In Defense of Open Society by George Soros

In Defense of Open Society Reviews

• 
  Юра Мельник

  Більше про історію фонду Сороса і особливості сучасної політичної картини світу, ніж про функції і структуру його фонду. Однак книга, як і особистість Сороса легендарна
• 
  Colin

  "In Defense of Open Societies" is a collection of speeches or essays tagged by George Soros. There are two main problems with this book that really hampers any meaningful connection with the audience:
  1.) Most of the book is clearly ghost-written. Because of this, many of Soros' actual beliefs and thoughts are incomprehensible. A lot of the early parts were purely biographical. There were several times where I became quite frustrated by the matter-of-fact style the excerpts took.
  2.) There's just a clear class difference between Soros and us mere mortals. He talks about the workings of his organizations, as they are spread across the globe with extreme political leverage. Most readers aren't going to care about Soros discussing meetings with business men in China, and the like. No one here on Goodreads has a comprehension of what it's like to spend $2million like it's nothing.
  
  The style of the book also meanders around issues. He calls what he does promoting 'open-societies'. These open-societies he essentially describes as non-mafia state. Mafia states are countries ruled by 'strong-men' who conveniently tended to piss or frustrate Soros in some manner. He described them as being democratic, probably so they're easy to buy and influence.
  
  I was under the impression immigration would be discussed. It was a tad, but the manner it's done is just so detached and uninvested. For example, it describes immigration in massive terms with various causes and responsibility again being placed at the feet of those Soros doesn't like.
  
  What I got out of this book, was that Soros admits to using both pride and envy in his methods of operation. He has a chapter entitled 'Selfless Man With a Selfless Foundation'. In this way, he's a lot like Oliver Stone's character Gordon Gekko, as he extols Greed. "Greed for a lack of a better word, is good." Soros doesn't explicitly use the word 'greed' here, though he does use envy and being selfish to avoid tropes of philanthropy.
  
  More can be learned about Soros from watching Stone's film, "Wall Street," and doing a character analysis on Gordon Gekko. To be frank, there was too much blatant lying along with tactical obfuscation to recommend reading this to anyone else.
• 
  Mikael Raihhelgauz

  Vanameister otsustas hilises pensionieas anda lühiülevaate enam-vähem kõigist oma tegevustest. Soros kirjutab Kesk-Euroopa ülikoolist, Ida-Euroopa riikide demokratiseerimisest 1990. aastatel ja oma turgude filosoofiast. Natuke rantib nsm ELi kohta ka. Ise asusin raamatut lugema lihtsakoelise küsimusega, mis värk selle Sorosiga ikkagi on? Arvan, et sain vastuse kätte.
  Natuke häiris raamatu hakitus. Peatükid ei ole omavahel eriti seotud ja tegelikult on kõik need juba varem eraldiseisvate tekstidena avaldatud. Viisakas oleks olnud siin-seal natuke toimetada, siduda viimase aja sündmustega jne, aga Soros ütles kohe alguses välja, et ta vana ega viitsi enam midagi kirjutada, seega piirdus episoodilise lühendamisega... Muidu täitsa asjalik teos.
• 
  Chris Doelle

  This book is simple propaganda. Soros is not a learned expert but an oligarch set on bending world governments to his social views. Don’t waste your time with this. The only real value in this book (actually just a collection of his speeches)is to see his machinations.
  
  An ‘open society’ sounds like a positive thing but it is not. Plus, he never really lays out his definition of what that actually means. It is just doublespeak and ‘feel good’ politics.
• 
  Harooon

  Everyone’s favourite boogeyman, George Soros—apparently responsible for toppling governments, engineering crises to make money, and drinking the last of my Haagens—has gathered a collection of essays, speeches, and reflections in his book In Defense of Open Society.
  
  Contrary to its title. which suggests some unified elaboration of what an “Open Society” is, and why we ought to have it, he covers rather loose ground here, weighing in on various topics such as the Euro, the migrant crisis, his philanthropic work, and small bits of what you would have to call philosophy.
  
