On Popper's "The Open Society and it's Enemies"
Updated: 3 days ago
Popper is writing during World War II, and trying to get at what it is that occurred in Twentieth Century Totalitarianism. In doing so, we will say, he confuses two opposite kinds of Utopianism, and is unable to distinguish Plato and Biblical accounts of the end or the best regime. In this he is the same as Voegelin, Bloom and the Straussians, and we will here indicate or make this distinction, and also try to get at the reason behind the confusion. In it's place we will set a different hypothesis: Fascism and communism- the right and left of our twentieth century totalitarianism- are diabolic opposites of Biblical and Platonic utopianism. These are as if a divine scourge for the killings of heretics in the middle ages, which causes modernity to be anti-Christian. The result was the prophecied spreading of death over a quarter of the globe, as in the fourth horseman of the bible (As we read Revelation 6:8). These two sets of opposites are as similar and as different as tyranny and kingship- and one could their similarities all day as forms of monarchy without demonstrating that there there is not a diametrically opposed difference between them.
"Historicism" in Popper- as in his book titled "The Poverty of Historicism," means as in Marx, the belief or teaching that one has found laws of history and knows its fated motions and end. Popper correctly sees the similarity between these two opposites, and notes the biblical elements such as the "thousand year" Reich and the historical necessity of the race-based fascism. In Strauss, it means more simply the belief and teaching that all truth is historical or time bound to it's own historical period. Popper is also correct that there is a connection between the "Chosen people" teaching of the Jews and the racial basis of twentieth century fascism, though here again we will argue that these though similar in one way are diametrically opposed in the most important way. Popper repeatedly states "inherit the earth," as Jesus teaches will pertain to the meek in the millennial kingdom.
Plato and Socrates are not advocating things to be put in practice in any nation- a collection of poleis- and one wonders how they might have written a constitution for a pan-hellenic nation. Socrates suggest that the Greek cities cease warring with one another- and there are a few other practical suggestions in that section, like cease plundering corpses during battles- that is really stupid, and soldiers get killed doing it- battles can be lost for private greed.
Nor is the Republic a blueprint for any city then in existence or likely to exist, as the Straussians summarize Bloom's account. Bloom concludes that the Republic is rather "The greatest critique of political idealism ever written." (Bloom, p. 410).
To the comment that Popper cannot distinguish between Plato and Hitler:
[Crispin Sartwell on Twitter: "i don't think that Plato ranted directly against the Jews. he strongly endorsed rule by lies and extreme eugenics as well as total censorship, however. Hitler-ish enough to be getting on with."
Answer: Endorsed? His Socrates says not one city then is even worthy of philosophic rule. But what if humans in the cave are bound to lies, and the question will be whether these are noble or ignoble lies? Censorship by wisdom- nor do we let 3 year olds watch horror and porn, etc. The regime is a household rule of the polis, as is monarchy, and the point may be that the city cannot bear the analogy between city and soul that holds through the end of Book IV, with the three part city and soul.
Plato surely does not endorse the unwise holding powers which only the wise could use well- the knowing pilot- nor do we have a wise man. Tyrants assume that THEY are wise!
[Sartwell:] should i start enumerating the totalitarian drawbacks of the 'best city'? (a) once you constitute a power that is able to...control all the arts and all sexuality, e.g., you cannot control what it does after that. it is an evil thing, this best city.
One does wonder why it was published, given that the age of the nation would supercede the polis, and common folk would use it to promote tyranny. Is dedication to the city highest then? That is what Glaucon is supposed to see- not a blueprint but "for the sake of a pattern"
·
Totalitarianism is going to be a peculiarly modern sort of tyranny, ideological tyranny, the rule of an idea. These ideas- of fascism and communism- are intellectual perversions, or perversions of the imagination- Marx is obvious and easily demonstrable. I'm doing Popper on Wix
Here we pause to note the good sense of the Americans in electing actors, sports stars and and real estate tycoons rather than political science professors to the Presidency- and the marvel that one's profession does not predict his ability in statesmanship as in carpentry or the arts. The famous quote of Buckley says he would rather be ruled by the first 20000 names in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard.
If no city has a wise one to govern it, the teaching is rather political liberty in every other regime, and Bloom notes that democracy corresponds in place to the age of heroes in Hesiod. It is the only OTHER regime in which philosophy can exist aside from the best.
That is how we fit together American political theory and Plato's Republic- Now if we could only make democracy safe for the world- the many always want to fleece the rich, who beat the poor, and are the LEAST able to avoid the aim at the good of a part rather than the whole.
But I still go back and forth between saying it is meant to make Glaucon puke and that it would not be so bad in a single city with real wise rule.
Popper reads Plato plainly because Popper believes that is how knowledge is best communicated. Trouble is Plato didn't write plainly.
Popper is reading a 3D work- a dialogue- in 2D. He did not pay attention to 3D geometry in analogy! I'm enjoying his use of the word "historicism!" He is my teacher on induction and evolutionary epistemology. We love him anyway- smart guy!
Doing Republic this term following along with the Ascend Podcast, I will try to answer Popper, as many say the same of Plato. We will try to answer for Plato and address the contradiction that we love both liberty and Plato.
Socrates and Jefferson fit together because 1) we do not have a wise man, which we recognize from the height of wisdom shown in books V-VII of the Republic, and 2) nations are different from cities- and 3) Plato does not present the regime as a blueprint for action, and 4...
...4) Plato wrote dialogues, while Popper is reading him in 2 dimensions, 5) Democratic liberty is itself not possible or best in many cities, times and places, and turns quickly into tyranny, as we have seen. in many cities, times and places.
That does not address the problem, though, that Plato could be read that way- as writing Greek legislation, nor does it address the differences between Plato and abhorrence of slavery and the possibility of what has occurred in the 20th century. Nor does it resolve my 2 readings, that Socrates shows the limits of politics, and that this regime is not the best. Does Plato educate Free men?
Comments