What do you think?
Rate this book
Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism
George Soros's The Crisis of Global Capitalism became an international bestseller and an instant classic; a must read for anyone concerned with the complex market forces that rule our global economy and create both prosperity and instability. Now, in Open Society , Soros takes a new and provocative look at the arguments he made in that book, incorporating the latest global economic and political developments into his analysis. He shows how our economic and political arrangements are out of sync. Recognizing that our existing institutions are under the sway of sovereign states, he proposes an "open society alliance" with the dual purpose of fostering open societies in individual countries and laying the groundwork for a global open society. In leading up to his inspiring vision, Soros presents an iconoclastic view of the world that has guided him both in making money and spending it on his network of Open Society Foundations. This book sums up the life's work of an exceptional individual. George Soros is the best fund manager in history, a stateless statesman, and an original thinker.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published November 9, 2000
21 people are currently reading
496 people want to read
About the author
George Soros
95 books576 followersGeorge Soros is a Hungarian-American financier, businessman and notable philanthropist focused on supporting liberal ideals and causes. He became known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" after he made a reported $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crises. Soros correctly speculated that the British government would have to devalue the pound sterling.
Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC.
As one of history’s most successful financiers, his views on investing and economic issues are widely followed.
Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC.
As one of history’s most successful financiers, his views on investing and economic issues are widely followed.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 12, 2016
Popper's Open Society and its Enemies is devoted to a crushing polemic against Platonism. Plato's Republic is described as a detailed defense of what Popper calls "Closed Society", which is taken to be totalitarian in all its forms.
Platonism is hard to summarize concisely, but roughly amounts to an ontology (that is, the study of reality) which is grounded in the concept of the "form", that of an idealized and unchanging entity which is the pure, unadulterated essence of all objects in reality. Platonism then distinguishes right and wrong (deriving its ethics from an ontological basis) as being based in what is eternal, and what is subject to decay or corruption, as the eternal object most closely corresponds to its ontological form, and that which decays or is corrupt is constantly moving away from its form. Popper's argument is that Plato, in the Republic, says that forms of government which are directed and led by an educated minority of philosopher-kings, and in which there is no class stuggle because each caste, including that of slaves, knows it's place. Plato is shown to be arguing a form of reverse-evolution: that the justification for this position is the concept that all of society is a decayed version of a past, "golden" era. Popper refers to this position as "historicism", a yearning for the good old days when tyranny was just and slaves knew their place.
Contrast this work with George Soros' Open Society, and I am fascinated by the obvious parallel to Popper's analysis of the "Tyrant's successor problem". Soros' argument in Open Soiety is to expose the blind rhetoric of the cold war, whereby democracies such as the United States argued for years about the superiority of orderly democracy but then, after the fall of Communism, refuse to provide economic and military aid to the Balkan states and to Russia to help foster a nascent open society. Interestingly, he argues (to what appears to be a Clinton era government) that the role that the United States should take is one of "policeman to the world" (using that exact phrase). Interestingly, this is exactly the thing the Bush administration has been accused of being, and Soros had spent quite a fortune trying to prevent Bush from being re-elected last year.
The difference in treatment between teacher (Popper) and student (Soros) parallels in some ways the analysis Popper makes between teacher (Socrates) and student (Plato). For instance, Popper argues that Socrates criticizes democracy, but as an effort to improve it, and makes compelling arguments that Socrates believed in a form of egalitarianism/equalitarianism (for instance, proving that even a slave is capable of reason by teaching the Pythagorean theorem to a slave). Plato, on the other hand, rejects equal rights for people, and seeks to tear down democracy and restore the rule of the philosopher-king. Soros, while arguing often that his philosophy is at odds with his economic behavior, states that he is morally unobligated to invest consistent with his ethics as long as he obeys "the rules". Soros also makes clear the role of the "greater fool" in investing- that as long as you don't believe your own lies, you can make money on the upside while people believe you, and then as you prove yourself wrong, make money on the downside as others catch on. Popper seeks only philosophical ends, yet Soros seems to want the role of philosopher, and king (at least of markets). Popper argues that the Republic is a large argument why the people should make Plato himself the philosopher-king. Likewise, does it not seem that Soros' bullying to get western governments to "save the ruble" (which would have put money in his pocket) is just a philosophical dodge to make him ever-richer, and thus more powerful, in this society where economic might is the apparent source of political power?
