The Open Society and Its Enemies

“The enemies of freedom have always charged its defenders with subversion. And nearly always they have succeeded in persuading the guileless and well-meaning.”

Plato saw social change in ancient Athens, particularly any liberalizing tendencies, as a move away from his ideal society of the past. After all, according to Plato’s Theory of Forms or Ideas, the ideal society existed in the past when it was in the closest proximity to its respective Form. As history progressed, this society gradually lost this Form and became corrupt. Based on this theory, Plato saw social changes as subversive tendencies that contributed to the decay of his preferred way of life. Popper subscribes to the opposite view and positions the liberalizing tendencies in Athens, such as maritime trade with other city-states in ancient Greece, as a step toward freedom. Therefore, he considers Plato an enemy of freedom who used propagandistic techniques and accused his opponents of subversion.

“Because of his radical collectivism, Plato is not even interested in those problems which men usually call the problems of justice, that is to say, in the impartial weighing of the contesting claims of individuals. Nor is he interested in adjusting the individual’s claims to those of the state. For the individual is altogether inferior.”

Popper views Plato’s political program as collectivist, and this collectivism is used to strengthen the state. Even the ruling elite of this ideal, powerful state is tasked with overcoming any potential differences, as cohesion engenders the stability of this state. As a result, the interest of the state always takes precedence over the rights of the individuals.

“It should be mentioned that, from the protectionist point of view, the existing democratic states, though far from perfect, represent a very considerable achievement in social engineering of the right kind. Many forms of crime, of attack on the rights of human individuals by other individuals, have been practically suppressed or very considerably reduced, and courts of law administer justice fairly successfully in difficult conflicts of interest.”

When Popper discusses protectionism, he is referring to state intervention of various kinds, not just economic protectionism. Today we would refer to this as the welfare state or social democracy, in which the rights of all individuals are equally protected by law, leading to positive social outcomes, such as the discussed reduction of crime rates. For this reason, Popper refers to the protectionist state in this context as positive social engineering.

“And indeed, it is not difficult to show that a theory of democratic control can be developed which is free of the paradox of sovereignty. The theory I have in mind is one which does not proceed, as it were, from a doctrine of the intrinsic goodness or righteousness of a majority rule, but rather from the baseness of tyranny; or more precisely, it rests upon the decision, or upon the adoption of the proposal, to avoid and to resist tyranny.”

This discussion of the democratic form of government is used to counter Plato’s ideal ruler, the philosopher-king. Popper believes that it is impossible to design an institution that would repeatedly produce wise and moral rulers and to prevent the rise of a tyrant, especially considering Plato’s preference for a strong state with concentrated power. For this reason, rather than hoping for the emergence of such a noble ruler, it is best to prepare for the worst possible scenario—and to use democratic checks and balances to limit the damage that bad rule could cause.

“[I]t is not reasonable to assume that a complete reconstruction of our social world would lead at once to a workable system.”

Plato, Hegel, and Marx each established a complex philosophical system to explain the functioning of the world around them. By using their respective systems, these thinkers proposed sweeping social and political changes they saw as necessary to arrive at an ideal society. Popper counters this approach to social reform, as its potential results are unclear. Instead, he proposes piecemeal social engineering: gradual changes in targeted areas used to improve society while avoiding large-scale damage should the proposed change fail.

“We can return to the beasts, but if we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society.”

Plato’s Theory of Forms or Ideas presupposes the perfect version of society in the distant past, which gets corrupted as it moves further away from its ideal Form through time. It is therefore akin to an aging organism. This view of the world envisions the Golden Age in the past, to which we must return should we wish to reclaim a better way of life. Popper challenges this view and argues that going back into the past would mean that we need to go all the way to when humans were nothing more than beasts. Thus, we can establish a more just way of life in the present or the future, and that way of life is an open society.

“Arresting political change is not a remedy; it cannot bring happiness. We can never return to the alleged innocence and beauty of the closed society.”

This statement is related to the previous quotation, in which Plato positioned the Golden Age in the distant past. Plato’s ideal society was tribalist and collectivist and shared a rigid class system without social mobility. This society placed the interests of the state above the rights of the individual citizens. Popper considers Plato’s ideal a closed society—the opposite of his own ideal of an open one. He is, therefore, critical of the attempts to stop positive social change in ancient Greece and considers such efforts a temporary remedy.

“Just as the French Revolution rediscovered the perennial ideas of the Great Generation and of Christianity, freedom, equality, and the brotherhood of all men, so Hegel rediscovered the Platonic ideas which lie behind the perennial revolt against freedom and reason. Hegelianism is the renaissance of tribalism.”

