The Open Society and its Enemies

I was a bit too young to follow the debate in the early 1970s between Herbert Marcuse and Sir Karl Popper.  But if asked to choose between the two I would have enthusiastically thrown my lot in with Marcuse - choosing hot revolution over dreary incrementalism.  What sex-crazed teenager wouldn't buy into Marcuse's Marxian/Freudian notion that Eros was the creative force behind all civilization, and "late capitalism" channeled erotic impulses into consumerism and therefore had to be transformed. But into what? Marcuse, in his Essay on Liberation, is noticeably vague on what a "liberated" society might look like, but he was an energetic supporter of Third World "revolutions":

"In Vietnam, in Cuba, in China, a revolution is being defended and driven forward which struggles to eschew the bureaucratic administration of socialism. The guerrilla forces in Latin America seem to be animated by that same subversive impulse: liberation." (Herbert Marcuse, Preface to Essay on Liberation, 1969).  

Freedom of Expression, The First Amendment?  - all manifestations of late capitalist "Repressive Tolerance". Marcuse's theory - I'm ashamed to say - made a big impression on my teenage self. It wasn't until much later - after spending time in the Arbeiter-und-Bauern-Staat (DDR) in the late 1970s and early 1980s - that I began to understand the wisdom of Sir Karl Popper's The Open society and its Enemies (1947). By then I had studied Freud's Unbehagen in der Kultur and had a different understanding of Eros - of its destructive tendencies - and had read much modern history, including accounts of Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap Forward, which led to the slaughter of 40 million Chinese citizens. Utopian thinking,as Popper illustrates with Plato, tends to morph into tyranny. 

Popper wrote his treatise just as liberal democracy had managed to survive its greatest existential threat.  Now the open society is once again facing threats which just a few years ago were unthinkable. 

Ob AfD, Pegida, Hogesa, Salafisten, Graue Wölfe, abstruse linksradikale Reste antiimperialistischer Gruppen im Umfeld der Linkspartei, Nazis, Anhänger von Verschwörungstheorien, Esoterik und diverse ökoreligiösen Strömungen – fast alle diese Gruppen wachsen mit besorgniserregender Geschwindigkeit und so unterschiedlich sie auch sind, besteht zwischen ihnen in wesentlichen Punkten Einigkeit: Sie lehnen eine offene, pluralistische Gesellschaft ab. Antiamerikanismus und Antisemitismus sind bei ihnen mindestens weit verbreitet wenn nicht sogar ideologische Grundlage. Die Medien nehmen sie nur noch als Lügenpresse wahr. Offene Debatten sind ihnen verhasst.

(Whether AfD, Pegida, Hogesa, Salafi jihadists, Grey Wolves, abstruse radical left-wing remnants of anti-imperialists groups close to the Left Party, Nazis, fans of conspiracy theories, esoteric groups, diverse eco-religious elements - nearly all of these groups are growing at a speed that of great concern.  And, as diverse as they are, they all have one essential thing in common: they reject the open, pluralist society. Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are widespread with them, if not the core ideology.  They see the media as the "lying-press"; any open debate is anathema to them.)

I don't want to live in a world where Donald Trump is US president and Marine LePen is president of France, where migrant children seeking security and prosperity are gunned down at the border. Question is, do we still have the will any more to defend the open society?

Was eine Offene Gesellschaft nicht erträgt ist, wenn sie gleichzeitig angegriffen wird und sich zu wenige finden, sie zu verteidigen. In diese Situation kommen wir langsam...

(What the open society cannot tolerate is that it comes under attack and very few can be found to defend it.  We are slowly coming to this predicament...)

Comments

[Zyme]

"I don't want to live in a world where Donald Trump is US president and Marine LePen is president of France, where migrant children seeking security and prosperity are gunned down at the border."

Such a world does not necessarily lead to "Cultural Revolution, which led to the slaughter of 40 million Chinese citizens", as all the current movements you mentioned are vivid anti-communists :-)

It is simply old-fashioned European values as exercised roughly between 1650 and 1950. If this is what it takes to leave behind the same amount of wealth and progress we have enjoyed in our time - well then, why not?

