Authority and the Individual

by Bertrand Russell

8" * 5.3".

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, History, Anthropology, Essays

79 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1949

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

[Peiman E iran · Rating 5 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب از 161 صفحه و 6 فصل تشکیل شده است و در آن فیلسوفِ بزرگوار و خردمند <برتراند راسل> به بیان مطالبی مهم در خصوصِ همبستگیِ اجتماعی و اخلاقِ فردی و اجتماعی پرداخته است
----------------------------------------------
‎دوستانِ من، ما در جهانی زندگی میکنیم که امکانِ خوبی و بدی در آن نامحدود است... وضعِ کنونیِ ما بیش از هرچیز به این حقیقت متکی میباشد که یاد گرفته ایم طبیعتِ بیرون از خود را تحتِ کنترل درآوریم و طبیعتِ درونمان را آزاد بگذاریم.. کنترلِ شخصی و تملک بر نفس همیشه شعارِ به اصطلاح عالمانِ اخلاقی بوده است که همیشه بدونِ شناسایی درست انجام میگرفته است و چیزی جز یک شعار نبوده است
‎در این کتاب سعی بر آن شده تا انسان را به تشخیصِ احتیاطی بیش از آنچه سیاستمداران و اقتصاد دانها متذکر شده اند، دعوت کند.. زیرا فقط در نتیجهٔ این معرفت است که ما خواهیم توانست راهِ خود را به تحققِ آرزوها و آرمانهایی که مهارت ها در دسترسِ ما قرار داده اند، بیابیم
‎برجسته ترین چیزی که در نیاکانِ نخستینِ انسان موردِ توجه قرار میگیرد، "مغز" آنها میباشد، که به تدریج بر اندازهٔ آن افزوده شده تا به میزانِ کنونی رسیده است.. ولی صدها هزار سال است که به این اندازه باقی مانده و تغییری نکرده است... بنابراین باید اینگونه پنداشت که دستگاهِ دماغیِ موروثیِ ما تفاوتِ زیادی با انسانِ قدیم و دورانِ سنگی، ندارد. ما هنوز دارایِ همان غرائزِ انسانِ کهنِ سنگی هستیم، یعنی دارایِ غرائزِ انسانی میباشیم که کارش بر مبنایِ عقل و منطق نیست.. هنوز به زندگیِ خانوادگی و قبیله ای علاقه مندیم و نسبت به خانواده و فامیل و قبیله احساسِ دوستی و نسبت به خارج از این محیط، احساسِ دشمنی میکنیم... این غریزه هایِ وحشیانهٔ انسان که باعثِ جنگ و خونریزی میشود باید راهِ خروجی بیابد. مثلاً میتوان رقابت هایِ ورزشی را جایگزینِ جنگ نمود و به جایِ شکار، لذتِ ماجراجویی و اختراع را جایگزین نمود.. ولی نباید از این غریزه ها چشم پوشی کرد، چراکه این غریزه ها ممکن است سببِ موفقیت هایِ انسانی و اجتماعی شود
‎با اینکه جنگ بزرگترین عاملِ زشتی در زمانِ ما میباشد، اما تنها اثراتِ این بلایا نیست که نوع بشر را شکنجه میدهد، بلکه زندگیِ انسان دستخوشِ بسیاری از نیروهایِ غیر شخصی میباشد که بر زندگیِ روزمرهٔ او حکومت میکند و در نتیجه او را بردهٔ حوادث میکند، نه بردهٔ قانون... اینها به هیچ وجه امورِ الزامی نیست، زیرا تمامِ این بدبختی ها زادهٔ پرستشِ خدایانِ دروغین میباشد
**************************
‎عزیزانم، این تعالیمِ حاکمیت است که بد و خوب بودنِ انسانها را در تعالیمِ احکامیِ خویش آموزش داده و تعیین میکند، وگرنه هیچ انسانی از رحمِ مادر بصورتِ بدنهاد و شَر به دنیا نمی آید، همه یکسان به دنیا می آیند... معیارِ بد و خوب بودن را، فقط کتابِ اخلاق باید تعیین کند، نه کتابِ احکام و مذهب و حزب... پایهٔ این آموزشهایِ خرافی و اشتباه را حکومتها درجامعه تکلیف میکنند و به بسیاری از خانواده ها سرایت میکند... از گفتار و کردارِ مردم در جامعه و اخلاقِ اجتماعیِ آنها در رابطه با یکدیگر، به درستی میتوانید به هویتِ حقیقیِ یک حکومت که بر سرنوشتِ مردم بیچاره حکم میراند، آگاه شوید... زمانی که شما این را پذیرفتید، که حاکمانِ سرزمینِ شما، موهومات و فرضیات را به عنوانِ احکامی حتمی و لازم، در ذهنِ شما نشانده و باروَر میکنند و از آنها به اشتباه برایِ شما اخلاق میسازند، انتظار نداشته باشید که شعورِ انسانیِ شما را باروَر کنند و حتی شعور و خردِ انسانی شما را باور کنند
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ باشعور وخردگرا، مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[أحمد عبد الرحمن · Rating 3 out of 5]

مجموعة من المحاضرات التي أعدّها الفيلسوف البريطاني برتراند راسل، تبحث في التوفيق بين أمرين:

التماسك الاجتماعي بما يلزم له من إقامة سلطة وحكومة، تحفظ الأمن وتقيم العدل وترعى موارد المجتمع، دون طغيان في استعمال هذا السلطان

وبين إطلاق حرية الفرد بما يسمح له باستعمال قواه الابتكارية التي تؤدي بالمدنية إلى التقدم والنهوض، لكن بما لا يؤدى بتلك الحرية إلى الفوضى والجريمة

ويناقش ذلك مبتدئاً بعرض المراحل التاريخية المتغيرة للمدنية وما نشأ فيها من تماسك اجتماعي، والقوى التي دفعت لنشأته وتطوره من تنظيم بدائي مفكك إلى حكومة نظامية تبسط سلطانها على نطاق واسع من الأرض والبشر

ومن جانب آخر يعرض لحياة الفرد في الجماعة، والتطور الذي مرت به، والدور الذي لعبته القوى الابتكارية للفرد في الوصول إلى صورة العالم الحديث

وما تؤول إليه أمة من الأمم - وفق نماذج التاريخ المتكرر - إذا ما بلغت فيها سيطرة الحكومة على الأفراد  حداً يثبط هذه القوى الابتكارية

وعرض أيضاً للتحديات القائمة في وجه القوى الفردية في العصر الحديث في المجتمعات الديمقراطية وغير الديمقراطية

وهو كتاب وجيز، لكنه حافل بالأفكار الكثيرة الجديرة بالاعتبار، لذلك قرأته مرتين متتاليتين لمزيد تفهمه

[ميقات الراجحي · Rating 4 out of 5]

من المفكرين الذين أعحب بما كتبوا ونتاج خبراتهم المعرفية راسل رغم أن البعض يظن أن مثل راسل وغيره من المفكرين بكل إختصاصاتهم هم أصحاب معرفة زمنية تلائم حقبة لها أدواتها الخاصة ولكن علي العكس يمكن قولبت هذه الخبرات على عقود لاحقة من تفسيراتهم التي عالجوا بها بعض الحقب زمن الأربعينيات والخمسينيات كنتاج خلاصات (كارل ماركس) رغم رفض الكثير لجملة من ممبادئ الماركسية لكن إلى يومنا هذا ثمة مبادئ تصلح لأن يتعاطى معها على الأقل لنواحي إقتصادي ذات أثر اجتماعي بجدارة دون التعمق في الإختلافات الشيوعية التي تتضارب مع أحقية الفرد.



