IRVING LOUIS HOROWITZ
269
changes. Even if we generously assume that Arendt is speaking exclusively
in terms of political revolution, violence is not a necessary or sufficient
component.
Contradictory statements blemish her presentation: "The part of the
professional revolutionists usually consists not in making a revolution but
in rising to power after it has broken out, and their great advantage in this
power struggle lies less in their theories and mental or organizational
preparation than in the simple fact that their names are the only ones which
are publicly known." But elsewhere she says that "without Lenin's slogan
'All power to the Soviets' there would never have been an October
Revolution in Russia." Which cliche should be believed? Arendt's repeat–
ed assertion that the consequence of revolution is always less freedom and
liberty than previously existed is belied by an appreciation of the American
Revolution . Indeed, it is precisely her dislike for the revolutionary process
that causes her to search out special features in the American Revolution
not found in Europe.
Arendt belongs in the unusual category of a revolutionary conserva–
tive. For, although she is bent on demonstrating the negative aspects of
Thermidor and Robespierre and the positive aspects of the
Federalist Papers
and the founders of the American Republic, she nevertheless is seeking at
the deepest level for a way to make revolutionary movements responsible
to revolutionaries. Thus it is that councils of workers, soviets, and so forth
are held to be useful models of voluntary control. The revolutionists con–
stitute a "new aristocracy" that would properly spell the end of general
suffrage. As Arendt puts it: "only those who as voluntary members of an
'elementary republic' have demonstrated that they care for more than their
private happiness and are concerned about the state of the world would
have the right to be heard in the conduct of the business of the republic."
The revolutionary elite would be guardians of the nation. How this differs
from the betrayal of revolutions by political parties and how this guardian–
ship could avoid becoming a political party is not discussed.
Arendt respects the "spirit of revolution" but scores its failures to find
an "appropriate institution." She has located such an institution in the vol–
untary councils that accompany revolutions, but her unwillingness to
support her theory wi th evidence is amazing. For example, there is no dis–
cussion of the strengths or shortcomings of the late, lamented Yugoslav
worker councils or of the Israeli
Kibbutzim.
This results from her reticence
to address the poli tical revolution of freedom in relation to the social rev–
olution of abundance. Her comments reveal an awareness of the potential
antagonism between economic development and political freedom, but not
a consistent understanding of how and where state and society intersect,
or toward what ends.