How I would love to discuss these matters in a gentlemen's club in Pall Mall now :-D
We certainly lack similar Grandezza on this side of the Channel.

[David]

Has European life been so bad since 1950? The Europe I know is more affluent than the US, with better health care and educational opportunities. What's your complaint?

[Zyme]

That is all true in itself. However since 1950 this wealth was merely defended under an American umbrella during decades of Cold War.

Now the circumstances have changed tremendously and we will have to take defense (and if I may say so - offense) back into our hands.

I love Europe with its open borders and high intensity commercial interaction. However for this great realm to function, we simply have to fortify it against barbarian influx. We don't want to walk the Roman path after all, do we?

[nobody]

At the beginning I thought: Are U kidding ... David prefers Marcuse rather than Popper *dizzy* but at the end hast Du die Kurve gekriegt (U hit the road) Bravo

[Zyme]

To all regular participants on this blog:

Up until now the structure of IS not being a decentralized organisation like Al-Qaeda but instead being sort of a state with people paying tribute and taxes worked to their advantage. They do not have to hide in our civilizations but can work more or less openly in their territory.

However today I had an idea how we could instead use this to our advantage when fighting terrorism organized by IS. I have so far not encountered a single idea which would be similarly effective and also not inhibit our own freedoms in Europe. Consequently I would be very interested in your opinion!

I got that idea when thinking about Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". Imagine the entire EU population is presented with a number of questions on foreign politics once every month in an online plebiscite. At the very end of those questions they would regularly be asked "Do you agree to a nuclear strike on Raqqa as the capital of IS?".

Now surely a strong majority would answer "No" at the beginning. Only in case more than 50% would ever answer yes at some point, this would have to be binding to the nuclear powers in Europe.

Don't you think this would cause IS leaders to think twice about further terror strikes in Europe? With every strike linked to their organisation, they would turn forward their own doomsday clock.

Again, so far I have not encountered a single proposal by our political class in Europe which would work as effectively and not limit our freedoms even further. So I would be very interested in your opinion.

[KR]

The IS-terrorists would not be deterred from doing their job because they are looking forward to receive the well known reward to Muslim martyrs.

[koogleschreiber]

If ever, I would recommend an anonymous strike with neutron weapons from a submarine close to the Russian or Israeli coast. Every nuclear power could easily deny responsibility, because none of them officially has neutron weapons. Section 31, call your office...

Nevertheless I don't believe the IS leaders are very religious, they only pretend so according to their business plan. Their followers might be, in a way, religious, but their main incentives are probably money, free sex and cigarettes, and amphetamines.

Just give it a try: Cut off the supply of tobacco and cigarettes and wait for things to develop. NATO can cut off that supply, hm? Yes? lol

[KR]

I still doubt that suicide bombers fear being killed.

[Zyme]

"Nevertheless I don't believe the IS leaders are very religious"

This is exactly what I had in mind. They make use of it but ultimately want to remain in power. Using religious ideology you can turn so many defeats into a victory - however seeing your capital turned into a nuclear sinkhole is not among those.
The movement intending to conquer the world would be crushed, with nobody alive believing into it any more.

IS leaders being aware of this would not want to walk this path. Instead (I assume!) they would focus their attention on other goals and no longer on attacking Europe.

[Clifford Vickrey]

I have nothing to add other than to agree with Eric Voegelin's assessment of "The Open Society and its Enemies" as a dilettantish work of Political Theory. Popper misread Plato by looking only at his "intentions" (which are unknowable, since Plato never inserts himself as a character in the Dialogues), and absurdly projects twentieth-century ideas of liberalism and totalitarianism onto both him and his contemporaries. His main points about Hegel are based on mistranslations and invented quotes, as well as a basic misunderstanding of Hegel's project (which is not "prophecy," but to explain how the current modern state--which, Hegel argues, simultaneously meets humans' need for authentic and free action ["subjectivity," which finds its home in the free market] and obeying the strictures of justice ["objectivity," or the rule of law]. In this way morality transcends mere abstraction and becomes "concrete"). That said, I'd much rather be governed by Popper than Marcuse.