  The most exciting parts are about his father. Soros considers him his greatest influence. His life is one of those unbelievable stories that unfolded in all the corners of the world during the Great War: a volunteer in the Austro-Hungarian empire, he wound up in a Siberian POW camp where he became “the editor of a handwritten literary magazine that was displayed on a plank, and it was called The Plank.” (42)
  
  When the guards started cracking down on the prisoners, Soros’ father, one of their ring-leaders, organised a jail break. He and his conspirators built a raft, intending to sail it down-river to the ocean, only to realise that all the rivers lead to the Arctic. Amid the turmoil of the Russian Civil War, they made the perilous journey back to Hungary across the Siberian taiga.
  
  Having had enough adventure for a lifetime, Soros’ father wanted nothing more than to settle down and raise his family. But he had witnessed crisis first-hand. The possible breakdown of ordinary society loomed large in his mind. When the Nazis rolled in, he knew what to do: “He realized that these were abnormal times and that people who followed the normal rules were at risk.” (44) He arranged fake identities for those around him to get out of the country. During the Soviet occupation, he arranged a place for his son at the London School of Economics.
  
  The lessons of his father, caught up as he was in the whirlwind of history, led Soros to a key insight: as we move further away from ideal conditions and equilibria, people become less rational and predictable in their behaviour. The supposed rules—perfect market hypotheses, rational actors—no longer apply. Civilised life, rational debate, objective truth: everything we take for granted rests on fragile circumstances that may fall apart as easily as they were obtained.
  
  During his time in London, Soros fell under the spell of George Popper, who had just become a philosophical celebrity for his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. Much of Soros’ thinking is derived from Popper. According to Popper, scientific knowledge is not ever verified, only postulated: it remains valid only insofar as it has yet to be shown false by a contradictory observation under identical circumstances. This is known as falsifiability.
  
  How can we, from direct observation—that is a white swan—generalise to logically valid truths—all swans are white—? Falsifiability links the two by eliminating those claims which are not true: the observation of a black swan proves false the claim that all swans are white. Knowledge—at least practical knowledge—thus has a provisional nature, valid only insofar as direct observation is insufficient to prove it wrong. Because our knowledge is constructed, it is fragile, and at risk of being lost or broken.
  
  That means knowledge is a process, not an endpoint. We can never be in possession of “the whole truth”. If we set up our world according to what we believe to be true, there will always be something wrong, something missing with it. The body of human knowledge can never be “closed"—at best, we can be open to new knowledge by the application of critical thinking, direct observation, and scientific falsification. This leads us away from the closed societies of monarchy, fascism, dictatorship, and communism towards liberal democracy, which promises never to close the lid on the final say.
  
  Soros differs from Popper in a few ways. Whereas Popper thought that science and the social studies could be unified under the same methods, Soros believes the two to be fundamentally irreconcilable because of human agency. We are finite, imperfect creatures. We never act on the basis of pure, infallible knowledge, but according to beliefs which have been partially formed by incomplete, biased, or irrational information.
  
  For example, “If investors believe that markets are efficient, then that belief will change the way they invest, which in turn will change the behavior of the markets in which they are participating.” (143) Is the Efficient-Market Hypothesis true? A lot of people with influence in the real world believe it to be true, which gives it something of a reality. But the fact remains that some degree of belief structures our lives and how we act in them: when we finally see a black swan, we are just as liable to conclude that he needs a bath as we are to overturn the belief that all swans are white.
  
  Soros holds that we have both an observing self and a manipulating self. The observing self is essentially passive. It receives perceptions of the external world and produces knowledge about them (“That is a swan”, “That swan is white”). The manipulating self is the part of us that acts in the world. In acting, we influence the beliefs of other people. But since we are fallible, we act according to a flawed picture of reality. We therefore introduce a degree of uncertainty into our observing selves, and hence into our knowledge. Soros calls this feedback loop “reflexivity.”
  
  Not just because of falsifiability, but also because of the possible cross-contamination of knowledge with belief, we have to be open to new information. The best way to do this is through democratically-structured societies. This practical consequence of Soros’ philosophy manifests itself in his philanthropical work, like the Central European University and the Open Foundation. His admitted goal is to open up “closed” societies like those of his native Hungary.
  
  Ignore the conspiracies for a second. Soros clearly doesn’t have his hands on the puppet-strings of the world, but he is a very wealthy man with strong beliefs and a self-assurance about using his influence to realise them. This isn’t, in itself, a bad thing, any more than any form of politics is a bad thing. But several points in In Defense of Open Society struck me as somewhat naive about the practical wielding of power.
  
