The Proposed Roads to Freedom

by Bertrand Russell

Completed in April 1918, "in the last days before a period of imprisonment," 'The Proposed Roads to Freedom' contains Bertrand Russell's astute political commentary on anarchism, socialism, and syndicalism. Russell begins with a historical overview of socialism and anarchism, the teachings and organizations of Marx and Bakunin, and the syndicalist revolt against socialism. He then turns to more pressing problems of the future, and how these movements could contribute to reconstruction after the war. Although he has criticism for each movement, Russell respected what they attempted to achieve. "What is new in Socialism and Anarchism is that close relations of the ideal to the present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important, and it is this that makes them dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously, upon the evils of our present order of society." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a mathematician, philosopher, pacifist, and winner of the 1950 Nobel Prize for literature. As a president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, he opposed war and nuclear weapons and also advocated world government and peacemaking. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation was created in 1963 and it publishes a journal, 'The Spokesman'.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Economics, Essays, Political Science

Paperback

First published January 1, 1918

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

1918 - Bertrand Russell attempts to imaginatively conceive a better ordering of human society—and why not? To my mind, Russell was one of the greats. I’ve read five (now six) of his books so far but this is the first one I’ve come across that is purely political. Let’s get started…

INTRODUCTION

Many of the most influential pioneers of political movements experienced either prison terms and/or exile and yet still held on to their philosophies and their commitment to a “greater good.” From Russell’s perspective, the mark of an effective leader—regardless of their individual philosophy—is their ability to withstand persecution for the sake of a cause. All authentic proponents for political change have an aim in life other than personal advancement.

SOCIALISM

In simplest terms, Russell defines socialism as the communal ownership of land and property. His sentiments are distrustful of any state controlled socialist system which, historically, has shown to be prone to deception and corruption.

ANARCHISM

“In the popular mind, an anarchist is a person who throws bombs or commits other outrages either because he is more or less insane or because he uses the pretense of extreme political opinions as a cloak for criminal proclivities. This view is, of course, in every way inadequate.”

Surprisingly to me, Russell seems more in favor of anarchist philosophy than socialist philosophy, though he is somewhat critical of both. He asserts that violence is neither essential nor peculiar to anarchists and fairly quickly dismantles that side of the argument.

“Some anarchists believe in throwing bombs, many do not . . . Anarchists, like socialists, usually believe in the doctrine of the class war. If they use bombs it is as governments use bombs, for purposes of war . . . for every bomb manufactured by an anarchist many millions are manufactured by governments. And for every man killed by anarchist violence many millions are killed by the violence of states . . .”

Theoretically, anarchism is opposed to any form of government that is forced upon a population. Its practitioners object to institutions like the police where one part of a community forces its control over another part of the community. Liberty (again THEORETICALLY) is the supreme good in the anarchist creed.

SYNDICALISM

Syndicalism is a term that I was unfamiliar with and has apparently fallen into some disuse. It is a political philosophy that was founded by and tied closely with trade unions. It is a system that wields the powerful tools of the strike, the label, the boycott, and the sabotage.

GUILD SOCIALISM

“The best practical system to my mind is that of guild socialism.” -B.R., 1918

Guild socialism originated in the UK and was (is?) a movement advocating union control of industry through the medium of “guilds” that are in a contractual relationship with all workers. I can’t say much more than this without treading into the realm of spoilers. Suffice it to say that Russell’s bullet points were relevant 105 years ago and are now in need of amendment. Still, his predictions for an unchecked capitalist economy have turned out to be alarmingly and depressingly accurate.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Proposed Roads to Freedom may indeed be the best book available for defining, explaining, and critiquing socialism, anarchism, and syndicalism. Russell was a sympathetic observer of these systems, had similar views of the evils that each was trying to address, yet wasn’t a committed true believer in any, allowing him a level of objective observation that a devotee lacks. Also, he was writing at an ideal time. Anarchism and syndicalism were still somewhat active, not yet having been brutalized by the state into near oblivion, and the Communist Revolution in Russia was still a new thing, so he was writing largely without the prejudice that the despotism of the Soviet regime cast over socialism.

Russell had intriguing insights into both what each of these systems got right, as well as where they miscalculated. He points out that Marx was writing at a time when there was no true democracy (working men in England didn’t have the vote, and universal suffrage hadn’t yet been granted in Germany) and that because of this he put more faith in it than was warranted. He writes:

Marx imagined that men’s opinions are guided by a more or less enlightened view of economic self-interest, or rather of economic class-interest. A long experience of the workings of political democracy has shown that in this respect, Disraeli and Bismarck were shrewder judges of human nature than either liberals or socialist.

Russell does an outstanding job not just at defining these different systems, but of differentiating them from each other:

Socialism and Anarchist Communism alike have arisen from the conception that private capital is a source of tyranny by certain individuals over others. Orthodox Socialism believes that the individual will become free if the state becomes the sole capitalist. Anarchism, on the contrary, fears that in that case the state might nearly inherit the tyrannical propensities of the private capitalist. Accordingly, it seeks for a means of reconciling communal ownership with the utmost diminution in the powers of the state, and indeed ultimately with the complete abolition of the state.

Syndicalists aim at organizing men, not by party, but by occupation. This they say alone represents the true conception and method of the class war. Accordingly, they despise all political action. The kind of action that they recommend is direct action by the revolutionary syndicate or trade union… Those who advocate it aim also at a different goal from that of Marx. They believe that there can be no adequate individual freedom where the state is all powerful, even if the state be a socialist one.

After examining, comparing and contrasting these three systems in the first section of his book, Russell then began to expound on both the strengths and the shortcomings of each. In working through this, he began to suggest possible ways that a combination of the best of their ideals could be combined to create a practical, workable system. Like the Anarchist, Russell rejected the idea of state based socialism, and for the same reasons. But he also rejected the anarchists call for the immediate abolition of the state as extremely impractical — something that might be a long range, generational goal, but not a workable solution. What Russell suggested as a workable system was a kind of Guild Socialism heavily infused with anarchists ideas such as the Vagabond’s Wage (essentially a Universal Basic Income). He writes in explanation:

It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore — science and art, human relations, and the joy of life — that anarchism is strongest.


Proposed Roads to Freedom is an important historical document for understanding socialist, anarchist, and syndicalist thought and ideas. But it is more. Many of the abuses that these systems attempted to correct still thrive unchecked, and some of the ideas they proposed still hold value. Though written a century ago, Russell’s book is still relevant to our own day.

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highlighting the effects of nature and society on man's decision-making, Russell in his introduction states that "THE attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed is by no means modern..."
I rather appreciate the intro's second paragraph though where he says, "The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth, without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives", to me this theory is quite true.

Generally this is a rather interesting philosophical read I think it also deserves a place on my 're-read' shelf.

