Book Review: The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper

Karl Popper wrote this during the Second World War against totalitarianism and for the democratic process. The book is divided into two parts, covering the thoughts of known philosophers about how to organize the state, to whom power belongs, and why. He writes about Plato, Hegel, Aristoteles, and Marx, and in the second part, he discusses the building blocks of mind, religion, and rationality, drawing his conclusions. He defends rationality, equality, and institutions.

The book is highly critical of Plato, Hegel, and Marx. However, it gives more credit to Marx’s humanitarian pursuit than to others might do. Popper attacks Plato’s notion of the state and who should lead, arguing for the democratic process instead of Philosopher Kings. He gives the Greeks credit for individuality and equality, reviewing the base for those arguments and the history surrounding them. I think this part of the book was the most influential part of Popper’s contribution to the discussion of how societies should be organized and what ideas have influenced them. The ideas of individualism and equality are the cornerstones of our modern life. They are used in our politics as a defense for the actions taken by our leaders again and again. The question if the actions promote those two things is up for debate. Nevertheless, they are seen as the base for the good life. I just read a book about the differences between Western and Eastern thinking. I think Popper’s review of Plato defines why our Western minds, societies, and institutions are organized as they are. Where Eastern values balance and collectivism, we value individualism and categories/definitions. The difference makes an important distinction in how the world is perceived and what actions are taken.

From Plato, Popper moves on to discuss historicism and whether it is, as Plato sees it, a constant state of decay or, as Hegel proposes, progress. I can’t remember the debate here for the life of me. I phased out this section. What I can remember is the question of direction and where history leads. He accuses Hegel of not knowing his history and defends that to understand now and the future, we need to understand the past, like with Plato and the Greeks, and how they have influenced our thought. Popper includes Marx in the discussion with his notion that history will inevitably lead to socialism because of the unequal distribution of power and the decay it causes, whereas Hegel saw Prussia as the culmination of human civilizations. With Marx, Popper goes to lengths to examine the power dynamic between the worker and the capitalist. He gives credit to Marx for criticizing the early stages of Capitalist societies but sees that Marx didn’t have faith in the process. Popper puts his trust in the legislative changes and institutions to protect the workers.

Lastly, Popper concludes everything with radical rationalism and how it is the way to value actions taken and the relations we have with each other. He attacks religious thought and sees pure compassion as blind. He argues that with rationality, we can discern others’ needs and act on a societal level so that there won’t be child labor, as was the case with the early Capitalist society. It doesn’t matter if you agree with Popper or not; I still think this is essential to read as I find his way of viewing history and how a modern society should be organized as the basic value of how we actually act now. What I mean is that Popper’s ideology has had a great impact on our leaders or at least their argumentation.

Thank you for reading! Have a wonderful weekend ❤