  It took several failures by the Open Foundation for Soros to acknowledge that democracy cannot be imposed on a country. Changing the leadership is not enough. Democracy has to be accepted and nurtured from society itself. And if organisations, no matter how noble or philanthropic in purpose, get too cosy with the political counter-currents of “Mafia” states, they risk degrading into patronage networks for another, competing set of elites. As Vitaly Klitschko said, “If you put fresh cucumbers into a barrel of pickles, they will soon turn into pickles.”
  
  One memorable example that Soros discusses is the Rose Revolution in Georgia. After a disputed election, a wave of protests swept Mikhail Saakashvili into power as the next President. The Open Foundation had worked closely with Saakashvili. Soros saw him as a guiding light for democracy in Georgia. Yet once in power, he introduced new authoritarian measures to crack down on journalists and clean out the civil service.
  
  What struck me most about this recollection was not that Soros’ organisation had played a hand in events. Nor even that a particular outcome happened (I’m not going to pretend to know anything about Georgia). What struck me most was the rather ho-hum way in which Soros describes Saakashvili’s authoritarian turn, as if everyone’s had that same feeling of buyers’ remorse after helping topple a government.
  
  While I’ve mostly talked about the political and philosophical ideas of George Soros, a good deal of his essays are about finance, which is where he first made his name. Financial decisions are based on a forecast of risk that assumes a certain understanding of the economy, one that views it as amenable to the methods of science. As part of this, investors and actuaries take rather questionable assumptions in stride, like that human beings are rational actors, or that we can have perfect knowledge in a given situation. Economists do this to make the maths nice, but we all know humans aren’t like that.
  
  Using his idea of reflexivity, Soros reads the Global Financial Crisis as being caused by a self-amplifying misconception about real-estate trends. In other words, a situation was created in which observing selves were deceived, thus causing manipulating selves to act in a certain way, which only furthered the deception of the observing selves, which drove the manipulating selves to… etc. etc.
  
  Lenders were too relaxed about who they gave credit to, so buyers rushed in to buy up real-estate. This short-term glut caused values to rise, helping people to actually do better on their mortgages. This indicated to lenders that everything was fine, so they continued to relax their credit availability. Everyone acted on a rational picture of the market, according to the financial signals it sent. But according to this, “the value of the collateral [was] independent of the availability of credit.” (167) We all know how that ended. The reality was an unsustainable real-estate bubble that could only pop.
  
  Soros also expresses a good degree of scepticism about the Euro. He does not lean strongly towards more or less integration of the EU economies, but points out the troubles of a common currency with a central bank, but no central treasury. In ceding the ability to print their own money, struggling members of the Eurozone were no longer able to inflate debt away. During the GFC they had to default on government bonds, turning Europe into a two-tiered arrangement of creditors (Germany) and debtors (Greece, Italy, Portugal). Soros compares the situation to that of a third-world country that has to borrow money in a foreign currency it cannot control.
  
  While Soros is critical of the promise of a scientific, rational basis for economics, he is, in some ways, still a typical economist. His view of human nature is oddly mechanical, viewing human freedom as little more than the sum of various nudges, incentives, pushes, and pulls. Even when he acknowledges the breakdown of a rational picture of human affairs, he does so only for the practical end of the taming chaos and conducting us back to order.
  
  No room—nor relevance—is afforded those spontaneous, irrational bursts of life that make us who we are: beauty, faith, love, ingenuity, madness…. We are only ever capable of acting in the world according to our “manipulating selves”, a formulation which reduces all human relations to mere exploitation. That word, “manipulating”, seems to contain within it the fundamental obstacle that economic thinkers always hits up against when they try to illuminate human affairs. We must count Soros among them.
  
  At some points, In Defense of Open Society is too hagiographic or unreflective to be insightful. There there is an objective truth we are not in possession of is not exactly an original thought. How do we move from this realisation to a practical application of knowledge? How do we even begin to approach complicated situations like the Ukrainian War, which span far more than any one person could hope to contain in his head? Short of just not being wrong about everything—how would you even know?—Soros’ framework gives us few answers.
  