ميزة راسل عنايته بالعلم وأثره على التقدم في الحياة البشرية، وإن كنت أعترف أنني لا أتعمق في نتاجه العلمي المتعلق بالرياضيات وعلومه لفشلي في ذلك لكني تستهويني كل مقالاته عن البشرية وأثر الأسلحة ومحاولاته لتقديم نقد للسلطة التي عانى منها كثيرًا وأودعته السجن.

في السلطة والفرد يعالج راسل الأخلاق... عند السلطة / الحكومة.. عند الفرد.. عند المجتمع بأكمله. وخلاصة كتابه هذا مناقشة القوى الإبتكارية عند الفرد التي يصاحبها التقدم الإنساني ثم كيف يؤثر ذلك في التماسك الاجتماعي وكل هذا لأجل غاية معنيٌ بها راسل وهي توفير القدر الكافي لبقاء البشرية.



دون شك أن مثل هذه الأراء التي ينادي بها مفكرٌ ما سوف تتعارض مع السلطة خصوصًا ونحن نتحدث عن النصف الأول من القرن العشرين وقد كانت السلطة في الغالب مستبدة ناهيك عن حالة الصراعات العالمية التي تعيشها – الحربين العالميتين – إلا أن راسل لا يغفل عن دور القانون لمواجهة "غلبة الوحشية اللاشعورية بتدعيم السلطان" وأعتقد أن مغازلة السلطة هنا من قبل راسل حتى يتسنى لأفكاره الحياة والتطبيق.

المقطع الأخير هو الذي نادى بها راسل فيما أطلق عليه "خلق التماسك" بين وحدة البشرية لعنايته بالسلام وفق كل كتاباته وهذا من أبرز مانادى به.

كذلك ناقش راسل مسألة هي بالنسبة له معضلة وهي قضية الفرد ودور الفردية في المجتمع لكنه يبحث أولًا عن الغرائز والرغبات في تكوينه دون التفريق بين هذه الغرائز خيرة أو شريرة وأثر ذلك في المجتمع البدائي والتي يرى راسل أنها لا تلعب إلا دورًا ضئيلًا جدًا، ثم يتناول ذلك الفرد الساعي للتغيير والفاعل في المجتمع وأثرهم على الدين والأخلاق وهمو الفرد الذي يسميه "الفرد الممتاز" طبعًآ هذه وفق الترجمة والتي متأكد أنها ليس ببعيدة عن الصواب حيث ذلك النوع النخبوي.

بعد كل هذا يتنقل لمناقشة الصراع بين الأساليب الفنية والطبيعة الإنسانية بعد أن مهد لها في أكثر من نصف الكتاب، وأخير أثر الرقابة – الحكومة – على الابنكار ونطاف كل واحدٍ منهما وهو من أحمل فصول هذا الكتاب.

[Zaphirenia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Σε αυτη τη σειρά διαλέξεων, ο Russell εξετάζει τη σχέση μεταξύ ατόμου και οργανωμένης κρατικής εξουσίας. Το ερώτημα είναι αρχαίο, δύσκολο και συνεχώς επανερχόμενο στην επικαιρότητα: σε ποιο βαθμό είναι η ατομική ελευθερία δυνατή και σε ποιο βαθμό πρέπει να περιορίζεται χάριν της αρμονικής κοινωνικής συνύπαρξης;

Ο Bertrand Russell, μέσα από μια ανάλυση της εξέλιξης των ανθρώπινων κοινωνιών και της σχέσης μεταξύ ατόμου και κράτους καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι η οργάνωση είναι απαραίτητη για την επιβίωση μας αλλά και ότι ταυτόχρονα πρέπει να δίνονται στο άτομο δημιουργικές διέξοδοι στις οποίες να διοχετεύει τα αρχέγονα ένστικτα της ενεργητικότητας του ώστε να μην τη χρησιμοποιεί με καταστροφικό τρόπο. Η ανάπτυξη του πολιτισμού απαιτεί τη δημιουργική δραστηριότητα των εξαιρετικών (και όχι μόνο) μελών κάθε κοινωνίας που δεν μπορούν να συμβιβαστούν με μια απλή ζωή προκαθορισμένη από νομικά πλαίσια και οργανωμένες δομές.

Διορατικός και επίκαιρος όπως πάντα ο Russell, ό,τι κι αν σχολιάζει έχεις κάτι σημαντικό να εισπράξεις.

[Sanjay · Rating 3 out of 5]

7/10

[Bohemian Abdul · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتب راسل هذا الم��لف ابان بدايات الحرب الباردة
وبعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الثانية
في وقت كان الفرد فيه يتمزق بين قوتي الرأسمالية المنافسة ووحش الشيوعية الضاري .

اعتقد أن المؤلف مليء بالبديهيات خصوصا لوكان البحث عن مجتمع كالمجتمع الإنجليزي ،تجرع الحرية منذ قرون ،لا بل وكان المساهم الأول في جعلها ثقافة عالمية .
لكن باسقاط الكتاب على وضع شعوب كالشعوب العربية والفرد العربي
أجدها حقيقة تأملات مؤلمة تخاطب كل فرد يسكن تلك البقعه التي تصارع الفقر والجهل والأنظمة الشمولية والبروقراطية التي لاتقيم اي عيار للفرد ،حتى بعد مرور حوالي القرن على نشر هذا الكتاب.
هذا المؤلف الصغير يوضح أمرا هاما للأساس الفعال الذي قامت عليه الحضارة الغربية بشكلها الحالي (حرية الفرد)،من خلال الفكرة التي يطرحها ويضع بالمقابل حلولا للمشاكل التي قد تواجهها .
حسب رأي راسل فإن في الإنسان غرائز المنافسة والرغبة في التفوق، وهي غرائز موروثة جبل عليها من قديم الزمان ، ولكن هذه الغرائز يمكن توجيهها توجيها نافعا اذا تم التنفيس عنها من خلال مسابقات كالمحافل
الرياضية والفنية والثقافية ،بدل أن تجد هذه الغرائز منافذ ضارة كالحروب والتدمير.
وهو يرى ايضا ان المجتمعات الحديثة تعاني مشكلة التوفيق بين الحرية الفردية والتنظيم الاجتماعي(وهذه هي النقطة المحورية التي يدور حولها معظم الكتاب) رغم أن الغرب توصل لها على الأقل في جانبي الاجتماع والسياسة بشكل كبير يقارب الكمال.
يطرق راسل أيضا جانب الوحدة الاجتماعية عند مجتمعات قديمة كالفراعنة ،والرومان ، معللا تلك الوحدة بأنها وحدة عسكرية وليست نفسية .لذلك فهي وحدة ضغيفة
وهذا ماتعاني منه جميع الشعوب التي تقع تحت حكم الأنظمة الديكتاتورية في كل العصور .
وينبؤ المؤلف بأهمية العلم وانه من الممكن استخدام المعرفة والعلم في تضليل الناس والشر وليس فقط في نشر المعرفة الصحيحة الخيره،اعتقد لوعاد راسل ورأي كمية المعرفة الكاذبة والتزييف الني نقرأها يوميا عبر الوسائل الاجتماعية كالتويتر والواتز آب لفقد عقله من هول ماسيرى هههه.

كتاب خفيف وجيد وان اختلفت معه أحيانا فيمايقول ،الا أنه كتاب لكل فرد يعتز بفرديته ،كتاب لكل فكر مستقل ،لكل محب للحرية والإنسان.

[Miguel Cisneros Saucedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

La obra "Autoridad e Individuo" de Bertrand Russell es una joya intelectual que aborda con maestría la compleja relación entre la autoridad y la libertad individual. A lo largo de sus páginas, Russell desentraña las diferentes formas en que la autoridad se manifiesta en la sociedad, ya sea a través del gobierno, la religión o las instituciones sociales, y examina cómo estas estructuras afectan la autonomía y el desarrollo del individuo a lo largo de diversos contextos culturales.