Popper's most interesting but least developed point is one of the "paradox of democracy"- that given the choice to vote, people are free to vote in a tyrant. He argues that the system of democracy must be designed to prevent this from happening, but gives no clear reason as to the mechanism for this happening.
To my way of thinking, there are many tyrannies. First, a tyrant or totalitarian government with physical or political might can become sovereign and accrue power and wealth to themselves. Second, an oligarchy of tyrants can through economic might concentrate sovereignty among a upper-class minority. Third, a democracy can become a sovereign tyrant through majority rule- that a majority of citizens can enact rules which benefit the majority to the expense of the minority. The problem of tyranny in modern times has concentrated on the problem of the sovereign minority because this form has been the most common historical form of tyranny. However, as a swelling middle class and democratic institutions take hold, we must not only be vigilant against returning to the evil of the past, but also to be on guard for new forms and modes of the democratic tyranny.
Popper argues, somewhat naively, that a true democracy cannot become a tyranny, but seems to fall on his own sword in that he does not successfully define what a true democracy means. Soros argues against "market fundamentalism", the idea that free markets are an ethical end in themselves, and says that the state must regulate markets to prevent the rise of oligarchy or rule of the rich. Again, to this end, he states there must be a balance between state rule and state repression of markets, without clearly defining how this can be accomplished. Moreover, Soros is adept at continually proving himself wrong, aruing that this is a good sign since Popperian scientific method states that theories can never be proven correct, only incorrect.
To me, the hysteresis between continual tentative theories and their reversal/disproval in short order (which seems to be the end result of Popperian, Sorosian democracy) is no recipe for stable, successful, and ethical government. However, it would seem at some level this solution is very likely the worst, except for all the others. The poverty of philosophy is that is is inept at formulating solvable questions- what I wouldn't give for a new way of thinging about these things, such that answers were more achievable. It is ultimately this form of depression which leads to the root cause of the democratic paradox. People will always prefer a tyrant with apparent answers to everthing over the crushing indeterminism of true science.
Platonism is hard to summarize concisely, but roughly amounts to an ontology (that is, the study of reality) which is grounded in the concept of the "form", that of an idealized and unchanging entity which is the pure, unadulterated essence of all objects in reality. Platonism then distinguishes right and wrong (deriving its ethics from an ontological basis) as being based in what is eternal, and what is subject to decay or corruption, as the eternal object most closely corresponds to its ontological form, and that which decays or is corrupt is constantly moving away from its form. Popper's argument is that Plato, in the Republic, says that forms of government which are directed and led by an educated minority of philosopher-kings, and in which there is no class stuggle because each caste, including that of slaves, knows it's place. Plato is shown to be arguing a form of reverse-evolution: that the justification for this position is the concept that all of society is a decayed version of a past, "golden" era. Popper refers to this position as "historicism", a yearning for the good old days when tyranny was just and slaves knew their place.
Contrast this work with George Soros' Open Society, and I am fascinated by the obvious parallel to Popper's analysis of the "Tyrant's successor problem". Soros' argument in Open Soiety is to expose the blind rhetoric of the cold war, whereby democracies such as the United States argued for years about the superiority of orderly democracy but then, after the fall of Communism, refuse to provide economic and military aid to the Balkan states and to Russia to help foster a nascent open society. Interestingly, he argues (to what appears to be a Clinton era government) that the role that the United States should take is one of "policeman to the world" (using that exact phrase). Interestingly, this is exactly the thing the Bush administration has been accused of being, and Soros had spent quite a fortune trying to prevent Bush from being re-elected last year.
The difference in treatment between teacher (Popper) and student (Soros) parallels in some ways the analysis Popper makes between teacher (Socrates) and student (Plato). For instance, Popper argues that Socrates criticizes democracy, but as an effort to improve it, and makes compelling arguments that Socrates believed in a form of egalitarianism/equalitarianism (for instance, proving that even a slave is capable of reason by teaching the Pythagorean theorem to a slave). Plato, on the other hand, rejects equal rights for people, and seeks to tear down democracy and restore the rule of the philosopher-king. Soros, while arguing often that his philosophy is at odds with his economic behavior, states that he is morally unobligated to invest consistent with his ethics as long as he obeys "the rules". Soros also makes clear the role of the "greater fool" in investing- that as long as you don't believe your own lies, you can make money on the upside while people believe you, and then as you prove yourself wrong, make money on the downside as others catch on. Popper seeks only philosophical ends, yet Soros seems to want the role of philosopher, and king (at least of markets). Popper argues that the Republic is a large argument why the people should make Plato himself the philosopher-king. Likewise, does it not seem that Soros' bullying to get western governments to "save the ruble" (which would have put money in his pocket) is just a philosophical dodge to make him ever-richer, and thus more powerful, in this society where economic might is the apparent source of political power?