Popper observes general trends toward freedom and societal liberalization throughout several time periods he examines in his book. Two of these periods are the Peloponnesian War between the Athenian democracy and tribalist Sparta and the French Revolution of 1789. Popper’s Great Generation of Athens consists of those philosophers who advocated for democratization. They include Pericles and Socrates. Plato, on the other hand, saw these sociopolitical developments in a negative light. For this reason, Popper creates a parallel between the liberalizing ideals of the Great Generation and the French Revolution, on the one hand, and tribalist and authoritarian ideas of Plato and Hegel, on the other.

“There is nothing in Hegel’s writing that has not been said better before him.”

Of the three key philosophers and system builders Popper critiques, he reserves the harshest criticism for Hegel. He considers Hegel’s philosophical system, especially his historicism, the intellectual source of 20th-century totalitarian movements. However, Popper also considers much of Hegel’s work a rehashing of several key ideas of Plato and Aristotle, such as the latter’s notion of the final cause. Furthermore, Popper believes that many of Hegel’s ideas are grandiose and deliberately obfuscated but otherwise unoriginal.

“Hegel’s dialectics, I assert, are very largely designed to pervert the ideas of 1789.”

Hegel’s dialectics describes a repeating process by which two opposing ideas, a thesis and an antithesis, arrive at a compromise, a synthesis. Hegel saw the dialectical process as the driving force in history that produces a higher level of development each time. One of Popper’s central criticisms of Hegel is the way in which Hegel used dialectics to flip ideas into their opposites. For instance, Popper demonstrates Hegel’s dialectical argument that a constitution, which would limit state power, is best guaranteed as existent state power, and, indeed, by a monarchy. Popper argues that Hegel uses dialectics for ulterior motives in support of the powerful and absolutist Prussian state that arose as a reactionary movement challenging the egalitarian ideas of the French Revolution.

“Plato’s philosophy, which once had claimed mastership in the state, becomes with Hegel its most servile lackey.”

Popper refers to the fact that one of the focal points in Plato’s philosophy is the ideal state. Hegel incorporated certain aspects of Platonic thought into his own philosophical system, including his emphasis on the powerful state at the expense of the individual. Popper argues that Hegel’s work had practical motives: He was the servant of the absolutist Prussian state, and advocating for it by using philosophy as an instrument took precedence over philosophical exploration for the purpose of advancing knowledge.

“Nationalism appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strain of individual responsibility which it attempts to replace by a collective or group responsibility.”

Popper is opposed to nationalism for two reasons. First, it is rooted in tribalism and collectivism at the expense of the individual. Second, Plato is critical of the nation-state concept per se because it is a relatively new, artificial concept born in the 19th century, and because of the impossibility of defining a nation’s borders based on ethnocultural cohesion.

“The principle of the national state is not only inapplicable but it has never been clearly conceived. It is a myth. It is an irrational, a romantic and Utopian dream, a dream of naturalism and of tribal collectivism.”

Popper asserts that the nation-state (which he calls the “national state”) is a concept that is often taken for granted in political discourse. However, it has no historic precedent and is a relatively new invention, having been conceived in the 19th century. Unlike more tangible categories such as religion, using the notion of a nation to define borders is highly problematic according to Popper.

“Thus scientific socialism is not a social technology; it does not teach the ways and means of constructing socialist institutions. Marx’s views of the relation between socialist theory and practice show the purity of his historicist views.”

Popper differentiates between Marx’s apt criticism of the Industrial Revolution and his historicist predictions of a social revolution, which have proven to be false, as seen in the case of Russia (USSR). Here, Popper emphasizes the fact that Marx uses sociology to make sweeping predictions, which the author calls prophecies, rather than making practical and specific suggestions for establishing just and equitable social institutions.

“One of the dangers of Marx’s formula is that if taken too seriously, it misleads Marxists into interpreting all political conflicts as struggles between exploiters and exploited (or else as attempts to cover up the ‘real issue’, the underlying class conflict).”

One of the key aspects of Marxist thought is the gradually worsening class conflict between the ruling class and the workers. Marx argued that this conflict will eventually lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the withering away of the state as such. However, there is a tendency among the followers of Marx to interpret every stage of history in this manner rather than viewing this argument within the specific conditions of the Industrial Revolution in 19th-century England, which was the source of Marx’s observation.

“Without democratic control, there can be no earthly reason why any government should not use its political and economic power for purposes very different from the protection of the freedom of its citizens.”

Popper consistently argues that democracy is the best possible form of government. He suggests that democratic rule contains the type of checks and balances that prevent a poor leader from causing too much damage and, at the same time, protects the rights of all citizens equally. In contrast, under authoritarian rule, the state may engage in an unchecked power grab.

