Customer Reviews

On Revolution

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is yet another deep, original and controversial contribution of Hannah Arendt to twentieth century political theory. In this book, Arendt analyzes the phenomenon of revolution by focusing almost exclusively on the great XVIIIth century revolutions, the American and the French. Arendt's deep insights allow her to compare, both on a theoretical and a practical level, the similarities and differences between the two and on how and why the American Revolution allowed the foundation of freedom while the French failed miserably in this attempt almost from the beginning. The great themes in this book are the social question (necessity) in its relation to politics (the realm of freedom) and the ever-present distinction between liberation and freedom properly speaking. Thus, constitutions and their significance, the problem of secular law in relation to its need for an Absolute with which to provide a foundation for it, the problem of hypocrisy and Robespierre's Terror, and insightful interpretations of some of the Founding Fathers' political thought (though in my opinion a bit too far reaching in her inferences thereof), are all issues with which she deals with in this book and which are rounded up in a great closing chapter. Deep, powerful, perceptive, intense: like most of Arendt's writings, a must read for anyone interested in political thought and theory.

On Revolution by Hannah Arendt is a philosophical study of the nature of revolutions, mainly focusing on the French and American revolutions. A big portion of her analysis involves the "Social Question" involved in revolutions. How do revolutions start? Even though her writing style can be convoluted and overly verbose at times, eventually the reader will acclimate to her not so accessible prose. This is not a light read. If you want a book to stimulate internal dialogue, however, this is the book to buy.

I first read this brilliant and classic study of the nature of revolutions as a college student in the late 1960s, when a cultural revolution was indeed occurring in the U.S. After watching the media coverage of today's angry protesters against unregulated capitalism, it was well worth re-reading.

Dr. Arendt analyzes the implications of 3 major revolutions, the American, French and Russian. The only truly successful one was the American, because it was grounded in the ideals of the Enlightenment, as well as the classical values espoused by the Founding Fathers. The French and Russian revolutions were rooted in class hatred and resentment of exploitation, a sentiment that is chillingly becoming a reality today. She herself lived through the terror of being a Jew in 1930s Germany, and barely escaped deportation to a concentration camp. Although her writing style is always disciplined, her own experience, in my opinion, colors her analysis of the French and Russian revolutions: violent uprising often leads to an even more repressive form of government that the one overthrown.

Her analysis of the success of the American Revolution, and the ensuing chaos and bloodshed that followed the French and Russian, is still among the most important political observations of the 20th century. A classic, and a prescient warning in our economically unstable time.

Hannah Arendt's "On Revolution" is a long meditation on the French and American Revolutions, and why the former, albiet a violent failure, came to direct the course of modern human affairs while the latter was a unique success.

For Arendt, the American Revolution succeeded because its purpose was to seek freedom, and there was enough of a tradition of liberty and freedom in America for the founding fathers to create the political apparatus (the Constitution, division of powers, the Senate, the Supreme Court) that would permit public virtue to override public opinion. The founding fathers were men whose ambition was to seek distinction and excellence.

The French Revolution was a completely different animal, driven by a desperate population to relieve its suffering and misery. The pathos and emotions rampant in the revolution -- especially the poor's hatred of the rich -- soon morphed into a bloodbath of violence.

