The Open Society and Its Enemies

In “Plato’s Political Program,” Popper offers a detailed examination of the central aspects of Plato’s politics. Popper’s assessment of Plato’s political program includes the following categories: the central ideas of Plato’s political program, the question of justice, collectivism and individualism, education as the function of the state, the philosopher-king as an ideal leader, and finally, the question of state propaganda. The Greek philosopher’s ideology may be summarized through the following slogans: “Arrest all political change!” and “Back to nature!” (81). Popper locates historicism at the root of these slogans (81). In fact, historicist sociology is responsible for Plato’s totalitarian program. Popper equates Plato’s totalitarianism with the 20th-century counterpart on the basic level but differentiates between the two when it comes to their specific aspects. For instance, Popper finds the concern for the well-being of all citizens along with the focus on justice in Plato’s vision (84). The author, however, does not explore this comparison further, for instance to the mass-scale expression of totalitarianism in the 20th century. One of the ways in which Plato promotes his politics is by using the character of Socrates in his dialogues as “the embodiment of an unmitigated authoritarianism” (124). Popper views the real Socrates differently—as egalitarian and individualistic (124), “a moralist,” and a “man who would criticize any form of government for its shortcomings” (121).

Popper reduces Plato’s political program to five central ideas. First, Plato advocated for a rigidly structured social system in which the ruling class consisted of “herdsmen” and “watch-dogs” who controlled the “human cattle” (83). Popper uses these terms to criticize Plato’s classicism. Second, Plato’s main concern was with the elites. He equated the fate of the state with the ruling class, its collective interests, and its cohesion. The Greek philosopher even set the rules for its breeding and education to ensure that its members are the wisest and the noblest specimens (83-84). Third, the elites had the exclusive right to military training and weapons possession but could not participate in economic life, including earning income (83-84). Plato was convinced that economic self-interest was one of the main reasons for the disunity and the corruption of his ideal state. Fourth, the intellectual pursuits of the elites were subject to ongoing censorship and propaganda. The purpose of this approach was to maintain their cohesion as a group to benefit the state. Plato also argued for suppressing innovation in such fields as religion, legislation, and education (83-84). Finally, Plato sought self-sufficiency for the state so as to avoid its becoming dependent on those participating in economic activities or participating in these activities itself. Popper believes that Plato was idealized by many scholars who whitewashed his totalitarianism (85). British writer and politician R.H.S. Crossman, however, assessed Plato as follows: “Plato’s philosophy is the most savage and most profound attack upon liberal ideas which history can show” (84).

Popper moves on to investigate each central political idea starting from the question of justice. Plato defined justice as that which serves the interest of the state (135). Popper considers the Republic to be “the most elaborate monograph on justice ever written” (89). In this text, Plato focused on every theory of justice but deliberately excluded egalitarianism (89). Plato believed that a just state was one with strictly defined social tiers, which may be phrased as: “[T]he ruler rules, if the worker works, and if the slave slaves” (87). In other words, justice pertains to the state at large—rather than each individual person—and every class stays intact within its bounds (87, 93). Plato also perceived humans as naturally unequal, and justice must account for that. He stated in Laws that the “[e]qual treatment of unequals must beget inequality” (92). Popper challenges the assertion that Plato’s notion of social justice channels traditional Greek thought: “Plato attempted to present his totalitarian class rule as ‘jus’ while people generally meant by ‘justice’ the exact opposite” (88-89). For instance, Plato’s student Aristotle argued that justice should establish equality (88).

Popper proposes his own theory of justice to challenge Plato. He seeks to eliminate Plato’s natural privileges in society and replace them with egalitarianism—an impartial treatment of citizens by their state. Popper also finds a challenge to Plato in his predecessor Pericles. The latter argued that one’s familial background or connections should have no influence on the way one is treated (91). Popper also asserts that individualism—not collectivism—should serve as society’s guiding principle. Finally, the author argues that one of the key roles of the state is to protect its citizens’ freedom—to challenge Plato’s assertion that individual citizens must strengthen the state instead (91, 105).

Next, Popper tackles the dichotomy of collectivism and individualism, which is linked to the question of equality and inequality (95). The term “individualism” does not refer to selfishness or egotism, as was Plato’s view, but rather the opposite of collectivism (96-97). In fact, Popper believes that “individualism, united with altruism, has become the basis for our western civilization” (97). Plato’s “radical collectivism” is related to the totalitarian theory of the state (101), and his sole standard was “the interest of the state” (102), as seen in Laws:

The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should ever be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative, neither out of zeal, nor even playfully” (98).

Next, Popper ventures into the fundamental question of politics, “Who shall rule the state?” (114). Plato responded to this question: “The wise should lead and rule, and the ignorant shall follow” (113). Popper calls this approach “the theory of unchecked sovereignty” (115). As a result, Plato left a perplexing legacy for subsequent thinkers in Western political philosophy (114). Popper proposes an alternative by suggesting that the optimal way to design political institutions is through checks and balances (115). In other words, rather than hoping for the best-case scenario, such as Plato’s philosopher-king, identifying and implementing suitable damage control is a more realistic solution:

The theory I have in mind is one which does not proceed, as it were, from a doctrine of the intrinsic goodness or righteousness of a majority rule, but rather from the baseness of tyranny; or more precisely, it rests upon the decision, or upon the adoption of the proposal, to avoid and to resist tyranny (117).

