraternal representative from the Communist Party of India. Between 1929 and 1935 Dange remained in jail for role in Meerut conspiracy case. After being released from jail in 1935, Dange went on a speaking tour in Andhra Pradesh on the invitation of the Congress Socialist Party leadership from there. His tour resulted in that many prominent Congress Socialist Party leaders from Andhra Pradesh joining the Communist Party.[21] After he came out of the jail, up to 1939, he was working for the Party and was trying increase its hold over the trade union movement.

Around this time Dange's legislative career also took off. He was elected to the Bombay Legislative Assembly as Communist candidate in 1946.

Dange's rise in trade union movement

In 1939 Dange was convicted to four months of rigorous imprisonment for organising a strike of textile workers. He was arrested on 11 March 1940 for leading a general strike of textile workers in Bombay and interned in the Deoli Detention Camp. At Deoli several other communist leaders were also jailed along with him. In prison he started a political study circle amongst the prisoners. He was released in 1943.[22]

Even before the takeover of the AITUC by the communists, in 1927, Dange was elected Assistant Secretary of AITUC.[23]" During the year 1943- 1944 Dange was elected for the first time as the chairman of the All India Trade Unions Congress.

In 1944-1945 he was a delegate to the World Trade Union Conference in London. In 1945-1947 he became the vice chairman of the All India Trade Union Congress. Also in October 1945 he became a member of the Executive Committee and chairman of the General Council of the World Federation of Trade Unions. In February 1947, Dange again became the chairman of All India Trade Union Congress and continued to be at the helm of that organisation either as general secretary or chairman.

CPI on the eve of independence

Around the time that the British decided to transfer power to the Indians, the CPI found itself in a not very happy situation. For once their disassociation with the Quit India movement made them unpopular with the people. Secondly huge support that the Congress garnered ran contrary the CPI's portrayal of it as a mere bourgeoisie party.

Internationally also CPI found itself lost. At the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. Stalin disbanded Comintern in 1943. It is surmised that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II Allies (particularly Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) not to suspect that the Soviet Union was pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.[24]

The CPI was in a state of confusion and the Party clearly needed advice. In July 1947, P.C. Joshi, the then General Secretary, secured Dange's entry to USSR.

Dange in Moscow

On the day India got freedom, 15 August 1947 Dange was in Moscow talking to the Soviet leaders. Andrei Zhdanov and Mikhail Suslov, leading Soviet theorists of the period, participated in the 1947 talks with Dange.

The following free and frank exchange between Dange and Zhdanov on the day after the India's Independence day, that is, on 16 August 1947, brings out the chaotic situation in which the Communist Party of India found itself at that historical juncture:

Further com. Zhdanov asks com. Dange to explain why the Congress managed to strengthen its authority.

Comrade Dange opines that during the war the Congress, taking into account the anti-English sentiments of the wide masses, opposed the English and by this action acquired a semblance of a national organisation fighting for the national sovereignty.

The Communist Party during the war supported the allies, including the English and by this action weakened its influence as a lot of people could not correctly understand the position of the Party. A considerable part of the supporters of the Communist Party during the war shifted to the Congress.[25]


The Soviet leaders closely questioned Dange about the Congress. For years questions regarding what attitude should be taken toward the Congress would be debated inside the left parties in India. The following portion shows Dange's attitude towards the Congress and Muslim League, at that time.

Com. Zhdanov: What is Nehru – a capitalist or a landowner?

Com. Dange: A bourgeois.

Com. Zhdanov: And Jinnah?

Com. Dange: Also a bourgeois. He is an eminent advocate, has acquired a lot of money and has invested it in enterprises. Nehru also belongs to a family of eminent advocates and has invested his substantial savings in the Indian company of Tata.... .[25]


The 1950s: internal strifes within the CPI

Around the time of independence the CPI was sending confusing signals—from left to centrist to right. General Secretary Joshi was advocating unity with the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru. By the end of 1947, P.C. Joshi found himself in the minority. His line was challenged by the radicals who claimed that "ye azaadi jhoota hai[26]". B.T. Ranadive, a prominent radical leader, was inspired by the great strides that the Chinese communists had made, and wanted a similar model for India.

The Communist Party of India’s second congress at Calcutta (new spelling Kolkata) on 28 February 1948, the Zhdanov line of insurrection was adopted on the premise that 'free' India was only a "semi-colony of British imperialism". Joshi, who stood collaboration with Congress was sidelined, and Ranadive became the General Secretary. Open call for taking up arms, known as 'Calcutta thesis' and was closely identified with its main proponent and the new General Secretary, Ranadive. As a result insurgencies took place in Tripura, Telangana and Travancore.

A rebellion in the Telangana region in the northern part of what was to become Andhra Pradesh, a peasant struggle against the feudal regime of the Nizam was already happening when Calcutta thesis was adopted. To use the Telangana rebellion to herald in the Indian revolution was one of the main pillars of Ranadive strategy. During the peak of Telangana rebellion, 3,000 villages and some 41,000 square kilometers of territory were involved in the revolt. The ruler of Hyderabad state, nizam had not yet acceded his territory to India, but the violence of the communist-led rebellion, the central government sent in the army in September 1948. By November 1949, Hyderabad had been forced to accede to the Indian union, and, by October 1951, the violent phase of the Telangana movement had been suppressed.

Dange had been a member of the CPI Central Committee since the founding of the Party. But during 1950-1951 he was not included in the Central Committee.

Stalin's intervention

At the start of the 1950s, the CPI was bitterly divided over the manner in which political power in India should be captured. The militants advocated the 'Chinese path', or capture of power through violent means and the other group that included Dange was for the 'Indian path'(a moderate strategy to capture power within the constraints of Indian Constitution.

The proponents of the `Chinese path' led by C. Rajeswara Rao and those of the `Indian path' led by Ajoy Ghosh had set up their own centers and the CPI was on the verge of a split.[27]

On 30 May 1950, the extremists with hundreds of their followers split from the Party and came out in the open.[28] When the war of attrition between both continued unabated, the Soviet Communists intervened. The warring leaders were invited to Russia for a discussion with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1951.

Events that followed were described Mohit Sen thus:

Four leaders, two from each center, were brought to Moscow. They travelled in cognito as manual workers in a Soviet ship from Calcutta. They were Ajoy Ghosh and S.A. Dange from the 'Indian Path', and C. Rajeswara Rao and M. Basava Punnaiah, from the Chinese path.

S.A. Dange and C. Rajeswara Rao have both told me about the meeting with the leaders of the CPSU. The first meeting was attended from the Soviet side by Comrades Suslov, Malenkov and Molotov. It was on the third day that it was announced that Comrade Stalin would attend. So he did for subsequent days....

Stalin's view also was that India was not an independent country but ruled indirectly by British colonialists. He also agreed that the Communists could eventually advance only by heading an armed revolution. But this would not be of the Chinese type. He strongly advised that the armed struggle being conducted in Telangana should be ended.[27]


In 1951, Dange was elected to both the Central Committee and the Politburo. In 1952 Dange lost elections to the Indian Parliament from Bombay.

Visit of Bulganin and Khrushchev to India

In mid-1955, Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Indian Prime Minister visited USSR and received a tremendous welcome. This was followed by the maiden visit to India of the Soviet leaders, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev in 1955. Jawaharlal Nehru, frankly put forward to the visiting Soviet leaders that the Communist Party of India was claiming to receive direction from the CPSU.

To this Khrushchev's response was a reiteration of the official Soviet Party line, that with the abolition of the Comintern, there was no organisation for leading the Communist Parties in other countries. Khrushchev and Bulganin's visit paved way for forging of a strong relationship between the Government of India (and later Congress Party) and the USSR, independent of CPI.

Further dissensions

The party was again on the verge of split at its fourth congress held at Palakkad in 1956. Against the ultra-left line of Ranadive, Dange and P.C. Joshi were for reviving the 'popular front' and working with the ruling Indian National Congress. These differences within the Communist Party of India, up to Palakkad congress was an internal matter of the Party; the international communist movement at that time was united. Ranadive who was earlier shunned for his extremism made a comeback to the Party leadership at the Palakkad congress.

Formation of Maharashtra

After India's independence in 1947, the princely states were integrated into the Indian Union, and the Deccan States including Kolhapur were integrated into Bombay State, which was created from the former Bombay Presidency in 1950. The Government of India had appointed the States Re-organisation Committee for setting up states on the basis of language. This committee recommended a bi-lingual state called Bombay for Maharashtra-Gujarat, with Bombay as its capital. The state came into being on 1 November 1956, but stirred up political unrest in both the states. In Maharashtra, under the leadership of Keshavrao Jedhe, an all-party meeting was held in Pune and a joint Maharashtra council (Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti) was founded. In the second general elections the Samiti defeated the stalwarts of Congress by securing 101 seats out of 133, including 12 from Mumbai.

Image
Shripad Amrit Dange representing the CPI at the fifth congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, Berlin. 12 July 1958.

Dange was elected to the 2nd Lok Sabha in 1957 from Bombay City (Central) Constituency of the State of Bombay.[29]

Dange along with S.M. Joshi, N.G. Gore and P.K. Atre fought relentlessly for Samyukta Maharashtra, a struggle that cost a lot of lives. Finally on 1 May 1960, pre-dominantly Marathi-speaking state of Maharashtra was born.

Dange was later elected to the 4th Lok Sabha in 1967 from Bombay City (Central) Constituency of the Maharashtra State.[29]

Sino-Indian border dispute

Dange was the leader of the Communist group in the House of the People (Lok Sabha), when the Sino-Indian border dispute broke out—an event that would sharpen the differences within the CPI. The Calcutta Congress at the end of September 1959 brought into open the differences within the Party. As Manchester Guardian reported:

Half the party wants to express its support for the Congress stand that there will be no gift (to China) of the and that India stands broadly by the McMahon line. The other half wants to go back to guerrilla tactics and give up the parliamentary experiment. The nationalist parliamentary wing of the CP, led by Ajoy Ghosh, believes that the time for violence has not come and that Moscow counsels patience.... The other half of the ICP (sic), fed up with the parliamentary experiment, argues that Kerala proved that the ruling class will never allow a people's Government to capture power democratically. This is the first time that the ICP has been so s divided, and that the division has become so public.[30]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:02 am

Part 2 of 2

International Socialists vs. Nationalists

Sino-Indian border dispute brought into open bitter internal war within the CPI between those who described themselves as international socialists and others who advocated that national sentiments should not be completely ignored. Mr. Dange, leader of the Party in Parliament, M.N. Govindan Nair, secretary of the Kerala unit, and Dr. Muzaffar Ahmed of Uttar Pradesh were the proponents of the nationalist cause.

The conflict came in the open when P.C. Joshi, who controlled the Party's weekly New Age, suppressed Mr. Dange's statement in Parliament that he sharply stood by the McMahon line, and also a resolution passed by Maharashtra State Committee supporting Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the border dispute. Joshi was earlier sidelined for his pro-Congress advocacy, but later rehabilitated by making him the editor of the Party journal.

Initial advantage with Dange

An important leader publicly to join the nationalist Dange faction was A.K. Gopalan, the deputy leader of the Communist group in Lok Sabha. He was quoted by a newspaper that he(Gopalan) was shocked by the 'Ladakh incident',[31] lamenting the loss of Indian lives, and stating that the country would support Nehru in his efforts to avoid any repetition of it.[32]

In the initial stages, Dange's nationalist line was the dominant one. To quote Manchester Guardian, "Hence not only the Party's extremists of the Joshi wing, but also the middle-of-the-road Moscow faction were at that time visibly losing ground. This favourable development was probably accelerated by the attitude of studied neutrality adopted in Moscow, where the Soviet press printed both the Chinese and Indian accounts of the Ladakh skirmish, without appearing to take sides.[33] His general nationalist communist position had the backing of the Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh units of the party.

Dange losing ground

But soon after opposition against Dange erupted in the Party when Dange came up with his own definition of communist internationalism, different from standard Marxian understanding of the term. In his view internationalism is valid only for 'domestic' issues such as Hungary and Tibet, which were the 'domestic' affairs of the USSR and China. But he regards relations between India and China as non-domestic, so that Indian communists may side with the Indian Government in this specific cases. Even the comrades who sided with Dange on the Sino-Indian border issue, were not ready to compromise on basic tenets of communism. Dange was severely criticised and he had own up his fault in the Party forum, through a process called 'self-criticism'.[34]

There was also a consolidation among the communist internationalists at this stage. The Swiss paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung identified B. T. Ranadive, a former general secretary(1948–50), as supporting P.C. Joshi in his pro-Chinese attitude. According to these two militants, Nehru ought to be condemned by the Party as a "reactionary", and the policy of Congress should be resolutely opposed. At this stage, the secretariat's eight members were divided as follows:

• Dange, Gopalan, Ahmad - nationalist communists
• Joshi, Ranadive - extremists, pro-China
• Bhupesh Gupta - former extremist, present views uncertain.
• Ajoy Ghosh and one other not identified by the newspaper(probably Basavapunnaiah ) - centralists, attempting to restore unity.[35]

Sino-Indian War

Main article: Sino-Indian War

In the meanwhile fighting began on the Himalayan border on 10 October 1962 between the Chinese People's Liberation Army and Army of India. The war ended when the Chinese unilaterally declared a ceasefire on 20 November 1962, which went into effect at midnight.

Sino-Soviet differences

Main article: Sino-Soviet split

Another issue that fueled the split in the Communist Party of India was parting of the ways between the USSR and China. Though the conflict had a long history, it came out in open in 1959, Khrushchev sought to appease the West during a period of the Cold War known as 'The Thaw', by holding a summit meeting with U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. Two other reasons were USSR's unwillingness to support Chinese nuclear program and their neutrality in the initial days of Sino-Indian border conflict. These events greatly offended Mao Zedong and the other Chinese Communist leaders.

Left vs. Right

In 1962, Mao criticised Khrushchev for backing down in the Cuban missile crisis. By that time the Soviets were openly supporting India in its border dispute with China. These events were followed by formal statements of each side's ideological positions: the Chinese came out with their document in June 1963.[36] The Soviets too came out with their own document.[37] Thereafter the two parties stopped communicating.

Chairman Dange

These events had their direct fall-out in the Communist Party of India. Former nationalist vs. international socialist debate had now turned into a conflict between the Right (the Russian line) and the Left (the Chinese line). Dange, who was supporting the Nehru Government, was the main leader of the Right. After the death of Secretary-General Ajoy Ghosh in January 1962, a truce was established. Dange, who at that time was the head of the All-India Trade Union Congress, became the first chairman of the CPI and the centrist leader, Namboodiripad, became the Secretary-General.

Split in the CPI

At that time, the Government of India had arrested 400 prominent communist leaders of the Left wing for their alleged pro-China views. Dange, seized this opportunity, a move that would further erode his base, to reassert the right-wing control over the pro-left strongholds of West Bengal and the Punjab. In February 1963—with 48 of its 110 members absent, in detention or in hiding—the National Council voted to "administer the work of the West Bengal Party" through a Provincial Organising Committee acting on behalf of the Central Secretariat.

Through such partisan measures Dange alienated the centrist leader, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, who resigned from the post of Secretary- General, leaving Dange to take over the post. By earlier 1963 the Left had established an underground organisation for what amounted to a breakaway West Bengal Communist Party Unit. According to prominent leftist fortnightly Link, New Delhi, the new outfit enjoyed the support of 14,000 of the 17,000 Communist Party members in the state.[38] Similar moves were made in many other states by the left-wing. Release of their leaders from jails by the state governments also helped the leftists to consolidate their position among cadres.

In September 1963, A.K. Gopalan (formerly with Dange in 1959) was able to organise an impressive anti-official party rally in Calcutta. Dange still had a majority of two-to-one on the council, but the emerging alliance between the Leftists and Namboodiripad's smaller Centrist faction forced him to be cautious. However, at that stage, with secessionist organisations already at work in several states, no caution or concession could halt the drift towards a split; though attempts were still not given up for unity. Suddenly in March 1964, a trigger was provided by what was called the 'Dange letters', that exploded on the face of the Party, precipitating a split.

Dange letters

The Current, a Bombay magazine published these letters which were said to be written by Dange to the British Viceroy from prison in 1924, after his conviction in the Kanpur Conspiracy Case, and in which he had promised to cooperate with the British government.[39] Dange, who was the chairman of the Party got the Secretariat to denounce the letters as a forgery. But slide towards split became unstoppable. His opponents exploited this opening, and called for his removal from the leadership to facilitate investigation.

The birth of CPI(M)

The cascading events following the Dange Letters ultimately resulted in the split of the Party in October, 1964. The left challenge came into the open with a conference to prepare a party program, immediately after the Dange Letters. The showdown came on 11 April 1964 when 30 Leftists and two Centrist leaders. Namboodiripad and Jyoti Basu, walked out of a National Council meeting. and proceeded to appeal to all Indian Communists to repudiate the Dange leadership. National Council suspended the thirty-two leaders.

The left leaders who were ousted, in turn, announced a separated national convention. After the Tenali convention the CPI left-wing organised party district and state conferences. Also it was decided in the Tenali convention to hold a party congress of the left-wing in Calcutta. The Calcutta Congress was held during 31 October - 7 November 1964. Simultaneously, the official Party under Dange convened a Party Congress of the Communist Party of India in Bombay. The split was complete. The left group which assembled in Calcutta decided to adopt the name 'Communist Party of India (Marxist)'.This party also adopted its own political programme. P. Sundarayya was elected general secretary of CPI(M).

General Elections 1967

After the split, the first event that tested out the relative strengths of both groups was the Kerala Assembly Elections held in 1965. The Communist Party of India contested in 79 seats but only win 3 seats, polling about 5 lakh votes with 8.30% vote share. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) contested 73 seats, won 40, with about 13 lakh votes, 19.87% of the total.[40]

In 1967, General Elections to the Parliament, Dange won from the Bombay Central South Constituency. The results had again shown a weakening CPI. They contested in 109 seats, won only 23, with about 75 lakh votes ( that is 5.11% of total votes polled. The CPI(M) contested in 59, won 19, with 62 lakh votes(4.28%).[41]

In the state legislative elections held simultaneously, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) emerged as a major party in Kerala and West Bengal. In Kerala a United Front government led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad was formed. The Communist Party of India was a minor coalition partner. In West Bengal, Communist Party of India (Marxist) emerged as the main force, but the chief ministership of the coalition government was given to Ajoy Mukherjee of the Bangla Congress, a provincial break-away group of the Indian National Congress. For the Communist Party of India, The Kerala experiment of coexisting with Communist Party of India(Marxist) did not work for long.

Split in the trade union

Even after the party split, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Communist Party cadres remained unified in the All India Trade Union Congress. After the short-lived coexistence between both the Parties broke down in Kerala and also in West Bengal similar rupture happened, the trade union wing also split. In December 1969, eight Communist Party of India (Marxist) members walked out of an All India Trade Union Congress executive committee meeting. Later, the Marxist break-away members would organise an All India Trade Union Conference in Calcutta, on 28–31 May 1970. The Calcutta conference was the founding conference of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions, new Communist Party of India (Marxist) trade union.[42]

Collaborating with Congress

The issue whether to support Congress or not bedevilled the undivided Communist Party right from the year of independence, 1947, when the then general secretary P.C. Joshi strongly spoke in favour of it. Joshi was marginalised for this, yet the question persisted and was one of the reasons for the CPI split. It was increasingly becoming clear that anti-Congress faction, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was stronger of the two groups.

In the late 1960s, however, the mood within the Communist Party of India turned strongly anti-Congress. In the Bombay party congress in 1968, the CPI took the decision of forging an anti-Congress front. This had resulted in collaborating with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) for a short while. Soon differences between both Parties again came out in the open. From 1970 onwards Communist Party of India started once again working with the Congress. Dange was one of the principal architects of this union.

Bangladesh War

One of the events that facilitated cooperating with Congress was the Bangladesh Liberation War. In 1971 Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) declared its independence from Pakistan. The Pakistani military tried to quell the uprising; but Indian military intervention thwarted such moves. There was confusion within the ranks of the Indian communists—while the pro-Soviet CPI had no problem in supporting the war, and the Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, the CPI(M) found itself in quandary participated in the resistance struggle, the pro-China communist groups were in a quandary, because China had sided with Pakistan in the war.[citation needed]

CPI-led government in Kerala

During the period 1970-1977, CPI was a strong ally of the Congress party and nothing typified better than the alliance both the parties forged in Kerala. Both the parties formed a coalition government together in that state, with the CPI-leader C. Achutha Menon as the Chief Minister. In Kerala legislative elections held in 1970, the Communist Party of India won only 16 seats, out of a total of 133, whereas the coalition leader Indian National Congress had won 30 seats.[43] Still, Congress accepted Achuta Menon's leadership till the next election that would be held seven years later.

The CPI and the Emergency

Main article: Indian Emergency (1975–1977)

A state of emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in June 1975, by invoking Article 352 of the Constitution of India, and it lasted for 21 months. Emergency provisions suspended all the Constitutional rights and gave power to rule by decree. It enabled the Prime Minister to suspend elections and civil liberties.

Indira Gandhi took this extreme step due to a host of reasons. The venerated Gandhian leader Jaya Prakash Narayan's agitation in Bihar for change in provincial government, was getting increasingly against the Central Government. More immediate reason for clamping of emergency was that in a judgment dated 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court held that Mrs. Gandhi was guilty on the charge of misuse of government machinery for her election campaign. The case was filed by Raj Narain, who had been recently defeated in the parliamentary election by Indira Gandhi. The court declared her election null and void and unseated her from her seat in Lok Sabha. The court also banned her from contesting any election for an additional six years.

CPI support to Indira Gandhi

CPI saw emergency as an opportunity and welcomed it 'as necessary to combat fascist movement led by Jaiprakash Narayan and the parties of right reaction. CPI leaders believed they could turn emergency into a communist revolution. Almost a decade of close cooperation with Indira Gandhi and the Congress seemed to be on the verge of bringing about a massive revolutionary breakthrough for the CPI.[44]

Backlash: General elections, 1977

In 1977, Indira Gandhi went for general elections and CPI was still supporting her. The Congress lost the elections and emergency was lifted. The CPI suffered its worst ever losses in general elections. CPI(M) was able to hold on to its base in West Bengal, but, electoral support for the CPI took a nosedive, as the following table would show:

Comparative Performance of the Communist Parties in General Elections of 1971 and 1977.[45][46]

Party / Seats(1971) / Seats (1977) / % of Votes(1971) / % of Votes(1977)

CPI / 23 / 07 / 4.73% / 2.82%
CPM / 25 / 22 / 5.12% / 4.29%
Total / 48 / 29 / 9.85% / 7.11%


Towards left unity

To both the communist parties, election results raised serious questions regarding their relevance in the Indian political system. Newly strewn up Bharatiya Lok Dal[47] - a medley of groups ranging from Congress rebels to Hindu party Jan Sangh - under the patronage of Jaiprakash Narayan, was able to garner 41.32% of the votes polled. Congress though lost heavily in terms of seats, still had 34.52% of popular votes. To the left parties the fact that these two parties accounted for more than three-fourth of the electorate and 449 out a total of 542 seats did suggest a possibility of a two (bourgeoisie) party political system. The result was a lot of soul searching for both the parties. Eventually both the parties would regroup and would form an alliance.

Dange's isolation in CPI

As one of the few parties that supported emergency, the CPI was under attack from all other quarters. In spite of strong pro-Indira arguments presented by Dange, CPI in its eleventh party congress at Bhatinda, repudiated the support to emergency and opted for a new policy of left democratic unity. In Bhatinda congress two separate groupings emerged, one led by Dange and another led by C. Rajeswara Rao. The Rajeswara Rao's faction was victorious and the Bhatinda congress confirmed the shift towards creating alliances with leftist forces against Congress. Dange's pro-Congress line was severely tested within his own party. Similarly in their tenth party congress held at Jullunder around the same time, CPI(M) also decided pursue a path of left unity.

Even after Bhatinda congress, Dange was able to retain some of his influence though the majority was moving towards unity with CPI(M). The main reason for this was CPI sharing power with the Congress in Kerala.

Initially, both parties differed on the concept of what left and democratic unity would mean. This came out in open in when leaders of both parties met for the first time after 1964 split in New Delhi on 13 April 1978. In spite of repudiation of emergency, the CPI was not ready to change its overall assessment of Congress. Congress according to CPI contained left and democratic elements. This stand also justified continued cooperation between Congress and CPI in Kerala.[48]

All India Communist Party

By 1980, the writing on the wall was clear. Poll alliance between CPI and CPI(M) was forged. CPI had parted ways with Congress in Kerala. The Dange group within the party was reduced to an insignificant minority. In 1980 a section of CPI cadre who wanted to retain the close relationship with the Congress, broke away from the Party and formed All India Communist Party. Roza Deshpande, the daughter of Dange and her husband Bani Deshpande, played an important role in organising the founding of the new party.[49] It is said that Dange himself was initially largely sceptical of a split in the CPI.[50]

The founders of All India Communist Party retained close communications with Dange. In May, 1981 the National Council of CPI expelled Dange. When the first conference of AICP was held in Meerut,[51] commencing on 13 March.[52] Dange turned up there uninvited and took charge of the new party. He was elected general secretary of the party.[53]

Marginalisation within the communist movement

Although having Dange as its leader, AICP was not able to attract any major nationwide following for two main reasons. Firstly, the Soviet Union did not give any political support to the new party. The founders of AICP were upholding the pro-Soviet CPI policy of cooperating with the National Congress, but the Soviets were not interested in a split within CPI. Secondly, the Congress showed limited interest towards the idea of having a national alliance with the new party.

AICP versus Congress

In the end, the two parties would be poised against each other in several local elections. Not only that, the Congress successfully outmaneuvered the new party in taking over a pro-Soviet goodwill organisation. As an alternative to the CPI-controlled Indian-Soviet Cultural Society (ISCUS), members of AICP and the Congress had set up the Friends of the Soviet Union. Eventually the control over this organisation was completely taken over by the Congress.[54]

Merger into United Communist Party of India

In 1987 AICP merged with the Indian Communist Party and formed the United Communist Party of India. Veteran communist leader Mohit Sen was the general secretary of the party until his death in 2003.

The party failed to register any presence in the country. In the 2007 assembly election in Uttar Pradesh, UCPI launched three candidates, Devi Dayal Yadav in Karki (572 votes, 0.49% of the votes in the constituency), Anand Kumar in Baberu (899 votes, 0.82%) and Vimal Krishan Srivastav in Banda (456 voes, 0.39%).[55] Similarly, in 2006 Tamil Nadu elections, UCPI could garner only 921 votes in the state.[56]

Death and legacy

Dange died at a Bombay hospital on 22 May 1991. He was given a state funeral by the Maharashtra state government.[57] He was survived by his wife Ushatai and daughter, Roza Deshpande.

Birth centenary

Seven years later, in 1998, it was decided to celebrate his birth centenary celebrations, starting from 10 October that year in a gathering of trade unionists in Mumbai. A committee was set up to undertake a project for instituting a memorial to Dange. The concept of the memorial approved in the meeting was that it would house a modern education center, a large library and facilities for research on various issues concerning the working class movement. There will also be a trade union school with hostel and canteen facilities.[58] This project did not take off.

Another attempt by various communist organisations was to hold a national communist conference in Mumbai on the occasion of Dange's birth centenary celebrations. But this had failed due to the paucity of funds. The communist organisations could not raise sufficient funds nor could find a generous sponsor to host the meet in Dange's own city. Therefore, the venue of the conference was shifted to Kerala.[59]

Honour by the Indian Parliament

On 10 December 2004, The Indian Parliament honoured Dange when Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India unveiled his statue along with other left leaders such as Acharya Narendra Deva and A.K. Gopalan in Parliament House. The 9-feet high bronze statue of Dange, sculpted by Vithoba Panchal, has been donated by the labor organisation, Shramik Pratishthan, Mumbai.[60]

Mitrokhin Archives

Controversies continued to dog Dange even after death. In what were supposedly based on KGB documents, notes smuggled out by former KGB spy Vasili Mitrokhin at the time of his defection to Britain, Christopher Andrew published, in 2005, a book[61] Mitrokhin Archive II, that contained details of alleged transactions between the CPI and the KGB during 1975-76, and it claimed that the money exchanged was between 4 to 8 lakh rupees a month. The supposed KGB papers claim that deceased CPI leaders Dange and C. Rajeswara Rao regularly received bribes and favours from the Russians in the mid-1970s and Dange even issued receipts for the money he received. This money changed hands from car windows in desolate areas near New Delhi, the book claimed.

Mitrokhin Archives are not KGB papers per se, but were notes taken by Vasili Mitrokhin over 30 years. CPI questioned the authenticity of these papers. "This is utter nonsense. We have said this before and we say it again that these documents haven't been verified and no one knows if these are real KGB papers," said CPI leader Manju Kumar Majumder, when the book was out,[62] Academicians like J. Arch Getty[63][64] and counter-intelligence specialists[65] had questioned the veracity of these papers.

Benediktov Diaries

Diaries of I.A. Benediktov, Russian ambassador to India during the 1960s named Indian communist leaders seeking aid from the Soviet Union. Dange's name figured in the first excerpt is from a 17 January 1962 entry from the journal Benediktov describing a conversation with Bhupesh Gupta, the then Secretary of the National Council of CPI.

Gupta reported that after the death of Ghosh at the present time in the party there is an acute insufficiency of means for the preelection campaign. He expressed the fear that with the death of Ghosh the source for receiving means for the communist party from the CPSU might be closed. These questions were handled by Ghosh alone, Gupta underscored. He never consulted with him /Gupta/, and even less with [Elamulam M.S.] Nambudiripad and G. Nair/ with the latter two only about using the assistance/. All these matters were held in strictest secrecy from other leaders of the party and members of the National Council. This explains the fact that not a single report on this question has appeared in the press. Gupta said that he cannot singlehandedly take on responsibility in questions of assistance, therefore he considers it necessary to consult with Nambudiripad, whom he characterized as a person of crystalline honesty and whom Ghosh trusted. Gupta confidentially reported that A. Ghosh had not consulted on this problem with Akhmed or with [Shripad Amrit] Dange, who once proposed that he entrust to him alone all matters connected with the receipt of aid from abroad.[66]


In as much as Mitrokhin archive was based entirely on notes based on alleged primary sources, the Benediktov diaries also brought in Dange through a mere hearsay. But both these documents were used by the critics of communism to attack the communist parties and Dange.

Dange the author

Dange's arrival in the political arena was through the pamphlet Gandhi vs. Lenin that got him two important contacts of his youth: M.N. Roy and Lotwala, the rich flour-mill owner from Bombay. The latter helped him to launch the first ever socialist magazine in India, The Socialist. Mohit Sen said that Dange's articles in The Socialist impressed Lenin himself.[67]

Dange was a keen follower of literature. He had published a book called Literature and People that advocated socialist realism, as opposed to elitism.

From Primitive Communism to Slavery

Dange's major work, From Primitive Communism to Slavery was published in 1949. The book attempted to analyze stages of growth of society in ancient India. The author had painfully researched ancient scriptures and other sources to make it a definitive tome. Engels’ book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State was the kind of road map he used. He analyzed the ancient epics to arrive at the reasons for origin of private property in India. The first draft of the book was written in Yerwada Central Jail between October 1942 and January 1943.

