George Soros: "Open Society Needs Defending" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14756801
George Soros brings his personal history to bear on the threat posed by today’s ascendant populists.

Open Society Needs Defending


Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. Because elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations, electorates have become disenchanted with the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism.
DEC 28, 2016 72

NEW YORK – Well before Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, I sent a holiday greeting to my friends that read: “These times are not business as usual. Wishing you the best in a troubled world.” Now I feel the need to share this message with the rest of the world. But before I do, I must tell you who I am and what I stand for.

I am an 86-year-old Hungarian Jew who became a US citizen after the end of World War II. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. The formative experience of my life was the occupation of Hungary by Hitler’s Germany in 1944. I probably would have perished had my father not understood the gravity of the situation. He arranged false identities for his family and for many other Jews; with his help, most survived.
The Year Ahead 2017 Cover Image

In 1947, I escaped from Hungary, by then under Communist rule, to England. As a student at the London School of Economics, I came under the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper, and I developed my own philosophy, built on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity. I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.

The classification is too simplistic. There are many degrees and variations throughout history, from well-functioning models to failed states, and many different levels of government in any particular situation. Even so, I find the distinction between the two regime types useful. I became an active promoter of the former and opponent of the latter.

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? The only explanation I can find is that elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations and that this failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole remaining superpower, equally committed to the principles of democracy and free markets. The major development since then has been the globalization of financial markets, spearheaded by advocates who argued that globalization increases total wealth. After all, if the winners compensated the losers, they would still have something left over.

The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers. But the potential winners spent enough money promoting the argument that it prevailed. It was a victory for believers in untrammeled free enterprise, or “market fundamentalists,” as I call them. Because financial capital is an indispensable ingredient of economic development, and few countries in the developing world could generate enough capital on their own, globalization spread like wildfire. Financial capital could move around freely and avoid taxation and regulation.

Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich countries. In the developed world, the benefits accrued mainly to large owners of financial capital, who constitute less than 1% of the population. The lack of redistributive policies is the main source of the dissatisfaction that democracy’s opponents have exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well, particularly in Europe.

I was an avid supporter of the European Union from its inception. I regarded it as the embodiment of the idea of an open society: an association of democratic states willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good. It started out at as a bold experiment in what Popper called “piecemeal social engineering.” The leaders set an attainable objective and a fixed timeline and mobilized the political will needed to meet it, knowing full well that each step would necessitate a further step forward. That is how the European Coal and Steel Community developed into the EU.

But then something went woefully wrong. After the Crash of 2008, a voluntary association of equals was transformed into a relationship between creditors and debtors, where the debtors had difficulties in meeting their obligations and the creditors set the conditions the debtors had to obey. That relationship has been neither voluntary nor equal.

Germany emerged as the hegemonic power in Europe, but it failed to live up to the obligations that successful hegemons must fulfill, namely looking beyond their narrow self-interest to the interests of the people who depend on them. Compare the behavior of the US after WWII with Germany’s behavior after the Crash of 2008: the US launched the Marshall Plan, which led to the development of the EU; Germany imposed an austerity program that served its narrow self-interest.

Before its reunification, Germany was the main force driving European integration: it was always willing to contribute a little bit extra to accommodate those putting up resistance. Remember Germany’s contribution to meeting Margaret Thatcher’s demands regarding the EU budget?

But reuniting Germany on a 1:1 basis turned out to be very expensive. When Lehman Brothers collapsed, Germany did not feel rich enough to take on any additional obligations. When European finance ministers declared that no other systemically important financial institution would be allowed to fail, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, correctly reading the wishes of her electorate, declared that each member state should look after its own institutions. That was the start of a process of disintegration.

After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional. Prevailing conditions became far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty, but treaty change became progressively more difficult, and eventually impossible, because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.

The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.

Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.

What lies ahead?

I am confident that democracy will prove resilient in the US. Its Constitution and institutions, including the fourth estate, are strong enough to resist the excesses of the executive branch, thus preventing a would-be dictator from becoming an actual one.

But the US will be preoccupied with internal struggles in the near future, and targeted minorities will suffer. The US will be unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world. On the contrary, Trump will have greater affinity with dictators. That will allow some of them to reach an accommodation with the US, and others to carry on without interference. Trump will prefer making deals to defending principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular with his core constituency.