At times threatening to deviate into academic irrelevance but always recovering to continue a highly accessable treatment of the topic of revolution in the post-nuclear age, Hannah Arendt's "On Revolution" makes the argument that the American Revolution was a successful revolution while the French Revolution was not. More importantly, the relevance of this conclusion lies in the manner in which her arguments lead her to advocate for the continuation of revolution, in a qualified sense, and the continuation of the republican form of government in the United States. Arendt fled Germany to Paris and then the United States. "On Revolution" was published in 1963.
Crucial to understanding the distinctions she made between the French revolution and the American is her attitude towards "the masses", a unique blend of bourgeois paternalism and solidly reasoned historical analysis. Few could argue with her cogent and brilliant summation of the events of the French Revolution and the ensuing "Terror". Arendt makes the case that the French Revolution was doomed from the start essentially because the revolutionary leaders, whom she depicts as sincere men of action, including Robespierre, set themselves the impossible task of alleviating the misery of the masses through political means. In contrast, the violence of the American Revolution followed the Declaration of Independance by a colonial peoples for the purpose of forming a uniquely new state. The opportunities afforded by the wealth of the new nation meant that following the Revolutionary War the United States could continue to prosper as a republic despite the perpetuation of class differences.
Arendt argues however that the innovations of the American Revolution, most importantly the sepration of powers and the enfranchisement of the masses through the vote, have become inadequate in themselves for the purposes of guaranteeing ongoing stability and social well-being. Her defense of the continued viability of the republican form of government in the modern age is conditional upon the institution of a "bottom up" organization of grassroots social and community organizations. These citizens groups, modeled after those which played a role in the French and Russian Revolutions as well as the revolt in Hungary in 1956, would inform the discrete levels of government, from local communities which could be organized in "cantons" to the federal government. Arendt refrains from offering a revolutionary agenda, but implicit in her argument is that such an augmentation of the democratic nature of public life will be made by inevitable by the interests of a population facing the pressures of the modern state. These grassroots citizen organizations with a "bottom-up" heirarchical organization, can form a democratic consensus independant of party politics. One of the key components of Arendt's arguments is the distinction between public and private happiness. In the end her argument explicitly rests upon the premise that freedom consists of "public happiness", that is public service in the form participation in the affairs of government. Public life in the form of social and community involvement are the very basis of the possibility of private happiness, thus we must all take on the responsibility that the framers (she uses the term founders) of the Constitutin took upon themselves as the champions of liberty.
Arendt is at her best and most quotable during the first 125 pages or so. This work is a theoretical work and not a history, so we do not expect her to have traced the implications of her arguments through the entire history of the United States. Thus, she makes no mention of the U.S. Civil War, or Roosevelt's "New Deal" and proposed constitutional amendments.
The role of violence in revolution is a central theme throughout the work, and this is the matter which she argues that Thomas Jefferson was most concerned about when he developed his idea of a "canton" system. It is an important note that Jefferson devised this notion of a republic of republics, so to speak, later in life, and for the purpose of avoiding recurring bloodshed (the "watering" of the "Tree of Liberty"). In developing her argument she points out that citizens' groups are not structured towards the function of administration, as they reflect a wide variety of concerns such as trade unionism and scientific societies, lawyer's guilds, etc. Thus Arendt does not propose that they take the place of government in the traditional institutional sense of the word. The function of these civic institutions will be to inform elected representatives with a democratic consensus, to guide political institutions with the mandate of a natural elite each of which have the respect of and are derived from the people.
The importance of strengthening the role of local government, intrinsic to the notion of the "canton" system, lies in the resiliance of the political system which has thereby liberated itself from the tyranny of political parties. Political parties, such as the communist party are, according to Arendt, subject to corruption. The masses themselves fall prey to the vicissitudes of history should they rely entirely on party politics or a statist system. Arendt speculates openly on whether the political system of the United States is adequate to providing a means for non-violent revolution. Unfortunately, she provides no specifics as to how a grassroots network can discipline a political party which holds the reins of institutional power.
Arendt's arguments are convincing to the length which she takes them. She makes clear that the implementation of her ideas would be revolutionary itself in that they rectify a fundamental flaw in the american system, namely the dearth of opportunity for the average citizen to involve him or herself in political affairs other than through the institution of voting. She gives short shrift however to the post-WWII era European governments (the "parliamentary" system), dismissing them as impotent. Therefore she does not discuss the potential for a multi-party representative system operating at the federal level, something which now seems obvious to many to be a signal shortcoming of political life in the United States.
Moreover, she does not develop in any great length the idea that civil societies can take on the role of revolutionary and ultimately political institutions; and therefore does not distinguish in her arguments the advocacy for revolution itself and that of stability through the republican form of government. She only suggests a possible resolution to this theoretical dilemna when she suggests a deliberate as oppossed to spontaneous emergence of citizen's groups. She argues that the historical occurances of these citizen's councils have been potent only in the short term during or directly preceding revolutions. "Professional revolutionaries" then opportunistically embrace the traditional centralized state with its top-down power structure, ostensively out some sort of deference to its putative stability. Her distinction between the French Revolution and the American Revolution in regard to this point is that Robbespiere's betrayal of the "popular societies" in favor of the Jacobin Party is deliberately mirrored by Lenin's betrayal of the "soviets" (see: Kronstadt Rebellion) This deliberateness is a key point in her tragic portrayal of the failure to learn the lessons of the French Revolution, lessons which she elucidates with great precision in the opening chapters of "On Revolution".
From our perspective, with all that has transpired in the last fifty-odd years, including the forfeiture of the traditional responsibility to "public life" on the part of the priveleged (she mentions the aspect of oligarchy in american life) which used to be a hallmark of conservative thought, and the fall of the Soviet Union, and the re-emergence of war as a tool of empire in an age of global disorder, Arendt's work may lack topicality. She makes no mention for instance of the problems of ecology, population growth, or international political order. She could not have foreseen the exact manifestation of uniquely american cultural phenomenon such as the "culture wars", the fight over abortion, etc.. Nor could she have predicted the advent of the internet or the resurgence of terrorism on a global scale as a political tactic. She makes no use of the civil rights movement or the liberation of formerly colonized peoples in the third world through the then-incipient global movement towards independence through statehood, nor does she discuss the World Bank and the IMF. Nevertheless, in her treatment of the scope of this work her erudition shines through her delicate yet powerful oratory and makes "On Revolution" an excellent introduction to political theory and historical philosophy, and a touchstone in the popular movement for progressive revolution. Also, in fairness after having related the shortcomings of "On Revolution", I should state that this is the only work of Arendt's that I have read. Her wikipedia page states that in other works she discusses the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. for example, though I do not know what her opinions are about it or how her discussion of it relates to the themes of "On Revolution."

On Revolution is a philosphical examination of revolution which focuses on the U.S. and French revolutions of the 18th century as the model. What surprised me in this work was just how little Arendt focused on the U.S. revolution, and her conclusion that the U.S. example was not a pure example of a revolution as the French version. As it stood I understand her reasoning but I was still somewhat taken aback. Her examination of the currents that propelled both events forward was enlightening, and showed the stark contrasts between the two events. It was a fascinating exploration to see the areas of similarities along with the aspects of difference, and the author's ability to set forth the social aspects which were the main departures for both revolutions really went a long way in furthering my understanding of both events.

This book is a vital piece to understanding these revolutions. This philospohical examination has greatly enriched my understanding of these historical events along with giving me a greater appreciation for the differences between actual revolutions and rebellions and other revolts. The author's discussion and distinguishing between power, authority and violence gives the reader a greater understanding of the relationship between these three, and shows how each relate to the political sphere.

This author's erudition is invaluable, and her take on these phenomena will further anyones understanding of revolutions. Of course the reader should be prepared for a dense work that requires some base knowledge from the reader. The book is not a lazy weekend read, but is instead a work that requires full attention. This book will reward those who do put forth the effort though. It is an amazing book that should be read.

The formatting and publishing quality is simply sub-par. In particular the line-spacing and font size gives you headache. The publisher should really do something about it (e.g., splitting into two volumes).

This Arendt's classical work speaks for itself. It's a fundamental book for any studious of the processes linked to any structural rupture on the basis of organized societies.