Lo que hace que este libro sea tan excepcional es la claridad y la profundidad con la que Russell analiza estos temas. Su estilo de escritura es accesible para el lector promedio, pero no por eso menos riguroso en su argumentación. A través de ejemplos históricos y filosóficos, Russell ilustra cómo la autoridad puede ser tanto una fuerza necesaria para el orden social como una restricción para el crecimiento personal y la creatividad.

Además, el libro es relevante en cualquier época debido a su capacidad para provocar reflexión y debate sobre cuestiones pacifistas. Las ideas de Russell sobre la importancia de la libertad de pensamiento y la resistencia a la opresión resuenan tan fuerte hoy como lo hicieron cuando el libro fue publicado por primera vez.

En definitiva, ésta es una obra imprescindible para cualquier persona interesada en el estudio de la política, la filosofía o la psicología social desde un punto de vista racionalista y positivista. Su análisis perspicaz y su mensaje atemporal lo convierten en un clásico que merece un lugar destacado en cualquier biblioteca. Sin duda, otorgo a este libro una calificación de cinco estrellas, ya que no solo informa e inspira, sino que también desafía y enriquece la mente del lector.

[Julian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Human natural state Is barbarism , we have gave up or freedom for safety and easier life but we still has this stat of barbarism under our skin we can just get rid of it but we can get rid of civilization, civilization to me is a very weak home but looks beautiful like the first home in the three pigs story, but the civilization story we are not the pigs we are the wolf and the pigs at the same time, civilization needs intelligent people to be built and more intelligent people to continue, but the opposite happen look at the Middle East not in the state of barbarism nor civilization a state that will destroy the human kind if we didn't face it, it's a matter of time for every civilized nation to reach this state I am afraid that Italy and Greece are closer to it than civilization. ''CIVILIZATION NEVER CAME BACK TO ANY OF THE PLACES THAT IT ONCE EXISTED, IT'S LIKE A PERSON YOU MEET ONE TIME THEN HE DIES AFTER THE MEETING''.
BACK to the book how can we balance between our old nature and civilization the unnatural thing, I think It differ from one to one an action move is enough for me but other need more than that.
And he spoke about other things like that art is not important as it was before the mechanic world that is now. a great reading of the history you will find in this book you can find the book with Bertrand Russell voice on YouTube.

[Bader · Rating 2 out of 5]

الكتاب في المجمل جيد غير أن الكتابة لم تعجبني وكثير من المعلومات اعتمدت على افتراضات سلم بها الكاتب. لعل موضوعه قديم حيث أني شعرت أن الكثير مما قاله بديهي أكثر من اللازم.

[Tiago F · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the little I've known of Russell, he always struck me as both incredibly intelligent and wise. I was excited to discover this book, which is relatively short, would allow me to do some primary reading of his work without a lot of investment.

While his main work was logic and mathematics, he engaged deeply with social and political criticism. This book is a collection of 6 lectures, originally broadcasted by the BBC. It's core theme is the balance between individual freedom and the role of the state and overall authority and large-scale organization.

Russell argues that politics should be done at the smallest level possible. The chain of authority and bureaucracy should be minimized. This isn't only about efficiency or corruption, as a libertarian may argue, but rather to empower the individual with enough power to make a change within his immediate circle. The political landscape always has the character of being "outside" of everyday life, Russell often calls this "They". The ones at the bottom feel like no change is possible, and the people at the top are too distant from the problems they aim to solve. Something I liked in his argument is that Russell realized that this is inherent to large-scale organizations. While this culminates with the state, it's not required. It happens with private companies as well, which are completely separated from the government, and it also happens with communist states, which do not run on a capitalist system, but nevertheless positions of power have to be created to ensure organization.

There is a play between authority and freedom that has to be balanced. For example, in early Greek city-states, they had incredible freedom within each state, but they were at constant war with each other due to lack of social cohesion. On the other hand, the Roman Empire with its constant expansion and taxation (mostly after Augustus) led to its own ruin. Societies have a tendency to swing in this pendulum of anarchy and too much authority, often trying to compensate for the downsides of the previous opposite state.

Other topics are also touched upon, like human nature and the balance between individual and social ethics, although always connected with its main theme of authority and the individual. His writing is very enjoyable to read. Everything is laid out very carefully, yet it never seems to drag unnecessarily. What impresses me the most is how nuanced his views are. He is the epitome of anti-black and white thinking, always ready to acknowledge both sides of the issues. While I disagree with some of his ideas, his insight into social and political organization are incredibly well thought out, and many of the problems that Russell faced in his time we are also facing today. Perhaps if he was listened to, some of it could have been minimized.

A worthwhile read for anyone interested in political philosophy and for me it ignited a desire to dive more into Russell's work.

[Suzanne Mot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even though it is a post WW2 book, the themes that Bertrand Russell so vividly presents are still actual situations in modern society. I'd say the lenght of each chapter is ideal to get a brief understanding of the content, without tiring the reader with too much detail.
The chapters entail an overview of the relations between Social Cohesion, Human Nature, Governments, The role of inidividuality and the evolution of technology.

The book starts with Bertrand beautifully describing the distinciton between evolutionary instincts found in human beings, which require a certain liberty for spontanety and creativity, then morals, which have been created in time, through religion, reforms, revolutions etc. This duality of human nature is presented in the most clear way I've encountered in philosophical works.
And from here, the author is helpful in creating a certain awareness about the roles of governments, while contrasting socialism/communism or ancient civilisation/modern society.

He talks about personal initiative, which he thinks as essential for an ever growing culture and then talks of how governments opress or boost this personal initiative that is also crucial for the happiness of individuals. But because organisations and governments grew so large nowadays, one single individual finds in hard to feel like he can make a change and therefore misses a sense of purpose, which is helpful in guiding our life and living it vigorously. That is why, Bertrand shows how decentralisation could work in making invidivuals enjoy their life more, even though it gets harder and harder in this mechanical society in which arts and creativity lack immediate importance and are isolated from society in a way or another.
The main thing I like about Bertrand Russell is that he creates for the reader such an objective view over crucial matters, withouth taking pride in finding solutions for them, but presenting some realist alternatives which might be for the better. What is also admirable is that this book, as far as I've read, is made together with his wife's impressions and ideas. Living in a West European country I can certainly relate to the monotony of the society they describe, however things have changed a little and one would think that politicians got inspired by this book.Of course, would be ideal if more of them would read Russells essays.

[Luis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bertrand Russell realiza un breve disertación acerca de un tema ambicioso: ¿cómo se pueden conjugar en un Estado moderno la regularización y la acotación a la que somete el gobierno a sus ciudadanos, mientras por otro lado se deja lugar al individuo para desarrollar su propia iniciativa? Iniciativa que a veces es revolucionaria o aparentemente contraria a los intereses del Estado, pero que puede redundar en un avance científico, moral o civil poderoso, como ya ha ocurrido con muchos grandes nombres a lo largo de la Historia.

Abre el debate un análisis histórico de cómo se construye una civilización y de qué roles van adoptando los individuos en relación con el resto del grupo, hasta llegar a nuestros días. Analiza las motivaciones de la iniciativa del individuo, a la vez que establece el dominio de un Estado que tiene interés para sus ciudadanos, y propone formas de llegar a un equilibrio beneficioso. De tono ameno y fácil de seguir, con ejemplos diversos y sin entrar en muchos tecnicismos, resulta muy sencillo seguir al genio de Russell.

