Reviews

The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper

Only show reviews with written explanations

tsuntsun's review

Go to review page

informative slow-paced

4.0

luisdiegop94's review

Go to review page

challenging hopeful informative reflective slow-paced

4.75

This was originally published in 1945, and in my opinion many of Popper's criticisms do not hold up very well today especially with the hindsight of the past few decades of neoliberalism. Democracy's insidious yielding to corporate interests over time seems to me to align pretty well with Marx’s claim of the impotence of politics to affect change in the face of the underlying power relationship enabling economic exploitation. Regardless Popper makes a great case against historicism and utopian social engineering (whether or not anyone actually still holds these views is a different question) and instead for a realistic "piecemeal" approach to politics grounded in fallibilism. The most important idea here is that it is misguided to attempt to preemptively design a perfect, or even functional society - that to do so is not only arrogant but inevitably leads to a totalitarian resistance to any ideas that deviate from "the plan". To Popper we should instead approach political solutions with humility, assuming we will get things wrong but at the bare minimum to have a system of institutions that can make changes/reforms over time, i.e. that facilitate progress in a scientific way - and this is what a democracy with checks and balances enables through its ability to peacefully remove those in power. I personally think this is the right idea, but what's here is too incomplete from a contemporary perspective to inspire much faith in democracy especially after the last four years of Trump. A similar "realistic" approach to politics is argued for in Philosophy and Real Politics by Raymond Guess, I think I'll have to give that another read.

criss's review

Go to review page

slow-paced

5.0

zmb's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Come for the defense of the open society, stay for the sick Hegel burns.

Popper's work is concerned with the defense of the open society - liberal democracy as a political system, with policies underpinned by piecemeal social engineering with humanitarian aims - against its enemies - totalitarians of various stripes.

The first volume deals largely with Plato, whom Popper regards as a genius who lost his moral way, abandoning and then reversing the humanitarianism of his mentor, Socrates, and his generation of Periclean democrats. In its stead, in the Statesman, the Laws, and most of all in the Republic, is a racial dictatorship where anything the racial leaders do to keep the population quiescent is justified. Lies, violence, and eugenics are all justified in pursuit of totalitarian "justice" and "truth". But since Plato's early dialogues are imbued with the true spirit of Socrates, and since Plato is such a brilliant writer, he has deceived many humanitarian defenders of the open society into agreeing with his closed, totalitarian tribalism. I find this attack on Plato to be extremely devastating and I don't think I will ever look at him the same way.

The second volume is largely concerned with Hegel and with Marx. As opposed to Plato, who Popper regards as an evil genius, Hegel is simply evil; there is no genius to be found. The sick burns of Hegel are really quite hilarious, though Hegel's influence on philosophy is not quite so funny. The argument is that Hegel, as a toady of the absolutist Prussian government that sponsored him, revived Plato's right-wing, racial totalitarianism, by bombastically contending that the Spirit of the Nation is the true actor of history and is always just. For Spirit, substitute race, and you have the fascists of a century after Hegel; since the awful places where this philosophy leads are pretty obvious Popper does not spend much more time criticizing it.

Instead, he turns to Marx. His contention is that Marx is much misunderstood; he is a humanitarian (though he may not admit it), who was unable to shake off his Hegelian education and that led him to try to create immutable laws of history and to not renounce violence, both fatal errors. On his humanitarianism, Popper argues that Marx saw the insane exploitation of the workers of the 1850s - children working 18 hour days for starvation wages only to die before they were 18 - and was fundamentally revolted. This led him to socialism, but his Hegelian upbringing led him to try and prophecy socialism out of history, in which he failed. The workers succeeded in uniting enough to change many parts of their fate via the ballot box, rather than by a Communist revolution. However, Popper argues that because of their faith in that revolution, the worker's parties failed to do as much with their power as they could have in the early nineteenth century - that Marxists really didn't have a plan for gradually reforming society because Marx thought that only revolutionary change counted. Further, the ambiguity around the use of violence to effect revolutionary change triggered a corresponding readiness to use violence among the owners of capital, giving us the fascists, who, as owners of capital, had access to better guns. And even in the place where the Communists had a successful (violent) revolution - Russia - Lenin quickly discovered that there wasn't really a plan after the revolution. So he clung to power and created a totalitarianism of the left, appropriating Marxist slogans to benefit his own party. So Marx's desire to help the workers was admirable, but his program - due largely to his Hegelian historical prophecies - led to disaster.