Another key difference between Plato’s and Popper’s approaches to leadership is that Plato focused on an individual leader, whereas Popper focuses and the entire institution. In Plato’s view, the state depends on the personal qualities of a chosen leader. According to Popper, however, the qualities of a specific leader—or the principles of leadership themselves—cannot be separated from politics at large. After all, long-term politics is always institutionalized, and institutions present their own set of problems. An institution designed for training superior leaders is also an unrealistic concept for Popper (119, 127).

The question of educating leaders is another key area of interest for Plato. In fact, Plato is often credited with being the inventor of schools and universities (128). Plato believed that the state should be in control of education (123). Conversely, the purpose of receiving an education is to serve the state (138). Since Plato’s idea of leadership was focused on the personal qualities of a ruler, it was logical for him to insist that future rulers be subject to an intensive educational process. One of the central aspects of this process—carried out by the state—was the field of philosophy (126-27). Popper argues that Plato viewed education as a tool in the arsenal of totalitarianism:

Plato’s political program was more institutional than personalist; he hoped to arrest political change by the institutional control of succession in leadership. The control was to be educational, based upon an authoritarian view of learning—upon the authority of the learned expert and “the man of proven ability” (129).

As a result, Popper asserts that education in philosophy was meant to obtain the “Knowledge of the Idea of the Good” so as to benefit the state (138). Plato’s emphasis on the need for philosophical education was, therefore, political: “It puts a mark on the rulers, and it establishes a barrier between the rulers and the ruled” (139). This division still exists in modern society, in which higher, post-secondary education creates a divide between the lower social strata and the elites by facilitating social mobility for the latter (139).

Proper education is a prerequisite for the formation of an ideal leader—the philosopher-king. This type of ruler must simultaneously embody the optimal qualities of a “godlike” statesman and of a philosopher (129, 131). The philosopher-king is the guarantor of the collective unity of the ruling class and, therefore, the stability of the state (130). Popper criticizes the philosopher-king concept by calling it “a monument of human smallness” (146). He contrasts Plato’s idealization of this form of leadership with Socrates, who “warned the statesman against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom” (146). Furthermore, Plato advocated for the sovereignty—that is, virtually limitless power—of the philosopher-king. In contrast, Popper believes that this degree of power corrupts those in power (142).

According to Plato, only philosophers are capable of replicating a Form or Idea (136, 140). Therefore, it is only the philosopher-king, as the ruler, who can ensure the establishment of the replica of the perfect state and the creation of the perfect people within it—“the most constant, the most virile, and, within the limits of possibilities, the most beautifully formed men … : nobly born, and of awe-inspiring character” (140). These people are to be “godlike if not divine … sculptured in perfect beauty” (140). Popper believes that Plato set the groundwork for the creation of a master race: “The only hope of discovering such a function seems to be in the field of breeding the master race. […] Racialism thus takes up a more central part in Plato’s political program than one would expect at first sight” (139).

The purpose of creating a master race—through philosophical, eugenic breeding—was to prevent the degeneration of society (142). By interpreting the Republic, specifically, Popper identifies Plato’s view on degeneration as both the corruption of the state through political instability and racial degeneration (142-43). This reading of Plato’s eugenics is not unlike its 20th-century fascist counterpart, which considered the purity of blood essential to the well-being of the nation-state. Popper returns to this question later when analyzing Hegelianism.

One of the ways to strengthen this Platonic state and to exert control over its subjects is to disseminate propaganda—the theory of lies (131). For this reason, Popper considers it difficult, at times, to identify whether Plato said what he meant, or whether he was engaging in propaganda himself (135). The central narrative of Plato’s proposed propaganda campaign is the Myth of Blood and Soil. Popper emphasizes that Plato admits to not believing it himself. The purpose of this myth is to achieve two goals. First is the defense of one’s homeland. Second is Plato’s myth of racialism. Plato compared different social classes to their corresponding metals, for instance, with gold and silver representing the ruling class (132-33).

Another noteworthy aspect of Plato’s propaganda campaign is centered on religion. In Laws, Plato argued that those who are on the wrong side of the battle between good and evil are punished by gods themselves. Popper asserts that for Plato, the wrong side was individualism, whereas the good side was represented by collectivism (135). This narrative fits right into Plato’s advocacy for collectivism represented by the ideal unity of the ruling class as the way of maintaining political stability (135). Overall, Popper disparages the Greek philosopher’s deployment of propaganda to benefit the state: “Plato’s utilitarian and totalitarian principles overrule everything” (131).

In general, Popper describes Plato’s political program as perfectionist and utopian (157). Even an attempt to achieve Plato’s vision would require substantial effort, “[I]t is not reasonable to assume that a complete reconstruction of our social world would lead at once to a workable system” (156). The most dangerous aspect of Plato’s political program, in Popper’s eyes, is “Utopian engineering” (146). Utopian engineering is based on the idea that any rational action must have a goal, in which the ends justify the means. Plato’s Statesman demonstrates this concept by suggesting that as long as it is done to benefit the state, any action is permissible (147).

Furthermore, arriving at a dictatorship is the logical consequence of creating an ideal state, which requires centralization (149). Popper asserts that Plato’s utopianism is riddled with other problems, such as the search for the dictator’s successor (150). The author suggests “piecemeal engineering” as an alternative to Plato—the only “methodologically sound” way to manage society because creating large-scale blueprints is not an easy task (149). Much like his suggestion for designing state institutions in a way that would prevent damage from a bad ruler, carrying out tasks in a gradual, step-by-step fashion would cause minimal damage (149).