[هند مسعد · Rating 2 out of 5]

عندما تقيم العادة والتقاليد والقانون نظماً تبلغ من الدقة ان تخنق الجرأة .. وعندما يمتدح الناس مآثر اسلافهم ولنهم لا يستطيعون بعد ذلك ان يتساووا بهم .. وعندما يصير الفن مبتذلاً .. فان المجتمع المعني يدخل في طور الركود

[حسن عدس · Rating 5 out of 5]

لما تلاقي افكارك وتأملاتك في كتاب لفيلسوف عظيم بشكل موسوعي شوية لازم تعطي الكتاب خمس نجمات

[Joe Blaney · Rating 5 out of 5]

These essays are so good— a human philosophy of government

“Men in control of vast organizations have tended to be too abstract in their outlook, to forget what actual human beings are like, and to try to fit men to systems rather than systems to men.” (Russel, 75)

[Sara Hadi · Rating 2 out of 5]

كتاب خفيف وظريف , بالحقيقة لم يضيف لي شيء فالافكار الواردة فيه , مختمرة بالاساس في ذهني منذ سنوات
لكنه ربما يعتبر مفيد لغير المطلع على النظرة السياسية لعلاقة السلطة بالفرد

[Arno Mosikyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Citations

The fundamental problem I propose to consider in these lectures is this: how can we combine that degree of individual initiative which is necessary for progress with the degree of social cohesion that is necessary for survival?

In all social animals, including man, co-operation and the unity of a group have some foundation in instinct.

This is most complete in ants and bees, which apparently are never tempted to anti-social actions and never deviate from devotion to the nest or the hive. Up to a point we may admire this unswerving devotion to public duty, but it has its drawbacks; ants and bees do not produce great works of art, or make scientific discoveries, or found religions teaching that all ants are sisters. Their social life, in fact, is mechanical, precise and static. We are willing that human life shall have an element of turbulence if thereby we can escape such evolutionary stagnation.

The strongest and most instinctively compelling of social groups was, and still is, the family.

The transition from the family to the small tribe was presumably biologically connected with the fact that hunting could be more efficient if it was cooperative, and from a very early time the cohesion of the tribe must have been increased and developed by conflicts with other tribes.

One of the things that cause stress and strain in human social life is that it is possible, up to a point, to become aware of rational grounds for a behaviour not prompted by natural instinct. But when such behaviour strains natural instinct too severely nature takes her revenge by producing either listlessness or destructiveness, either of which may cause a structure imposed by reason to break down.

From those early days down to modem times war has been the chief engine in enlarging the size of communities, and fear has increasingly replaced tribal solidarity as a source of social cohesion.

Always when we pass beyond the limits of the family it is the external enemy which supplies the cohesive force. In times of safety we can afford to hate our neighbour, but in times of danger - we must love him.

If the unification of mankind is ever to be realised, it will be necessary to find ways of circumventing our largely unconscious primitive ferocity, partly by establishing a reign of law, and partly by finding innocent outlets for our competitive instincts.

This is not an easy problem, and it is one which cannot be solved by morality alone.

People who live a life which is unnatural beyond a point are likely to be filled with envy, malice and all uncharitableness. They may develop strains of cruelty, or, on the other hand, they may so completely lose all joy of life that they have no longer any capacity for effort.

Anyone who hopes that in time it may be possible to abolish war should give serious thought to the problem of satisfying harmlessly the instincts that we inherit from long generations of savages.

I do not think that ordinary human beings can be happy without competition, for competition has been, ever since the origin of man, the spur to most serious activities. We should not, therefore, attempt to abolish competition, but only to see to it that it takes forms which are not too injurious.

Many people are happier during a war than they are in peace time, provided the direct suffering entailed by the fighting does not fall too heavily upon them personally.

The problem of making peace with our anarchic impulses is one which has been too little studied, but one which becomes more and more imperative as scientific technique advances.

I think perhaps the essence of the matter was given by the Red Indian whom I quoted a moment ago, who regretted the old life because ‘there was glory in it’. Every energetic person wants something that can count as ‘glory ‘. There are those who get it-film stars, famous athletes, military commanders, and even some few politicians but they are a small minority, and the rest are left to day-dreams: day-dreams of the cinema, day-dreams of wild west adventure stories, purely private day-dreams of imaginary power.

Greek cities differed greatly as regards the degree of individual liberty permitted to citizens; in most of them there was a great deal, but n Sparta an absolute minimum.

The problem, like all those with which we are concerned, is one of balance; too little liberty brings stagnation and too much brings chaos.

I cannot think of anything that mankind has gained by the existence of Jenghis Khan. I do not know what good came of Robespierre, and, for my part, I see no reason to be grateful to Lenin.

Individual Initiative Reduced to a Minimum And this applies not only to men of rare and exceptional greatness, but to a wide range of talent. In the ages in which there were great poets, there were also large numbers of little poets, and when there were great painters there were large numbers of little painters.

A healthy and progressive society requires both central control and individual and group initiative: without control there is anarchy, and without initiative there is stagnation.

In our complex world there cannot be fruitful initiative without government, but unfortunately there can be government without initiative.

Material goods are more a matter of possession than goods that are mental. A man who eats a piece of food prevents everyone else from eating it, but a man who writes or enjoys a poem does not prevent another man from writing or enjoying one just as good or better. That is why, in regard to material goods, justice is important, but in regard so mental goods the thing that is needed is opportunity and an environment that makes hope of achievement seem rational.

If a man seriously desires to live the best life that is open to him, he must learn to be critical of the tribal customs and tribal beliefs that are generally accepted among his neighbours.

But a society does not, or at least should not, exist to satisfy an external survey, but to bring a good life to the individuals who compose it. It is in the individuals, not in the whole, that ultimate value is to be sought. A good society is a means to a good life for those who compose it, not something having a separate kind of excellence on its own account.

There is another ethical theory, which to my mind is also inadequate; it is that which might be called the ‘biological’ theory, though I should not wish to assert that it is held by most biologists. This view is derived from a contemplation of evolution. The struggle for existence is supposed to have led gradually to more and more complex organisms, culminating (so far) in man. In this view, survival is the supreme end, or rather, survival of one’s own species. Whatever increases the human population of the globe, if this theory is right, is to count as ‘good’, and whatever, diminishes the population is to count as ‘ bad’. I cannot see any justification for such a mechanical and arithmetical outlook. It would be easy to find a single acre containing more ants than there arc human beings in the whole world, but we do not on that account acknowledge the superior excellence of ants. And what humane person would prefer a large population living in poverty and squalor to a smaller population living happily with a sufficiency of comfort?

Men in control of vast organisations have tended to be too abstract in their outlook, to forget what actual human beings are like, and to try to fit men to systems rather than systems to men. The lack of spontaneity from which our highly organised societies tend to suffer is connected with excessive control over large areas by remote authorities.

I wish to repeat, with all possible emphasis, that I disagree completely with those who infer from our combative impulses that human nature demands war and other destructive forms of conflict. I firmly believe the very opposite of this. I maintain that combative impulses have an essential part to play, and Ic their harmful forms can be enormously lessened. Greed of possession will grow less when there is no fear of destitution. Love of power can be satisfied in many ways that involve no injury to others: by the power over nature that results from discovery and invention, by the production of admired books or works of art, and by successful persuasion. Energy and the wish to be effective are beneficent if they can find the right outlet, and harmful if not—like steam, which can either drive the train or burst the boiler.

We shall not create a good world by trying to make men tame and timid, but by encouraging them to be bold and adventurous and fearless, except in inflicting injuries upon their fellowmen.

Our present predicament is due more than anything else to the fact that we have learnt to understand and control to a terrifying extent the forces of nature outside us, but not those that are embodied in ourselves.

Self-control has always been a watchword of the moralist, but in the past it has been a control without understanding.

[Harry · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Energy and the wish to be effective are beneficent if they can find the right outlet, and harmful if not - like steam, which can either drive the train or burst the boiler."

Fantastic book, written by a fantastic man. The ideas outlined by Russell are thought with a level of commonsense which might make you think "oh wow, it really is that obvious". However, based on the nature of current government and the individual's role in society, I believe it is actually Russell's brilliance which makes it come across this way.

