Well, I won't defend myself, because, as I said, having written the piece too quickly, I left the adjectives to do the work.
We must be referring to different Lukes' texts - mine is a short essay by him published in a very slim volume (yours is obviously a collection). The Russell I'm referring to was published in 1938 (Power - A New Social Analysis) and is very much written as a third way between Marxism and neo-classical economics (not that that is in itself an argument against him).
Was Russell a fraud? A loveable one perhaps. In later life he campaigned against the bomb and the Vietnam War (organising a war crimes tribunal with his secretary, Ralph Schoenman - what happened to him?), but early after the second world war he recommended a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the then un-nuclear soviets.
Russell's pacifism was sometimes said to involve an immediate armistice on the basis of Britain's colonial Empire. He did go to prison for his pacifist agitation several times (the first time he was allowed under prison rules of the time to have a servant, being a gentleman who could not be expected to dress himself, but I've never been able to find out whether one was recruited from the prison population, or specially imprisoned to fill the position).
The great tragedy of his life was the destruction of his axiomatic system of mathematics by the persisting problem of the paradox of the classes (a version of the Cretan liar paradox, in fact). It 'put an end to the logical honeymoon I was enjoying. I communicated the misfortune to Whitehead, who failed to console me by quoting "never glad confident morning again".' In his Autobiography, Russell adds 'I did not attempt to work, but the summers of 1903 and 1904 remain in my mind as a period of complete intellectual deadlock,' adding 'it seemed that the rest of my life might be consumed looking at that blank sheet of paper'. (p151)
So yes I probably was being harsh on the grand old man of English philosophy. -- Jim heartfield