[Sotiris Makrygiannis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once invited Richard Stallman to give a course on Eliademy.com, he titles it "The road to digital freedom" now I found from where he got his inspiration....Russell. A book in favoure of pure anarchism but also pragmatic that is Utopic to seek such system, thus "socialism" is the 3rd way and the easiest to achieve. A good book and good arguments.

[Xander · Rating 2 out of 5]

"It is by its effects outside economics and politics, at least as much as by effects inside them, that a social system should be judged." - Bertrand Russell

In Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918) Bertrand Russell explores the different ways of improving society with the aim to create a better life for everyone, a life that is aimed at creation instead possession. In a society structured around possession, such as the imperialist capitalism (or capitalist imperialism) of the world around 1918 - with the Word War as a sad low point -, daily life consists of zero-sum games. The people who own property can force the masses who own (next to) nothing to do whatever they want. In practice, this leads to violation of human rights and exploitation of men, women and children. The needs of one are literally owned by another. This is an unwanted situation, according to Russell (and me).

This development started with the Industrial Revolution and culminated in various political movements that originate in the nineteenth century. Liberalism developed as the political arm of the new leisured classes, while socialism developed as an agressive reaction to mass exploitation of workers. Both movements provoked a reactionary movement (especially on the Continent) which used nationalism to placate the masses and violent suppression of opponents to scare the masses into submission.

Come 1918, the world was in some ways better off (workers had better working conditions and were better paid - but only as much as was necessary to stop revolts and strikes), but in practice the exploitation and oppression of the masses for productive ends was simply - under pressure of socialism, anarchism and syndicalism - moved to poor countries in the undeveloped world. Meanwhile, with the World War the interests of the political and economic elites were realized and state control expanded heavily and capital became ever more important (and hence influential).

So when Russell wrote this book, the future was open to any development. He realizes this, and explores the ways that society can be improved without falling prey to the huge pitfalls of absolute doctrines like socialism and anarchism. From the outset Russell explains that socialism - the breakdown of the state and the subsequent democratic rule of all citizens, owning all property in commune - is as bad as the system (capitalism) which it tries to overthrow. Also, anarchism is the movement of solitary, resentful intellectuals like Bakunin and Kropotkin - people who want to break down not just the state, but society as a whole. Never mind the practical consequences - How is industrial, or even sufficent agricultural production possible in a world full of individuals? -, it will not work to begin with, since people are not simply individuals.

Both socialism and anarchism developed as intellectual movements, seeking solutions for social troubles in politics. As always, most people are practical instead of theoretical - people just want better lives, not better ideas - so parallel to these political movements there sprang up an economic or industrial movement: syndicalism. This is the view that unions of workers can force industries to become both more democratic and more social (in the socialist sense). Of course, within all these -isms there were many many variations, depending on the people involved, the territory they covered and the times they were part of.

For Russell, syndicalism is the way to go. He aims for a world in which people enjoy more liberty, more humanity, and more spiritual fulfilment. Capitalism as well as socialism and anarchism, are un-workable, since individual liberties are offered on the alter of abstract ends. They also degrade the lives of most people, relegating it either to the automatic dull live of a drone (capitalism and socialism) or to the poverty of Bronze Age peasants (anarchism).

Society should be structured to allow people to live, to be active and to manifest their creative drives - and the best way to do this is to allow individual human beings to have the highest amount of freedom, autonomy and power as peace and prosperity allow. In other words: society should be ordered in such a way that bottom-up processes and mass participation are fostered, at the expense of top-down enforcement of the will of a few.

In part 1, Russell sketches the historical developments of socialism, anarchism and syndicalism. Although interesting and enlightening, it is not a purely historical description. Russell selects what he needs from the myriad of sources and injects his own points of view throughout this part. In part 2 the book turns into a description of Russell's view of a future society, in part as the result of a critical analysis of doctrines and ideas that were described in part 1. The end result is a society which Russell already advocated in broad outlines in his Principles of Social Reconstruction/Why Men Fight (1916), but now a little bit more detailed.

In both works Russell gaurds himself against following the Utopian trend, which started with Plato's Republic and continued through More, Godwin, and Marx (among others) to his own time. Utopias are almost always the musings of solitary intellectuals, who are closed off from everyday communal life - therefore they are figments of the imagination which turn into oppressive, deadly regimes when put into practice. Russell's approach is a compromise in two ways: (1) a compromise between different systems (in his case: capitalism, syndicalism and anarchism) and (2) a compromise in implementation (a step by stem implementation - no revolutions - much in line with Karl Popper's later notion of 'piece-meal social engineering'). It is this two-dimensional compromise which makes Russell's approach much more likeable and workable as a societal improvement, compared to alternative systems.

In this sense, Proposed Roads to Freedom reads more like a (well-informed) pamphlet than a historical analysis of socialism, anarchism or syndicalism. Not that this is bad per se, it's just not the aim of my reading his work (I was hoping for a historical analysis). Also, he works out the ideas of his Why Men Fight in more detail, but this in and of itself has little practical value - the general ideas and aims are already familiar (assuming one has read Why Men Fight) while the exact details are much outdated by now. I guess you can read Proposed Roads to Freedom as a time capsule of the 1918 future uncertainties: How would the new world order look like after the War? Would there be any changes in the lives of people all over the world?

These questions are hard to answer; each region saw its own developments and developments were highly influenced by the post-War culture shock and its brain children fascism, nazism and communism, the Great Depression and World War 2. To conclude: I can't really recommend this book.

[Memduh Er · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hakkı verilmeyen adamlardan biri bu Russell. Ben de zamanında biraz dudak bükerek okumuştum maalesef. Oysa sorduğu sorulara dikkat edebilseydim, verdiği cevaplara değil, o zaman belki daha çok faydalanırdım. Ama hızlı cevaplara daha çok ihtiyacı oluyor insanın gençken :))

Yine çok basit sorularla çok hayati noktalara temas etmiş Russell. Bir siyaset bilimcisi değil, bir felsefeci olduğunu belli etmiş, hem de birinci sınıf.

Bunca yıl sonra tekrar Russell okumak çok keyifli ve öğreticiydi.

[Kent Winward · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is great for a historic look back at these philosophies. This was written almost one hundred years ago, so the implications of these different philosophies has changed over the years, but we need to know where we have been to figure out where we are going.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

Boy do I wish I could give half star ratings. Bertrand Russell's Proposed Roads to Freedom is as clear and straightforward as a philosophical/political treatise can get. Reading it a second time after almost 7 years, I find that I both enjoy it more and have more issues with it this time around.