As an attack on totalitarianisms of the right (Plato, Hegel) and the left (Marx), Popper could hardly be more devastating. But he has a positive social program as well. In place of utopian social engineering - the complete reformation of society based on race or class - Popper offers a defense of piecemeal social engineering, what we might call nowadays liberal incrementalism, with a goal of minimizing suffering. Revolutions are justified only in removing an un-democratic regime and replacing it with democratic institutions - doing more invites the rule of the strongman. Social policies should be conducted as experiments, to discover what is most effective in alleviating suffering. This may be less romantic that Marx's program of total revolution, but it is much more effective.

I would recommend this book to everyone. The Open Society needs its defenders now as much as ever. Not only must we contend with the re-emergence of racial totalitarianisms and the attack from Plato, we are also confronted with a desire to return to the conditions of capitalism that so enraged Marx - capital accumulation, wage stagnation, and a rollback of the intervention of the state to help the needy, defended by an authoritarian (as against humanitarian) version of Christianity. We have an open society, and it is up to us to keep it, and to improve it.

coatiwrangler's review

Go to review page

4.0

3½ to 4 stars.

inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark informative inspiring reflective tense slow-paced

3.0

Overview:

Closed societies reinforce officially claimed rules, often through repression and totalitarianism. Closed societies resist change, and resist learning from experiences. Within an open society, criticisms are welcome. Open societies are inclusive to different people, interests, and ideas. The open society learns from experiences. Society cannot delegate all their thinking, even to those deemed the best of decision makers. For everyone makes mistakes.

Closed societies have people determine what to do, without allowing for criticism. Totalitarian regimes consider any criticism as hostile, as they are a challenge to the authority. This process leads to surprise and contradictions. Wanting to be correct, and therefore ignore contradictory evidence is not limited to totalitarian decision makers. Without criticism, the decision makers can get more influence, even when they are against freedom and reason. Reluctance to criticize bad ideas leads to the destruction of good ideas. Humanitarian claims can be made by their deadliest enemies, as totalitarian regimes often get favored for their humanitarian claims. Under the guise of humanitarian allies, they generate disunion and confusion.

Alternatively, the open society prevents people from hiding their contradictions. Those who desire an open society want to reject absolute authority, and reject the values that are hurting human kind. The open society wants rational criticism. To find values, whether new or old, that raise the standards of freedom. The open society declares an unwillingness to delegate all responsibility for thinking to others in authority.

Social Engineering:

The open society is intimately tied to Popper’s views on science, which is defined by a need to put conjectures to experimental tests. There is tension in the challenges that open society has for its claims, but there is far more tension in closed society. For Popper, it was democratic inquiry that facilitated finding values that were wanted to be achieved, and the experts who explain how to achieve that.

Popper supported piecemeal social engineering, and was opposed to large scale social engineering. Plato thought large scale social engineering was needed. Utopian engineering tends to try to be large scale, effecting the whole society. Grand scale social engineering is too complicated to be managed practically. Alternatively, piecemeal engineering is much simpler. Small scale engineering can experiment with appropriate ways. To make adjusts to policy designs. To bring in science to politics, and to learn from mistakes. Wrong ways, will not damage everyone. The potential damage will be localized. Small scale engineering is also politically viable for they are less risky, and therefore also more practical.

What Is Historicism?

Historicism is the use of science founded upon laws of history to obtain predictions and prophecies. Historicism is a misunderstanding of the method of science. Under historicism, all historical events are interpreted as leading to an ultimate outcome. Historicist theories depend on group formation, elements of collectivism. A tribe, or larger groups, that the individual cannot exist without.

What the historicist do, is find the origin and historic role of institutions to find their destiny. They interpret history to discover laws of development to obtain historical forecasts. Fascism and Marxian are different version of historical philosophies that see different prophecies, but both are totalitarian. Fascism has a feature for racialism, in which history is interpreted as a struggle between different races for mastery. With in Marx’s views, history is interpreted as a struggle between the different classes for economic supremacy.

Natural vs Normative Laws:

The distinction between natural and normative laws become blurred. Natural laws reflect physical realities. Laws of nature that either are or are not true. No exceptions to natural laws. Uncertainties about them are hypothesis. Humans cannot control natural laws. Humans can use natural laws for technical purposes.

Normative laws are those that reflect human social structure. Normative laws are legislature, and needs to be enforced by people. Legislature that can be altered. Legislature that provides direction for behavior. Their enforcement subject to human actions and decisions, requiring human sanction. Some decisions are impossible as they contradict natural laws.

Does History Have Meaning:

History does not have meaning, but people can give it meaning. As history becomes interpreted, it provides impetus for change in the present. History is based on interpretations, which continually change.

Popper did not believe in a separation been ideas and theories. Every observation contains preconceptions. Theories define which facts are selected. History, is no different than science in the selection of facts. There is always a point of view. This does not legitimate purposely falsifying anything. But, that it is difficult to decide on the truth or false value of ideas.