Dange's magnum opus was severely criticised by historian D.D. Kosambi, who said that in order to defend Engels, he had to deny Dange. He went on to say that Dange’s work was unquestionably a caricature of Engel’s work.[68] Kosambi was especially severe when he said, ‘Marxism is not a substitute for thinking, but a tool of analysis which must be used, with a certain minimum of skill and understanding, upon the proper material.[69]

The book was released in 2002, under the title Vedic India by his daughter Roza and her husband, Bani Deshpande. Dange was again criticised for "his ideas on ancient India and his discovery of the ideals of communism in the primitive ages (and hence a glorification of the ancient culture) left him exposed to charges of having read Marxism in the most unscientific fashion".[70]

Notes

1. "Obituary reference in the Indian Parliament". Parliament of India website. Retrieved 18 April 2009.
2. Riepe, Dale (1977). "Marxism in India". Marxism, Revolution and Peace. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 41. ISBN 978-90-6032-066-2. Retrieved 18 April 2009.
3. Sen, Mohit (2002). "The Dange Centenary". S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Progressive Publishers, Kolkata. p. 43.
4. MI5 History. The Communist Threat. in chapter The Inter-War Period
5. Roy, Samaren M.N. Roy: A Political Biography Orient Longman 1997. p.54.
6. Documents of History of the Communist Party of India (ed.) G. Adhikari with the assistance of Dilip Bose. New Delhi: People's Publishing House. 1982. p. 229.
7. Criminal cases in which the accused are charged with actions that would alienate the sovereignty of British India, from the British King.
8. "Ganachari, Arvind". Evolution of Law of 'Sedition' in the Context of the Indian Freedom Struggle 1837-1922 in Dossal, Mariam and Maloni, Ruby (ed.) State Intervention and Popular Response: Western India in the Nineteenth Century Mumbai: Popular Prakashan. 1999. p. 175.
9. Ralhan, O.P. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Political Parties New Delhi: Anmol Publications p.336
10. The two major Indian communist parties, namely, Communist Party Of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) maintain different views on exactly when the Communist Party of India was founded. The date maintained as the foundation day by the CPI is 26 December 1925. But according to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the party was founded in Tashkent, USSR on 17 October 1920.
11. Ganachari, Arvind. Evolution of Law of 'Sedition' in the Context of the Indian Freedom Struggle 1837-1922 in Dossal, Mariam and Maloni, Ruby (ed.) State Intervention and Popular Response: Western India in the Nineteenth Century Mumbai: Popular Prakashan. 1999. p. 176.
12. "S.A. Dange" in his introduction to AITUC 50 Years Documents, Volume 1. published by AITUC Publications. p.xxiii.
13. "Chandavarker, Rajanarayan". Imperial Power and popular politics: Class, resistance and state in India New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. p.131
14. Tomlinson, Professor B.R. (Tom). India Text Notes left on the net by Tomlinson, Professor B.R. (Tom). Department of History, School for Oriental and African Studies.SOAS. University of London London
15. Chandavarker, Rajanarayan. Imperial Power and popular politics: Class, resistance and state in India New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. p.183
16. "Working Class Movement Library" Meerut Conspiracy Trial Archived 13 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine
17. During the British rule, a severe form of punishment was banishing convicts to a penal settlement in Andaman Islands.
18. Surjeet, Harkishan Singh 75th Anniversary of the Formation of the Communist Party of India, an article in The Marxist, New Delhi, Volume: 2, No. 1 Issue: January- March 1984
19. Standard, Business (5 April 2016). "Letters: Downfall of the CPI". Business Standard India.
20. B.T. Ranadive. S.A. Dange (1959) in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.) S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 26.
21. B.T. Ranadive. S.A. Dange (1959) in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.) S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 23.
22. B.T. Ranadive. S.A. Dange (1959) in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.) S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 25.
23. B.T. Ranadive. S.A. Dange (1959) in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.) S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 19.
24. Robert Service, Stalin. A biography. (Macmillan - London, 2004), pp 444-445
25. "Transcript" of the Discussion held on 16.VIII.1947 from 6 pm to 8 between Comrade A.A. Zhdanov with Com. Shripad Amrit Dange, Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party Of India.
26. This freedom is bogus.
27. "Sen, Mohit". A Traveller and the Road – The Journey of an Indian Communist. New Delhi: Rupa Co., 2003. p. 81
28. Rival Red Party Is Set Up in India, Forswearing the Tactic of Violence 31 May 1950 New York Times. New York.
29. "Member's Profile - 4th Lok Sabha". Lok Sabha Secretariat, New delhi. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
30. The Manchester Guardian. 30 September 1959.
31. Heavy Indian casualties occurred a peak of the Karakorum on the Aksai-chin plateau. The area was said to be a part of Ladakh by the Indian Government, but the Chinese claimed it to be a part of Sinkiang. In 1959 the Indian patrols suffered heavy losses in the hands of Chinese army in this region and is referred to as Ladakh incident.
32. The Baltimore Sun. 6 October 1959.
33. Manchester Guardian. 30 October 1959.
34. Manchester Guardian. 29 October 1959.
35. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. 27 October 1959.
36. The Chinese Communist Party's Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist MovementArchived 16 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
37. Open Letter of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Archived 25 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
38. Link, 7 July 1963. New Delhi
39. 7 March 1964, The Current, Bombay.
40. Statistical Report of General Elections, 1965 to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala The Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
41. Statistical Report of General Elections, 1967 to the Fourth Lok Sabha Archived 4 March 2009 at the Wayback MachineThe Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
42. Bose, Shanti Shekar. A Brief Note on the Contents of Documents of the Communist Movement in India. National Book Agency: Kolkata. 2005. p. 56-59
43. Statistical Report of General Elections, 1970 to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
44. page 224, Coalition Strategies and Tactics of Indian Communism by Stanley A. Kochanek appearing in Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties, edited by Trond Gilber Published 1989 Duke University Press
45. Statistical Report on General Election 1971 to the Fifth Lok Sabha. Archived 16 June 2007 at the Wayback MachineThe Election Commission of India, New Delhi
46. Statistical Report on General Election 1977 to the Sixth Lok Sabha. Archived 31 October 2008 at the Wayback MachineThe Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
47. Bharatiya Lok Dal was formed at the end of 1974 through the fusion of seven parties opposed to Indira Gandhi. The leader of the BLD was Charan Singh. In 1977, the Bharatiya Lok Dal combined with the Jan Sangh and anti- Indira Gandhi breakaway Indian National Congress (Organisation) to form the Janata Party. The newly formed Janata Party contested the 1977 elections, and got majority to form the first non-Congress Government in India. But the Janata Party contested the election on the Bharatiya Lok Dal symbol. Therefore, on record of the Election Commission of India, the government was formed by the Bharatiya Lok Dal, and not, Janata Party.
48. page 226, Coalition Strategies and Tactics of Indian Communism by Stanley A. Kochanek appearing in Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties, edited by Trond Gilber Published 1989 Duke University Press
49. Andersen, Walter K.. India in 1981: Stronger Political Authority and Social Tension, published in Asian Survey, Vol. 22, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1981: Part II (Feb., 1982), pp. 119-135
50. Sen, Mohit. A Traveller and the Road – The Journey of an Indian Communist. New Delhi: Rupa Co., 2003. p. 388
51. Das Gupta, Jagadish, in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.), S.A. Dange – A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 101
52. New York Times 14 March 1981
53. Banerjee, Gopal (ed.), S.A. Dange – A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p.153
54. Bhattacharya, Mrimoy in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.), S.A. Dange – A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 141
55. Statistical Report on General Election 2007 to the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. The Election Commission of India. New Delhi.
56. Statistical Report on General Election 2006 to the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu The Election Commission of India. New Delhi.
57. Banerjee, Gopal. S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p. 13.
58. The Indian Express 7 July 1998.
59. The Indian Express 24 November 1998.
60. Press release from the office of the Speaker, Lok Sabha
61. A sequel to the earlier book Mitrokhin Archive published in 1999
62. "CPI's Dange, Rajeshwar named in KGB files". rediff.com website. 22 September 2005.
63. "Book Review by Getty". American Historical Review. Archived from the original on 10 March 2007.
64. B Raman (26 September 2005). "The Mitrokhin mystery". rediff.com. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
65. Former Indian counter-intelligence specialist Bahukutumbi Raman pointed out that Mitrokhin did not bring either the original documents or photocopies. Instead, he brought handwritten/typed notes of the contents of the documents.
66. "Russian Foreign Ministry Documents on the Soviet-Indian Relations and Sino-Indian Border Conflict. Cold War International History Project". Virtual Archive Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website. Archived from the original on 9 May 2012.
67. Sen, Mohit. The Dange Centenary in Banerjee, Gopal (ed.) S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers, 2002. p.43.
68. D.D. Kosambi. Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture. Review of S. A. Dange's India from Primitive Communism to Slavery, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, xxix (Poona, 1949), 271-77.
69. D.D. Kosambi. Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture. Review of S. A. Dange's India from Primitive Communism to Slavery, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, xxix (Poona, 1949). p.277.
70. Ananth, V. Krishna. Commentary on events, personalities. The Hindu 12 February 2002 Review of Problems of Indian Renaissance: S. A. Dange, Edited by Bani Deshpande and Roza Deshpande; Vichar Bharati Prakashan, Mumbai-400014.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:53 am

Part 1 of 3

Gandhi vs. Lenin
by S.A. [Shripad Amrit] Dange
1921
Printed by S. V. Lalit at Loksevak Press, Govardhan Building, Bombay No. 4,
Published by the Liberty Literature Co., 434, Thakurdwar, Bombay No. 2.

We shall not give the Govt. assistance to collect revenue. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice. We shall have our own courts, and if time comes, we shall not pay taxes."

-- Lok. B.G. Tilak. in 1906


CONTENTS.

• My own Foreword
• Chapter I: Introductory
• Chapter II: Society of Today: The Class War
• Chapter III: Gandhi vs. Lenin
• Chapter IV: "The Armed Blow"
• Chapter V: The Indian Revolution
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C

MY OWN FOREWORD.

Every book must have a preface or a foreword; and that preface must be from a well-known writer or a ‘leader’ standing high in public-favour. These are the first principles of publishing a book in our days. If we analyse prefaces to publications of our times, they fall into the following classes: The preface (1) containing a eulogy of the writer’s abilities to write on the particular subject in hand and pleading the necessity of such a book on that particular subject, (2) containing a summary of the subject-matter of the publication and one or two paltry suggestions, (3) containing an impartial judgement on the book by a man, who knows the subject very well and showing the descrepancies, if any. A good book with the 3rd kind of preface is a rarity now-a-days. Hack-writers, wishing to sell cheap, far and wide meet us at every book-stall with glaring placards, mentioning with great care the name of the preface or foreword-writer, who in ninety cases out of hundred is some demagogue assuming the airs of a patriot-leader in the politics of the day. The public seldom knows the troubles the poor writer has to undergo, to procure for their benefit, a foreword from some 'great leader,' with the key or stamp of whose name, he wishes to enter the regions of public favour. He has to introduce himself through several other less great leaders, satellites of the centre planet. ‘The Big Boy’ sometimes does not even know that his person is so well guarded by his faithful ‘crooks’. After introduction the poor preface-procurer, has to flatter the ‘great leader,' saying in the usual line, that he is the only one capable of giving any opinion on the subject and that the public would like to hear his views and that etc., etc. Then the ‘great leader,’ all smiles, condescends to go through the book once. For some days, the poor writer waits dreaming that the book is being gone through. He returns to hear that on account of pressure of work, (of course public work because a ‘leader’ has no time to visit the race-courses and the speculation bazaars, at least openly,) he could not find time.* [I know of a well-known professor, a Marathi scholar, who could not find time to write a preface, until he or rather the time was paid for it!] But he would be glad to do it very soon. If the writer relying upon the words of that honest man has advertised the time, when the work was to be out, he has to express his regret that on account of ‘unforeseen circumstances the publication was delayed.’ After all these troubles of coming and going to the 'great leader’s’ house, sending in visiting cards, (for even in a leader’s house, men must not enter without sending in their names, like a Hindoo! Lok. Tilak was not a ‘well-bred leader’ for peasants could go and speak to him without 'announcing’ themselves!) the public gets some lessons in patriotism, the new spirit in the nation, their birthrights and fighting the battle of liberty to death and so on. [Now-a-days every writer must mention at least once the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs!] The readers, dazzled by the strong wording and high notions, never dream that the whole thing, over the signature of the great man that they are reading, has been written, not by himself, but by his learned private secretary, specially paid and maintained for this purpose!1 [Many capitalists and money-leaders of Bombay have their speeches, written by their private secretaries, who are sometimes bar-at-laws, and deliver them in currency committees and industrial conferences!] By this I do not mean that all publications are such. What 1 mean is simply this, that if a foreword is to be a mere eulogy of the author or a summary of the subject-matter to follow, it is better that the book should be without any foreword, because the reader can very well know both the writer and the summary, after reading the book himself. However a novice in the line of writing has to suffer these hardships. Let us remember that Johnson suffered much more before he became Dr. Johnson!

Now I will begin my own true foreword. I thought of writing this booklet, when at the beginning of the N.C.O. movement our opponents began to discredit it, by pretending to find signs of Bolshevik activity in the movement and thus kill it. The public knew very little of the Bolsheviks beyond some fables, created by news-paper booming. Seeing this I thought of writing this booklet, to show the extreme contrast between the methods of N.C.O. activity and the Bolshevik plan, to accomplish their ideals. There is not much literature, available for such a work, on the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks; because our Government takes great care to guard the gates of India against the entry of authentic literature on the subject. What has been allowed to enter, is written by men who hate the Bolsheviks and are of imperialistic tendencies. In such a situation, it is difficult to write with confidence on the subject. However my purpose will be served, if the booklet gives at least an idea of the elementary principles of the great movement in Russia and of the hypocrisy of those who would class N.C.O. with Bolshevism, if my countrymen come to recognize the magnitude of extremism to which we will have to go in our struggle for emancipation and to expect and be ready for Government Terrorism, a veritable greater Ireland on the Indian soil!

My foreword is finished. I am sorry, at the end 1 cannot add the author’s script to mention and thank some kind friend for having read and corrected the proofs of my book, as is the custom; for I myself had to do the work!!

Bombay,
April 1921.
S. A. DANGE.

Chapter I: Introductory.

"The Earth is of God and it cannot be accursed.”

-- Mazzini.


Acquisitiveness, vanity, rivalry and love of power! When the great massive genius of the Macedonian Conqueror lay silent in Babylon, perhaps Aristotle in his philosophic mood might have murmured, “Acquisitiveness vanity, rivalry and love of power, what wert thou, but a mixture of these, that now thou dost thus lie there in dust!” When the dormant fire in the huts on the Arab sands blazed into flames, what else but these moved them to put the unbelievers to sabres. The Golden Rule of Haroun-al-Rashjid or the days of devastation by the nomadic hordes of flying Zenghiz Khan were ruled by these and these only. Nothing but the volcanic irruptions of these seething elements in the human mind fill the most interesting and busy periods of History. Discord in the harmonious rule of the world is the headline of History. Peoples of the world possessed no written history so long as there was harmony. The day when they did the first thing that could be written as history, was the day of the irruption of these elements, a clay of discord in the House of God!

Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy arc the symbolic measurements that read to you the gradual extension of the Kingdom of these Imperial Majesties, acquisitiveness, vanity, rivalry and love of power. When then kingdom extended only over one mastermind in a nation, there was Monarchy. When many, many such master-minds became participators in the rule of tyranny and came under the sway of these fascinating, skin-beautiful hydra-heads of the disfigured sides of human mind, there was Aristocracy. And last of all, when a sufficiently large number became bondsmen to these governing instruments of crime, a number sufficient to drown the voice of God within man, by its cheers of joy for the attainment of what they thought to be the heavenly form of life, under the sun and beyond the sun, it was called the advent of Democracy. So,

Monarchy: All not-freemen except one.

Aristocracy: Most not-freemen except a few.

Democracy: Majority not-freemen except a powerful minority. Such was and such is the position of the contending masses in their struggle towards the realization of the ideal of mutual association and unhampered life of individuals. As long as oppression was centred in one head and one hand— as long as there was Monarchy — the struggle for emancipation was not a hard one, which is clearly exemplified by the comparative ease, with which even mighty monarchies were overthrown in the ancient past. But as soon as the ranks of oppression began to be recruited from the proud intellectuals and the so-called chosen of the people, as monarchy became seconded actively by aristocracy, the struggle for emancipation became still more hard. The common citizen, looking with hatred and awe to the palacial manors of the chosen grinders of the people and ground down under the systems of forced labour1 [In France and Veth in India.] and taxation2 [The Aristocrats were exempted from taxation in France and the Ministry of Turgot and Necker failed because they advocated taxation for all without exception. It was one of the causes that led to the Rev. in 1789.] for the benefit of the upper or heavenly, head-born3 [The Brahmanical class.] classes, whether in India or in Europe, lost all faith in himself and came to consider himself to be born for nothing but labour, fruitless for himself, fruitful for his chosen grinders. The individual was reduced to the state even below that of a hunting-beast, so much so that once in France there existed a law authorizing a Seigneur, as he returned from hunting, to kill not more than two Serfs and refresh his feet in their warm blood and bowels1. [Carlyle’s Fr. Rev.] From slaves of the monarchs to serfs of the seigneurs or the chosen higher, in the icy zones of Europe, men’s faith in the higher law and higher ideals, became chilled, while the hot imaginative mind of the Indian under the sun, losing all hope in the present matter-of-fact life, became resigned and pessimistic and sat, with eyes turned towards heaven, considering salvation in death or in the rejection of worldly life2. [Especially the school of Sanyasism in Hindu Philosophy and the school of Hinayanas in Buddhism.] Until at last it took the whole life of Luther, Rousseau and Voltaire, to teach man to consider himself as man, to reveal to the famished individual that he was the sovereign of his destiny and of his life. “They recovered to humanity its lost little-deeds.” This was a revelation of good as well as evil. The individual was sovereign! Ah! Then why shall he not conquer and be free! Monarchies with their guilded thrones, and Aristocracies with their chateaus built of the hunger and curses of the poor, tumbled down. The individual was free and was sovereign! But it was the beginning of evil too. Possessing no ideal but the negation of a lie, negation of subjection to the chosen few, and not being given side by side, the ideal of subjection to the Higher Law of God, to life of common good and association, the individual strove only to suppress the lie! But when it was suppressed, what remained? The whole daemonic nature of man remained,— hurled forth to rage blindly without rule or rein; savage itself, yet with all the tools and weapons of civilization: a spectacle new in History3 [Carlyle’s Fr. Rev.]. The individual thinking only of his rights and never of duties, substituted himself in the place of those whom he had overthrown, with the difference that where there were the chosen few, there came the many from the common file, but still participators in the continuation of the same criminal rule of oppression. As the ranks of oppression began to be filled from the oppressed themselves, the struggle became still more hard and bitter. Under Democracy people found that they themselves being participators, were oppressors of themselves. The nobles, Sirdars and aristocrats of the old order, were followed in the new one by capitalists and entrepreneurs. Liberty for the individual was recognized a little but liberty for other nations was denied. Whole nationalities began to subject others to slavery.

The initiation of the second stage of emancipation of the individual from the rule of the privileged or the rise of individualism in Europe began with the French Revolution. The very heart and centre of the rights of man suffered from ebb and flow, on account of the vile plotters of authority, who read their doom in the new age. Metternich and his associates stemmed the tide of the consciousness of the individual, for some time, until at last came the year 1848, the year of revolutions and constitutions, after which people saw many from amongst themselves in the high throne of democracy. It seemed as if the days of tyranny were over, thanks to the French Revolution and the all-leveling campaigns of the Corsican conqueror. The peoples dined over the constitutions and democracy waved the banners. They thought themselves happy and free and forgot the pains that slavery inflicts on man and newly thought of conquests, of putting others in slavery. They had been taught ‘‘everyone for himself,” “here on earth and nowhere else.” With such doctrines, digested and turned into flesh and blood of their life, their ideal of life became “acquisitiveness, vanity rivalry and love of power.” History had begun with these Crooked Four. And after centuries of toil and blood-flow of martyrs, what was the result, what change? The result and change was that the executive power in the dominion of these Crooked Four was transferred from monarchs and aristocrat-slave-owners into the hands of many of the slaves themselves, who exulting in the change of hands, became sergeants of these devilish elements in their turn.

As such in their zeal they turned for conquests and conquered India, Africa, Persia and other principalities of the East. But we are chiefly concerned with India and its evolution under these newly emancipated slaves and slaveowners of the civilized order.

India with her water-tight compartments of the divisions of her peoples into classes, had evolved a philosophy and an Indian mind, which had fully realized and imbibed the principles of that philosophy. And this philosophy was specially and thoroughly efficient to maintain and promote the spirit of that particular form of social division. It was nothing but the Hindu philosophy and view of life that had maintained the class divisions of India, in their origin designed to maintain and facilitate a division of social labour1 [Mr. B. G. Tilak on caste system in India.], but in later stages becoming obsolete and oppressive.

The doctrine in Hindu philosophy, that the whole development of the human race, and course of events, was pre-arranged by God, and the individual was nothing but an instrument in the fulfilment, in the practical realization of this pre-arranged plan of the universe, made the individual a firm believer in the doctrine of fatalism. This led Indians to find the cause of every calamity, of every good as well as evil, of every injustice, in their preordained destiny, before which they thought their potent energies to be powerless to achieve anything which apparently seemed to be against the mysterious settled course of events. And they judged of this opposition of events, or their favourableness, not from any plausible causes, but from omens, from predictions of astrologers, mahants and fakirs. Such methods abound in societies where individuals, having lost faith in their subjective energies, seek revelation of the predestined course in objective signs and utterances. Another principle, a necessary corollary to the first, was that of contentment. Since the individual was unable to change or undo anything, as everything that was was there according to an already settled plan, what was the use of struggle? In contentment they must live, in submission to the lot that had fallen to them according to their destiny. The natural result was that men became inactive, less struggling, and less persevering1 [The Sanskrit proverb that the Dakshinatyas are enthusiastic at the beginning well illustrates this view.]. And moreover, this habit of mind was helped by the comparative easiness with which Nature yielded to the Indians the necessaries of life. The Indians formed a character of accepting the existing order of the day without demur, and of submitting to the miseries that arose from the obsolete and oppressive forms of the social order in which they found themselves born. In full accordance with the principle of contentment, and the pessimistic view of life, they were never interested in the pursuits of gaining mastership over the forces of Nature, to add to the ease of life by inventions, or explorations, or exploitations, unless it became absolutely necessary for a decent upkeep of life. For all these virtues (!) the Europeans naturally compliment us, since it is to their advantage, and necessary for their existence in India, for these virtues of living on few necessaries of life, of law-abiding nature, of aversion to rapid and radical changes or revolutions. Perhaps these very virtues have become at this stage in Indian politics very much detrimental to our own interests!

In spite of all this, what saved the Indians from the deteriorating and pernicious effects of such doctrines was their extreme faith in God and Religion. Only that marvellous faith, the most distinguishing feature of the Indian character, saved them from the complete extinction of their race, or decay from within due to immobility.

And Indian History shows that if ever there have been great struggles, they have been for that faith and that Religion which the Indians cherish. If ever true Hindu States of the people have been built by the people, and not by ambitious monarchs, they have been built for the protection, preservation, and promulgation of that faith and Religion. The Buddhist Empires, and the Maratba Revolution, clearly testify to that.

Such principles made the Indians indifferent to the miseries of the social order, which sometimes became so oppressive that great minds had to overthrow or modify them, as in the days of Jnaneshwar or Tukaram. However, the character of divinity created behind these divisions,1 [Geeta.] and often misunderstood in the real sense, supported them, and the serfdom or the bondage to the higher classes continued to grow in India, while the same was being destroyed in the European world. So it was that when the aggressive spirit of Europe began to extend its activities, it found easy matter for subjugation in India. The struggle for conquests was between the acquisitive spirit of the Whites, and the governing powers of the Indian principalities. The masses in India were immersed in themselves, and never thought of the foreigner. They had seen many such coming and going, guests for a while.

But the new guest showed no signs of ceasing to be a guest with the dinner of spoils he had received, as others had done. But when the economic drain, the grinding of the new master began to pinch the stomachs of the masses, they began to search for the cause. But instead of finding and striking at the root of the evil, they retired into themselves and still more cut down their necessities, murmuring that it was God’s will, and that it was their fate that was to be blamed!


But it was now time for the masses of India to awaken to the new spirit that was coming from the Whites of Europe, and either to assimilate it, or reject it and give it a death-blow. But the Indians, with their want of faith in their power, without subjective consciousness, were unable to do anything of this kind. And as Rousseau and Voltaire were required to spend a whole life in teaching the individual his rights to freedom and sovereignty to make the individual conscious of his latent powers, so the whole life of the great genius of Tilak was required to make the Indians feel that they had a right to individual freedom as everybody else had, and that it was their sacred right and duty to fight for the accomplishment of that freedom.

With the advent of the European conquerors in the land, and the subsequent permanence of their rule, the system of jurisprudence introduced by the new rulers possessed much of the spirit of the European systems, though through thoughtfulness, and as a measure of policy, much of the necessary character of the old systems of law prevalent in the customs of the people was retained by the new rulers. Yet the vast change was that the divisions of the social whole into classes, possessed no credit with the rulers, who naturally disregarded them in the promulgation of law. The principle of these immemorial divisions lost its sanction and support of the temporal power, though they continued to exist on the support of the so-called religious sanction, and the habitual obedience of the people.

The new foreigners could not claim to be more civilized than their conquered subjects, if civilization meant refined virtues, and character, and mental qualities of high order. The only thing in which they could claim superiority was their mastery over the forces of Nature, their artful and ingenious science of mechanism: Evidently the people showed no love or loyalty of that nature, which the Marathas of the type of Jadhaves showed towards the Moghuls. These white foreigners had come to exploit the country for the aggrandisement of the personal interests of the members of their race, and the collective interests of their nationalities. Naturally they fostered a system of education designed to turn out, generation after generation, men with a spirit that considered itself always subservient to that of the foreigners, men who found themselves vastly separated from the masses of their countrymen in sentiments and in character. This cleavage between the intellectuals and the masses was to the advantage of the rulers, who found in the intellectuals obedient servants to them, helping and supporting their tyrannical, life-sucking system of government. This was the greatest danger that India had to face at the end of the 18th century. A peasantry that numbered 80% of the population, wringing its hands on account of scarcity, due to the wealth-drain caused by an ingenious system of taxation, and a class of intellectuals who only, in any country, can lead the masses, and show them the roots of evil, estranged from the masses, a class of intellectuals unable to understand their sentiments and character; thus was the dangerous situation of India when the Genius of Tilak began to work to stem the tide of the increasing evil.

With an all-comprehensive genius, a true hero in the Carlylian sense, he started the campaign of speaking boldly and vigourously, of criticizing the iron rule of tyranny, and of claiming it as his right to speak out what he thought, and to speak it direct. He suffered the consequences of this. But his suffering was necessary to shake the masses from their somnambulism; and he was successful. It set them thinking, which revealed to them the source of all their trouble. They followed their saviour implicitly. He became a joining link between the intellectuals and the masses. Through him the intellectuals came to realize their duty, and to lead the masses, and love them. The yawning cleavage was filled up. He taught the masses their individual rights to freedom, to free speech, to be left alone in their land, and not to be exploited for the sake of foreigners. His efforts made India conscious of the outside world, and brought her in level with the ideas that were governing the forces in the new world. But India’s faith in the higher Law and Religion was not corrupted by the new ideas of individual rights, as was the case with the nations of Europe. This very fundamental characteristic raised the fighting Genius of Tilak to the high pedestal of divinity itself.


Thus the Tilak period was one of consciousness of rights. And History shows that such consciousness walks hand in hand with a simple and sincere demand of constitutions. France demanded constitution of Louis XVI, who gave it but it “would not walk”. Italy demanded it of Prince Albert, Russia demanded it of the Czar and got the worthless Duma. Hungary did the same and got the blow of Metternich. So almost everywhere in the earlier stages of assertion of rights, constitution — fighting has been the first step. And History also shows that at the appearance of this step, repression has been the resort of tyrants. Such typical scenes as happened in France can be met with in the history of every people fighting for liberty. “Dreary, languid do these (masses) struggle in their obscure remoteness, their health cheerless, their diet thin. For them in this world rises no era of hope; hardly now in the other,— if it be not hope in the gloomy rest of Death, for their faith too is failing. Untaught, uncomforted, unfed! A dumb generation; their voice only an inarticulate cry; spokesman in the King’s Council, in the world's forum, they have none that finds credence. At rare intervals they will fling down their hoes and hammers, and to the astonishment of thinking mankind, flock hither and thither, dangerous, aimless, get the length even of Versailles, Turgot is altering the corn-trades, abrogating the absurdest corn laws; there is dearth real, or were it even "fictitious,” an indubitable scarcity of bread. And so on the 2nd of May, 1775, these waste multitudes do here at Versailles Chateau, in widespread wretchedness, in sallow faces, squalor, winged raggedness, present, as in legible hieroglyphic writing, their Petition of Grievances. The Chateau gates must be shut, but the King will appear on the balcony and speak to them, they have seen the King’s face; their Petition of Grievances has been if not read, looked at. For answer, two of them are hanged on a new gallows forty feet high, and the rest are driven back to their dens for a time!”

The people going to the bureaucrat's palace in the capital Delhi in the April days of 1917, and the answer of guns to them— certainly a better and speedy remedy than a new gallows forty feet high — and the exploits of Dyrisim in the Punjab are the best reproductions of the French scenes, and the necessary accompaniment to constitution-fighting. Without such scenes, excitement and subsequent progress are impossible.

Besides this, the Tilak-period had produced another great thing. The leader of the peoples had also his treasure of independent philosophy. By his life and his masterly treatise on the Geeta, he put before the people, with an authority which he alone possessed, a new conception of man's actions. He saw the dangers arising from the pessimistic philosophy, and he changed the vision. The people of India are always in a mood to accept anything that came from a religious source. Geeta was the only source through which anybody could speak to the people. With forty years of study, and experience of action according to the Geeta, he revealed to the world, and to India in particular, the underlying principle of continuous Karma, without egoistic covetousness for the fruits of it, continuous Karma for the realization of divinity in man. By his living example, he taught to the Indians their duty of dedicating life to the service of Humanity without egoism. The people, who had been fed over doctrines of inaction, or Sadhuism, gradually changed their vision, and believed him. Most important of all was this conquest, of destroying the people's pessimism, and making them hopeful about the future, in struggle while serving humanity. The "Tilak-Period of Rights” taught the Indians, “The Earth is Of God, and it cannot be accursed.”

India is modernized. That is what we Indians are today. Upon modern India of Tilak, a Mahatma is making his experiments of new methods of winning liberty. The modern systems of fight initiated by Tilak are suspended, and the quite new methods of Tolstoyan school are being tried to win freedom. History is repeating itself. Struggle is followed by repression, repression is mostly followed by success of the people. Now martyrdom is weltering in blood. But in this land of the Buddhas, the tree of Liberty shall not be watered by the blood of despots. How long, Oh! Lord!


CHAPTER II: Society of To-day: The Class War.

We have seen that the peoples of many nations left behind them the stage of individual bondage to the higher and privileged classes and the rise of Individualism was the product of the struggle. We saw India modernised in the Tilak period in the first twenty years, of the twentieth century and we now find ourselves struggling to overthrow the foreign Yoke, as the first result of the appearance of Individualism amongst us.

We said India is modernized. And we further say that in it lies her life as well as her death. How?

The modernization of India is being carried directly on the European lines of progress. Naturally if the progress of events in Europe results in the happiness and well being of that people, the same type of progress perhaps may result in the happiness and well-being of our people too. And if it causes misery and death to them, it will do so in our land also. We say perhaps because the civilization of one people, may not cause the well-being of another too, as it happened to the original natives of America and Australia, to whom the coming of the civilization of the Whites was a signal for the destruction of their races, though in some cases the destruction was brought about by a well-planned scheme of extermination, and not by the introduction of the new civilization. But what causes misery and death to a number of human beings in one place causes misery and death to another set of human beings in another place, if exceptional circumstances are left aside. A race of Eskimos from the polar regions would not flourish happily in the Indian climate as one of Negroes or Chinese would; but a number of human beings made to live in dense-packed cities and filthy houses, would certainly suffer from their pernicious effect, whether they be Eskimos, Indians or Chinese. The simple reason for all this seems to be that the forces of destruction and death work more uniformly than the forces of development and culture. So we will try to see what this new progress means to Europe and to us, whether it means life or death to Europe and life or death to us also.

Side by side with the work of emancipation of the common people from oppression, an industrial revolution took place in Europe, with which every student of history is quite familiar. This industrial revolution introduced the age of mechanism of our days. The whole course and standard of life of all communities, in which this revolution appeared, underwent vast radical changes. The old science of economics— though practically there was no such complicated science as now exists, — would not serve the purposes of the new social order that was ushered in by the revolution. Machinery-inventions made large scale production an easy possibility. But this large scale production, of course, necessitated huge investments in machinery plantations, which brought into existence a class of men who could make such investments, the class of capitalists. Mechanical production and output far superseded that of the home industries and village or guild-industries of the Medieval Ages. The ruin of these industries threw the old independent guild-labour-hands out of employment and thus brought them to the feet of the capitalists, who could propose their own terms to the labourers. The labourers could do nothing but offer themselves to these new masters on their conditions. This age of mechanism brought two changes in the life of the people. Machinery plantations could employ at one and the same time and place large numbers of labourers. The seats of such plantations became overflooded with population, chiefly composed of the labouring masses. The worsted condition of these masses on account of want of education as well as want of money and facilities for development made such city-life still worse. Labour hands that before lived in their villages, lost all their independence, the healthy condition of surroundings and the moral environments of open village life. On the other hand, the possibility to carry on unlimited production through machinery in a very short time, gave to the capitalists means of making vast profits, which intensified the feelings of acquisitiveness, vanity, rivalry and love of power. This made them disregard the condition of the labourers that they employed, and whom in course of time they began to consider as another piece of machinery. The old lords, serfs and slaves were abolished; but new kinds of lords and Slaves came into existence, without those obnoxious titles, under the name of capitalists and wage-earners. Monarchs waging wars for personal interests and whims, in the name of patriotism, ceased to exist. But a new monarchical class, that of capitalists, with their various titles of ‘Silver-Kings’ and ‘Copper Kings,’ with their executives of speculators, commission agents, exporters and importers, began to drag nations into wars, wars for their capitalistic interests, for capturing markets and countries to sell their goods. They worked out the labourers for hours like lifeless machines, produced vast quantities for the people of other nations, and in order that this surplus product be sold, they made wars. But why all this trouble? Why should the Manchester capitalist try to clothe the whole of India who can, and who could, if left alone, do without this philanthropy of these new slave-owners? Why could they not be content with clothing their own men abundantly and cheaply [produced]? And after all this competition and wars, who were to be benefited and happy? The labourers, who had toiled and suffered hardships? No! Not at all! The whole wealth, thus obtained by starving the labourers at home and ruining labourers abroad, through competition, went to satisfy the lust of the capitalists. The labourers were men as much as the capital-owners were, but these monsters had their lusts to be satisfied, had vain ambitions of being called men of millions. These monster-heads began to corner the wealth and land of the world, while the labouring masses suffered of want and hunger. Political parties and state mechanisms with their sham of democratic representations were dominated by their purses. Thus becoming masters of the political wheel, which alone is competent to effect reform in society, they could suppress the cry of lessening the miseries of the working-class.

Thus society of our times has come to be divided into three classes; “The capitalists that is the possessors of the means and implements of labour, namely lands, factories, ready money and raw material; contractors that is the heads and initiators of labour, commercial men, who represent or ought to represent intellect and the working men, who represent manual labour.” The capitalists have become the masters of the new slaves, who are not given the rights of human beings even. “Time for education, intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social functions and for social intercourse, for the free play of his bodily and mental activity— moonshine! But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its werewolf hunger for surplus labour, Capital oversteps not only the moral but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the working day. It usurps the time for growth, development and healthy maintenance of the body. It higgles over a meal-time, incorporating it, where possible, with the process of production itself, so that food is given to the labourer as to a mere means of production as coal is supplied to the boiler, grease and oil to the machinery. It reduces the sound sleep needed for the restoration, reparation, refreshment of bodily power to just so many hours of torpor, as the revival of an organism, absolutely exhausted renders essential. It is not the normal maintenance of the labour, which is to determine the limit of working day; it is the greatest possible daily expenditure of labour power, no matter how diseased, compulsory and painful it may be, which is to determine the labourer's period of repose. Capital cares nothing for the length of life of labour power. All that concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labour power that can be rendered fluent in a working day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of the labourer’s life as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility. Capital extends the labourer’s time of production during a given period by shortening his actual life time."1 [Karl Marx: Capital I, p. 249.]

Such intensity of the evil of the new system has generated a bitter hatred of the working classes towards the capitalists. To wrest from them more wages, shorter hours of work, strikes have become the order of the day. But such puissant methods do not move the capitalists, since in days of dearth of work, they being well-to-do and well-fed can afford to wait, while the poor labourer, living in a hand-to-mouth condition, has to yield and submit to worse conditions.

Such is the course of events in Europe, where society is daily faced with the problem of capital and labour, and the thoughtful of that community are scratching their heads to solve the problem.

We have seen India modernised and her industrialization is vehemently urged and carried on. Naturally her industrialization will be accomplished and is being accomplished on the lines of European systems. When this is done, surely, all the evils of European industrialism, all the methods of class-war between capitalism and labour, will rear their breeding here in our Society too.

