|The Open Society and Its Enemies|
The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume Two
The Open Society and Its Enemies is an influential two-volume work by Karl Popper written during World War II. Failing to find a publisher in the United States, it was first printed in London by Routledge in 1945. The work excoriates theories of teleological historicism in which history unfolds inexorably according to universal laws, and indicts as totalitarian Plato, Hegel, and Marx for relying on historicism to underpin their political philosophies.
A veritable who's who of philosophy and the social sciences were involved in its path to publication, as Popper was writing in academic obscurity two oceans away in New Zealand for the duration of the World War II. Among them were Ernst Gombrich (entrusted with the main task of finding a publisher), Friedrich Hayek (who wanted to get Popper to the London School of Economics and thus was enthused by Popper's turn to social philosophy), Lionel Robbins, Harold Laski (both of whom reviewed the manuscript), and J.N. Findlay, among others. It was Findlay who suggested the title to the book, after three previous ones had been discarded ('A Social Philosophy for Everyman' was the original title of the manuscript, 'Three False Prophets: Plato-Hegel-Marx' and 'A Critique of Political Philosophy' were also considered and rejected).
In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper developed a critique of historicism and a defense of the open society, liberal democracy. The book comes in two volumes, volume one subtitled "The Spell of Plato", and volume two, "The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath"
The subtitle of the first volume is also its central premise — namely, that most Plato interpreters through the ages have been seduced by his greatness. In so doing, Popper argues, they have taken his political philosophy as a benign idyll, rather than as it should be seen: a horrific totalitarian nightmare of deceit, violence, master-race rhetoric, and eugenics.
Contrary to major Plato scholars of his day, Popper divorced Plato's ideas from those of Socrates, claiming that the former in his later years expressed none of the humanitarian and democratic tendencies of his teacher. In particular, he accuses Plato of betraying Socrates in the Republic, wherein he portrays Socrates sympathizing with totalitarianism (see: Socratic problem).
Popper extols Plato's analysis of social change and discontent, yet rejects his solutions. This is dependent on Popper's reading of the emerging humanitarian ideals of Athenian democracy as the birth pangs of his coveted "open society." In his view, Plato's historicist ideas are driven by a fear of the change that comes with such a liberal worldview. Popper also suggests that Plato was the victim of his own vanity—that he had designs to become the supreme Philosopher King of his vision.
Philosopher Sidney Hook praised The Open Society and its Enemies as a "subtly argued and passionately written" critique of the "historicist ideas that threaten the love of freedom [and] the existence of an open society." Hook calls Popper's critique of the cardinal beliefs of historicism "undoubtedly sound," noting that historicism "overlooks the presence of genuine alternatives in history, the operation of plural causal processes in the historical pattern, and the role of human ideals in redetermining the future." Nevertheless, Hook argues that Popper "reads Plato too literally when it serves his purposes and is too cocksure about what Plato's "real" meaning is when the texts are ambiguous." Moreover, Hook calls Popper's treatment of Hegel "downright abusive" and "demonstrably false," noting that "there is not a single reference to Hegel in Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.'"
According to philosopher Leo Strauss, Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies had mistaken the city-in-speech described in Plato's Republic for a blueprint for regime reform. Strauss quotes Cicero, "The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things – the nature of the city." Strauss argued that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from eros". The city-in-speech abstracted from eros, or bodily needs, and therefore could never guide politics in the manner Popper claimed.
Reviewing the book's legacy at the end the 20th century, Rajeev Bhargava claims that Popper "notoriously misreads Hegel and Marx," arguing also that the formulation Popper deployed to defend liberal political values is "motivated by partisan ideological considerations grounded curiously in the most abstract metaphysical premises."
Walter Kaufmann's 'The Hegel Myth and Its Method'  argues that Popper's section on Hegel is a simplified and misleading representation of Hegel. He claims that Popper's views are based on an incomplete reading of Hegel, suggesting that "Popper has relied largely on Scribner’s Hegel Selections, a little anthology for students that contains not a single complete work."  Kaufmann also views Popper as betraying the scientific method he proposes so passionately and instead is "intent on psychologizing the men he attacks".