Scan barcode
A review by kevin_shepherd
On Revolution by Hannah Arendt
4.0
Arendt’s On Revolution is a concerted attempt at bringing the resources of political philosophy, social psychology and historical analysis to bear on the recurring phenomenon of revolution.
Arendt begins by asserting that all true revolutions are fueled by either ideology (internal) or terror (external). This is anchored in philosophical references extending as far back as Plato and Aristotle, and historical examples drawn primarily from the French Revolution of 1799 and the American Revolution of 1776.
Any attempt on my part to break down Arendt’s intellectual foray into the cause and effect of sociopolitical upheaval would be either a short oversimplification or a long-winded (tedious) scrutinization and neither would do her justice. So allow me to throw a few notes your way before I saunter off to read Bukowski or Nietzsche:
* The French Revolution was essentially a disaster and yet its consequences reverberated throughout the world. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was a success but had virtually no substantial effect on a global scale.
* The role of the modern army has devolved from that of protector to that of belated and futile avenger.
* Revolutions can only exist when there are a significant number of men who are willing to accept its collapse if it fails and who are willing to accept positions of authority if it succeeds.
* Freedom is more prevalent in countries that either have never had a revolution or where a revolution was defeated than it is in countries were a revolution was successful.
* No revolution, no matter how wide it opened the gates of privilege to the poor, was ever initiated by the poor.
* The two party system was conceived as a constitutional alliance and was intended to act as a check-and-balance, but in reality the opposing interests cancel each other out in a manner that renders the system impotent and ineffective.
“…the age old distinction between ruler and ruled, which the [American] revolution had set out to abolish through the establishment of a republic, has asserted itself again. Once more the people are not admitted to the public realm, once more the business of government has become the privilege of the few… The result is that people must either sink into lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty, or preserve the spirit of resistance to whatever government they have elected since the only power they retain is the reserve power of revolution.” ~Hannah Arendt, 1963
“When a subject people believe that they will outlive an oppressive regime, a revolution has begun.” ~Christopher Hitchens, 1985
Arendt begins by asserting that all true revolutions are fueled by either ideology (internal) or terror (external). This is anchored in philosophical references extending as far back as Plato and Aristotle, and historical examples drawn primarily from the French Revolution of 1799 and the American Revolution of 1776.
Any attempt on my part to break down Arendt’s intellectual foray into the cause and effect of sociopolitical upheaval would be either a short oversimplification or a long-winded (tedious) scrutinization and neither would do her justice. So allow me to throw a few notes your way before I saunter off to read Bukowski or Nietzsche:
* The French Revolution was essentially a disaster and yet its consequences reverberated throughout the world. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was a success but had virtually no substantial effect on a global scale.
* The role of the modern army has devolved from that of protector to that of belated and futile avenger.
* Revolutions can only exist when there are a significant number of men who are willing to accept its collapse if it fails and who are willing to accept positions of authority if it succeeds.
* Freedom is more prevalent in countries that either have never had a revolution or where a revolution was defeated than it is in countries were a revolution was successful.
* No revolution, no matter how wide it opened the gates of privilege to the poor, was ever initiated by the poor.
* The two party system was conceived as a constitutional alliance and was intended to act as a check-and-balance, but in reality the opposing interests cancel each other out in a manner that renders the system impotent and ineffective.
“…the age old distinction between ruler and ruled, which the [American] revolution had set out to abolish through the establishment of a republic, has asserted itself again. Once more the people are not admitted to the public realm, once more the business of government has become the privilege of the few… The result is that people must either sink into lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty, or preserve the spirit of resistance to whatever government they have elected since the only power they retain is the reserve power of revolution.” ~Hannah Arendt, 1963
“When a subject people believe that they will outlive an oppressive regime, a revolution has begun.” ~Christopher Hitchens, 1985