I am particularly worried about the fate of the EU, which is in danger of coming under the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose concept of government is irreconcilable with that of open society. Putin is not a passive beneficiary of recent developments; he worked hard to bring them about. He recognized his regime’s weakness: it can exploit natural resources but cannot generate economic growth. He felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected.

The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.

I hope that Europe’s leaders and citizens alike will realize that this endangers their way of life and the values on which the EU was founded. The trouble is that the method Putin has used to destabilize democracy cannot be used to restore respect for facts and a balanced view of reality.

With economic growth lagging and the refugee crisis out of control, the EU is on the verge of breakdown and is set to undergo an experience similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs to be saved in order to be reinvented must do whatever they can to bring about a better outcome.

George Soros

George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management and Chairman of the Open Society Foundations. A pioneer of the hedge-fund industry, he is the author of many books, including The Alchemy of Finance, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means, and The Tragedy of the European Union.

Project Syndicate


Notice how Soros doesn't remark upon his own role in the economic 'crisis' (massive wealth shifts to the rich) and the 'refugee crisis'. His foundation is in part funding a large scale illegal ferry service across the Mediterranean, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in EU countries. Not to mention his neo-racist 'identity politics' movement, which is fostering social strife and ethnic division along racial and religious lines across Europe.

His five hundred million dollar war chest (for funding illegal immigration and neo-racist identity politics) is also supporting subsidiary organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to promote the Islamofauxbia industry in Europe. Big surprise there.
#14756804
Soros is an intelligent guy, but his personal experiences have distorted his view of reality (as it does most people's view of reality). He read Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, and believed it. He even admits how simplistic Popper's moralistic 'analysis' of history and politics was, but then doubles down on it again. Lol. As Sabb has pointed out, Soros played a significant role in bringing the current crisis about, and his continued activities are just making it more acute rather than doing anything to resolve it. But how can he act in any other way? He is the prisoner of his own neo-liberal ideology. He is intelligent enough to see that reality has shown itself to be in contradiction to that ideology, but he cannot break free of it without throwing away everything he has ever believed in or ever worked for. It's actually an intellectual and moral tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.
#14756810
Soros is just another modern libertard.
I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.
What the fuck have western leaders have been doing with EU and their radical liberal projects? PC culture, ignoring peoples concerns about immigration, looking after big business interest first and foremost. So much for him being against "closed society".

Just another liberturd selfishly rationalizing what is happening, because he does not like how the change effects his life personally.

@Potemkin
There appears to be two type of people in such cases. Those who support something out of principles and because it is right. And those who support something because it benefits them personally.

Soros support neo-liberalism because he personally benefited from it and still benefits. Hence why I believe he displays contradicton in his acts and words. Because his actions and rhetoric comes from self-interests rather then principles.

He supports shipping migrants across the Mediterranean because at one point he was too a refugee and benifited from liberal immigration policies, of "open society".

Yet he does not consider the bigger picture, of how it effects the native populace, he also does not give credit to time and that things change. That today situation differs in many aspects then the past.

He basically fails in many ways, and his view is very narrow minded, and as you have pointed out, that comes only from his personal experience.
#14756851



What do you expect from someone who even as an adult has no problems with having been part of the Nazi machine? "Well, if it hadn't been me, it would've been someone else." He's a sociopath with, unfortunately, too much money on his hands.

Reaper year 2016 has this one day left to take him away.
#14756857
Soros is an intelligent guy, but his personal experiences have distorted his view of reality (as it does most people's view of reality). He read Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, and believed it. He even admits how simplistic Popper's moralistic 'analysis' of history and politics was, but then doubles down on it again. Lol. As Sabb has pointed out, Soros played a significant role in bringing the current crisis about, and his continued activities are just making it more acute rather than doing anything to resolve it. But how can he act in any other way? He is the prisoner of his own neo-liberal ideology. He is intelligent enough to see that reality has shown itself to be in contradiction to that ideology, but he cannot break free of it without throwing away everything he has ever believed in or ever worked for. It's actually an intellectual and moral tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.


:up: He is an old man of 86. He does not have the time or energy to adopt a new philosophy. All he can do is try to remain relevant by sticking with ideals even he knows are suspect.
#14756862
He reminds me this Jew. A typical between the wars Jewish internationalist and "philanthropist"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

Jacob Henry Schiff (born Jakob Heinrich Schiff; January 10, 1847 – September 25, 1920) was an American banker, businessman, and philanthropist. Among many other things, he helped finance the expansion of American railroads and the Japanese military efforts against Tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.


“Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., heavily bankrolled the [Communist] revolution. This was reported by White Russian General Arsine de Goulevitch in his book Czarism and the Revolution.” “According to his grandson John,” described Allen, “Jacob Schiff … long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million.” He continued, “According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn Loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin,” and added, “Schiff’s descendents are active in the Council on Foreign Relations today.”
#14756884
I don't get this hype around Soros. Is it because he's a rich Jew and politically active?

He plays the system and got rich by doing it, big deal.

As long as he promotes the right solutions, which he seems to be doing, I'm fine with that.

Of course the fact that commies, right-wing idiots and conspiracy nutters seem to hate him makes him look like a great guy in my view :lol:
#14756885
As long as he promotes the right solutions, which he seems to be doing, I'm fine with that.


I can see your point since 86 year olds have a reputation for being coherent and up to date. :lol:
#14764636
Potemkin wrote:Soros …. read Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, and believed it.

Soros regards political ideologies as mere instruments of social control — convenient fictions that serve to direct the political behaviour of large sections of the human population. If neoliberal ideology happens to be his preferred method of attack, it is not because he believes in this ideology but because he knows that it has a destructive effect on any society foolish enough to embrace it.

Neoliberalism is also useful as a false alternative to "neoconservatism" — which is really just the same ideology in a conservative tone of voice. Soros is perfectly aware that he's just promoting one side of an artificial dialectic invented to manipulate political discourse and thereby control the political decisions of the population as a whole.
#14765150
He bet against Trump and lost a billion. Soros is literally a delusional megalomaniac.

The more I read up on this activist billionaire the more my alarm bells are going off.]

He's the stuff that James Bond supervillains are made of, eh Sabb? ;)
#14765821
Potemkin wrote:He's the stuff that James Bond supervillains are made of, eh Sabb? ;)


Not sure if a dip in a private piranha pond is going to work on this lugubrious specimen.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Why do you care? Soros is one billionaire among many. The sick fascination with this particular​ individual is plain weird.


Yeah, 'plain weird' when he has basically subverted large portions of the Democratic party for his own needs and was one of Obama's patrons. And it falls entirely within the realm of normalcy that he has declared another American president to be 'an evil would-be dictator', while bankrolling protest movements against him.

Explain to me again how the activities of this 'activist billionaire' are considered 'average'?
#14765953
The Sabbaticus wrote:Explain to me again how the activities of this 'activist billionaire' are considered 'average'?


This is, in fact, 'average' or 'normal'. No, scratch that. Oligarchic control of the political party system is the system. So we have the financial sector oligarchs playing strategic roles in the Democratic Party, just as we had the energy sector oligarchs (like the Kochs) doing the same for the GOP.

Sure, Trump has temporarily upset the applecart, but it is merely a blip on the radar for them. The oligarchy has already insinuated itself deeply into the Trump administration, and he will be their rep as surely as HRC would have been.

Don't pretend to yourself that Soros is somehow a uniquely influential figure. Lying to others is okay, Sabb - it's part of the political process. But lying to yourself is a destructive habit, and invariably brings one low.
#14766048
Vyth wrote:Soros regards political ideologies as mere instruments of social control — convenient fictions that serve to direct the political behaviour of large sections of the human population. If neoliberal ideology happens to be his preferred method of attack, it is not because he believes in this ideology but because he knows that it has a destructive effect on any society foolish enough to embrace it.

Neoliberalism is also useful as a false alternative to "neoconservatism" — which is really just the same ideology in a conservative tone of voice. Soros is perfectly aware that he's just promoting one side of an artificial dialectic invented to manipulate political discourse and thereby control the political decisions of the population as a whole.


That's right. In simple terms "good cop, bad cop". It's about time people recognised this charade for what it is.

As regards Soros, the most disappointing thing about him, to my mind, is that he is old enough now that he might die of old age before the revolution comes and he can be put up against the wall and shot.
#14766200
quetzalcoatl wrote:Why do you care? Soros is one billionaire among many. The sick fascination with this particular​ individual is plain weird.

The only difference between Soros and others is that he can't remain behind the scenes and always puts himself in the spotlight as a political thinker and financier.

It's the Elite of the USA that is "jealous&q[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

so American traitor Russell Bentley kidnapped and[…]

The dominant race of the planet is still the Whit[…]

I recently heard a video where Penn Jillette (w[…]