Russell breaks the book into generalized sections. The first details the historical development of Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism as they grew out of and responded to one another. After that, he argues for what he views as the clearest road to a better politique. His vision melds together aspects of Guild Socialism, which is a type of Syndicalism borne in Great Britain, curtailed by the liberty-focused aspects of classic Anarchist theory. It's intriguing, and I do appreciate that Russell tries to mark the transition to this new community from the old. He recognizes the ills of capitalism and imperialism run deep, below the material suffering they wreak. The promotion of the competitive spirit, the dehumanization of the other by all classes as they seek to obtain power - these psychic tolls are not erased by a revolution. Without keeping the moral angle firmly in our sights, a simply economic/political overhaul will only pave the way for future inequality and subjugation.

I did have some places where I disagreed with his impetus. For example:

- Russell doesn't ever really consider a future without money. His reasoning for this is that, while a UBI can undergird all people, some types of work will be less desirable even in the best of conditions. On top of that, he argues that any luxuries or preferential materials outside of the base are deeply preferential. In his words, "[w]hen they day comes for distributing luxuries, old ladies will not want their quota of cigars, nor young men their just proportion of lap-dog...". I don't necessarily see the issues he has as precluding a non-monetary future; bartering economies are known the world over and have a rich and successful history. I trust individuals to be able to mete out what something is worth when it comes to necessities above and beyond their base needs and to communicate that to one another, keeping in mind what one another can provide for each other. And when it comes to extra items, Russell seems to imagine that everyone will just be shipped an equal amount of all products, which I don't really think needs to be the case. Some of this also connects to my second large issue --
- The author presupposes that nations will exist in a free world. I don't think this is as obvious as he supposes; the concept of a large nation-state identity spreading across vast territory and bounded by strict borders is a modern invention. Kingdoms and empires have also existed, but all of these are predicated on a very hierarchical system. I think Russell missed out on the opportunity to examine closer, more localized bodies centered on consensus governance. A lot of his concerns surrounding tyranny of majorities or minorities, as well as issues with personal liberty rubbing up against the vestiges of state power he feels are necessary, could have been avoided. It may not solve all of those problems immediately, but its a shame it was not even discussed.

All in all, I think this book is a fascinating look at political theory at the beginning of the 20th century. Over 100 years later, its incredible to see some of the places where Bertrand Russell is remarkably prescient (see: the failings of State Socialism and the unique inequalities and troubles of America) while also being fully aware of his blindspots. I think a lot of my critiques have the benefit of me living so much later. Russell was writing right at the end of World War 1, and his own personal biases led to some accidental (I think) racism and an inability to really see some conceptions of the future that were even more radical and possible than his incrementalist, nation-based ideas. Regardless, I think this work still has a lot of great information and opinions - and for the historically minded, it gives a great window into the psychology of postwar philosophy. 3.5/5 stars.

[Miguel Cisneros Saucedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Los Caminos de la Libertad" de Bertrand Russell es una obra que, más allá de su valor filosófico y político, se siente como un manifiesto profundamente comprometido con la dignidad, la justicia social y la libertad. Russell no solo critica el capitalismo o se limita a proponer reformas estructurales (como hicieron Chomsky y Morris Berman), sino que lo hace con una visión ética que coloca al ser humano (con sus deseos, necesidades y creatividad) en el centro de toda organización social, y, sorprendentemente, aporta soluciones realistas que pueden ponerse en practica en cualquier momento.

Uno de los aportes más valiosos del libro es su concepción de la educación verdaderamente útil. Esta es aquella que sigue los intereses instintivos del niño, que responde a su curiosidad natural y no a un esquema seco e impuesto. Esta visión, tan adelantada a su tiempo, reivindica el aprendizaje como un proceso vivo y libre, en contraposición al modelo tradicional que aun existe en nuestra cultura.

En el plano social y jurídico, Russell rompe con la idea punitiva tradicional, es decir, quienes cometen delitos no deben ser vistos como malvados, sino como personas desgraciadas que necesitan tratamiento y cuidado, no castigo vengativo. Esta postura, basada en la compasión y la rehabilitación, revela su compromiso con una justicia social y contextualizada.

Además, su crítica al capitalismo es igualmente radical e ingeniosa. Russell plantea el uso de billetes con validez limitada para evitar el ahorro y promover un flujo económico constante, así como la autonomía interna de cada industria. Defiende que la remuneración no se limite al producto medible, sino que valore la buena voluntad en el trabajo. Y, encima de esto, afirma que quienes no trabajen, por elección o circunstancia, deben recibir lo necesario para vivir, desafiando el vínculo coercitivo entre subsistencia y empleo. El autor también aborda la igualdad de género con una propuesta concreta, ósea, que las mujeres que realizan trabajo doméstico deben recibir un salario, reconociendo así el valor económico y social de un trabajo históricamente invisibilizado.

En el terreno del arte, su defensa de la libertad creativa es tan apasionada que me dejó impactado. Básicamente, nos presenta la situación de que forzar al artista a satisfacer a un comité de jueces más viejos mata el espíritu libre que da vida al arte. No es mediante sistemas restrictivos, sino mediante la libertad, como el arte puede florecer.

Finalmente, su advertencia sobre el exceso de reglamentos y lineamientos burocráticos es una lección que incluso me tocó vivir. Quiero decir, si la naturaleza humana es sometida permanentemente a un control rígido, la alegría y el impulso vital de hecho sí desaparecen. De ahí la defensa de una educación gratuita y abierta hasta el grado que cada persona desee, como único sistema coherente con la libertad.

En conjunto, este libro no es solo una crítica al orden existente de su tiempo, sino una propuesta realista, compasiva y profundamente racional para una sociedad más justa. Es un libro que invita a repensar nuestras instituciones desde la libertad y la dignidad humanas, algo que ni Morris Berman ni Noam Chomsky lograron en algún momento. Russell es sencillamente infinitamente superior en todos los aspectos.

[Alec]

Smart book

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent little book promoting a form of guild socialism, as opposed to state socialism or pure anarchism. It's probably the most anti-utopian, anti-idealist account of a socialist society I've yet read (which isn't to say that it doesn't have its moments). It's fair and level-headed, and it doesn't suppose that abolishing private property will solve all of society's ills. The one major complaint I have is that when it comes to economic distribution and production Russell glosses over any apparent problems in his conception of socialism as purely "technical" problems. He seems to have an undue optimism in this regard and, accordingly, minimizes the very substantial nature any averse consequences would have in the practicability of a socialist society.

[Cristian1185]

Bertrand Russell, ganador del premio Nobel de 1950, recorre en Los caminos de la libertad, las principales características del socialismo, el anarquismo y el sindicalismo. El texto contiene dos secciones, ambas posicionadas desde lo ensayístico, en donde el autor, en un primer momento, recorre los postulados y propuestas de las teorías políticas referidas, mientras que en el segundo apartado conjuga los elementos y recursos propios de estas corrientes de pensamiento, con el objetivo de construir argumentos orientados a la resolución de las dificultades y problemas, que surgen al momento de pensar en modelos de convivencia que puedan otorgar mayores grados de bienestar a la humanidad en su conjunto.

