Asked • 04/20/19

How accurate is Russell on liberalism versus fanaticism in war?

After the second world war, reflecting on the rule of empiricism versus various kinds of dogmatism in political philosophy, Bertrand Russell writes (_Philosophy and Politics_, 1947; emphasis mine): > It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics, the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although all history, including that of the last few years, is against it. Fanatics have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the impossible, or because, even when what they aimed at was possible, they were too unscientific to adopt the right means; they have failed also because they roused hostility of those whom they wished to coerce. **In every important war since 1700 the more democratic side has been victorious.** **How accurate was Russell's assessment in 1947?** Has its accuracy changed since? To my naive knowledge of history, it seems particularly wrong for revolutions (I am thinking Iran, and some of the more recent ones), is that the case?

1 Expert Answer

By:

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Ask a question for free

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.

OR

Find an Online Tutor Now

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.