Popper's most interesting but least developed point is one of the "paradox of democracy"- that given the choice to vote, people are free to vote in a tyrant. He argues that the system of democracy must be designed to prevent this from happening, but gives no clear reason as to the mechanism for this happening.
To my way of thinking, there are many tyrannies. First, a tyrant or totalitarian government with physical or political might can become sovereign and accrue power and wealth to themselves. Second, an oligarchy of tyrants can through economic might concentrate sovereignty among a upper-class minority. Third, a democracy can become a sovereign tyrant through majority rule- that a majority of citizens can enact rules which benefit the majority to the expense of the minority. The problem of tyranny in modern times has concentrated on the problem of the sovereign minority because this form has been the most common historical form of tyranny. However, as a swelling middle class and democratic institutions take hold, we must not only be vigilant against returning to the evil of the past, but also to be on guard for new forms and modes of the democratic tyranny.
Popper argues, somewhat naively, that a true democracy cannot become a tyranny, but seems to fall on his own sword in that he does not successfully define what a true democracy means. Soros argues against "market fundamentalism", the idea that free markets are an ethical end in themselves, and says that the state must regulate markets to prevent the rise of oligarchy or rule of the rich. Again, to this end, he states there must be a balance between state rule and state repression of markets, without clearly defining how this can be accomplished. Moreover, Soros is adept at continually proving himself wrong, aruing that this is a good sign since Popperian scientific method states that theories can never be proven correct, only incorrect.
To me, the hysteresis between continual tentative theories and their reversal/disproval in short order (which seems to be the end result of Popperian, Sorosian democracy) is no recipe for stable, successful, and ethical government. However, it would seem at some level this solution is very likely the worst, except for all the others. The poverty of philosophy is that is is inept at formulating solvable questions- what I wouldn't give for a new way of thinging about these things, such that answers were more achievable. It is ultimately this form of depression which leads to the root cause of the democratic paradox. People will always prefer a tyrant with apparent answers to everthing over the crushing indeterminism of true science.
Read
January 26, 2016We could probably leave the world safely in the hands of George Soros and Noam Chomsky, who between them have certainly the drive to make it a better place. Over the years Soros has become a prolific writer, and as he bases his philosophy on the idea of the open society, as described by Karl Popper. He certainly proves not a free market adept, but on the other hand suggests clear and accountable oversight mechanisms. Had we only listened to this advice 20 years ago!
He makes the point that economy and finance are similar to social sciences, as they deal with human behaviour and decisions, where the expectation of the future influences decisions today, which he calls the principle of reflexivity. This typically leads to reinforcement of existing trends, until some crisis point. Another observation he makes is the occurrence of unintended consequences, which tend to underrmine or negate the original intentions of many actions.
He makes the point that economy and finance are similar to social sciences, as they deal with human behaviour and decisions, where the expectation of the future influences decisions today, which he calls the principle of reflexivity. This typically leads to reinforcement of existing trends, until some crisis point. Another observation he makes is the occurrence of unintended consequences, which tend to underrmine or negate the original intentions of many actions.
October 17, 2008
Pretty good ideas, advanced on a platform rigorous enough to require more economic awareness than I bring to the table to assess, but not rigorous enough to make me think it'd be worthwhile. Pretty much exactly the thing I'd write if I were a billionaire Hungarian financier aiming to become a billionaire Hungarian demagogue -- my hat's off to you, Mr. Soros! -- but regarding demagoguery, I've always felt that no matter one's ethnicity, the only winning move is not to play.
So it goes.
So it goes.
May 25, 2021
One of the most difficult books I have ever read! The most interesting stuff to read about was in the later part of the book. It seems that he wasted the first part of the book that dealt with issues that, to me were hard to follow. It wasn't until page 134 where Soros finally talks about Open Society and what it is. I think if he had just stuck to telling what an Open Society is and what it could be would have been a better book.