For such a short book, Authority and the Individual pounds home some extremely optimistic messages about self-cultivation, and how happiness can still be found in the comparatively strange times that we live in. The structure of the book outlines Russell's main ideas about human nature and the tribalistic impulses which we still have rooted within us; how both our individual efforts and functioning within a society are key to being content. This gives rise to discussion about the role of government in the preservation of humanity, morals and their derivation from the group and the individual, human creativity, and how the individual can adjust their outlook to cope with grave prospects.

The final chapter rounds up all of the fleshed out arguments in the previous chapters, and uses them collectively for a climax which gives a refined amalgamation of Russell's ideas. It is easily my favourite chapter, and well worth the read on its own, let alone the whole book.

Overall, I cannot fault this book. Every point which Russell makes is backed up with contemporary affairs and ideologies which continue to exist to this day. If you want a refreshing take on how you live your day-to-day life as an individual who is also part of a society (which I assume is a vast majority of you) then pick this up.

[Mohamed Saad · Rating 3 out of 5]

تناول الفصل الاول كيف تطور التماسك الاجتماعي للافراد عبر القرون بداية من الجماعات البدائية حتي وصولنا للكيانات الموجودة حاليا والتي تدعي بالامم، فمن الولاء الغريزي والتضامن الاجتماعي للجماعات الصغيرة والذي يدعمه الخوف من الاعداء مرورا بآلية الحروب والتوسعات المجتمعية والتي تحول فيها الولاء الي خوف من سطوة الحرب، وصولا الي الولاء بناءا علي الوحدة الدينية والمذهبية كما وقف الكاثوليك الانجليز الي جانب اسبانيا، واخيرا النموذج الامريكي الذي تتحد فيه وحدة العقيدة مع وحدة القومية.
الا ان الفكرة الاساسية او الاشكال الكبير الذي تعرض له الفصل الاول فهو طبيعة الغريزة البشرية التي تسعي دائمت لوجود عدو وبأن الصراع هو طبيعة الحياة ولا قيمة للحياة بدون صراع او تنافس نحيا من أجله، ولا يكون البشر سعداء بدون وجود منافسة او عدو يغير من رتابة الحياة المستقرة للابد، حتي ان الرياضات التي ظهرت ككرة القدم وغيرها غير كافية لكونها لا تحتل الا مساحة ضئيلة في حياة البشر، وهذا هو مايفسره راسل بالملاحظة المثيرة للدهشة التي لاحظها بأن البشر يكونون اكثر سعادة وترابطا في اوقات الحروب، حياة الخوف والهروب هي التي تغذي روح الغريزة الطبيعية للحياة الخطرة في البشر.
وعليه تكمن الاشكالية، في ايجاد الحد الكافي من الامن اللازم لبقاء الجنس البشري بدون ان يفني بعضهم بعضا، وايجاد اشكال من المغامرة والخطر والنضال تناسب الحياة المتمدنة التي نعيشها وتشبع في نفس الوقت غريزة البشر نحو التنافس والاقتتال والتي بدونها تصبح الحياة مملة ورتيبة وتفقد معناها وينتكس الافراد الي صورة قاتمة غير مقبلين علي الحياة ولا يشعرون فيها بأي سعادة.
وعليه فان الاشكالية الاساسية هو محاولة التوفيق بين انظمة الحكم السلطوية واختصاصاتها بما يحفظ الامن لجميع الافراد وبما يضمن عدم تعدي الافراد علي حقوق الباقين منهم وفي نفس الوقت التوازن باطلاق يد المبادرة الفردية لتشجيع الافراد علي التميز والابداع والتنافس المحمود اللازم كغريزة اساسية للشعور بالسعادة.

[Ahmed M. Gamil · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب جيد، إجمالاً، كالعادة لبرتراند راسل يؤكد على ضرورة الموازنة بين المبادرة الفردية والسلطة.

يبدأ الكاتب في سرد موجز عن نشأة المجتمعات وكيف أن الإنسان في بادئ الأمر كان شديد الولاء للأسرة أو القبيلة ثم ظهر مبدأ زعيم القبيلة والذي كان شخص ذا ميزة بيولوجية صرفة وكان هذا مما سمح للقبيلة بالتمدد ومع هذا التمدد ظهر التشاحن والتصارع بين القبائل المختلفة وكان النصر غالباً لمن لهم تميز بيولوجي عن غيرهم فحل الخوف مكان الولاء للقبيلة كضامن للتماسك الاجتماعي بداخلها ومع ظهور فكرة الأديان صار التآلف والتجانس مبنياً على الأيديولوجيا والتي أثبتت أنها أشد وأقوى من فكرة الأسرة أو القبيلة.

ثم يتطرق إلى فكرة الحكومة العالمية والتساؤل عن الكيفية التي سنضمن بها بقائها حيثُ لا خوف يغذي دافع الوحدة بين مواطنيها ثم يذكر، بحكم بيئته، الديانة المسيحية وأنها بشرت بأخوة البشرية إلا أن ذلك لم يلبث إلا وتحول إلى عداء لغير المنتمين للديانة في تناقض مع ما نادت به هذه الديانة.

الفكرة عموماً، وباختصار شديد، تكمن في الموازنة بين حرية الفرد والتي إذا أطلق لها العنان كانت مكوناً فوضوياً ولصار معها مفهوم المجتمع مستحيلاً وبين المجتمع / السلطة والتي لو أُطلق لها العنان في التصرف وكبت الحريات لصار المجتمع راكداً عفناً يرقد في غياهب الظلام والتخلف مع الوقت.

ثم أننا ننسى في كثير من الأحيان أن المجتمع هو في حد ذاته وسيلة لا غاية.. بمعنى أنه هو طريقة لجعل جميع أفراده والمكونين له في حالة سعادة عامة مع بعض التضحية المتفق عليها من أجل الوصول إلى تلك الحالة من السعادة.

هناك الكثير والكثير في هذا الكتاب مما لم أذكره في تقييمي ولذا فأنصح بقرائته.

[Issa · Rating 2 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب في الأصل محاضرات تتولى إذاعتها الإذاعة البريطانية تحت مسمى "محاضرات "ريث".

وقد اُختيِر راسل كأحد أبرز المفكرين البريطانيين ..

أما مقالات الكتاب فأغلبها يدور حول التوافق بين القوى الفردية والتماسك الاجتماعي ..

كما أن هناك تركيز على الطبيعة البشرية، وبخاصة النزوع إلى الخطر، وكيفية إعطاء الفرص للبشر للتعبير عنه، في ظل ميل الحكومات إلى الأمن، وقد يكون نوع من الأمن يحفظها مصالحها على حساب حقوق الفرد، سواء كانت الطبيعية أم المدنية ..


لم يعجبني في الكتاب :
ترجمة محمد بكير خليل، من ناحية الاسترسال المفرط في تراكيب الجمل، ومن ناحية ثانية، عدم استخدام الترجمة الحرفية في سياقات تكون هي الأنسب له.

كذلك لم يعجبني في المحتوى ضعف التركيز على موضوع واحد، والاستطراد في نواح أنثروبولوجية لا تخدم موضوع المقال.

[أنتيجوُنا . · Rating 4 out of 5]

عنوان الكتاب يدل دلالة صادقة على محتواه ؛ السلطة في مقابل الفرد والسلطة هنا لا تقتضي الأثنيه الشهيره بين الفرد والمجتمع لأن رسل نفسه لا يذعن بهذا المفهوم أي مفهوم المجتمع كنظام متعالِ له حاجاته المنفصلة عن مجموع حاجات أفراده .. بل السلطة في ثوبها الواسع الفضفاض الذي قد تحتكره في كثير من الاحيان الطبقة الحاكمة في السياسة او الإقتصاد ومن هنا أنطلق رسل يفتت الأنظمة الإجتماعية الحالية على ضوء قراءاته الواسعة في التاريخ والسيسيولوجيا منادياً بفسح منافذ يتنفس فيها الإنسان الفرد خارج كل هذه الأطر التي تهّذبه وتقلم دوافعه وتشذب أطرافه بما يتواءم مع النماذج العامةومفككاً المركزية التي قتلت وستظل تقتل كل مبادرة ذاتية مستقلة في حقول العلم والفن والإصلاح.