“Yet considering that few movements have done as much as Marxism to stimulate interest in political action, the theory of the fundamental impotence of politics appears somewhat paradoxical.” (328)

The author points out that Marx was the source of what today is typically referred to as activism. Not only was his ideology used in this way, but Marx also suggested that it is actions that truly matter, not words. At the same time, Marx’s theory was focused on the inevitability of a social revolution thanks to the very nature of capitalism and its exploitative methods. He subscribed to historicism to such an extent that he believed that the laws of history are “inexorable” (407). Herein lies the paradox of Marx’s influence on his followers and his actual beliefs.

“The establishment of institutions for the democratic control of the rulers is the only guarantee for the elimination of exploitation.”

Marx argued that the only way to stop capitalist exploitation was through the inevitable social revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the ultimate disappearance of classes and the state itself. Popper challenges Marx and proposes a more realistic solution by using piecemeal social engineering and democratic state interventionism, such as tax laws and anti-trust legislation, to keep working conditions fair and continue improving them. He points out that toward the end of Marx’s life, labor conditions began to show improvement, but Marx did not modify his theory.

“If Marx’s historical prophecies have been even partially successful, then we should certainly not dismiss his method lightly. But a closer view of Marx’s successes shows that it was nowhere his historicist method which led him to success, but always the methods of institutional analysis. Thus it is not an historicist but a typical institutional analysis which leads to the conclusion that the capitalist is forced by competition to increase productivity. It is an institutional analysis on which Marx bases his theory of the trade cycle and of surplus population. And even the theory of class struggle is institutional; it is part of the mechanism by which the distribution of wealth as well as of power is controlled, a mechanism which makes possible collective bargaining in the widest sense.”

Popper uses the example of the 1917 Russian Revolution to demonstrate the failure of Marx’s historicism. Instead of disappearing, the newly emergent Soviet state became more powerful. Instead of becoming a classless society, a new ruling class emerged formed by the leaders of the revolution and those they promoted of the proletarian or peasant background. At the same time, Popper points out the accuracy of Marx’s methodology used to analyze class relations and the functioning of institutions in his society.

“The prophetic element in Marx’s creed was dominant in the minds of his followers. It swept everything else aside, banishing the power of cool and critical judgment and destroying the belief that by the use of reason we may change the world. All that remained of Marx’s teaching was the oracular philosophy of Hegel, which in its Marxist trappings threatens to paralyse the struggle for the open society.”

Popper is critical of Marx’s economic historicism and his tendency to prophesize the future. He suggests that labor conditions somewhat improved in Marx’s lifetime and continued to improve since. Yet Marx chose to ignore the factual evidence and continued to argue that the progressively growing misery of the proletariat would eventually lead to a revolutionary scenario and the subsequent withering away of the state. Popper demonstrates that in those places where a Marxist-inspired revolution did occur, such as Russia, the state actually grew and became more powerful rather than withering away. Therefore, Popper considers Marxist prophecy to be a harmful distraction from realistic solutions like labor laws.

“Marx did not combat wealth, nor did he praise poverty. He hated capitalism, not for its accumulation of wealth, but for its oligarchical character; he hated it because in this system wealth means political power in the sense of power over other men. Labour power is made a commodity; that means that men must sell themselves on the market. Marx hated the system because it resembled slavery.”

Popper appreciates Marx’s criticism of unrestrained capitalism of the Industrial Revolution and generally finds it accurate. He points out that Marx’s critique was rooted not in his hatred of money, but in the predatory social relations between the capitalist ruling class and the oppressed workers at this time. Their working conditions included long hours, an unsafe environment, and the exploitation of women and children.

“It is the uniqueness of our experiences which, in this sense, makes our lives worth living, the unique experience of a landscape, of a sunset, of the expression of a human face. But since the day of Plato, it has been a characteristic of all mysticism that it transfers this feeling of the irrationality of the unique individual, and of our unique relations to individuals, to a different field, namely, to the field of abstract universals, a field which properly belongs to the province of science. That it is this feeling which the mystic tries to transfer can hardly be doubted.”

In his discussion of the sociology of knowledge, Popper analyzes rationalism and irrationalism. He suggests that the best combination is one that includes critical rationalism—which learns from others’ points of view and from argumentation—with the irrationality of imagination. Here, the author emphasizes the need to acknowledge each individual experience without resorting to the use of abstract universals and, at the same time, while being respectful of religious mysticism.

“There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind. It 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 (including, it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes.”

Popper makes a provocative statement that history has no meaning. What we often perceive as the history of mankind is actually the history of political power, often written in a hagiographic manner from the winners’ point of view.