Still reading currently. Will definitely have more to say about it when I'm done. Given the time frame this is written in, Popper is talking about issues between liberal democracy and the communism-based totalitarian states. But really, a lot of what he's talking about is also applicable to religion and tribalism-based totalitarianism and is, thus, still pretty relevant today.

I had never heard of Popper until Ligeti used a title of his for his pieces "Clouds and Clouds". So when in a book store, i search it out but ended up buying this one . Now here was a philosopher who didn't need to use big terms to impress you. His language is as simple as he could make it. And he ask the really important question-how open in terms of individual rights does a citizen have within a society. He takes Plato as a starting point and shows how much he was against such an idea and how as the fountainhead of so much philosophy infected so much of it's thought. When he gets to Marx it is almost humorous how he does maybe a 40 page disclaimer that he is really on his side, but couldn't predict allot of things that might have shaped his thinking. I have since read a couple of his books and always walk away thinking better than when i went in. Now how many writers manage that

I don't know what I would do without this book.

Popper fled the Nazi takeover of Austria, and set out to write a book that would somehow fight bad ideologies. He succeeded. If only anyone actually read it.

Open Society begins with an attack on Plato. Popper argues that we need to realize that Plato chose Sparta over Athens, and every other vaguely cosmopolitan city. He spends time describing just how controlled, misogynistic, and totalitarian Spartan life really was. Popper then moves on to show Plato worshiping that lifestyle in The Republic. Plato based his political theory on his belief in forms (perfect concepts outside of time of which all our ideas and creations are mere shadows), and so the political system which best resembled a form (unchanging) was the best system. This best system was a totalitarian city ruled by corrupt philosophers who taught lies. Popper links this belief of Plato

The heart of Open Society is the criticism of any philosophy or theory of history that claims to know the future. Branding these philosophies ‘Historicism,’ he argues that Marxism by arguing that history moves in stages (feudal, capitalist, communist) makes itself unable to choose a better world. By accepting that history is an inevitable march of economic forms, socialists become unable to work in the now.

Popper blames this aspect of Marxism for allowing fascism to rise in Europe. He believed that if Austrian socialists had been more willing (and less confident in History’s march) to ally with moderates they could have stop the rise of fascist and rightist parties.

This is truly one of my favorite books, and there’s a good chance I’ll pick it up and write a proper review with citation and deep thoughts one of these days.

4 1/2 stars. This is a pretty extensive refutation of Marx's (inspired by Hegel's) historicism. "Scientific Marxism is dead," Popper claims, and that's also an apt summary of the work as a whole. I think that he is undoubtedly right in the main in his treatment of Marx, and I'm obviously not going to go through the arguments he proffers against Marx's historicism, but I'll just provide some general remarks and one criticism.

First, although it's clear that Popper abhors historicism, his treatment of Marx is refreshingly fair. He takes great pains to emphasize the aspects of Marx's work he finds commendable (his humanitarianism, rationalism, sociological analyses, etc.). It's very satisfying to read an author who doesn't turn his criticisms into an outright vitriolic polemic.

His treatment of Hegel (confined largely to one chapter) is pretty hilarious. He ridicules most of his philosophy and links it to totalitarianism. He's much harsher on Hegel than Marx. I know that many people have taken issue with Popper's treatment of Hegel, but from the (admittedly little) familiarity I have with Hegel's philosophy my sympathies would have to lie with Popper.

Popper also provides an excellent and lengthy addendum detailing his theory of knowledge, which was an unexpected but welcomed addition.

My one criticism is that Popper praises Marx's anti-psychologism in sociology as one of his greatest contributions to modern social theory (that is, the position that sociology is not ultimately reducible to psychology). Apart from the fact that I disagree with Marx and Popper here, it's a little baffling that Popper would consider this one of his greatest achievements. Marx's greatest achievements lay in unveiling the dangers of "unrestrained" capitalism, as Popper calls it. Of course, Popper does mention this as one of his significant contributions, but to put anti-psychologism in the same breath devalues it immensely. It doesn't help that psychologism (a word I don't really care for) has established itself as the most likely correct position, either.

