Freedom and Organization

by Bertrand Russell

Written by one of the twentieth century’s most significant thinkers, Freedom and Organization, is considered to be Bertrand Russell’s major work on political history. It traces the main causes of political change during a period of one hundred years, which he argues were predominantly influenced by three major elements – economic technique, political theory and certain significant individuals. In the witty, approachable style that has made Bertrand Russell’s works so revered, he explores in detail the major forces and events that shaped the nineteenth century.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Politics, Nonfiction

432 pages, Paperback

Published September 1, 2009

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]

‎درود بر «برتراند راسل» خردمند و یادش همیشه گرامی باد
‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، زمانی 3 امپراتوریِ قدرتمندِ شرق اروپا، جهتِ تحمیل کردنِ نظامِ خودشان بر تمامیِ ارپا، با یکدیگر متحد بودند... آنهم اروپایی که از سالِ 1815 تا سالِ 1848 زمانی از صلح برخوردار بود و زمانی متحملِ استبداد بود... امّا زمانی رسید که دیگر قادر به تحمیلِ صلح نبودند و بر اثرِ چند علتِ مختلف که مهمترین آنها "ناسیونالیسمِ اسلاو" بود، کارشان به جنگ و ستیز کشیده شد و نتیجه اش جنگِ جهانی اول بود
‎عزیزانم، هوادارانِ «ملیّت» میگفتند: هر کشوری باید آزاد باشد که بتواند به تمامِ ترقیّاتِ مشروعِ خود دست یابد... امّا هوادارانِ «ناسیونالیسم» میگفتند: هر کشوری باید آزاد باشد تا بتواند به تمامِ ترقیّاتِ خود دست یابد، خواه این ترقیات مشروع باشد و خواه نباشد... بر اثرِ همین اختلافِ عقیده، «لیبرالیسم» به «امپریالیسم» تبدیل شد
‎باید به این موضوع اشاره کنم که «رادیکالیسم» بر خلافِ «لیبرالیسم»، از ملاحظاتِ اقتصادی الهام گرفته بود... «رادیکالها» حتی از «لیبرالها» هم فردگراتر بودند، زیرا آنها هیچ نفعی را در ملتها سراغ نمیکردند
‎جهان بینیِ «رادیکال» هایِ فلسفی تا حدِ زیادی با جهان بینیِ «سوسیالیست ها» مشترک بود، «سوسیالیست ها» اصلی ترین اختلافشان با « رادیکال» هایِ فلسفی در این بود که آنها جهان را از دیدگاهِ مزدبگیران نگاه میکردند نه از دیدگاهِ کارفرمایان
‎انسانِ متمدن را نمیشود به وسیلۀ احساسِ صلح جویی از یک خودکشیِ دست جمعی نجات داد، بلکه راهِ نجاتِ او یک "سازمانِ اقتصادیِ جهانی" است
‎دوستانِ خردگرا، این کتاب تقریباً از 520 صفحه و 4 بخش تشکیل شده است... <برتراند راسل> کتاب را با اصلِ مشروعیت و توضیحی در موردِ جانشینانِ ناپلئون آغاز کرده است و سپس از پیشرفتِ فکر و زندگیِ روستایی و زندگیِ صنعتی سخن به میان آورده است
‎کتاب حول پژوهش در موردِ <سوسیالیسم> و<لیبرالیسم> چرخیده است و در موردِ دموکراسی در انگلیس و آمریکا توضیحاتِ بسیار خوب و مفیدی ارائه نموده است
‎تقریباً 100 صفحه از پایانِ کتاب به سخن در موردِ <ناسیونالیسم> و <امپریالیسم>، اختصاص یافته است

‎امیدوارم این ریویو جهتِ آشناییِ شما بزرگواران، با این کتاب بسیار ارزشمند، مفید و کافی بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Xander · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Freedom and Organisation (1934), philosopher Bertrand Russell presents us with a glaring analysis of the nineteenth century. According to Russell, the nineteenth century started with the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo (1815) and ended with the First World War (1918). During this time, so Russell claims, there was an interaction between (1) Economic techniques (i.e. the discovery of new agricultural methods and the rise of industrialism), (2) political theory (i.e. the British Radicals, and the rise of liberalism and socialism) and (3) key historical figures (like Bismarck and Nicolai II). These three factors combined to produce the twentieth century, and Russell uses the whole of this book to explain the world wide changes taking place.