[Hala · Rating 4 out of 5]

يرى راسل ان من فضائل السلطة التخطيط و العقلانية لتخظي همجية الفرد المختبئة داخل تكوينه الوراثي منذ العصور الاولى للحياه البشرية
و يطرح فكرة الديمقراطية في دولئر صغيرة بدلا من الديمقراطية التي تتطبق على مساجلت كبيره من البشر مما يقلل فرصة تطبيق الديمقراطية بشكل يحقق العدالة و المساواة لكل البشر حتى لا تصبح قاصرة على طبقة مميزة دون الاخرين

[Gowtham · Rating 5 out of 5]

#book_review     


 எனக்கு Bertrand russell எழுத்துக்களும் Dr. Ambedkar எழுத்துக்களும் கிட்டத்தட்ட ஒரே மாதிரியான வாசிப்பு அனுபவங்களை கொடுப்பவை, இரண்டு பேரும் சாமானியனுக்கும் புரியும் வகையில் தான் எழுதுவார்கள் அவர்கள் கூறும் உவமைகள் கூட அப்படிப்பட்டதாக தான் இருக்கும். அந்தவகையில் Russell என் மனதிற்கும் வாசிப்பிற்கு மிக நெருக்கமானவர்.


“Authority and individual” என்னும் புத்தகத்தில் தனிமனித சுதந்திரமும்(individual liberty), சமூக கூட்டுவாழ்க்கையும்(social cohesion) எப்படி  சீரான முறையில் ஒன்றிணைத்து புரிந்து கொள்வது, அதன் தேவைகள் என என்பதை விரிவாக பேசியுள்ளார். 


கற்கால மனிதன் குடும்பம் என்னும் அமைப்பில் இருந்து குழு என்ற அமைப்பிற்கு எப்படி மாறினான்? பின்னர் அது நாகரிகமாக எப்படி உருப்பெற்றது, மன்னராட்சி தோன்றியதற்கு காரணம் என்ன? நாடுகள், அரசுகள் எல்லாம் எப்படி  செயல்படுகின்றன போன்றவைற்றை சமூக கூட்டுவாழ்க்கையை ஆதாரமாக வைத்து விளக்கி இருப்பார். 


அது போல் ஒரு சமூகத்தில் தனிமதனின் பங்கு முக்கியமானது, வேட்டை சமூகமாக  இருந்த சமயத்தில் இருந்தே ஒரு தனிமதனின் திறமைகள், திறன்கள் எல்லாம் அந்த குழுவில் உள்ள மற்றவர்களுக்கும் பெரிய அளவில் உதவியுள்ளது. இது மனித நாகரிக வளர்ச்சியிலும் பெரிய தாக்கத்தை கொண்டுள்ளது.  கண்டுபிடிப்புகள், கலை, நடனம், ஓவியம், இசை போன்றவை எல்லாம் தனிமனித பண்புகளை அடிப்படையாக கொண்டு வளர்ச்சி பெற்றவை.  


அது போலவே கற்கால மனிதனில் தொடங்கி MODERN மனிதன் வரை பற்று என்பதும் பகை என்பதும் இரண்டு வெவேறு துருவங்களாக தான் இருந்துவந்துள்ளது, தன் குழுவில் இருப்பவர்கள் மீது பற்றும், அந்நியர்கள் மீது பகையும் இருப்பது சாதாரண மனித பண்பாகவே மாறிவிட்டது. நாடு,அரசு,அமைப்பு போன்றவை எல்லாம் இந்த பற்று பகை என்ற துருவங்களை அடிப்படையாக வைத்து உருவானவை. 


சமகால சிக்கல்களை எப்படி அணுகுவது? அரசுகள் எல்லாம் சார்வாதிகாரப்போக்கை கடைபிடித்து வரும் காலகட்டத்தில் தனிமனித சுதந்திரத்திற்கு இடமில்லாமல் போகிறது. ஒரு பக்கம் முதலித்துவம்(capitalism) பேசுபவர்கள் அனைவர்க்கும் வாய்ப்பளிக்க மறுக்கிறார்கள், இன்னொருபுறம் கம்யூஸிச(communist/socialist) அரசுகள் பொருளாதார ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகளை குறைக்கும் முனைப்பில் அதிகார ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகளை(power inequalities) கண்டுகொள்ளாமல் விட்டு விடுகின்றன. மேலும் இப்படிப்பட்ட சூழலில் மனிதனின் படைப்பாற்றல்(creative impulse) நீர்த்துபோகிறது. விரும்பியதை செய்யமுடியாமல் அடிமை போல் நடத்த படுகிறான் என்றும் குறிப்பிடுகிறார். 


இவர் இதற்கான தீர்வுகளையும்  முன்வைக்கிறார் உலக அளவில் ஒரு அரசு வேண்டும் அது ஏகபோகமாக ராணுவத்தை தனது கட்டுப்பாட்டில் வைத்து கொள்ளவேண்டும். இது போர் உருவாகாமல் தடுக்கும் நாடுகளுக்கிடையான சச்சரவுகளை சுமூகமாக தீர்த்து வைக்கும் .(இவர் இரண்டு உலக போர்களை நேரில் பார்த்தவர் மற்றும் அதை எதிர்த்ததற்காக பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசாங்கத்தால் ஒரு முறை கைதும் செய்யப்பட்டார் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது). 


அடுத்ததாக ஒரு நாட்டின் அரசு என்பது  நீதி, பாதுகாப்பு, சூழல் பாதுகாப்பு(security,justice,conservation)  போன்ற துறைகளை மட்டும் கட்டுப்படுத்த வேண்டும், பிற துறைகளில் போதிய கட்டுப்பாடுகளுடன் தனி தனி கூட்டுறவு குழுக்களாக நிர்வகிக்க படவேண்டும். படைப்பாற்றலை முதன்மையாக வைத்து அரசின் திட்டங்கள் செயல்ப��ுத்தப்பட வேண்டும். தனியார்/அரசு தொழில்  நிறுவனங்கள் இருக்கும் பட்சத்தில் அதில் ஜனநாயக முறையில் பிரதிநிதிகளை தேர்தெடுக்கவேண்டும், அது தொழிலாளர்களுக்கு தாங்கள் செய்யும் தொழில் மீது ஒரு மதிப்பையும் பிடிப்பினையையும் ஏற்படுத்தும். 


RUSSELLஐ  பொறுத்தவரை தனிமனிதர்களுக்கு அதிக அளவில் சுதந்திரம் கொடுக்கப்பட்டால் மனித ஆற்றலை இன்னும் பல மடங்கு ஆக்கபூர்வமாக பயன்படுத்தலாம். அது மனிதனின் வாழ்க்கையில் ஒரு வித உந்துதலை ஏற்படுத்தும். அரசின் தலையீடுகளும் அவ்வப்போது தேவைப்பட்டாலும் அது நியாயமான கட்டுப்பாடுகளை(Reasonable restrictions) கொண்ட அமைப்பாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்கிறார். சுயமரிதை(self-respect), படைப்பாற்றல்(creativity), சக மனிதர்கள் மீது இருக்கும் பாசம்(empathy towards fellow being) இவை மூன்றும் தான் அடைப்படை மனித பண்புகளாக கூறுகிறார். 


வாய்ப்பிருக்கும் நண்பர்கள் இந்நூலை  அவசியம் வாசித்து பய���டையுங்கள். இந்த நூலோடு சேர்த்து Bertrand russell எழுதிய “Political Ideals”, “what i believe”, “why i am not a christian”, போன்ற புத்தகங்களையும் வாசியுங்கள். 


