The Open Society and its Enemies
by Renzo Grassano
The Open Society and its Enemies was published in 1945. The writing matured during the long period of exile of Popper in New Zealand and it is certainly his "masterpiece of political philosophy.
The roots of totalitarianism are detected again in historicism, especially the Hegelian, but rooted in the dawn of philosophy, authors such as Hesiod, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle himself, blamed for essentialism. The major targets are still controversial Nazism and Communism, the theories of race and the thought of Marx.
The most obvious manifestation of totalitarianism and closed societies, tribal and collectivist-style, dominated by taboos, where the lives of individuals is regulated by strict rules imposed by the authorities. "A closed society looks like a sheep or a tribe that is semi-organic unit whose members are bound together by ties." Instead, the open society is one in which men are free to take the helm of their lives, free to express a critical attitude, free to base their decisions on the authority of one's intelligence.
The distinction between closed societies and open society was borrowed from the French philosopher Henri Bergson, who, however, had used it in a different pattern of thinking.
The question on everyone's mind was always "who should govern?" This demand has resulted in sterile defined answers, like, the best, the philosophers, an enlightened ruler, the people, the superior race. It is also false because it presupposes an answer good and honest leaders. Popper to be rid of this question, surpassing it with another: "How can we organize political institutions in order to prevent the bad and incompetent rulers do too much damage?"
serves institutional control of governments. Only for implementing solve the paradox of democracy is the paradox of a people that chooses the tyranny, as happened in Germany with the advent of Hitler.
Popper drew a line between totalitarianism and freedom that is expressed in a clear distinction between dictatorship and democracy.
writes: "1. Democracy can not be fully characterized only as a majority government, although the imposition of a general election is of utmost importance. In fact, a majority can rule in a tyrannical (the majority of those who have less than 6 feet tall may decide that those who have more than six feet tall to pay all taxes). In a democracy the powers of the governors should be limited and the criterion of democracy is this: the rulers in a democracy - that the government - can be dismissed without bloodshed. So if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which provide the minority the opportunity to work for peaceful change, their government is a tyranny.
2. We must distinguish between only two forms of government, that is what has institutions of this kind and all others that is between democracy and tyranny.
3. A democratic constitution has consistently ruled out only one type of change that threaten its democratic character.
4. In a democracy, the full protection of minorities should not extend to those who violate the law, and especially to those who incite others to violent overthrow of democracy.
5. A policy aims at the introduction of institutions aimed For the protection of democracy must always operate under the assumption that there may be anti-democratic tendencies latent between Governments and between the rulers.
6. If democracy is destroyed, all rights will be destroyed, even if they maintained some economic advantages enjoyed by the government, they would only on the basis of resignation.
7. Democracy offers a valuable battlefield for any reasonable reform because it allows the implementation of reforms without violence. But if prevention of democracy does not become the paramount concern in any particular battle being conducted on this battlefield, the latent anti-democratic tendencies that are always present (and which appeal to those suffering under the effects of stressful society ...) can lead to the collapse of democracy. If the understanding of these principles is not yet sufficiently developed, we must promote it. The opposite policy can be fatal, it can result in loss of the most important battle, which is the battle for democracy itself. "
In other words, it is clear that in an open society institutions can not allow bullies and the powerful to enslave the meek: and this is a limit to freedom, which can not be unlimited. But there is a limit to tolerance, if we extend it to the intolerant, if we are not willing to protect a company tolerant against the onslaught of the intolerant, "then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." But this is not always valid, and these words are used more as a guideline in the crucial moments of a possible attack on democracy. In fact, says Popper, the suppression is less than wise decisions. "But we should proclaim the right to remove intolerant, if necessary by force, if it, denouncing all argument" resort to the use of fists and guns. "
between democratic procedures and the methodological rules of science , according to Popper, should take place a kind of analogy based on a clear congruence of situations: both in the activity in political science that we find ways to solve problems. And even in politics takes imagination, creativity, new approaches are needed to forge, that is to be subjected to close monitoring. Even in politics, as we have seen the question of controllability is crucial. And even in political dogmatism and the one who is deluded to have a definite truth, and do not realize that new facts, new discoveries, the emergence of new cases can deny it.