I would advise all Marxists to read this. All libertarians, or classical liberals, as well. Both positions are critiqued, and one is the better for reading Popper's excellent work.

A book to learn more about marxism and democracy

Striking in its main ideas, but largely unpleasant to read in comparison to the shorter and more focused first volume. Popper jumps around a lot in his book, and occasionally it is hard to tell where he is going. The main thrust of the book is the case against Hegelian and Marxist historicism, or the belief that one can intuit and predict a larger purpose to history and then design a political program to further the inevitable. He sees historicism as a key root of totalitarian ideologies, and in this volume he puts a ton of blame on Hegel for the rise of these ideologies. He basically treats the Hegelian theory of the path of history leading toward the end point of the Prussian state as pure propaganda for the Prussian regime. He is more sympathetic to Marx, whom he sees as genuinely outraged by the abuse of working people in industrialism but nonetheless another thinker who fell into the lure of prophecy and historicism. Popper's discussion of Marx is fascinating and enlightening, probably the strong suit of the book. HIs criticism of Marx is largely the New Deal critique that capitalism can be adjusted and regulated as long as economic systems are open to democratic political change and control (something that cannot happen in authoritarian or totalitarian societies."

Overall I found myself agreeing strongly with Popper and enjoying his final point that while history lacks any internal meaning or logic we can still give it meaning (a key tenet of liberal humanism). However, I found this volume to be more scattered and less profound about the nature of a free society. I think it needed a stronger editor to weed out some of the odd points of focus and beefs with individual scholars of his generation to really maintain the punch of the first volume.

Popper birinci ciltte Platon'un Devlet ve Yasalar'ını çözümlüyor ve eleştiriyor. Herakleitos etkisinde kalan Platon onun gibi elit bir zümrenin iktidarını tasarlıyor. Platon'a göre insanlar farklı kalitelerde doğarlar ve devletteki görevleri de bu kalitelere göre belirlenmelidir. Platon üç sınıfa karşılık üç kalitede insan çeşidi tanımlar. Popper bunun ırkçı bir yaklaşım olduğunu söylese de orta çağın soylu-ruhban-köylü ayrımına veya kast sistemine daha çok benzer. Platon'un tasarladığı devlet bir makinedir ve birey bu makinenin çarklarından biridir. Platon'un ahlak sistemi de bu temel üzerine bina edilmiştir. Devlette bireyin erdemi yerini bilmek ve görevini yerine getirmekten ibarettir. (Bu Hegel'in ahlak anlayışına oldukça benzer.)

Platon ortada bulunan bir soruna bir çözüm üretme amacındadır. Platon'un yaşadığı dönemde Yunan dünyası büyük bir dönüşüm içindedir, kapalı toplumdan açık topluma geçmektedir. Yunan emperyalizmiyle kabileler birleşmekte, dünyasının sınırı şehri/köyü/kabilesi olan insan bambaşka kültürlerle karşılaşınca geleneklerine ve mutlak olarak doğru bildiği her şeye olan inancını kaybetmektedir. Platon bu hızlı değişim döneminde insanların yaşadığı bunalımı görmüş ve bir çözüm üretmek istemiştir. Bulduğu çözüm değişimi durdurmaktır. Bunu da geriye dönerek, devleti koca bir kabileye çevirerek yapacaktır.