In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, there arose the Congress of Viena, in which the major powers - Russia, Prussia, Austria, England and (later on) France - decided to rule the continent to promote peace. The founding principle of this peace was the principle of legitimacy, which said that the monarchies that were destroyed by Napoleon had a legitimate claim to restoration - leading in effect to a status quo in Europe.

During the same time, in England there arose a group of thinkers who called themselves the Radicals. The founding father of this group was Jeremy Bentham, other major figures included James Mill, his son John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo. This group was promoting free trade, democracy (for all), and utilitarian ethical precepts ('the greatest happiness for the greatest number').

The main (economical) line of thought of the Radicals was that human beings procreate faster than they can improve agricultural production - leading to growing poverty and hence to decreasing populations. This Malthusian cycle would continue until human beings would improve morally, meaning, of course, they would abstain from sexual intercourse or use contraceptives. Landowners promote the existence of tariffs, since this makes their land worth more (since no food can get into the country) at the cost of farmers who rented these lands, leading to increased hunger, disease and poverty. To increase the greatest happiness of the greatest number, we should use contraceptives and promote free trade.

In the middle of the nineteenth century socialism took hold in England, and, later on, on the Continent as well. Socialism, in the form of Marxism, was a reaction to the brutal and abhorrent treatment of human beings - including women and children - by capitalists. Children had to work for over 14 hours a day for a loan that was almost non-existent; women and men were treated in the same abject manner. Marx and Engels whitnessed these wrongs firsthand and started to promote their (international) socialism. A key insight that Marx gave to posterity was the tendency of capitalistic competition to gradually turn into a monopoly - or more precise, a plutocracy.

After describing marxism, Russell takes a leap to the United States of America to describe how the different presidents promoted and instituted different ideas. Jefferson was a true liberal, promoting democracy and the power of the people to live as free as possible. Jackson, on the other hand, was an adept of corporatism, striving, in effect, for the institution of a plutocracy, in which a select group of extremely rich and powerful men would decide the fate of the country. Intermingled with these differences in ideas (liberalism versus corporatism) are the developments in the New World: the settlement of the West (including the genocide of the Indian tribes), the debate about the abolition of slavery, and the subsequent Civil War - leading to the victory of the corporatists.

The United States of America saw the translation of Marx's ideas into practice: the rise of rich tycoons, who schemed and tricked their rivals, the government and the Americans, and got rich by corporate finance, the steel industry and the oil industry. These men - the likes of Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller and J.P.S. Morgan - got rich and powerful by destroying and buying out competition, in effect leading to the plutocracy that Jackson wanted. (This corporate system, by the way, goes on to this day.)

Meanwhile on the Continent, liberalism was associated with nationalism. It was this combination which led, according to Russell, to imperialism. The European nation-states, led by England, France and Germany, viewed their people as the chosen one, and saw liberalism as the means to promote international gains. Liberalism aboard, totalitarianism at home. This led to a competition to acquire as much colonial possessions as possible and, hence, to brutal exploitation of indigenous people.

The most important nation-state during this time was Germany. Germany was united under the scheming and plotting of Otto von Bismarck, who tricked the Kaiser into conquering Schleswig-Holstein, Alsace-Lorraine, and uniting Northern and Southern Germany at the cost of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The leading principle in the unification of Germany was nationalism, which was defined in terms of blood and language - the German people were superior to other races and, hence, had to create their own nation. This was achieved in 1871 and in the aftermath of this historical moment Germany started the race to surpass the other European powers in economic, political and colonial power.

