The Germans are coming
Senior Member
I read through Karl Poppers "The Open Society and it`s Enemies" again. One of the most important works of 20th century philosophy. If Marx is the philosopher of communism, Popper is the philosopher of democracy. In the first book he takes on Plato and confronts the totalitarianism of his theories. In the second book he takes on Hegel and Marx. He shows how Hegels notion of "human destiny" and "a goal for humanity to reach" is inherently totalitarian and ignorant of an individuals liberties and in his opinion responsible for the worst catastrophies in human history. He also sees Marx as nothing else as a totalitarian flase prophet who insists on owning a truth whilest not opening up to critizism and relying on pathetic historicism.
His main arguments are that humanity has no destiny and therefor the notion of utopia is inherently flawed and that philosophers always asked "who should rule" whilest the most important question should be "how can we limit the rulers power".
Popper was a great friend of other philosophical greats like Bertand Russel and Friedrich von Hayek. His advice was also sought by Helmut Schmidt, Helmudt Kohl, Thatcher and others.
In the second book, after his critizism of Marx`s economic historicism he list what he sees as the 7 most important rules for democracy:
1: Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the institution of general elections is most important. For a majority might rule in a tyrannical way. In a democracy the powers of the rulers must be limited; and the criterion of a democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers - that is to say, the government - can be dismessed by the ruled without bloodshed. Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny.
2: We need only distinguish between two forms of government , such as possess the institutions of this kind, and all others. hence democracies and tyrannies.
3: A consistent democratic constitution should exclude only one type of change in the legal system, namely a change which would endanger it`s democratic character.
4: In a democracy, the full protection of minorities should not extend to those who violate the law, and especialy not to those who incite others to the violent overoverthrow of the democracy.
5: A policy of framing institutions to safeguard democracy must always proceed on the assumption that there may be anti-democratic tendencies latent among the ruled as well as the rulers.
6: If democracy is destroyed, all rights are destroyed. Even if certain economic advanteges enjoyed by the ruled should persist, they would persist only on sufferance.
7: Democracy provides an invaluable battle ground for any reasonable reform, since it permits reform without violence. But if the preservation of democracy is not made the first consideration in any particular battle fought out on this battle ground, then the latent anti democratic tendencies which are always present may bring about a breakdown of democracy. If an understanding of these principles is not yet developed, it`s development must be fought for. The opposite policy might prove fatal; it may bring about the loss of the most important battle, the battle for democracy itself.
Points number 2 and 4 have been discussed by me recently. Once on this forum Because I for one justify the inprisonment, trial and sentencing of political radicals in my country with point number 4. I also clash with people arguing that Iran, Quatar, Russia and other countries are so called "hybrid democracis". because I truely believe that there are only two forms of government, democracy and tyranny, and to water down what makes a democracy is to simply betray what a democracy is and to betray it and it`s prnciples.
Your thoughts?
His main arguments are that humanity has no destiny and therefor the notion of utopia is inherently flawed and that philosophers always asked "who should rule" whilest the most important question should be "how can we limit the rulers power".
Popper was a great friend of other philosophical greats like Bertand Russel and Friedrich von Hayek. His advice was also sought by Helmut Schmidt, Helmudt Kohl, Thatcher and others.
In the second book, after his critizism of Marx`s economic historicism he list what he sees as the 7 most important rules for democracy:
1: Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the institution of general elections is most important. For a majority might rule in a tyrannical way. In a democracy the powers of the rulers must be limited; and the criterion of a democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers - that is to say, the government - can be dismessed by the ruled without bloodshed. Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny.
2: We need only distinguish between two forms of government , such as possess the institutions of this kind, and all others. hence democracies and tyrannies.
3: A consistent democratic constitution should exclude only one type of change in the legal system, namely a change which would endanger it`s democratic character.
4: In a democracy, the full protection of minorities should not extend to those who violate the law, and especialy not to those who incite others to the violent overoverthrow of the democracy.
5: A policy of framing institutions to safeguard democracy must always proceed on the assumption that there may be anti-democratic tendencies latent among the ruled as well as the rulers.
6: If democracy is destroyed, all rights are destroyed. Even if certain economic advanteges enjoyed by the ruled should persist, they would persist only on sufferance.
7: Democracy provides an invaluable battle ground for any reasonable reform, since it permits reform without violence. But if the preservation of democracy is not made the first consideration in any particular battle fought out on this battle ground, then the latent anti democratic tendencies which are always present may bring about a breakdown of democracy. If an understanding of these principles is not yet developed, it`s development must be fought for. The opposite policy might prove fatal; it may bring about the loss of the most important battle, the battle for democracy itself.
Points number 2 and 4 have been discussed by me recently. Once on this forum Because I for one justify the inprisonment, trial and sentencing of political radicals in my country with point number 4. I also clash with people arguing that Iran, Quatar, Russia and other countries are so called "hybrid democracis". because I truely believe that there are only two forms of government, democracy and tyranny, and to water down what makes a democracy is to simply betray what a democracy is and to betray it and it`s prnciples.
Your thoughts?