  
  You can read this review and other writings on my blog.
• 
  Mārtiņš Vaivars

  Esejas un raksti par plašu tēmu loku (hedžfonda vadīšanu, Eiropas Savienību, filantropiju, Open Society darbību u.c.) no ļoti skaidri, sistemātiski un empīriski domājoša cilvēka. Ja iepriekš esat sekojuši Sorosa rakstiem New York Review of Books, dažas nodaļas jau būs redzētas.
• 
  Mucius Scaevola

  Remarkable how candid shadowy Soros is about toppling governments and undermining the popular will.
• 
  Peter Herold

  All very relevant in 2020
  Soros‘ comments on the USA, China and the EU (Eurozone, refugee crisis, rule of law, relationship with Russia) are as relevant today as they ever were, as is his passionate advocacy of the “open society” which he uses “as shorthand for a society in which the rule of law prevails, as opposed to rule by a single individual, and where the role of the state is to protect human rights and individual freedom. In [his] personal view, an open society should pay special attention to those who suffer from discrimination or social exclusion and those who can’t defend themselves.“ His take-down of conventional economics is very good as well.
• 
  Aoife

  An important and timely collection of Soros letters and speeches over the years. Over the course of these pieces Soros clearly and succinctly lays out the importance of open society and the threats to it. It goes without saying that these threats are ever growing.
  I personally picked up this book as I have long supported and worked for organisations supported by Soros, and at this moment in time needed to feel hopeful that the pendulum can again swing toward open society and democracy. This book provides that much needed hope.
• 
  Lordoftaipo

  Now I know what the title says: the ‘open society’ Soros is defending is not a civil society where freedom of expression is hailed. He is defending his own eponymous foundation, and one of Karl Popper’s ideas. There is nothing wrong with a small vanity project. Next time, consecutive speeches reprinted from the get-go of a book should serve as a red flag.
  
  Soros got something to say, and yet he had picked a way of presentation that resembles fukubukuro sold in Japanese supermarkets that are dispensing with mixed items. For that reason, I am not going to unfold his paradigm here, which occupies only one chapter of the book. Again, some arguments are well-formed, most just not well-arranged. Perhaps some other works of his would live up to the standards.
• 
  Owlseyes

  Maybe he likes her for 2020, as the "most qualified". I am positively sure she doesn't like him.
  
  
  
  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyti...
• 
  Tom Walsh

  Less Politics and more Economics than I was hoping for.
  
  Not what I was looking for, but a comprehensive summary of his Economic Theory particularly in relation to that of Karl Popper.
  
  I was expecting this book to concentrate more on his Social Theories describing his support for an Open Society.
• 
  Alicja Ciesielska

  Budowa tej książki:
  30%: laurka wystawiona samemu sobie
  30%: eseje, które dla osoby bez dobrej znajomości ekonomii będą niezrozumiałe
  30%: faktycznie spoko rzeczy
• 
  Oleksandr Golovatyi

  
  Швидкочитання вправи (promo)
  
  Нотатки з книги:
  
  "в аномальний час нормальні правила не діють, а люди підкоряються їм на свій страх і ризи"
  
  "Стрімкий розвиток чштучного інтелекту та машинного навчання створив інструменти соціального контролю, які надають репресивним режимам властиву їм перевагу над відкритими суспільствами. Для диктатур це корисні інструменти, але для відкритих суспільств вони становлять смертельну небезпеку. Наше головне завдання сьогодні - знайти способи як протидіяти цій неминучій загрозі."
  
  "Я вважаю поточну історичну мить досить складною. Відкриті суспільства зазнають кризи, а різні форми диктатур і мафіозних держав, наприклад Росія Володимира Путіна, перебувають на підйомі. У Сполучених Штатах президент Дональд Трамп хотів би створити мафіозну державу, однак йому цього не д��зволять Конституція, інші соціальні інститути та активне громадянське суспільство."
  
  "Найкраща оборона - це добре підготовлена контратака."
  
  "Facebook, Google контролюють половину всіх доходів від інтернет-реклами."
  
  "Соціальні медіа-компанії не просто відволікають чи спричиняють звикання - вони спонукають людей відмовитися від самостійності. Здатність формувати увагу чимдалі більше зосереджена в руках кількох компаній."
  
  "Радянська імперія розпалася, а Росія стала мафіозною державою, яка вдалася до націоналістичної ідеології."
  
  "Сі Цзіньпін, який має більше спільного з Путіним, ніж із так званим Заходом, почав встановлювати носу систему партійної протекції. Боюся, що перспектива на наступні двадцять років досить похмура. Однак важливо залучити Китай до інститутів глобального управління. Так ми уникнемо світової війни, що може знищити нашу цивілізацію."
  
  "Китай не єдиний авторитарний режим у світі, але він, безперечно, найбагатіший, найсильніший і найрозвиненіший у машинному навчанні та штучному інтелекті. Це робить Сі Цзіньпіна найнебезпечнішим противником тих, хто вірить у концепцію від��ритого суспільства."
  
  "зазнав своєрідної кризи середнього віку. Чому я маю губити себе, щоб заробити ще більше?"
  
  "Неофіційний суспільний договір у Китаї грунтується на стабільному рівні життя. Якщо падіння китайської економіки та фондового ринку буде досить серйозне, цей договір може бути розірваний, і тоді навіть бізнес спільнота обернеться проти Сі Цзіньпіна."
  
  "я вважав, що Китай має бути глибше інтегрований в інститути глобального управління, але поведінка Сі Цзіньпіна змінила мою думку. Тепер я переконаний, що, замість вести торговельну війну майже з усім світом, США повинні зосередитися на Китаї."
  
  "Моя основна теза полягає в тому, що поєднання репресивних режимів з ІТ-монополіями надає цим режимам наперед визначену перевагу над відкритими суспільствами. Інструменти контролю - це корисні засоби в руках авторитарних режимів, але вони становлять смертельну загрозу для відкритих суспільств."
  
  "Саакашвілі у владі виявився набагато гіршим взірцем цінностей відкритого суспільства, ніж тоді, коли перебував в опозиції."
  
  "Системні реформи небезпечно грунтувати на тісному зв'язку з конкретним урядом. Вони потребують широкої співпраці й підтримки громадськості. Саме це робить їх незворотними."
  
  "Березовський стверджував, що має достатні докази для кримінального переслідування Путіна."
  
  "я віддаю перевагу формату "мережі мереж""
  
  "цінність філантропії полягає не в кількості грошей, витрачених на неї, а в тому, як їх витрачають"
  
  "Європа не усвідомлює: напад Росії на Україну - це опосередкований напад на Європейський Союз та його принципи управління."
  
  "Урятувавши Україну, ЄС урятує себе"
  
  "Після фінансової кризи 2008 року Єврозона перетворилася на відносини кредитора та боржника, де країни-боржники не могли виконувати зобов'язань, а країни-кредитори диктували умови, яких боржники мусили дотримуватись."
  
  "демократію не можна й не треба нав'язувати ззовні; її має усвідомити й боронити сам народ."
  
  "Перший крок до захисту Європи від ворогів, як зовнішніх, так і внутрішніх, - визнати масштаби загрози. Другий крок - пробудити приспану проєвропейську більшість і мобілізувати її на захист цінностей, на яких грунтувався ЄС. Інакше мрія про об'єднану Європу може стати жахом двадцять першого століття."
  
  "Я міг вибрати собі наставника, і ним став Карл Поппер, чия книжка "Відкрите суспільство та його вороги" (1945) справила на мене глибоке враження"
  
  "Першу книжку "Алхімія фінансів" я опублікував 1987 року. У ній я намагався пояснити філософське підгрунтя свого підходу до фінансових ринків."
  
  "На мою думку, рефлексивність - серйозний виклик для ідеї, що природничі та соціальні науки можна об'єднати. Я вважаю, що соціальні науки досі становлять цінну людську діяльність, але ми маємо визнати їхні принципові відмінності від природничих наук."
  
  "Людська невизначенність як перешкода науковому методу. Принцип людської невизначеності не лише заважає соціальним наукам мати результати, порівнянні з досягненнями фізики; він втручається в науковий метод й іншими способами."
  
  "Невдала спроба економістів по-рабськи наслідувати фізику має давню історію."
  
  "я розробив теорію процесів підйому та спа��у, або бульбашок (Сорос 1987, 2008). Кожна бульбашка має два компоненти: основну тенденцію, що переважає в реальності, і хибне розуміння, пов'язане з цією тенденцією"
  
  "Проект спільної валюти мав багато недоліків. Деякі з них були очевидні, коли запроваджувалис євро. Усі, наприклад, знали, що це неповноцінна валюта - у неї є центральний банк, але немає спільної скарбниці. Однак крах 2008 року виявив багато інших недоліків. Зрештою, найважливішим було те, що, передаючи право друкувати гроші незалежному центральному банку, країни-учасниці пішли на ризик не виконати в майбутньому зобов'язання за державними облігаціями. У розвиненій країні з власною валютою ризику дефолту немає, бо вона завжди може надрукувати гроші. Однак, поступившись цим правом або передавши його незалежному центральному банку, який фактично не контролює жодну з держав-учасниць, такі держави поставили себе на місце країн третього світу, що позичають в іноземній валюті."
  