Russell despliega información basada en las principales tesis de pensadores y teóricos vinculados al anarquismo, el socialismo y el sindicalismo, ofreciendo a la par sus propias reflexiones en torno a temas tan variados pero conectados entre si, temas tales como las relaciones internacionales, los modelos económicos, la ley y el orden, entre otros. Algunas de sus reflexiones se muestran acertadas y vigentes en cuanto otorgan insumos para repensar y plantear soluciones a problemas que aún persisten en el siglo XXI, mientras que otros se observan caducos, e incluso ingenuos aunque bienintencionados, y en el peor de los casos matizados de racismo y paternalismo, siendo necesaria la adecuada contextualización para leer aquellos pasajes del libro.

Un libro que tiene por esencia entregar información clara y precisa acerca de aquellas reflexiones inspiradas en la búsqueda por mejorar las sociedades humanas, lo anterior a partir de la justicia, la libertad y la solidaridad. Un autor con un marcado perfil humanista.

[unevendesk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent, and in classic Russell style, concise, book to explain the the problems with capitalism and the merits of the three titular proposed solutions. Throughout Russell argues rationally for the economic and social benefits or detriments of proposed schemes and brings in all the relevant bits of psychology.

He explains socialism to mean mainly public ownership of almost everything in order to do away with the inefficiencies of the profit motive. His conclusion is that a certain form of socialism, leavened by some parts of anarchism, would be the best social system to adopt at the time of his writing. The most important part of the type of socialism he advocates is that it is democratic with parliaments retained. He warns that an undemocratic socialism achieved through war would be worse than a capitalist democracy. He also points out that while anarchism and syndicalism have some crucial ideas, such as the primacy of freedom, and critiques of the state, they are on their own unworkable. He says that pure anarchism might be an ideal state reached after socialism.

I am not sure how dated this book is but for someone like me new to serious reading about these topics that are so often either reified or demonised it is very informative.

[Sam Whitehill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bertrand Russel ponders possibilities for freedom in the modern world and is surprisingly sympathetic to anarchism before ultimately embracing the obscure and very British path of guild socialism. A fun read.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Russell discusses movements / theories to change society to eliminate capitalism's problems. He considers socialism / Marxism, anarchism / Bakuninism, syndicalism and "guild socialism." I may differ with an assumption or conclusion, but his questions deserve consideration. The book was written 100 years ago, so some material is dated and the world has new history / developments. In 2020, I'd say whatever flaws these post-capitalist options have, the forces of capitalism are driving us off the climate precipice.

Russell says those promoting these post-capitalist ideas have positive motivations to make life better and they're willing to suffer consequences for their efforts. Yet, their frustration with the difficulty in making the changes can make them hostile to their opponents, and may be more angry to supporters of other post-capitalist alternatives.

Russell says something similar to anarchism is a long-term goal, but anarchism wouldn't succeed (especially in the short-term.) He fears "state socialism" would be bureaucratic and less free. He says syndicalism has some of anarchism's weaknesses. So, he prefers "guild socialism" (sort of parallel syndicalist and general public governments with some joint work.) I'd at least agree with the need for mechanisms to counteract bureaucratic or authoritarian tendencies in a socialist government. The history of Communist nations may help us see what protections are needed. I'd say the current complexity of modern production / interrelations of goods and services, plus dealing with environment, climate and other implications of economic activity suggests the need for a planned economy.

Russell says state socialism would require people to work. He suggests a basic income (less than workers' pay) be given to those who don't work (or have pursuits not labelled work.) Or maybe part-time job at part-time pay. This also lets artists, scholars and scientists whose specialties aren't yet accepted to give it a try. He says it will also motivate workplaces to make jobs more agreeable. He says it's not enough to raise living standards, arts and sciences must be promoted and have freedom. He discusses how those whose creations aren't yet accepted as "work" can distribute them. I say: This may be simpler today, being able to put ebooks, MP3s online. Painters / sculptors could put photos of art online. I'd say, to avoid authoritarian tendencies, media, publishers, lawyers and other relevant areas should be allowed to have non-state-run operations (not necessarily with wealthy owners.)

Russell believes humans are naturally competitive, acquisitive, envious, to a degree pugnacious, and tend to find enemies. I'll grant: Humans have a selfish side as well as social emotions and 99% have a conscience. We're more comfortable with those who we know what to expect based on experience. Our helpfulness may be affected by expectation of reciprocity, but this includes indirect reciprocity. in hard times, we may look for scapegoats. Some babies seem to be born inclined to be less comfortable with the unfamiliar and change, but personal experience can change it. Some people are less tolerant of those who differ on critical beliefs. These are areas we need to understand and learn how to minimize difficulties. We need to understand today's patriotism / geographic identification. On a local level this is consistent with being more comfortable with people you know / have reciprocation. We didn't evolve in clans with millions of strangers - how would that be the cause? Understanding will help avoid problems. A minority may be dangerously competitive, but not most, this deserves consideration.

Russell says humans are like ants - instinctively disliking foreigners. No. My wife's synagogue class said Palestinians didn't oppose early Jewish settlers until the numbers made some fear what was happening. In the 1800's, some Americans reacted to the large number of Irish immigrants - the Irish were white, Northern European, English-speaking Christians. Racists aren't like ants when they hire African-Americans to care for their children. Corporate managers have no instinct that keeps them from hiring foreigners as skilled professionals. There can be a reaction, but not as he says. Interestingly, Russell shows prejudice towards Africans and Asians.

Today, let's consider automation. I'd think society-wide evaluation of advantageous job automation and shortening of the workweek (or other action) to share benefits and avoid burdening a few would be better than decisions by individual worker councils, unions or guilds. I fear that if GM is owned by GM workers and Ford owned by Ford workers, they'll compete in a marketplace with some of today's problems. It may also mean an "us vs. them" view between GM and Ford workers.

[Ryan Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting look at alternative ways to structure society, and an early and persuasive case in favor of a universal basic income. Much of this book feels much more modern than it actually is (this was written during WWI), unfortunately that illusion is broken from time to time when Russel casually veers into some really jaw-dropping imperialism and racism. And then without missing a beat he's back on track, saying smart things again.

[pʕałxʷ-Grahm Wiley-Camacho · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cringe inducing sections on "inferior races" and a lot of arguments for a "vagabond wage"/universal basic income at the poverty line.

[Emil Berlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great intro to socialism, anarchism and guild socialism.

[Fra Na Va · Rating 3 out of 5]

3'5/5.

[Austin Douillard · Rating 3 out of 5]

The following review is not a careful consideration of Russell’s arguments. Instead it serves primarily as a collection of the best quotes in the book. It is also a basic explanation of the structure of the text.