July 24, 2014
Rare is the author who can channel Popper and make him relevant. Soros does that and more in his well-articulated thesis for open society. The policy recommendations are naturally a bit dated for a book published 15 years ago. But his theory is spot-on.
If nothing else, read the first and third chapters -- his theory of reflexivity explains his success as a hedge fund manager, and can easily be extrapolated to other areas of life as well.
If nothing else, read the first and third chapters -- his theory of reflexivity explains his success as a hedge fund manager, and can easily be extrapolated to other areas of life as well.
August 16, 2007
George Sorros made one billion dollars in one weekend betting against the British pound. You DO have to listen to someone like that.
September 22, 2020
There is an Albanian say "Do not do what I do, but you must do what I say" Hypocrite
February 10, 2022
Ну дуже важко читати. Цікавої інформації виявилось зовсім небагато. Все інше це опис, пояснення, роздуми, які напевно будуть непоганими для фінансових експертів.
July 21, 2011
Ada dua kata kunci penting dalam buku 'Open Society: Reforming Global Caputalism'. Pertama, falibilitas sebagai doktrin epistemis. Kedua, refleksivitas sebagai doktrin metodologi.
Doktrin epistemis falibilitas memformulasikan pikiran tidak lebih dari dunia. Sederhananya, apa yang ada di pikiran manusia sesungguhnya tidak sebangun dengan dunia itu sendiri sebagai hal yang dipikirkan manusia. Falibilitas merupakan kemungkinan manusia untuk salah dalam memahami dunia melalui pikirannya.
Doktrin epistemis ini sesungguhnya punya implikasi aksiologis. Penalarannya, pikiran manusia memahami dunia di mana hasil kerja pikiran itulah yang nantinya menuntun tindakan manusia. Misalnya, ketika pikiran kita menyimpulkan kondisi suatu perusahaan publik sehat dan akan tetap sehat di kemudian hari, maka kita pun mengambil keputusan investasi demi meraih keuntungan dari tindakan ekonomis tersebut.
Lewat doktrin epistemis falibilitas inilah Soros menentang liberalisme dan komunisme. Liberalisme dan komunisme punya fondasi doktrin epistemis ideologis yang menilai pikiran dan dunia sebangun. Falibilitas dan ideologis adalah dua hal yang bertentangan--dan falibiltas adalh 'kodrat' yang tepat bagi manusia. Open Society atau Masyarakat Terbuka merupakan masyarakat yang didasarkan pada doktrin epistemis falibilitas yang memungkinkan ketiadaan dominasi ideologis yang bersifat menunggalkan, memberi ruang bagi manusia untuk menjadi manusia lewat 'kodrat' falibilitas pikiran manusia.
Doktrin metodologis refleksivitas mengacu pada interaksi antara subjek yang mengetahui dan objek yang diketahui dalam menghasilkan suatu kesimpulan yang dapat bermanfaat sebagai landasan untuk melakukan proyeksi. Refleksivitas berjangkar pada doktrin epistemis falibilitas--pikiran selalu lebih kecil dari dunia itu sendiri mengimplikasikan pemahaman atas dunia bergerak progresif demi mencapai pemahaman yang lebih baik--dan pengalaman Soros mengamati pasar modal. Dalam pasar modal, keputusan investor untuk berinvestasi ditentukan oleh informasi yang ia peroleh di mana pikiran bekerja mengolah informasi tersebut hingga menghasilkan keputusan investasi layak dilakukan. Ketika investasi dilakukan, seketika informasi baru pun muncul dan investor berhadapan dengan informasi baru untuk mengambil kesimpulan yang baru dan keputusan yang baru. Interaksi antara subjek yang mengetahui dan objek yang diketahui di mana subjek yang mengetahui ditentukan oleh objek yang diketahui untuk kemudian lewat keputusan yang diambil subjek, subjek yang mengetahui malah mengubah realitas, objek yang diketahui. Dalam refleksivitas, falibilitas pun ada.
Kesadaran akan falibilitas dan refleksivitas inilah yang menjadi kunci dalam memahami proyek reformasi kapitalisme global--kapitalisme global berinspirasikan gagasan ideologis liberal. Kapitalisme global yang berakar pada pementingan kepentingan-diri--bukankah, dengan menggunakan doktrin epistemis falibilitas, pementingan kepentingan-diri yang dihasilkan pemikiran liberal mengabaikan adanya dimensi falibilitas dari kesimpulan itu sendiri?--menihilkan adanya kepentingan orang lain. Lewat penalaran demikian, Soros yakin bahwa Open Society pun menjadi proyek yang patut dan perlu dilakukan demi kehidupan yang lebih baik.