The rise of Germany and the changes in Russia led the European powers to continually make treaties with each other to suppress others. This process of diplomatic nepotism was mainly motivated by royal incest: the royal families of England, Germany, Austria and Russia were all related to each other. Princes expressed their family rivalries by forming coalitions with or against other princes. This intricate web of alliances and bonds led to a situation in which only a minor incident - such as the killing of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 in Serbia - would inevitably lead to a worldwide conflict.

In the aftermath of World War 1, the world decided that Germany was the only guilty party involved, leading to the hard treatment of the Germans at the Treaty of Versailles, in which the Germans lost the region of Alsace-Lorraine to France and were obliged to pay impossibly high reparations to the other European nations. This is where Russell ends the book, and this is where the twentieth century starts. This book clearly shows how Hitler was a product of the power politics of the European nation-states, even though this is left unspoken most of the time. The same with Russia: the international diplomatic web had a major role in the rise of Lenin and subsequently Stalin - either by directly setting up Lenin with money and opportunities for taking over power, or by indirectly supporting the wrong sides in the Russian civil war of 1917.

Russell isn't a historian, but I view this, overall, as a major plus: he is able to write in his own peculiar sarcastic style and, hence, is able to make important points without making these points abstract. I love Russell's style and tone of voice when he spots moral wrongs. Yet I can't give this book a very high score - it is too much outdated for this. Russell writes for contemporary readers, who were familiar with recent history, like we are familiar with our own recent historical epoch. This makes the book hard to follow at times (for example, when Russell describes the lives of the key figures involved and he makes references to events and outlooks that we aren't familiar with).

It is a good book to read, easy to follow, but it is slightly one-sided and not really that complete. It's a good work for becoming familiar with the events that led to the twentieth century - nothing more, nothing less.

[Carmel-by-the-Sea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Przenikliwość analitycznego umysłu Bertranda Russella widoczna jest w każdym typie publikacji tego logika. Niezależnie czy pisze o historii, filozofii, teorii względności czy matematyce, zawsze kroczy rzadko uczęszczanymi ścieżkami myśli niezależnych i bezkompromisowych.

W książce "Wiek XIX", która jest niemal klasyczną monografią, dostajemy kilka kluczowych, według autora, elementów świata okresu 1814-1914. Russell w pełni świadomie skupił się na prześledzeniu wybranych zjawisk - 'przetasowaniu' europejskiej polityki po Kongresie Wiedeńskim, rozwoju idei ekonomii politycznej w Anglii, zreferowaniu głównych postulatów socjalizmu i marksizmu, narodzinach kapitalizmu amerykańskiego, rozwoju świadomości narodowej i nacjonalizmu na przykładzie Włoch i Niemiec oraz kilku emblematycznych przykładach kolonializmu.

Ponieważ książka powstała w 1934 roku, widmo militaryzmu hitlerowskiego przebrzmiewa wielokrotnie w tle dywagacji XIX-wiecznych. Szczególnie widać to w partiach opisujących niemieckie zjednoczenie, zarówno to formalne pod przywództwem Prusa, ale i dokonane mentalnie w umysłach ludzi w konsekwencji dominującej ideologii Fichtego skupionej na budowaniu dumy narodowej i potrzebie integracji wokół wspólnego narodowego planu. Podobnie, również w stosunku do swojej współczesności międzywojennej, odniósł Russell analizy postulatów Marksa. Stanowiły one istotny teoretyczny komponent emancypacji robotników, lecz w karykaturalnej formie posłużyły politykom do zniewolenia ludzi w wieku następnym.