Our country at present is suffering from the greatest danger of being impoverished to the last farthing and the last grain of corn by the avidity of European capitalists, assisted from within by our own men, and helped in their devilish designs by an oppressive foreign government. The impoverishment is being carried on quite methodically and constitutionally, which in the case of private persons would have amounted to ingenious robbery and homicide, not amounting to murder, by processes of slow starvation. The 200 millions of our peasantry are reduced to a level of want and suffering by heavy taxes, which are squandered in paying foreign military contingents,1 [In the budget for 1921-22, Rs. 66 croros i.e. 51 p. c. of the total receipts are appropriated for military and in this it must be remembered that the European Jack-boot is paid 4 times more than the Indian Sepoy. Perhaps the Luxurious Moghul soldiers of Aurangzeb’s camp required much less!] maintained for the so-called defence of the country from the frontier tribes, who perhaps never think of India, but really maintained to shoot down patriotism2 [Sir William Vincent's speech in L. A, clearly reveals this motive.] and in pensioning monstrous crops of European civilians, who are the worst possible lot in the whole governing system, and who turn traitorous to the interests of India, after grazing abundantly with their kith and kin on her golden-pasture-lands, as soon as they leave her shores.3 [Lord Curzon and Lord Sydenham are the best examples to illustrate this.] Another method of impoverishing is the continuous export of Indian corn to feed European countries, for which they pay us back by prohibiting our emigrant settlers from lands where our men had suffered hardships to clear the land of marshes and cultivate it.4 [As in South and East Africa.] Government declares scarcity in one part of India, and from another part exports corn to other nations,5 [When scarcity was declared in Kaira district, 1.5 million tons of wheat, 1.9 millions tons of rice were exported from India. Govt, complained for want of transport tonnage while 40,000 waggons wore engaged in simply transporting coal. Foreign machinery must be first fed before starving Indian human beings!] the whole profiteering business being carried by European contractors and capitalists. Our peasantry sells the corn for the high prices offered in order to satisfy the lashing tax-collector, and turns to extract from the land more produce, which in course of time will deprive our cultivated areas of fertility, and cause still greater scarcity. This system of causing dearth finds a somewhat similar parallel1 [Such parallelisms between the Fr. peasantry before the Revolution and ours are not of our own making. Vaughan Nash says in his "The Great Famine," referring to the rigorous collection of land revenue, "cold comfort this for people, who are brought as low as the peasants of France before the revolution, who have ruin and hunger as their daily portion, while plague and cholera stand over them ready to strike. To them appears the Govt. of the British Empire in the likeness of the Broker’s man."] in French history before the Great Revolution. We will quote a few lines. "In the meantime, in contrast with this life in high places, poverty and misery had increased among the people, and most markedly among the cultivators of the soil, to a degree that would appear incredible if we had not at hand the testimonies of men of all class, men who were more than moderate in their views. (Perhaps those very men are born amongst us to-day in our Moderate camp!) Speculators, seconded by Government, and the more covetous courtiers, traded on this misery, and had organized what was termed by contemporaries the Pact of Hunger. By a series of market operations, the whole corn of the country was exported, and when the premium paid on exportations had been received, the whole stock was accumulated in Jersey and Guernsey and other depots and sold again, when the needs of the people had reached their greatest extremity, at very high prices, as though it had arrived from America.”2 [Fr. Revolution. Mazzini p. 278.] If the hunger-stricken peasantry of France answered this by the Reign of Terror, were they to be blamed? And yet William Pitt and his liberty-loving (!) England bribed other nations to kill this France!!

The fourth method of impoverishment is the industrial development of India, which instead of benefiting us, intensifies our poverty, a phenomena quite peculiar to India. Indians clamour for the development of their resources. The Government, with paternal love, condescends to do that. Industries that yield vast profits are undertaken, not by Government, but by European capitalists. And the whole profits from them thus are poured into the pockets of White capitalism. Indian labour, and India’s resources, are exploited, not for her people, but for foreigners. The railway companies, tea, jute and other plantations, mining concerns, shipping companies, and such others, yearly drain from India her wealth in the shape of dividends to the share-holders, 99% of whom are European capitalists. Where these are not benefited, industries are neglected, and to add to the misery, the people are blamed for not advancing capital for the construction of their own industries. Someone has said in London, “You may have either flourishing industries, or a flourishing bureaucracy; but never both.” We certainly want the first; necessarily we must destroy the other? The two are mutually exclusive!

And the fifth method is Government’s systematic gambling with regard to the currency. Indian merchants are prohibited to import Gold from foreign countries, where they have exported their goods, but they have to pay in gold for their imports. Gold flows out of India, and instead we are given pieces of paper, and nothing but paper; consider them worth a farthing, or a thousand; after all the peasant cries in despair, “I have sold my life, my corn; and what have I got? Printed paper!” Our gold reserves lie locked in Ireland for White capitalism to grow fat over it, and we are fed on printed paper. What wonder if one day we rise to find India bankrupt?

Besides this impending danger of national impoverishment and bankruptcy, we have to face another one, that of the evils of industrialization appearing in our society, and becoming our inherent scourge, as it has become of the Europeans. Political emancipation is the remedy for the first danger, and we are struggling for it with methods which we will notice in the next chapter. But even when we become politically free, how are we to avert the dangers of modernization, the dangers of the class war, between capital and labour? Because even the class war is showing its head amongst us. The introduction of factory industries is drawing off more and more of our harassed peasantry to the factory plants in large numbers, and to take to the life of slavish wage-earners. Large populated areas in industrial towns well exhibit to what level of life our wage-earners are being reduced. Our society has already begun to breed the class of capitalists, which is the source of so much evil in Europe. When the cost of living rose extraordinarily high in times of war, the Indian capitalists showed as much implacableness towards the demands of starving Indian labour as the European capitalists did. White capitalists can at least be excused on the ground that it is in their very nature and breeding to behave so towards the Indians. And who are the Indian capitalists? Most of our trade, foreign and inland, is centred in the hands of the Shethias of the Gujrathi community, the Marwaris, the Parsis, and the Bohras. Allied as their interests are with the foreign Government, and foreign capitalism, these capitalist communities of our Society are naturally opposed to our attempts at emancipation. And they in their turn exhibit all the greediness, idleness, cruelty, luxurious and demoralized life, consequent upon capitalism in every form and in every country. The capitalist landholders ruin the middleclass-man by cornering large land-areas, and then charging exorbitant rentals for the tenants1. [Charging high rentals had reached to such a high pitch of madness that in Bombay, a special Rent Act had to be enforced. But it has not proved very much effective.] Some of them make a sham of starting industries for public benefit, and under that pretext oust the peasantry from their holdings with the help of a despotic partial government.2 [The ambitious capitalists, the Tatas, have proposed to supply electricity to Bombay Mills, for which they want to acquire lands by ousting the peasantry of Mulshi Peta lands in Poona Distr. The profits of mills go to millowners and profits of these works will go to the Tatas because 90 p. c. of the shares are held by their own circle! A fine public interest!]

Thus the Indian Capitalists are doing three sins. They support the foreign despotism over us. They demoralize and ruin the peasantry, and the wage-earning classes of our Society. Doing this, they support and feed the capitalists of Europe, and thus help the cause of misery of the workers of that continent also.

So we have to think of two things. How to throw off the foreign Yoke? With what methods? And then how to destroy [the] evil of capitalism amongst us, which is making fast progress, and will double its speed when we are politically free. Mahatma Gandhi has put forth his methods of working out the destruction of these two monster diseases. Gandhism aims to cure Society of modern industrialization and modern civilization. At the same time, Bolshevism is working with the same view in Russia and in European Society. Since both the systems are working with a view to find a solution for a common evil, common to all nations, and since both, fortunately or unfortunately, are born practically in the same era, we propose to compare and contrast these two systems of philosophy and action, and try to see their efficiency to arrive at the desired results.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:53 am

Part 2 of 3

CHAPTER III: Gandhi vs. Lenin.

On 15th March 1917 the success of the first Russian Revolution was announced to the world by the abdication of the Czar, the “Autocrat of all the Russias.” The English statesmen and all the world hailed it as one step towards the realization of democracy in this world. But when Kerensky’s Government was overthrown by the Second Russian Revolution of Nov. 7th and the Russian policy, directed by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Govt. was changed by the peace with the central powers, and when Russia withdrew from the war, then as if by magic the British statesmen began to see the hideous monster of despotism and danger to the whole world in the place in which, not long ago, they were disposed to find the very heaven of democracy. They began to cry down the Bolsheviks and Russia as ‘‘Treacherous”; then refused to have any connection with her Government, and began to spread news of alleged devilish atrocities on the part of the Bolsheviks in other nations. To attribute atrocities to one whom we wish to put down and prejudice in the eyes of the world that he may not get a hearing, has always been a political dodge. And this was nothing but a repetition of what the British statesmen had done about Napoleon, in Ireland, so that Ireland might not sympathise and help the Emperor against England. However, the storm cooled down. As a political necessity, commercial relations with Russia were renewed, and Krasin, representative of the Bolshevik Govt. to England, sat in London in conference with British statesmen about the new relations between Russia and England. At least for a time the Red Flag of the Bolshevik waved in the Imperialistic atmosphere of scoffing London, though only over the flat that Krasin had rented for a time! A labour deputation went to Russia to see matters on the spot. Bolshevism that was never studied before the war, until it became the master of Russia, Bolshevism that was howled down by the capitalistic states of Europe from all quarters, began to receive thoughtful consideration and even serious attention! Let us do the same.

Bolshevism, is not, like other sciences, simply a science of politics and economics, submitting itself to changes due to criticism. A true Marxian or a Bolshevik will admit of no change in the body of the theories of his faith. Karl Marx’s Book the "Capita" is to the Bolshevik what the Geeta is to the Hindoo, or the Bible to the Christian. Day by day the very inspirer, Karl Marx, is passing into a Mythical Being. Bolshevism has come to acquire a force of religion, and all that inspired unflinching belief that a religion demands.

The Bolshevik, or rather the extremist Marxian, sees the misery in the world, the poorer classes exploited by the rich and powerful, and sets to investigate the causes of it, and arrives at three conclusions, stored in these three words: Economic Materialism, Surplus Value, and the Class War.

The doctrine of economic materialism underlying all the extremist communist philosophy simply means that almost all human activity is directed with the motive of economic aggrandisenient, that “all the mass-phenomena of history are determined by economic motives.” And if we examine great movements in history, most of them justify this view. The great so called religious movement in Europe, the Reformation, owed much of its success to the expected economic freedom of the states and of the people promised by the Reformation, which absolved them from paying any tithes and taxes to the clergy and the Pope. Had it not been for this expectation of freedom of the masses from the oppressive taxes of the clergy and the Pope, it is doubtful whether all the printing inventions and philosophy of the scholars dispossessed and turned out from Constantinople would have been sufficiently powerful to move the masses to accept the new creed and deny obedience to the papal authority. The whole of the French Revolution and its subsequent offshoots in other nations, became possible when the masses became utterly destitute and the Government bankrupt and unable to produce money by taxation. The expansion of the nations of Europe into the outside world would not have taken place but for the sight of the Spanish galleys, coming loaded with gold and silver from the Peruvian mines. It was the drain of their wealth into the coffers of England that moved the Americans to fight for liberty, to begin that war of American Independence. So most of the greatest events of European history were inspired by economic motives.

Even in daily life man’s whole struggle is primarily dominated by the desire to obtain money, money for existence, for luxury, and then follow other motives of love, of friendship, of religion and morality.

After all this, what is the result of this dominating factor? The doctrine of economic materialism says that consequently all this leads to inequality of wealth, from which proceeds all the misery of the masses of the people, leads to the intolerable situation of some possessing crores and the many begging for bread or starving. Capitalism is the one end of this inequality and poverty of the masses, the other end.

Naturally the next question is, how have the rich or the capitalists come by so much wealth, how in modern society they continue to be so and daily increase in numbers? What is it that allows and facilitates the accumulation of unlimited wealth into the hands of a limited few, of wealth which is the product of the combined labour of the whole of Society? And at this stage, the doctrine of surplus value makes its appearance in the Marxian theory.

If a capitalist possesses capital in vast land-areas, (like the zamindars of Bihar, Orrissa and Bengal,) how has he come to possess so much land? Did he labour and sweat for it? If he has inherited it from his ancestors, did his ancestors labour for it? Land cannot be a product of human labour, and consequently no human being can lay claim to any land-property through the right of labour. History shows that, “the appropriation of land by individuals has in most countries — probably in all where it approaches completeness -- been originally effected not by the expenditure of labour, or the results of labour on the land, but by force. The original landlords have been conquerors1.” [T. H. Green. "Principles of political obligation.”] If the original possessors came by it by force, then their inheritors can show no reason why they should be allowed to retain it to the exclusion of others. One may say that they hold it for the common good of the whole community; but experience shows that landowners, most of them if not all, have never shown themselves conscious of this idea of common good, but have rather worked against it by converting lands into parks and hunting grounds as in England, or by harassing the temporary peasant tenant who works more for the common good by his production than the landholders do by their idle unproductive act of possession. And even if admitted that they do hold it for the common good, Society is doubly justified in relieving this ‘servant of common good’ by directly administering the land i.e., nationalizing it.

Then one may say that the property in land may have been bought by the capitalist owners from other possessors. But we have seen that property in land, in its very nature, cannot be a product of human labour, but is an appropriation by force, and as such it cannot be possessed, bought or sold by any individual to any other individual; because it is a possession of the social whole, and cannot be disposed of in any form except through the consent of the social whole.

Then comes forth the question of capitalism in movable property, easily convertible in money, and of capitalism in wealth as acquired profits of industry. Examine the working of all industries, and we will find that physical labour, the backbone of all industries, remains ‘under-rewarded,’ while intellectual labour, through speculation, through trade, or through ‘middle-manship’, reaps the benefits of the activities of physical labour. Capitalists are brought into existence by the very laws governing modern systems of industrialization, by laws which allow the intellectual few, masters of opportunities, to become possessors of the ‘unearned income’ of the surplus value derived from the production through physical labour of the many. Because always in society workers with hand are in a majority. Take the case of capitalist England. ‘Ninety out of every hundred adults in England are workers with their hands. Most of these are living in districts and in houses, which make their free and healthy development impossible. Twenty-three out of every hundred live below the poverty line— that is to say, they are so ill-clothed, so badly housed, and so underfed, that they die or are racked with premature pains before they are fifty years of age. Yet these men and women are producing and distributing food, clothing, and the luxuries, which they cannot afford to obtain for themselves.” And the surplus value, or profits from the labour of these, becomes the private property of the capitalists, to which they are not at all entitled more than the hand-labourers. This is the main contention of Marx’s doctrine of surplus value.

Having arrived at this, the Marxian proceeds to argue, and tries to find the method, with which to remove this condition of the slavery of the proletariat to capitalism. Capitalists are able to be masters of the proletariat, or the wage-earners, because they can control the means of production, and through this control become owners of vast unearned wealth. What if the state, the society which is mostly composed of workers with hand, were to assume the direct control of these means of production, if production and distribution were so arranged that everybody would get what is his necessity, and the surplus value of production be utilized for the common good of the state, if none were allowed to accumulate wealth and have private property in land or money, which is the root of so much evil? To accomplish this, the workers and peasants must be the masters of the state-mechanism; they must wrest the authority of Government from the capitalists, who everywhere control the state mechanism in their own interests. And this can be done only through a class-war, through an ‘Armed Revolution’ of the workers and peasants.


The extremist Marxian firmly and religiously believes in this method of class-war, and an armed revolution of the proletariat. A peaceful revolution to take over the control of the state and the means of production is impossible. It sounds absurd to tell a man who is habituated to control not to control, and to expect that he would do it for the mere asking, unless he is forced to do so. Neither is the method of accomplishing this through the gradual growth of representative Governments, like the parliamentary democracy of England, possible. Because the Governments of today are dominated by the capitalists or the bourgeoisie class; they control the army, the press, the education, and everything. Through educational institutions, they manufacture and spread what is called the “Bourgeoisie Ideology”, impose it upon the world, and get it ingrained in the ideas and morality of the world. This ideology manufactures a set of laws by which any quantity of land may belong to private people, and may pass from one to another by inheritance, by will, or by sale; another set by which every one must pay taxes demanded of them unquestioningly, and a third set, to the effect that any quantity of articles, by whatever means acquired, may become the absolute property of the people who hold them. It is this teaching which makes the workers and peasants instinctively obey despotic Governments, and paralyzes their strength to seize the capitalists and accomplish their freedom. The capitalists teach that the poor shall always be in society, but even so they had argued when slavery existed that slavery and serfdom were necessary to maintain society, until they were abolished forcibly. Peaceful methods will do nothing. Because capitalist despotism is a thing that will stoop to anything to maintain its hold of injustice. An armed revolution of the workers and peasants, with all the fanaticism of a religious belief, is the only remedy; and such a revolution must be ready to fight the confederacy of all the capitalist states of the world, and expect help from no one. A well known author, though against the Marxians or Bolsheviks, says, "It seems evident from the attitude of the capitalist world to Soviet Russia, of the entete to the central powers, and of England to Ireland and India, that there is no depth of perfidy, cruelty, and brutality from which the present holders of power will shrink when they feel themselves threatened. If in order to oust them, nothing short of fanaticism will serve, it is they who are the prime sources of the resultant evil. And it is permissible to hope that when they have been dispossessed, fanaticism will fade, as other fanaticisms have faded in the past.”1 [Bertrand Russell.]

After this third item of an armed revolution, the necessary form of Government, in absence of capitalism, will be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is not to be a permanent factor of the state. For as soon as all shall be labourers, and no one a capitalist, as soon as the whole state will be identical with the proletariat, the Dictatorship will vanish of itself.


The Bolsheviks are the people in those icy zones of Russia, the white land of the Autocrat of all the Russias, who have been the ardent believers in these dogmas, and methods of working them out, who have practically worked out this philosophy and are now ruling Russia. The Bolsheviks are the advance guard of all communists, as they call themselves, Part of this communist philosophy finds expression in the programme of English labour party too, its aims being laid down in these four propositions, (a) The universal enforcement of the national minimum, (b) Democratic control of industry, (c) Revolution in national finance, and (d) the surplus wealth for common good1. [Adopted at the Conference of June 1918.] The difference between the Bolsheviks and the British Labour party consist in this, that the former advocate zealously a military blow against armed capitalism, while the latter believe in the method of attaining their end through the Parliament.

So far we have tried to understand the fundamental conceptions of Bolshevism, or extremist communism, in which many thinkers have great faith. We will now turn to the underlying conceptions of Gandhism, and its methods of work, to realize the end of the social evils of our day.

Gandhism admits all the vices from which Society of our day is suffering, all the vices emanating from the rule of capitalism. It also concedes that Capitalism will stoop to anything to preserve its authority, and a revolution, or a radical charge alone, can redeem Society. But the point where Bolshevism and Gandhism are deadly opposed, is that of methods to work out the revolution in Society. Gandhism attacks the very foundations of modern social arrangements, and divisions introduced by modern industrialization. If Capitalism possesses all the cruelty and perfidy of ancient despotisms, what is it that brought into existence capitalism, and gave it such unbounded iron authority? If a majority of the wage-earning class is ill-housed, ill-fed, lives below the poverty line, what made these men the slaves of capitalism? The sure and certain answer is the modern system of industrialization. Mechanism, the Age of Machinery, drove the independent workers out of their healthy surroundings in villages and guild-unions, made them flock to the plantations to work in large units at the bidding of a capitalist. Mechanism made possible large scale productions. It spurned much of the human factor in industries, and thus made a vain, acquisitive few with wealth, masters of millions of men. The Gandhian argues with Tolstoy, from whom Gandhism directly takes its inspiration, “The cause of the miserable position of the workers cannot be found in the seizure of the means of production by capitalists, the cause must lie in that which drives them from the villages. The labourer’s misery alike on the Railway, in the silk factory, and every other factory or workshop— consists not in the longer or shorter hours of work (for agriculturists work sometimes eighteen hours a day, and as much as thirty-six hours on end, and consider their lives happy), nor does it consist in the low rate of wages, nor in the fact that the railway, or factory, is not theirs; but it consists in the fact that they are obliged to work in harmful, unnatural conditions, often dangerous and destructive to life, and to live a barrack life in town— a life full of temptations and immorality, and to do compulsory labour at another’s bidding.” And the thing that does this, the Gandhian says, is modern mechanism; in fact, the whole of modern civilization. Logic pushed forward in this way naturally concludes that to remove the evils of our day, then modern age of mechanism must be destroyed. Mechanism has made luxuries easily accessible at low cost, and this is breeding idleness in Society, has bred a class living on the labour of others. To destroy this, the necessaries of man must be cut down, and at the same time everybody must be working to provide for himself by his own labour. None must be idle, for an “idler is a thief."1 [Rousseau.]

For this as a remedy, Gandhism proposes a return to the old methods of spinning and weaving on handlooms, which would naturally dissolve the labour mass into smaller units. Today, one nation produces so much of luxuries of cloth, and other things, that the production aims to provide for all the markets of the world, which results in the unemployment and privations of the labour of other nations. Hand-spinning and weaving will make this ambition impossible; it will not drive the worker from his independent village environments, and make him submit to the slavery of capitalism. But this is simply one branch of the programme of Gandhism, to dissolve modern civilization. Monstrous mechanism that support despotism, factories, railways, and everything that now raises the problem of human misery, and problem of the class-war, must go that humanity may be saved.
But how will men leave ideas and habits that they have come to acquire by custom and by education? So the root of the whole thing lies in the minds of men. And the solution cannot be anywhere else but in the minds of men. It lies in “Purification". Gandhism will say to workmen, “The workmen must cleanse themselves in order that the Governments and wealthy shall cease to devour their lives. Impurity breeds in dirt, and it feeds on strange bodies, only while they are unclean. And therefore, for the deliverance of the workers from their calamities, there is only one means— that of purifying themselves. And to purify themselves, liberation from theological, state, and scientific superstitions is necessary, and necessary also is faith in God and His Law."1 [Tolstoy. '"Social Evils and their Remedy", p. 58.] To free oneself from despotism, Gandhism proposes a method which is directly opposed to that of Bolshevism. There is no use finding the remedy outside man. It lies in the mind. If the whole mode of thinking be changed, then alone there can be any change in the external actions of man, for action is practical embodiment of thought. Those motives that lead to all this struggle of class-war, motives of aggrandisement, vanity, rivalry, and love of power, if these are cast out of the “possessed”, then man will be free. Go on multiplying invention after invention, conquer the whole of Nature external to man, and what will be the result? There is that immutable law, applicable to all such methods of finding happiness, the law “That a man is subject to a law of his being, in virtue of which he at once seeks self-satisfaction, and is prevented from finding it in the objects in which he actually desires, and in which he ordinarily seeks it.”1 [T. H. Green. “Principles of Political Obligation.” pp. 19.]

And the way to reform it? The Bolsheviks demand power, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as they say, to reform human mind, to dispossess capital, and to teach everyone in Society to work for the common good. The Gandhians say that men must be convinced of their duty of working for the common good. And this convincing can be done only through Religion. "Your work must be a work of regeneration, of moral reform— for without this, any political organization is barren, and you delude yourselves with the expectation of success while you banish from your work the religious idea."2 [Mazzini pp. 168.] The cry of the Revolution must be “God wills it; God wills it." For “Without God, you can command, not persuade; you can be tyrants in your turn, never educators and apostles.”3 [Mazzini pp. 29.] An ‘armed revolution,’ or violence, will be followed by nothing but a new kind of tyranny and violence.

So Gandhism requires first a change in human nature, or purification, which in due course will destroy the necessity of the present systems of life. Destroy vanity, love of show, and there will be no necessity to engage wage-earning slaves to produce silks and luxuries. Destroy fear, and love of power, wars will stop, and militarisms and Governments will melt. Destroy the devil within man, and the outside nature of incongruities will die out. Lenin might as well answer to this, “Destroy the universe, and God himself, who is the cause of all this, and everything will stop; a madman’s reasoning; an impossibility!”


Many in India are under the impression that the principles of non-violence, and religious transformation in Gandhism, are due to the peculiar circumstances of India; that Gandhism advocates non-violence because violence is not possible here against the Government. Armed revolution being an impossibility, non-violence has become the order of the day. But it is a gross mistake to suppose that. Even if Gandhi were just now to be transferred to the throne of Lenin, he would dissolve the Red Guards, and the Proletarian Dictatorship; he would stop the industrialization of Russia, and give in her hands the spinning wheel and the handloom.

Gandhism has two aspects. One relates to the general evils, common to all human Society, and treats of the solution of problems affecting all. Another aspect treats of the special evil of despotism, and proposes means to do away with it. We have treated of the first aspect. We will treat a little of the second.

If any country is subjected to despotism, whether foreign or native, in what way shall it subvert this despotism? Surely not by a military war, whether possible or not. Gandhism has put forward its plan of ‘non-violent non-cooperation.’ This plan is directly inspired by Tolstoy's plan of ‘non violent non-participation’ for the Russians. Tolstoy’s plan was abandoned by Russia. India has adopted Gandhi’s plan. Instead of giving the plan of Gandhism, we will give that of Tolstoy. On pursuance of it, we will find that it was Tolstoy who ruled the Congress of Calcutta, where the first principles of it were outlined, and Gandhi was his representative! Tolstoy, cast out of Russia, has been born amongst us.

The underlying conception of the plan is simply this, that tyrants tyrannize because the tyrannized slaves participate in the act. Tolstoy gives three comprehensive commandments to a non-violent non-cooperator.

“He should first of all, neither willingly nor under compulsion, take any part in Government activity, and should therefore be neither a soldier, nor a field-marshal, nor a minister of State, nor a tax-collector, nor a witness, nor an elderman, nor a jurymen, nor a governor, nor a member of Parliament, nor in fact hold any office connected with violence. That is one thing.

“Secondly, such a man should not voluntarily pay taxes to Govt., either directly or indirectly, nor should he accept money collected by taxes, either as salary, or as pension, or as a reward, nor should he make use of Government institutions supported by taxes collected by violence from the people.

“Thirdly, a man who desires to promote not his own well-being alone, but to better the position of people in general, should not appeal to Govt. violence for the protection of his possessions in land, or in other things, nor to defend him and his near ones, but should possess land, and all products of his own or other people’s toil, in so far as others do not claim them from him.”

Tolstoy anticipated our moderates, and continuing says, “People will say, ‘But such an activity is impossible; to refuse all participation in Governmental affairs means to refuse to live.' A man who does not pay taxes will be punished, and the tax will be collected from his property; a man, who having no other means of livelihood, refuses Govt. service, will perish of hunger with his family; the same will befall a man who rejects Govt. protection for his property and his person; not to make use of things that are taxed, or of Govt. institutions, is quite impossible, as the most necessary articles are often taxed, and just the same way it is impossible to do without Govt. institutions, such as the posts, roads, etc.”

But there is the cool and deliberate answer of his to this. “Not everyone will be able to do this at once, but as men will begin to feel the consciousness of these things, they will begin to act.1” [Tolstoy: “The slavery of our Times.”]

From the foregoing discussion, it will be clear that Gandhism relies on individual purification, individual consciousness and conviction, and individual action. Gandhism always lays stress upon the necessity of allowing everyone to act according to his conscience. It has unbounded faith in the inherent goodness of human nature, and believes that man, left to himself to act according to his conscience, will work out nothing but the good of himself and of his community. Complete absence of coercion of any kind, and complete freedom of action, find high credence in the elaborate system of Gandhism. (This nearly verges upon the English idea of liberty, that minimum of government control, or coercion, is maximum of individual liberty1.[Seely, “Introduction to Political Science.” Hegel, ‘Philosophy of History.’]) Bolshevism does not believe in the inherent goodness of human nature, but advocates rather maximum of coercion or control (though as a passing phase) to teach man his duty towards the common good of the whole. Gandhism wishes to make a gift to the world of an Indian Empire, a Nationality founded on the basis of Universal Peace (Ahimsa,) peace between man and man, and between man and every sentient creature. It is a fair dream, an earnest ideal. Practical Lenin, with the vision before him of a world-confederacy of the wolfish capitalist militarisms, always ready to shatter the peace of the poor man and of nations, ready to butcher liberty in its very infancy in any form, slowly murmurs, “In the hoary past, the mighty Asoka had set up an Empire, and had tried to rule it according to his principles of Ahimsa, of non-violence2 [See edicts of Asoka.]. Where is that fabric of Ahimsa now? Alas! ruthlessly shattered by the shock and collision of historic forces. Perhaps the Prime Maker of history has ordained that the world should pass through the process of a painful historic development, from the brute to the man. Call upon the mighty nations of the earth to lay down their pride and hate, their sceptres and swords, and with redemptive humility, love and sacrifice, to fight in union the forces of rebarbarization, and they will laugh at you. Return their laugh with a thrash of the sword, with the very implements they have forged, and you will be at peace, or ye shall be captive of their passions! A painful mysterious future, indeed, before us! But once more the land of Buddha has determined to follow Buddhism or Gandhism; may the fabric be not shattered again!!

To recapitulate

Gandhi and Lenin.

Common aim; — To destroy social evils of the day, especially the misery of the poor and to subvert despotism.

Gandhi.

Cause.—Modern Civilization, specially modern industrialization and the consequent vices of humanity.

Remedy.  

Remedy: — Destroy the spirit of modern civilization and mechanism.

Steps.

1. Despotism of capital and of every kind must go.

2. Despotism rests on force.

3. The force is made possible and maintained by those who are tyrannized over, by their participation or cooperation with the work of the Army, Taxation, and Law of the despots.

4. Let all non-cooperate, and the edifice will fall.

5. Religion and non-violence alone can do this. For religion will teach the emptiness of modern acquisitions. Violence is usurped by violence: Non-violence will be followed by non-violence, and chaos will be prevented, which is imminent upon the subversion of despotic power as is shown by revolutions in history.

6. When despotism falls at the hand of religion and non-violence, a religious order of Society will be the outcome. Spirit of Religion, conscious of the emptiness of modernization, will necessarily destroy it for the sake of common good. The Law will be the Law of conscience of man and Humanity. Conscience will by its nature work for social good. And evils of capital, labour, and the class war will disappear in such Society. So Purify men.

7. The end is a Society of worshippers of God and Religion, and living according to the dictates of conscience.


Source.

Tolstoy →[to] Gandhism

Sphere of Work

India.

Lenin

Cause: -- Seizure of the means of production, land, etc., by the capitalists, the inequality of wealth, and consequent impoverishment of the proletariat, who form the majority of humanity.

Remedy.

Remedy: -- Keep modern acquisitions, but make them work for the common good, i.e., utilize the surplus value, which now goes to the rich, by nationalizing the means of production.

Steps.

1. Despotism of capital and of every kind must go.

2. Despotism rests on force.

3. The participation is not willingly given, but is exacted by force, not necessarily supplied from the ranks of the tyrannized.

4. The all will never do so, because the interests of the majority are allied with that of the existing tyranny. The minority alone will work out the downfall, and the majority will follow.

5. Tyranny will not be moved by religion, non-violence, and such other humane motives. Despotism will go so far as to exterminate the whole race of liberators. So it must be undermined and suppressed by its own means and ways. The chaos after the fall is temporary, and men tired of the chaos soon evolve order, as shown by history.

6. The dictates of conscience are vitiated by many external forces, unless it is highly enlightened. It is not found in average men, and requires generations to evolve. So men must be compulsorily made to work for social good, which the capitalists being unwilling to do, the proletariat must do by establishing their Dictatorship. Compulsion will generate a habit to work for common good, and to hold everything for common good. Habit will be turned into an acquired instinct. When the instinct is acquired, the Dictatorship will naturally vanish, being a mere passing phase and instrument.

7. The end is a Society of workers and no idlers, working instinctively for the common good of the whole.

Source. Karl Marx →[to] Bolshevism or Leninism.

Sphere of Work

Russia.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:54 am

Part 3 of 3

CHAPTER IV. “The Armed Blow.”

So far we have discussed the broad underlying principles of Gandhism and Bolshevism. Anybody can see that the complete realization of the theories of both the systems in practical life is an impossibility. Gandhism suffers from too much unwarranted faith in the natural goodness of human nature, while Bolshevism suffers from too much neglect of human interests and sentiments. And so is it that absolute theories, in the process of application to practical life, suffer from modification according to circumstances. The blame does not lie with those who conceive them, but rather with those who receive them. Gandhism advocated, and still advocates, the strictest observation of the law of conscience, everyone to be allowed to act according to the dictates of it. This naturally means that no law passed by a majority can be binding over the minority.1 [Gandhi; Indian Homerule.] If so, then every act of legislation will have to obtain the full consent of every member of the state, failing which there can be no legislation, in fact no government; and the state will have to drift into a philosophical anarchy or Kingdom of God! Absolute theories pushed to the end arrive at such queer results, and yet no one with common sense can say that the advocates of liberty of conscience mean seriously to bring about in practice the latter stage of reasoning. And because such extreme reasoning cannot be brought into practice, Gandhism admits to be bound and guided by congress resolutions and votes of the majority! Even the Bolsheviks, the most uncompromising of political—nay, religious— parties, has to make concessions to the pressing needs of the time. Bolshevism, that would recognize no private property of any kind, has been brought to admit the right of the peasants over their soil and its produce, and thus to recognize the class of peasant proprietors owning private property in land. To be allowed to say, “This is mine,” even of a farthing, or a piece of sod, is a comfort and solace to the human heart, and as long as this great ‘my’, ‘mine’, are not destroyed, no Dictatorship can avail to make man hold anything of his in common for common good1 [As a preparation for the service of common good, or ‘Lokasangraha,’ man must first destroy his ‘Mamatva’, ‘Ahankara,’ or sense of egoism: Geeta.]. However, Bolshevism is a noble and heroic attempt to achieve the ideal. It may fail. But today, at least, it has given to Russia a strong Government, peace and bread, and it is expected that Russia before long will be happy. Bolshevism has subverted the old Czarist despotism, and it will be much profitable if we trace a little the course of events that led the Bolsheviks to power. The study of Revolutions yields very interesting results!

The Czar became an ally of England, France, and the petty quarrelsome states of Southern Europe, and began the Great War of 1914. In truth, the war was not for any high principle or for the professed protection of the liberty of any nation; but it was for the interests of the moneyed high classes, for the protection of their industries and markets, and for the destruction of unfavourable competition. As usual, those for whose interests the war was fought gave it a colour of patriotism, of a struggle for preservation of civilization, and thus duped the people into support of it. The Russians for long were striving for liberty in their own land. Their constitutional agitation had failed. Their terrorist movement had failed. The war gave them the opportunity. The old peasantry, which in times of peace was crushed with repression by Czarist despotism, when it agitated for rights was now turned into a military organization, and it was just the thing that was needed. The long-standing grievance of the peasantry was that they should be allowed to own the lands they cultivated in place of the nobles who never looked to them except for the ruinous taxes and forced labour. The peasantry was denied this right. The war converted this self-same peasantry into a military class, and with it Czardom was doomed.

The intellectuals realized the change, and they set to work. They taught the people that the war was not for them, and if won, it would not benefit them but the high lords, their oppressors. They moved the peasantry to overthrow despotism, and created in them the confidence to do so. To this were added the horrors of scarcity of bread in Russia, and the disastrous defeats at the Front. The cry of the Bolsheviks, the most ardent agitators, became, “Land, Bread and Peace.” With this cry, the Revolution began. And when the command of Czarist despotism to shoot the patriots failed to evoke any answer from the military, on whose strength it had ruled for centuries, the success of the Revolution was assured. “The war assigned the decisive role in the Revolution to the army, and the old army was the peasantry."1 [L. Trotsky. ' History of the Russian Revolution.’]

“Had the Revolution developed more normally that is in conditions of peace-time, such as prevailed in 1912 when it really began, the proletariat would have taken the leading role throughout whilst the peasant masses would have been gradually towed along by the proletariat into the Revolutionary whirlpool. But the war imparted an entirely different logic to the course of events. The army had organised the peasantry not on a political but on a military basis. Immediately the Revolution broke out, the advanced sections of the proletariat revived the traditions of 1905 by calling upon the popular masses to organize in representative bodies viz the “councils’’ of delegates (Soviets.)

