The self-poisoning of open society

New Criterion's Notes and Comments (scroll down) has an interesting tidbit about a Polish philosopher I have never heard of, Leszek Kolakowski. They say that his magnum opus is a 3-volume treatise on communism, Main Currents of Marxism, and that he has only recently been honored with the Kluge award. But, what caught my attention is what the editor thought was Kolakowski's most profound theme is his most relevant insight to our time.

"But his deeper subject has been the insidious variety of human bondage: not just political tyranny but also the sundry metaphysical tyrannies with which mankind has striven mightily to perpetuate its enslavement even as it mouths the word 'freedom.' Of particular relevance to our own situation today is his analysis of 'The Self-Poisoning of the Open Society' (the title of an essay in his book Modernity on Endless Trial). Among the many dangers that threaten a pluralist society from within, Kolakowski notes, perhaps the most destructive is 'the weakening of the psychological preparedness to defend it.'"

The "self-poison of open society." Is this decadence? Certainly we are a decadent society. But to the point of impotency? Seems I've heard others (our Islamic critics for example) say this. And I have heard others who wondered whether the younger generations would ever be able to match the Greatest Generation's sacrifice and example of service. But I think Todd Beamer and the others on Flight 93 Pennsylvania have put that fear to rest.

Yet, something about this idea seems right. The most obvious place I see this is in (some of) the current anti-war crowd. Listening to them, it just doesn't seem like there is any justification for a defensive war, let alone a pre-emptive one. Appeals to preserving our (or their) way of life makes little impact. Part of the problem may be relativism in the name of "an open society." That is, as someone has said, the price of purity is a purist, so maybe those who imbibe to deeply on the virtues of open society, in the end, have trouble with defending it because it means excluding someone.

At any rate, I wonder what Kolakowski has to say.