Z punktu widzenia sposobu uprawiania dyskursu historycznego, Russell jest klasycznie staromodny. W swojej pracy narrację oparł na kilku dominujących ideologiach (liberalizm, radykalizm, legitymizm) i globalnych procesach dziejowych charakterystycznych dla opisywanego okresu (kolonializm, militaryzm, monopole gospodarcze). Do tego nurt historycznych przemian w jego ujęciu jest realizacją planów dominujących jednostek (od Metternicha po Bismarcka). Obecnie modne stało się łączenie historii ze zjawiskami natury przyrodniczej (od zmian klimatycznych po dysfunkcje układu pokarmowego przywódców). Stąd "Wiek XIX" stanowi ciekawy kontrapunkt w pejzażu możliwych historycznych analiz. Russell dość sarkastycznie podsumowuje przesadne wiązanie pewnych zjawisk w dyskurs, który może prowadzić do karykatury:

"Historię można ujmować w rozmaity sposób i można by wynaleźć wiele formuł ogólnych, które będą wydawać się dostatecznie uzasadnione, jeśli zwróci się uwagę na odpowiednio dobrane i przemawiające za nimi fakty. Mógłbym zaproponować na przykład – nie przywiązując zresztą do swojej koncepcji nadmiernej wagi – następującą nową teorię dotyczącą przyczyn rozwoju przemysłu: industrializm powstał dzięki nowożytnej nauce, nowożytna nauka powstała dzięki Galileuszowi, Galileusz zawdzięcza swe istnienie Kopernikowi, Kopernik Odrodzeniu, Odrodzenie upadkowi Konstantynopola, upadek Konstantynopola wędrówkom Turków, zaś wędrówki Turków spowodowane zostały przez suszę w Azji Środkowej. Dlatego w poszukiwaniu czynników, które prowadzą do przemian historycznych, należy skierować główną uwagę na znajdujące się na powierzchni ziemi obszary wodne – czyli na hydrografię."

Ponieważ w tym korespondencyjnym sporze jestem bliższy stanowisku Russella, to z rezerwą odbieram chociażby popularne ostatnio książki Yuvala Noaha Harariego, jako czasem zbyt powierzchowny holizm łączenia wszystkiego w relacje.

Pracę Russella oceniam bardzo wysoko, głównie za jego chłodny dystans i zabójczą logikę w punktowaniu niespójności ideologii różnej proweniencji. Wprost genialnie opisał zakulisowe gierki dyplomatyczne okresu ponapoleońskiego. Świetnie obnażył cynizm angielskich przemysłowców i arystokratów, którzy przyczyniali się bądź nie reagowali na piekło zgotowane dzieciom biedoty zapędzanym do wielogodzinnej pracy fabrycznej. Zaś to, jak opisał amerykański kapitalizm stalowy i naftowy, zasługuje według mnie na literackiego Nobla. Bezwzględność i kult zysku wykreowały nieciekawe indywidua, stanowiące do dziś wzorzec zaradności czy sprytu - Carnegie, Rockefeller czy Morgan. Przekupstwo, zastraszenia i cynizm w napychaniu własnych kieszenie ponad miarę, było ich codziennością (stalownie Andrew Carnegie przynosiły rocznie 40 mln $ zysku, z czego 25 mln $ przypadało jemu). Jeśli do tego się doda, że opłacani sędziowie i politycy pośrednio współtworzyli ten trustowy model monopoli, amerykański mit od 'pucybuta do milionera' nabiera odpowiedniego kontekstu.

"Wiek XIX" jest książką o świadomie założonej i konsekwentnie pilnowanej optyce. Sytuacja społeczna, choć nie jest na pierwszym planie, to stanowi istotny element tła zobrazowany nielicznymi, choć bardzo dosadnymi przykładami (wyzysk robotników, niewolnictwo amerykańskie, tępienie ludności afrykańskiej zamieszkującej tereny obfitujące w złoto czy diamenty). Bardzo cenne były liczne wstawki o obyczajowości arystokracji. Russell, jako wnuk premiera brytyjskiego, nie szczędzi czytelnikowi smaczków z wyższych sfer, które znał z reguły z pierwszej ręki. Skupienie się na kilku wybranych postaciach, które decydowały o losach świata, pozwoliło mu na odmalowanie portretu psychologicznego zbiorowego umysłu człowieka z XIX wieku - człowieka, który jednostkowe namiętności musiał odnieść do potężnych ideologii i industrializacji przyśpieszającego świata.

