The Open Philosophy and The Open Society. A Reply to Dr. Karl Popper's Refutations of Marxism PDF
Preview The Open Philosophy and The Open Society. A Reply to Dr. Karl Popper's Refutations of Marxism
Tlie Open Philosophy and The Open Society by Maurice Cornforth THE OPEN PHILOSOPHY AND THE OPEN SOCIETY : BythesameAuthor: DIALECTICALMATEMALISM AND SCIENCE readers' guideto the MARXIST CLASSICS SCIENCEVERSUS IDEALISM DIALECTICALMATEIUALISM, ANINTRODUCTION Vol. I. Materialism and the Dialectical Method Vol. 2. Historical Materiahsm Vol. 3. TheTheory ofKnowledge MARXISMAND THE LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY With D. Bernal, J. SCIENCEFORPEACEAND SOCIALISM THE OPEN PHILOSOPHY AND THE OPEN SOCIETY a Reply to Dr. Karl Popper's Refutations ofMarxism By MAURICE CORNFORTH INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS NEW YORK @ Copyright Maurice Cornforth 1968 Library ofCongress Catalogue Card Number: 68-27sqs Printedinthe United StatesofAmerica FOREWORD The object of this book is to discuss fundamental ideas of Marxist philosophyand theirimphcations for social theoryand sociahstpolicy. My premise is to accept Marxism as essentially a scientific outlook which seeks to work out and test ideas and pohcies, in all spheres, in accordance with the canons ofrational scientific discussion and in no other way. I have chosen the method ofconstructing this book as a reasoned reply to criticisms ofMarxism. And ofall the critics, I havepicked on a single one, Dr. Karl Popper, as the one to answer. I have done this because Dr. Popper's whole case against Marxism rests on his con- tentionthatitisnothingbutasystemofdogmas, so thathis arguments against Marxism provide a ready-made and accommodating peg on which to hang the argument that Marxism is, on the contrary, a rational scientific discipline. There is the more reasonfor a Marxist to tackle the case putagainst Marxism by Dr. Popper because not only is he perhaps the most eminent of our contemporary critics, and not only does he present his case with great ability and force, but because, so far as I canjudge, the points he makes against Marxism include practically all the main points against it which carry most weight in contemporary debate. Ofcourse, someofhis arguments(forexample, thosehe directsagainst Marx's Capital, or again, against the theory and practice of sociahst economic planning) are borrowed from arguments originally put forward in greater detail by other critics. However, I have preferred to stick throughout to tackling the case as put by Dr. Popper rather than encumber the discussionwith references to the writings ofothers who have put the same case before or since. Dr. Popper's arguments against Marxism are extremely comprehensive, and it is high time someone tried to answer him in detail. Dr. Popper himselfoccupies an unchallengeable position in modem letters as an exponent ofprinciples ofscientific method. His contribu- tions in this sphere, first in his famous book Logik der Forschung (pubhshed in English under the title Logic ofScientific Discovery) and then in numerous articles in English and Americanjournals, have had and continue to have a great and beneficial influence on modern thought. IwouldliketoemphasisethatI donotseektoattackorrefute all that Dr. Popper has to say about science or about society. On the contrary, I accept and agree with a good deal ofit. This bookis not a 6 THE OPEN PHILOSOPHY AND THE OPEN SOCIETY polemic against Dr. Popper, but an answer to his polemic against Marxism. I am seeking only to answer his charges and (as the sequel will show, this is often the right word) smears against Marxism, so as to make as clear as I can what Marxism really stands for, and to show that a rational and scientific approach to social problems (which Dr. Popper professes to demand) lends support to Marxism. Dr. Popper has popularised in sociology and politics the use ofthe word"open". Inthetitleofthisbook,andinthediscussionsitcontains, I have ventured to borrow it from him. A society is "open" when there is nothing to stop individuals, ifthey choose, from developing their abiHties and personahties to the fullest extent, and when social institutions are so ordered that they can be changed and developed, by decision ofthe members ofsociety, in any way that will assist indi- viduals to hve more fully and more freely. On the other hand, it is "closed" when the members ofsociety are bound by rules and regula- tions, conventions and prejudices, strictly enforced, which restrict their choices and impose on them a pattern oflife rigidly limited by institutions which may not be changed. The open society and progress towards the open society demand (so Dr. Popper declares, and I agree with him) an open way ofthink- ing, characterised by rationahty as opposed to blind behefin dogmas. For the open society we need an outlook which rejects dogmas and judges things only on the basis of evidence, always ready to think againwhenexperiencefalsifiesearlierconclusions. ThisIhaveventured to call an "open philosophy". Dr. Popper's objection to Marxism is that he imagines it to be a closed philosophy, a system of dogmas, what he calls "a reinforced dogmatism". And inevitably, so he maintains, the Marxist dogmas — enjoinacorresponding closed attitude in socialhfe theimposition on society ofrules, regulations, tyrannies ofcustom, enforced by poHtical tyranny, which effectively close for individuals, and for society as a whole, aU the avenues offree development. But, one may ask, is a society really "open" when social production is tied to ensuring the accumulation ofcapital from surplus value, and theenjoymentofbenefitsandprivilegesbysomedependsonexploiting the labour ofothers? And can one's mind be really "open" so long as one is unable to see that such is the case with contemporary capitalist society, or to see the possibilities ofadvance which could be opened up for mankind if only the exploitation ofman by man were done away with? So far from Marxism being a system ofdogmas to close FOREWORD 7 our minds and discourage the unfettered exercise ofreason to work out how best to promote freedom and the brotherhood of men, it systematises a way ofthinking to open our minds to the appreciation ofthings as they are and the practical possibihties ofchanging them for the better. The open way ofthinking is the way ofthinking which bases itself on demonstrable rules for finding out how things are, and which strives to appreciate, therefore, the actual conditions ofour material — existence and the necessary conditions for changing them which thereforecloses the mind to misrepresentationsanddogmas, andopens the mind to the real possibilities ofhuman life. That is why I have called the philosophy of Marxism "the open philosophy" and the communist society towards which Marxism directs our sights "the open society". — Agooddealofthisbookiscontroversial ^notonlybecauseIengage in a controversy with opponents of Marxism but because there is controversywithinMarxismitself. Inevitably, toanswertheobjections of opponents, especially the kind of objections Dr. Popper makes about Marxism being a dogma and the pohcies it advocates poHcies of dictatorship and tyranny, involves discussions which are contro- versial as among friends. In this connection I cannot but conclude this ForewordbyacknowledgingaparticulardebtofgratitudetoR. Palme Dutt, who read through most ofthis bookin the form inwhich Ifirst drafted it. I alone am responsible for the point ofview I express and for such unclarities and fallacies as may be found in it. But by his critical observations he helped me on several points to make it more clear and, I hope, more cogent thanit would otherwise have been. M. C. London, October 1967 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 http://www.archive.org/details/openphilosophyopOOcorn
The list of books you might like
