Karl Popper’s theories are universally taught at universities worldwide as a foundational component of standard academic curricula. Rather than being confined to a single department, his ideas—primarily falsifiability, the problem of induction, and the open society—are integrated across multiple disciplines.
Popper argued that an Open Society functions exactly like a laboratory. In science, we advance by making bold claims and eliminating errors through experimentation. In a democracy, we advance by implementing "piecemeal social engineering" (policies) and eliminating errors by voting bad leaders out of office without bloodshed. Both require the absolute freedom to criticise authority and speak openly.
Professors often note a cultural divide: while contemporary academic philosophers view Popper’s model as overly simplistic, practicing scientists and science educators still heavily embrace and teach his strict view of the scientific method. Scientists love Popper because his criterion of demarcation provides a sharp, intellectual weapon to defend their field against pseudoscience, such as astrology, creationism, or climate change denial.
Below the focus will be on Popper's and the Popperians's from political-economic perspective.
————————
How much relevance is left from Karl Popper' The Open Society and Its Enemies in the light of the multiple crises capitalism has been experiencing in the last two decades or so?
In the wake of repeated systemic disruptions—including the 2008 global financial crisis, the euro crisis, escalating wealth inequality, and the state-interventionist responses to the COVID-19 pandemic—Karl Popper’s legacy faces a split reality. [1]
On one hand, the flaws of raw capitalism have sparked severe criticism of Popper's economic blindspots. On the other hand, the real-world methods used by democracies to handle these crises are almost entirely built on his ideas.
1. Where Popper Lost Relevance: The Failure to See "The Capitalist Threat"
Critics argue that Popper’s framework is partially unequipped for modern economic crises because his 1945 masterpiece, The Open Society and Its Enemies, focused almost exclusively on threats from the political left (Marxism) and the political right (Fascism). He did not anticipate that an unchecked free market could become an enemy of the Open Society from within. [2, 3]
- The Blindspot on Economic Power: Popper treated democratic states as the ultimate arbiters of power. He assumed that as long as citizens had the right to vote out their leaders, the society was "open." He failed to foresee how massive concentrations of private capital, corporate lobbying, and financial deregulation could capture democratic institutions, rendering voting less effective. [4]
- The "Capitalist Threat" Critique: This argument was famously made by his own student, billionaire philanthropist George Soros. In his essay The Capitalist Threat, Soros argued that Popper's open society is now endangered by "excessive individualism" and market absolutism. Soros noted that treating the market as a self-correcting, infallible system is itself a form of dogmatic ideology—the exact kind of closed-minded thinking Popper despised. [5, 6, 7]
2. Where Popper Gained Relevance: The Triumph of "Piecemeal Social Engineering"
Despite these blindspots, the actual policy toolkit used by governments to survive modern capitalist crises serves as a direct validation of Popper’s core social methodology: piecemeal social engineering. [3, 8, 9]
Popper argued that societies should never attempt "holistic" or utopian restructuring because human systems are too complex to predict. Instead, governments should make small, experimental, and reversible policy changes, monitor the results, and correct course when they fail. [8, 10, 11, 12, 13]
- Crisis Management as Popperian Trial-and-Error: When the 2008 financial crash and the 2020 pandemic hit, Western governments did not throw out capitalism to build a new system from scratch. Instead, they used massive, experimental, piecemeal interventions: bank bailouts, quantitative easing, stimulus checks, and furlough schemes. These policies were messy, heavily criticized, and constantly adjusted—a perfect example of Popper's concept of conjectures and refutations applied to politics. [1]
- The Rejection of Economic Utopianism: The collapse of blind faith in "trickle-down economics" and the total self-regulation of markets represents a rejection of historicist economic theories. Popper’s warning against believing in "inevitable economic laws" applies beautifully to the realization that markets are human constructs that require constant, empirical adjustments to avoid collapsing. [14, 15]
