The Open Society and Its Enemies (Princeton Classics)

by Karl Popper

The worker, on the other hand, does not depend for his material subsistence on his exploiter; once the worker revolts, once he has decided to challenge the existing order, the explo...

But does the second conclusion follow? Is it true that the workers’ victory must lead to a classless society? I do not think so. From the fact that of two classes only one remains, it does not follow that there will be a classless society. Classes are not like individuals, even if we admit that they behave nearly like individuals so long as there are two classes who are joined in battle.

There is no earthly reason why the individuals who form the proletariat should retain their class unity once the pressure of the struggle against the common class enemy has ceased.

!

The most likely development is, of course, that those actually in power at the moment of victory—those of the revolutionary leaders who have survived the struggle for power and the various purges, together with their staff—will form a New Class: the new ruling class of the new society

Marx’s conclusion, the prophecy of the coming of a classless society, does not follow from the premises. The third step of Marx’s argument must be pronounced to be inconclusive.

all that can certainly be said is that class struggle as such does not always produce lasting solidarity among the oppressed. There are examples of such solidarity and great devotion to the common cause; but there are also examples of groups of workers who pursue their particular group interest even where it is in open conflict with the interest of the other workers, and with the idea of the solidarity of the oppressed.

we must be on our guard against misinterpreting experience in the light of the Marxist prejudice that ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ is the only alternative and the only possible successor to ‘capitalism’.

For laissez-faire has disappeared from the face of the earth, but it has not been replaced by a socialist or communist system as Marx understood it.

if they infer from this that these countries are still ‘capitalist’ in Marx’s sense, then they only demonstrate the dogmatic character of their presupposition that there is no further alternative. This shows how it is possible to be blinded by the glare of a preconceived system. Not only is Marxism a bad guide to the future, but it also renders its followers incapable of seeing what is happening before their own eyes, in their own historical period, and sometimes even with their own co-operation.

His whole method of prophecy depends on the assumption that ideological influences need not be treated as independent and unpredictable elements, but that they are reducible to, and dependent on, observable economic conditions, and therefore predictable.

The second step of Marx’s prophetic argument has as its most relevant premise the assumption that capitalism must lead to an increase of wealth and misery; of wealth in the numerically declining bourgeoisie, and of misery in the numerically increasing working class.

The conclusions drawn from it can be divided into two parts. The first part is a prophecy concerning the development of the class structure of capitalism. It affirms that all classes apart from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and especially the so-called middle classes, are bound to disappear, and that, in consequence of the increasing tension between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the latter will become increasingly class-conscious and united. The second part is the prophecy that this tension cannot possibly be removed, and that it will lead to a proletarian social revolution.

Let us consider at once the first conclusion, i.e. the prophecy that all classes are bound to disappear,

But admirable as Marx’s observations are, the picture is defective. The movement he investigated is an industrial movement; his ‘capitalist’ is the industrial capitalist, his ‘proletarian’ the industrial worker.

it is at least possible that the rural middle classes may not disappear, and that the rural proletariat may not merge with the industrial proletariat.

We can say, therefore, that the first conclusion of the second step in Marx’s argument does not follow.

I do not assert that the prophecy cannot come true, or that the alternative developments I have described will come to pass. I only assert that they may come to pass.

I am not in all cases and under all circumstances against a violent revolution. I believe with some medieval and Renaissance Christian thinkers who taught the admissibility of tyrannicide that there may indeed, under a tyranny, be no other possibility, and that a violent revolution may be justified. But I also believe that any such revolution should have as its only aim the establishment of a democracy;

There is only one further use of violence in political quarrels which I should consider justified. I mean the resistance, once democracy has been attained, to any attack (whether from within or without the state) against the democratic constitution and the use of democratic methods. Any such attack, especially if it comes from the government in power, or if it is tolerated by it, should be resisted by all loyal citizens, even to the use of violence.

Marxists often decline to discuss the question whether or not a violent revolution would be ‘justified’; they say that they are not moralists, but scientists, and that they do not deal with speculations about what ought to be, but with the facts of what is or will be. In other words, they are historical prophets who confine themselves to the question of what will happen.

all Marxists agreeing, in principle, with the old view that violent revolutions are justified only if they are directed against a tyranny.