Popper sıfırdan bir düzen tasarlamaya karşı olduğu gibi devleti bir makine ve bireyi bunun dişlisi olarak gören sisteme de karşı. Popper'a ve Hobbes gibi aynı geleneği takip eden filozoflara göre devlet, bireyler arasında bir anlaşma olmalıdır. Değişim ise topyekün değil, parça parça yapılmalıdır. Siyasetin amacı düzeni değiştirmek değil aksayan kısımları düzeltmek olmalıdır. İnsanlığın binlerce yıldır tecrübesine dayanan siyasal düzeni bir kalemde silerek sıfırdan bir düzen yaratıp bunun mükemmel çalışacağını ummak Popper'a göre fazla iyimser olmakla kalmayıp akıl dışıdır da.

Popper ikinci ciltte Hegel ile başlayan "tarihsicilik" anlayışına karşı bir savaş veriyor. Popper'ın tarihsicilik adını verdiği anlayış kısaca tarihin bir akışı olduğu ve bunun öngörülebileceği anlamına geliyor. Marx'ı ve pek çok 19. yüzyıl filozofunu etkisine alan bu diyalektik tarih yaklaşımının Popper'a göre akılcı bir tarafı yok ve son derece tehlikeli.

Hegel, tarihi ulusların mücadelesi olarak ele alır. Hegel'e göre her ulus potansiyelini ancak savaşarak ortaya koyabilir ve tarihin onun için belirlediği kaderi bu şekilde elde edebilir. Bu mücadelenin sonunda bir ulus tüm ulusları ezecek ve dünyaya hükmedecektir, böylece en üstün ulus olduğunu ortaya koyacak ve kaderine ulaşacaktır. Bu fikrin Avrupadaki etkileri hafife alınacak gibi değildir. Özellikle Nazi Almanyasının dayandığı ideolojinin bu olduğu çok açıktır. Bu anlayışla hareket eden ulusların olduğu bir dünyada hiçbir zaman barış ve huzur olamayacağı da açıktır.

Büyük ölçüde Hegel etkisinde kalan Marx ise tarihi bir sınıflar mücadelesi olarak ele alır. Marx'a göre kapitalizm sefaleti artırmaktadır. Bunun sonucu olarak burjuvalar git gide zenginleşmekte, proleterler git gide fakirleşmektedir. Bu gidişle orta sınıf tümüyle eriyecek, tüm zenginlik çok az sayıda kapitalistin elinde toplanacak, çoğunluğu oluşturan proloterler ise yönetimi ele geçirecek ve burjuva sınıfını yok edecek. İlk başta bir işçi diktatörlüğü kurulacak, fakat sonuç olarak devletin var oluş amacı elit kesimi halktan korumak ve sömürüyü sürdürmek olduğundan bir süre sonra devlet kendi kendine yok olup gidecektir, çünkü tek sınıf olan toplumda sömürü olmadığından devlete ihtiyaç kalmayacaktır. Marx'ın kehaneti aşağı yukarı budur.

Marx da Platon gibi var olan bir soruna çözüm üretmek amacındadır. Sorun işçilerin sefaletidir. Dizginsiz kapitalizmin bulunduğu 19. yüzyıl Avrupasında işçiler karın tokluğuna insanlık dışı koşullarda, insanlık dışı iş saatlerince çalıştırılmaktadır. Marx'a göre demokrasi halkı uyutmak ve umut vermek için uydurulmuş bir düzendir. Bu yüzden işçilerin özgürleşmesi ancak bir devrimle işçilerin yönetimi ele almasıyla gerçekleşebilir. Marx'ın "tüm işçiler birleşin" çağrısı gerçekten etkili olur, fakat Marx'ın öngördüğü anlamda değil. Sendikalar ve sosyalist partiler devletten işçilerin çalışma koşullarının iyileştirilmesini isterler ve bu talepler kabul edilir. İşçilerin çalışma saatleri düşürülür, çocuk işçiler yasaklanır, çalışma koşulları, güvenlik vb talepler devletin araya girmesiyle bir bir yerine getirilir. Böylece Marx'ın veya Platon'un tasarladığı gibi topyekün bir devrimle değil, Popper'ın dediği gibi bölük pörçük değişimlerle, aksayan kısımların teker teker düzeltilmesiyle toplumun sıkıntıları giderilebilmektedir.