Book : Authority andThe Individual

Author : Bertrand Russell 


#do_read

[Dr Yuttika Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not a dense philosophical treatise but a collection of accessible lectures, making it an excellent introduction to Russell’s thought. As with much of his work, the language is deceptively simple, yet the ideas presented require deep reflection. His reasoning is sharp, though some readers may find his conclusions overly idealistic or lacking in practical applicability.

Russell presents a balanced argument, neither outright rejecting authority nor unquestioningly endorsing individualism. Instead, he examines how the two must coexist to promote creativity, progress, and human dignity.

His insights on democracy, capitalism, and the role of science in governance are particularly thought-provoking. However, certain sections inevitably feel somewhat dated.

[AHMED JABBAR · Rating 5 out of 5]

طبعة دار الجمل
ترجمة: الراحل الدكتور نوري جعفر

[Qamar Mohamed · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب رائع رغم حجمه الصغير وهو عبارة عن محاضرات في الأصل للفيلسوف برتراند راسل يتكلم فيها عن التطور الإجتماعي و دور الفرد و كذلك السلطة لتحقيق التماسك الأجتماعي .

[Kam · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[Ebtehaj · Rating 2 out of 5]

عرضه للمشكلات كان صحيح ولكن ناقص، اما الحلول عنده فغير مدروسة فعلياً وان صح القول تعتبر مثالية، ايمانه بالخير في النفس البشرية يعميه عن حقيقتها.

