Arendt, On Revolution

Introduction:

1. The book opens with “wars and revolutions.”  Are these political events or not?  Why?
2. The three results of the First World War are?  Why has the third one changed since Arendt wrote the book?
3. Arendt then puts forward a thesis that for us wars are justified as means for revolution.  Is this true of the wars since the book was written (1962)?

Chapter 1
Section I – 13-21.

1. Revolution is a new type of political change, not simply “regime change.”  Arendt connects it to a new belief about living conditions: that poverty is not natural.  Why might this view seem plausible to Americans of the 18th century? Of the 21st century?
2. From this view, come two of the major claims of this book: (a) the distinction between social and political revolution, and (b) that the revolutionary success of political revolution depends on a prior social revolution.  For Arendt, these explain the success of the American and the failure of the French and Russian revolutions.  A key question here is what counts as revolutionary success?  Change of personnel? Change of regime? Destruction of institutions and practices?  Establishment of institutions and practices? Which institutions and which practices?  Achievement of stated aims? Achievement of significant results?  Etc.

Section II – 21-28.

1. For Arendt and much of modern political thought the focal point of all political change (revolution included) is freedom.  It will greatly help if you spell out what you mean by ‘freedom’.
2. What (for you, for Arendt) is the relation between freedom, equality, and rights?

Section III – 28-34.

1. The romance of modern revolution has often been violence, and the defining difference of civic action from revolution has been its rejection of violence, its non-violence.  This means civic action has to come to terms with Machiavelli and Realpolitik. Why might violence be a sign of political madness?

Section IV – 34-40.

1. Arendt’s analysis of the meaning of the term, ‘revolution,’ is an example of political developments in general: things turn out other than one expected, and are expressed in terms that don’t quite match their reality, and are best explained by historical analysis of responses to circumstances.  Yet, even though the word is inaccurate for what it describes, is it not accurate for our subject, civic action?
2. Did you catch the startling – and I think quite accurate – definition of conservatism on page 37-8?

Section V – 40-52.

1. Who burst on the political scene on July 14th 1789?  Why had they not been visible before?  (Read carefully the last paragraph on page 41.)
2. What is the other new force and necessity in politics that the events of the French Revolution brought on stage?  (Hint: Hegel)
3. A question for us: as important as history is for “revolution,” is it important for civic action?  (Ask yourself if history has anything to do with politics?  What?)

Chapter 2
Section I – 53-61.

1. What is the “fateful automatism of sheer happening that underlies all of human history”?
2. What is Arendt’s contrast between history and the social question on one side and politics and freedom on the other side?  That is, why does she keep the two sides separate?
3. Marx changed the view of poverty.  How?
4. Arendt argues that Marx changes the relation between violence and necessity in politics.  Marx originally argues oppression (necessity/poverty) is due to violence (political force – which could be changed by revolution).  He later, in his more “scientific” writings argues that violence (political force) is driven by economic necessity (to be explained by “political economy”).  To sort this out, ask yourself why, given abundant food, clothing, shelter, goods & services, so many are poor?
5. Note the somewhat favorable view of Lenin.  This is would be untenable now.

Section II – 61-68.

1. Arendt sharpens her claim about poverty; it is not poverty but misery and marginalization (sorry about the word!) that are the social question.  Note the fascinating quotes from John Adams.
2. Also note, as you read Arendt, her inflammatory asides, such as “the most devastating passion motivating revolutionaries, the passion of compassion” or (from chapter 1) “the politically most pernicious doctrine of the modern age, namely that life is the highest good.”  These are well worth pondering to get us to “think outside the box” of our pieties.

Section III – 68 to 76 (finish paragraph)

1. This section goes into detail about Rousseau’s views, particularly his concept of the “general will” and of “compassion.”  These will be presented in class.
2. Arendt puts to use the distinction between the social and political to argue two types of revolution: one against tyranny and oppression; the other against poverty and exploitation.
3. Arendt also parses here the volatile fusion of compassion, “the people”, the “general will”, “sovereignty”, and “the [objective] enemy/particular interests.”  Use class to make sure you understand these terms.
4. We skip Arendt’s discussion of Billy Bud and the “Grand Inquisitor” from The Brothers Karamazov, where Arendt delves into the triple contrast of good vs. evil vs. virtue/justice. A good meditation on the difference between political ethics and personal morality.

Section IV – skip.

1. Here Arendt continues her “psychology” of revolutionary sentiment and its authorization of immoral practices, making use of fundamental Platonic categories of “limit and unlimited.” Her psychology of modern terror ("the reign of terror" and totalitarianism) is a tour-de-force.

Section V – skip.

1. Hypocrisy vs. politics.

Section VI – 105-110.  Read!

1. The poor, those “under necessity” enter the political realm.  To what effect?
2. Here we have the revolutionary gesture, the clenched fist.
3. We will discuss in class why revolutionary violence and destruction is impotent.

The next three chapters turn to a closer examination of the American Revolution, a successful revolution but atypical and without influence (politically and intellectually) as compared to the French Revolution.  (This claim will have to be modified after the collapse of communism.)  Here Arendt seeks to rescue the achievement of the American Revolution from European theory and from American sentimentality (including cynicism).  The true context for understanding the American republic is the Roman republic.

1. Chapter 3 develops the claim that the Americans abandoned politics (freedom) for private pleasure ("happiness" & the free market).
2. Chapter 4 dwells on the primary political importance (but secondary historical importance – because less dramatic) of constitution making, and constitutions as indeed constituting both freedom and power.  (Arendt’s views about power are, perhaps, the most “revolutionary” aspects of her political philosophy.)
3. Chapter 5 extends the meditations on power, showing that power is not violence and is naturally democratic (we will talk about this when we read chapter 6).  Here, as elsewhere (and as with the Founding Fathers) she turns to those supreme masters of political understanding, the Romans of the republican era.  (Cf. especially pages 199-204.)

Chapter 6
Section I – skip.
Section II – start on page 242, “In order to arrive at a more precise understanding …,” to 251.

1. Arendt turns her attention here to the “lost treasure” of the revolutionary tradition: the spontaneous organization of political groups (“councils”).
2. The political problem of revolution is to have both the freedom of revolutionary change and the achievement of lasting political reform.  Follow this tension in her discussion.
3. On page 248 note the three conflicts: (a) between public politics and private need; (b) between state control and civil society; (c) between state sovereignty vs. separation (and multiplication) of powers.
4. Arendt also argues that party politics corrupts the “lost treasure.”  This has to do with the type of politics of parties vs. councils.  What is the power base of each?

Section III – 252-259.

1. “Councils” provide political space and political experience.  What are these?

Section IV – 259-285.

1. What is the surprising recurrent phenomena in revolutions that revolutionaries, historians, and theoreticians always overlook?
2. What role to revolutionaries play in revolutions?
3. Why do revolutionary parties eliminate revolutionary councils?
4. What is this sequence about: monarchy, nation state, single party?
5. Do you agree with the claim that opinions are formed by public discussions?  (We will talk about the Enlightenment understanding of freedom as the “public use of reason.”)
6. Why, in modern nation states, are councils inadequate to govern?  (Hint: what is the issue that makes governments increasingly administrative?)
7. As you consider your own research topics in this course, recall these last pages of Arendt’s book and see if their description of “true revolutionary politics” vs. party politics, vs. the public, and vs. the state make sense.