Kitabın devamında Popper tarihin ne olduğunu, neden öngörülemeyeceğini, akılcılık ve akıldışıcılığı tartışır. Siyaset felsefesiyle ilgilenen herkesin okuması şart olan bir kitap.

In Vol 2 of The Open Society, Popper describes how the historicist approach of Hegel forms the foundation of facism and how the historicist approach of Marx - never mind its good intentions - led to immense suffering. His treatment of Hegel's philosophy is somewhat irritating, due to the long list of witty comments on how corrupted and wrong Hegel was. (Nonetheless, I completely agree with Popper on this).

Hegel, according to Popper, was a scam. He developed a collectivist, historicist philosophy of history. History is a grand stage where collectives (nation states) fight against each other and the succesful ones are good, the losing nation states are bad. This binds ethics to historical succes and offers a huge incentive for war. The individual is nothing, the collective is everything; war is good; reason is nothing. One can easily see how these ideas are the foundations of the later nationalism, facism and the two world wars.

After treating Hegel in just 2 chapters, Popper uses the rest of the book to first explain and then to criticize the scientific method and historicist apporach of Karl Marx. Popper's treatment of Marx is much more fair and honest than his treatment of Hegel. He credits Marx for his motives (uplifting the oppressed people in systems of laissez faire-capitalism) and even subscribes to some of his economic theories - at the least admitting they are interesting theories in their own right.

Where Marx goes on the wrong path - according to Popper - is his belief in historicism. History is a class struggle; the end of history will be a socialist world society; the means to get there a social revolution. This revolution will happen - it is inevitable - because capitalism will collapse in on itself due to its internal contradications.

According to Popper, Marx makes two mistakes: (1) the revolution hasn't come to pass and it is perfectly possible to alleviate the sufferings of the poor by social piecemeal engineering (creating rational, fair institutions) instead of violent revolutions that will lead to new oppression. (2) By postulating an inevitable future, Marx is guilty of future moralism. It doesn't matter what you do, you just have to pick the right side of history (so to speak). This is a dangerous ethics, because it puts historic succes over responsiblity for one's own actions.

To summarize: Popper's two volumes are one plea for humanitarianism, democracy and critical rationalism. One should always seek criticism to expose false presuppositions; thereby respecting each human being as a rational person. It is important that institutions are rational and aimed at destroying suffering, unfairness and exploitation. It is equally important that institutions are not aimed at providing a better life for people - this leads inevitably to enforcing one's view of "what is good?" on society as a whole (i.e. totalitarianism). Human beings are responsible for their own happiness and the happiness of their fellow human beings - institutions should provide the preconditions to get there.

There are no historic laws, predictions of the future are therefore not possible: historicism is a dangerous fallacy. The best we can do is change society piece by piece by employing rational institutions - no revolutions, no 'blank canvas' approaches. Popper's message: Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Marx all made the same mistake (knowing what's best for mankind because they kneww what the future holds) let's not make them again.

These two books are definitely two of the most important and influential books I have read in my life. Especially in our times - where the two world wars and the totalitarian ideologies are far behind us - it is important to remind ourselves of Popper's message and to take care not to make the same mistakes again.