The radical wing insists that, according to Marx, all class rule is necessarily a dictatorship, i.e. a tyranny12. A real democracy can therefore be attained only by the establishment of a classless society, by overthrowing, if necessary violently, the capitalist dictatorship.

The moderate wing does not agree with this view, but insists that democracy can to some extent be realized even under capitalism, and that it is therefore possible to conduct the social revolution by peaceful and gradual reforms.

there can be little doubt that the core of Marx’s teaching in Capital was the impossibility of reforming capitalism, and the prophecy of its violent overthrow; a doctrine corresponding to that of the radical wing.

As opposed to the radical position which at least fits quite well into the prophetic argument, the moderate position destroys it completely. But as was said before, it too has the support of Marx’s authority. Marx lived long enough to see reforms carried out which, according to his theory, should have been impossible. But it never occurred to him that these improvements in the workers’ lot were at the same time refutations of his theory.

If we try to construct such a modified argument in accordance with Marx’s later views and with those of the moderate wing, preserving as much of the original theory as possible, then we arrive at an argument based entirely upon the claim that the working class represents now, or will one day represent, the majority of the people.

This revolution may either proceed by gradual and democratic methods, or it may be violent, or it may be gradual and violent in alternate stages. All this will depend upon the resistance of the bourgeoisie. But in any case, and particularly if the development is a peaceful one, it must end with the workers assuming ‘the position of the ruling class’21, as the Manifesto says; they must ‘win the battle of democracy’; for ‘the proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority’.

even in this moderate and modified form, the prediction is untenable. The reason is this. The theory of increasing misery must be given up if the possibility of gradual reform is admitted; but with it, even the semblance of a justification for the assertion that the industrial workers must one day form the ‘immense majority’ disappears.

the ambiguous attitude towards the problem of violence which we can observe in both the radical and the moderate Marxist parties.

The one is an ambiguous attitude towards violence, founded upon the historicist approach. The other is the ambiguous way in which Marxists speak about ‘the conquest of political power by the proletariat’

the workers’ party has the harmless and obvious aim of every democratic party, that of obtaining a majority, and of forming a government. But it may mean, and it is often hinted by Marxists that it does mean, that the party, once in power, intends to entrench itself in this position; that is to say, that it will use its majority vote in such a way as to make it very difficult for others ever to regain power by ordinary democratic means.

the moderate wing has systematically used the ambiguity of violence as well as that of power-conquest is even more important. It has been developed especially by Engels, on the basis of Marx’s more moderate views quoted above, and it has become a tactical doctrine which has greatly influenced later developments.

We Marxists much prefer a peaceful and democratic development towards socialism, if we can have it. But as political realists we foresee the probability that the bourgeoisie will not quietly stand by when we are within reach of attaining the majority. They will rather attempt to destroy democracy. In this case, we must not flinch, but fight back, and conquer political power. And since this development is a probable one, we must prepare the workers for it; otherwise we should betray our cause.

!

this criticism, practical as it is, and corroborated by experience, is only superficial. The main defects of the doctrine lie deeper.

both the presupposition of the doctrine and its tactical consequences are such that they are likely to produce exactly that anti-democratic reaction of the bourgeoisie which the theory predicts, yet claims (with ambiguity) to abhor: the strengthening of the antidemocratic element in the bourgeoisie, and, in consequence, civil war.

this may lead to defeat, and ...

Engels’ tactical doctrine, and, more generally, the ambiguities of violence and of power-conquest, make the working of democracy impossible, once they are adopted by an important political party.

democracy can work only if the main parties adhere to a view of its functions which may be summarized in some rules such as these

1 Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the institution of general elections is most important.

In a democracy, the powers of the rulers must be limited;

In a democracy, the rulers—that is to say, the government—can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed.

3 A consistent democratic constitution should exclude only one type of change in the legal system, namely a change which would endanger its democratic character.

4 In a democracy, the full protection of minorities should not extend to those who violate the law, and especially not to those who incite others to the violent overthrow of the democracy32

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 among the rulers.

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.

As opposed to such a policy, that of Marxist parties can be characterized as one of making the workers suspicious of democracy.

such views must produce:

(a) A policy of blaming democracy for all the evils which it does not prevent,

(b) A policy of educating the ruled to consider the state not as theirs, but as belonging to the rulers.