Gorąco zachęcam do lektury "Wieku XIX-ego" i do zmierzenia się z niepokojącymi wnioskami pióra wnikliwego obserwatora.

WYBITNA - 9/10

[Ollie · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’re going to learn about history, why not do it from the best? I have to hand it to Bertrand Russell (because the main hasn’t been praised enough) for these inventive books which are both unique in their content and style.

Freedom and Organization has an odd content which is to analyze the main influences of 1814-1914 that shaped the world. Maybe this century is of such importance because with depleted resources and uncharted land, the western powers can now only compete with each other.

Much in the style of his must-read History of Western Philosophy, Freedom and Organization focuses on the topics, ideas, and men (sorry, ladies) who influenced Europe and America (only the US) in this century. Written in his trademark wit and beautiful sentence structures, Russell knows how to focus on the parts that are important to the reader.

I suspect that this book is somewhat limited in the depth of its subjects, but it’s still a thorough analysis of the century with topics like Capitalism, Democracy, Competition, Economics, Socialism, Slavery, Imperialism, and men such as Mill, Owen, Marx, Bismarck and others. So yes, it seems like details are being left out, but the scope is still remarkable. And once again, we are left with another book by Bertrand Russell which might just be essential reading to everyone.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 4 out of 5]

Russell wrote this in 1934, and his attempt to diagnose the Great War and the rise of Hitler and Soviet Russia in examining the century after Napoleon is not unnoticed by the reader. While there are certainly better books currently available that, with the benefit of modern scholarship and new sources, do better justice to the period, none are written by an author who is, intellectually, adequately able to examine the various ideologies and institutions that sprung from this period (Marxism, Utilitarianism, Nationalism, Early British Socialism, Ricardo's economics, Liberalism, Conservatism, large Corporations etc) and highlight the virtues and pitfalls of each. Russell establishes early on that his history will not follow Carlyle's style of being simply a history of "great men", but he not forget to examine the men who dominated the political and intellectual climate of this period: Bismarck, Marx, Engels, Bentham, Mill, etc. Notwithstanding the aforementioned benefits of this book, there is no greater pleasure for a younger writer than to bask his or her mind in Russell's simple style, so full of wit, and learn from so admirable a person.

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

Superb mix of political philosophy and history.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought it was interesting to read how James Mill brought together those philosophers of the English Enlightenment, Jeremy Bentham, with his principle of happiness for the greatest number, and David Ricardo, who changed this doctrine to conform to the burgeoning system of class-warfare that would engulf mid-19th century Europe; this new system of economic principles would later tun into the historical materialism of Karl Marx, whose greatest disciple, Vladimir Lenin, would be born in 1870 in impoverished circumstance and, although consequently he had an absolute worship of commodity capitalism, Russell finds that, in seeking to implement the political policies of his idol Marx, Lenin caused Russia's dire plunge into abject misery, a period we know would extend until this very moment. Three stars.

[Giulio Ciacchini · Rating 4 out of 5]

Questo saggio è un grande affresco degli avvenimenti e delle idee politiche, economiche e filosofiche più importanti del XIX secolo in occidente.

La prima parte sul congresso di Vienna e vita rurale un po' noiosa.
Mentre i capitoli sui Filosofi radicali, Malthus, Bentham, Ricardo, Mill sono davvero ben fatti.
Quello che rende scorrevole e interessante questo libro sono l'aggiunta di scritti autentici che arricchiscono e chiariscono molti concetti espressi da Russell.
Come quando la Royal society si esprime contro l'istruzione popolare perchè "insegnerebbe loro a sdegnare il loro posto nella vita, invece di farne agricoltori".
O quando si sofferma sulla particolare istruzione di John Stuart Mill che fin da bambino si dilettava con greco e logica aristotelica.

