Popper is often cited as a source of inspiration by those who promote uncritically the virtues of the so-called "free market" and its corollary, "globalisation". They have warped Popper's ideas, and this was one of the reasons why I wrote these articles on critical rationalism.
Somewhere the idea of the open society has become transmuted by these people into the idea of the open society as the freedom primarily to buy and sell, with economic relationship as the primary relationship between people in society. This idea actually owes its inspiration to Marx, the historicist, not to Popper. The "free-market" economists of the late 20th century are the only true Marxists remaining.
"Free-market" economics, and its public promotion, relies heavily on confirming instances, including mathematical models that have built-in assumptions of what is to be proved. Criticism is heavily discouraged, and the "free market" is taken to be the assumed environment within which all other ideas must be judged. The nature of the "free market" itself is considered beyond discussion. The people who will benefit from a particular view of the "free market" (chiefly large corporations) are the people who pay for the research of economists, ensuring that criticism of the results is largely suppressed. It is just as if the tobacco companies bought research results specifically to prove that smoking is not harmful, but actually did you good.
The ideas of the "free market" and "globalisation" have been assisted by the fragmentation of thought through the media. Ideas are now communicated through soundbites, extended thought is considered too boring and uncool for the mass media, and comparing and criticising ideas has become impossible within the scope of the typical newspaper article or TV programme. (I shall not discuss here whether this is a result of the "free market" or not.) The general tenor of debate on the economy is that global trends are predetermined and the views of nations and communities do not count against the inevitable. The world's richest nations promote these trends, claiming their inevitability. This is historicism, as strong and self-interested as anything that Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union promoted.
An example of the practical consequences was the period of Margaret Thatcher as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. During her 11 years, she instituted a "liberalisation" of the economy (which actually turned out to be dominated by private monopolies and oligopolies, but that is not my main point). More important, she used her extensive powers as the leader of the main party in a parliamentary system to suppress all foci of critical debate as much as she could, including local government, trades unions and the press. Restrictive legislation was used against public demonstrations. This process has actually continued under the current government, despite its different colours.
Popper's ideas will remain important because they are the best justification for freedom of thought we have, and for rejecting the idea of inevitability in human affairs that is promoted by the self-interested. They can sustain us through whatever long dark nights may lie ahead of us. Let us value them and promote them, for that very reason.
Note added later: The above is a comment on two things: (1) the attempt by "free marketeers" to try to protect their views (and personal interests) from attempts at popperian falsification - especially while claiming to be popperian, and (2) the attempt to promote these views and interests as the inevitable march of history.
Some comments I have received on the above suggest that it is read by some people as an attack on the idea of free enterprise. This is not the case.
My position is scepticism that truly "free markets" can exist; certainly no-one has yet observed one, although some markets are more free than others. I don't think one should rest one's hope for the human race on the eventual discovery of a mythical beast. (Those who grumble about Microsoft are grumbling about a corporation doing what comes naturally to a large corporation that finds itself with advantages and power in an unregulated market, whether it earned them or not.)
I believe that enterprise should be encouraged as a way of making people more prosperous, but that nations and communities are free, indeed are obliged, to balance this against other competing ideals like protection of our shared environment, conservation for the future and protection of the weak and minority cultures.
Copyright © 1999-2000 Richard Burnham