BECK index
The Pacifism of Bertrand Russell
"Life and hope for the world
are to be found only in the deeds of love."
Bertrand Russell
"Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man."
Bertrand Russell
"War can only be abolished
by the establishment of a world government."
Bertrand Russell
"The time has come, or is about to come,
when only large-scale civil disobedience,
which should be nonviolent,
can save the populations from the universal death
which their governments are preparing for them."
Bertrand Russell
"For love of domination we must substitute equality;
for love of victory we must substitute justice;
for brutality we must substitute intelligence;
for competition we must substitute cooperation.
We must learn to think of the human race as one family."
Bertrand Russell
One of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, Bertrand
Russell, was an active pacifist who spent considerable energy working for
world peace, especially in his eighties and nineties. Bertrand Russell was
born in England on May 18,1872, and he died on February 2, 1970. Both of
his parents died while he was a small child, and he was raised by his
grandmother Russell. Bertrand was well educated; he was an outstanding
student at Trinity College, Cambridge. In addition to his expertise in
mathematics and philosophy he studied and lectured on economics and
political science. Although he believed that the intellect maintained his
sanity, he considered the emotions and passions fundamental in human life.
He married four times. His skeptical attitudes and questioning of authority
and popular tradition made him seem scandalous to many people.
Russell earned his reputation as a distinguished thinker by his work in
mathematics and logic. In 1903 he published The Principles of Mathematics
and by 1913 he and Alfred North Whitehead had published the three volumes
of Principia Mathematica. Although Russell was an analytic rationalist all
of his life, he did have a highly significant mystical experience in 1901
which influenced his values for the rest of his life. In his Autobiography
he described what happened.
Suddenly the ground seemed to give way beneath me, and I found
myself in quite another region. Within five minutes I went
through some such reflections as the following: the loneliness of
the human soul is unendurable; nothing can penetrate it except
the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers
have preached; whatever does not spring from this motive is
harmful, or at best useless; it follows that war is wrong, that a
public school education is abominable, that the use of force is
to be deprecated, and that in human relations one should
penetrate to the core of loneliness in each person and speak to
that.
The usually skeptical Russell called it a "mystical illumination;" for a
while he felt he could sense people's inmost thoughts; he became closer to
his friends; he changed from an imperialist to a pacifist and sided with
the Boers against Britain; for a time his analytic mind was swept away by
ecstatic feelings about beauty, an intense interest in children, and the
desire to found a philosophy, as the Buddha had done, to make human life
more endurable.
During the first world war Russell's pacifism challenged British society.
In July 1914 he collected signatures from fellow professors for a statement
urging England to remain neutral in the imminent war. When the British were
swept into the war and 90% of the population favored the fighting and
killing, Russell was horrified and reassessed his views of human nature. In
a letter to the London Nation for August 15 he criticized the pride of
patriotism which promotes mass murder.
Bertrand Russell was not an absolute pacifist. He explained, "The use of
force is justifiable when it is ordered in accordance with law by a neutral
authority, in the general interest and not primarily in the interest of one
of the parties to the quarrel." One solution, then, was for an
international organization backed up by force to keep the peace. Another
solution he suggested was passive resistance. If this was intelligently
adopted by the whole nation with as much courage and discipline as was
being shown in the war, then the national life could be better protected
with far less carnage and waste.
In 1916 Russell began to work for the No Conscription Fellowship, and he
became its chairman when all of the original committee had gone to prison.
He wrote a leaflet to defend the case of Ernest Everett who had refused
military service. When six men were arrested for distributing the leaflet,
Russell wrote to The Times declaring he was its author. Russell was accused
of hampering recruiting, and as his own attorney he explained that the case
of a conscientious objector could hardly influence someone who is
considering volunteering. He cited the English tradition of liberty, but he
was convicted nonetheless. When he refused to pay the fine, the authorities
preferred confiscating some of his possessions to putting him in prison.
This conviction, however, prevented him from getting a passport to visit
America. Russell felt that the more policemen and officials they could
occupy with the innocent work of monitoring their pacifist activities, the
less men would be available for the "official business of killing each
other."