Le teoria socialiste e comuniste di Owen, Marx ed Engels sono spiegate in maniera eccellente.
Così come la nascita del free trade e la caduta dei monopoli di stato.

Infine lo spaccato sulla nascita della democrazia statunitense e dei suoi conflitti interni, compresa un'ampia parentesi sulla schiavitù, coronano un saggio notevole.

Consigliato per chi abbia voglia di rispolverare i passaggi chiave del XIX secolo.

[Cemal Duman · Rating 5 out of 5]

If life would be a Role-Playing-Game this book would increase intelligent stats 3 point. B. Russell has gave a snapshot of 19th century which has shaped events of 20th century. Some parts were hard for me because it requires broad european history understanding. I had used google a lot on thos sections. But russell connected social , political and economical structure of age so well those come to a great conclusion and all parts make sense.

[Matteo Celeste · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il testo di Russell fu pubblicato per la prima volta nel 1934. Tra chiarezza espositiva e brillante polemica, qui egli dà conto delle tre cause che, a suo avviso, hanno portato alla «trasformazione politica avvenuta nei cento anni tra il 1814 e il 1914», ossia: «tecnica economica, teoria politica e forti individualità». Interessante è far notare come la visione di questi tre fattori sia integrata nella trattazione di Russell, consentendo al lettore di avere un quadro completo e interconnesso dei mutamenti e dei principali fatti che nel secolo considerato dall'autore occorsero, nonché dei protagonisti che, a vario titolo, lo animarono e ne influenzarono il corso.
Ma in "Storia delle idee del secolo XIX" vi è, purtroppo, anche della previsione, nutrita dalla convinzione che quelle cause che portarono lentamente alla prima guerra mondiale non cessarono d'esistere alla fine della stessa: nel concludere il libro, Russell scrive infatti: «Le stesse cause che provocarono la guerra nel 1914 sono tuttora operanti, e, a meno che non siano infrenate da un controllo internazionale di investimento e di materie prime, produrranno inevitabilmente lo stesso effetto, ma su scala ancor più vasta. Non con i sentimenti pacifisti, ma con una organizzazione economica mondiale, l'umanità civile potrà essere salvata dal suicidio collettivo».

[Richie Arvidson]

Looked into this after Russell cut short his Marx segment in History. Very much with a view to how events/systems led up to WWI(spoiler). Published in 1934, right before round 2, but he saw that coming. Closer look at the different forms of transitions away from hereditary rule/ to (but not always, or effective) parliamentary politics. Big theme: trends of organization within states, but freedom (read: anarchy) between them- no international government leads to international war. At some point someone isn’t going to get their way.
Illuminating breakdown of Marx’s shortcomings- removes metaphysical/teleological framework and the theory/analyses still stands. Marx didn’t understand the power of nationalism, or how intermingled capital/labor could become. Anyone with a savings account is capital. More to lose than our chains.

[Amin Dashti · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب تلفیقی است از تاریخ اندیشه و تاریخ اقتصاد جهان و تاریخ سیاسی اروپا در قرن نوزدهم و سیر تحول جهان در این قرن. آشنایی مقدماتی با مکاتب فلسفی و تاریخ سیاسی اروپا در قرون هیجده و نوزده به فهم بیشتر کتاب کمک می کند.

[Ahad Mdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

تحلیل خوبی و بی طرف است از شکل گیری مکاتبی چون لیبرالیسم،سوسیالیسم،مارکسیسم، ناسیونالسیم و امپریالیسم.
نوشته های برتراند ارتور راسل غنیمتی است در باب ارزش های جهان معاصر