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.