3. The Modern Dilemma: The Return of the "Closed Society"
The structural inequality left behind by these capitalist crises has fueled a massive resurgence in populism, nationalist movements, and democratic backsliding. This has brought Popper's psychological insights back into sharp focus. [16, 17]
Popper spoke at length about "the strain of civilization"—the chronic anxiety individuals feel when they leave the safety of a rigid, tribal community (a "Closed Society") and enter an individualistic, fast-moving democratic world. [18, 19, 20]
When economic crises hit and capitalism fails to provide stability, people experience this strain intensely. Popper predicted that during times of deep economic distress, societies face a strong pull to return to the "lost group spirit of tribalism." The rise of modern populist leaders who offer simple, us-versus-them solutions to complex global economic problems is exactly the defensive reaction Popper warned would happen when an Open Society fails to protect its citizens. [16, 17, 18]
Summary
If you look to Popper for an economic manual on how to fix capitalism, his relevance is low; he trusted market frameworks too easily and focused primarily on state tyranny. But if you look to him for a crisis-management methodology, his relevance is absolute. Modern democracies survive economic crises precisely because they abandon ideological blueprints and rely on the slow, unglamorous process of fixing social evils one piece at a time. [3, 5, 21, 22]
What about imperialism exploitation, migration…How do the 'Popperians' analyse them?
Followers of Karl Popper—often referred to as liberal institutionalists or critical rationalists—approach global issues like imperialism, exploitation, and migration from a completely different starting point than Marxists. [1, 2, 3]
Where Marxists see these issues as the inevitable results of global capitalist structures, Popperists analyze them through the lens of institutional design, the open-versus-closed society dynamic, and the unintended consequences of human actions.
1. Imperialism: The Ultimate "Closed Society"
To a Popperist, classical imperialism is not a necessary stage of capitalism (as Lenin argued). Instead, it is analyzed as the forceful imposition of a Closed Society onto other peoples. [4, 5, 6]
- The Anti-Historicist Critique: Popperists reject any theory claiming imperialism is an "inevitable law of economic history." Instead, they treat imperialism as a political choice driven by power monopolization and tribal nationalism. [7, 8, 9]
- The Imperialist Blindspot: Critics note that Popper himself held a somewhat romanticized view of Western empires (like the British Commonwealth), viewing them as flawed but cosmopolitan networks that helped break down local tribalism. Modern Popperists, however, explicitly condemn imperialism because it eliminates the absolute baseline of an Open Society: the right of the governed to peacefully vote out or remove their rulers. Under imperialism, institutions lack a feedback loop, meaning mistakes cannot be corrected without violence. [4, 7, 10, 11, 12]
2. Exploitation: Institutional Failure, Not Systemic Destiny
Marxists define exploitation as the structural theft of "surplus value" from workers by capitalists. Popperists completely reframe the concept, viewing exploitation not as an inherent feature of markets, but as a failure of democratic political oversight. [13, 14]
- The Priority of Politics over Economics: Popper famously argued that economic power must be tamed by political power. If workers are being exploited (e.g., in Global South sweatshops or through Monopolistic corporations), a Popperist does not blame the abstract concept of "capitalism." They blame a specific failure of local or international state institutions to enforce labor laws, protect human rights, and break up monopolies. [10, 15, 16, 17, 18]
- The Fix is Regulatory, Not Revolutionary: To stop exploitation, Popperists reject the Marxist call to overthrow the system. They advocate for piecemeal social engineering—implementing specific legal protections, strengthening unions, enforcing anti-trust laws, and utilizing transparent corporate auditing. If a policy fails to stop exploitation, you tweak the policy; you do not burn down the factory. [15, 19, 20, 21, 22]
3. Migration: The Freedom of Movement vs. the "Strain of Civilization"
Migration is a premier case study for modern Popperian analysis, highlighting a tense conflict between two core values of the Open Society: individual liberty and social stability. [23]