The army thus had to send representatives to revolutionary bodies before its political consciousness in any way corresponded to the level of the rapidly developing revolutionary events. Whom could the soldiers send as their representatives? Naturally, only those intellectuals and semi-intellectuals who were to be found in their midst and who possessed at least a minimum amount of political knowledge, and who were capable of giving utterance to it. In this way, by the will of the awakening army, the lower middle-class intellectuals found themselves suddenly raised to a position of enormous influence. Doctors, engineers, lawyers journalists, who in pre-war days led a humdrum private life, and laid no claim of any sort to political influence, became overnight, representatives of whole crops and armies, and discovered that they were the “leaders” of the Revolution. The haziness of their political ideas fully corresponded to the formless state of the revolutionary consciousness of the masses themselves. This half-hearted revolutionary party, raised to power, looked down upon the Bolsheviks contemptuously, and also upon the social demands of the workers and peasants. For a time the new party in power enjoyed respect of the electorates. Immediately the question of the war came before the new Government party, claiming to be representative of the people. But as the party belonged to the middle-class bourgeoisie, they did not possess that hatred for the war as the masses had. And so the party decided upon the continuation of the war. And that was the fatal mistake. The whole army i.e., the peasantry and the workers, were disgusted with the Government of the hazy politicians of the type of Kerensky, who was gradually becoming anti-revolutionary, and other leaders. The Bolsheviks, who so long were in a minority, and were confidently biding their time, and whom the Government of Kerensky was trying to sternly repress, came to the forefront, with their resolute principles and their war-cry,“Land, bread and peace!” This was exactly what the masses wanted, and the new Government, failing to give that, was easily overthrown. Kerensky’s Government failed to satisfy the peasants, and his fall was inevitable.  

To avert the calamity of his fall, Kerensky and his Government ordered the Petrograd Garrison to cantonements on the Front, since that Garrison was the most revolutionary, and opposed to Kerensky and his half-hearted policy. The Congress of the Soviets was to meet on November 7th, and that day was fixed for the Armed Blow of the Bolsheviks which was to have for its object the conquest of the supreme Government authority by the Soviets. The anti-Bolsheviks tried hard to suppress the rising. But the Bolsheviks were supported by the army. “The masses flocked to us irresistibly, and their spirit rose higher and higher. Delegates would arrive from the trenches and ask us, at the sittings of the Petrograd Soviet, 'How long will this unbearable situation last? The soldiers have authorised us to tell you that if by the 15th of November no decisive steps are taken towards the peace, the trenches will be evacuated, and the whole army will march back to the rear!’”

The Bolsheviks decided upon fulfilling their promise of the publication of all secret treaties. The soldiers would exclaim, “you say that full authority should pass into the hands of the Soviet? Then take it. Are you afraid that the front may not support you? Cast aside all doubt; the over-whelming mass of the soldiers are entirely on your side.”

The Bolshevik party appointed a Military Revolutionary Committee which appointed Commissioners to all railway stations. They kept all in-coming and out-going trains under close supervision. A continuous telephonic and motor connection was set up with all the neighbouring towns. The lower ranks of the railway servants at the stations and railway workers gave ready recognition to their Commissioners.

But at the Telephone Exchange on November 6th, the telephone girls came out in opposition to the Soviet. The M. R. Committee sent a detachment and two small guns. So began the seizure of the administrative offices. Sailors and Red Guards were stationed in small detachments at the Telegraph Office, at the Post Office, and other public offices, and measures were taken to gain possession of the State Bank. The Smolny Institute became the Soviet centre, where the M.R.C. sat in permanent session. The moment was drawing near.

On November 7th the Government in Winter Palace seized a Bolshevik paper. The Bolsheviks surrounded the Palace, and thus began the fight. News of the fight was brought to the M.R.C. at the Smolny Institute, and of the first victims on the Bolshevik side. “Everyone rose as though moved by some invisible signal, and with a unanimity, which is only provoked by a deep moral intensity of feeling, sung a Funeral March. He, who lived through this moment, will never forget it. The meeting came to an abrupt end. It was impossible to sit there, calmly discussing the theoretical question as to the method of constructing the Government, with the echo reaching our ears of the fighting and firing at the walls of the Winter Palace.” But the news of the fall and flight of Kerensky arrived. The Bolsheviks had won.

Kerensky tried to storm Petrograd with the help of the ignorant Cossacks, whom he led to believe that the Petrograd garrison was expecting them and longing for their help. But the truth came out, and the Cossacks dispersed.

The Bolsheviks at once followed up their success, resolutely organized the Govt. machinery, and established the Dictatorship of the Workers, Peasants and Soldiers. They concluded peace with Germany, and delivered Russia from destruction. This peace brought upon them the wrath of the English and the French. The invasions of General Denikin and General Wrangel were repelled, for no one could withstand the vigour of the new life of the nation; and Russian Revolution and Liberty once more escaped from falling into the bondage of the capitalist states of Europe. In the earlier campaigns the Red Army, the mainstay of the Bolsheviks, was worsted for want of veteran generals to lead, and skilled hands in the army to help the military manoeuvres, for these were formerly supplied by the old nobility who of course disdained to follow the new masters, their inveterate enemies. But soon the rank and file of the masses produced best generals and best soldiers. The Revolution had produced a new feeling of ardour, a new sense of health and power, which found expression in the enthusiasm of the soldiers. The soldiers did not care to see whether the new Government was a Dictatorship or a Democracy. It was sufficient for them to know that the Government was theirs and that it was threatened. They fought with all the zeal of a religious war. The danger was averted and peace restored.

Since Bolshevism became master of Russia, governments of all countries have been trying to discredit it in the minds of their people by painting it as devilish, atrocious, and despotic. Every move bearing the least resemblance to communist activity is being repressed, and the Bolsheviks are cut off from communicating with the people of any nation. Why is it so? What is the secret reason for this hatred? The reason lies in the avowed international policy of the Bolsheviks. In the Theses presented to the Second Congress of the Third International (of July 1920), there is an article by Lenin called, ‘First Sketch of the theses on National and Colonial Questions.” A passage in it runs thus:—

‘The present world— situation in politics, places on the order of the day, the dictatorship of the proletariat1 [i.e. the working class.]; and all the events of world politics are inevitably concentrated round one centre of gravity! The struggle of the international bourgeoisie2 [i.e. the middle-class capitalists.] against the Soviet Republic,3 [i.e. Republican councils of the working people and peasants.] which inevitably groups round it on the one hand the Sovietist movements of the advanced working men of all countries, on the other hand all the national movements of emancipation of colonies and oppressed nations which have been convinced by a bitter experience that there is no salvation for them except in the victory of the Soviet Government over world-imperialism.

It is henceforth necessary to pursue the realization of the strictest union of all the national and colonial movements of emancipation with Soviet Russia, by giving to this union forms corresponding to the degree of evolution of the proletarian movement1 [Viz. to assist the labour movement of England.] among the proletariat of each country, or of the democratic bourgeois2 [Viz. to assist the movement of emancipation of countries like Ireland, Egypt and India.] movement of emancipation among the workers and peasants of backward countries or backward nationalities.”


Such avowed aggressive international policy, of helping and instigating the labour and peasantry of every country to dispossess capital, has naturally aroused the hatred of the capitalist states of the world towards Soviet Russia. In accordance with this policy, and in conformity with his promise ‘to answer the guns of Germany with his leaflets,’ Lenin succeeded in overthrowing much of capitalism in Germany, and helping the socialist labour in that country. The same danger (!) threatened all the other capitalist states of Europe. America and Japan were too far away to seriously think of the Russian Soviet programme. So England, France and other states hastened to avert the danger to their capitalist classes, and the speedy and best method they thought of was to make war upon Russia on her own soil, and put an end to the Soviet Government with all the fruits of the Revolution. Had Karl Marx been alive, he would have called it a war for the preservation and protection of a class of murderers! Napoleon had failed to carry war to the heart of Russia, with all his powers of a great general. So also Germany with her best generals and army could not do it. What these had attempted vainly, England and France hoped to achieve through the dwarf-intellects of General Wrangel and General Denikin.

England had never shown her readiness to learn lessons from History. Otherwise the ghost of distracted Napoleon, with the flower of his army buried in the snows of the heart of Russia, would have foreshadowed the result of the campaigns of the two generals. But it was not to be; and the expected happened. Armies of exhausted [in] England and France were no match for the Reds of Lenin, fired with all the enthusiasm of a Revolution, and of a feeling that the Govt. was theirs, and that it was in danger. The war ended with disgrace for both the countries. Just so England had tried to kill the French Revolution in 1793, and had succeeded after a struggle of twenty-two years in 1815. But in 1918, a century later the same move failed. And why? A century means much to the bravery and spirit of a nation, embarked on the mad policy of acquisition. A century from 1815 to 1918 meant that England could not kill the Russian Revolution!!

However, the confederacy was dissolved and peace concluded. The Bolsheviks have fulfilled their promises. “Land, Bread and Peace,” they have given to Russia. According to the prophesy of their Guru, Karl Marx, they had expected a confederacy. But they succeeded in destroying it. They have given a strong and capable Government to Russia, which is just the need of any country that has passed through a Revolution. Dictatorship of the Bolsheviks, or rather of Lenin, is now the Government of Russia. A little picture of the Dictator will not be out of place here. We will quote the words of one who had seen him and spoken with him. “Soon after my arrival in Moscow, I had an hour's conversation with Lenin in English, which he speaks fairly well. An interpreter was present, but his services were scarcely required. Lenin’s room is very bare; it contains a big desk, some maps on the walls, two book cases, and one comfortable chair for visitors, in addition to two or three hard chairs. It is obvious that he has no love of luxury or even comfort. He is very friendly, and apparently simple, entirely without a trace of hauteur. If one met him without knowing who he he was, one would not guess that he is possessed of great power, or even that he is in any way eminent. I have never met a personage so destitute of self-importance. (Seems to be a Gandhian in this respect!) He looks at his visitors very closely, and screws up one eye, which seems to increase alarmingly the penetrating power of the other. He laughs a great deal; at first his laugh seems merely friendly and jolly, but gradually I came to feel it rather grim. He is dictatorial, calm, incapable of fear, extraordinarily devoid of self seeking, an embodied theory ... His strength comes, I imagine, from his honesty, courage, and unwavering faith — religious faith in the Marxian gospel, which takes the place of the Christian martyr's hopes of Paradise."1 [Bertrand Russell had been to Russia on behalf of the Labour Deputation and had an interview with Lenin. Russell is not a whole-hearted communist. (The italics are ours.) ] Dictatorial, calm, incapable of fear, extraordinarily devoid of self-seeking, an embodied theory! There is no wonder if such a man, ere long hunted from place to place and compelled to live an underground life, should become the Sovereign, the Dictator of Russia!

Has the Russian Revolution any significance in the History of Mankind? Or is it simply a spectacle of mean scrambling for political power on the part of ambitious parties wending their way to the throne through bloodshed of man? Wars and Revolutions there have been, but many of them would not have been there but for the comprice of vain monarchs, or for the interests of a class of power-hunters. Does the Russian Revolution belong to the same category, or has it something new to announce to the world, as the French Revolution had? Let us see.

There are two institutions on the common platform of which men unite with a common purpose. And the two institutions are Religion and the State. The first is designed to promote the moral development of the human soul, and we may term this institution as an invisible, non-material plan, in which men unite subjectively. The State is designed to promote the interests of man external to himself, of his interests in things, which cannot identify themselves with or assimilate in his personality or Idea. And this second institution is a material, visible plan, in which men unite objectively. Yet each in itself contributes to the development of the other, and sometimes Religion has completely dominated the State, and sometimes the State has dominated Religion. The two are interdependent, but we are speaking only of the State mechanism and revolutions in its construction. The idea of this instrument or institution for the objective unity of interests in men has gone through many stages of evolution, and one of the most despotic, poisonous, hard-dying stage was that completed by the French Revolution. That Revolution completed one phase of the idea about the State Mechanism as to who should be the director of it. The idea that the possession of authority should be in the hands of one man, assisted by high grandees, was destroyed, and in 1793, the new idea of the possession being transferred to the people, the ordinary citizen, was heralded, and the work of destruction was begun. To complete the work begun by 1793, Europe required [one] hundred and twenty five years, i.e., the year 1918 had to dawn until History saw the work of destruction begun by 1793 perfectly accomplished, at least in Europe. The Russian Revolution is at once an end and a beginning. It is an end of the work of destroying absolutism in the high state-lords. But it also heralds a new period. The Fr. Revolution stage tried to give the authority in the State in the hands of the ordinary citizen, but in course of events it went into the hands of the middle-class intellectuals, or the bourgeoisie, and the overwhelming mass of ordinary citizens remained just as it was before the period. The Russian Revolution is a beginning of the destruction of this 'bourgeois period,' and heralds a new day of the 'labour period.' This is the significance of the Bolshevik Revolution. So from Serfdom to Bourgeois-slavery, and from Bourgeois-slavery to the Soviet or Labour period; such are the stages of evolution in the Idea of the State Mechanism, the symbol of the objective unity of human interests.

CHAPTER V: The Indian Revolution.

We have remained too much in the foreign land of Russia, and perhaps talked too much over it. But we hope to be excused on the ground that not only we, but the wisest heads in all nations, are being irresistibly drawn towards that country by its latest noble and heroic success, and the new stage in History that it announces. Another reason is that a forbidden fruit is the most tempting. Our high master-grinders try to discredit every move of ours by calling it a “Bolshevik move.” If the people of India wish to retain their Paradise, they must be kept away from this forbidden fruit, 'Bolshevism'. But while our high masters pose to act as angels to keep us away from it, secretly they act the Satan, driving us towards the forbidden fruit! Simply, the Satan of the old story did it more gently by simply whispering. These of today lash us on the way!

What is the prospect before us? We are embarked on the struggle for independence, and how do we hope to win it? Our constitutional agitation has accomplished almost nothing beyond arousing the nation. We now want a Revolution, surely not with an “Armed Blow,” a Revolution that is the most radical and sweeping change. The theoretical plan of accomplishing it we have noticed in the third chapter. Let us try to see in what position we will drift when we put it into practice.

First, with regard to the movement of spinning and weaving on the charka, which in the hyperbolical language is styled as our ‘munitions' for battle. What will this move bring about? One thing. It will irritate the English capitalists and English labour. Food and Clothing are the two thirds that eat up the greatest part of man’s income, or require the greatest expenditure of the wealth of a nation for their production. As for food, India is self-sufficient, at least to the extent that it does not drain our wealth. But for clothing we have to depend upon England. It drains sixty crores of rupees yearly from our country. If the movement of spinning and weaving succeeds, it will make India richer by sixty crores yearly, and England poorer by the same amount. By it the English capitalists will lose their profits, and the English labour will lose employment worth that much amount. Then how is it that British labour professes hearty support to our movement? The reason is simple. The labour of that country is at present employed in a death-struggle with the capitalists. The meaning of the struggle will be clear if we will see in whose hands the greatest part of the wealth of England is locked: --

Mr. Pathick Lawrence has distributed the private wealth of the United Kingdom in 1913-14 among the rich, comfortable and poor classes in the following proportions.

Rich (owners of more than £ 10,000): 64 p.c. of the aggregate wealth.

Comfortable (owners of between £ 1,000 and £ 10,000): 24 p.c. of the aggregate wealth.

Poor (owners of less than £ 1,000): 12 p.c. of the aggregate wealth.

But by how many persons is this 64% of the aggregate wealth held?

Percentage of population: -- Rich: 2 per cent.

Comfortable: 10 per cent.

Poor: 88 per cent.


So we see that 64% of the whole wealth is enjoyed by only 2% of the population, 24% by 10% of the population and only 12% by 88% of the population. The labour of England means this 88% and its struggle means to get a share in the enormous volume of 64% held by the capitalists. As long as the British labour is not given a share in this enormous volume, it will help the Indian movement, because by our struggle we are harassing the British capitalists also, and thus helping the Labour movement of England. So it will be clear that the Labour party of England is professing sympathy for us not from any philanthropic motives, or from an inherent liking for liberty of other nations. It is a sympathy generating from quite selfish motives. The Indian labour interests, and the British labour interests, are mutually opposed. Independent India would mean full development of our industries in all branches and an efficient, organized labour. That in turn would mean a stop to the vast mass of the expenditure of British labour that is now employed for the needs of India. So sooner or later we will have to struggle with the Labour party also if it comes into power in Parliament, by ousting the present capitalist powers. This much is the meaning of the spinning and weaving movement in the programme of Non-co-operation. Suppose it fails to create a political crisis in the movement of labour vs. capital in England, what is our next weapon? Because we are quite conscious of the limitations of this move. At the most it will feed the poor by giving them work, and make India richer by sixty crores.

But what shall be our next step? The great power of England cannot be shaken by such a feeble blow. Have we then no future? We have. We have this before us. “A race which is suffering from the oppression of an alien conqueror could win its freedom without any resort to force or armed violence. First, the people must become convinced of the necessity of freedom, and that accomplished, they must decline any longer to co-operate in the administration of the foreign power. Instead, they must build up their own State within the State of those who have arrogated the role of rulers. Before long, if the people are united, the external state must crumble to pieces as the inner State grows in fullness. The alien Government may have enormous armies, machine-guns, tanks, poison-gas, aeroplanes, and bombs, but even by the most remorseless use of them it could never defeat resistance of this character. It may kill, but the very dead will work for its overthrow.” We are convinced of the necessity for freedom. That accomplished, we are trying to build an inner State. How? The alien State creates a moral prestige through its Educational and Legal Institutions. If the feelings of awe and obedience created through them are destroyed, the alien Government becomes morally extinct. This we have accomplished by the movement of the boycott of schools, and colleges, and Law Courts. We know that the boycott is not complete, but even the partial success has created the necessary feeling of considering the institutions as worthless and has destroyed the feeling of awe towards Government authority. The moral ground destroyed, on what then does it rest now? Essentially, on its military basis. The British Government in India is morally extinct; now only the military Government is existing by which we are coerced into submission to it. This militarism is maintained by us with our men and money. The army of the Indian Government is roughly three lacs of men, out of which two lacs are supplied by our native races. In our struggle, will these two lacs hold themselves aloof from the Government and refuse action? If we refuse taxes to the Government, and if the Government decides upon terrorism as they are doing in Ireland, will the native army work or refuse? The ranks of the natives are filled in by men from United Provinces, the Punjab, Nepal, and Bhutan, and by some Pathan tribes. As Prof. Seely expects, if the nationality movement gains the native army, the British Empire in India will be at an end. “For we are not really conquerors of India, and we cannot rule her as conquerors; if we undertook to do so, it is not necessary to enquire whether we could succeed, for we should assuredly be ruined financially by the mere attempt.” Even Mahatma Gandhi believes that the native army will refuse work, and says, “One lac of Europeans without our help can only hold less than one-seventh of our villages each, and it would be difficult for one man, even when physically present, to impose his will on say, four-hundred men and women -- the average population of an Indian village.”1 [Young India, March 30, 1921.] The last item of Gandhian programme is this. “We shall continue patiently to educate them (masses) politically till they are ready for safe action. As soon as we feel reasonably confident of non violence continuing among them, in spite of provoking executions, we shall certainly call upon the sepoy to lay down his arms, and the peasantry to suspend payment of taxes. We are hoping that that time may never have to be reached. We shall have no stone unturned to avoid such a serious step. But we will not flinch when the moment has come and the need has arisen.”2 [Young India, March 9, 1921.]

We are quite sure that the final step cannot be avoided. But we are diffident about the native army. The greater part of it is supplied by the Gurkhas, the Punjabis, and the Pathans. Except the Punchabees, there is not the slightest chance of the nationality movement reaching these races, and affecting them to an extent that they would lay down their arms at our orders. So our work of building the inner State must proceed without caring for the army. It can be done by the National Congress only. By the new constitution, even the smallest units of the country, the villages, will be directly affected by the Congress activity. The one crore members of the Congress must be men who will not flinch when the moment comes. The Congress must evolve its own ministries of Education, Law, and Order. The Congress must become the sovereign power of the nation. Then the final command for suspension of payment of taxes will go forth; and the true, earnest struggle shall begin. Men of real worth will be tested in that final phase. The Government will not shrink from terrorism, as it has not shrunk from it in Ireland. All the atrocities committed in Ireland will be related here. Large town-areas like Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, will be coerced into submission by a very simple act, that of stopping the water-supply. As for the peasantry and village-areas, they will be hunted down with all the instruments of war easily available, since the Govt. is a strong military power. And moreover the peasantry is always scattered over a large area, and therefore unable to do any concerted action. Village by village will be lashed to submission and obeyance to the oppressors. Then, where is our hope? We cannot expect that every man will have the courage single-handed to bear everything mutely and still be faithful to the Congress mandate, to the nation’s command, when his house, his wife, his children shall be insulted, flogged, and persecuted before his very eyes! After all we are human beings. Then? There is one remedy. The terrorism will be paralised by only one thing. And it lies in the hands of Indian labour. The army-movements in terrorism, and their success, will depend mainly upon the speedy transport of the soldiers from one centre to another, and of transport of foodstuffs and ammunition for the army. All this is done by Indian labour. If at the extreme moment the Indian labour refuses to work in a solid mass, if the railwayman, telegraph men, coolies, and all sorts of labourers refuse to cooperate with the govt. i.e,, arrange, what is called a sabotage, our success will be assured. The whole movement of govt. terrorism will be paralyzed, and it will have to yield. The sepoy may not lay down his arms, terrorism of the govt. may become financially possible contrary to the expectations of Seely, schools and colleges may not be emptied, and merchants may not stop the foreign trade; but when the final command to suspend paying taxes shall go forth, if the Indian labour will not flinch and do its duty, we will succeed. So side by side with the education of the peasantry must be done the work of organizing our labour and educating it. The labour organization and education is a more hopeful task, because the labourers always are found in large town-areas and in enormous units; a fermenting political atmosphere prevails in such large cities, which makes them susceptible to rapid changes, while the nature of their work makes them habituated to concerted action. This characteristic makes us confident to say that an organized Indian labour will not fail us at the time of action; it is our dire necessity. If we win, we will win only by the help of the proletariat, i.e., the labourers and peasantry. They are our main support. We care neither for the middle-class, nor for the corrupt intellectuals.

No one requires to be told that all this sabotage of the workers, our defence from terrorism by satyagraha, our building the inner State until the outer crumbles down automatically, is to proceed without any violence or disorder. Of course, when the huge mass of population of the Indian continent is to move for action, there is bound to be some violence and some disorder. But that would be nothing compared to those scenes with which mankind has become familiar in history. We are sure this our so-called violence will be nothing when considered by the side of Cromwell’s execution of Charles I, or the guillotine-rumbling of the Fr. Revolution. History cries out hoarsely to all these words. ‘It is the nature of the Devil of tyranny to tear and rend the body, which he leaves ... If it were possible that a people brought under an intolerant and arbitrary system could subvert that system without acts of cruelty and folly, half the objections against despotic power would be removed ....We deplore the outrages that accompany revolutions. But the more violent the outrages, the more assured we feel that a revolution was necessary. The violence of those outrages will always be proportioned to the ferocity, and ignorance of the people will be proportioned to the oppression and degradation under which they have been accustomed to live... If our rulers suffered from popular ignorance, it was because they themselves had taken away the key of knowledge. If they were assailed with blind fury, it was because they had exacted an equally blind submission.”1 [Macaulay 'Milton’, p. 40.] But after this was written, the methods of warfare have made much progress, and the method of non-violent opposition has come in vogue. We are sure our later historians will not have an occasion to write in this strain about us!

Some of our readers may charge us of being in a dream, and writing of a dream, that we may have seen of the future of India. Some may say, “No use talking of the future. Do the work near at hand.” To the former we will say that every ideal and every plan is a dream until it becomes a realized fact. Every plan of action to be done at the moment, next to the one that is actually passing, is speculation, dreaming. Thus every moment man is dreaming. We have only added together, end to end, many such moments, forming days and months at a stretch, and are dreaming about the plan for that much length of time. The greatest dreaming of a fabulous length of time and action is Idealism. To the latter we will say, “we must start work with a clear idea of what we will have to suffer, and to what length and sphere our activities may extend. It is no use starting the work nearest at hand, and turn back half-way, when the terrors of the future are revealed with all their hideousness. We must calculate upon the worst first, and with a clear idea of it start on, which gives greater courage and greater enduring power.”

Only one point now and we finish. In Swaraj (really a dream to some) we will be faced with the problem of labour vs. capital, and the agricultural problem. We must give preference of consideration to these problems first. For we shall win only with the help of the peasantry and labour, who will naturally expect an end of their miseries after emancipation. The spinning wheel alone will not solve the labour problem of modern civilization. We cannot accept the communist plan, in all details, because it is too much fraught with coercion and violence. It must be accepted to this extent, that great concerns like railways, mines, and vast factory plants, may be nationalized or controlled by the State, as even today they are being done in some countries. But how to prevent accumulation of capital in the the hands of a few through speculation and such other means? We may try the following remedy for this. We may fix upon a maximum amount of wealth that an individual may be allowed to possess. Let us take an example of a family man of our day: A man, with a family of say at least four members requires a hundred and fifty rupees to live an honourable decent and happy life without any cares. Of course he is expected to have ambition, to provide something for his children, to have more luxuries of a happier life. The State must allow his powers of working out his ambition free play. But this ambition must be curtailed at some point. The State must stop him at a point where he may be judged to have become “very luxurious” according to the standard of average life of luxuriousness. The standard will vary according to the notions of each man. But we think, in India, we may as well stop a man accumulating beyond one lac of rupees. When this maximum amount has been earned, the man may either stop his activity of earning, or should devote the surplus to the State to be utilized for common good. This is only a suggestion. We have much time to think over its application and efficacy to solve the problem; because we must only think until we get Swaraj!

The Second problem. It is well-known that the agricultural land of India in most parts is accumulated in the hands of great landlords or zamindars, who impoverish the peasants by high taxation, and that the fruits of the peasant’s honest toil goes to the idle, unproductive land-owners. The following figures will explain how the greatest part of agricultural land is divided into a few estates owned by capitalistic zamindars: —  

Acres of land. / No. of estates in which the land is divided.

25 million acres / 90 estates (of course one estate is an ownership of one zemindar.)
73 million acres / 2000 estates (of course one estate is an ownership of one zemindar.)
187 million acres / 1/2 million estates (of course one estate is an ownership of one zemindar.)
30 million acres / 19 million estates (of course one estate is an ownership of one zemindar.)


So we can see that there are only 19 million peasants, who are independent peasant-proprietors, and to their poor lot falls the bit of 30 million acres, a little more than one and a half acre for one peasant-proprietor. The remaining acreage is cultivated by farmers who cannot be proprietors, but are temporary tenants or lease-holders, whose real profit is swallowed by the zamindars, and who can be turned out at their sweet will. The misery of the farmers can be solved only be breaking up the large estates into small holdings and turning them into peasant-proprietorships. Even in Europe the same policy is being followed. “The accepted policy in all the agricultural and thickly populated countries of Europe, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, is the break up of large estates, and the promotion of small holding schemes by the State. It is by the break-up of large estates, and conversion of a landless, oppressed, indebted, and impoverished tenantry into a thrifty, free, and flourishing class of peasant-proprietors, owning land in small and medium sized farms, in conjunction with the organization of rural credit" that we can hold and keep agricultural India in peace and prosperity. Surely by these reforms we shall displease the zemindars and capitalists. But for some years to come, we must face every unjust displeasure. In the end we will triumph, we will be free, we will make the oppressed people free, for ours is a cause of justice, of rights, and of Religion. With this we defy all.

APPENDIX A: How Capitalism robs!

Two examples cited by Mr. C. F. Andrews.

One is that of a modern capitalist, who is said to have bought up all the bricks in the neighbourhood of one of the greatest cities in India, and then, having obtained the monopoly, to have raised immediately the price of building material by 200 per cent.

Let us look a transaction like that squarely in the face. We know how during the present housing crisis in Bombay and elsewhere, the one immediately necessary step to be taken is to create room for expansion in order to relieve the congested slum districts. Most vital moral issues depend on this being done quickly; for immorality breeds in slums. Yet, in the very face of this urgent social demand, here is one individual who can hinder the whole of that necessary building expansion, and hold it up indefinitely by clever manipulation of the money market. Such a man is considered supremely lucky by his neighbours if he succeeds in effecting his object. There appears to be nothing disgraceful in it. On the contrary, his new wealth brings him a thousand fresh admirers. But if we read the parable of Christ aright, God is saying to him, all the while —  

“Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee.”


Second; It has been recently reported to me that a certain firm in Calcutta started business before the war, and was only moderately successful. The shares had slowly risen from 100 to 145, and the rate of interest had slowly risen also. The price paid for the jute to the cultivator had also risen side by side with the prosperity of the jute business. At the outbreak of war, the cultivator could obtain 13 rupees 8 annas per maund for the jute. So far nothing abnormal had happened. But during the war, and after the war, the expenses of the jute cultivator had rapidly increased, and therefore, in justice, he should have demanded more money in return for his labour. Indeed, in order to live at the same rate as before the war, he would need to spend at least twice as much money. He ought, therefore, to be getting not much less than thirty rupees per maund for his jute. But as a matter of fact the opposite of this has taken place. In the years 1914-1920, the jute shares in this company went up from 145 to 1160. The interest paid on the capital invested in the company went up from 15 per cent before the war to 160 per cent. But the price paid to the jute cultivator went down, from 13 rupees 8 annas before the war to six rupees in the year 1920!

We have to understand that here in India itself, and all over the world, the destructive powers which can be wrought under the capitalistic system, when unrestricted, are so great that in their cumulative effects they have far exceeded the violence of revolutionary mobs and predatory powers at open war with one another. The problem of the modern age is to curb these wild excesses of unrestricted capital without destroying or weakening those forces of enterprise and initiative which are vitally necessary for progress.

APPENDIX B: Some interesting figures.

Prices of Foodstuffs (in seers per rupee)

Name of Food / 1857 / 1890 / 1918

Wheat / 39 / 25 / 5.5
Gram / 51.5 / 28 / 7
Rice / 18.5 / 12 / 4
Milk / 160 / 64 / 4


APPENDIX C. Export of living Animals from India.

Year
1901 / 1906 / 1911 / 1912 / 1916

Number
3,20,835 / 3,16,996 / 5,27,706 / 5,44,588 / 3,34,310

Value in £
1,42,634 / 1,50,877 / 1,82,787 / 2,22,200 / 1,59,287


[“In our life’s struggle, our cattle form our primary mainstay. Their milk constitutes our principal food from the day that we are born to the day that we die. It also forms our chief source of nutrition. The cattle forms practically our only beast of burden. It carries us from place to place, and carries our merchandise too. Agriculture is wholly dependent on our cattle.” Yet the Government pursues the policy of exporting them, and of sending them to slaughter-houses. Advantages of British Government in India!!]  
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:16 am

Ethical movement [Ethical Culture Movement] [Ethical Humanism] [Ethical Culture] [Ethical Church Movement]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/18/20

Image
Ethical Movement
The Ethical Human logo of the Ethical Culture/Ethical Humanist movement, its most widely used symbol
Scripture None
Headquarters: New York City
Founder: Felix Adler
Origin: 1877
Congregations: about 30
Number of followers: Less than 10,000 (2014)[1]
Official website http://www.aeu.org

The Ethical movement, also referred to as the Ethical Culture movement, Ethical Humanism or simply Ethical Culture, is an ethical, educational, and religious movement that is usually traced back to Felix Adler (1851–1933).[2] Individual chapter organizations are generically referred to as "Ethical Societies", though their names may include "Ethical Society", "Ethical Culture Society", "Society for Ethical Culture", "Ethical Humanist Society", or other variations on the theme of "Ethical".

The Ethical movement is an outgrowth of secular moral traditions in the 19th century, principally in Europe and the United States. While some in this movement went on to organise for a non-congregational secular humanist movement, others attempted to build a secular moral movement that was emphatically "religious" in its approach to developing humanist ethical codes, in the sense of encouraging congregational structures and religious rites and practices. While in the United States, these movements formed as separate education organisations (the American Humanist Association and the American Ethical Union), the American Ethical Union's British equivalents, the South Place Ethical Society and the British Ethical Union consciously moved away from a congregational model to become Conway Hall and Humanists UK respectively. Subsequent "godless" congregational movements include the Sunday Assembly, whose London chapter has used Conway Hall as a venue since 2013.

At the international level, Ethical Culture and secular humanist groups have always organised jointly; the American Ethical Union and British Ethical Union were founding members of Humanists International, whose original name "International Humanist and Ethical Union" reflected the movement's unity.

Ethical Culture is premised on the idea that honoring and living in accordance with ethical principles is central to what it takes to live meaningful and fulfilling lives, and to creating a world that is good for all. Practitioners of Ethical Culture focus on supporting one another in becoming better people, and on doing good in the world.[3][4]

History

Background


The Ethical movement was an outgrowth of the general loss of faith among the intellectuals of the Victorian era. A precursor to the doctrines of the ethical movement can be found in the South Place Ethical Society, founded in 1793 as the South Place Chapel on Finsbury Square, on the edge of the City of London.[5]

Image
The Fabian Society was an outgrowth from the Fellowship of the New Life.

In the early nineteenth century, the chapel became known as "a radical gathering-place".[6] At that point it was a Unitarian chapel, and that movement, like Quakers, supported female equality.[7] Under the leadership of Reverend William Johnson Fox,[8] it lent its pulpit to activists such as Anna Wheeler, one of the first women to campaign for feminism at public meetings in England, who spoke in 1829 on "Rights of Women." In later decades, the chapel moved away from Unitarianism, changing its name first to the South Place Religious Society, then the South Place Ethical Society (a name it held formally, though it was better known as Conway Hall from 1929) and is now Conway Hall Ethical Society.

The Fellowship of the New Life was established in 1883 by the Scottish intellectual Thomas Davidson.[9] Fellowship members included poets Edward Carpenter and John Davidson, animal rights activist Henry Stephens Salt,[10] sexologist Havelock Ellis, feminist Edith Lees (who later married Ellis), novelist Olive Schreiner[11] and Edward R. Pease.

Its objective was "The cultivation of a perfect character in each and all." They wanted to transform society by setting an example of clean simplified living for others to follow. Davidson was a major proponent of a structured philosophy about religion, ethics, and social reform.[12]

At a meeting on 16 November 1883, a summary of the society’s goals was drawn up by Maurice Adams:

We, recognizing the evils and wrongs that must beset men so long as our social life is based upon selfishness, rivalry, and ignorance, and desiring above all things to supplant it by a life based upon unselfishness, love, and wisdom, unite, for the purpose of realizing the higher life among ourselves, and of inducing and enabling others to do the same. And we now form ourselves into a Society, to be called the Guild [Fellowship] of the New Life, to carry out this purpose.[13]


Although the Fellowship was a short-lived organization, it spawned the Fabian Society, which split in 1884 from the Fellowship of the New Life.[14][15]

Ethical movement

Image
Felix Adler, founder of the ethical movement.