Doktrin epistemis falibilitas memformulasikan pikiran tidak lebih dari dunia. Sederhananya, apa yang ada di pikiran manusia sesungguhnya tidak sebangun dengan dunia itu sendiri sebagai hal yang dipikirkan manusia. Falibilitas merupakan kemungkinan manusia untuk salah dalam memahami dunia melalui pikirannya.
Doktrin epistemis ini sesungguhnya punya implikasi aksiologis. Penalarannya, pikiran manusia memahami dunia di mana hasil kerja pikiran itulah yang nantinya menuntun tindakan manusia. Misalnya, ketika pikiran kita menyimpulkan kondisi suatu perusahaan publik sehat dan akan tetap sehat di kemudian hari, maka kita pun mengambil keputusan investasi demi meraih keuntungan dari tindakan ekonomis tersebut.
Lewat doktrin epistemis falibilitas inilah Soros menentang liberalisme dan komunisme. Liberalisme dan komunisme punya fondasi doktrin epistemis ideologis yang menilai pikiran dan dunia sebangun. Falibilitas dan ideologis adalah dua hal yang bertentangan--dan falibiltas adalh 'kodrat' yang tepat bagi manusia. Open Society atau Masyarakat Terbuka merupakan masyarakat yang didasarkan pada doktrin epistemis falibilitas yang memungkinkan ketiadaan dominasi ideologis yang bersifat menunggalkan, memberi ruang bagi manusia untuk menjadi manusia lewat 'kodrat' falibilitas pikiran manusia.
Doktrin metodologis refleksivitas mengacu pada interaksi antara subjek yang mengetahui dan objek yang diketahui dalam menghasilkan suatu kesimpulan yang dapat bermanfaat sebagai landasan untuk melakukan proyeksi. Refleksivitas berjangkar pada doktrin epistemis falibilitas--pikiran selalu lebih kecil dari dunia itu sendiri mengimplikasikan pemahaman atas dunia bergerak progresif demi mencapai pemahaman yang lebih baik--dan pengalaman Soros mengamati pasar modal. Dalam pasar modal, keputusan investor untuk berinvestasi ditentukan oleh informasi yang ia peroleh di mana pikiran bekerja mengolah informasi tersebut hingga menghasilkan keputusan investasi layak dilakukan. Ketika investasi dilakukan, seketika informasi baru pun muncul dan investor berhadapan dengan informasi baru untuk mengambil kesimpulan yang baru dan keputusan yang baru. Interaksi antara subjek yang mengetahui dan objek yang diketahui di mana subjek yang mengetahui ditentukan oleh objek yang diketahui untuk kemudian lewat keputusan yang diambil subjek, subjek yang mengetahui malah mengubah realitas, objek yang diketahui. Dalam refleksivitas, falibilitas pun ada.
Kesadaran akan falibilitas dan refleksivitas inilah yang menjadi kunci dalam memahami proyek reformasi kapitalisme global--kapitalisme global berinspirasikan gagasan ideologis liberal. Kapitalisme global yang berakar pada pementingan kepentingan-diri--bukankah, dengan menggunakan doktrin epistemis falibilitas, pementingan kepentingan-diri yang dihasilkan pemikiran liberal mengabaikan adanya dimensi falibilitas dari kesimpulan itu sendiri?--menihilkan adanya kepentingan orang lain. Lewat penalaran demikian, Soros yakin bahwa Open Society pun menjadi proyek yang patut dan perlu dilakukan demi kehidupan yang lebih baik.
March 28, 2011
Clearly states his disdain for the US. Clearly has a track record in BKs. Why anyone would praise his "humanitarianism" is beyond me. The default of the true greater good is his profit motive...which he makes no qualms about. If you read only this Soros book and gave it high marks, you haven't done your homework.
October 14, 2007
Soros is a great thinker.
January 9, 2008
Soros has some decent ideas, and thankfully tempers them with a real humanitarianism. Let the economy serve the people.
October 8, 2008
A learning from investor guru about his thinking, vision and about the way way he see the world... and how to make a better world from his perspective.
January 3, 2013
Karl Popper's disciple Soro on the Open Society. I found it very interesting.
January 29, 2009
Nice social philosophy from soros
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews