The Meaning Of Revolution By Hannah Arendt Summary

A revolution, by definition, is the overthrow of one government followed by replacement with another. The American Revolution against the British during 1775 to 1783 and the French Revolution pitting the French people against their own government during 1789 to 1799 were both very important political and social turnovers. This movement towards the establishment of a constitutional government influenced political thought throughout the world. By closely examining three of the main causes of these revolutions, it is clear that although the two revolutions have their differences, the basis of cause for the revolutions have, overall, much stronger similarities.

Throughout history, humanity has always yearned for better. When a leader, as an individual or an entire government, ceases to fuel their nation’s drive for better, the citizens take it into their own hands. From this sovereignty of the people, the idea of revolution is born. This idea has become prominent many times. One can analyze a country like France. Due to the government’s selfish actions, the third estate revolted. In countries like Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico, the citizens were tired of strict rule from a power that is an ocean away. This caused the people in Latin America to revolt against their leader, Spain. Although the French and Latin American Revolutions both were inspired by the American Revolution and Enlightenment ideas, the French Revolution was vastly unsuccessful compared to the Latin American Revolution which brought freedom to many countries.

Many revolutions have taken place throughout history, ranging from the unremarkable to the truly memorable, such as the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution and the American Revolution. Through an examination of the social, cultural, economic and political causes of the American Revolution, an exploration of key arguments both for and against the American Revolution, and an analysis of the social, cultural, economic and political changes brought about by the American Revolution it can be demonstrated unequivocally that the American Revolution was indeed truly revolutionary.

When you read the short excerpts from Machiavelli's The Prince from our text I hope that he made you feel angry and defensive. Reading Machiavelli makes me bristle; I want to argue with him. His formulas for political success contradict my most basic religious beliefs, those I have held from childhood, and help me to see why Mennonites have traditionally been so suspicious of politics. And yet I know that his pragmatic approach is the very basis of modern political theory. Because we have, as citizens of the twentieth century, to a large extent followed his advice, I am put on the defensive. I am astonished to see how

Opposing historians argue that the American Revolution is classified as a contradiction to the true qualities of a revolution. Interpreted from the class lecture regarding the AR , a revolution consist of, but is not limited to the following: Complete social reorganization such that the bottom and top of society assume their opposing position, must enact the societal transformation, and the struggle of a revolution must be bloody, gruesome, and vicious. It is assumed that the abundance of the aforementioned qualities culminate to a Revolution. A revolution is synonymous to a mutiny, revolt, or uprising; historians further argue the AR lacks such revolutionary elements. Examples of a revival of this magnitude are those

While many historians might argue that the American Revolution was not so revolutionary in its nature, there is no denying the lasting effects that it has had not only on the continent, but the world. Through an analysis of documents from this period and the social, political, and economic changes that occurred in the colonies, it is clear that the colonial governmental system was radically changed during this time period. The political ideas that emerged from this revolution have shaped modern democratic governments for years, coupled with the advancement of other Enlightenment ideals.

The revolution resulted, among other things, in the overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy in France and in the establishment of the First Republic. It was generated by a vast complex of causes, the most important of which were the inability of the ruling classes of nobility, clergy, and bourgeoisie to come to grips with the problems of state, the indecisive nature of the monarch, impoverishment of the workers, the intellectual ferment of the Age of Enlightenment, and the example of the American Revolution. Recent scholarship tends to downplay the social class struggle and emphasize political, cultural, ideological, and personality factors in the advent and unfolding of the conflict. The Revolution itself produced an equally vast complex of

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Historical patterns indicate that an oppressive government proves to be an excellent instigator for the organized mobilization of its citizens. Such was the case for the American and French Revolutions. Personal, cultural, and governmental differences, especially regarding proper administration, between the rulers and the ruled served as catalysts for major disruptions. The documents that emerged from these rebellions expressed political, religious, and philosophical issues as common motivations for upheaval. During the course of, as well as after, the respective revolutions of their nations, American and French revolutionary documents promoted ideals such as equality for all men, personal participation in law, and individual freedom of speech

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

In essence, Machiavelli’s ideal principality sustains a genuine sense of morality behind the violence that “must be subjected in order to maintain stability.” Looking at his plans subjectively,

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.