Bertrand Russell goes through three major leftist roads to freedom, and provides a charitable critique of each.

Socialism
How does Russell define socialism? Socialism is “the advocacy of communal ownership of land and capital” (17). Socialism is the democratic control of land and the means of production. Instead of a capitalist owning the mills or fields, they are democratically run.
There have been a variety of takes on how this might be implemented. On one hand there is the model set out by cooperatives or “guilds”, where the workers directly or by way of electing representatives, control the means of production. On the other hand, State Socialists advocate that the people embodied in the state own the means of production. The obvious critique which is apparent in the oppressive history of the USSR and so on, is that the state simply takes the place of the capitalist as the exploiting class or entity. So state socialism is clearly not viable.

Russell’s explanation of socialism necessarily takes him through the three main tenets of Marxism.
I
First is the Materialist Conception of History. “Marx holds that in the main all the phenomena of human society have their origin in material conditions, and these [Marx] takes to be embodied in economic systems. Political constitutions, laws, religions, philosophies – all these he regards as, in their broad outlines, expressions of the economic regime in the society that gives rise to them. It would be unfair to represent him as maintaining that the conscious economic motive is the only one of importance; it is rather that economics molds character and opinion, and is thus the prime source of much that appears in consciousness to have no connection with them.”(21) Material/economic forces are the primary drivers of history, not conscious ideas. The dialectic that is being brought out here is that “base” economic conditions produce commodities, lifestyles, culture and society. They in turn generate a “superstructure” which is ideologies that then reinforce the base. These ideologies might be religious (see Max Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic), or otherwise (meritocracy). The important point here is that humans don’t consciously think of an ideal society and then create it (despite our efforts at doing so), it is created in a sort of unconscious way, and then we think about it, reflect on it, bolster it, and yes, challenge it.

II
The Law of the Concentration of Capital. “Marx supposed that the number capitalist enterprises must diminish as the magnitude of single enterprises increased.”(22) This is the tendency toward monopolies. Which leads Marx to think that as capital concentrates in a few organizations, it will be easier for workers to eventually seize and democratize them. In this way, the bourgeoisie “digs their own graves’.

III
The Class War. “Marx conceives the wage earner and the capitalist in a sharp antithesis” (23) The workers who own nothing but personal possessions, are exploited by the capitalist who own the means of production, and therefore automatically all of the value that the workers produce. The capitalists then give some of that value back to the workers in the form of a wage. But according to the cold logic of capital, their wages need not be any more than the bare means of subsistence, i.e. the amount of money it takes for the worker to come to work the next day and reproduce their labor for the capitalists.


Anarchism
Russell writes , “Anarchism … is the theory which is opposed to every kind of forcible government. It is opposed to the state as the embodiment of the force employed in the government of the community. Such government as anarchism can tolerate must be free government, not merely in the sense that it is of a majority but in the sense that it is assented to by all. Anarchists object to such institutions as the police and the criminal law, by means of which the will of ne part of the community is forced upon another part.” (40)

There is some crossover between socialism and anarchism in that they both believe in “communal ownership of land and capital.” (42). “Socialism and anarchist communism alike have arisen from the perspective that private capital is a source of tyranny by certain individuals over others. Orthodox Socialism believes that the individual will become free if the state becomes the sole capitalist. Anarchism, on the contrary, fears that in that case the state might merely inherit the tyrannical propensities of the private capitalist. Accordingly, it seeks for means of reconciling communal ownership with the utmost possible diminution in the powers of the state, and indeed ultimately with the complete abolition of the state. ”(42)

In talking about anarchism he quotes two of the major anarchists, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Bakunin writes, “The state is authority; it is force; it is the ostentation and infatuation of force: it does not insinuate itself; it does not seek to convert …. even when it commands what is good, it hinders and spoils it, because it commands it, and because every command provokes and excites the legitimate revolts of liberty; and because the good from the moment it is commanded, becomes evil from the point of view of true morality. …. Liberty, morality and the human dignity of man consist precisely in this, that he does good, not because it is commanded, but because he conceives it, wills it, and loves it.” (50) It seems to me that this should be the goal of society: to eradicate crime, not by force, but by changing the way in which our society produces crime and makes it possible and indeed necessary (necessary insofar as everything that happens appears as though it could not have happened any other way). Anarchism is not about allowing murder, rape, and theft, it’s about preventing it without the violence inherent in the state apparatus (which is obviously not doing a great job at preventing these things anyway).

Kropotkin “desires to abolish wholly the system of wages not only, as most socialists do, in the sense that a man is to be paid rather for his willingness to work than for the actual work demanded of him, but in a more fundamental sense: there is to be no obligation to work, and all things are to be shared in equal proportions among the whole population.” (51) Russell writes, “In such a community as [Kropotkin] foresees, practically everyone will prefer work to idleness, because work will not involve overwork or slavery, or that excessive specialization that industrialism has brought about, but will be merely a pleasant activity for certain hours of the day, giving man an outlet for his spontaneous creative impulses. There is to be no compulsion, no law, no government exercising force; there will still be acts of the community, but they are to spring from universal consent, not from any enforced submission of even the smallest minority.”(51) Individuals will not need to be threatened with starvation in order to work. Everyone’s basic needs will be met. Where governmental organization exists, it is to be done with universal consent.

Russell writes, “My own opinion … is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal to which society should ultimately approximate, is for the present impossible, and would not survive more than a year or two if it were adopted.”(10) By this he means that if the state and all its functionality were to be abolished today without any coherent strategy for rendering the state unnecessary, then it would be disastrous. New forms of domination would likely emerge. The anarchist struggle is to render the state, the police, prisons, and militaries unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant. Simple, immediate, abolition is not in itself an emancipatory strategy.

Syndicalism
Syndicalists “wish to destroy the state, which they regard as a capitalist institution, designed essentially to terrorize the workers. They refuse to believe that it would be any better under State Socialism. They desire to see each industry self-governing. … Syndicalism aims at ownership by Organized Labor. It is thus a purely trade union reading of the economic doctrine and the class war preached by socialism.” (63)

“Syndicalism stands for what is known as industrial unionism as opposed to craft unionism.” (66). Craft unionism unites a single association of those that are involved in a single craft or industrial process. All workers working under a particular kind of commodity may unionize.
Industrial unionism on the other hand is the “natural form of fighting organization when the union is regarded as the means of carrying on the class war with a view, not of obtaining this or that minor amelioration, but to a radical revolution in the economic system. Examples include the I.W.W. Russell writes, “ It is clear, I think, that the adoption of industrial rather than craft unionism is absolutely necessary if Trade Unionism is to succeed in playing that part in altering the economic structure of society, which its advocates claim for it rather than for the political parties.”(70)

Russell also believes in a form of guild socialism which “aims at autonomy in industry, with consequent curtailment, but not abolition of the power of the state.” (70)

“The best practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism.” (10) Guild socialism is opposed to state socialism, in that the democratic ownership of the farms and mills is done by the workers of those institutions, and not the state. (71)

****

The second Part of the book moves on to talk about various other issues concerning liberation, but I won’t go into them. However, I will say his section on international affairs is very disappointing. It ends up justifying the White Man’s Burden and imperialism. It’s like imperialism with a human face because Africa can’t govern itself. It’s very antiquated at best.

