Bertrand Russell is
generally considered as one of the commanding literary figures of the 20th
century. He was a great philosopher, political theorist, prose writer,
rationalist, and mathematician. Apart from his broad works we will focus on one
of his essay ‘Future of Mankind’, a politico-ideal attempt and prediction of
the coming age. Russell being a keen observer had seen the repercussion of
World War I as well as World War II. He wrote this essay after World War II,
and in this piece of writing, he predicted the future of humankind and the
world. Let’s take a close look at it to understand the third point (favoring a
single government) of Russell.
Russell started his
essay by emphasizing three possibilities, but by following the question I will
focus on the third one. Unification of all the military powers into a single
government. Bertrand Russell was in the favor of a unified single military
government that run all the systems of the world. He augmented this point by
employing different ways, the victory of the United States of America, and the submission
of Russia. This possibility according to Russell can be fulfilled by mutual
agreements. He openly favored the dominancy of America due to many rational
points. America and its Second World War alliance can mutually agree to
maintain the stability of the world. He warned if a third world war happens,
the world wipes out from existence. So in order to save the future of mankind,
a ruling country should control all the systems, and that country according to
him should be America. Russell speaks out in these words in his famous essay.
“My reason for siding with America is that there is in that country more
respect than in Russia for the things that I value in a civilized way of
life.
The things I have in
mind are such as freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion,
and humane feeling.” There are some other points as well that compelled Russell
to take the side of America over the USSR. The idea of a single government is
criticized by many critics that it seemed Utopian Ideal which is impossible
because of many reasons. Nor Russia will accept it, neither other independent
countries. Through this step according to Russell, the defense expenditure can
be lessened and corruption wiped easily. Definitely, these things lead to world
happiness. Bertrand Russell favored American superiority over the Soviet Union,
not due to capitalism and communism rather on a freedom basis. He argued that
the extent of freedom is much more in America than in Russia. People of America
are modern in every aspect of life while Russian is orthodox and conservative.
In Russia, everyone strictly has to follow the interest of the state, but in
America, there is more freedom for everyone regardless of profession.
According to Me:
The establishment of
the United Nations Organization in 1945, might be the idea of Russell that
followed. The Veto members of UNO are America, British, and France with the
majority while on the other hand Russia and China have a minority. No doubt,
the majority of members show that America and its Alliance have become
successful to control Russia.
The third possibility
seems ridiculous and impossible due to many reasons. The most powerful atomic
country Russia and it's neighbor China the economic hub will never accept it if
they reshape the structure of UNO which openly restricts Russia in the future.
Every country has its own defense system and eight countries have nuclear
capability, and they never surrender their freedom in front of America. NATO
was created by America and Britain to hold control all over the world, and they
fought against Afghanistan but badly failed to do so. In short, Russia, and
other military powers including Pakistan will never accept the monopoly of only
one or two nations. In the current political scenario and the above discussed
nuclear capabilities of many states never want the sole control of the USA. So
the third point of Russell for me is Utopian Ideal and has no worth at all. It
seems impossible, but my discussion does not reject the intellectuality of the
great philosopher. It can also be rejected by arguing that the cold war between
Russia and the USA ended up around the 1990s and there is no such prediction we
can make.
Further discussion is
done by SOL