In his youth, Felix Adler was being trained to be a rabbi like his father, Samuel Adler, the rabbi of the Reform Jewish Temple Emanu-El in New York. As part of his education, he enrolled at the University of Heidelberg, where he was influenced by neo-Kantian philosophy. He was especially drawn to the Kantian ideas that one could not prove the existence or non-existence of deities or immortality and that morality could be established independently of theology.[16]

During this time he was also exposed to the moral problems caused by the exploitation of women and labor. These experiences laid the intellectual groundwork for the ethical movement. Upon his return from Germany, in 1873, he shared his ethical vision with his father's congregation in the form of a sermon. Due to the negative reaction he elicited it became his first and last sermon as a rabbi in training.[17] Instead he took up a professorship at Cornell University and in 1876 gave a follow up sermon that led to the 1877 founding of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, which was the first of its kind.[16] By 1886, similar societies had sprouted up in Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis.[17]

These societies all adopted the same statement of principles:

• The belief that morality is independent of theology;
• The affirmation that new moral problems have arisen in modern industrial society which have not been adequately dealt with by the world's religions;
• The duty to engage in philanthropy in the advancement of morality;
• The belief that self-reform should go in lock step with social reform;
• The establishment of republican rather than monarchical governance of Ethical societies
• The agreement that educating the young is the most important aim.

In effect, the movement responded to the religious crisis of the time by replacing theology with unadulterated morality. It aimed to "disentangle moral ideas from religious doctrines, metaphysical systems, and ethical theories, and to make them an independent force in personal life and social relations."[17] Adler was also particularly critical of the religious emphasis on creed, believing it to be the source of sectarian bigotry. He therefore attempted to provide a universal fellowship devoid of ritual and ceremony, for those who would otherwise be divided by creeds. For the same reasons the movement also adopted a neutral position on religious beliefs, advocating neither atheism nor theism, agnosticism nor deism.[17]

Image
Ethical Culture School (red) and Ethical Culture Society (white) buildings.

The Adlerian emphasis on "deed not creed" translated into several public service projects. The year after it was founded, the New York society started a kindergarten, a district nursing service and a tenement-house building company. Later they opened the Ethical Culture School, then called the "Workingman's School," a Sunday school and a summer home for children, and other Ethical societies soon followed suit with similar projects. Unlike the philanthropic efforts of the established religious institutions of the time, the Ethical societies did not attempt to proselytize those they helped. In fact, they rarely attempted to convert anyone. New members had to be sponsored by existing members, and women were not allowed to join at all until 1893. They also resisted formalization, though nevertheless slowly adopted certain traditional practices, like Sunday meetings and life cycle ceremonies, yet did so in a modern humanistic context. In 1893, the four existing societies unified under the umbrella organization, the American Ethical Union.[17]

After some initial success the movement stagnated until after World War II. In 1946 efforts were made to revitalize and societies were created in New Jersey and Washington D.C., along with the inauguration of the Encampment for Citizenship. By 1968 there were thirty societies with a total national membership of over 5,500. However, the resuscitated movement differed from its predecessor in a few ways. The newer groups were being created in suburban locales and often to provide alternative Sunday schools for children, with adult activities as an afterthought.

There was also a greater focus on organization and bureaucracy, along with an inward turn emphasizing the needs of the group members over the more general social issues that had originally concerned Adler. The result was a transformation of American ethical societies into something much more akin to small Christian congregations in which the minister's most pressing concern is to tend to his or her flock.[17]

In the 21st century, the movement continued to revitalize itself through social media and involvement with other Humanist organizations, with mixed success. As of 2014, there were fewer than 10,000 official members of the Ethical movement.[18]

In Britain

Image
Stanton Coit led the ethical movement in Britain.

In 1885 the ten-year-old American Ethical Culture movement helped to stimulate similar social activity in Great Britain, when American sociologist John Graham Brooks distributed pamphlets by Chicago ethical society leader William Salter to a group of British philosophers, including Bernard Bosanquet, John Henry Muirhead, and John Stuart MacKenzie.

One of Felix Adler's colleagues, Stanton Coit, visited them in London to discuss the "aims and principles" of their American counterparts. In 1886 the first British ethical society was founded. Coit took over the leadership of South Place for a few years. Ethical societies flourished in Britain. By 1896 the four London societies formed the Union of Ethical Societies, and between 1905 and 1910 there were over fifty societies in Great Britain, seventeen of which were affiliated with the Union. Part of this rapid growth was due to Coit, who left his role as leader of South Place in 1892 after being denied the power and authority he was vying for.

Because he was firmly entrenched in British ethicism, Coit remained in London and formed the West London Ethical Society, which was almost completely under his control. Coit worked quickly to shape the West London society not only around Ethical Culture but also the trappings of religious practice, renaming the society in 1914 to the Ethical Church. He transformed his meetings into services, and their space into something akin to a church. In a series of books Coit also began to argue for the transformation of the Anglican Church into an Ethical Church, while holding up the virtue of ethical ritual. He felt that the Anglican Church was in the unique position to harness the natural moral impulse that stemmed from society itself, as long as the Church replaced theology with science, abandoned supernatural beliefs, expanded its bible to include a cross-cultural selection of ethical literature and reinterpreted its creeds and liturgy in light of modern ethics and psychology. His attempt to reform the Anglican church failed, and ten years after his death in 1944, the Ethical Church building was sold to the Roman Catholic Church.[17]

During Stanton Coit's lifetime, the Ethical Church never officially affiliated with the Union of Ethical Societies, nor did South Place. In 1920 the Union of Ethical Societies changed its name to the Ethical Union.[19] Harold Blackham, who had taken over leadership of the London Ethical Church, consciously sought to remove the church-like trappings of the Ethical movement, and advocated a simple creed of humanism that was not akin to a religion. He promoted the merger of the Ethical Union with the Rationalist Press Association and the South Place Ethical Society, and, in 1957, a Humanist Council was set up to explore amalgamation. Although issues over charitable status prevented a full amalgamation, the Ethical Union under Blackham changed its name in 1967 to become the British Humanist Association – establishing humanism as the principle organising force for non-religious morals and secularist advocacy in Britain. The BHA was the legal successor body to the Union of Ethical Societies.[20]

Between 1886 and 1927 seventy-four ethical societies were started in Great Britain, although this rapid growth did not last long. The numbers declined steadily throughout the 1920s and early 30s, until there were only ten societies left in 1934. By 1954 there were only four. The situation became such that in 1971, sociologist Colin Campbell even suggested that one could say, "that when the South Place Ethical Society discussed changing its name to the South Place Humanist society in 1969, the English ethical movement ceased to exist."[17]

The organisations spawned by the 19th century Ethical movement would later live on as the British humanist movement. The South Place Ethical Society eventually changed its name Conway Hall Ethical Society, after Moncure D. Conway, and is typically known as simply "Conway Hall". In 2017, the British Humanist Association again changed its name, becoming Humanists UK. Both organisations are part of Humanists International, which had been founded by Harold Blackham in 1952 as the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

Ethical perspective

Image
Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture building on Prospect Park West, originally designed by architect William Tubby as a home for William H. Childs (inventor of Bon Ami Cleaning Powder)

While Ethical Culturists generally share common beliefs about what constitutes ethical behavior and the good, individuals are encouraged to develop their own personal understanding of these ideas. This does not mean that Ethical Culturists condone moral relativism, which would relegate ethics to mere preferences or social conventions. Ethical principles are viewed as being related to deep truths about the way the world works, and hence not arbitrary. However, it is recognized that complexities render the understanding of ethical nuances subject to continued dialogue, exploration, and learning.

While the founder of Ethical Culture, Felix Adler, was a transcendentalist, Ethical Culturists may have a variety of understandings as to the theoretical origins of ethics. Key to the founding of Ethical Culture was the observation that too often disputes over religious or philosophical doctrines have distracted people from actually living ethically and doing good. Consequently, "Deed before creed" has long been a motto of the movement.[4][21]

Religious aspect

Image
Pews and stained glass

Functionally, Ethical Societies are similar to churches or synagogues and are headed by "leaders" as clergy. Ethical Societies typically have Sunday morning meetings, offer moral instruction for children and teens, and do charitable work and social action. They may offer a variety of educational and other programs. They conduct weddings, commitment ceremonies, baby namings, and memorial services.

Individual Ethical Society members may or may not believe in a deity or regard Ethical Culture as their religion. Felix Adler said "Ethical Culture is religious to those who are religiously minded, and merely ethical to those who are not so minded." The movement does consider itself a religion in the sense that

Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which bind human beings to something beyond their individual selves and foster in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one’s world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests.[22]


The Ethical Culture 2003 ethical identity statement states:

It is a chief belief of Ethical religion that if we relate to others in a way that brings out their best, we will at the same time elicit the best in ourselves. By the "best" in each person, we refer to his or her unique talents and abilities that affirm and nurture life. We use the term "spirit" to refer to a person’s unique personality and to the love, hope, and empathy that exists in human beings. When we act to elicit the best in others, we encourage the growing edge of their ethical development, their perhaps as-yet untapped but inexhaustible worth.


Since around 1950 the Ethical Culture movement has been increasingly identified as part of the modern Humanist movement. Specifically, in 1952, the American Ethical Union, the national umbrella organization for Ethical Culture societies in the United States, became one of the founding member organizations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

Key ideas

While Ethical Culture does not regard its founder's views as necessarily the final word, Adler identified focal ideas that remain important within Ethical Culture. These ideas include:

• Human Worth and Uniqueness – All people are taken to have inherent worth, not dependent on the value of what they do. They are deserving of respect and dignity, and their unique gifts are to be encouraged and celebrated.[3]
• Eliciting the Best – "Always act so as to Elicit the best in others, and thereby yourself" is as close as Ethical Culture comes to having a Golden Rule.[3]
• Interrelatedness – Adler used the term The Ethical Manifold to refer to his conception of the universe as made up of myriad unique and indispensable moral agents (individual human beings), each of whom has an inestimable influence on all the others. In other words, we are all interrelated, with each person playing a role in the whole and the whole affecting each person. Our interrelatedness is at the heart of ethics.

Many Ethical Societies prominently display a sign that says "The Place Where People Meet to Seek the Highest is Holy Ground".[23]

Locations

The largest concentration of Ethical Societies is in the New York metropolitan area, including Societies in New York, Manhattan, the Bronx,[24] Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester and Nassau County; and New Jersey, such as Bergen and Essex Counties, New Jersey.[25][26]

Ethical Societies exist in several U.S. cities and counties, including Austin, Texas; Baltimore; Chapel Hill; Asheville, North Carolina; Chicago; San Jose, California; Philadelphia; St. Louis; St. Peters, Missouri; Washington, D.C.; Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and Vienna, Virginia.

Ethical Societies also exist outside the U.S. Conway Hall in London is home to the South Place Ethical Society, which was founded in 1787.[27]

Structure and events

Ethical societies are typically led by "Leaders." Leaders are trained and certified (the equivalent of ordination) by the American Ethical Union. Societies engage Leaders, in much the same way that Protestant congregations "call" a minister. Not all Ethical societies have a professional Leader. (In typical usage, the Ethical Movement uses upper case to distinguish certified professional Leaders from other leaders.)[28] A board of executives handles day-to-day affairs, and committees of members focus on specific activities and involvements of the society.

Ethical societies usually hold weekly meetings on Sundays, with the main event of each meeting being the "Platform", which involves a half-hour speech by the Leader of the Ethical Society, a member of the society or by guests. Sunday school for minors is also held at most ethical societies concurrent with the Platform.

The American Ethical Union holds an annual AEU Assembly bringing together Ethical societies from across the US.

Legal challenges

The tax status of Ethical Societies as religious organizations has been upheld in court cases in Washington, D.C. (1957), and in Austin, Texas (2003). In challenge to a denial of tax-exempt status, the Texas State Appeals Court decided that "the Comptroller's test was unconstitutionally underinclusive and that the Ethical Society should have qualified for the requested tax exemptions... Because the Comptroller's test fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment's protection..." [29]

Advocates

British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald was a strong supporter of the British Ethical movement, having been a Christian earlier in his life. He was a member of the Ethical Church and the Union of Ethical Societies (now Humanists UK), a regular attender at South Place Ethical Society. During his time involved with the Ethical movement, he chaired the annual meeting of the Ethical Union on multiple occasions and wrote for Stanton Coit's Ethical World journal.[30][31][32][33]

Albert Einstein was a supporter of Ethical Culture. On the seventy-fifth anniversary of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, in 1951, he noted that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. Humanity requires such a belief to survive, Einstein argued. He observed, "Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity."[34]

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was a regular attendee at the New York Society for Ethical Culture at a time when humanism was beginning to coalesce in its modern day form, and it was there that she developed friendships with the leading humanists and Ethical Culturists of her day. She collaborated with Al Black, Ethical Society leader, in the creation of her nationwide Encampment of Citizenship. She maintained her involvement with the movement as figures on both sides of the Atlantic began to advocate for organising under the banner of secular humanism. She provided a cover endorsement for the first edition of Humanism as the Next Step (1954) by Lloyd and Mary Morain, saying simply that it was "A significant book."

See also

• Arthur E. Briggs, Los Angeles City Council member, 1939–41, Ethical Society leader
• British Humanist Association, which inherited many British ethical societies
• Religious humanism
• Unitarian Universalism
• Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia

References

1. "The original 'atheist church': Why don't more atheists know about Ethical Culture?". Retrieved 25 June 2018.
2. From Reform Judaism to ethical culture: the religious evolution of Felix Adler Benny Kraut, Hebrew Union College Press, 1979
3. Brown, Stuart C; Collinson, Diané (1996), "Adler", Biographical dictionary of twentieth-century philosophers, Books, p. 7, ISBN 9780415060431
4. The conservator, Volumes 3-4, Horace Traubel, Volume 3, page 31
5. City of London page on Finsbury Circus Conservation Area Character Summary Archived 8 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
6. The Sexual Contract, by Carole Patema. P160
7. ""Women's Politics in Britain 1780-1870: Claiming Citizenship" by Jane Rendall, esp. "72. The religious backgrounds of feminist activists"". Archived from the original on 11 March 2012. Retrieved 17 March 2012.
8. "Ethical Society history page". Ethicalsoc.org.uk. Archived from the original on 18 January 2000. Retrieved 29 September2013.
9. Good, James A. "The Development of Thomas Davidson's Religious and Social Thought".
10. George Hendrick, Henry Salt: Humanitarian Reformer and Man of Letters, University of Illinois Press, pg. 47 (1977).
11. Jeffrey Weeks, Making Sexual History, Wiley-Blackwell, pg. 20, (2000).
12. Knight, William. Memorials of Thomas Davidson.(Boston: Ginn & Company, 1907), 18
13. Knight, William. Memorials of Thomas Davidson.(Boston: Ginn & Company, 1907), 19
14. William A. Knight, Memorials of Thomas Davidson: The Wandering Scholar (Boston and London: Ginn and Co, 1907). p. 16, 19, 46.
15. Pease, Edward R. (1916). The History of the Fabian Society. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co.
16. Howard B. Radest. 1969. Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical Societies in the United States. New York: Fredrick Unger Publishing Co.
17. Colin Campbell. 1971. Towards a Sociology of Irreligion. London: MacMillan Press.
18. Stedman, Chris (2014, October 1). "The original ‘atheist church’: Why don’t more atheists know about Ethical Culture?" Religion World News. Retrieved from https://religionnews.com/2014/10/01/ori ... l-culture/
19. I.D. MacKillop. 1986. The British Ethical Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. British Humanist Association: Our History since 1896 Archived 9 August 2013 at WebCite
21. Ethics as a Religion, David Saville Muzzey, 273 pages, 1951, 1967, 1986
22. Arthur Dobrin, quoted in "Ethical Culture as Religion" Archived 12 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Jone Johnson Lewis, 2003, American Ethical Union Library
23. Goldberger, Paul (12 August 2010), Architecture, Sacred Space, and the Challenge of the Modern, Chautauqua Institution, archived from the original on 15 July 2011, retrieved 3 March 2011
24. "Riverdale Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture". Rysec.org. 24 August 2012. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
25. Ethical Societies.
26. Bergen, NJ Society
27. South Place Ethical Society, About the Society Archived 29 November 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
28. American Ethical Union. American Ethical Union https://aeu.org/meet-our-leaders/. Retrieved 3 January 2018. Missing or empty |title= (help)
29. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, in her Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appellant v. Ethical Society of Austin, f/k/a Ethical Culture Fellowship of Austin, Appellee, justia.com, 2003
30. Lord Godfrey Elton (1939). The Life of James Ramsay Macdonald (1866-1919). Collins. p. 94.
31. Turner, Jacqueline (2018). The Labour Church: Religion and Politics in Britain 1890-1914. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd.
32. Hunt, James D. (2005). An American Looks at Gandhi: Essays in Satyagraha, Civil Rights, and Peace. Promilla & Co Publishers Ltd.
33. Marquand, David; Ramsay MacDonald; London, 1977; p. 24
34. Ericson, Edward L (1988). The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion. The American Ethical Union. ISBN 9780804421768. Retrieved 23 July 2008.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Edward William Bennett (1901–1906). "Ethical Culture, Society for". In Singer, Isidore; et al. (eds.). The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

Further reading

• Ericson, Edward L. The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion. A Frederick Ungar book, The Continuum Publishing Company. 205 pages, 1988.
• Radest, Howard. Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical Societies in the United States. Ungar, 1969
• Muzzey, David Saville. Ethics as a Religion, 273 pages, 1951, 1967, 1986.

External links

• Official website
• Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Ethical Society of Austin
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:24 am

Aristotelian Society
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/19/20

The Aristotelian Society for the Systematic Study of Philosophy, more generally known as the Aristotelian Society, was founded at a meeting on 19 April 1880, at 17 Bloomsbury Square, London.[1]

The Aristotelian Society resolved "to constitute a society of about twenty and to include ladies; the society to meet fortnightly, on Mondays at 8 o'clock, at the rooms of the Spelling Reform Association…"[2] The rules of the society stipulated:

The object of this Society shall be the systematic study of philosophy; 1st, as to its historical development; 2nd, as to its methods and problems.


According to H. Wildon Carr, in choosing a name for the society, it was:

essential to find a name which would definitely prescribe the speculative character of the study which was to be the Society's ideal, and it seemed that this could best be secured by adopting the name of a philosopher eminently representative. There is only one such name in the history of philosophy and so we became the Aristotelian Society, not for the special study of Aristotle, or of Aristotelianism, but for the systematic study of Philosophy."[3]


The society's first president was Mr. Shadworth H. Hodgson. He was president for fourteen years from 1880 until 1894, when he proposed Dr. Bernard Bosanquet as his replacement.

Bernard Bosanquet FBA (/ˈboʊzənˌkɛt, -kɪt/; 14 June[1] 1848 – 8 February 1923) was an English philosopher and political theorist, and an influential figure on matters of political and social policy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His work influenced but was later subject to criticism by many thinkers, notably Bertrand Russell, John Dewey and William James. Bernard was the husband of Charity Organisation Society leader Helen Bosanquet.

Born at Rock Hall near Alnwick, Bosanquet was the son of Robert William Bosanquet, a Church of England clergyman. He was educated at Harrow School and Balliol College, Oxford. After graduation, he was elected to a Fellowship at University College, Oxford, but, after receiving a substantial inheritance, resigned it in order to devote himself to philosophical research. He moved to London in 1881, where he became an active member of the London Ethical Society and the Charity Organisation Society. Both were positive demonstrations of Bosanquet's ethical philosophy.

The Charity Organization Societies were founded in England in 1869 following the 'Goschen Minute' (Poor Law Board; 22nd Annual Report (1869–70), Appendix A No.4. Relief to the Poor in the Metropolis. PP XXXI, 1871) that sought to severely restrict outdoor relief distributed by the Poor Law Guardians. In the early 1870s a handful of local societies were formed with the intention of restricting the distribution of outdoor relief to the elderly.

Also called the Associated Charities was a private charity that existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a clearing house for information on the poor. The society was mainly concerned with distinction between the deserving poor and undeserving poor. The society believed that giving out charity without investigating the problems behind poverty created a class of citizens that would always be dependent on alms giving.

The society originated in Elberfeld, Germany and spread to Buffalo, New York around 1877. The conviction that relief promoted dependency was the basis for forming the Societies. Instead of offering direct relief, the societies addressed the cycle of poverty. Neighborhood charity visitors taught the values of hard work and thrift to individuals and families. The COS set up centralized records and administrative services and emphasized objective investigations and professional training.

-- Charity Organization Society, by Wikipedia


Bosanquet published on a wide range of topics, such as logic, metaphysics, aesthetics and politics. In his metaphysics, he is regarded as a key representative (with F. H. Bradley) of absolute idealism, although it is a term that he abandoned in favour of "speculative philosophy".

He was one of the leaders of the so-called neo-Hegelian philosophical movement in Great Britain. He was strongly influenced by the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, but also by the German philosophers Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Among his best-known works are The Philosophical Theory of the State (1899), his Gifford lectures, The Principle of Individuality and Value (1912) and The Value and Destiny of the Individual (1913).

Bosanquet was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1894 to 1898.

In his Encyclopedia, Section 95, Hegel had written about "the ideality of the finite." This obscure, seemingly meaningless, phrase was interpreted as implying that "what is finite is not real" because the ideal is understood as being the opposite of the real. Bosanquet was a follower of Hegel and the "central theme of Bosanquet's idealism was that every finite existence necessarily transcends itself and points toward other existences and finally to the whole. Thus, he advocated a system very close to that in which Hegel had argued for the ideality of the finite."

The relation of the finite individual to the whole state in which he or she lives was investigated in Bosanquet's Philosophical Theory of the State (London, 1899). In this book, he "argued that the state is the real individual and that individual persons are unreal by comparison with it." But Bosanquet did not think that the state has a right to impose social control over its individual citizens. "On the contrary, he believed that if society is organic and individual, then its elements can cooperate apart from a centralised organ of control, the need for which presupposes that harmony has to be imposed upon something that is naturally unharmonious."

The relationship between the individual and society was summarised in Bosanquet's preface to The Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Fine Art (1886):

Man's Freedom, in the sense thus contemplated, lies in the spiritual or supra-sensuous world by which his humanity is realized, and in which his will finds fulfilment. The family, for example, property, and law are the first steps of man's freedom. In them the individual's will obtains and bestows recognition as an agent in a society whose bond of union is ideal — i.e. existing only in consciousness; and this recognition develops into duties and rights. It is in these that man finds something to live for, something in which and for the sake of which to assert himself. As society develops he lives on the whole more in the civilized or spiritual world, and less in the savage or purely natural world. His will, which is himself, expands with the institutions and ideas that form its purpose, and the history of this expansion is the history of human freedom. Nothing is more shallow,more barbarously irrational, than to regard the progress of civilization as the accumulation of restrictions. Laws and rules are a necessary aspect of extended capacities. (p. xxvii)

-- Bernard Bosanquet (philosopher), by Wikipedia


Professor Alan Willard Brown [1] noted in 1947 that '[The Society]'s members were not all men of established intellectual position. It welcomed young minds just out of university as well as older amateur philosophers with serious interests and purposes. But many distinguished men were faithful members, and not the least virtue of the society has remained, even to the present day, the opportunity it affords for different intellectual generations to meet in an atmosphere of reasoned and responsible discussion.'."[4]

The society continues to meet fortnightly at the University of London's Senate House to hear and discuss philosophical papers from all philosophical traditions. The current President (2016–2017) is Tim Crane, a Professor of Philosophy at University of Cambridge.[5] Its other work includes giving grants to support the organisation of academic conferences in philosophy, and, with Oxford University Press, the production of the 'Lines of Thought' series of philosophical monographs.

The society's annual conference, organised since 1918 in conjunction with the Mind Association, (publishers of the philosophical journal Mind), is known as the Joint Session of the Aristotelian Society and the Mind Association, and is hosted by different university departments in July each year.

The Mind Association is a philosophical society whose purpose is to promote the study of philosophy. The association publishes the journal Mind quarterly.

Mind is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association....

Early on, the journal was dedicated to the question of whether psychology could be a legitimate natural science. In the first issue, Robertson wrote:

Now, if there were a journal that set itself to record all advances in psychology, and gave encouragement to special researches by its readiness to publish them, the uncertainty hanging over the subject could hardly fail to be dispelled. Either psychology would in time pass with general consent into the company of the sciences, or the hollowness of its pretensions would be plainly revealed. Nothing less, in fact, is aimed at in the publication of Mind than to procure a decision of this question as to the scientific standing of psychology.

-- Mind (journal), by Wikipedia


It was established in 1900 on the death of Henry Sidgwick [one of the founders and first president of the Society for Psychical Research; a member of the Metaphysical Society, and the Cambridge Apostles, a lifelong homosexual, married to Eleanor Mildred Balfour, sister to Arthur Balfour], who had supported Mind financially since 1891 and had suggested that after his death the society should be formed to oversee the journal.

-- Mind Association, by Wikipedia


Publications

The first edition of the society's proceedings, the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society for the Systematic Study of Philosophy, now the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, was issued in 1888.

Papers from invited speakers at the Joint Session conference are published in June each year (i.e., before the joint conference) in The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume.

The Proceedings and the Supplementary Volume are published by the society and distributed by Oxford University Press. The back run of both journals has been digitised by JSTOR.

List of current and past presidents

Many significant philosophers have served the society as its president:

• Shadworth H. Hodgson (1880–1894)
• Bernard Bosanquet (1894–1898)
• D. G. Ritchie (1898–1899)
• G. F. Stout (1899–1904)
• Hastings Rashdall (1904–1907)
Lord Haldane of Cloan (1907–1908)
• Samuel Alexander (1908–1911)
Bertrand Russell (1911–1913)
• G. Dawes Hicks (1913–1914)
Arthur Balfour (1914–1915)
• H. Wildon Carr (1915–1918)
• G. E. Moore (1918–1919)
• James Ward (1919–1920)
• W. R. Inge (1920–1921)
F. C. S. Schiller (1921–1922)
• A. N. Whitehead (1922–1923)
• Percy Nunn (1923–1924)
• Lord Lindsay of Birker (1924–1925)
• J. A. Smith (1925–1926)
• C. Lloyd Morgan (1926–1927)
• C. D. Broad (1927–1928)
• A. E. Taylor (1928–1929)
• J. Laird (1929–1930)
• Beatrice Edgell (1930–1931)
• W. G. de Burgh (1931–1932)
• Leonard J. Russell (1932–1933)
• L. Susan Stebbing (1933–1934)
• G. C. Field (1934–1935)
• J. L. Stocks (1935–1936)
• Samuel Alexander (1936–1937)
Bertrand Russell (1937–1938)
• G. F. Stout (1938–1939)
• Sir William David Ross (1939–1940)
• Hilda D. Oakeley (1940–1941)
• A. C. Ewing (1941–1942)
• Morris Ginsberg (1942–1943)
• H. H. Price (1943–1944)
• H. J. Paton (1944–1945)
• Gilbert Ryle (1945–1946)
• R. B. Braithwaite (1946–1947)
• Norman Kemp Smith (1947–1948)
• C. A. Mace (1948–1949)
• William Kneale (1949–1950)
• John Wisdom (1950–1951)
• A. J. Ayer (1951–1952)
• H. B. Acton (1952–1953)
• Dorothy Emmet (1953–1954)
• C. D. Broad (1954–1955)
• J. N. Findlay (1955–1956)
• J. L. Austin (1956–1957)
• R. I. Aaron (1957–1958)
• Karl Popper (1958–1959)
• H. L. A. Hart (1959–1960)
• A. E. Duncan–Jones (1960–1961)
• A. M. MacIver (1961–1962)
• H. D. Lewis (1962–1963)
• Sir Isaiah Berlin (1963–1964)
• W. H. Walsh (1964–1965)
• Ruth L. Saw (1965–1966)
• Stephan Körner (1966–1967)
• Richard Wollheim (1967–1968)
• D. J. O'Connor (1968–1969)
• P. F. Strawson (1969–1970)
• W. B. Gallie (1970–1971)
• Martha Kneale (1971–1972)
• R. M. Hare (1972–1973)
• Charles H. Whiteley (1973–1974)
• David Daiches Raphael (1974–1975)
• A. M. Quinton (1975–1976)
• D. M. Mackinnon (1976–1977)
• D. W. Hamlyn (1977–1978)
• G. E. L. Owen (1978–1979)
• A. R. White (1979–1980)
• P. G. Winch (1980–1981)
• R. F. Holland (1981–1982)
• Timothy Smiley (1982–1983)
• A. R. Manser (1983–1984)
• Peter Alexander (1984–1985)
• Richard Sorabji (1985–1986)
• Martin Hollis (1986–1987)
• G. E. M. Anscombe (1987–1988)
• Onora O'Neill (1988–1989)
• Renford Bambrough (1989–1990)
• John Skorupski (1990–1991)
• Timothy Sprigge (1991–1992)
• Hugh Mellor (1992–1993)
• David E. Cooper (1993–1994)
• Jonathan Dancy (1994–1995)
• Christopher Hookway (1995–1996)
• Jennifer Hornsby (1996–1997)
• John Cottingham (1997–1998)
• Adam Morton (1998–1999)
• David Wiggins (1999–2000)
• James Griffin (2000–2001)
• Jane Heal (2001–2002)
• Bob Hale (2002–2003)
• Paul Snowdon (2003–2004)
• Timothy Williamson (2004–2005)
• Myles Burnyeat (2005–2006)
• Thomas Baldwin (2006–2007)
• Dorothy Edgington (2007–2008)
• M G F Martin (2008–2009)
• Simon Blackburn (2009–2010)
• Quassim Cassam (2010–2011)
• Marie McGinn (2011–2012)
• Sarah Broadie (2012–2013)
• David Papineau (2013–2014)
• A. W. Moore (2014–2015)
• Susan James (2015–2016)
• Tim Crane (2016–2017)
• Helen Beebee (2017–2018)
• Jo Wolff (2018–2019)

Notes

1. Five individuals attended this meeting: F. G. Fleay, Alfred Senier (1853–1918) (later Professor of Chemistry in the University of Galway), Herbert Burrows, Edward Clarkson, and Alfred Lowe (Carr, 1928–1929, pp.360).
2. Carr (1928–1929), 360.
3. Carr (1928–1929), 361.
4. Brown (1947), p.249.
5. "The Council", Aristotelian Society.

References

• Philosophy portal
• Brown, A.W., "The Metaphysical Society: Victorian Minds in Crisis, 1869–1880" New York: Columbia University Press (1947)
• Carr, H.W., "The Fiftieth Session: A Retrospect", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol.29, (1928–1929), pp. 359–386.

External links

• The Aristotelian Society for the Systematic Study of Philosophy
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:27 am

F. C. S. [Ferdinand Canning Scott] Schiller
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/19/20

Image
Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller
Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller
Born: 16 August 1864, Ottensen near Altona, Holstein, German Confederation
Died: 6 August 1937 (aged 72), Los Angeles
Education: Rugby School[1]; Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1887)
Era: 19th/20th-century philosophy
Region: Western philosophy
School: British pragmatism
Institutions: Corpus Christi, Oxford[1]
Main interestsL Pragmatism, logic, Ordinary language philosophy, epistemology, eugenics, meaning, personalism
Notable ideas: Criticism of formal logic, justification of axioms as hypotheses (a form of pragmatism), intelligent design, eugenics
Influences: William James, Protagoras
Influenced: William James, Victoria, Lady Welby

Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller (16 August 1864 – 6 August 1937), usually cited as F. C. S. Schiller, was a German-British philosopher. Born in Altona, Holstein (at that time member of the German Confederation, but under Danish administration), Schiller studied at the University of Oxford, later was a professor there, after being invited back after a brief time at Cornell University. Later in his life he taught at the University of Southern California. In his lifetime he was well known as a philosopher; after his death his work was largely forgotten.

Schiller's philosophy was very similar to and often aligned with the pragmatism of William James, although Schiller referred to it as "humanism". He argued vigorously against both logical positivism and associated philosophers (for example, Bertrand Russell) as well as absolute idealism (such as F. H. Bradley).

Schiller was an early supporter of evolution and a founding member of the English Eugenics Society.

Life

Born in 1864, one of three brothers and the son of Ferdinand Schiller (a Calcutta merchant), Schiller's family home was in Switzerland. Schiller grew up in Rugby. He was educated at Rugby School and Balliol College, and graduated in the first class of Literae Humaniores, winning later the Taylorian scholarship for German in 1887. Schiller's first book, Riddles of the Sphinx (1891), was an immediate success despite his use of a pseudonym because of his fears concerning how the book would be received.

Where is the cultivated reader to go for a positive statement of the philosophic view of the world, for an exposition of modern metaphysics, and for an explanation of their bearing on the problem of life in its modern shape?...

[T]he anti-metaphysical surface current is still sufficiently violent, both in religion and in science, to render discretion the duty of all who do not covet the barren honours of a useless martyrdom. Hence it would be needless to assign any further reason for the last point it is necessary to allude to, viz., the anonymity of the Riddles of the Sphinx, even if the professional position of its author were such that he could afford to disregard men's intolerance of real or seeming innovation. For the splendid satire of Plato is unfortunately still too true to the spirit of men's treatment of those whose souls have risen by rough paths of speculation to the supernal spheres of metaphysics, and who return to tell them that the shadows on the walls of their Cave are not the whole truth, nor precisely what their nurses have taught them, and such as they have learnt from their grandmothers. In their wrath ''they would, if perchance they could lay their hands upon them, verily put them to death;" for their first impulse is still to stone the prophets, whose spirit their bootless reverence will afterwards oppress beneath the burden of memorial sepulchres. Who then will take it upon him to blame a philosopher if he wraps his mantle closely around his face?


-- Riddles of the Sphinx: A Study in the Philosophy of Evolution, by A TROGLODYTE


Between the years 1893 and 1897 he was an instructor in philosophy at Cornell University. In 1897 he returned to Oxford and became fellow and tutor of Corpus Christi for more than thirty years. Schiller was president of the Aristotelian Society in 1921, and was for many years treasurer of the Mind Association. In 1926 he was elected a fellow of the British Academy. In 1929 he was appointed visiting professor in the University of Southern California, and spent half of each year in the United States and half in England. Schiller died in Los Angeles either 6, 7 or 9 August 1937 after a long and lingering illness.[2][3]

Schiller was a founding member of the English Eugenics Society and published three books on the subject; Tantalus or the Future of Man (1924), Eugenics and Politics (1926), and Social Decay and Eugenic Reform (1932).[4]

Philosophy

In 1891, F.C.S. Schiller made his first contribution to philosophy anonymously. Schiller feared that in his time of high naturalism, the metaphysical speculations of his Riddles of the Sphinx were likely to hurt his professional prospects (p. xi, Riddles). However, Schiller's fear of reprisal from his anti-metaphysical colleagues should not suggest that Schiller was a friend of metaphysics. Like his fellow pragmatists across the ocean, Schiller was attempting to stake out an intermediate position between both the spartan landscape of naturalism and the speculative excesses of the metaphysics of his time. In Riddles Schiller both,

(1) accuses naturalism (which he also sometimes calls "pseudometaphysics" or "positivism") of ignoring the fact that metaphysics is required to justify our natural description of the world, and

(2) accuses "abstract metaphysics" of losing sight of the world we actually live in and constructing grand, disconnected imaginary worlds.