***

To conclude, Russell views the state as a necessary evil for the time being, but we should keep an eye out for rendering it unnecessary as soon as possible. He believes in guild socialism where workers own the means of production in cooperatives that can become incredibly large and federated through industrial unionism. In such a system there is no capitalist class that controls or exploits labor, and there is no state like in state socialism that does the same thing in a different way. These federated labor organizations will look like unions. Whereas industrial unions now wage a class war against capitalists, their function post capitalism would be to democratize and organize labor.

[John Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Proposed Roads to Freedom by Bertrand Russell. This is my introduction to Russell and his writings, and the book provides a worth while overview of a subject I am deeply interested in. I am always interested by the philosophical, sociological, and political, but this book touches on the subjects of anarchism and socialism of which I am an adherent. It touches on these, and basically provides an overview of these ideas, without getting into too much depth. These are the 'proposed roads to freedom' the book is analyzing. My only criticism of the work would be it's lack of a certain kind of literary flourish, it's dry and often candid manner. It isn't propaganda, and it isn't a work which inspires me very much.
Indeed, it is for the most part an overview and by its nature does not get into the nuts and bolts of these philosophic and political traditions. I found Bertrand to be a very common sense kind of thinker and writer, and acknowledge the flaws of anarchism and socialism in there possible realization, much like he does. The question of, why would one work without incentive, and the dangers of state socialism, he clearly elucidates. He points out that a form of 'Guild-Socialism', would be his own position in the fight of these ideas. Although, he doesn't go into much depth on this subject alone, since this is an overview of a large chunk of competing ideas in the anarchist and socialist viewpoints.
As an overview and introduction to various modes of thinking, I thought it was a great read. Well thought out and succinct, while lacking style or passionate adherence to one doctrine. It does not provide a philosophic system, or try to answer every question with a rigid truth. It merely explains these ideas and tries to take a common sense approach to there understanding. I agree with the socialists and anarchists on the evils of capitalism and our current system, and would like to see change and progress for humanity. That's what brought me to this work, and I am pleased with what I have read here, and hope others will read this as well. I'm giving it four/five stars. A greater work with more depth and feeling, and I would have given it the extra point.

[Carl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read the first couple chapters. I really enjoyed getting a glimpse of Russell's perspective in 1918 (when he was 46) of radical movements and his understanding of the previous 80 years or so of history. As a snapshot from 100 years ago, it's great. I particularly liked the comparative passages, like this one, where he sets out his opinions on the best possibilities for different political movements:

My own opinion—which I may as well indicate at the outset—is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible, and would not survive more than a year or two at most if it were adopted. On the other hand, both Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better world than that in which we live. I do not, however, regard either of them as the best practicable system. Marxian Socialism, I fear, would give far too much power to the State, while Syndicalism, which aims at abolishing the State, would, I believe, find itself forced to reconstruct a central authority in order to put an end to the rivalries of different groups of producers. The BEST practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism, which concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State, by adopting a system of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which are recommending federalism among nations.... The pioneers of Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism have, for the most part, experienced prison, exile, and poverty, deliberately incurred because they would not abandon their propaganda; and by this conduct they have shown that the hope which inspired them was not for themselves, but for mankind.

Since I only read the first few chapters, I guess I stopped before he really starting dishing up the racism. That's fine with me. On to other things!

[Mathias · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a well well-written book with good structure and clear language.

Russell is looking for freedom, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, he's looking for them in socialism, non-individualistic anarchism and syndicalism. This is as target-oriented as looking for fine food in a dung heap. Russell has a good historical understanding of the world views in question but he lacks theoretical understanding. It is obvious that he never looked into an economics book. It is also obvious that Russell was a very intelligent man, with outstanding understanding of mathematics and logics. I find it therefore fascinating that he never grasped the most basic laws of economics. To me, this can only be explained with a disorder such as autism or Asperger’s. His heart however was in the right place: He was an avid opponent of the first world war and an active pacifist.

The most surreal chapter in his book is, as far as I can remember, Work and Play. Russell argues that work under socialism is very enjoyable and creative. Everybody can do what interests him- or herself the best. Productivity is much greater because everybody is much more motivated. Ludwig von Mises has dealt with and refuted these rather childish notions in his magnum opus Human Action. Russel was salaried by Trinity College, which means he got payed by taxes, was more or less able to follow his interests and his economic productivity was of no concern. It seems clear to me that he used this experience as a pattern for the ideal state of employment. He thought that what was good for him, was good for everybody. The problem with this attempt is that he neglected that somebody had to pay for him. So while it was nice of him that he wanted to elevate the common worker to his own level, he didn’t realize that in that case there is nobody left to pay for this adventure. Russell and his followers would counter that this proposed solution would pay for itself. That this isn’t the case has been very eloquently demonstrated by Mises.

[Ben Anderson · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first part of the book, that explains the differences between the listed ideologies, was good. I feel like anyone who doesn’t know the basics of these would find it helpful.

It lost me in the last few chapters when he started talking about how international relations under Anarchist and Socialist ideologies would look with “uncivilized nations,” “inferior races,” and how the “civilized world” may need to still have some sort of army to protect against the “negro menace,” but probably won’t have to worry much about the “Yellow Peril.” That’s just some racist bullshit.

[Devastatingwildness]

Útil para arrancar a pensar sobre cuestiones sociales y útil como introducción crítica a las corrientes políticas que se nombra. Russell habla también de corrientes mixtas, y ofrece su propia opinión sobre el sistema que le gustaría a él. Aunque breve (bien para algunos, mal para otros, o nada de esta clasificación, según lo que busquen).

[J · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not my first exposure to these ideas. If it had been, I may have found it more compelling. I've read several of Russell's books though it's been at least a decade since the last time. Published during the late stages of World War I and after its ending, Russell's world may have seemed more pliable in its brokenness - the world would see fascism soon enough. Hindsight.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, accessible overview of guild socialism and its potential to transform society. Russell's prose is simple and straightforward and, despite its outdated views on race and ethnicity, remains relevant.

[Colin Bruce Anthes · Rating 5 out of 5]

In typical Russell fashion, a critical account of even the positions he's in favour of. A hundred years after its publication, the reader will likely be shocked to learn just how big anarcho-syndicalism was in the early twentieth century.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book.

