358
PARTISAN REVIEW
under communism, it is simply misleading to chastise Marx for
sociological reductionism. Moreover, and this is the third argument
against her, there are abundant passages in Marx's concrete historical
writings, most notably in
The Eighteenth Brumaire,
where he recog–
nizes the relative autonomy of the political sphere at certain moments
in history. That he was far more cynical about its serving as the arena
for public freedom before the end of capitalism is another matter; what
is crucial to note is that his image of man, either in the present or in
some communist future, was far more than that of
animal laborans.
Hannah Arendt's blindness on this point was reflected in her
inexplicable neglect of twentieth-century Marxist theoreticians such as
Gramsci, Korsch, Pannekoek, and Lefebvre, who have found in Marx's
work a philosophy of
praxis
rather than a theory of economic deter–
minism. That she was perhaps somewhat aware of this potential in
Marxism can be argued from her very positive attitude towards Rosa
Luxemburg, whose endorsement of the council movement and criti–
cism of the Bolsheviks she applauded. But her grasp of the history of
Marxist theory must be judged uncertain as she neglected to acknowl–
edge the extent to which Rosa Luxemburg was still beholden to the
economism of her orthodox opponents in the Second International. In
fact, Rosa Luxemburg's polemic with Lenin must be understood not
merely as a critique of his dictatorial methods, but also as a warning
against seizing the political initiative before economic conditions are
ripe. Margaret Canovan fails to go beyond the misunderstanding of her
subject when she writes: "Much of
On Revolution
is strongly reminis–
cent of the views of Rosa Luxemburg: the emphasis on the spontaneity
of revolution as against theories of historical necessity or professional
planning." What she misunderstands is that the spontaneity Rosa
Luxemburg championed meant the unforced combination of objective
and subjective factors produced by the logic of capitalism and raising
the consciousness of the working class. It did not mean a purely
subjectivist, political intervention into the course of history. One
cannot imagine Rosa Luxemburg praising the American Revolution
in the way that Hannah Arendt did in
On Revolution:
"the course of
the American Revolution tells an unforgettable story and is apt to teach
a unique lesson: for this revolution did not break out but was made by
men in common deliberation and on the strength of mutual pledges."
Although it is true that she emphasized the subjective factor in
revolutions far more than her less radical counterparts in the Second
International, Rosa Luxemburg never succeeded in reconciling this
side of her theory with her equally firm commitment to mechanical
materialism. In this sense, she was a transitional figure and Miss