The result, Schiller contends, is that naturalism cannot make sense of the "higher" aspects of our world (freewill, consciousness, God, purpose, universals), while abstract metaphysics cannot make sense of the "lower" aspects of our world (the imperfect, change, physicality). In each case we are unable to guide our moral and epistemological "lower" lives to the achievement of life's "higher" ends, ultimately leading to scepticism on both fronts. For knowledge and morality to be possible, both the world's lower and higher elements must be real; e.g. we need universals (a higher) to make knowledge of particulars (a lower) possible. This would lead Schiller to argue for what he at the time called a "concrete metaphysics", but would later call "humanism".

Shortly after publishing Riddles of the Sphinx, Schiller became acquainted with the work of pragmatist philosopher William James and this changed the course of his career. For a time, Schiller's work became focused on extending and developing James' pragmatism (under Schiller's preferred title, "humanism"). Schiller even revised his earlier work Riddles of the Sphinx to make the nascent pragmatism implicit in that work more explicit. In one of Schiller's most prominent works during this phase of his career, "Axioms as Postulates" (1903), Schiller extended James' will to believe doctrine to show how it could be used to justify not only an acceptance of God, but also our acceptance of causality, of the uniformity of nature, of our concept of identity, of contradiction, of the law of excluded middle, of space and time, of the goodness of God, and more.

Towards the end of his career, Schiller's pragmatism began to take on a character more distinct from the pragmatism of William James. Schiller's focus became his opposition to formal logic. To understand Schiller's opposition to formal logic, consider the following inference:

(1) All salt is soluble in water;
(2) Cerebos is not soluble in water;
(3) Therefore, Cerebos is not a salt.


From the formal characteristics of this inference alone (All As are Bs; c is not a B; Therefore, c is not an A), formal logic would judge this to be a valid inference. Schiller, however, refused to evaluate the validity of this inference merely on its formal characteristics. Schiller argued that unless we look to the contextual fact regarding what specific problem first prompted this inference to actually occur, we can not determine whether the inference was successful (i.e. pragmatically successful). In the case of this inference, since "Cerebos is 'salt' for culinary, but not for chemical purposes",[5] without knowing whether the purpose for this piece of reasoning was culinary or chemical we cannot determine whether this is valid or not. In another example, Schiller discusses the truth of formal mathematics "1+1=2" and points out that this equation does not hold if one is discussing drops of water. Schiller's attack on formal logic and formal mathematics never gained much attention from philosophers, however it does share some weak similarities to the contextualist view in contemporary epistemology as well as the views of ordinary language philosophers.

Opposition to naturalism and metaphysics

In Riddles, Schiller gives historical examples of the dangers of abstract metaphysics in the philosophies of Plato, Zeno, and Hegel, portraying Hegel as the worst offender: "Hegelianism never anywhere gets within sight of a fact, or within touch of reality. And the reason is simple: you cannot, without paying the penalty, substitute abstractions for realities; the thought-symbol cannot do duty for the thing symbolized".[6]

Schiller argued that the flaw in Hegel's system, as with all systems of abstract metaphysics, is that the world it constructs always proves to be unhelpful in guiding our imperfect, changing, particular, and physical lives to the achievement of the "higher" universal Ideals and Ends. For example, Schiller argues that the reality of time and change is intrinsically opposed to the very modus operandi of all systems of abstract metaphysics. He says that the possibility to change is a precondition of any moral action (or action generally), and so any system of abstract metaphysics is bound to lead us into a moral scepticism. The problem lies in the aim of abstract metaphysics for "interpreting the world in terms of conceptions, which should be true not here and now, but "eternally" and independently of Time and Change." The result is that metaphysics must use conceptions that have the "time-aspect of Reality" abstracted away. Of course, "[o]nce abstracted from,"

the reference to Time could not, of course, be recovered, any more than the individuality of Reality can be deduced, when once ignored. The assumption is made that, to express the 'truth' about Reality, its 'thisness,' individuality, change and its immersion in a certain temporal and spatial environment may be neglected, and the timeless validity of a conception is thus substituted for the living, changing and perishing existence we contemplate. ... What I wish here to point out is merely that it is unreasonable to expect from such premises to arrive at a deductive justification of the very characteristics of Reality that have been excluded. The true reason, then, why Hegelism can give no reason for the Time-process, i.e. for the fact that the world is 'in time,' and changes continuously, is that it was constructed to give an account of the world irrespective of time and change. If you insist on having a system of eternal and immutable 'truth,' you can get it only by abstracting from those characteristics of reality, which we try to express by the terms individuality, time, and change. But you must pay the price for a formula that will enable you to make assertions that hold good far beyond the limits of your experience. And it is part of the price that you will in the end be unable to give a rational explanation of those very characteristics, which you dismissed at the outset as irrelevant to a rational explanation.[7]


While abstract metaphysics provides us with a world of beauty and purpose and various other "highers", it condemns other key aspects of the world we live in as imaginary. The world of abstract metaphysics has no place for imperfect moral agents who (1) strive to learn about the world and then (2) act upon the world to change it for the better. Consequently, abstract metaphysics condemns us as illusionary, and declares our place in the world as unimportant and purposeless. Where abstractions take priority, our concrete lives collapse into scepticism and pessimism.

He also makes a case against the alternative naturalist method, saying that this too results in an epistemological and moral scepticism. Schiller looks to show this method's inadequacy at moving from the cold, lifeless lower world of atoms to the higher world of ethics, meanings, and minds. As with abstract metaphysics, Schiller attacks naturalism on many fronts: (1) the naturalist method is unable to reduce universals to particulars, (2) the naturalist method is unable to reduce freewill to determinist movements, (3) the naturalist method is unable to reduce emergent properties like consciousness to brain activity, (4) the naturalist method is unable to reduce God into a pantheism, and so on. Just as the abstract method cannot find a place for the lower elements of our world inside the higher, the naturalist method cannot find a place for the higher elements of our world inside the lower. In a reversal of abstract metaphysics, naturalism denies the reality of the higher elements to save the lower. Schiller uses the term "pseudo-metaphysical" here instead of naturalism—as he sometimes does—because he is accusing these naturalist philosophers of trying to solve metaphysical problems while sticking to the non-metaphysical "lower" aspects of the world (i.e. without engaging in real metaphysics):

The pseudo-metaphysical method puts forward the method of science as the method of philosophy. But it is doomed to perpetual failure. ... [T]he data supplied by the physical sciences are intractable, because they are data of a lower sort than the facts they are to explain.

The objects of the physical sciences form the lower orders in the hierarchy of existence, more extensive but less significant. Thus the atoms of the physicist may indeed be found in the organisation of conscious beings, but they are subordinate: a living organism exhibits actions which cannot be formulated by the laws of physics alone; man is material, but he is also a great deal more.[8]


To show that the world's higher elements do not reduce to the lower is not yet to show that naturalism must condemn the world's higher elements as illusionary. A second component to Schiller's attack is showing that naturalism cannot escape its inability to reduce the higher to the lower by asserting that these higher elements evolve from the lower. However, Schiller does not see naturalism as any more capable of explaining the evolution of the higher from the lower than it is capable of reducing the higher to the lower. While evolution does begin with something lower that in turn evolves into something higher, the problem for naturalism is that whatever the starting point for evolution is, it must first be something with the potential to evolve into a higher. For example, the world cannot come into existence from nothing because the potential or "germ" of the world is not "in" nothing (nothing has no potential, it has nothing; after all, it is nothing). Likewise, biological evolution cannot begin from inanimate matter, because the potential for life is not "in" inanimate matter. The following passage shows Schiller applying the same sort of reasoning to the evolution of consciousness:

Taken as the type of the pseudo-metaphysical method, which explains the higher by the lower ... it does not explain the genesis of consciousness out of unconscious matter, because we cannot, or do not, attribute potential consciousness to matter. ... the theory of Evolution derives the [end result] from its germ, i.e., from that which was, what it became, potentially.


Unable to either reduce or explain the evolution of the higher elements of our world, naturalism is left to explain away the higher elements as mere illusions. In doing this, naturalism condemns us to a scepticism in the both epistemology and ethics. It is worth noting, that while Schiller's work has been largely neglected since his death, Schiller's arguments against a naturalistic account of evolution have been recently cited by advocates of intelligent design to establish the existence of a longer history for the view due to legal concerns in the United States (See: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).

Humanist alternative to metaphysics and naturalism

Schiller argued that both abstract metaphysics and naturalism portray man as holding an intolerable position in the world. He proposed a method that not only recognises the lower world we interact with, but takes into account the higher world of purposes, ideals and abstractions. Schiller:

We require, then, a method which combines the excellencies of both the pseudo-metaphysical and the abstract metaphysical, if philosophy is to be possible at all.[9]


Schiller was demanding a course correction in field of metaphysics, putting it at the service of science. For example, to explain the creation of the world out of nothing, or to explain the emergence or evolution of the "higher" parts of the world, Schiller introduces a divine being who might generate the end (i.e. Final Cause) which gives nothingness, lifelessness, and unconscious matter the purpose (and thus potential) of evolving into higher forms:

And thus, so far from dispensing with the need for a Divine First Cause, the theory of evolution, if only we have the faith in science to carry it to its conclusion, and the courage to interpret it, proves irrefragably that no evolution was possible without a pre-existent Deity, and a Deity, moreover, transcendent, non-material and non-phenomenal. ... [T]he world process is the working out of an anterior purpose or idea in the divine consciousness.[10]


This re-introduction of teleology (which Schiller sometimes calls a re-anthropomorphizing of the world) is what Schiller says the naturalist has become afraid to do. Schiller's method of concrete metaphysics (i.e. his humanism) allows for an appeal to metaphysics when science demands it. However:

[T]he new teleology would not be capricious or random in its application, but firmly rooted in the conclusions of the sciences ... The process which the theory of Evolution divined the history of the world to be, must have content and meaning determined from the basis of the scientific data; it is only by a careful study of the history of a thing that we can determine the direction of its development, [and only then] that we can be said to have made the first approximation to the knowledge of the End of the world process.[11] [This] is teleology of a totally different kind to that which is so vehemently, and on the whole so justly dreaded by the modern exponents of natural science. It does not attempt to explain things anthropocentrically, or regard all creation as existing for the use and benefit of man; it is as far as the scientist from supposing that cork-trees grow to supply us with champagne corks. The end to which it supposes all things to subserve is ... the universal End of the world-process, to which all things tend[.][12]


Schiller finally reveals what this "End" is which "all things tend":

If our speculations have not entirely missed their mark, the world-process will come to an end when all the spirits whom it is designed to harmonise [by its Divine Creator] have been united in a perfect society.[13]


Now, while by today's philosophic standards Schiller's speculations would be considered wildly metaphysical and disconnected from the sciences, compared with the metaphysicians of his day (Hegel, McTaggart, etc.), Schiller saw himself as radically scientific. Schiller gave his philosophy a number of labels during his career. Early on he used the names "Concrete Metaphysics" and "Anthropomorphism", while later in life tending towards "Pragmatism" and particularly "Humanism".

The Will to Believe

Schiller also developed a method of philosophy intended to mix elements of both naturalism and abstract metaphysics in a way that allows us to avoid the twin scepticisms each method collapses into when followed on its own. However, Schiller does not assume that this is enough to justify his humanism over the other two methods. He accepts the possibility that both scepticism and pessimism are true.

To justify his attempt to occupy the middle ground between naturalism and abstract metaphysics, Schiller makes a move that anticipates James' The Will to Believe:

And in action especially we are often forced to act upon slight possibilities. Hence, if it can be shown that our solution is a possible answer, and the only possible alternative to pessimism, to a complete despair of life, it would deserve acceptance, even though it were but a bare possibility.[14]


Schiller contends that in light of the other methods' failure to provide humans with a role and place in the universe, we ought avoid the adoption of these methods. By the end of Riddles, Schiller offers his method of humanism as the only possible method that results in a world where we can navigate our lower existence to the achievement of our higher purpose. He asserts that it is the method we ought to adopt regardless of the evidence against it ("even though it were but a bare possibility").

While Schiller's will to believe is a central theme of Riddle of the Sphinx (appearing mainly in the introduction and conclusion of his text), in 1891 the doctrine held a limited role in Schiller's philosophy. In Riddles, Schiller only employs his version of the will to believe doctrine when he is faced with overcoming sceptic and pessimistic methods of philosophy. In 1897, William James published his essay "The Will to Believe" and this influenced Schiller to drastically expanded his application of the doctrine. For a 1903 volume titled Personal Idealism, Schiller contributed a widely read essay titled "Axioms as Postulates" in which he sets out to justify the "axioms of logic" as postulates adopted on the basis of the will to believe doctrine. In this essay Schiller extends the will to believe doctrine to be the basis of our acceptance of causality, of the uniformity of nature, of our concept of identity, of contradiction, of the law of excluded middle, of space and time, of the goodness of God, and more. He notes that we postulate that nature is uniform because we need nature to be uniform:

[O]ut of the hurly-burly of events in time and space [we] extract[ ] changeless formulas whose chaste abstraction soars above all reference to any 'where' or 'when,' and thereby renders them blank cheques to be filled up at our pleasure with any figures of the sort. The only question is—Will Nature honour the cheque? Audentes Natura juvat—let us take our life in our hands and try! If we fail, our blood will be on our own hands (or, more probably, in some one else's stomach), but though we fail, we are in no worse case than those who dared not postulate ... Our assumption, therefore, is at least a methodological necessity; it may turn out to be (or be near) a fundamental fact in nature [an axiom].[15]


Schiller stresses that doctrines like the uniformity of nature must first be postulated on the basis of need (not evidence) and only then "justified by the evidence of their practical working." He attacks both empiricists like John Stuart Mill, who try to conclude that nature is uniform from previous experience, as well as Kantians who conclude that nature is uniform from the preconditions on our understanding. Schiller argues that preconditions are not conclusions, but demands made on our experience that may or may not work. On this success hinges our continued acceptance of the postulate and its eventual promotion to axiom status.

In "Axioms and Postulates" Schiller vindicates the postulation by its success in practice, marking an important shift from Riddles of a Sphinx. In Riddles, Schiller is concerned with the vague aim of connecting the "higher" to the "lower" so he can avoid scepticism, but by 1903 he has clarified the connection he sees between these two elements. The "higher" abstract elements are connected to the lower because they are our inventions for dealing with the lower; their truth depends on their success as tools. Schiller dates the entry of this element into his thinking in his 1892 essay "Reality and 'Idealism'" (a mere year after his 1891 Riddles).

The plain man's 'things,' the physicist's 'atoms,' and Mr. Ritchie's 'Absolute,' are all of them more or less preserving and well-considered schemes to interpret the primary reality of phenomena, and in this sense Mr. Ritchie is entitled to call the 'sunrise' a theory. But the chaos of presentations, out of which we have (by criteria ultimately practical) isolated the phenomena we subsequently call sunrise, is not a theory, but the fact which has called all theories into being. In addition to generating hypothetical objects to explain phenomena, the interpretation of reality by our thought also bestows a derivative reality on the abstractions with which thought works. If they are the instruments wherewith thought accomplishes such effects upon reality, they must surely be themselves real.[16]


The shift in Schiller's thinking continues in his next published work, The Metaphysics of the Time-Process (1895): The abstractions of metaphysics, then, exist as explanations of the concrete facts of life, and not the latter as illustrations of the former ... Science [along with humanism] does not refuse to interpret the symbols with which it operates; on the contrary, it is only their applicability to the concrete facts originally abstracted from that is held to justify their use and to establish their 'truth.'[17]

Schiller's accusations against the metaphysician in Riddles now appear in a more pragmatic light. His objection is similar to one we might make against a worker who constructs a flat-head screwdriver to help him build a home, and who then accuses a screw of unreality when he comes upon a Phillips-screw that his flat-head screwdriver won't fit. In his works after Riddles, Schiller's attack takes the form of reminding the abstract metaphysician that abstractions are meant as tools for dealing with the "lower" world of particulars and physicality, and that after constructing abstractions we cannot simply drop the un-abstracted world out of our account. The un-abstracted world is the entire reason for making abstractions in the first place. We did not abstract to reach the unchanging and eternal truths; we abstract to construct an imperfect and rough tool for dealing with life in our particular and concrete world. It is the working of the higher in "making predictions about the future behavior of things for the purpose of shaping the future behavior of things for the purpose of shaping our own conduct accordingly" that justifies the higher.[18]

To assert this methodological character of eternal truths is not, of course, to deny their validity ... To say that we assume the truth of abstraction because we wish to attain certain ends, is to subordinate theoretic 'truth' to a teleological implication; to say that, the assumption once made, its truth is 'proved' by its practical working ... For the question of the 'practical' working of a truth will always ultimately be found to resolve itself into the question whether we can live by it.[19]


A few lines down from this passage Schiller adds the following footnote in a 1903 reprint of the essay: "All this seems a very fairly definite anticipation of modern pragmatism." Indeed, it resembles the pragmatist theory of truth. However, Schiller's pragmatism was still very different from both that of William James and that of Charles Sanders Peirce.

Opposition to logic

As early as 1891 Schiller had independently reached a doctrine very similar to William James' Will to Believe. As early as 1892 Schiller had independently developed his own pragmatist theory of truth. However, Schiller's concern with meaning was one he entirely imports from the pragmatisms of James and Peirce. Later in life Schiller musters all of these elements of his pragmatism to make a concerted attack on formal logic. Concerned with bringing down the timeless, perfect worlds of abstract metaphysics early in life, the central target of Schiller's developed pragmatism is the abstract rules of formal logic. Statements, Schiller contends, cannot possess meaning or truth abstracted away from their actual use. Therefore, examining their formal features instead of their function in an actual situation is to make the same mistake the abstract metaphysician makes. Symbols are meaningless scratches on paper unless they are given a life in a situation, and meant by someone to accomplish some task. They are tools for dealing with concrete situations, and not the proper subjects of study themselves.

Both Schiller's theory of truth and meaning (i.e. Schiller's pragmatism) derive their justification from an examination of thought from what he calls his humanist viewpoint (his new name for concrete metaphysics). He informs us that to answer "what precisely is meant by having a meaning" will require us to "raise the prior question of why we think at all.".[20] A question Schiller of course looks to evolution to provide.

Schiller provides a detailed defence of his pragmatist theories of truth and meaning in a chapter titled "The Biologic of Judgment" in Logic for Use (1929). The account Schiller lays out in many ways resembles some of what Peirce asserts in his "The Fixation of Belief" (1877) essay:

Our account of the function of Judgment in our mental life will, however, have to start a long way back. For there is much thinking before there is any judging, and much living before there is any thinking. Even in highly developed minds judging is a relatively rare incident in thinking, and thinking in living, an exception rather than the rule, and a relatively recent acquisition.

...

For the most part the living organism adapts itself to it conditions of life by earlier, easier, and quicker expedients. Its actions or reactions are mostly 'reflex actions' determined by inherited habits which largely function automatically ... It follows from this elaborate and admirable organisation of adaptive responses to stimulation that organic life might proceed without thinking altogether. ... This is, in fact, the way in which most living being carry on their life, and the plane on which man also lives most of the time.

Thought, therefore, is an abnormality which springs from a disturbance. Its genesis is connected with a peculiar deficiency in the life of habit. ... Whenever ... it becomes biologically important to notice differences in roughly similar situations, and to adjust action more closely to the peculiarities of a particular case, the guidance of life by habit, instinct, and impulse breaks down. A new expedient has somehow to be devised for effecting such exact and delicate adjustments. This is the raison d'etre of what is variously denominated 'thought,' 'reason,' 'reflection,' 'reasoning,' and 'judgment[.]'

...

Thinking, however, is not so much a substitute for the earlier processes as a subsidiary addition to them. It only pays in certain cases, and intelligence may be shown also by discerning what they are and when it is wiser to act without thinking. ... Philosophers, however, have very mistaken ideas about rational action. They tend to think that men ought to think all the time, and about all things. But if they did this they would get nothing done, and shorten their lives without enhancing their merriment. Also they utterly misconceive the nature of rational action. They represent it as consisting in the perpetual use of universal rules, whereas it consists rather in perceiving when a general rule must be set aside in order that conduct may be adapted to a particular case.[21]


This passage of Schiller was worth quoting at length because of the insight this chapter offers into Schiller's philosophy. In the passage, Schiller makes the claim that thought only occurs when our unthinking habits prove themselves inadequate for handling a particular situation. Schiller's stressing of the genesis of limited occurrences of thought sets Schiller up for his account of meaning and truth.

Schiller asserts that when a person utters a statement in a situation they are doing so for a specific purpose: to solve the problem that habit could not handle alone. The meaning of such a statement is whatever contribution it makes to accomplishing the purpose of this particular occurrence of thought. The truth of the statement will be if it helps accomplishes that purpose. No utterance or thought can be given a meaning or a truth valuation outside the context of one of these particular occurrences of thought. This account of Schiller's is a much more extreme view than even James took.

At first glance, Schiller appears very similar to James. However, Schiller's more stringent requirement that meaningful statements have consequences "to some one for some purpose" makes Schiller's position more extreme than James'. For Schiller, it is not a sufficient condition for meaningfulness that a statement entail experiential consequences (as it is for both Peirce and James). Schiller requires that the consequences of a statement make the statement relevant to some particular person's goals at a specific moment in time if it is to be meaningful. Therefore, it is not simply enough that the statement "diamonds are hard" and the statement "diamonds are soft" entail different experiential consequences, it is also required that the experiential difference makes a difference to someone's purposes. Only then, and only to that person, do the two statements state something different. If the experiential difference between hard and soft diamonds did not connect up with my purpose for entering into thought, the two statements would possess the same meaning. For example, if I were to randomly blurt out "diamonds are hard" and then "diamonds are soft" to everyone in a coffee shop one day, my words would mean nothing. Words can only mean something if they are stated with a specific purpose.

Consequently, Schiller rejects the idea that statements can have meaning or truth when they are looked upon in the abstract, away from a particular context. "Diamonds are hard" only possesses meaning when stated (or believed) at some specific situation, by some specific person, uttered (or believed) for some specific aim. It is the consequences the statement holds for that person's purposes which constitute its meaning, and its usefulness in accomplishing that person's purposes that constitutes the statement's truth or falsity. After all, when we look at the sentence "diamonds are hard" in a particular situation we may find it actually has nothing to say about diamonds. A speaker may very well be using the sentence as a joke, as a codephrase, or even simply as an example of a sentence with 15 letters. Which the sentence really means cannot be determined without the specific purpose a person might be using the statement for in a specific context.

In an article titled "Pragmatism and Pseudo-pragmatism" Schiller defends his pragmatism against a particular counterexample in a way that sheds considerable light on his pragmatism:

The impossibility of answering truly the question whether the 100th (or 10,000th) decimal in the evaluation of Pi is or is not a 9, splendidly illustrates how impossible it is to predicate truth in abstraction from actual knowing and actual purpose. For the question cannot be answered until the decimal is calculated. Until then no one knows what it is, or rather will turn out to be. And no one will calculate it, until it serves some purpose to do so, and some one therefore interests himself in the calculation. And so until then the truth remains uncertain: there is no 'true' answer, because there is no actual context in which the question has really been raised. We have merely a number of conflicting possibilities, not even claims to truth, and there is no decision. Yet a decision is possible if an experiment is performed. But his experiment presupposes a desire to know. It will only be made if the point becomes one which it is practically important to decide. Normally no doubt it does not become such, because for the actual purposes of the sciences it makes no difference whether we suppose the figure to be 9 or something else. I.e. the truth to, say, the 99th decimal, is ' true enough ' for our purposes, and the 100th is a matter of indifference. But let that indifference cease, and the question become important, and the ' truth ' will at once become ' useful '. Prof. Taylor's illustration therefore conclusively proves that in an actual context and as an actual question there is no true answer to be got until the truth has become useful. This point is illustrated also by the context Prof. Taylor has himself suggested. For he has made the question about the 100th decimal important by making the refutation of the whole pragmatist theory of knowledge depend on it. And what nobler use could the 100th decimal have in his eyes? If in consequence of this interest he will set himself to work it out, he will discover this once useless, but now most useful, truth, and—triumphantly refute his own contention![22]


We might recognise this claim as the sort of absurdity many philosophers try to read into the pragmatism of William James. James, however, would not agree that the meaning of "the 100th decimal of Pi is 9" and "the 100th decimal of Pi is 6" mean the same thing until someone has a reason to care about any possible difference. Schiller, in constast, does mean to say this. James and Schiller both treat truth as something that happens to a statement, and so James would agree that it only becomes true that the 100th decimal of Pi is 9 when someone in fact believes that statement and it leads them to their goals, but nowhere does James imply that meaning is something that happens to a statement. That is a unique element of Schiller's pragmatism.

Humanist theory of meaning and truth

While Schiller felt greatly indebted to the pragmatism of William James, Schiller was outright hostile to the pragmatism of C.S. Peirce. Both Schiller and James struggled with what Peirce intended with his pragmatism, and both were often baffled by Peirce's insistent rebuffing of what they both saw as the natural elaboration of the pragmatist cornerstone he himself first laid down. On the basis of his misunderstandings, Schiller complains that for Peirce to merely say "'truths should have practical consequences'" is to be "very vague, and hints at no reason for the curious connexion it asserts." Schiller goes on to denigrate Peirce's principle as nothing more than a simple truism "which hardly deserves a permanent place and name in philosophic usage". After all, Schiller points out, "[i]t is hard ... to see why even the extremest intellectualism should deny that the difference between the truth and the falsehood of an assertion must show itself in some visible way."[23]

With Peirce's attempts to restrict the use of pragmatism set aside, Schiller unpacks the term "consequences" to provide what he considers as a more substantial restatement of Peirce's pragmatism:

For to say that a [statement] has consequences and that what has none is meaningless, must surely mean that it has a bearing upon some human interest; they must be consequences to some one for some purpose.[23]


Schiller believes his pragmatism to be more developed because of its attention to the fact that the "consequences" which make up the meaning and truth of a statement, must always be consequences for someone's particular purposes at some particular time. Continuing his condemnation of the abstract, Schiller contends that the meaning of a concept is not the consequences of some abstract proposition, but what consequences an actual thinker hopes its use will bring about in an actual situation. The meaning of a thought is what consequences one means to bring about when they employ the thought. To Schiller, this is what a more sophisticated pragmatist understands by the term meaning.

If we are to understand the pragmatic theory of meaning in Schiller's way, he is right to claim that James' theory of truth is a mere corollary of the pragmatist theory of meaning:

But now, we may ask, how are these 'consequences' to test the 'truth' claimed by the assertion? Only by satisfying or thwarting that purpose, by forwarding or baffling that interest. If they do the one, the assertion is 'good' and pro tanto 'true' ; if they do the other, 'bad' and 'false'. Its 'consequences,' therefore, when investigated, always turn out to involve the 'practical' predicates 'good ' or 'bad,' and to contain a reference to ' practice' in the sense in which we have used that term. So soon as therefore we go beyond an abstract statement of the narrower pragmatism, and ask what in the concrete, and in actual knowing, 'having consequences ' may mean, we develop inevitably the fullblown pragmatism in the wider sense.[24]


Given Schiller's view that the meaning of a thought amounts to the consequences one means to bring about by the thought, Schiller further concluded that the truth of a thought depends on whether it actually brings about the consequences one intended. For example, if while following a cooking recipe that called for salt I were to think to myself, "Cerebos is salt", my thought will be true if it consequently leads me to add Cerebos and produce a dish with the intended taste. However, if while working in a chemistry lab to produce a certain mixture I were to think to myself, "Cerebos is salt", my thought would both have a different meaning than before (since my intent now differs) and be false (since Cerebos is only equivalent to salt for culinary purposes). According to Schiller, the question of what a thought like "Cerebos is salt" means or whether it is true can only be answered if the specific circumstances with which the thought arose are taken into consideration. While there is some similarity here between Schiller's view of meaning and the later ordinary language philosophers, Schiller's account ties meaning and truth more closely to individuals and their intent with a specific use rather than whole linguistic communities.

Selected works

• Riddles of the Sphinx (1891)
• "Axioms as Postulates" (published in the collection Personal Idealism, 1902)
• "Useless 'Knowledge': A Discourse Concerning Pragmatism", January 1902)
• Humanism (1903)
• "The Ethical Basis of Metaphysics" (July 1903)
• "The Definition of 'Pragmatism' and 'Humanism'" (January 1905)
• Studies in Humanism (1907)
• Plato or Protagoras? (1908)
• Riddles of the Sphinx (1910, revised edition)
• Humanism (1912, second edition)
• Formal Logic (1912)
• Problems of Belief (1924, second edition)
• Logic for Use (1929)
• Our Human Truths (1939, published posthumously)

Notes and references

1. John R. Shook, Joseph Margolis (eds.), A Companion to Pragmatism, John Wiley & Sons, Apr 15, 2008 , p. 44.
2. "Obituary: Prof. F.C.S. Schiller" Nature 140, 454–455 (11 September 1937), link.
3. "Notes: Dr. F.C.S. Schiller (1864–1937)" Mind, Vol. 47, No. 185, Jan 1938.
4. "F.C.S. Schiller" in American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia, 2008, edited by John Lachs and Robert Talisse.
5. Schiller, F.C.S. (1930) page 276
6. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) Riddles of the Sphinx, p. 160
7. Schiller, F.C.S. (1894) "The Metaphysics of the Time-Process"; republished on pages 98–99 of Humanism (1903)
8. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 152
9. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 164
10. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 198
11. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 205
12. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 203
13. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 436
14. Schiller, F.C.S. (1891) p. 5
15. Schiller, F.C.S. (1903) "Axioms as Postulates", p. 111
16. Schiller, F.C.S. (1892) "Reality and 'Idealism'"; reprinted on p. 120 of Humanism (1903)
17. Schiller, F.C.S. (1895) "The Metaphysics of the Time-Process"; also reprinted on pages 102–103 of Humanism (1903)
18. Schiller, F.C.S. (1903) Humanism p. 104
19. Schiller, F.C.S. (1903) Humanism p. 105
20. Schiller, F.C.S. (1930) p.51
21. Schiller, F.C.S. (1929) Logic For Use, pages 197–198
22. Schiller, F.C.S. (1906) "Pragmatism and Pseudo-pragmatism", p. 384
23. Schiller, F.C.S. (1905) p. 236
24. Schiller, F.C.S. (1905) pages 236–237

Further reading

• Pragmatic Humanism of F.C.S. Schiller by Rueben Abel (1955)
• Humanistic Pragmatism: The Philosophy of F.C.S. Schiller edited by Rueben Abel (1966)
• "The Pragmatic Humanism of F.C.S. Schiller" in Cornelis De Waal's On Pragmatism (2005)

External links

• Works written by or about Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller at Wikisource
• Works by F. C. S. Schiller at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about F. C. S. Schiller at Internet Archive
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:08 am

Part 1 of 2

Bertrand Russell
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/19/20

Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men, Pavlov and Freud, have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt.

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study, and so far its professors have not been in universities: they have been advertisers, politicians, and, above all, dictators. This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called "education." Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler's with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.


"Relative political pacifism"/"Non-absolute pacifism" [i.e., "SNOW IS BLACK"]: "War is always a great evil, but in some particularly extreme circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils." -- Bertrand Russell


But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician's paradise.

-- The Impact of Science on Society, by Bertrand Russell


Image
Bertrand Russell, OM FRS
Born: Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 18 May 1872, Trellech, Monmouthshire, United Kingdom[note 1]
Died: 2 February 1970 (aged 97), Penrhyndeudraeth, Caernarfonshire, Wales, United Kingdom
Nationality: British
Education: Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1893)
Spouse(s): Alys Pearsall Smith (m. 1894; div. 1921); Dora Black (m. 1921; div. 1935); Patricia Spence (m. 1936; div. 1952)[1]; Edith Finch (m. 1952)
Awards: De Morgan Medal (1932); Sylvester Medal (1934); Nobel Prize in Literature (1950); Kalinga Prize (1957); Jerusalem Prize (1963)
Era: 20th-century philosophy
Region: Western philosophy
School: Analytic philosophy; Aristotelianism; Empiricism; Linguistic turn; Foundationalism[2]; Logicism; Predicativism; Indirect realism[3]; Correspondence theory of truth[4]; Utilitarianism
Institutions: Trinity College, Cambridge, London School of Economics, University of Chicago, UCLA
Academic advisors: James Ward[5]; A. N. Whitehead
Doctoral students: Ludwig Wittgenstein
Main interests: Epistemology ethics logic mathematics metaphysics history of philosophy philosophy of culture philosophy of language philosophy of logic philosophy of mathematics philosophy of mind philosophy of perception philosophy of religion philosophy of science philosophy of social science
Notable ideas [show]
Influences: Euclid Mill Peano Boole[9]De Morgan[10] Frege Cantor Santayana Kant[11] Meinong Spinoza James Mach[12] Hume[13] Leibniz Wittgenstein Whitehead Moore Stout Ward[14] Sidgwick[15] Shelley
Influenced: Ludwig Wittgenstein A. J. Ayer Rudolf Carnap[16] John von Neumann[17] Kurt Gödel[18] Karl Popper[19] W. V. Quine[20] Noam Chomsky[21] Hilary Putnam[22] Saul Kripke[23] Moritz Schlick[24] Vienna Circle[25] J. L. Austin G. H. Hardy[26] Alfred Tarski[27] Norbert Wiener[28] Robert Oppenheimer[29] Leon Chwistek[30] Alan Turing[31] Jacob Bronowski[32] Frank P. Ramsey[33] Jawaharlal Nehru[34] Tariq Ali[35] Michael Albert[36] Che Guevara[37] Bernard Williams Donald Davidson[38] Thomas Kuhn[39] Nathan Salmon[40] Christopher Hitchens[41] Richard Dawkins[42] Carl Sagan[43] Isaiah Berlin[44] Albert Ellis[45] Martin Gardner[46] Daniel Dennett[47] Buckminster Fuller[48] Pervez Hoodbhoy[49] John Maynard Keynes[50] Isaac Asimov[51] Paul Kurtz[52] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn James Joyce[53] Kurt Vonnegut[54] Ray Kurzweil[55] Marvin Minsky[56] Herbert A. Simon[57] B. F. Skinner[58] John Searle[59] Andrei Sakharov[60] Stephen Hawking[61] Joseph Rotblat[62] Edward Said[63] Sidney Hook Frank Wilczek[64] A. C. Grayling Colin McGinn Txillardegi[65]

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM FRS[66] (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, essayist, social critic, political activist, and Nobel laureate.[67][68] Throughout his life, Russell considered himself a liberal, a socialist and a pacifist, although he also sometimes suggested that his sceptical nature had led him to feel that he had "never been any of these things, in any profound sense."[69] Russell was born in Monmouthshire into one of the most prominent aristocratic families in the United Kingdom.[70]

In the early 20th century, Russell led the British "revolt against idealism".[71] He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege, colleague G. E. Moore and protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein. He is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.[68] With A. N. Whitehead he wrote Principia Mathematica, an attempt to create a logical basis for mathematics, the quintessential work of classical logic. His philosophical essay "On Denoting" has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy".[72] His work has had a considerable influence on mathematics, logic, set theory, linguistics, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science (see type theory and type system) and philosophy, especially the philosophy of language, epistemology and metaphysics.