[Yudhister · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an analysis and criticism of two influential strands of 20th century political economic thought: Socialism, in the Marxist sense, and Anarchism, as advocated for by Bakunin.

[Actually, this is less of review/criticism and more of "summary with weird notes and a lot of relevant quotes that might be useful, but probably not that useful to anyone who isn't me]

Socialism, as defined by Russell, is the "advocacy of communal ownership of land and capital." Such communal ownership can be mediated by a democratic State, but never an undemocratic one. Such communal ownership can also result from the natural self-organization of individuals without State intervention of coercion---Socialists who believe this overlap with Anarchists. But by and large Socialists lack libertarian tendencies, and are mostly content with such apparatuses to be handed off to a parliamentary state.

Russell then creates a taxonomy of the essential components of Marxist doctrine:

1. The Materialistic Interpretation of History.--- Marx holds that in the main all the phenomena of human society have their origin in material conditions, and these he takes to be embodied in economic systems. Political constitutions, laws, religions, philosophies---all these he regards as, in their broad outlines, expressions of the economic regime in the society that gives rise to them. It would be unfair to represent him as maintaining that the conscious economic motive is the only one of importance; it is rather that economics molds character and opinion, and is thus the prime source of much that appears in consciousness to have no connection with them. He applies his doctrine in particular to two revolutions, one in the past, the other in the future. The revolution in the past is that of the bourgeoisie against feudalism, which finds its expression, according to him, particularly in the French Revolutino. The one in the future is the revolution of the wage-earners, or proleteriat, against the bourgeoisie, which is to establish the Socialist Commonwealth. The whole movement of history is viewed by him as necessary, as the effect of material causes operating upon human beings. He does not so much advocate the Socialist revolution as predict it. He holds, it is true, that it will be beneficent, but he is much more concerned to prove that it must inevitably come. The same sense of necessity is visible in his exposition of the evils of the capitalist system. He does not blame capitalists for the cruelties of which he shows them to have been guilty; he merely points out that they are under an inherent necessity to behave cruelly so long as the private ownership of land and capital continues. But their tyranny will not last forever, for it generates the forces that must in the end overthrow it.

2. The Law of the Concentration of Capital.--- Marx pointed out that capitalist undertakings tend to grow larger and larger. He foresaw the substitution of trusts for free competition, and predicted that the number of capitalist enterprises must diminish as the magnitude of single enterprises increased. He supposed that this process must involve a diminution, not only in the number of businesses, but also in the number of capitalists. Indeed he usually spoke as though each business were owned by a single man. Accordingly, he expected that men would be continually driven from the ranks of the capitalists into those of the proletariat, and that the capitalists, in the course of time, would grow numerically weaker and weaker. He applied this principle not only to industry but also toa griculture. He expected to find the landowners growing fewer and fewer while their estates grew larger and larger. This process was to make more and more glaring the evils and injustices of the capitalist system, and to stimulate more and more the forces of opposition.

3. The Class War.--- Marx conceives the wage-earner and the capitalist in a sharp antithesis. He imagines that every man is, or must soon become, wholly the one or wholly the other. The wage-earner, who possesses nothing, is exploited by the capitalists, who possess everything. As the capitalist system works itself out and its nature becomes more clear, the opposition of bourgeoisie and proletariat becomes more and more marked. The two classes, since they have antagonistic interests, are forced into a class war which generates within the capitalistic regime internal forces of disruption. The working men learn gradually to combine against their exploiters, first locally, then nationally, and at last internationally. When they have learned to combine internationally they must be victorious. They will then decree that all land and capital shall be owned in common; exploitation will cease; the tyranny of the owners of wealth will no longer be possible; there will no longer be any division of society into classes, and all men will be free.

I will take a slight digression here to comment on the nature of the proposed Marxist class war. As we have become well aware, this has not happened yet. There are many reasons for this, but one assumption that Marxists take (and I think Marx himself took) was that class, as a signifier, would supersede race and sex as an identity, and therefore provide stronger bonds than either of the other two.

Perhaps more specifically, I claim Marxists believe something on the order of "individuals of the same class have more in common than individuals of the same race or nationality." Firestone disagrees and substitutes sex for class in her [Dialectic on Sex](/dialectic-on-sex), and individuals such as Curtis Yarvin would cleave the global population on the basis of race. But I do suspect that a large proportion of economic leftism bottoms out in this fundamentally economic understanding of an indvidual's experience and material reality.

Maybe calling this leftist is slightly incorrect? This seems to be a Western take as well. We see that in America (in my experience) differentiating groups on the basis of wealth is much more accepted than differentiating groups on the basis of race. And racial divides in America are some of the most explicit worldwide. But it is also emblematic of, say, the Progress Studies folk to anchor very, very heavily on 'GDP go up' as a metric for overall wellbeing. This seems broadly similar.

At any rate, they're incorrect. On a national level, it (broadly) makes more sense to classify individuals on the basis of class. But on an international level, race becomes much more important, as race becomes a stronger predictor of culture, morality, values, etc. that are intangible factors not necessarily tracked by wealthy or income metrics. The Anglo-sphere (and Europe to a lesser extent) is unique in that it has managed to assimilate large proportions of immigrants of different ethnicities without resorting to explicit identification and classification of them. This is not the case in e.g. Singapore, Malaysia, India, China etc. And I think this is one of the Marxist fatal flaws.

(maybe this confuses similarity with willigness to cooperate. likely that chinese factory workers and indian factory workers are essentially substitutable but they would never be friends)

This impinges his broader point with the question of: are Marx's laws of historical development correct? We can belabor this point for eternity, but they are obviously seriously flawed (with the 20th century as his judge). However, this is *in fact* a separate question from the question of the *desirability of Socialism* (which includes a subconsideration of feasibility, but is notably different).

Stepping back, Marx's three points are of varying degrees of incorrect, but when contextualized to the mid-19th century... they seem astonishingly prescient? Or, the Law of the Concentration of Capital is just obviously correct, and most other intellectuals of Marx's time would deride the idea that class could supersede nationality as a unifying factor (too many racists). But it can, and it is just today that we see the overcorrection.

And it is true that given Marx's (or even Russell's) vantage point, moving more in the direction of Socialism would be better for the vast majority of individuals. The baseline welfare of the individual had simiply not increased enough, and deprivation conditions were widespread. 1950s America would be considered a third-world country to us today, and in fact many pro-market individuals *today* would prefer a Socialist state to living conditions seventy years prior. It's probably good to keep that in mind.

Anarchism "is the theory which is opposed to every kind of forcible government." The only government which Anarchists can accept is "free government, not merely in the sense that it is a majority, but in the sense that it is assented to by all." Anarchists object to the encroachment of the rights of an individual by other individuals in different parts of the community---it is for this reason that they view law enforcement as evil, and that democratic governments are no better than authoritarian ones if they have the capacity to act in a majoritiarian manner.