[Underconsumed Knowledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Six lectures delivered in 1948, later (posthumously?) published in book form; these 85 pages pack a lot of punch. Similar to Burke, Russell makes the case that the state of nature for man is not that state which civilization gives rise to. The further man gets from “nature,” whatever that is, the more he will suffer in one way or another. It is thus the role of politics to find a way for man to be able to release his creative outlets, those things which gave rise to civilization as it exists, without stifling them; at the same time, it is the role to somehow provide for a social order that allows for the collective wellbeing. While no fan of the Soviets, at the time of these lectures given by Bertrand in 1948, it was still thought by many (including Bertrand) that central planning was the solution to our economic ails; indeed, that the economic “problem” was one which could be “solved.” Nonetheless, many of the observations made in these lectures ring true, and it is without a doubt that Bertrand Russell was a far, far smarter man than I.
• “One of things that cause stress and strain in human social life is that it is possible, up to a point, to become aware of rational grounds for a behaviour not prompted by natural instinct. But when such behaviour strains natural instinct too severely nature takes her revenge by producing either listlessness or destructiveness, either of which may cause a structure inspired by reason to break down.” Thus, what is natural, what is our instinct? Does modernity stray too far from what that is?
• “Always when we pass beyond the limits of the family it is the external enemy which supplies the cohesive force. In times of safety we can afford to hate our neighbour, but in times of danger we must love him. People do not, at most times, love those whom they find sitting next to them in a bus, but during the blitz they did.” As Matt Taibbi says, now it’s us against us, 24/7, on every news channel, with no Communists to fight.
o “In a shipwreck the crew obey orders without the need of reasoning with themselves, because they have a common purpose which is not remote, and the means to its realization are not difficult to understand. But if the captain were obliged, like the government, to explain the principles of currency in order to prove his commands wise, the ship would ink before his lecture was finished.”
• “If we are all children of God, then we are all one family. But in practice those who in theory adopted this creed have always felt that those who did not adopt it were not children of God but children of Satan, and the old mechanism of hatred of those outside the tribe has returned… the old instincts that have come down to us from our tribal ancestors rise up in indignation, feeling that life would lose its savour if there were no one to hate… If the unification of mankind if ever to be realized, it will be necessary to find ways of circumventing our largely unconscious primitive ferocity, partly by establishing a reign of law, and partly by finding innocent outlets for our competitive instincts.” Religion binds and blinds, as Nietzsche mocks the “Brotherly Love” of Christianity.
o “We have all kinds of aggressive impulses, and also creative impulses, which society forbids us to indulge, and the alternatives that it supplies in the shape of football matches and all-in wrestling are hardly adequate. Anyone who hopes that in time it may be possible to abolish war should give serious thought to the problem of satisfying harmlessly the instincts that we inherit form long generations of savages.” Maybe sports spectating isn’t as socially un-useful as it might seem, Noam Chomsky’s lack of affinity for it (and thus really his lack of understanding of the human condition) be damned.
 “A quiet life may well be a boring life. The unadventurous existence of a well-behaved citizen, engaged in earning a moderate living in a humble capacity, leaves completely unsatisfied all that part of his nature which, if he had lived 400,000 years ago, would have found ample scope in the search for food, in cutting off the heads of enemies, and in escaping the attention of tigers. When war comes the bank clerk may escape and become a commando, and then at last he feels that he is living as nature intended him to live.”
 “It is no wonder if the religious innovators were execrated in their own day, for they sought to rob men of the joy of battle and the fierce delights of revenge. Primitive ferocity, which had seemed a virtue, was not said to be a sin, and a deep duality was introduced between morality and the life of impulse – or rather between the morality taught by those in whom the impulse of humanity was strong, and the traditional morality that was preferred by those who had no sympathies outside their own herd.”
• In a rebuke to socialists and DSA-members who cry that capitalism “teaches” hierarchy and competitiveness to humans, “I do not think that ordinary human beings can be happy without competition, for competition has been, ever since the origin of Man, the spur to most serious activities. We should not, therefor, attempt to abolish competition, but only see to it that it takes forms which are not too injurious.”
• “The problem of the social reformer, therefore, is not merely to seek means of security, for if these means when found provide no deep satisfaction the security will be thrown away for the glory of adventure.” We must find, “… forms of adventure and danger and contest which are compatible with the civilised way of life... our instincts for both good and evil remain very much what they were when our ancestors’ brains first grew to their present size.” If there cannot be found “… some real outlet for the impulses” which Russell speaks of, “…destructive philosophies will from time to time sweep away the best of human achievements.” One such outlet is the sports competition outlet (Tim Krabbe, “How empty those lives are”, for others it may be a more creative outlet.)
• Formerly stability was provided by the existence of religion, again echoing Burke who says it is a necessary component of social control. “It depended for its stability upon religion and the divinity of the king. Disobedience was impiety, and rebellion was liable to call down the anger of the gods.” And for the lower classes and peasants, there was the stick.
• With the advent of modernity, man is, to a certain extent, governed by forces outside his control, just that now it is not Gods, but other individuals. “All of these modern developments increase the control over the lives of individuals possessed by those who govern large organisations…”
o “Individual initiative is hemmed in either by the State or by powerful corporations, and there is a great danger lest this should produce, as in ancient Rome, a kind of listlessness and fatalism that is disastrous to vigorous life…. As a result of mere size, government becomes increasingly remote from the governed and tends, even in a democracy, to have an independent life of its own.” Through all of this, people lose “the power of initiative”, and the “sense of individual initiative”, reserved for, in Betrand’s 1948 United Kingdom, the titans of industry and the high and mighty bureaucrats; the rest become cogs, necessary for “smooth co-operation.”
 Bureaucracy kills initiative; government does not have the necessary incentives for innovation. “…those who have nominal initiative are perpetually controlled by a Civil Service which has only a veto and no duty of inauguration, and thus acquires a negative psychology perpetually prone to prohibitions. Under such a system the energetic are reduced to despair; those who might have become energetic in a more hopeful environment tend to be listless and frivolous; and it is not likely that the positive functions of the State will be performed with vigour and competence…”
• He continues with an excellent quip at overprotective parents, “This, needless to say, is the opinion of men who have acquired the habit that one sees in unwise parents of always saying ‘don’t do that,’ without stopping to consider whether ‘that’ does any harm.”
• “Nothing is so damping and deadening to initiative as to have a carefully thought out scheme vetoed by a central authority which knows almost nothing about it and has no sympathy with its objects.”
• Regarding too much individualism, “The greatness of the Greeks in individual achievement was, I think, intimately bound up with their political incompetence, for the strength of individual passion was the source both of individual achievement and of the failure to secure Greek unity.”
o “Rome’s attempt to unify the civilized world came to grief largely because, perhaps through being both remote and alien, it failed to bring any measure of instinctive happiness even to prosperous citizens. In its last centuries there was universal pessimism and lack of vigour. Men felt that life here on earth had little to offer, and this feeling helped Christianity to centre men’s thoughts on the world to come.” It seems, for many, these feelings persist to this day.
• “The impulse towards liberty, however, seems now to have lost much of its force among reformers; it has been replaced by the love of equality, which has been largely stimulated by the rise to affluence and power of new industrial magnates without any traditional claim to superiority.” Is Progressivism in its many modern manifestations just a big way to try to dunk on the Rich? As Pinker says, “Intellectuals who call themselves ‘progressive’ really hate progress.” Echoing Orwell, how dare The Rich outperform intellectuals.
• Regarding non-conformity and social progress, “… a community needs, if it is to prosper, a certain number of individuals who do not wholly conform to the general type. Practically all progress, artistic, moral, and intellectual, has depended upon such individuals, who have been a decisive factor in the transition from barbarism to civilization. If a community is to make progress, it needs exceptional individuals whose activities, though useful, are not of a sort that ought to be general. There is always a tendency in a highly organized society for the activities of such individuals to be unduly hampered, but on the other hand, if the community exercises no control, the same kind of individual initiative which may produce a valuable innovator may also produce a criminal. The problem, like all those with which we are concerned, is one of balance; too little liberty brings stagnation, and too much brings chaos.”
o “But all these men [Lenin, Robespierre, Genghis Khan], good and bad alike, had a quality which I should not wish to see disappear from the world – a quality of energy and personal initiative, of independence of mind, and of imaginative vision. A man who possesses these qualities if capable of doing much good, or of doing great harm, and if mankind is not to sink into dullness such exceptional men must find scope, though one could wish that the scope they find should be for the benefit of mankind.” Are these people simply the product of good, non-alcoholic, non-abusive, non-overly protective parents?
• “…spontaneous delight is no longer felt as something which it is important to be able to enjoy. Among comparatively unsophisticated populations folk dances and popular music still flourish… But as men grow more industrialised and regimented, the kind of delight that is common in children becomes impossible to adults, because they are always thinking of the next thing, and cannot let themselves be absorbed in the moment.” People have to eat, but they lose sight of also having fun in life.
o “The modern man lives a very different life. If he sings in the street he will be thought to be drunk, and if he dances a policeman will reprove him for impeding the traffic.”
o “Everything is organized, nothing is spontaneous. The Nazis organized “Strength Through Joy’, but joy prescribed by the government is likely to be not very joyful.”
• In an increasingly connected and more populous World, there are many to whom people can compare themselves. “If you wish to be a painter you will not be content to pit yourself against the men with similar desires in your own town; you will go to some school of painting in a metropolis where you will probably conclude that you are mediocre… you may be so discouraged that you are tempted to throw away your paint-brushes… for a certain degree of self confidence is essential to achievement….”
o “We know too much and feel too little. At least we feel too little of those creative emotions from which a good life springs. In regard to what is important we are passive; where we are active it is over trivialities. If life is to be saved from boredom relieved only by disaster, means must be found of restoring individual initiative, not only in things that are trivial, but in the things that really matter. I do not mean that we should destroy those parts of modern organization upon which the very existence of large populations depends, but I do mean that organization should be much more flexible, more relieved by local autonomy, and less oppressive to the human spirit through its impersonal vastness, than it has become through its unbearably rapid growth and centralization, with which our ways of thought and feeling have been able to keep pace.” We cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater, but people must find ways to pursue goals with things that matter to them, in a World which is impersonal.
• “Man differs from other animals in many ways. One of these is that he is willing to engage in activities that are unpleasant in themselves, because they are means to ends that he desires… [Animals] do not practise self-control or prudence or foresight or restraint of impulses by the will. Human beings do all these things. When they do more of them than human nature can endure, they suffer a psychological penalty. Part of this penalty is unavoidable in a civilized way of life, but much of it is unnecessary…” Some people are more willing than others to drive the garbage truck.
o “A boy will toil up hill with a toboggan for the sake of the few brief moments of bliss during the descent; no one has to urge him to be industrious, and however he may puff and pant he is still happy. But if instead of the immediate reward you promised him an old-age pension at seventy, his energy would very quickly flag... A man may spend years of hardship, danger, and poverty in attempts to climb Everest or reach the South Pole or make a scientific discovery, and live all the while as much in harmony with his own impulses as the boy with the toboggan, provided he ardently desires the end and puts his pride into overcoming obstacles. As the Red Indian said, ‘there’s glory in it’.”
 “Cottage gardens in county villages are often lovely, and may have cost much labour, but are not intended to bring any monetary reward… a money economy has replaced an economy in which things were produced for the use of the producer, and this change has caused commodities to be viewed as useful rather than delightful.” Through the (ever necessary) cult of the practical, we lose touch with the things that may brings us joy; the “Joyless Economy.”
o “Forethought, which involves doing unpleasant things now for the sake of pleasant things in the future, is one of the most essential marks of mental development. Since forethought is difficult and requires control of impulse, moralists stress its necessity, and lay more stress on the virtue of present sacrifice than on the pleasantness of the subsequent reward.”
• On incentives of organizations, similar to Sowell, “Moreover, it would be unduly optimistic to expect that governments, even if democratic, will always do what is best in the public interest. I have spoken before of some evils connected with bureaucracy; I wish now to consider those involved in the relation of the official to the public. In a highly organised community those who exercise governmental functions, from Ministers down to the most junior employees in local offices, have their own private interests, which by no means coincide with those of the community. Of these love of power and dislike of work are the chief… so he comes to seem, and to a certain extent to be, the enemy of those whom he is supposed to serve.”
o “Competition, where it exists, is an immensely powerful incentive. It has been generally decried by socialists as one of the evil things in a capitalist society, but the Soviet Government has restored it to a very important place in the organisation of industry.” Humans are naturally competitive.
 “But although competition, in many forms, is gravely objectionable, it has, I think, an essential part to play in the promotion of necessary effort, and in some spheres affords a comparatively harmless outlet for the kind of impulses that might otherwise lead to war… If two hitherto rival football teams, under the influence of brotherly love, decided to cooperate in placing the football first beyond one goal and then beyond the other, no one’s happiness would be increased… But if competition is not to become ruthless and harmful, the penalty for failure must not be disaster, as in war, or starvation, as in unregulated economic competition, but only loss of glory. Football would not be a desirable sport if defeated teams were put to death or left to starve.” Some might argue that our existing social safety nets ensure the penalty for failure is not starvation, but loss of glory. Markets and competition are the only way to organize complex human societies.
o “[John Spedan Lewis] has arguments against equality of remuneration, not only on the ground that those who difficult work deserve better pay, but, on the converse ground, that better pay is a cause of better work.” The ability as well as the will to use it vary, and are influenced by level of pay.
• Regarding duty and a sense of national duty, Russell makes remarks that pertain to all forms of duty, “[Duty] involves a sense of strain, and a constant resistance to natural impulses, which, if contained, must be exhausting and productive of a diminution of natural energy. If it is urged, not on the basis of some simple traditional ethic such as the Ten Commandments, but on complicated economic and political grounds, weariness will lead to scepticism as to the arguments involved, and many people will either become simply indifferent or adopt some probably untrue theory suggesting that there is a short cut to prosperity.

continued: https://underconsumed.substack.com/p/...