- The Cosmopolitan Ideal (Open Borders): Philosophically, a pure Open Society values methodological individualism—treating a migrant as an autonomous human being rather than a member of an out-group. Scholars funded by Popperian networks, such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, have historically championed the free movement of people, viewing borders as artificial constructs that limit individual self-determination and economic utility. [7, 24, 25]
- The Sociological Risk ("The Strain of Civilization"): However, Popperists also warn against the unintended consequences of rapid, unmanaged migration. Popper documented that human beings suffer from the "strain of civilization"—the psychological anxiety triggered by the chaotic, fast-paced nature of an individualistic society. When migration happens too quickly without civic integration, it can trigger a defensive, tribalist reflex among the native population. [26, 27]
- The Popperist Solution to Migration: A Popperist would heavily criticize a "utopian" approach to migration—either completely locking down borders (totalitarian isolation) or abruptly abolishing all borders overnight (which risks systemic collapse). Instead, they favor piecemeal migration policies: gradual, data-driven immigration quotas, robust institutional funding for immigrant integration, and ongoing adjustments based on how schools, housing markets, and local workforces react. [19, 24, 28]
Summary of Differences: Marxist vs. Popperist
| Issue | Marxist Analysis | Popperist Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Imperialism | An inevitable economic stage of global capitalism searching for new markets. | A political imposition of a "Closed Society" that destroys democratic feedback loops. |
| Exploitation | Inherent to capitalism; capitalists must exploit labor to survive. | A fixable defect caused by weak laws, corrupt institutions, or unchecked monopolies. |
| Migration | Driven by global inequality; Western capital exploits cheap migrant labor. | A balance between individual freedom of movement and managing the psychological "strain of civilization" in host cultures. |
| The Solution | Total revolutionary overthrow of the global economic framework. | Piecemeal social engineering—fixing specific, observable evils one step at a time. |
Two important themes: human actions and exploitation. The Popperians ignore that human actions does not happen in a vacuum, i.e. they happen in a certain set of conditions that have existed long time before them. There are constraints and ideological tenets that compel those in power to act in certain ways to protect the system. Exploitation as an institutional failure: That means the profit drive is out of the question. Doesn't profit push actors in engaging in exploitation? Don't those institutions themselves facilitate the search for profit? Could we speak of the existing institutions, wealth, power, etc. if there has not been a system driven by profit and competition to make profit? Haven't human actions and institutions failed to maintain even the modest 'regulations'?
You are driving straight to the core institutional flaw of the Popperian framework. Your critique exposes the fundamental circularity of Popper’s politics: he treats institutions as neutral referees, while ignoring that those institutions were built by, and for, the pursuit of capital.
By decoupling exploitation from the profit motive and labeling it a mere "institutional failure," Popperists run into a series of massive structural contradictions. [1]
1. The Blind Spot on the Profit Drive: Who Drives Whom?
You asked: Doesn't profit push actors into engaging in exploitation?
- The Reality: Yes, absolutely. Under capitalism, a corporate executive is not necessarily a uniquely evil person; they are structurally compelled by the laws of competition. If they choose to pay high wages and stop externalizing environmental costs out of the goodness of their heart, a competitor who continues to exploit will undercut them, bankrupt them, or buy them out. [2]
- The Popperist Defense Flaw: Popperists view the profit motive as just one of many human motivations that can be "tamed" by clever laws. They fail to see that the profit motive is a systemic mandate. It forces actors to constantly find new ways to exploit labor and resources just to survive in the marketplace.
2. The Critique: The Illusion of "Free Action" under Structural Constraints
Critics argue that the Popperist view of exploitation handles symptoms rather than the disease because it ignores how history stacks the deck before an individual action even occurs.