Russell quotes the Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu to make his point:

Horses have hoofs to carry them over frost and snow; hair, to protect them from wind and cold. They eat grass and drink water, and fling up their heels over the champaign. Such is the real nature of horses. Palatial dwellings are of no use to them.

One day Po Lo appeared, saying: "I understand the management of horses."

So he branded them, and clipped them, and pared their hoofs, and put halters on them, tying them up by the head and shackling them by the feet, and disposing them in stables, with the result that two or three in every ten died. Then he kept them hungry and thirsty, trotting them and galloping them, and grooming, and trimming, with the misery of the tasselled bridle before and the fear of the knotted whip behind, until more than half of them were dead.

The potter says: "I can do what I will with Clay. If I want it round, I use compasses; if rectangular, a square."

The carpenter says: "I can do what I will with wood. If I want it curved, I use an arc; if straight, a line."

But on what grounds can we think that the natures of clay and wood desire this application of compasses and square, of arc and line? Nevertheless, every age extols Po Lo for his skill in managing horses, and potters and carpenters for their skill with clay and wood. Those who govern the empire make the same mistake.

Now I regard government of the empire from quite a different point of view.

The people have certain natural instincts:—to weave and clothe themselves, to till and feed themselves. These are common to all humanity, and all are agreed thereon. Such instincts are called "Heaven-sent."

And so in the days when natural instincts prevailed, men moved quietly and gazed steadily. At that time there were no roads over mountains, nor boats, nor bridges over water. All things were produced, each for its own proper sphere. Birds and beasts multiplied, trees and shrubs grew up. The former might be led by the hand; you could climb up and peep into the raven's nest. For then man dwelt with birds and beasts, and all creation was one. There were no distinctions of good and bad men. Being all equally without knowledge, their virtue could not go astray. Being all equally without evil desires, they were in a state of natural integrity, the perfection of human existence.

But when Sages appeared, tripping up people over charity and fettering them with duty to their neighbor, doubt found its way into the world. And then, with their gushing over music and fussing over ceremony, the empire became divided against itself.

It is important to note that *anarchism does not necessarily imply communal ownership of land and capital.* It just so happens that in the early 20th century, the vast majority of anarchists also happened to be communists, so Russell focuses on these anarcho-communists. But today, a significant portion of anarchists are libertarians (or even monarchist-adjacent), and do not share the past belief that "private capital is a source of tyranny by certain individuals over others."

If Marx is the standard-bearer of socialist thought, than Michel Bakunin, Russian aristocrat, would be the standard-bearer of aristocratic thought. He was an emigre for large portions of his life, due to his native tendencies of stirring up pseudo-revolutionary behavior and subsequently incurring the ire of state authorities.

Anarcho-communism does not differ tremendously from socialism in the nature of its economic reforms, it differs from socialism on the basis of its political reforms, arguing for a self-organizing society. This as a movement did not gain much traction, but an intellectual descendant of it did---Syndicalism.

Syndicalism stands essentially for the point of view of the producer as opposed to that of the consumer; it is concerned with reforming actual work, and the organization of industry, not MERELY with securing greater rewards for work. From this point of view its vigor and its distinctive character are derived. It aims at substituting industrial for political action, and at using Trade Union organization for purposes for which orthodox Socialism would look to Parliament.

...

The essential doctrine of Syndicalism is the class- war, to be conducted by industrial rather than politi- cal methods. The chief industrial methods advocated are the strike, the boycott, the label and sabotage.

...

The doctrines of Syndicalism may be illustrated by an article introducing it to English readers in the first number of "The Syndicalist Railwayman," September, 1911, from which the following is quoted:—

"All Syndicalism, Collectivism, Anarchism aims at abolishing the present economic status and existing private ownership of most things; but while Collectivism would substitute ownership by everybody, and Anarchism ownership by nobody, Syndicalism aims at ownership by Organized Labor. It is thus a purely Trade Union reading of the economic doctrine and the class war preached by Socialism. It vehemently repudiates Parliamentary action on which Collectivism relies; and it is, in this respect, much more closely allied to Anarchism, from which, indeed, it differs in practice only in being more limited in range of action." (Times, Aug. 25, 1911).

One of the astute Syndicalist proposals, in my opinion, was to propose "industrial unionism", where unions were formed on the basis of the nature of one's work, rather than the organization they were employed by. Notably, this movement originated in America (American labor reform seemed to be more? militant than British labor reform during this time, which I suppose shouldn't be that surprising given that three decades later we elected FDR).

Here we draw our lines, between Socialism and Anarchism (in practice Syndicalism). Russell believes that the best ideal state of the world is Anarchic, but that Socialists have better practical prescriptions, and he adheres to an ideology known as "guild socialism", which will be discussed later. I think that these takes are understandable in the context of a world where absurd amounts of surplus have not been generated, but today? Markets creating wealth seem to be a good component of capitalistic society that Socialist ones would have to emulate.

Which, I note, Russell does account for, when considering the question of how to create a better natural order of society:

Two connected doctrines must be considered in examining this question: First, Malthus' doctrine of population; and second, the vaguer, but very prevalent, view that any surplus above the bare necessaries of life can only be produced if most men work long hours at monotonous or painful tasks, leaving little leisure for a civilized existence or rational enjoyment. I do not believe that either of these obstacles to optimism will survive a close scrutiny. The possibility of technical improvement in the methods of production is, I believe, so great that, at any rate for centuries to come, there will be no inevitable barrier to progress in the general well-being by the simultaneous increase of commodities and diminution of hours of labor.

It is maybe for this reason that he is less of a radical than his contemporaries?

He notices one of the great cleavages between Socialists and Anarchists:

There is a fundamental difference between Socialism and Anarchism as regards the question of distribution. Socialism, at any rate in most of its forms, would retain payment for work done or for willingness to work, and, except in the case of persons incapacitated by age or infirmity, would make willingness to work a condition of subsistence, or at any rate of subsistence above a certain very low minimum. Anarchism, on the other hand, aims at granting to everyone, without any conditions whatever, just as much of all ordinary commodities as he or she may care to consume, while the rarer com- modities, of which the supply cannot easily be indefinitely increased, would be rationed and divided equally among the population. Thus Anarchism would not impose any OBLIGATIONS of work, though Anarchists believe that the necessary work could be made sufficiently agreeable for the vast majority of the population to undertake it voluntarily. Socialists, on the other hand, would exact work. Some of them would make the incomes of all workers equal, while others would retain higher pay for the work which is considered more valuable. All these different systems are compatible with the common ownership of land and capital, though they differ greatly as regards the kind of society which they would produce.

The rest can be found here on my blog. Goodreads character limit :/