In The Open Society and its Enemies have a further attack on historicism that this time it is stated, also bravely (since orgine Popper was Jewish and was in exile for persecuted by the Nazis), anti-theological theory of chosen people. He openly criticizes the idea that God chooses a people to implement his designs. It 'obvious that this criticism also extends to those who replace or qualocos'altro nature, to God
The reasons of historicism must therefore look prophetic antiquity, the same philosophy, in which men like Hesiod and Heraclitus forced the hand of history by interpreting it in a dogmatic and definitive. After defining Hesiod the poet of the decadence of humanity Heraclitus and the theory of the immutable law of change , Popper railed against Plato, which is the opposite of Heraclitus, that is the theoretical thinking that "change is bad and stasis is divine." According to Popper, Plato was a reactionary put out against the news of the Athenian democracy, essentially hostile to those positions on the Democratic heirs of Pericles.
Aristotle also not spared: The prosecution is to methodological essentialism, which is a way of thinking that has seriously compromised the science and philosophy for centuries. The task of science is in fact nobody available to the application what is the matter? decrivere but the behavior of the phenomena: "Thus the scientific conception of the definition" a young puppy is a dog "would be that it is an answer to the question "what we call a young dog?" rather than the question "what is a puppy?" In essence, says Popper, science does not seek an explanation last and then it is not essential.
In contrast, in the social sciences remains an old-fashioned essentialism, and Marxism is its most important example.
Before coming to Marx, Popper plays a ruthless critique of Hegel, the father of modern historicism and totalitarianism.
illiberal aspects of Hegel are the Platonic cult status, the tribal and collectivist mentality, and the refusal of an ethical principle above the state and the resolution of moral in politics and the concept that the only possible criterion of action against the state is the world-historical achievement of its policies. Finally, the theory that the state could only exist by the war, with the aggravating circumstance of the thesis of a nation elected to serve from time to time by driving. Finally, the great man theory of personality and world-historical. All this, according to Popper, was inherited and developed by the Nazis.
Moreover, Hegel was intellectually and morally dishonest, "Hegel produced the most miraculous things. Logic high, it was child's play for his highly effective methods dialectical pull rabbits from hats purely physical metaphysical. "
Compared to Marx, it should be noted a position of greater respect, because we should not forget that Popper was initially attracted by socialist ideas.
But even with Marx's criticism is fierce. The attack on the communication takes place in the first instance as a process of epistemological. "I think that is absolutely correct to say that Marxism is basically a method. But it is wrong to believe that, as a method, should be sheltered from any attack. The truth is, quite simply, that any person wishing to judge Marxism should prove it and quote it as a method, that is, measure it on the basis of methodological criteria. Must ask whether it is in fact a method fruitful or sterile, that is, if he is or is not able to facilitate the task of science. "
Popper considers proper, valid and fair to consider even fundamental economic conditions for an assessment of historical processes. But, according to him, Marx took too seriously the fundamental term . E 'essentialism, and as such, is not better than everyone else. The conception of the state of Marx, for example, is essentialist, that responds to the classic question: what 'status'? And if the answer is classic: the organizational form of the domination of bourgeois class society, serious consequences arise from this attitude as the devaluation of the policy to the benefit of the economy and also the contempt for democracy formal.
Popper believes, essentially, in the light of what has been gaining in social development, political power is independent economically, and may also affect in some way. The devaluation of the political, in Marxism, led to dogmatic conceptions that have impeded the reform.
In sharp contrast to the thought of his friend FA von Hajek, Popper was in fact a staunch advocate of the role of the state and political economy, in some respects close to the moderate left. In fact Popper
political power has a duty to control the economic power: "This means a huge expansion of the scope of political activities. We can ask what we want to achieve and how we can achieve it. We can, for example, implement a rational political program for the protection of the economically weak. We can make laws to limit exploitation. We can limit the working day, but we can do even more. By law, we can ensure that workers (or better yet, all citizens) against disability, unemployment, old age. In this way we can make it impossible for certain forms of exploitation such as those based on weak economic position of a worker who has to accept anything not to die of hunger ... [...]
Political power and its control is everything. Economic power must not be allowed to dominate political power, if necessary, it must be fought by political power and brought back under its control. "
positions are shared by a left less tainted by ideological bias. The problem is that Italy's political thought has struggled Popper, I'm not saying to impose itself, but simply to present itself given the current hegemony of the Marxist historical-cultural life.
Personally I agree, even if you do not feel especially well suited to the current situation of our country that needs a deal between the producers able to purify politics and curb the power of big business, less state and more market, reforms that do not destroy the state but to the benefit of trouble as the Federal Senate.
In the next chapter we will see the development of Popper's critique of Marx.