Heraclitus:

Earliest forms of historicism come from Heraclitus. Heraclitus emphasized change, with an immutable law of destiny. Setting up the contradiction of change, contemporaneously with unchangeable laws. Resisting change, while also demanding it. Change breaks the stability that society needs, while also the need to change to social circumstances.

Heraclitus also elevated certain people who had reason that came from a mystical intuitive understanding. That mystical intuition gives those people power, to be able to understand the more appropriate way of behavior.

Plato:

Plato exhibited Greek culture at the time. A culture situated in a cosmic setting. Plato through that Plato’s era was depraved, due to a historical tendency towards decay. Plato also thought that it was possible to end the process of decay through human effort. Not just human effort, but superhuman effort. A law of decay broken by wise humans, with powerful human reason. A contradiction, for breaking the law of decay is part of the law of historical destiny. Degeneration was part of moral degeneration, which had the consequent of political degeneration. Intertwined with racial degeneration.

For Plato, everything that preserves is good, while anything that corrupts is evil. Change leads away from the perfect originator. Copies are rarely perfect replicas. Copies have errors, which are a corruption of the perfect. This is part of the law of increasing decay and corruption, for copies of copies will have even more errors. Although, Plato thinks that change and decay can be defied by someone of a good soul.

The historical tendency towards corruption could be prevented by preventing change. By arresting all political change. Without change, there is no degeneration. Without change, there would be no evil. Central to Plato’s philosophy is are the Forms (or Idea). Perfect and unchanging things. The Platonic Form is the origin of things. Sustainable virtues.

Plato was looking for knowledge that would not change. Knowledge used to understand the changing world and society. To understand the political changes, and the historical laws. To understand how to rule humans. Without some knowledge that would not change, it would make comparisons between the same ideas. Essences that can be discovered with intellectual intuition. Essences are the proper name to related things, a definition.

Plato provided a philosophic defense for those who claim to have an unchallengeable insight into the operations of reality. Plato created a hierarchy of people, with the few enlightened and the rest thoughtless.

Plato favored communally shared resources, and people. Communism directed by a ruling class. For the ruling class to be effective, the family structure must be disassembled. The family must cover the whole warrior class. Communism that is meant to prevent disunion. There are more conditions for the stability of the ruling class. Conditions such as division of the classes, identity of state with the ruling class. The ruling class is meant to be educated and make decisions based on collective interests of the members. Popper identifies additional conditions based on the same logic. Conditions such as a monopoly of military training, while exclusion from economic activity. The aim of the state is autarky. The ideas that the ruling class views have to be the same. Alternatives to economics or ideas would undermine stability. Popper considers this program totalitarian.

Plato recognized that even the best people, still depend on others and cannot be self-sufficient. Society and the individual depend on each other for their existence. Individual lack of self-sufficiency gives rise to the society. Gives rise to the state. Perfection depends on the state. It is the state that protects the perfection of the people. The state provides the social conditions for the perfection of the people. The state takes priority over people, for it is the state that can be self-sufficient.

Contemporary views on what humanitarian means is equal rights for citizens, an impartial justice system, and equal opportunities. Traditional Greek ideas about justice appear close to contemporary usage, but Plato was opposed to this usage. For Plato justice would be what is best for the state. Which would involve arresting change, and maintaining class division and class rule. Plato seems to have wanted those within a class to be treated as equals, but not those across classes. Different classes would get different treatment. Also, Plato disapproved of democracy because it provided equality to everyone.

Those who agree with Plato, still claim that rulers are not always good or wise. Popper would advise to prepare for bad governance and leaders, rather than expect the best. Which does raise the concern of whom should rule, and how can bad leaders be preventing from damaging decisions. Plato wanted rulers to be educated, to be philosophers, to be wise. For succession, a wise ruler would know who the successor should be. This would mean dependency on uncertain situations that risks threatening the state due to personal decisions.

Aristotle:

Aristotle thought it impossible to demonstrate all knowledge, because each proof needed a preceding premise. Creating an infinite regression continuously going to the preceding premise. To avoid the infinite regression, Aristotle used Plato’s essences. Essences that are basic premises, that need no proof. What that means, is that the basic premise are definitions.

Hegel:

Plato favored the ideas in the mind, as they were the abstract unchangeable things. Plato considered them real, while perishable things as unreal. Kant made a similar reference to ideas of pure reason. Hegel takes both claims of idea=real and ideas=reason, to yield real=reason. That equation gave support to maintaining the status quo. For what is real, must have come about due it being necessary and reasonable.

Karl Marx:

There are those who defend Marx’s views as unassailable no matter if parts of the doctrines were wrong. Popper sees Marxism as a method, and therefore wrong to deflect all attacks. Popper advises to judge Marxism method through scientific methodological standards. Marx would have wanted criticism of Marx’s method. Marx wanted practical politicians, and for science to yield practical results.

Marx either forbidden or denounced social technology. Marx denounced rational planning as Utopian and illegitimate. This made the successors even less unprepared than the bourgeois economists. Russian successors were unprepared for social engineering. Even Lenin acknowledged not to know how to deal with the various problems, as the economics problems were not practically described in their texts. Lenin’s failure with war-communism, caused Lenin to reintroduced limited and temporary private enterprise. The New Economic Policy was not part of Marx and Engels policy took kit.

Marx’s economic research is subservient to historical prophecy. To Marx, each system contains its own self-destructive forces that will produce the next economic system.

For Marx, history is class struggle. Although there have been historical conflicts between the classes, there have been many conflicts within classes. Conflicts arising from ruling and ruled class is a dangerous simplification. Issues between rich and poor are important, but not all conflicts are between exploiter and exploited. Marxism is usually interpreted as all conflicts are between the exploiter and exploited. Any aggression can be legitimated through the framework of conflicts between those who have and those who do not have.

Marx saw democracy as a kind of class dictatorship. Under capitalism, the state is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Under socialism, the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. As the proletariat state loses function, and becomes a classless society, there will be no class-dictatorship, in which case the state disappears.

Unlimited freedom defeats itself, for that would accept violence as a legitimate way to distribute resources. The state limits freedom to some extent, to protect everyone’s freedom. None to be at the mercy of others, but also to be protected by the state. But physical intimidation is not the only means to coerce others, as there are economic means as well. Unlimited economic freedom would mean freely accepted servitude to those who have surplus food. The state can create social institutions to prevent inequitable arrangements under duress of economic ruin. For freedom to be guarded, non-intervention cannot be a policy. Which replaced economic freedom with planned economic intervention by the state. This is what happens under Marx, for the economic system ceases to exist.

Marxist organizations have been persuasive on humanitarian grounds, but in their efforts, have been very anti-democratic, and anti-humanitarian. They claim to stand for freedom and against oppression. Marxist appear harmless, and democratic in trying to obtain a majority. The problem is that once in power, they intent to entrench themselves. That they will use the majority vote, to prevent any other from gaining power by regular democratic means. This created a contradiction, for that means that they legitimate the use of majority power to suppress a minority, which includes them when they are a minority. These are ambiguities of violence and power-conquest.

Under capitalism, competitors are forced to accumulate to survive, which leads to higher concentrations of power. In practice, this means investing in higher productivity of the workers. And also, wealth becomes concentrated.

Theory of value is the view that prices are determined by the labor hours needed for production. Which is a problem, because consumers do not know the labor hours used for production. Consumers only see the relative prices of products.

Caveats?

The book is generally difficult to read, and is polarizing. The book was written during World War 2, to explain the totalitarian philosophical background. The core of the book is an attack on the various philosophers who were historicists. Historicism is the use of history to make predictions, which includes raising the status of a few to be above everyone else. The two main philosophers presented are Plato and Karl Marx. Their perceived errors are well established, but not their potentially appropriate values. Logic behind the errors is well established, but often, the resolutions are lacking. Sometimes, the errors themselves come from misunderstanding concepts.

Popper acknowledges various limitations of Popper’s criticism. A recognized limitation is that Popper is a later philosopher with far more historical examples. Popper has more error corrections and historical experiences to lean on than the earlier philosophers.

Popper also recognized that Popper no doubt misjudged those who were described as they are long past. This was recognized because Popper’s contemporaries had misjudged Popper.

Making comparisons between the past and present is difficult. The earlier philosophers had different social contexts, and relied on different sources. But Popper shows how there were philosopher’s during Plato’s time who raised alternative views. Views such as justice, as Popper shows how the general Greek version was similar to contemporary times, but Plato used it to mean something else. This creates a problem with separating what Plato (and others) have changed in the philosophy that was contrary to their culture, and how much of their philosophy was reflecting the values of the time.

cronosmu's review

Go to review page

A Popper le debemos la más deliciosa diatriba jamás escrita contra el pesado de Hegel. Ya solo por eso habría que leer y releer esta obra. Pero no solo eso, para quien intente sobrevivir al pathos de la modernidad La sociedad abierta y sus enemigos es un libro imprescindible por derecho propio, sea uno defensor o antagonista del liberalismo, porque en él están las claves del espíritu de nuestros tiempos.