  "Грецький дефолт спровокував би більшу банківську кризу, ніж банкрутство Lehman Brothers. Влада запропонувала комплекс рятівних заходів, але завжди робила надто мало й надто пізно, тому становище Греції далі погіршувалось. Це було за приклад для інших країн із великою заборгованістю, зокрема Іспанії, Італії, Португалії та Ірландії. Хоч дії ЄЦБ заспокоїил ринки, криза досі не подолана. Замість об'єднати рівних, Єврозона поділилась на дві категорії: кредиторів і боржників."
  
  "(книга) Джордж Сорос. Криза глобального капіталізму. Відкрите суспільство під загрозою."
  
  "(книга) Джордж Сорос. Відкрите суспільство. Реформування глобального капіталізму."
  
  
  Таблиці для тренування швидкого читання (promo)
• 
  Patrick Wikstrom

  You can often tell a pompous blow hard when the author puts his name at the top and the title down below in half the size print. This boring tell nothing compilation of George’s relatively recent articles and opinion pieces bounces all over the place without either digging into the details of his life or his economic successes and failures. He says he lived through the Nazi occupation in Hungary and that his daddy helped other people back then but he doesn’t say how. No details. He says he started the Central European University in multiple countries but doesn’t tell us what’s happening with it, how many students have gone through its programs, why did it take so long to be accredited? He briefly touches on his breaking the bank of England but fails to mention his pension for “short selling” as a major vehicle for wealth creation. This is at least his 13th book and he just toots his horn and I guess a rich fat cat has the right to do so. I found out so little about the man and his personal history that I went online to flesh out some of the details about the guy. For me I found the book a waste of time and probably only read a third of the words and just skimmed the rest.
• 
  Airton Zanon

  It is a really nice book for people to understand a little bit more about the world. But I must be honest, I'm not from finance, so some parts of the book I got lost about some acronyms and the meaning of them.
  
  I feel that this helped me to understand a little bit more about the world.
• 
  João Victor Fraga

  I don't agree with his way of thinking or his political philosophy. But I decided to read it to understand what he has to say. The only reasonable thing he said was about the danger of the big tech monopoly.
• 
  Jordan

  The name "Soros" seems to be thrown around a lot lately. One might suggest it has become synonymous with a rather insidious form of what Soros himself refers to as "political philanthropy". Another might suggest criticism of Soros is not rooted in reality, but rather in the anti-Semitic attitudes of critics.
  
  All this leads to large scale skepticism whenever his name is evoked.
  Never the less, who Soros is and what his political philanthropy entails are of particular interest at the moment I write this (June 14, 2020). There are those that would suggest much of the current division in American and western society falls, at least financially, at Soros' feet. I am skeptical of this claim, just as I am skepetical of those who would write off his detractors as "conspiracy theorists".
  
  It is this position that led me to seek out this book, written by the man himself.
  
  “Book” may be an overstatement. It's really a collection of previously published essays and speeches. While it does not tell you what role Soros has played in recent events, it does unintentionally provide a plausible explanation for many of the seemingly disparate threads of our time.
  
  Like the title suggests, Soros sees himself as a defender of "open societies". What is an open society? Soros never really defines it here. He references Karl Popper's concept of an open society (with which I am not familiar) and paints a broad picture by stating: "open societies recognize that different people have different views and interests; they introduce man-made laws to enable people to live together in peace."
  
  While that sounds good, this definition would undoubtedly include both the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire. I suspect Soros wouldn't want to defend either of these.
  
  He does point to an example of an open society, and it's defense is central to much of his book. Still undefined, he describes in contrast: "repressive regimes like the Soviet Union were collapsing and open societies like the European Union"
  
  The European Union is an open society. The Soviet Union was a closed society.
  
  "Open societies have many more enemies, Putin’s Russia foremost among them."
  
