Closed Society

Organic society presents some very attractive features to the observer: a concrete social unity, an unquestioned belonging, an identification of each member with the collective. Members of an organic society would hardly consider this an advantage, ignorant as they are that the relationship could be any different; only those who are aware of a conflict between the individual and the social Whole in their own society are likely to regard organic unity as a desirable goal. In other words, the attractions of organic society are best appreciated when the conditions required for its existence no longer prevail.

It is hardly surprising that throughout history mankind should have shown a yearning to return to its original state of innocence and bliss. The expulsion from the Garden of Eden is a recurrent theme. But innocence, once lost, cannot be regained - except perhaps by forgetting every experience. In any attempt to recreate artificially the conditions of an organic society, it is precisely the unquestioning and unquestionable identification of all members with the society to which they belong that is the most difficult to achieve. In order to reestablish organic unity it is necessary to proclaim the supremacy of the collective. The result, however, will differ from organic society in one vital respect: instead of being identical with it, individual interests become subordinated to those of the collective.

The distinction between personal and public interest raises a disturbing question as to what the public interest really is. The common interest must be defined, interpreted and, if necessary, enforced over conflicting personal interests. This task is best performed by a living ruler because he or she can adjust his or her policies to the circumstances; if it is entrusted to an institution, it is likely to be performed in a cumbersome, inflexible and ultimately ineffective manner. The institution will seek to prevent changes, but in the long run it cannot succeed.

However the common interest is defined in theory, in practice it is likely to reflect the interest of the rulers. It is they who proclaim the supremacy of the Whole and it is they who impose its will on recalcitrant individuals; unless one assumes that they are totally selfless, it is they who benefit from it. The rulers are not necessarily furthering their selfish ends as individuals but they do benefit from the existing system as a class: by definition, they are the class that rules. Since the membership of classes is clearly defined, the subordination of the individual to the social Whole amounts to the subordination of one class to another. Closed society may therefore be described as a society based on class exploitation. Exploitation may occur in Open Society as well but, since the position of the individual is not fixed, it does not operate on a class basis. Class exploitation in Marx's sense can exist only in a closed society. Marx made a valuable contribution when he established the concept, just as Menenius Agrippa did when he compared society with an organism. Both of them, however, applied it to the wrong kind of society.

If the avowed aim of a closed society is to ensure the supremacy of one class (or race or group) over another, it may fulfill its purpose effectively. But if its aim is to bring back the idyllic conditions of an organic society, it is bound to fail. There is a gap between the ideal of social unity and the reality of class exploitation. To bridge the gap, an elaborate set of explanations is needed which is, by definition, at variance with the facts.

Getting the ideology universally accepted is the prime task of the ruling authority and the criterion of its success. The more widely an ideology is accepted, the smaller the conflict between the collective interest and the policies actually pursued, and vice versa. At its best, an authoritarian system can go a long way towards re-establishing the calm and harmony of organic society. More commonly, some degree of coercion needs to be employed and this fact needs to be explained away by tortuous arguments which render the ideology less convincing, requiring the use of further force until, at its worst, the system is based on compulsion and its ideology bears no resemblance to reality. I have some reservations about the distinction that Jeane Kirkpatrick has drawn between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes because she used it to distinguish between America's friends and enemies, but there is a point to it. An authoritarian regime devoted to maintaining itself in power can admit more or less openly what it is about. It may limit the freedom of its subjects in various ways, it may be aggressive and brutal, but it need not extend its influence over every aspect of existence in order to preserve its hegemony. On the other hand, a system that claims to serve some ideal of social justice needs to cover up the reality of class exploitation. This requires control over the thoughts of its subjects, not merely their actions, and renders its constraining influence much more pervasive. Rather than discuss such a system in the abstract, I shall analyze the Soviet system in chapter 4.