Customer Reviews

The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Karl Popper stood against all forms of dogmatism. Popper's ideas were used for ideological purposes during the Cold War, and continue to be used today by libertarians and "conservatives" to advance ideas that Popper rejected. What Popper means by "The Open Society" is a society based on reflection and deliberation, not one based on "laws of supply and demand."

THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES is one of those books much more often cited than actually read, and upon examination there is much here that is quite surprising. For instance, though Popper is mainly critical of Marx, who he calls a "false prophet," he also says "[o]ne cannot do justice to Marx without recognizing his sincerity. His open-mindedness, his sense of facts, his distrust of verbiage, and especially of moralizing verbiage, made him one of the world's most influential fighters against hypocrisy and pharisaism." (82) He also notes "...how justified [Marx] was in his glowing protest against the hell of an unrestrained capitalism..." (185) And Popper devotes an entire chapter to *agreeing* with Marx's anti-psychologism, his sociological insight that "social existence determines consciousness." (Chapter 14, "The Autonomy of Sociology")

It is precisely in reference to the way in which Marx's prophesy of capitalism's demise failed to come true that Popper distinguishes himself as a flexible liberal and not a dogmatic libertarian. Because, he says, "[u]nrestrained capitalism is gone. Since the day of Marx, democratic interventionism has made immense advances..." (187) The living standards of the working majority were raised through democratic social reforms which included the 8-hour day, recognition of trade unions, women's suffrage, and much more. What Popper means by "the open society" is a democratic society in which citizens reflect and participate, not one in which people are subject to any iron external force, whether a dictator, a permanent bureaucracy, or the so-called "laws of supply and demand," which has nowadays been dubbed TINA -- There Is No Alternative to The Market, harsh and capricious though it may be. Popper says there IS an alternative, though we have to think, and fight, to bring it about. There is no need to submit to an abstraction such as The Free Market -- the very success of the postindustrial democracies is testimony to their success in democratic social engineering.

Popper's main critique of Marx is that he, like Plato, was a historicist who believed in a universal history of humanity. "Historicist" is not exactly an everyday epithet -- why did Popper see historicism as dangerous? According to Popper, there are but multiple histories of various aspects of human life, such as religion, art, and so forth. He objects to anyone believing they have the key to the future, whether that results in socialist dogmatism, or libertarian dogmatism, or any other form of teleology. Popper makes this incredibly timely observation about the tendency to treat the history of power politics as universal history -- "...[t]his is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder... This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes." (270) Popper closes the book with rousing praise, not for blind patriotism, but for critical debate, rationalism, and pluralism as opposed to "monolithic social ends" (396).

I first read Open Society a year and a half ago (reading volume 2 first.) I've come back to many of its quotes and arguments since, so I recently reread it and let me tell you - it's better the second time.

Popper's goal is to go through (in brief) some of the worlds most mistaken large-name philosophers who he feels were responsible for creating closed social systems. This second volume focuses on Hegel (from an Aristotlean tradition) and Marx. Hegel alone is enough to earn Popper 5 stars as anyone who can (at least attempt to) explain the dialectic in anything approaching language is an amazing feat. In fact, a few reviewers below take issue with Popper's 'mischaracterization' of Hegel but due to Hegels chimeric and unintelligible explanations, I would suspect that no correct representation would be possible. In fact, this is one of Popper's arguments and that, in itself, is about as close to the truth of Hegel as one could get.

Marx simply transforms Hegelian dialectic into a (to his credit) more intelligible, material one. Here, we get into crucial discussion of historicism and any deterministic system trying to plan history in advance. This, Popper notes, ALWAYS leads to totalitarian thinking as when one accepts the a priori 'direction' of history, one will become slave to she who dictates it (i.e., Marx or Lenin).

Honestly, even if these parts of the book were never written, the list price is more then returned to the reader by the ending essays, where Popper discusses 'the sociology of knowledge' and why most ideas therein are antithetical to open societies. Popper's prose throughout the book is clear, entertaining and unrelenting. Trust me, you will be as entertained as you will informed. (can be read without prior reading of part 1)

"deconstructing heidegger"

Popper's attempt at saving the Western World, part II. After refuting Plato in part I -to many shocking and "a priori" intellectually suicidal already- Popper went one better yet in part II: taking on Heidegger and Hegel (amongst others), the German fuehrers of contemporary philosophical thinking. - Unprecedented impertinence, utter blasphemy. Well, he did it nevertheless and did it mercilessly, again. The philosophical establishment was not pleased. But the world at large, us, left with a much clearer picture about what kind of ideas we better NOT base our civic order, life and liberty on. Mankind owes Popper for his "open society" book(s). Some of the greatest stuff ever printed. Do your civic self, your community, a favor. Don't let the century expire without reading this, one of its, yes, "most important" books.

Karl Popper's two-volume tracing of the philosophical ancestry of 20th Century totalitarianism remains for me a marvelous work. As I spent several graduate school years in the company self-styled neo-Marxists and Maoist wannabees, Popper's courteous but radical (in the sense of getting at the roots) criticism of Marxist thought was my candle in the darkness. Now that my daughter reads Plato at St. John's College, I look forward to discussing Popper's ideas once again!

As a total fan of Popper (the book is a must read), I can't stand by and let criticism on Popper pass by, without trying to falsify this criticism. So here's my comments on the review of September 16 (while at the same time touching some - of the many - subjects that the book treats).

The review criticises Popper for calling Plato's philosophy totalitarian. The reviewer argues that:
1. the word totalitarian didn't exist in Plato's age, ergo Plato's philosophy couldn't be totalitarian.
2. that totalitarianism is a word especially constructed for the mind control practised by modern dictatorships, and that the ancient dictatorships couldn't practice this kind of dictatorship because they lacked the technical abilities.
3. that totalitarian leaders aren't bothered by what Plato writes, and thus that Plato's philosophy can't be responsible for totalitarianism.

ad 1. Clearly dogs existed before the word `dog' existed, atoms existed before the word `atom' existed and totalitarianism could have existed, before the word `totalitarianism' existed.
ad 2. While the word `totalitarianism' might have been created for the mind police exercised by the Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, the word can also be used to make a distinction between ancient dictatorships. It would indeed be wrong to call the dictatorship practised by the ancient Egyptian pharaoh's - that condoned the existence of the Jewish religion - as totalitarian. However the point Popper is making, is that Plato's philosophy didn't condone different views. Plato basically said that the wisest should lead and that none shall question him. This philosophy is supported with `mind control' techniques as: banning foreign influences and thoughts (banning free travel), disallowing the writing of certain scriptures/books, and disallowing the right of free speech to the working class, woman and the under 45. While in modern times there is surely a greater range of mind control techniques (although in contrast: inventions have also made it easier to exchange ideas), it would be strange not to call Plato's philosophy totalitarian, simply because the ancient times lacked camera's, etc. The important aspect of Plato's philosophy is whether it leaves room for different views, if not: it is essentially totalitarian.
ad 3. Firstly a philosophy can be totalitarian without ever being responsible for a totalitarian government, just as a racist book need never create a racist person (or be the cause of a racist action). Secondly, I believe Popper is right in asserting that Plato has made a considerable contribution to the believe in the wise, unquestionable leader. Even if Plato hasn't directly inspired dictators, his philosophy hasn't helped to create checks on these leaders. Instead Popper is arguing for criticism, and although a dictator will probably not spend much time studying Popper, hopefully it will stimulate resistance to its policies.

Lastly, the reviewer remarks that Plato can't be blamed for a undemocratic/dictatorial philosophy because in those times people simply didn't know better. This puts questionmarks at how well the reviewer read the book, since Popper took great time in this book to show otherwise. To show that democratic views were known to Plato, but that he rejected them for the totalitarian rule of the wise leader.

Popper's attempt at saving the Western World, part II. After refuting Plato in part I -to many shocking and "a priori" intellectually suicidal already- Popper went one better yet in part II: taking on Heidegger and Hegel (amongst others), the German fuehrers of contemporary philosophical thinking (at the time). - Unprecedented impertinence, utter blasphemy. Well, he did it nevertheless and did it mercilessly, again. The philosophical establishment was not pleased. But the world at large, us, left with a much clearer picture about what kind of ideas we better NOT base our civic order, life and liberty on. Mankind owes Popper for his "open society" book(s). Some of the greatest stuff ever printed. Do your civic self, your community, a favor. Don't let the century expire without reading this, one of its, yes, "most important" books.

This book is not merely a classic of social thought, it is also a classic of philosophical history and political and social science. In the course of this book, (and in the preceding volume), Popper discusses Greek philosophy, the rise and fall of Athens, the logical shortcomings of philosophical idealism, the scientific method, the art of government, and excesses of Hegelian and Marxist philosophy. And he does it all in a style that is both straightforward and elegant, precise and easy to follow. Indeed, Popper's facility at rendering complex issues and ideas lucid and assessible is so extraordinary that the reader is apt to forget the profundity of Popper's analysis and the range and depth of his thought.

Popper's mastery as a philosophic critic is no where in better evidence than in his discussion of Aristotle in chapter 11. Popper brilliantly shows why Aristotle cannot be regarded either as a scientific thinker or even as a defender of reason. Aristotle's doctrine of definintions and his essentialistic epistemology, Popper contends, only serve to bring about a great deal of hairsplitting, verbalism, and despair with reason and argument. "Scholasticism and mysticism and despair in reason, these are the unavoidable results of the essentialism of Plato and Aristotle," concludes. "And Plato's open revolt against freedom becomes, with Aristotle, a secret revolt against reason." Since Aristotle's speculative methods of determining matters of fact still dominates the cerebral processes of most modern social thinkers (think of Marcuse or Ayn Rand, for instance), Popper's critique serves as a rallying cry for those of us who want to bring social thought and philosophy back within the confines of empirical reality and the scientific method.

What I particularly liked about Popper's book was its accessibility. He does not entirely avoid jargon (historicism), but he explains whatever philosophical jargon he does use in a straightforward and understandable way. Because he writes so clearly, the reader can really feel he is participating, by reading, in a meaningful way, in an important debate.

Some philosophers seem to revel in the obscurity of their expressed thoughts. Popper on the other hand seems to express his ideas in a clear and direct fashion. Refreshingly, he skewers pomposity, pretence and philosophical obfuscation (on this last, he is highly critical of Hegel).

The accessibility of the ideas in the book makes one think that this is the way philosophy should be written, sets a standard of clarity, and is a good invitation to further reading and reflection. His systematic logical development of ideas, by making historical or literary observations, and working out the logical consequences, demonstrates the possibilities of analytical reasoning applied to philosophical issues.

This is a book about political philosophy. What was particularly striking was the contrast in point of view he paints between Plato's desire, as Popper describes it, to avoid change, and the measures that Plato was prepared to advocate in order to avoid change on the one hand, and on the other hand the perspectives of an open society. How valid all of his criticisms are I am unsure; I subsequently read that some Platonists have taken issue with Popper's analysis and conclusions. Even if Popper is wrong in some respects about Plato's intentions, none the less, Popper's points on the division between those who seek to avoid change for society, and those who wish to create an institutional structure that permits constructive change have great currency. What is interesting is that elements of resistance to change also occur in open societies

What is intriguing about this book is that it was written in 1943 or so. It was Popper's war effort. His real strength is supposed to be in the philosophy of scientific investigation. Next on my list.

A great and thoughtful read.

To Popper, science is a process of "conjectures and refutations"-- advancing bold conjectures about the state of the world and then trying to refute them. "Even in the study of history, objectivity should be sought in the institutions and traditions of a discipline. It is only through the give and take of open criticism and the ongoing interplay of many different kinds of biases that anything approaching objectivity will emerge." Thus, "truth" is seen as a hypothesis--you can't prove truth, you can only prove untruth. This is because one cannot know everything, therefore, nothing can be proved to be true.
Open societies, in Popper's definition, with their ideals of freedom and reason, of men who may create their own future, are opposed to the regimes of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Hegel and Marx are the main focus of the book. Aristotle built his theory on Plato; Hegel on Aristotle; Marx on Hegel. Popper is concerned with their philosophies of history. A philosophy of history is an attempt to interpret systematically the historical process by a principle that unifies the results of research and points to an "ultimate meaning" behind the process. It involves systematic reflection on scientifically derived data about the past. All the parts are unified to form a whole with "ultimate meaning."
It was thus not Marx's historicist method which led him to success, but instead the "methods of institutional analysis." In many democratic, capitalist countries production has been so great that the workers have a higher standard of living than Marx ever envisaged. He also had an unrealistic view of human nature--that because man is born good, changing his environment will bring happiness. But this view ignores the universality of human imperfection, and the sacredness of personality that is lost in the communist state.

Yet, Popper claims that Marx has done Christianity a great service by pointing out the humanitarian demands of Christ. Popper made many generalizations about Christianity without describing the basic tenets that have made Christianity "the strongest opponent of Communism." Popper does not view Christianity as being a "substitute from dreams and wish--fulfillment; it should resemble neither the holding of a ticket in a lottery, nor the holding of a policy in an insurance company." Popper opposes a "leap in the dark" of faith, whether by Marxists probing the beginning of evolution, or by those experiencing a personal relationship with God. Faith is necessary, but it is to be based on a rational understanding of the difference between belief and fact, and the appropriate place for both.

Many of these reviews of the second volume have completely misunderstood. Popper hated Soviet communism. However, he remains quite sympathetic to West European social democracy and speaks of great respect for Marx. In fact, he finds the totalitarian consequences of Marx's thought in the eastern bloc to be the effect of a harmful Hegelian residue, which he attempts to expunge - anticipating Louis Althusser's, the French communist philosopher, entire philosophical project.

His treatment of Hegel is drastically unfair and totally out of date, but his attempt to formulate a Hegel-less Marx is fascinating and not at all the right-wing attack that some commentators, who have probably never read the book, seem to think it is.