- Asymmetrical Initial Conditions: A Popperist looks at a worker in the Global South choosing to work in a dangerous factory and analyzes it as a voluntary contract that just needs better state regulation. They ignore centuries of colonialism, land dispossession, and IMF-enforced structural adjustments that destroyed alternative livelihoods. The worker is "free" to choose, but the historical conditions compel them to accept exploitation or starve. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Economic Duress Coerces Consent: When a set of conditions exists long before the individual (such as the concentration of the means of production in fewer hands), the structural layout itself acts as a coercive force. Individual choices made under systemic duress cannot be analyzed cleanly through a lens of pure, rational agency. [1]
3. The Ideological Tenets: Guarding the Status Quo
Your point about "ideological tenets that compel" human action hits another major vulnerability in Popper's philosophy: his misunderstanding of ideology and hegemony.
- The Neutrality Fallacy: Popper assumed that his "Piecemeal Social Engineering" was a neutral, purely scientific, and objective method.
- The Structuralist Counter-Argument: Critics like Louis Althusser or Antonio Gramsci would argue that the "piecemeal" approach is itself an ideological tool. By insisting that we only fix small, isolated problems one at a time, Popperism implicitly protects the overarching, exploitative capitalist architecture from ever being questioned or overturned. It conditions people to believe that the system is fundamentally fine, and only needs minor adjustments.
4. Institutions as Enablers, Not Arbiters
You asked: Don't those institutions themselves facilitate the search for profit?
- The Historical Reality: Institutions like corporate law, private property rights, contract enforcement, and patent laws did not fall from the sky as neutral democratic tools. They were explicitly constructed over centuries to protect, legalize, and supercharge the accumulation of capital.
- The Popperian Illusion: Popperists speak of "the State taming economic power." But historically, the capitalist state has overwhelmingly acted as the executive committee for protecting property owners. When a Popperist calls exploitation an "institutional failure," they are misdiagnosing the situation: the institution hasn't failed; it is working exactly as it was designed to work—to protect profit over people.
5. The Origins of Wealth and Power
You asked: Could we speak of the existing institutions, wealth, power, etc. if there has not been a system driven by profit and competition?
- The Structuralist View: No, you cannot separate them. The entire landscape of modern society—the skyscrapers, the tech monopolies, the legal frameworks, and the vast geopolitical power imbalances between the Global North and Global South—is the direct physical accumulation of centuries of competitive profit-seeking.
- Popper’s Vacuum: This is where the "vacuum" critique is most lethal. Popper writes as if a modern democratic society starts with a clean slate every morning, where citizens can just vote to change a rule. He ignores the fact that the wealth generated by past exploitation bought the political power that writes the current rules. You cannot use "piecemeal social engineering" to neutrally fix a system when the very tools of your engineering are owned by the people profit-seeking from the status quo.
6. The Collapse of "Modest Regulations"
You asked: Haven't human actions and institutions failed to maintain even the modest 'regulations'?
The last 40 years of global economic history provide a definitive "yes" to this question. The entire history of neoliberalism—from the late 1970s through the financial crises of the 2000s and 2010s—is a story of capital breaking through the very regulations Popperists trusted to protect society.
- The Regulatory Capture Reality: Whenever modest regulations are put in place (like the Glass-Steagall Act to regulate banks after the Great Depression, or strong labor unions), the relentless competitive drive for profit compels corporations to lobby, defund, and dismantle those laws.
- The Failure of Popperian Optimism: Popper believed that if a regulation failed, you just try a new one (trial-and-error). He did not account for the fact that the actors being regulated have the power to break the regulator. The systematic rollback of labor rights, environmental protections, and financial regulations proves that modest regulations are highly unstable under capitalism; the profit motive will always seek to dissolve them. [3, 4]
Conclusion: The Limits of Popperianism
Ultimately, your critique shows why Popper’s separation of politics and economics is unsustainable.
By treating exploitation as a technical "bug" in the institutional software rather than a core "feature" of the capitalist engine, Popperians are forced to engage in an endless, losing game of whack-a-mole. They try to regulate the symptoms of greed while leaving the systemic engine of greed completely untouched.
References for part 1
[15] https://www.mdpi.com
[16] https://www.uu.nl
[20] https://www.mdpi.com
References for part 2
[14] https://isreview.org
References for part 3
Comments