  Putin's Russia is an enemy of open societies. But open societies, like the EU, "have more enemies":
  "Externally, the EU is surrounded by hostile powers—Putin’s Russia, Erdogan’s Turkey, Sisi’s Egypt, and the America that Trump would like to create but can’t."
  
  Trump allegedly envisions the United States as a power "hostile" to Europe.
  "President Donald Trump would like to establish a mafia state, but he can’t because the Constitution"
  
  Like "open society", "mafia state" is left undefined. But we are told that Putin, an enemy of open society also runs a mafia state, as does Hungary's Viktor Orbán
  
  Rhetorical flourishes aside, two things are clear:
  1. George Soros perceives himself as a defender of "open societies".
  2. George Soros perceives Donald Trump as an enemy of open societies.
  
  How does Soros defend open societies from their enemies? His description of his foundation's work in Hungary in the 1980s tells us much:
  
  "the foundation supported every cultural initiative that was not an expression of official dogma—from zither clubs to farmers’ cooperatives. The amounts awarded were very small because most of the initiatives used facilities provided by the state and the people engaged in them drew salaries from the state. We used the state’s own resources to undermine it."
  
  Funding of any and all dissident groups to undermine a government that Soros views as an enemy of open society.
  
  Back in the present day:
  
  "The activities of the Open Society Foundations were concentrated in foreign countries; it was time to do something at home. I reflected on the deficiencies of open society in America"
  
  "The rest of our programs in the United States were the outgrowth of our programs in the rest of the world: social justice, vulnerable populations, civil rights, and the criminal justice system."
  
  "I consider the Trump administration a danger to the world. But I regard it as a purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner."
  
  The above strike me as particularly ominous considering Soros' lifelong belief that:
  "In turbulent times, the impossible becomes possible."
  
  With all this in mind, one has to wonder if the rapid rise of prominent dissidents today are not actually a reflection of public sentiment, but unknowing expendable pawns in the machinations of someone else; an unseen actor who does not share their beliefs but wishes to exploit their anger. It doesn't have to be George Soros, but Soros provides a convincing hypothetical playbook for whomever that actor might be.
• 
  Marco den Ouden

  George Soros is the bugbear of the right in America, which strikes me as odd as Soros has probably done more than any other private citizen to bring about change in the former apartheid South Africa and the former Soviet Union. His foundations in these countries have fomented the conversion of these countries from closed and rigid societies to comparatively open societies. Some, like Estonia, have become bastions of free markets, in both thought and practice.
  
  This book is an excellent introduction to Soros's philosophy. It is very current and includes essays on the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and by China's social credit system (a form of thought control similar to that portrayed in the Black Mirror episode called Nosedive and starring Dallas Bryce Howard). There is chapter on Soros's foundations and the work they have done and continue to do. Another chapter looks at the Central European University he founded and which has become renowned for its scholarship. He then tackles economic crises, the Global financial crisis of 2008 as well as problems in the European Union.
  
  And he concludes with a chapter called My Conceptual Framework, which explains his theories on philosophy and economics. While partially based on his mentor Karl Popper's philosophy of science, named how falsifiability distinguishes real scientific theories from pseudo-science, he discusses his own insights into what he calls reflexivity. His ideas on reflexivity are a departure from conventual efficient markets economic theory. He incorporates economist Frank Knight's ideas on uncertainty.
  
  Reflexivity postulates a distinction between the objective world or objective reality, and the subjective reality made up of opinions and beliefs, many of which may not correspond to the real world at all. Moreover, he argues that subjective ideas can actually influence and change the real world. This disconnect between beliefs and the real world enabled Soros to make his fortune in the financial markets.
  
  In any event, this is a dandy book, an excellent explanation of Soros's ideas in his own words.
• 
  Benjamin

  The character of George Soros has been intriguing to me because all of the fuzz that surrounds him: He’s said to be the man “who broke the Bank of England”, as well as the Jew billionaire who’s doing social engineering to basically drawn countries with immigrants and impose socialism into the world. I wanted to know what Soros had to said in his favor, and that of his Organization.
  
  Putting aside all of the conspiracy theories (the fact that some people regard Soros as a socialist is nonsensical, as he is one of the best capitalists in the world, and capitalism has made him rich AF), I wanted to learn more about the Open Society and what Soros had to say in regards of some of the issues his foundation promotes, particularly abortion. The book however, doesn’t talk about this at all.
  