Partea a 2-a a cărții "Societatea deschisă și dușmanii ei" continuă analiza ideilor care au marcat societatea modernă, de data aceasta Popper aduce în analiză ideile lui Aristotel, Hegel și Marx combinate cu critica împotriva idolatrizării istoricismului (diferit de istorism - http://ginat-filosofie.blogspot.com/2...).
Analizele sale urmăresc îndeaproape cum ecourile idealismului hegelian se resimt destul de puternic în Europa lui Karl Marx; atacând dialectica lui Hegel, K. Popper atacă o bază de credințe a marxismului cu rădăcini adânci în scrierile hegeliene, anume credința în puterea sa profetică dar și propunerea unei inginerii sociale menită să prestabilească evoluția societății combinată cu impetuozitatea revoluției ca țel suprem de răsturnare a claselor politice. Atacând aceste "profeții" marxiste, Karl Popper denaturează doar o parte a acestei complexe mașinării sociale, căci în ciuda revoltei sale împotriva punctelor slabe, acesta evocă și unele puncte forte ale lui Marx dând exemple cum o parte din ideile sale se regăsesc la baza societăților moderne.
Punctul de convergență al acestor analize în constituie revolta sa împotriva iraționalului care este baza acestor credințe impulsive, dorința, cum ar spune autorul, copilărească de a ne reîntoarce mereu în trecut la o stare de lucruri neschimbătoare, la o societate cum Platon visa, în care totul este predefinit și bine ancorat.

Cartea sa a constituit un element edificator în mentalitatea mea în ceea ce înseamnă istoria, dar cel mai mult m-a frapat stilul său simplist și curajul (cu riscul asumat de a se expune multor critici) de a pune la îndoială filozofiile "tari" al căror spectru este îndeajuns de puternic pentru a nega orice idee de atac împotriva lor, devenind practic niște autorități epistemice.

Karl Popper merită citit nu pentru a căuta răspunsuri stabile ci pentru a căuta modalități de supune criticii ceea ce se acceptă de la sine, ideile platonice, aristotelice, hegeliene și marxiste au fost în cea mai mare parte a derulării istoriei niște idei larg acceptate fără fărâmă de îndoiala asupra adevărului lor.

very plausibly skips over 25 centuries to tie marxism directly into plato.

From Plato to Hegel, the philosopher king is the summit of socialism everywhere, a system in which the "good" thinker knows what is best for all individuals. Karl Popper prefers the free society and counts neo-Platonism among his enemies.

Having been raised in an authoritarian Communist culture in Austria, Popper rejected "historicism" in ascertaining that the growth of human knowledge is a causal factor in the evolution of human history, and since "no society can predict, scientifically, its own future states of knowledge", it follows, he argued, that there can be no predictive science of human history. For Popper, metaphysical and historical indeterminism go hand in hand.

يستأنف بوبر في هذا الجزء ما بدأه في الجزء الأول من نقد النزعة التاريخانية ومنهاجها ومخرجاتها
وهو هنا ينقضّ على هيجل وفلسفته في التاريخ انقضاضا شرسا في حين ينقد ماركس ومذهبه نقدا هادئا أقرب للتصويب والتنقيح منه إلى التقويض

وغاية المؤلف هنا كما ذكرناه في مقالات "صراع النبوءات" هو إقفال فضاء النبوءات التاريخية وإغلاقه تماما بأن ينفي كون التاريخ يمشي وفق نمط متكرر عام شامل، وبنفي ثبات هذا النمط وثبات الطبيعة البشرية.
فكل مساعي المؤلف هنا هي في تعزيز هذا الإقفال وإحكام هذا الختم، وبذلك فآرائه تتخير ما تتبناه من ماركس وأفلاطون وأرسطو وهيجل، وتتخير ما تنقض عليه وتوهنه، والغاية واضحة في كل ذلك وهي إلغاء أي إمكان لوجود معرفة حقيقية في العلم أو غاية منشودة في التاريخ

ومنهج بوبر المعرفي يتقاطع هنا مع نقده للتاريخانية - بل أزعم أن نظريته في المعرفة جاءت خادمة لغايته في التاريخ والسياسة.

والطريف أنه يفصح - واعيا بإفصاحه- من أن الغاية المنشودة للبشرية هي الوصول إلى المجتمع المفتوح الذي يلغي أي غاية للبشرية، وهو تناقض يعتز به بوبر بحيث يذكره في آخر نقده للتاريخانية ونبوءاتها ذكرا واضحا ...