Russell was a prominent anti-war activist and he championed anti-imperialism.[73][74] Occasionally, he advocated preventive nuclear war, before the opportunity provided by the atomic monopoly had passed and he decided he would "welcome with enthusiasm" world government.[75] He went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.[76] Later, Russell concluded that war against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany was a necessary "lesser of two evils" and criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.[77] In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought".[78][79]

Biography

Early life and background


Image
Russell as a four-year-old

Image
Childhood home, Pembroke Lodge

Bertrand Arthur William Russell was born on 18 May 1872 at Ravenscroft, Trellech, Monmouthshire, into an influential and liberal family of the British aristocracy.[80] His parents, Viscount and Viscountess Amberley, were radical for their times. Lord Amberley consented to his wife's affair with their children's tutor, the biologist Douglas Spalding. Both were early advocates of birth control at a time when this was considered scandalous.[81] Lord Amberley was an atheist and his atheism was evident when he asked the philosopher John Stuart Mill to act as Russell's secular godfather.[82] Mill died the year after Russell's birth, but his writings had a great effect on Russell's life.

His paternal grandfather, the Earl Russell, had been asked twice by Queen Victoria to form a government, serving her as Prime Minister in the 1840s and 1860s.[83] The Russells had been prominent in England for several centuries before this, coming to power and the peerage with the rise of the Tudor dynasty (see: Duke of Bedford). They established themselves as one of the leading British Whig families, and participated in every great political event from the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536–1540 to the Glorious Revolution in 1688–1689 and the Great Reform Act in 1832.[83][84]

Lady Amberley was the daughter of Lord and Lady Stanley of Alderley.[77] Russell often feared the ridicule of his maternal grandmother,[85] one of the campaigners for education of women.[86]

Childhood and adolescence

Russell had two siblings: brother Frank (nearly seven years older than Bertrand), and sister Rachel (four years older). In June 1874 Russell's mother died of diphtheria, followed shortly by Rachel's death. In January 1876, his father died of bronchitis following a long period of depression. Frank and Bertrand were placed in the care of their staunchly Victorian paternal grandparents, who lived at Pembroke Lodge in Richmond Park. His grandfather, former Prime Minister Earl Russell, died in 1878, and was remembered by Russell as a kindly old man in a wheelchair. His grandmother, the Countess Russell (née Lady Frances Elliot), was the dominant family figure for the rest of Russell's childhood and youth.[77][81]

The countess was from a Scottish Presbyterian family, and successfully petitioned the Court of Chancery to set aside a provision in Amberley's will requiring the children to be raised as agnostics. Despite her religious conservatism, she held progressive views in other areas (accepting Darwinism and supporting Irish Home Rule), and her influence on Bertrand Russell's outlook on social justice and standing up for principle remained with him throughout his life. (One could challenge the view that Bertrand stood up for his principles, based on his own well-known quotation: "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.") Her favourite Bible verse, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Exodus 23:2), became his motto. The atmosphere at Pembroke Lodge was one of frequent prayer, emotional repression, and formality; Frank reacted to this with open rebellion, but the young Bertrand learned to hide his feelings.

Russell's adolescence was very lonely, and he often contemplated suicide. He remarked in his autobiography that his keenest interests were in "nature and books and (later) mathematics saved me from complete despondency;"[87] only his wish to know more mathematics kept him from suicide.[88] He was educated at home by a series of tutors.[89] When Russell was eleven years old, his brother Frank introduced him to the work of Euclid, which he described in his autobiography as "one of the great events of my life, as dazzling as first love."[90][91]

During these formative years he also discovered the works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Russell wrote: "I spent all my spare time reading him, and learning him by heart, knowing no one to whom I could speak of what I thought or felt, I used to reflect how wonderful it would have been to know Shelley, and to wonder whether I should meet any live human being with whom I should feel so much sympathy."[92] Russell claimed that beginning at age 15, he spent considerable time thinking about the validity of Christian religious dogma, which he found very unconvincing.[93] At this age, he came to the conclusion that there is no free will and, two years later, that there is no life after death. Finally, at the age of 18, after reading Mill's Autobiography, he abandoned the "First Cause" argument and became an atheist.[94][95]

He traveled to the continent in 1890 with an American friend, Edward FitzGerald, and with FitzGerald's family he visited the Paris Exhibition of 1889 and was able to climb the Eiffel Tower soon after it was completed.[96]

University and first marriage

Image
Russell at Trinity College in 1893

Russell won a scholarship to read for the Mathematical Tripos at Trinity College, Cambridge, and commenced his studies there in 1890,[97] taking as coach Robert Rumsey Webb. He became acquainted with the younger George Edward Moore and came under the influence of Alfred North Whitehead, who recommended him to the Cambridge Apostles. He quickly distinguished himself in mathematics and philosophy, graduating as seventh Wrangler in the former in 1893 and becoming a Fellow in the latter in 1895.[98][99]

Russell was 17 years old in the summer of 1889 when he met the family of Alys Pearsall Smith, an American Quaker five years older, who was a graduate of Bryn Mawr College near Philadelphia.[100][101] He became a friend of the Pearsall Smith family—they knew him primarily as "Lord John's grandson" and enjoyed showing him off.[102]

He soon fell in love with the puritanical, high-minded Alys, and, contrary to his grandmother's wishes, married her on 13 December 1894. Their marriage began to fall apart in 1901 when it occurred to Russell, while he was cycling, that he no longer loved her.[103] She asked him if he loved her and he replied that he did not. Russell also disliked Alys's mother, finding her controlling and cruel. It was to be a hollow shell of a marriage. A lengthy period of separation began in 1911 with Russell's affair with Lady Ottoline Morrell,[104] and he and Alys finally divorced in 1921 to enable Russell to remarry.[105]

During his years of separation from Alys, Russell had passionate (and often simultaneous) affairs with a number of women, including Morrell and the actress Lady Constance Malleson.[106] Some have suggested that at this point he had an affair with Vivienne Haigh-Wood, the English governess and writer, and first wife of T. S. Eliot.[107]

Early career

Image
Russell in 1907

Russell began his published work in 1896 with German Social Democracy, a study in politics that was an early indication of a lifelong interest in political and social theory. In 1896 he taught German social democracy at the London School of Economics.[108] He was a member of the Coefficients dining club of social reformers set up in 1902 by the Fabian campaigners Sidney and Beatrice Webb.[109]

He now started an intensive study of the foundations of mathematics at Trinity. In 1898 he wrote An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry which discussed the Cayley–Klein metrics used for non-Euclidean geometry.[110] He attended the International Congress of Philosophy in Paris in 1900 where he met Giuseppe Peano and Alessandro Padoa. The Italians had responded to Georg Cantor, making a science of set theory; they gave Russell their literature including the Formulario mathematico. Russell was impressed by the precision of Peano's arguments at the Congress, read the literature upon returning to England, and came upon Russell's paradox. In 1903 he published The Principles of Mathematics, a work on foundations of mathematics. It advanced a thesis of logicism, that mathematics and logic are one and the same.[111]

At the age of 29, in February 1901, Russell underwent what he called a "sort of mystic illumination", after witnessing Whitehead's wife's acute suffering in an angina attack. "I found myself filled with semi-mystical feelings about beauty ... and with a desire almost as profound as that of the Buddha to find some philosophy which should make human life endurable", Russell would later recall. "At the end of those five minutes, I had become a completely different person."[112]

In 1905 he wrote the essay "On Denoting", which was published in the philosophical journal Mind. Russell was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1908.[66][77] The three-volume Principia Mathematica, written with Whitehead, was published between 1910 and 1913. This, along with the earlier The Principles of Mathematics, soon made Russell world-famous in his field.

In 1910 he became a University of Cambridge lecturer at Trinity College, where he had studied. He was considered for a Fellowship, which would give him a vote in the college government and protect him from being fired for his opinions, but was passed over because he was "anti-clerical", essentially because he was agnostic. He was approached by the Austrian engineering student Ludwig Wittgenstein, who became his PhD student. Russell viewed Wittgenstein as a genius and a successor who would continue his work on logic. He spent hours dealing with Wittgenstein's various phobias and his frequent bouts of despair. This was often a drain on Russell's energy, but Russell continued to be fascinated by him and encouraged his academic development, including the publication of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in 1922.[113] Russell delivered his lectures on logical atomism, his version of these ideas, in 1918, before the end of World War I. Wittgenstein was, at that time, serving in the Austrian Army and subsequently spent nine months in an Italian prisoner of war camp at the end of the conflict.

First World War

During World War I, Russell was one of the few people to engage in active pacifist activities. In 1916, because of his lack of a Fellowship, he was dismissed from Trinity College following his conviction under the Defence of the Realm Act 1914.[114] He later described this as an illegitimate means the state used to violate freedom of expression, in Free Thought and Official Propaganda. Russell played a significant part in the Leeds Convention in June 1917, a historic event which saw well over a thousand "anti-war socialists" gather; many being delegates from the Independent Labour Party and the Socialist Party, united in their pacifist beliefs and advocating a peace settlement.[115] The international press reported that Russell appeared with a number of Labour MPs, including Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden, as well as former Liberal MP and anti-conscription campaigner, Professor Arnold Lupton. After the event, Russell told Lady Ottoline Morrell that, "to my surprise, when I got up to speak, I was given the greatest ovation that was possible to give anybody".[116][117]

The Trinity incident resulted in Russell being fined £100 (equivalent to £5,600 in 2019), which he refused to pay in hope that he would be sent to prison, but his books were sold at auction to raise the money. The books were bought by friends; he later treasured his copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police".

A later conviction for publicly lecturing against inviting the United States to enter the war on the United Kingdom's side resulted in six months' imprisonment in Brixton prison (see Bertrand Russell's political views) in 1918.[118] He later said of his imprisonment:

I found prison in many ways quite agreeable. I had no engagements, no difficult decisions to make, no fear of callers, no interruptions to my work. I read enormously; I wrote a book, "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy"... and began the work for "Analysis of Mind"[119]


He found the Brixton period so much agreeable that while he was reading Strachey's Eminent Victorians chapter about Gordon he laughed out loud in his cell prompting the warden to intervene and reminding him that "prison was a place of punishment".[120]

Russell was reinstated to Trinity in 1919, resigned in 1920, was Tarner Lecturer 1926 and became a Fellow again in 1944 until 1949.[121]

In 1924, Bertrand again gained press attention when attending a "banquet" in the House of Commons with well-known campaigners, including Arnold Lupton, who had been a Member of Parliament and had also endured imprisonment for "passive resistance to military or naval service".[122]

G. H. Hardy on the Trinity controversy and Russell's personal life

In 1941, G. H. Hardy wrote a 61-page pamphlet titled Bertrand Russell and Trinity—published later as a book by Cambridge University Press with a foreword by C. D. Broad—in which he gave an authoritative account about Russell's 1916 dismissal from Trinity College, explaining that a reconciliation between the college and Russell had later taken place and gave details about Russell's personal life. Hardy writes that Russell's dismissal had created a scandal since the vast majority of the Fellows of the College opposed the decision. The ensuing pressure from the Fellows induced the Council to reinstate Russell. In January 1920, it was announced that Russell had accepted the reinstatement offer from Trinity and would begin lecturing from October. In July 1920, Russell applied for a one year leave of absence; this was approved. He spent the year giving lectures in China and Japan. In January 1921, it was announced by Trinity that Russell had resigned and his resignation had been accepted. This resignation, Hardy explains, was completely voluntary and was not the result of another altercation.

The reason for the resignation, according to Hardy, was that Russell was going through a tumultuous time in his personal life with a divorce and subsequent remarriage. Russell contemplated asking Trinity for another one-year leave of absence but decided against it, since this would have been an "unusual application" and the situation had the potential to snowball into another controversy. Although Russell did the right thing, in Hardy's opinion, the reputation of the College suffered due to Russell's resignation since the 'world of learning' knew about Russell's altercation with Trinity but not that the rift had healed. In 1925, Russell was asked by the Council of Trinity College to give the Tarner Lectures on the Philosophy of the Sciences; these would later be the basis for one of Russell's best received books according to Hardy: The Analysis of Matter, published in 1927.[123] In the preface to the Trinity pamphlet, Hardy wrote:

I wish to make it plain that Russell himself is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for the writing of the pamphlet ... I wrote it without his knowledge and, when I sent him the typescript and asked for his permission to print it, I suggested that, unless it contained misstatement of fact, he should make no comment on it. He agreed to this ... no word has been changed as the result of any suggestion from him.


Between the wars

In August 1920, Russell travelled to Soviet Russia as part of an official delegation sent by the British government to investigate the effects of the Russian Revolution.[124] He wrote a four-part series of articles, titled "Soviet Russia—1920", for the US magazine The Nation.[125][126] He met Vladimir Lenin and had an hour-long conversation with him. In his autobiography, he mentions that he found Lenin disappointing, sensing an "impish cruelty" in him and comparing him to "an opinionated professor". He cruised down the Volga on a steamship. His experiences destroyed his previous tentative support for the revolution. He subsequently wrote a book, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism,[127] about his experiences on this trip, taken with a group of 24 others from the UK, all of whom came home thinking well of the Soviet regime, despite Russell's attempts to change their minds. For example, he told them that he had heard shots fired in the middle of the night and was sure that these were clandestine executions, but the others maintained that it was only cars backfiring.

Image
Russell with his children, John and Kate

Russell's lover Dora Black, a British author, feminist and socialist campaigner, visited Soviet Russia independently at the same time; in contrast to his reaction, she was enthusiastic about the Bolshevik revolution.[127]

The following autumn, Russell, accompanied by Dora, visited Peking (as it was then known in the West) to lecture on philosophy for a year.[89] He went with optimism and hope, seeing China as then being on a new path.[128] Other scholars present in China at the time included John Dewey[129] and Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian Nobel-laureate poet.[89] Before leaving China, Russell became gravely ill with pneumonia, and incorrect reports of his death were published in the Japanese press.[129] When the couple visited Japan on their return journey, Dora took on the role of spurning the local press by handing out notices reading "Mr. Bertrand Russell, having died according to the Japanese press, is unable to give interviews to Japanese journalists".[130][131] Apparently they found this harsh and reacted resentfully.

Dora was six months pregnant when the couple returned to England on 26 August 1921. Russell arranged a hasty divorce from Alys, marrying Dora six days after the divorce was finalised, on 27 September 1921. Russell's children with Dora were John Conrad Russell, 4th Earl Russell, born on 16 November 1921, and Katharine Jane Russell (now Lady Katharine Tait), born on 29 December 1923. Russell supported his family during this time by writing popular books explaining matters of physics, ethics, and education to the layman.

From 1922 to 1927 the Russells divided their time between London and Cornwall, spending summers in Porthcurno.[132] In the 1922 and 1923 general elections Russell stood as a Labour Party candidate in the Chelsea constituency, but only on the basis that he knew he was extremely unlikely to be elected in such a safe Conservative seat, and he was unsuccessful on both occasions.

Together with Dora, Russell founded the experimental Beacon Hill School in 1927. The school was run from a succession of different locations, including its original premises at the Russells' residence, Telegraph House, near Harting, West Sussex. On 8 July 1930 Dora gave birth to her third child Harriet Ruth. After he left the school in 1932, Dora continued it until 1943.[133][134]

On a tour through the US in 1927, Russell met Barry Fox (later Barry Stevens), who became a well-known Gestalt therapist and writer in later years.[135] Russell and Fox developed an intensive relationship. In Fox's words: "... for three years we were very close."[136] Fox sent her daughter Judith to Beacon Hill School for some time.[137] From 1927 to 1932 Russell wrote 34 letters to Fox.[138]

Upon the death of his elder brother Frank, in 1931, Russell became the 3rd Earl Russell.

Russell's marriage to Dora grew increasingly tenuous, and it reached a breaking point over her having two children with an American journalist, Griffin Barry.[134] They separated in 1932 and finally divorced. On 18 January 1936, Russell married his third wife, an Oxford undergraduate named Patricia ("Peter") Spence, who had been his children's governess since 1930. Russell and Peter had one son, Conrad Sebastian Robert Russell, 5th Earl Russell, who became a prominent historian and one of the leading figures in the Liberal Democrat party.[77]

Russell returned to the London School of Economics to lecture on the science of power in 1937.[108]

During the 1930s, Russell became a close friend and collaborator of V. K. Krishna Menon, then secretary of the India League, the foremost lobby in the United Kingdom for Indian self-rule.[vague]

Second World War

Russell's political views changed over time, mostly about war. He opposed rearmament against Nazi Germany. In 1937, he wrote in a personal letter: "If the Germans succeed in sending an invading army to England we should do best to treat them as visitors, give them quarters and invite the commander and chief to dine with the prime minister."[139] In 1940, he changed his appeasement view that avoiding a full-scale world war was more important than defeating Hitler. He concluded that Adolf Hitler taking over all of Europe would be a permanent threat to democracy. In 1943, he adopted a stance toward large-scale warfare called "relative political pacifism": "War was always a great evil, but in some particularly extreme circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils."[140][141]

Before World War II, Russell taught at the University of Chicago, later moving on to Los Angeles to lecture at the UCLA Department of Philosophy.[142] He was appointed professor at the City College of New York (CCNY) in 1940, but after a public outcry the appointment was annulled by a court judgment that pronounced him "morally unfit" to teach at the college due to his opinions, especially those relating to sexual morality, detailed in Marriage and Morals (1929). The matter was however taken to the New York Supreme Court by Jean Kay who was afraid that her daughter would be harmed by the appointment, though her daughter was not a student at CCNY.[142][143] Many intellectuals, led by John Dewey, protested at his treatment.[144] Albert Einstein's oft-quoted aphorism that "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" originated in his open letter, dated 19 March 1940, to Morris Raphael Cohen, a professor emeritus at CCNY, supporting Russell's appointment.[145] Dewey and Horace M. Kallen edited a collection of articles on the CCNY affair in The Bertrand Russell Case. Russell soon joined the Barnes Foundation, lecturing to a varied audience on the history of philosophy; these lectures formed the basis of A History of Western Philosophy. His relationship with the eccentric Albert C. Barnes soon soured, and he returned to the UK in 1944 to rejoin the faculty of Trinity College.[146]

Later life

Image
Russell in 1954

Russell participated in many broadcasts over the BBC, particularly The Brains Trust and the Third Programme, on various topical and philosophical subjects. By this time Russell was world-famous outside academic circles, frequently the subject or author of magazine and newspaper articles, and was called upon to offer opinions on a wide variety of subjects, even mundane ones. En route to one of his lectures in Trondheim, Russell was one of 24 survivors (among a total of 43 passengers) of an aeroplane crash in Hommelvik in October 1948. He said he owed his life to smoking since the people who drowned were in the non-smoking part of the plane.[147][148] A History of Western Philosophy (1945) became a best-seller and provided Russell with a steady income for the remainder of his life.

In 1942, Russell argued in favour of a moderate socialism, capable of overcoming its metaphysical principles, in an inquiry on dialectical materialism, launched by the Austrian artist and philosopher Wolfgang Paalen in his journal DYN, saying "I think the metaphysics of both Hegel and Marx plain nonsense—Marx's claim to be 'science' is no more justified than Mary Baker Eddy's. This does not mean that I am opposed to socialism."[149]

In 1943, Russell expressed support for Zionism: "I have come gradually to see that, in a dangerous and largely hostile world, it is essential to Jews to have some country which is theirs, some region where they are not suspected aliens, some state which embodies what is distinctive in their culture".[150]

In a speech in 1948, Russell said that if the USSR's aggression continued, it would be morally worse to go to war after the USSR possessed an atomic bomb than before it possessed one, because if the USSR had no bomb the West's victory would come more swiftly and with fewer casualties than if there were atom bombs on both sides.[151][152] At that time, only the United States possessed an atomic bomb, and the USSR was pursuing an extremely aggressive policy towards the countries in Eastern Europe which were being absorbed into the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. Many understood Russell's comments to mean that Russell approved of a first strike in a war with the USSR, including Nigel Lawson, who was present when Russell spoke of such matters. Others, including Griffin, who obtained a transcript of the speech, have argued that he was merely explaining the usefulness of America's atomic arsenal in deterring the USSR from continuing its domination of Eastern Europe.[147]

However, just after the atomic bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russell wrote letters, and published articles in newspapers from 1945 to 1948, stating clearly that it was morally justified and better to go to war against the USSR using atomic bombs while the United States possessed them and before the USSR did. In September 1949, one week after the USSR tested its first A-bomb, but before this became known, Russell wrote that USSR would be unable to develop nuclear weapons because following Stalin's purges only science based on Marxist principles would be practiced in the Soviet Union.[153] After it became known that the USSR carried out its nuclear bomb tests, Russell declared his position advocating for the total abolition of atomic weapons.[154]

In 1948, Russell was invited by the BBC to deliver the inaugural Reith Lectures[155]—what was to become an annual series of lectures, still broadcast by the BBC. His series of six broadcasts, titled Authority and the Individual,[156] explored themes such as the role of individual initiative in the development of a community and the role of state control in a progressive society. Russell continued to write about philosophy. He wrote a foreword to Words and Things by Ernest Gellner, which was highly critical of the later thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein and of ordinary language philosophy. Gilbert Ryle refused to have the book reviewed in the philosophical journal Mind, which caused Russell to respond via The Times. The result was a month-long correspondence in The Times between the supporters and detractors of ordinary language philosophy, which was only ended when the paper published an editorial critical of both sides but agreeing with the opponents of ordinary language philosophy.[157]

In the King's Birthday Honours of 9 June 1949, Russell was awarded the Order of Merit,[158] and the following year he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.[77][89] When he was given the Order of Merit, George VI was affable but slightly embarrassed at decorating a former jailbird, saying, "You have sometimes behaved in a manner that would not do if generally adopted".[159] Russell merely smiled, but afterwards claimed that the reply "That's right, just like your brother" immediately came to mind.

In 1950, Russell attended the inaugural conference for the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a CIA-funded anti-communist organisation committed to the deployment of culture as a weapon during the Cold War.[160] Russell was one of the best known patrons of the Congress, until he resigned in 1956.[161]

In 1952 Russell was divorced by Spence, with whom he had been very unhappy. Conrad, Russell's son by Spence, did not see his father between the time of the divorce and 1968 (at which time his decision to meet his father caused a permanent breach with his mother). Russell married his fourth wife, Edith Finch, soon after the divorce, on 15 December 1952. They had known each other since 1925, and Edith had taught English at Bryn Mawr College near Philadelphia, sharing a house for 20 years with Russell's old friend Lucy Donnelly. Edith remained with him until his death, and, by all accounts, their marriage was a happy, close, and loving one. Russell's eldest son John suffered from serious mental illness, which was the source of ongoing disputes between Russell and his former wife Dora.

In September 1961, at the age of 89, Russell was jailed for seven days in Brixton Prison for "breach of peace" after taking part in an anti-nuclear demonstration in London. The magistrate offered to exempt him from jail if he pledged himself to "good behaviour", to which Russell replied: "No, I won't."[162][163]

In 1962 Russell played a public role in the Cuban Missile Crisis: in an exchange of telegrams with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev assured him that the Soviet government would not be reckless.[164][165] Russell sent this telegram to President Kennedy:

YOUR ACTION DESPERATE. THREAT TO HUMAN SURVIVAL. NO CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. CIVILIZED MAN CONDEMNS IT. WE WILL NOT HAVE MASS MURDER. ULTIMATUM MEANS WAR... END THIS MADNESS.[166]


According to historian Peter Knight, after JFK's assassination, Russell, "prompted by the emerging work of the lawyer Mark Lane in the US ... rallied support from other noteworthy and left-leaning compatriots to form a Who Killed Kennedy Committee in June 1964, members of which included Michael Foot MP, Caroline Benn, the publisher Victor Gollancz, the writers John Arden and J. B. Priestley, and the Oxford history professor Hugh Trevor-Roper." Russell published a highly critical article weeks before the Warren Commission Report was published, setting forth 16 Questions on the Assassination and equating the Oswald case with the Dreyfus affair of late 19th-century France, in which the state wrongly convicted an innocent man. Russell also criticised the American press for failing to heed any voices critical of the official version.[167]

Political causes

Image
Russell (centre) alongside his wife Edith, leading a CND anti-nuclear march in London, 18 February 1961

Bertrand Russell was opposed to war from early on, his opposition to World War I being used as grounds for his dismissal from Trinity College at Cambridge. This incident fused two of his most controversial causes, as he had failed to be granted Fellow status, which would have protected him from firing, because he was not willing to either pretend to be a devout Christian, or at least avoid admitting he was agnostic.

He later described the resolution of these issues as essential to freedom of thought and expression, citing the incident in Free Thought and Official Propaganda, where he explained that the expression of any idea, even the most obviously "bad", must be protected not only from direct State intervention, but also economic leveraging and other means of being silenced:

The opinions which are still persecuted strike the majority as so monstrous and immoral that the general principle of toleration cannot be held to apply to them. But this is exactly the same view as that which made possible the tortures of the Inquisition.[168]


Russell spent the 1950s and 1960s engaged in political causes primarily related to nuclear disarmament and opposing the Vietnam War. The 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto was a document calling for nuclear disarmament and was signed by eleven of the most prominent nuclear physicists and intellectuals of the time.[169] In 1966–1967, Russell worked with Jean-Paul Sartre and many other intellectual figures to form the Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the conduct of the United States in Vietnam. He wrote a great many letters to world leaders during this period.

In 1956, immediately before and during the Suez Crisis, Russell expressed his opposition to European imperialism in the Middle East. He viewed the crisis as another reminder of the pressing need for a more effective mechanism for international governance, and to restrict national sovereignty to places such as the Suez Canal area "where general interest is involved". At the same time the Suez Crisis was taking place, the world was also captivated by the Hungarian Revolution and the subsequent crushing of the revolt by intervening Soviet forces. Russell attracted criticism for speaking out fervently against the Suez war while ignoring Soviet repression in Hungary, to which he responded that he did not criticise the Soviets "because there was no need. Most of the so-called Western World was fulminating". Although he later feigned a lack of concern, at the time he was disgusted by the brutal Soviet response, and on 16 November 1956, he expressed approval for a declaration of support for Hungarian scholars which Michael Polanyi had cabled to the Soviet embassy in London twelve days previously, shortly after Soviet troops had already entered Budapest.[170]

In November 1957 Russell wrote an article addressing US President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, urging a summit to consider "the conditions of co-existence". Khrushchev responded that peace could indeed be served by such a meeting. In January 1958 Russell elaborated his views in The Observer, proposing a cessation of all nuclear-weapons production, with the UK taking the first step by unilaterally suspending its own nuclear-weapons program if necessary, and with Germany "freed from all alien armed forces and pledged to neutrality in any conflict between East and West". US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles replied for Eisenhower. The exchange of letters was published as The Vital Letters of Russell, Khrushchev, and Dulles.[171]

Russell was asked by The New Republic, a liberal American magazine, to elaborate his views on world peace. He urged that all nuclear-weapons testing and constant flights by planes armed with nuclear weapons be halted immediately, and negotiations be opened for the destruction of all hydrogen bombs, with the number of conventional nuclear devices limited to ensure a balance of power. He proposed that Germany be reunified and accept the Oder-Neisse line as its border, and that a neutral zone be established in Central Europe, consisting at the minimum of Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, with each of these countries being free of foreign troops and influence, and prohibited from forming alliances with countries outside the zone. In the Middle East, Russell suggested that the West avoid opposing Arab nationalism, and proposed the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping force to guard Israel's frontiers to ensure that Israel was prevented from committing aggression and protected from it. He also suggested Western recognition of the People's Republic of China, and that it be admitted to the UN with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.[171]

He was in contact with Lionel Rogosin while the latter was filming his anti-war film Good Times, Wonderful Times in the 1960s. He became a hero to many of the youthful members of the New Left. In early 1963, in particular, Russell became increasingly vocal in his disapproval of the Vietnam War, and felt that the US government's policies there were near-genocidal. In 1963 he became the inaugural recipient of the Jerusalem Prize, an award for writers concerned with the freedom of the individual in society.[172] In 1964 he was one of eleven world figures who issued an appeal to Israel and the Arab countries to accept an arms embargo and international supervision of nuclear plants and rocket weaponry.[173] In October 1965 he tore up his Labour Party card because he suspected Harold Wilson's Labour government was going to send troops to support the United States in Vietnam.[77]

Final years, death and legacy

Image
Russell on a 1972 stamp of India

In June 1955 Russell had leased Plas Penrhyn in Penrhyndeudraeth, Merionethshire, Wales and on 5 July of the following year it became his and Edith's principal residence.[174]

Image
Bust of Russell in Red Lion Square

Russell published his three-volume autobiography in 1967, 1968, and 1969. Russell made a cameo appearance playing himself in the anti-war Hindi film Aman, by Mohan Kumar, which was released in India in 1967. This was Russell's only appearance in a feature film.[175]

On 23 November 1969 he wrote to The Times newspaper saying that the preparation for show trials in Czechoslovakia was "highly alarming". The same month, he appealed to Secretary General U Thant of the United Nations to support an international war crimes commission to investigate alleged torture and genocide by the United States in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The following month, he protested to Alexei Kosygin over the expulsion of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn from the Soviet Union of Writers.

On 31 January 1970 Russell issued a statement condemning "Israel's aggression in the Middle East", and in particular, Israeli bombing raids being carried out deep in Egyptian territory as part of the War of Attrition. He called for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-Six-Day War borders. This was Russell's final political statement or act. It was read out at the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo on 3 February 1970, the day after his death.[176]

Russell died of influenza, just after 8 pm on 2 February 1970 at his home in Penrhyndeudraeth.[177] His body was cremated in Colwyn Bay on 5 February 1970 with five people present.[178] In accordance with his will, there was no religious ceremony but one minute's silence; his ashes were scattered over the Welsh mountains later that year. He left an estate valued at £69,423 (equivalent to £1.1 million in 2019).[179] In 1980 a memorial to Russell was commissioned by a committee including the philosopher A. J. Ayer. It consists of a bust of Russell in Red Lion Square in London sculpted by Marcelle Quinton.[180]

Lady Katharine Jane Tait, Russell's daughter, founded the Bertrand Russell Society in 1974 to preserve and understand his work. It publishes the Bertrand Russell Society Bulletin, holds meetings and awards prizes for scholarship.[181] She also authored several essays about her father; as well as a book, My Father, Bertrand Russell, which was published in 1975.[182] All members receive Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies.

Titles and honours from birth

Russell held throughout his life the following styles and honours:

• from birth until 1908: The Honourable Bertrand Arthur William Russell
• from 1908 until 1931: The Honourable Bertrand Arthur William Russell, FRS
• from 1931 until 1949: The Right Honourable The Earl Russell, FRS
• from 1949 until death: The Right Honourable The Earl Russell, OM, FRS
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:09 am

Part 2 of 2

Views

Philosophy

Main article: Bertrand Russell's philosophical views

Image

Russell is generally credited with being one of the founders of analytic philosophy. He was deeply impressed by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716), and wrote on every major area of philosophy except aesthetics. He was particularly prolific in the fields of metaphysics, logic and the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of language, ethics and epistemology. When Brand Blanshard asked Russell why he did not write on aesthetics, Russell replied that he did not know anything about it, though he hastened to add "but that is not a very good excuse, for my friends tell me it has not deterred me from writing on other subjects".[183]

On ethics, Russell wrote that he was a utilitarian in his youth, yet he later distanced himself from this view.[184]

For the advancement of science and protection of the right to freedom of expression, Russell advocated The Will to Doubt, the recognition that all human knowledge is at most a best guess, that one should always remember:

None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These methods are practised in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge. Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men's attitude is tentative and full of doubt.


Religion

Russell described himself in 1947 as an agnostic, saying: "Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."[185] For most of his adult life, Russell maintained religion to be little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects, largely harmful to people. He believed that religion and the religious outlook serve to impede knowledge and foster fear and dependency, and to be responsible for much of our world's wars, oppression, and misery. He was a member of the Advisory Council of the British Humanist Association and President of Cardiff Humanists until his death.[186]

Society

Main article: Bertrand Russell's political views

Political and social activism occupied much of Russell's time for most of his life. Russell remained politically active almost to the end of his life, writing to and exhorting world leaders and lending his name to various causes.