  A good surprise though, was to learn more about George’s history, his thoughts on how the 2008 economic crisis should’ve been handled, and how he thinks Europe is in danger (shoutout to Obama and Angela Merkel). There’s no doubt Soros is perhaps the very best market speculator in the World, and his insights, combined with a very good last chapter, made this purchase worth it.
  
  There’s no doubt Soros is a controversial character, so I know I can’t recommend it to everyone, but if you’d like to know more about his early history, how Open Society and CEU were born, and his thoughts about the European Union, this book will be of much interest to you.
• 
  Isaac Gill

  One of the easiest to read books Soros (his writing style leaves much to be desired, Alchemy for instance) has written apart from perhaps "Soros on Soros", I absolutely appreciated his take on contemporary affairs for someone who is 89 years old (when book was published) his take on current affairs is remarkably in-touch, he seems to be embracing his upcoming death very well showing little fear but preparing everything for that - which is absolutely inspiring. As much of a flawed human he is in personal relations, business dealings, love life, I find Soros' charitable activities to be pinnacle of how one can deploy capital to better mankind (in terms of Philanthropy), his mental models have influenced me a great deal so there's that but yeah, what he's done with money and the foundations, INET, HRW, etc, very very inspiring, he's far better and more effective philanthropist than Gates, Buffet, et al. I really liked the part in the book about how his charity is an extension of his ego and how he admits to his selfishness and self-centeredness, what a peculiar human being, one we should all hope to emulate in terms of intellectual honesty and selfish compassion.
  
  If you're interested in Soros do read "Soros on Soros" it's also a very good book. And if you're reading "The Alchemy of Finance" just realize that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most people who read it.
• 
  Mike Cheng

  Over the past few years, and especially more recently, George Soros has become a sort of boogeyman to conservatives. For that reason I felt it was important to see what he has to say in longform. This book is a collection of speeches and articles Mr. Soros has written wherein he discusses his background and fears of authoritarian regimes past and present (Nazi Germany, the PRC, and Russia) and the potential for tech companies such as Google and Facebook to manipulate and surveil us, his concerns about the rise of nationalism in the U.S. (which is presumably one reason behind his strong disdain for President Trump), and the application of the Theory of Reflexivity not just to financial markets but to individuals and societies. Perhaps the most interesting takeaway for me was seeing how influential Sir Karl Popper (who libertarians may recognize given the relationship to Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman) was in Mr. Soros’s life as his mentor, and accordingly Mr. Soros’s professed desire to protect and promote open societies (the titular (lol) basis for this book, based on a similar name by Popper).
• 
  Rich

  This book is primarily a compilation of George Soros' speeches and essays. They describe the establishment of the Open Society Foundations and the Central European University. They also offer a critique of the response to the 2008 financial crisis and the European Union. Soros provides a conceptual framework as an alternative to traditional economic theory in the final chapter.
  
  The book did not provide sufficient information about the objectives and fundamental beliefs of the Open Society Foundations. Since the title of the book is In Defense Of Open Society, I thought that it would provide a description of what Soros envisions an open society to be. He touches on some aspects, but does not address what he sees as the desired outcomes. I will have to read his earlier book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, to gain that understanding.
• 
  Fred Klein

  I'd already read one book about Soros, and decided to read a book by him. My interest in him stems from constantly hearing about how he's behind everything that rightwingers don't like. My view is that this rich Jew makes a convenient scapegoat.
  
  This book is not easy to read. I wasn't able to get through the last chapter. Soros writes about many political developments in Europe in detail, and I can't follow much of his financial analysis.
  
  What I was able to get out of this book is that Soros is, at worst, a very arrogant man, and he has the money to promote his "open society" philosophy, which is against authoritarian government. One of his goals is for those he supports to act independently of him. The risk there is that sometimes his money is being used for purposes that he might not have supported but that his detractors will say he is behind.
• 
  Aleksej

  George Soros is a wise man and extraordinary person, but the way he delivers his thoughts to the public is upsetting me the most. The content of this book may be good for some overview speech with a limited timeline, but unsuitable for an inspirational book. Ideally, there should be at least three comprehensive books of Soros:
  1) full biography
  2) reflexivity concept with tips and tricks
  3) open society principles complete course
  Unfortunately, we have none of it. This book won't give you any new information in case you ever heard of George Soros before.