After Wilson's re-election in 1916, Russell wrote an open letter to the
President which Katherine Dudley smuggled across the Atlantic. He appealed
to the United States Government to make peace between the European
Governments. He wrote, "If the German Government, as now seems likely,
would not only restore conquered territory, but also give its adherence to
the League to Enforce Peace or some similar method of settling disputes
without war, fear would be allayed, and it is almost certain that an offer
of mediation from you would give rise to an irresistible movement in favour
of negotiations."
Russell's speeches to munition workers in South Wales were inaccurately
reported by detectives, and the War Office forbade Russell from entering
prohibited areas. In January 1918 an article by Russell appeared in a
little weekly newspaper called The Tribunal suggesting that American
soldiers were likely to be used as strike-breakers in England, since they
had been employed in that way in the United States. This statement was
backed up by a Senate Report. For this, Russell was sentenced to prison for
six months. He spent the uninterrupted time cheerfully writing.
During the war Russell published several books on politics, war, and peace.
Principles of Social Reconstruction was released in America as Why Men
Fight. In this work Russell begins with the idea that the passions of war
must be controlled, not by thought alone, but by the passion and desire to
think clearly. Reason by itself is too lifeless. Wars can be prevented by a
positive life of passion. Impulse must not be weakened but directed
"towards life and growth rather than towards death and decay." Russell
suggests that the excessive discipline of impulse not only exhausts
vitality but often results in impulses of cruelty and destruction; this is
why militarism is bad for national character. He recommends therefore
active pacifism with the impulse and passion to overcome the impulses of
war. Great courage and passion are necessary to face the onslaught of the
hostile public opinion of a nation. Three forces for life are love,
constructiveness, and joy. There must be strong action to assure
international justice by a "Parliament of the nations." War can be
prevented if the great powers firmly determine that peace shall be
preserved. They could establish diplomatic methods to settle disputes and
educational systems to teach the horrors of killing rather than admiration
for war. Peace can only be permanently maintained by a world federation
with the civil functions of a state - legislative, administrative, and
judicial - and an international military force. This authority would
legislate, adjudicate, and enforce international laws, but would not
interfere with the internal affairs of nations. Pragmatically he suggests
that at any given time we ought to support the best direction of movement
available in the situation. This direction can be determined by applying
the two principles of liberty and reverence. In other words, the freedom of
individuals and communities ought to be encouraged, but not at the expense
of others.
Russell replied to the War Office's restriction of his movement in the book
Justice in War Time. He refused to surrender his spiritual liberty and
declared that they could not prevent him from discussing political
subjects, although they could imprison him under the Defense of the Realm
Act. In the book he delineates the evils of war: the young men killed and
maimed, the atrocities to non-combatants. the poverty of economic and
social conditions, and the spiritual evils of hatred, injustice, falsehood,
and conflict. He traces the theory of non-resistance held by Quakers and
Tolstoy, and he imagines what might happen if England would be giving up
its Empire and therefore could not be resistance and non-cooperation with
the invaders as a means of defense. First there would be no justification
at all for aggression. England would be giving up its Empire and therefore
could not be accused of oppressing anyone. Even if Germans did invade, what
could they do if all the officials refused to cooperate? Would they really
shoot or imprison them all? If the population refused to obey any German
orders, they would not learn German nor serve in the army nor even work to
pay taxes or supply products. Russell notes that this would require courage
and discipline. The most the Germans could do would be to take away the
Empire and withhold food while demanding tribute. For Russell, the Empire
is not a source of pride, and its self-governing parts could do the same
thing. Demanding tribute is like the highwayman who says, "Your money or
your life." Just as a reasonable man would hand over his money rather than
be shot, a reasonable nation ought to give tribute rather than resist by
force of arms. Primarily the rich would lose by this, because the poor
would have to retain enough to be able to work and supply the means of
tribute. It is unlikely that this tribute would be more than the cost of
fighting the war. Many deaths and the moral degradation of war would be
avoided. Russell suggests that it takes more courage and discipline to
practice non-resistance than it does to kill out of fear. Thus militarism
is due to "cowardice, love of dominion, and lust for blood." Even though
non-resistance is a better defense than fighting, the more likely solution
to the threat of war is the establishment of world government.
In Political Ideals Russell discusses the need for an international
government to secure peace in the world by means of effective international
law. Just as police are needed to protect private citizens from the use of
force, so an international police can prevent the lawless use of force by
states. The benefit of having law rather than international anarchy will
give the international government a respected authority so that states will
no longer feel free to use aggression. Then a large international force
will become unnecessary.
Roads to Freedom includes a section where Russell points out the
capitalistic factors which promote war. First is the desire of finance to
exploit the resources of undeveloped countries. Second, large newspapers
require capital and promote capitalistic interests. Third, capitalists like
power and expect to command others. Nevertheless Russell does not recommend
abolishing capitalism as a means to peace. However, he does recommend
abolishing the private ownership of land and capital as one necessary step
toward peace. Writing in 1918 he supports the idea of the League of Nations
and international cooperation. He asserts, "No idea is so practical as the
idea of the brotherhood of man." Again he emphasizes the need for a world
government and national disarmament. In 1923 he wrote, "Without a world
government it will be impossible to preserve civilization for another
hundred years." He declared the fundamental principle that the rights of a
nation against humanity are no more absolute than the rights of an
individual against the community.
While visiting China in 1920 Russell fell ill and was treated by John
Dewey. Dewey was moved by a statement Russell made while he was delirious -
"We must make a plan for peace." In 1922 Russell was intending to go to a
Congress in Italy, but Mussolini informed the organizers of the Congress
that, while no harm was to be done to Russell, any Italian who spoke to him
was to be assassinated. Naturally Russell decided to avoid the country he
felt Mussolini was defiling. In 1931 Russell applauded Einstein's statement
recommending that pacifists refuse military service. Like Einstein, Russell
decided not to adhere to absolute pacifism in the face of the Nazi threat.
Russell published Which Way to Peace? in 1936. He criticized isolationism
and encouraged international law and government with an international armed
force to prevent war. He could not imagine Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin
voluntarily renouncing national power. He also felt that England would not
consent until after the disaster of war and that the United States would be
reluctant unless Washington was in control. He cites Denmark as a
successful example of national pacifism. Russell indicates that the three
obstacles to disarmament are fear, pride, and greed.
The development of nuclear weapons caused Bertrand Russell deep concern. In
November l945 he gave a speech in the House of Lords warning that atomic
weapons were going to be made more destructive and cheaper. Understanding
nuclear physics he explained how a hydrogen bomb with much more explosive
force could work. He predicted that soon the Russians would have bombs as
destructive as those of the United States. He recommended that nuclear
weapons be under international control, and he supported the Baruch Plan
for an International Atomic Development Authority. Such great danger did he
see if Russia and other nations developed atomic weapons that during this
period when the United States was the only nuclear power he advocated that
the U.S. ought to force the Russians to accept a world government under
American leadership, even by going to war against Russia if necessary. He
believed that the only cause worth fighting for was world government. He
compared this policy to the alternative of waiting until the Russians had
atomic bombs and choosing between a nuclear war and submission. Russell
never liked Communism, but his anti-Communism was moderated with the death
of Stalin. McCarthyism's restriction of civil liberties and the Bikini test
in 1954 gradually led Russell to consider the United States a greater
threat to unleash nuclear war than the Russians.
In 1950 Bertrand Russell was given the Nobel Prize for Literature. The last
twenty years of his life were primarily devoted to warnings about the
nuclear danger, advocacy of world government, and the active work of
peacemaking and protesting about policies of war. He believed that world
government was the only alternative to the disaster of nuclear war. People
and nations must become willing to submit to international law. New Hopes
for a Changing World is an optimistic view of how to solve world problems.
He suggests that happiness depends on harmony with other people. The
problem in forming a world government is that the nations are not yet
willing to give it enough power to be effective. Yet war is inevitable as
long as different sovereign states try to settle their disagreements by the
use of armed force. Russell expressed the hope that if the West with its
superior strength does not go to war, after a while the Russians may become
less suspicious and begin to have friendly relations, which eventually
could open the way to world government. Then both countries could be spared
the expense of armaments, could benefit from reciprocal trade, and could
escape the threat of nuclear destruction.
On March 1, 1954 the Bikini test of the H-bomb made it clear that this
weapon is about one thousand times more powerful than the A-bomb. The
radioactive fallout also proved to be deadly. Russell suggested that all
fissionable raw material be owned by an international authority.
International inspectors ought to make sure that no nation or individual
has access to fissionable raw material. On December 23, 1954 Russell made a
broadcast over the BBC on "Man's Peril." He spoke not as a Briton or
European but as a human being. He recommended that some neutral countries
form a commission of experts to report on the destructive effects of a war
using hydrogen bombs and that they submit this report to the Governments of
the Great Powers so that they could agree that a world war could not serve
the purpose of any of them. Russell asked everyone to remember their
humanity and forget the rest so that a new Paradise would open instead of
the way to universal death. Russell followed this address by drafting a
statement for scientists to sign. He sent it to Einstein and was
disappointed when he heard the news of Einstein's death. However, as one of
his last acts, the great scientist had sent Russell a letter agreeing to
sign. This Russell-Einstein Manifesto was also signed by a Communist
scientist and several Nobel Prize-winners.
The Parliamentary Association for World Government in August 1955, invited
representatives from every country, including four from the USSR. Russell
moved a resolution urging "the governments of the world to realize and to
acknowledge publicly that their purposes cannot be furthered by world war."
Russell addressed an open letter to Eisenhower and Khrushchev in November
1957, asking that they make an agreement with each other on some points in
which the interests of Russia and America are the same. Russell proposed
the following: first, since the continued existence of the human race is
paramount, neither side should incite war by trying for world dominion;
second, the diffusion of nuclear weapons to other countries must be
stopped; third, lessening hostility could lead to immense savings on
armament expenditures; and fourth, by respecting each other's rights and
using argument instead of force, fears of collective death could be
diminished.
Bertrand Russell was one of the main organizers of the Pugwash Conferences
of Scientists. At the first meeting in 1957 three committees were formed -
one on the hazards of atomic energy, one on the control of nuclear weapons,
and one on the social responsibilities of scientists. One of the
achievements of the Pugwash movement was the eventual agreement on at least
a partial Test-ban Treaty. Russell considered this only a slight mitigation
of the dangers. Russell was also the President of the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (CND) which worked for the unilateral disarmament of Britain
and the expulsion of U.S. bases from her soil.
Russell was also expressing his views on television in 1959 and in the
books Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare and Has Man a Future? Nuclear
warfare imperils mankind as a whole and therefore is to be treated like an
epidemic and not be entangled in the conflicts of power politics. As a
mathematician Russell knew that as long as nuclear war is a possibility its
probability over time is increased. He quotes Linus Pauling's estimates of
the hundreds of thousands of birth defects and embryonic and neo-natal
deaths likely if tests are continued. The steps toward peace include the
abolition of nuclear tests, the solving of differences without the threat
of war, complete disarmament of nuclear weapons and a reduction of
conventional forces, appointment of a Conciliation Committee with
representatives from the powers and neutrals, the prohibition of foreign
troops on any territory, and the establishment of a Federal International
Authority with armed force to prevent war. Russell cautions that the armed
force should be in units of mixed nationalities and under the command of
officers from neutral countries. A federal constitution would have the
nations autonomous in regard to their own internal affairs. The
international court must have the same authority as national courts. To
those who fear the tyranny of a world government Russell responds that
there would be more real freedom in the world under effective law and that
in large modern governments it is fairly easy to maintain civilian control
over the military. Technical advances have not only made international
anarchy infinitely more dangerous, but also the facility of world
cooperation is now more available. Eventually, for the sake of a stable
world, greater economic equality and opportunity must be granted to the
poorer peoples of the world. Education ought to be global in scope and
perspective. Also the increase of population must be brought under control.
Peace movements in every country ought to work together in spite of minor
differences.
At the age of 88 Russell came to believe that a more radical strategy was
needed, and he resigned from the CND to begin to plan actions of civil
disobedience through the Committee of 100. A sit-down demonstration took
place at a U.S. Polaris Base in which 20,000 people attended a rally and
5,000 sat down and risked arrest. On August 6, 1961 ("Hiroshima Day") they
met at Hyde Park, and Russell illegally used a microphone. He was arrested
and convicted of inciting the public to civil disobedience; his sentence
was commuted to one week. Russell wrote eloquent leaflets and gave speeches
for these and other demonstrations urging that the seriousness of nuclear
peril justified non-violent civil disobedience against the offending
governments which are "organizing the massacre of the whole of mankind."
In October and November of 1962 Bertrand Russell acted as a peacemaker in
two very serious international crises, even though he was only a private
citizen. When President Kennedy ordered the naval blockade of Cuba to stop
any Russian ship from carrying missiles to the island, Russell issued a
press statement, which began, "It seems likely that within a week you will
all be dead to please American madmen." Russell hoped there would be large
demonstrations of protest, and he noted that the most impressive was in New
York where Michael Scott and A. J. Muste spoke to ten thousand. On October
23 Russell sent a telegram to Kennedy, calling his action "desperate" and a
"threat to human survival" without justification and pleading that he end
the madness. To Khrushchev he telegraphed an appeal that he not be provoked
but seek condemnation of U.S. action through the United Nations. On the
next day Premier Khrushchev publicized a long letter in reply to Mr.
Russell assuring him that the Soviet government would not be reckless as
the Americans had been in their pre-election excitement. Russell then
telegraphed Khrushchev thanking him for his "courageous stand for sanity"
and asking him to hold back the ships so that the Americans could come to
an agreement. He also telegraphed Kennedy to urge him to negotiate.
Khrushchev ordered some ships to turn away and allowed others to be
inspected; Russell praised the Soviet Premier for this magnanimous,
unilateral act. In another press statement Russell argued that the U.S.
blockade was illegal and immoral even though he believed nuclear bases to
be intolerable in Cuba or anywhere. How would America respond if the
Russians or Chinese blockaded Formosa?
Khrushchev offered to dismantle the nuclear bases in Cuba if the United
States would guarantee that it would not invade Cuba. This Cuban fear was
obviously valid, since the U.S. had already tried to invade once at the Bay
of Pigs. When Kennedy cabled Russell about the "secret Soviet missiles" and
the Russian "burglars," he pointed out that they had not been secret, that
even if they had been long-range, which they were not, the U.S. and
U.S.S.R. already had enough long-range missiles and submarines to destroy
each other, and that the Russians were not burglars any more than Americans
in Britain and Western Europe; actually the Americans were contemplating
"burglary." Russell wired Kennedy, asking him to "accept United Nations
inspection of bases and to offer bases in Turkey in exchange." This would
show America's stand for peace. He cabled Dr. Castro, requesting that he
accept the dismantling and U.N. inspection in exchange for the pledge not
to be invaded. Russell sent a long letter to Khrushchev, suggesting further
steps toward peace, such as the abandonment of the Warsaw Pact. He
telegraphed U.N. Secretary General U Thant, asking him if he would
arbitrate and inspect bases. Castro wanted U Thant to mediate in Cuba, but
the U.S. refused to discuss the Guantanamo base or accept U.N. inspectors
of Florida camps. In the face of U.S. intransigence to trading bases in
Turkey, Russell telegraphed Castro and Khruschchev, urging them to
dismantle the bases, since even the insane American blackmail is preferable
to catastrophe. Although he was no lover of Communism, in this instance
Russell commended Khrushchev for his wisdom and courage and criticized
Kennedy for violating the U.N. Charter and perverting the Monroe Doctrine
into the idea that if the U.S. does not like the form of government of a
Western Hemisphere state and is threatening to attack it, then no outside
power ought to try to help it.
In November 1962 Russell was similarly involved in mediating the border
dispute between China and India. In numerous telegrams to Nehru and Chou
En-lai, Russell urged a cease-fire and withdrawal so that negotiation and
arbitration could settle the conflict. He also urged President Sukarno of
Indonesia and U Thant to help mediate. In this situation India, which as a
neutral nation had so often pleaded for peaceful relations, seemed to be
overcome by war hysteria, and thus Russell found that the nation for which
he had the most sympathy again was being the most unreasonable. This time
Chou En-lai exercised wisdom and thanked Russell for his peacemaking
efforts.
Reflecting on these two crises, Russell reiterated the danger of
brinkmanship and the need for nuclear disarmament, since nuclear weapons
only offer the options of complete submission or annihilation. The value of
an unarmed and reasonable mediator made it easier for Khrushchev and others
to make concessions without damaging their pride as much. Russell hoped
that these crises might help discredit the Western belief that all
Communists are wicked and all anti-Communists are virtuous. These
situations and many others indicate the need for world government and
strong international law so that disputes can be peacefully decided in
courts.
The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation was formed in 1963. He worked to free
political prisoners in over forty countries. Russell began publishing
articles criticizing the unofficial war in Vietnam. He explained how the
French, Japanese, British, and Americans had prevented the Vietnamese
people from obtaining their independence for the sake of imperialism and
capitalistic exploitation. He described the atrocities that had been
perpetrated by puppet governments of the West and American "advisors." By
mid-1963 there were "160,000 dead; 700,000 tortured and maimed; 400,000
imprisoned; 31,000 raped; 3,000 disemboweled with livers cut out while
alive; 4,000 burned alive; 1,000 temples destroyed; 46 villages attacked
with poisonous chemicals;" and eight million villagers in 6,000
concentration camps. He felt the time for protest was overdue. By 1965 the
numbers had increased and in a speech criticizing the British Labor Party's
foreign policy Russell tore up his Labor Party membership card. He
complained that visas the Peace Foundation had requested for three members
of the National Liberation Front (NLF) had been refused. Russell backed up
his vituperative criticism of U.S. policies with numerous facts and
figures. He appealed to Americans to understand and overcome the cruel
rulers who had taken control of the U.S. government. In 1966 he gave four
reasons why the United States must be compelled to withdraw from Vietnam.
First, the U.S. war crimes in Vietnam had been amply documented. Second,
the U.S. had no right to be there; only a puppet ruler and a few ambitious
Vietnamese generals wanted them there. Third, U.S. claims of "halting
aggression" were absurd since the Geneva agreements had arranged for
unification of Vietnam through election, which the U.S. had blocked.
Fourth, the U.S. must not be encouraged to think that aggression pays. On
May 24, 1966 Bertrand Russell spoke over NLF radio to American soldiers to
explain to them the injustice of their involvement. Since the U.S. was
continuing to drop three million pounds of bombs daily on North Vietnam,
Russell called for an international War Crimes Tribunal in keeping with the
principles of the Nuremburg trials. The Tribunal convened in November 1966
to announce that it would prepare evidence in the following five areas:
1. the crime of aggression, involving violation of international
treaties;
2. the use of experimental weapons, such as gas and chemicals;
3. the bombing of hospitals, sanatoria, schools, dikes and other
civilian areas;
4. the torture and mutilation of prisoners;
5. the pursuit of genocidal policies, such as forced labor camps,
mass burials and other techniques of extermination in the South.
Distinguished individuals from various countries agreed to join the
Tribunal. The War Crimes Tribunal met in Sweden and Denmark and became
independent of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. Russell was now 95.
He continued to work for peace to the end, and his last political statement
was a condemnation of Israel's aggression sent to the International
Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo in February 1970.
THE WAY TO PEACE
Introduction
Chinese Sages: Lao Tzu, Confucius, Mo Tzu, and Mencius
Indian Mystics: Mahavira and the Buddha
Greek Conscience: Pythagoras, Socrates, and Aristophanes
Jesus and the Early Christians
Francis of Assisi
The Magna Charta
Dante on One Government
Chaucer on Counseling Peace
Erasmus and Humanism
CrucΘ's Peace Plan
Grotius on International Law
George Fox, William Penn and Friends
Rousseau's Social Contract
Federalist Peace Plans of Bentham and Kant
Emerson's Transcendentalism
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience
Religion for World Peace: Bahß'u'llßh and 'Abdu'l Bahß
Leo Tolstoy on the Law of Love
Mahatma Gandhi's Nonviolent Revolution
Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations
Franklin Roosevelt and the United Nations
Einstein on Peace in the Atomic Age
Schweitzer on Civilization and Ethics
The Pacifism of Bertrand Russell
Protests of A. J. Muste
Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement
Lessons of Vietnam
The Clark-Sohn Proposal for World Law and Disarmament
Women and Peace
The Anti-Nuclear Movement
Conclusions
BECK index