Russell argued for a "scientific society", where war would be abolished, population growth would be limited, and prosperity would be shared.[187] He suggested the establishment of a "single supreme world government" able to enforce peace,[188] claiming that "the only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation".[189]

Russell was an active supporter of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, being one of the signatories of A. E. Dyson's 1958 letter to The Times calling for a change in the law regarding male homosexual practices, which were partly legalised in 1967, when Russell was still alive.[190]

In "Reflections on My Eightieth Birthday" ("Postscript" in his Autobiography), Russell wrote: "I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social. Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times. Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken".[191]

Freedom of opinion and expression

Like George Orwell, Russell was a champion of freedom of opinion and an opponent of both censorship and indoctrination. In 1928 he wrote: "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living.[192] In 1957 he wrote: "'Free thought' means thinking freely ... to be worthy of the name freethinker he must be free of two things: the force of tradition and the tyranny of his own passions."[193]

Selected bibliography

Below is a selected bibliography of Russell's books in English, sorted by year of first publication:

• 1896. German Social Democracy. London: Longmans, Green.
• 1897. An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry.[194] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 1900. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 1903. The Principles of Mathematics.[195] Cambridge University Press.
• 1903. A Free man's worship, and other essays.[196]
• 1905. "On Denoting", Mind, Vol. 14. ISSN 0026-4423. Basil Blackwell.
• 1910. Philosophical Essays. London: Longmans, Green.
• 1910–1913. Principia Mathematica[197] (with Alfred North Whitehead). 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 1912. The Problems of Philosophy.[198] London: Williams and Norgate.
• 1914. Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy.[199] Chicago and London: Open Court Publishing.[200]
• 1916. Principles of Social Reconstruction.[201] London, George Allen and Unwin.
• 1916. Why Men Fight. New York: The Century Co.
• 1916. The Policy of the Entente, 1904–1914 : a reply to Professor Gilbert Murray.[202] Manchester: The National Labour Press
• 1916. Justice in War-time. Chicago: Open Court.
• 1917. Political Ideals.[203] New York: The Century Co.
• 1918. Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1918. Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism.[204] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.[205][206] London: George Allen & Unwin. (ISBN 0-415-09604-9 for Routledge paperback)[207]
• 1920. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.[208] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1921. The Analysis of Mind.[209] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1922. The Problem of China.[210] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1922. Free Thought and Official Propaganda, delivered at South Place Institute[168]
• 1923. The Prospects of Industrial Civilization, in collaboration with Dora Russell. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1923. The ABC of Atoms, London: Kegan Paul. Trench, Trubner.
• 1923. Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1924. Icarus; or, The Future of Science. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
• 1925. The ABC of Relativity. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
• 1925. What I Believe. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
• 1926. On Education, Especially in Early Childhood. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1927. The Analysis of Matter. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
• 1927. An Outline of Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1927. Why I Am Not a Christian.[211] London: Watts.
• 1927. Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell. New York: Modern Library.
• 1928. Sceptical Essays. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1929. Marriage and Morals. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1930. The Conquest of Happiness. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1931. The Scientific Outlook,[212] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1932. Education and the Social Order,[213] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1934. Freedom and Organization, 1814–1914. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1935. In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays.[214] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1935. Religion and Science. London: Thornton Butterworth.
• 1936. Which Way to Peace?. London: Jonathan Cape.
• 1937. The Amberley Papers: The Letters and Diaries of Lord and Lady Amberley, with Patricia Russell, 2 vols., London: Leonard & Virginia Woolf at the Hogarth Press.
• 1938. Power: A New Social Analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1940. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• 1945. The Bomb and Civilisation. Published in the Glasgow Forward on 18 August 1945.
• 1945. A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day[215] New York: Simon and Schuster.
• 1949. Authority and the Individual.[216] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1950. Unpopular Essays.[217] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1951. New Hopes for a Changing World. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1952. The Impact of Science on Society. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1953. Satan in the Suburbs and Other Stories. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1954. Human Society in Ethics and Politics. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1954. Nightmares of Eminent Persons and Other Stories.[218] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1956. Portraits from Memory and Other Essays.[219] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1956. Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, edited by Robert C. Marsh. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1957. Why I Am Not A Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, edited by Paul Edwards. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1958. Understanding History and Other Essays. New York: Philosophical Library.
• 1959. Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare.[220] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1959. My Philosophical Development.[221] London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1959. Wisdom of the West: A Historical Survey of Western Philosophy in Its Social and Political Setting, edited by Paul Foulkes. London: Macdonald.
• 1960. Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind, Cleveland and New York: World Publishing Company.
• 1961. The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, edited by R. E. Egner and L. E. Denonn. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1961. Fact and Fiction. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1961. Has Man a Future? London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1963. Essays in Skepticism. New York: Philosophical Library.
• 1963. Unarmed Victory. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1965. Legitimacy Versus Industrialism, 1814–1848. London: George Allen & Unwin (first published as Parts I and II of Freedom and Organization, 1814–1914, 1934).
• 1965. On the Philosophy of Science, edited by Charles A. Fritz, Jr. Indianapolis: The Bobbs–Merrill Company.
• 1966. The ABC of Relativity. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1967. Russell's Peace Appeals, edited by Tsutomu Makino and Kazuteru Hitaka. Japan: Eichosha's New Current Books.
• 1967. War Crimes in Vietnam. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• 1951–1969. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell,[222] 3 vols., London: George Allen & Unwin. Vol. 2, 1956[222]
• 1969. Dear Bertrand Russell... A Selection of his Correspondence with the General Public 1950–1968, edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Russell was the author of more than sixty books and over two thousand articles.[223][224] Additionally, he wrote many pamphlets, introductions, and letters to the editor. One pamphlet titled, 'I Appeal unto Caesar': The Case of the Conscientious Objectors, ghostwritten for Margaret Hobhouse, the mother of imprisoned peace activist Stephen Hobhouse, allegedly helped secure the release from prison of hundreds of conscientious objectors.[225]

His works can be found in anthologies and collections, including The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, which McMaster University began publishing in 1983. By March 2017 this collection of his shorter and previously unpublished works included 18 volumes,[226] and several more are in progress. A bibliography in three additional volumes catalogues his publications. The Russell Archives held by McMaster's William Ready Division of Archives and Research Collections possess over 40,000 of his letters.[227]

See also

• Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation
• Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club
• Criticism of Jesus
• List of peace activists
• List of pioneers in computer science

Notes

1. Monmouthshire's Welsh status was ambiguous at this time, and was considered by some to be part of England. See Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over status.

References

Citations


1. Irvine, Andrew David (1 January 2015). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Bertrand Russell – The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Carlo Cellucci, Rethinking Knowledge: The Heuristic View, Springer, 2017, p. 32.
3. The Problem of Perception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): "Paraphrasing David Hume (1739...; see also Locke 1690, Berkeley 1710, Russell 1912): nothing is ever directly present to the mind in perception except perceptual appearances."
4. David, Marian (28 May 2015). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Correspondence theory of truth – The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 14 May 2019 – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
5. James Ward (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
6. Howard Wettstein, "Frege-Russell Semantics?", Dialectica 44(1–2), 1990, pp. 113–135, esp. 115: "Russell maintains that when one is acquainted with something, say, a present sense datum or oneself, one can refer to it without the mediation of anything like a Fregean sense. One can refer to it, as we might say, directly."
7. "Structural Realism": entry by James Ladyman in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
8. Dowe, Phil (10 September 2007). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Causal Processes – The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
9. Ronald Jager (2002). The Development of Bertrand Russell's Philosophy, Volume 11. Psychology Press. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-0-415-29545-1.
10. Nicholas Griffin, ed. (2003). The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-521-63634-6.
11. Russell, pp. 352–353.
12. Roberts, George W. (2013). Bertrand Russell Memorial Volume. Routledge. p. 311. ISBN 978-1-317-83302-4.
13. Rosalind Carey; John Ongley (2009). Historical Dictionary of Bertrand Russell's Philosophy. Scarecrow Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-8108-6292-0.
14. Basile, Pierfrancesco (14 May 2019). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 14 May 2019 – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
15. Schultz, Bart. "Henry Sidgwick". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2015.
16. Ilkka Niiniluoto (2003). Thomas Bonk (ed.). Language, Truth and Knowledge: Contributions to the Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Springer. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-4020-1206-8.
17. Wolfgang Händler; Dieter Haupt; Rolf Jelitsch; Wilfried Juling; Otto Lange (1986). CONPAR 1986. Springer. p. 15. ISBN 978-3-540-16811-9.
18. Hao Wang (1990). Reflections on Kurt Gödel. MIT Press. p. 305. ISBN 9780262730877.
19. Phil Parvin (2013). Karl Popper. C. Black. ISBN 978-1-62356-733-0.
20. Roger F. Gibson, ed. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Quine. Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780521639491.
21. Robert F. Barsky (1998). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. MIT Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-262-52255-7.
22. François Cusset (2008). French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States. University of Minnesota Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-8166-4732-3.
23. Alan Berger, ed. (2011). Saul Kripke. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-50066-1.
24. Dov M. Gabbay; Paul Thagard; John Woods; Theo A. F. Kuipers (2007). "The Logical Approach of the Vienna Circle and their Followers from the 1920s to the 1950s". General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues: Focal Issues. Elsevier. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-08-054854-8.
25. Dermot Moran (2012). Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 204. ISBN 9780521895361.
26. Grattan-Guinness. "Russell and G.H. Hardy: A study of their Relationship". McMaster University Library Press. Retrieved 3 January 2014.
27. Douglas Patterson (2012). Alfred Tarski: Philosophy of Language and Logic. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-36722-7.
28. Rosalind Carey; John Ongley (2009). Historical Dictionary of Bertrand Russell's Philosophy. Scarecrow Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-0-8108-6292-0.
29. Ray Monk (2013). Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center. Random House. ISBN 978-0-385-50413-3.
30. Anita Burdman Feferman; Solomon Feferman (2004). Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic. Cambridge University Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-521-80240-6.
31. Andrew Hodges (2012). Alan Turing: The Enigma. Princeton University Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-691-15564-7.
32. Jacob Bronowski (2008). The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15718-5.
33. Nicholas Griffin; Dale Jacquette, eds. (2008). Russell vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "On Denoting". Taylor & Francis. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-203-88802-5.
34. Sankar Ghose (1993). "V: Europe Revisited". Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography. Allied Publishers. p. 46. ISBN 978-81-7023-369-5.
35. "Street-Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties". Verso. p. 2005. Archived from the original on 9 December 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
36. Michael Albert (2011). Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism: A Memoir. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-60980-001-7.
37. Jon Lee Anderson (1997). Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. Grove Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-8021-9725-2.
38. Marc Joseph (2004). "1: Introduction: Davidson's Philosophical Project". Donald Davidson. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7735-2781-2.
39. James A. Marcum (2005). "1: Who is Thomas Kuhn?". Thomas Kuhn's Revolution: An Historical Philosophy of Science. Continuum. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-84714-194-1.
40. Nathan Salmon (2007). "Introduction to Volume II". Content, Cognition, and Communication : Philosophical Papers II: Philosophical Papers II. Oxford University Press. p. xi. ISBN 978-0-19-153610-6.
41. Christopher Hitchens, ed. (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.
42. Gregory Landini (2010). Russell. Routledge. p. 444. ISBN 978-0-203-84649-0.
43. Carl Sagan (2006). Ann Druyan (ed.). The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. Penguin. ISBN 978-1-59420-107-3.
44. George Crowder (2004). Isaiah Berlin: Liberty, Pluralism and Liberalism. Polity. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7456-2477-8.
45. Elsie Jones-Smith (2011). Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy: An Integrative Approach: An Integrative Approach. SAGE. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-4129-1004-0.
46. "Interview with Martin Gardner" (PDF). American Mathematical Society. June–July 2005. p. 603. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
47. Peter S. Williams (2013). C S Lewis Vs The New Atheists. Authentic Media. ISBN 978-1-78078-093-1.
48. Loretta Lorance; Richard Buckminster Fuller (2009). Becoming Bucky Fuller. MIT Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-262-12302-0.
49. K. Sohail (February 2000). "How Difficult it is to Help People Change their Thinking – Interview with Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 31 December 2013.
50. Bradley W. Bateman; Toshiaki Hirai; Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, eds. (2010). The Return to Keynes. Harvard University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-674-05354-0.
51. Isaac Asimov (2009). I. Asimov: A Memoir. Random House. ISBN 978-0-307-57353-7.
52. Paul Kurtz (1994). Vern L. Bullough; Tim Madigan (eds.). Toward a New Enlightenment: The Philosophy of Paul Kurtz. Transaction Publishers. p. 233. ISBN 978-1-4128-4017-0.
53. John P. Anderson (2000). Finding Joy in Joyce: A Readers Guide to Ulysses. Universal-Publishers. p. 580. ISBN 978-1-58112-762-1.
54. Paul Lee Thomas (2006). Reading, Learning, Teaching Kurt Vonnegut. Peter Lang. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8204-6337-7.
55. Gregory L. Ulmer (2005). Electronic Monuments. U of Minnesota Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-8166-4583-1.
56. Paul J. Nahin (2011). "9". Number-Crunching: Taming Unruly Computational Problems from Mathematical Physics to Science Fiction. Princeton University Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-4008-3958-2.
57. Mie Augier; Herbert Alex; er Simon; James G. March, eds. (2004). Models of a Man: Essays in Memory of Herbert A. Simon. MIT Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-262-01208-9.
58. William O'Donohue; Kyle E. Ferguson (2001). The Psychology of B F Skinner. SAGE. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-7619-1759-5.
59. Gustavo Faigenbaum (2001). Conversations with John Searle. LibrosEnRed.com. p. 28. ISBN 978-987-1022-11-3.
60. William M. Brinton; Alan Rinzler, eds. (1990). Without Force Or Lies: Voices from the Revolution of Central Europe in 1989–90. Mercury House. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-916515-92-8.
61. David Wilkinson (2001). God, Time and Stephen Hawking. Kregel Publications. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-8254-6029-6.
62. Reiner Braun; Robert Hinde; David Krieger; Harold Kroto; Sally Milne, eds. (2007). Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-3-527-61127-0.
63. Ned Curthoys; Debjani Ganguly, eds. (2007). Edward Said: The Legacy of a Public Intellectual. Academic Monographs. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-522-85357-5.
64. "Frank Wilczek – Biographical". Nobel Media AB 2017. Another thing that shaped my thinking was religious training. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic. I loved the idea that there was a great drama and a grand plan behind existence. Later, under the influence of Bertrand Russell's writings and my increasing awareness of scientific knowledge, I lost faith in conventional religion.
65. Azurmendi, Joxe (1999): Txillardegiren saioa: hastapenen bila, Jakin, 114: pp. 17–45. ISSN 0211-495X
66. Kreisel, G. (1973). "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, Earl Russell. 1872–1970". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. 19: 583–620. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1973.0021. JSTOR 769574.
67. The Life of Bertrand Russell. Knopf. 1976. p. 119. ISBN 9780394490595. He became a relentless political activist during World War I, and throughout his life was an ardent advocate of parliamentary democracy through his support first of the Liberal Party and then of Labour.
68. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Bertrand Russell", 1 May 2003
69. Bertrand Russell (1998). Autobiography. p. 260. ISBN 9780415189859. I have imagined myself in turn a Liberal, a Socialist, or a Pacifist, but I have never been any of these things, in any profound sense.
70. Hestler, Anna (2001). Wales. Marshall Cavendish. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7614-1195-6.
71. Russell and G. E. Moore broke themselves free from British Idealism which, for nearly 90 years, had dominated British philosophy. Russell would later recall in "My Mental Development" that "with a sense of escaping from prison, we allowed ourselves to think that grass is green, that the sun and stars would exist if no one was aware of them ..."—Russell B, (1944) "My Mental Development", in Schilpp, Paul Arthur: The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, New York: Tudor, 1951, pp. 3–20.
72. Ludlow, Peter. "Descriptions, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)".
73. Richard Rempel (1979). "From Imperialism to Free Trade: Couturat, Halevy and Russell's First Crusade". Journal of the History of Ideas. University of Pennsylvania Press. 40 (3): 423–443. doi:10.2307/2709246. JSTOR 2709246.
74. Russell, Bertrand (1988) [1917]. Political Ideals. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10907-8.
75. Russell, Bertrand (October 1946). "Atomic Weapon and the Prevention of War". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2/7-8, (October 1, 1946). p. 20.
76. Samoiloff, Louise Cripps. C .L. R. James: Memories and Commentaries, p. 19. Associated University Presses, 1997. ISBN 0-8453-4865-5
77. "The Bertrand Russell oGallery". Russell.mcmaster.ca. 6 June 2011. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 1 October 2011.
78. The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950 — Bertrand Russell: The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950 was awarded to Bertrand Russell "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought".Retrieved on 22 March 2013.
79. "British Nobel Prize Winners (1950)". 13 April 2014 – via YouTube.
80. Sidney Hook, "Lord Russell and the War Crimes Trial", Bertrand Russell: critical assessments, Vol. 1, edited by A. D. Irvine, New York 1999, p. 178
81. Paul, Ashley. "Bertrand Russell: The Man and His Ideas". Archived from the original on 1 May 2006. Retrieved 28 October 2007.
82. Russell, Bertrand and Perkins, Ray (ed.) Yours faithfully, Bertrand Russell. Open Court Publishing, 2001, p. 4.
83. Bloy, Marjie, PhD. "Lord John Russell (1792–1878)". Retrieved 28 October 2007.
84. Cokayne, G. E.; Vicary Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, eds. The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed. 13 volumes in 14. 1910–1959. Reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000.
85. Booth, Wayne C. (1974). Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226065723.
86. The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide, 1866–1928 By Elizabeth Crawford
87. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (Volume I, 1872–1914) George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1971, page 31;
88. Bertrand Russell (1998). Autobiography. Psychology Press. p. 38. ISBN 9780415189859.
89. The Nobel Foundation (1950). Bertrand Russell: The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950. Retrieved 11 June 2007.
90. Russell, Bertrand (2000) [1967]. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1872–1914. New York: Routledge. p. 30.
91. Paul, Ashley. "Bertrand Russell: The Man and His Ideas – Chapter 2". Archived from the original on 1 January 2009. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
92. Bertrand Russell (1998). Autobiography. Psychology Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780415189859.
93. "1959 Bertrand Russell CBC interview". 1959.
94. Bertrand Russell (1998). "2: Adolescence". Autobiography. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415189859.
95. "Bertrand Russell on God". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 1959. Archived from the original on 26 January 2010. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
96. Russell, Bertrand (2000) [1967]. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1872–1914. New York: Routledge. p. 39.
97. "Russell, the Hon. Bertrand Arthur William (RSL890BA)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
98. O'Connor, J. J.; Robertson, E. F. (October 2003). "Alfred North Whitehead". School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland. Retrieved 8 November 2007.
99. Griffin, Nicholas; Lewis, Albert C. (1990). "Russell's Mathematical Education". Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. 44 (1): 51–71. doi:10.1098/rsnr.1990.0004. JSTOR 531585.
100. Russell, Bertrand (2000) [1967]. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1872–1914. New York: Routledge. p. 72.
101. Monk, Ray (1996). Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, 1872–1921. Simon and Schuster. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-684-82802-2.
102. Monk, Ray (1996). Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, 1872–1921. Simon and Schuster. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-684-82802-2.
103. Bertrand Russell (1998). Autobiography. p. 150. ISBN 9780415189859. I went out bicycling one afternoon, and suddenly, as I was riding along a country road, I realised that I no longer loved Alys
104. Moran, Margaret (1991). "Bertrand Russell Meets His Muse: The Impact of Lady Ottoline Morrell (1911–12)". McMaster University Library Press. Retrieved 1 March 2012.
105. Russell, Bertrand (2002). Griffin, Nicholas (ed.). The Selected Letters of Bertrand Russell: The Public Years, 1914–1970. Psychology Press. p. 230. ISBN 978-0-415-26012-1.
106. Kimball, Roger (September 1992). "Love, logic & unbearable pity: The private Bertrand Russell". The New Criterion. Archived from the original on 5 December 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2007.
107. Monk, Ray (September 2004). "Russell, Bertrand Arthur William, third Earl Russell (1872–1970)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/35875. Retrieved 14 March 2008. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)(subscription required)
108. "London School of Economics". London School of Economics. 26 August 2015.
109. Russell, Bertrand (2001). Ray Perkins (ed.). Yours Faithfully, Bertrand Russell: Letters to the Editor 1904–1969. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. p. 16. ISBN 0-8126-9449-X. Retrieved 16 November 2007.
110. Russell, Bertrand (1898) An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry, p. 32, re-issued 1956 by Dover Books
111. "Bertrand Russell, biography". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 23 June 2010.
112. Bertrand Russell (1998). "6: Principia Mathematica". Autobiography. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415189859.
113. "Russell on Wittgenstein". Rbjones.com. Retrieved 1 October 2011.
114. Hochschild, Adam (2011). "I Tried to Stop the Bloody Thing". The American Scholar. Retrieved 10 May 2011.
115. Scharfenburger, Paul (17 October 2012). "1917". MusicandHistory.com. Archived from the original on 17 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
116. Russell, Bertrand (1995). "A Summer of Hope". Pacifism and Revolution. Routledge. p. xxxiv.
117. "British Socialists – Peace Terms Discussed". The Sydney Morning Herald. 5 June 1917. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
118. Vellacott, Jo (1980). Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War. Brighton: Harvester Press. ISBN 0-85527-454-9.
119. Bertrand Russell (1998). "8: The First War". Autobiography. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415189859.
120. The Selected Letters of Bertrand Russell by Bertrand Russell, Nicholas Griffin 2002, letter to Gladys Rinder on May 1918
121. "Trinity in Literature". Trinity College. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
122. "M. P.'s Who Have Been in Jail To Hold Banquet". The Reading Eagle. 8 January 1924. Retrieved 18 May 2014.
123. G. H. Hardy (1970). Bertrand Russell and Trinity. pp. 57–8.
124. "Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)". Farlex, Inc. Retrieved 11 December 2007.
125. Russell, Bertrand (31 July 1920). "Soviet Russia—1920". The Nation. pp. 121–125. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
126. Russell, Bertrand (20 February 2008) [First published 1920]. "Lenin, Trotzky and Gorky". The Nation. Retrieved 20 August2016.
127. Russell, Bertrand The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism by Bertrand Russell, 1920
128. Russell, Bertrand (1972). The Problem of China. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 252.
129. "Bertrand Russell Reported Dead" (PDF). The New York Times. 21 April 1921. Retrieved 11 December 2007.
130. Russell, Bertrand (2000). Richard A. Rempel (ed.). Uncertain Paths to Freedom: Russia and China, 1919–22. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell. 15. Routledge. lxviii. ISBN 0-415-09411-9.
131. Bertrand Russell (1998). "10: China". Autobiography. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415189859. It provided me with the pleasure of reading my obituary notices, which I had always desired without expecting my wishes to be fulfilled... As the Japanese papers had refused to contradict the news of my death, Dora gave each of them a type-written slip saying that as I was dead I could not be interviewed
132. Bertrand Russell (1998). Autobiography. Psychology Press. p. 386. ISBN 9780415189859.
133. Inside Beacon Hill: Bertrand Russell as Schoolmaster. Jespersen, Shirley ERIC# EJ360344, published 1987
134. "Dora Russell". 12 May 2007. Archived from the original on 19 January 2008. Retrieved 17 February 2008.
135. Kranz, D. (2011): Barry Stevens: Leben Gestalten. In: Gestaltkritik, 2/2011, p. 4–11.
136. Stevens, B. (1970): Don't Push the River. Lafayette, Cal. (Real People Press), p. 26.
137. Gorham, D. (2005): Dora and Bertrand Russell and Beacon Hill School, in: Russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, n.s. 25, (summer 2005), p. 39 – 76, p. 57.
138. Spadoni, C. (1981): Recent Acquisitions: Correspondence, in: Russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, Vol 1, Iss. 1, Article 6, 43–67.
139. "Museum Of Tolerance Acquires Bertrand Russell's Nazi Appeasement Letter". Losangeles.cbslocal.com. 19 February 2014. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
140. Russell, Bertrand, "The Future of Pacifism", The American Scholar, (1943) 13: 7–13.
141. Bertrand Russell (1998). "12: Later Years of Telegraph House". Autobiography. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415189859. I found the Nazis utterly revolting – cruel, bigoted, and stupid. Morally and intellectually they were alike odious to me. Although I clung to my pacifist convictions, I did so with increasing difficulty. When, in 1940, England was threatened with invasion, I realised that, throughout the First War, I had never seriously envisaged the possibility of utter defeat. I found this possibility unbearable, and at last consciously and definitely decided that I must support what was necessary for victory in the Second War, however difficult victory might be to achieve, and however painful in its consequences
142. Bertrand Russell Rides Out Collegiate Cyclone Life, Vol. 8, No. 14, 1 April 1940
143. McCarthy, Joseph M. (May 1993). The Russell Case: Academic Freedom vs. Public Hysteria (PDF). Educational Resources Information Center. p. 9.
144. Leberstein, Stephen (November–December 2001). "Appointment Denied: The Inquisition of Bertrand Russell". Academe. Archived from the original on 23 January 2015. Retrieved 17 February 2008.
145. Einstein quotations and sources.. Retrieved 9 July 2009.
146. "Bertrand Russell". 2006. Archived from the original on 12 February 2008. Retrieved 17 February 2008.
147. Griffin, Nicholas, ed. (2002). The Selected Letters of Bertrand Russell. Routledge. p. 660. ISBN 0-415-26012-4.
148. Bertrand Russell (1998). Autobiography. Psychology Press. p. 512. ISBN 9780415189859.
149. Russell to Edward Renouf, assistant of Wolfgang Paalen, 23 March 1942 (Succession Wolfgang Paalen, Berlin); this letter is cited in DYN, No. 2, Mexico, July–August 1942, p. 52.
150. "Bertrand Russell On Zionism". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 13 September 2014.
151. "Bertrand Russell and Preventive War" (PDF). Plymouth.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2017. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
152. "A philosopher's letters – Love, Bertie". The Economist. 21 July 2001.
153. He wrote: "There is reason to think Stalin will insist on a new orthodoxy in atomic physics, since there is much in quantum theory that runs contrary to Communist dogma. An atomic bomb' made on Marxist principles would probably not explode because, after all, Marxist science was that of a hundred years ago. For those who fear the military power of Russia there is, therefore, some reason to rejoice in the muzzling of Russian science." Russell, Bertrand "Stalin Declares War on Science" Review of Langdon-Davies, Russia Puts Back the Clock, Evening Standard (London), 7 September 1949, p. 9.
154. Clark, Ronald William (1976). The life of Bertrand Russell: Ronald William Clark: 9780394490595: Amazon.com: Books. ISBN 0394490592.
155. –06:04. "Radio 4 Programmes – The Reith Lectures". BBC. Retrieved 1 October 2011.
156. –06:04. "Radio 4 Programmes – The Reith Lectures: Bertrand Russell: Authority and the Individual: 1948". BBC. Retrieved 1 October 2011.
157. T. P. Uschanov, The Strange Death of Ordinary Language Philosophy. The controversy has been described by the writer Ved Mehta in Fly and the Fly Bottle (1963).
158. "No. 38628". The London Gazette (Supplement). 3 June 1949. p. 2796.
159. Ronald W. Clark, Bertrand Russell and His World, p. 94. (1981) ISBN 0-500-13070-1
160. Frances Stonor Saunders, "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters." New York Press, 1999. Print.
161. Frances Stonor Saunder, ""The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And the World of Arts and Letters." New York Press, 1999. Print.
162. Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, Bertrand Russell, 1872–1970 [1970], p. 12
163. Russell, Bertrand (1967). The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3. Little, Brown. p. 157.
164. Russell and the Cuban missile crisis, by Al Seckel, California Institute of Technology // Russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, McMaster University, Vol 4 (1984), Issue 2, Winter 1984–85, pages 253–261
165. Sanderson Beck (2003–2005). "Pacifism of Bertrand Russell and A. J. Muste". World Peace Efforts Since Gandhi. Sanderson Beck. Retrieved 24 June 2012.
166. John H. Davis. The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster. S. P. Books. p. 437.
167. Peter Knight, The Kennedy Assassination, Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2007, p. 77.
168. Russell, Bertrand. "Free Thought and Official Propaganda". Retrieved 14 May 2019 – via Project Gutenberg.
169. Russell, Bertrand; Albert Einstein (9 July 1955). "Russell Einstein Manifesto". Retrieved 17 February 2008.
170. Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell (Psychology Press, 2005)
171. Yours Faithfully, Bertrand Russell (pp. 212–213)
172. "Jerusalem International Book Fair". Jerusalembookfair.com. Retrieved 1 October 2011.
173. "Bertrand Russell Appeals to Arabs and Israel on Rocket Weapons". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 26 February 1964.
174. Russell, Bertrand (12 October 2012). Andrew G. Bone (ed.). The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell Volume 29: Détente Or Destruction, 1955–57. Abingdon: Routledge. p. iii. ISBN 978-0415-3583-78.
175. "Aman (1967)". IMDb.
176. "Bertrand Russell's Last Message". Connexions.org. 31 January 1970. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
177. The Guardian – 3 February 1970
178. The Guardian – Page 7–6 February 1970
179. Russell, 1970, p. 3 at probatesearch.service.gov.uk. Retrieved 29 August 2015
180. "Bertrand Russell Memorial". Mind. 353: 320. 1980.
181. "The Bertrand Russell Society". The Bertrand Russell Society. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
182. My Father, Bertrand Russell. National Library of Australia. 1975. ISBN 9780151304325. Retrieved 28 May 2010.
183. Blanshard, in Paul Arthur Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Brand Blanshard, Open Court, 1980, p. 88, quoting a private letter from Russell.
184. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, London: Routledge, 2000 [London: Allen and Unwin, 1969, Vol. 1], p. 39 ("It appeared to me obvious that the happiness of mankind should be the aim of all action, and I discovered to my surprise that there were those who thought otherwise. Belief in happiness, I found, was called Utilitarianism, and was merely one among a number of ethical theories. I adhered to it after this discovery, and was rash enough to tell my grandmother that I was a utilitarian." In a letter from 1902, in which Russell criticized utilitarianism, he wrote: "I may as well begin by confessing that for many years it seemed to me perfectly self-evident that pleasure is the only good and pain the only evil. Now, however, the opposite seems to me self-evident. This change has been brought about by what I may call moral experience." Ibid, p. 161).
185. Russell, Bertrand (1947). "Am I An Atheist or an Agnostic?". Encyclopedia of Things. Archived from the original on 22 June 2005. Retrieved 6 July 2005.: "I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove (sic) that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist."
186. 'Humanist News', March 1970[not specific enough to verify]
187. Russell, Bertrand (1952). "Conclusions". The Impact of Science on Society. New York, Columbia University Press.
188. Russell, Bertrand (1936). Which Way to Peace? (Part 12). M. Joseph Ltd. p. 173.
189. Russell, Bertrand (1954). Human Society in Ethics and Politics. London: G. Allen & Unwin. p. 212.
190. Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (2 November 1997). "Lesbian and Gay Rights: The Humanist and Religious Stances". Retrieved 17 February 2008.
191. Russell, Bertrand (1968). The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1944–1969. Little, Brown. p. 330. Published separately as 'Reflections on My Eightieth Birthday' in Portraits from Memory.
192. Skeptical Essays, 1928, ISBN 978-0415325080
193. Understanding History and other Essays
194. "An essay on the foundations of geometry". Internet Archive. Cambridge, University press. 1897.
195. "The Principles of Mathematics". fair-use.org.
196. Free man's worship, and other essays, London : Unwin Books, 1976, ISBN 0048240214
197. Principia mathematica, by Alfred North Whitehead ... and Bertrand Russell. umich.edu. 2005.
198. "The Problems of Philosophy". ditext.com.
199. "Our Knowledge of the External World". Internet Archive. George Allen & Unwin.
200. http://www.filosofia.unimi.it/zucchi/Nu ... ssell(1914).pdf
201. "Principles of social reconstruction". Internet Archive. 1916.
202. Russell, Bertrand (14 May 2019). "The Policy of the Entente 1904–1914: A Reply to Professor Gilbert Murray". National Labour Press. Retrieved 14 May 2019 – via Google Books.
203. Political Ideals. Project Gutenberg.
204. Proposed Roads to Freedom. Project Gutenberg.
205. Kevin C. Klement. "Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy". umass.edu.
206. Pfeiffer, G. A. (1920). "Review: Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy by Bertrand Russell" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 27 (2): 81–90. doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1920-03365-3.
207. "Introduction to mathematical philosophy". Internet Archive. 1920.
208. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. Project Gutenberg.
209. The Analysis of Mind. Project Gutenberg.
210. The Problem of China. Project Gutenberg.
211. "Why I Am Not A Christian". positiveatheism.org. Archived from the original on 19 November 2006.
212. "The Scientific Outlook". Internet Archive. George Allen And Unwin Limited. 1954.
213. "Education and the Social Order". Internet Archive.
214. "In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell". zpub.com.
215. "Western Philosophy". Internet Archive.
216. "Authority and the individual". Internet Archive.
217. "Unpopular Essays". Internet Archive. Simon and Schuster. 1950.
218. "Nightmares of Eminent Persons And Other Stories". Internet Archive. The Bodley Head. 1954.
219. "Portraits From Memory And Other Essays". Internet Archive. Simon and Schuster. 1956.
220. "Common Sense And Nuclear Warfare". Internet Archive. Simon and Schuster. 1959.
221. "My Philosophical Development". Internet Archive. Simon and Schuster. 1959.
222. "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell 1872 1914". Internet Archive. Little, Brown and company. 1951.
223. Charles Pigden in Bertrand Russell, Russell on Ethics: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand Russell, Routledge (2013), p. 14
224. James C. Klagge, Wittgenstein: Biography and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press (2001), p. 12
225. Hochschild, Adam (2011). To end all wars: a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914–1918. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 270–272. ISBN 978-0-618-75828-9.
226. "McMaster University: The Bertrand Russell Research Centre". Russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca. 6 March 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
227. "Bertrand Russell Archives Catalogue Entry and Research System". McMaster University Library. The William Ready Division of Archives and Research Collections. Retrieved 5 February 2016.

Sources

Primary sources


• 1900, Sur la logique des relations avec des applications à la théorie des séries, Rivista di matematica 7: 115–148.
• 1901, On the Notion of Order, Mind (n.s.) 10: 35–51.
• 1902, (with Alfred North Whitehead), On Cardinal Numbers, American Journal of Mathematics 24: 367–384.
• 1948, BBC Reith Lectures: Authority and the Individual A series of six radio lectures broadcast on the BBC Home Service in December 1948.

Secondary sources

• John Newsome Crossley. A Note on Cantor's Theorem and Russell's Paradox, Australian Journal of Philosophy 51, 1973, 70–71.
• Ivor Grattan-Guinness. The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870–1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
• Alan Ryan. Bertrand Russell: A Political Life, New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Further reading

Books about Russell's philosophy


• Alfred Julius Ayer. Russell, London: Fontana, 1972. ISBN 0-00-632965-9. A lucid summary exposition of Russell's thought.
• Celia Green. The Lost Cause: Causation and the Mind-Body Problem, Oxford: Oxford Forum, 2003. ISBN 0-9536772-1-4 Contains a sympathetic analysis of Russell's views on causality.
• A. C. Grayling. Russell: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Nicholas Griffin. Russell's Idealist Apprenticeship, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
• A. D. Irvine (ed.). Bertrand Russell: Critical Assessments, 4 volumes, London: Routledge, 1999. Consists of essays on Russell's work by many distinguished philosophers.
• Michael K. Potter. Bertrand Russell's Ethics, Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 2006. A clear and accessible explanation of Russell's moral philosophy.
• Elizabeth Ramsden Eames. Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969. A clear description of Russell's philosophical development.
• P. A. Schilpp (ed.). The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern University, 1944.
• John Slater. Bertrand Russell, Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1994.

Biographical books

• A. J. Ayer. Bertrand Russell, New York: Viking Press, 1972, reprint ed. London: University of Chicago Press, 1988: ISBN 0-226-03343-0
• Ronald W. Clark. The Life of Bertrand Russell, London: Jonathan Cape, 1975 ISBN 0-394-49059-2
• Ronald W. Clark. Bertrand Russell and His World, London: Thames & Hudson, 1981 ISBN 0-500-13070-1
• Rupert Crawshay-Williams. Russell Remembered, London: Oxford University Press, 1970. Written by a close friend of Russell's
• John Lewis. Bertrand Russell: Philosopher and Humanist, London: Lawerence & Wishart, 1968
• Ray Monk. Bertrand Russell: Mathematics: Dreams and Nightmares London: Phoenix, 1997 ISBN 0-7538-0190-6
• Ray Monk. Bertrand Russell: 1872–1920 The Spirit of Solitude Vol. I, New York: Routledge, 1997 ISBN 0-09-973131-2
• Ray Monk. Bertrand Russell: 1921–1970 The Ghost of Madness Vol. II, New York: Routledge, 2001 ISBN 0-09-927275-X
• Caroline Moorehead. Bertrand Russell: A Life New York: Viking, 1993 ISBN 0-670-85008-X
• George Santayana. 'Bertrand Russell', in Selected Writings of George Santayana, ed. Norman Henfrey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I, 1968, pp. 326–329
• Katharine Tait. My father Bertrand Russell, New York: Thoemmes Press, 1975
• Alan Wood. Bertrand Russell The Passionate Sceptic London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957.
• Peter Stone et al. Bertrand Russell´s Life and Legacy. Wilmington: Vernon Press, 2017.

External links

• Media from Wikimedia Commons
• Quotations from Wikiquote
• Texts from Wikisource
• "Bertrand Russell's Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• "Bertrand Russell's Logic". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• "Bertrand Russell's Metaphysics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• The Bertrand Russell Archives at McMaster University
• The Bertrand Russell Society at Bertrand Russell Society
• The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation
• O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Bertrand Russell", MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, University of St Andrews.
• Works by Bertrand Russell at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Bertrand Russell at Internet Archive
• Works by Bertrand Russell at Open Library
• Works by Bertrand Russell at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• BBC Face to Face interview with Bertrand Russell and John Freeman, broadcast 4 March 1959
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests