On Revolution (Penguin Classics) und über 1,5 Millionen weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle. Erfahren Sie mehr
EUR 16,36
  • Alle Preisangaben inkl. MwSt.
Nur noch 12 auf Lager (mehr ist unterwegs).
Verkauf und Versand durch Amazon.
Geschenkverpackung verfügbar.
Menge:1
On Revolution (Penguin Cl... ist in Ihrem Einkaufwagen hinzugefügt worden
Ihren Artikel jetzt
eintauschen und
EUR 3,89 Gutschein erhalten.
Möchten Sie verkaufen?
Zur Rückseite klappen Zur Vorderseite klappen
Anhören Wird wiedergegeben... Angehalten   Sie hören eine Probe der Audible-Audioausgabe.
Weitere Informationen
Alle 2 Bilder anzeigen

On Revolution (Penguin Classics) (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 26. September 2006


Alle 14 Formate und Ausgaben anzeigen Andere Formate und Ausgaben ausblenden
Amazon-Preis Neu ab Gebraucht ab
Kindle Edition
"Bitte wiederholen"
Taschenbuch
"Bitte wiederholen"
EUR 16,36
EUR 12,27 EUR 24,15
13 neu ab EUR 12,27 3 gebraucht ab EUR 24,15
EUR 16,36 Kostenlose Lieferung. Nur noch 12 auf Lager (mehr ist unterwegs). Verkauf und Versand durch Amazon. Geschenkverpackung verfügbar.

Hinweise und Aktionen

  • Reduzierte Bestseller und Neuheiten: Entdecken Sie unsere vielseitige Auswahl an reduzierten Hörbüchern und englischen Büchern. Klicken Sie hier, um direkt zur Aktion zu gelangen.


Wird oft zusammen gekauft

On Revolution (Penguin Classics) + The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harvest Book) + On Violence (Harvest Book)
Preis für alle drei: EUR 48,07

Die ausgewählten Artikel zusammen kaufen
Jeder kann Kindle Bücher lesen — selbst ohne ein Kindle-Gerät — mit der KOSTENFREIEN Kindle App für Smartphones, Tablets und Computer.


Produktinformation

  • Taschenbuch: 368 Seiten
  • Verlag: Penguin Classics (4. Juni 2009)
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • ISBN-10: 0143039903
  • ISBN-13: 978-0143039907
  • Vom Hersteller empfohlenes Alter: Ab 18 Jahren
  • Größe und/oder Gewicht: 12,9 x 1,7 x 19,6 cm
  • Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 5.0 von 5 Sternen  Alle Rezensionen anzeigen (2 Kundenrezensionen)
  • Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 54.963 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)

Mehr über den Autor

Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr

Produktbeschreibungen

Pressestimmen

?Dr. Arendt's mind has always seemed to me something of an eighth wonder; an erudite and disciplined thinker, she still retains the ebullient intuition of a woman able always to come at things from a fresh and unusual angle. This is a study to which the thoughtful reader can return again and again for both intellectual delight and profit.?-Atlantic -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels.

Synopsis

Tracing the gradual evolution of revolutions since the American and French examples, Arendt predicts the changing relationship between war and revolution and the crucial role such combustive movements will play in the future of international relations. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels.

Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?


In diesem Buch (Mehr dazu)
Ausgewählte Seiten ansehen
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis | Rückseite
Hier reinlesen und suchen:

Kundenrezensionen

5.0 von 5 Sternen
5 Sterne
2
4 Sterne
0
3 Sterne
0
2 Sterne
0
1 Sterne
0
Beide Kundenrezensionen anzeigen
Sagen Sie Ihre Meinung zu diesem Artikel

Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen

2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich Von Daniel Raul Brieba Melo am 4. Mai 2000
Format: Taschenbuch
This book is yet another deep, original and controversial contribution of Hannah Arendt to twentieth century political theory. In this book, Arendt analyzes the phenomenon of revolution by focusing almost exclusively on the great XVIIIth century revolutions, the American and the French. Arendt's deep insights allow her to compare, both on a theoretical and a practical level, the similarities and differences between the two and on how and why the American Revolution allowed the foundation of freedom while the French failed miserably in this attempt almost from the beginning. The great themes in this book are the social question (necessity) in its relation to politics (the realm of freedom) and the ever-present distinction between liberation and freedom properly speaking. Thus, constitutions and their significance, the problem of secular law in relation to its need for an Absolute with which to provide a foundation for it, the problem of hypocrisy and Robespierre's Terror, and insightful interpretations of some of the Founding Fathers' political thought (though in my opinion a bit too far reaching in her inferences thereof), are all issues with which she deals with in this book and which are rounded up in a great closing chapter. Deep, powerful, perceptive, intense: like most of Arendt's writings, a must read for anyone interested in political thought and theory.
Kommentar War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein Feedback senden...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Wenn diese Rezension unangemessen ist, informieren Sie uns bitte darüber.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte erneut versuchen
0 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich Von hubbabubba am 17. Mai 2010
Format: Taschenbuch
zum thema revolution. als ideal wird die amerikanische revolution gesehen, die eine politische gewesen sei, im gegensatz zu den sozusagen eher sozial motivierten in frankreich und russland.
Kommentar War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein Feedback senden...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Wenn diese Rezension unangemessen ist, informieren Sie uns bitte darüber.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte erneut versuchen

Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 15 Rezensionen
114 von 119 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Brilliant 4. Mai 2000
Von Daniel Raul Brieba Melo - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Taschenbuch
This book is yet another deep, original and controversial contribution of Hannah Arendt to twentieth century political theory. In this book, Arendt analyzes the phenomenon of revolution by focusing almost exclusively on the great XVIIIth century revolutions, the American and the French. Arendt's deep insights allow her to compare, both on a theoretical and a practical level, the similarities and differences between the two and on how and why the American Revolution allowed the foundation of freedom while the French failed miserably in this attempt almost from the beginning. The great themes in this book are the social question (necessity) in its relation to politics (the realm of freedom) and the ever-present distinction between liberation and freedom properly speaking. Thus, constitutions and their significance, the problem of secular law in relation to its need for an Absolute with which to provide a foundation for it, the problem of hypocrisy and Robespierre's Terror, and insightful interpretations of some of the Founding Fathers' political thought (though in my opinion a bit too far reaching in her inferences thereof), are all issues with which she deals with in this book and which are rounded up in a great closing chapter. Deep, powerful, perceptive, intense: like most of Arendt's writings, a must read for anyone interested in political thought and theory.
13 von 13 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
The Classic 20th Century Study On Revolution 25. Oktober 2011
Von strega2 - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Taschenbuch
I first read this brilliant and classic study of the nature of revolutions as a college student in the late 1960s, when a cultural revolution was indeed occurring in the U.S. After watching the media coverage of today's angry protesters against unregulated capitalism, it was well worth re-reading.

Dr. Arendt analyzes the implications of 3 major revolutions, the American, French and Russian. The only truly successful one was the American, because it was grounded in the ideals of the Enlightenment, as well as the classical values espoused by the Founding Fathers. The French and Russian revolutions were rooted in class hatred and resentment of exploitation, a sentiment that is chillingly becoming a reality today. She herself lived through the terror of being a Jew in 1930s Germany, and barely escaped deportation to a concentration camp. Although her writing style is always disciplined, her own experience, in my opinion, colors her analysis of the French and Russian revolutions: violent uprising often leads to an even more repressive form of government that the one overthrown.

Her analysis of the success of the American Revolution, and the ensuing chaos and bloodshed that followed the French and Russian, is still among the most important political observations of the 20th century. A classic, and a prescient warning in our economically unstable time.
17 von 18 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
On "On Revolution" 11. Januar 2007
Von Jack Vida - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Taschenbuch
On Revolution by Hannah Arendt is a philosophical study of the nature of revolutions, mainly focusing on the French and American revolutions. A big portion of her analysis involves the "Social Question" involved in revolutions. How do revolutions start? Even though her writing style can be convoluted and overly verbose at times, eventually the reader will acclimate to her not so accessible prose. This is not a light read. If you want a book to stimulate internal dialogue, however, this is the book to buy.
12 von 14 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
A fair assessment? 18. April 2011
Von Baldurdash - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Taschenbuch
At times threatening to deviate into academic irrelevance but always recovering to continue a highly accessable treatment of the topic of revolution in the post-nuclear age, Hannah Arendt's "On Revolution" makes the argument that the American Revolution was a successful revolution while the French Revolution was not. More importantly, the relevance of this conclusion lies in the manner in which her arguments lead her to advocate for the continuation of revolution, in a qualified sense, and the continuation of the republican form of government in the United States. Arendt fled Germany to Paris and then the United States. "On Revolution" was published in 1963.
Crucial to understanding the distinctions she made between the French revolution and the American is her attitude towards "the masses", a unique blend of bourgeois paternalism and solidly reasoned historical analysis. Few could argue with her cogent and brilliant summation of the events of the French Revolution and the ensuing "Terror". Arendt makes the case that the French Revolution was doomed from the start essentially because the revolutionary leaders, whom she depicts as sincere men of action, including Robespierre, set themselves the impossible task of alleviating the misery of the masses through political means. In contrast, the violence of the American Revolution followed the Declaration of Independance by a colonial peoples for the purpose of forming a uniquely new state. The opportunities afforded by the wealth of the new nation meant that following the Revolutionary War the United States could continue to prosper as a republic despite the perpetuation of class differences.
Arendt argues however that the innovations of the American Revolution, most importantly the sepration of powers and the enfranchisement of the masses through the vote, have become inadequate in themselves for the purposes of guaranteeing ongoing stability and social well-being. Her defense of the continued viability of the republican form of government in the modern age is conditional upon the institution of a "bottom up" organization of grassroots social and community organizations. These citizens groups, modeled after those which played a role in the French and Russian Revolutions as well as the revolt in Hungary in 1956, would inform the discrete levels of government, from local communities which could be organized in "cantons" to the federal government. Arendt refrains from offering a revolutionary agenda, but implicit in her argument is that such an augmentation of the democratic nature of public life will be made by inevitable by the interests of a population facing the pressures of the modern state. These grassroots citizen organizations with a "bottom-up" heirarchical organization, can form a democratic consensus independant of party politics. One of the key components of Arendt's arguments is the distinction between public and private happiness. In the end her argument explicitly rests upon the premise that freedom consists of "public happiness", that is public service in the form participation in the affairs of government. Public life in the form of social and community involvement are the very basis of the possibility of private happiness, thus we must all take on the responsibility that the framers (she uses the term founders) of the Constitutin took upon themselves as the champions of liberty.
Arendt is at her best and most quotable during the first 125 pages or so. This work is a theoretical work and not a history, so we do not expect her to have traced the implications of her arguments through the entire history of the United States. Thus, she makes no mention of the U.S. Civil War, or Roosevelt's "New Deal" and proposed constitutional amendments.
The role of violence in revolution is a central theme throughout the work, and this is the matter which she argues that Thomas Jefferson was most concerned about when he developed his idea of a "canton" system. It is an important note that Jefferson devised this notion of a republic of republics, so to speak, later in life, and for the purpose of avoiding recurring bloodshed (the "watering" of the "Tree of Liberty"). In developing her argument she points out that citizens' groups are not structured towards the function of administration, as they reflect a wide variety of concerns such as trade unionism and scientific societies, lawyer's guilds, etc. Thus Arendt does not propose that they take the place of government in the traditional institutional sense of the word. The function of these civic institutions will be to inform elected representatives with a democratic consensus, to guide political institutions with the mandate of a natural elite each of which have the respect of and are derived from the people.
The importance of strengthening the role of local government, intrinsic to the notion of the "canton" system, lies in the resiliance of the political system which has thereby liberated itself from the tyranny of political parties. Political parties, such as the communist party are, according to Arendt, subject to corruption. The masses themselves fall prey to the vicissitudes of history should they rely entirely on party politics or a statist system. Arendt speculates openly on whether the political system of the United States is adequate to providing a means for non-violent revolution. Unfortunately, she provides no specifics as to how a grassroots network can discipline a political party which holds the reins of institutional power.
Arendt's arguments are convincing to the length which she takes them. She makes clear that the implementation of her ideas would be revolutionary itself in that they rectify a fundamental flaw in the american system, namely the dearth of opportunity for the average citizen to involve him or herself in political affairs other than through the institution of voting. She gives short shrift however to the post-WWII era European governments (the "parliamentary" system), dismissing them as impotent. Therefore she does not discuss the potential for a multi-party representative system operating at the federal level, something which now seems obvious to many to be a signal shortcoming of political life in the United States.
Moreover, she does not develop in any great length the idea that civil societies can take on the role of revolutionary and ultimately political institutions; and therefore does not distinguish in her arguments the advocacy for revolution itself and that of stability through the republican form of government. She only suggests a possible resolution to this theoretical dilemna when she suggests a deliberate as oppossed to spontaneous emergence of citizen's groups. She argues that the historical occurances of these citizen's councils have been potent only in the short term during or directly preceding revolutions. "Professional revolutionaries" then opportunistically embrace the traditional centralized state with its top-down power structure, ostensively out some sort of deference to its putative stability. Her distinction between the French Revolution and the American Revolution in regard to this point is that Robbespiere's betrayal of the "popular societies" in favor of the Jacobin Party is deliberately mirrored by Lenin's betrayal of the "soviets" (see: Kronstadt Rebellion) This deliberateness is a key point in her tragic portrayal of the failure to learn the lessons of the French Revolution, lessons which she elucidates with great precision in the opening chapters of "On Revolution".
From our perspective, with all that has transpired in the last fifty-odd years, including the forfeiture of the traditional responsibility to "public life" on the part of the priveleged (she mentions the aspect of oligarchy in american life) which used to be a hallmark of conservative thought, and the fall of the Soviet Union, and the re-emergence of war as a tool of empire in an age of global disorder, Arendt's work may lack topicality. She makes no mention for instance of the problems of ecology, population growth, or international political order. She could not have foreseen the exact manifestation of uniquely american cultural phenomenon such as the "culture wars", the fight over abortion, etc.. Nor could she have predicted the advent of the internet or the resurgence of terrorism on a global scale as a political tactic. She makes no use of the civil rights movement or the liberation of formerly colonized peoples in the third world through the then-incipient global movement towards independence through statehood, nor does she discuss the World Bank and the IMF. Nevertheless, in her treatment of the scope of this work her erudition shines through her delicate yet powerful oratory and makes "On Revolution" an excellent introduction to political theory and historical philosophy, and a touchstone in the popular movement for progressive revolution. Also, in fairness after having related the shortcomings of "On Revolution", I should state that this is the only work of Arendt's that I have read. Her wikipedia page states that in other works she discusses the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. for example, though I do not know what her opinions are about it or how her discussion of it relates to the themes of "On Revolution."
One of the Great Political Minds of the 20th Century 2. Oktober 2014
Von Ian Gordon Malcomson - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format: Taschenbuch
This is my second read through masterful study on the nature of modern revolutions, using two very diametrically different models - the American vs. the French - to make the point that this political phenomenon is not a one-size fits all. By showing how these two political upheavals worked from the inside out, Arendt shows us how the call for radical change, depending on the circumstances, can lead to very different outcomes. In the French case, the proclamation of freedom from the tyranny of Bourbon king quickly became the violent cause of radicals dead set on answering to the suffering of the oppressed, and we all know how they ended with a counter-revolution in Thermidor of 1794. Arendt does a very capable job of analyzing the leadership of Robespierre and the Jacobin movement tried to figure out how to liberate the Paris Commune by making the enemies of France - the nobility - pay for creating serious class inequality. When they ran out of aristocrats, the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety turned on its own in its desire to satisfy a growing desire for revenge. That model has played out over and over again in the 19th and 20th century because it puts ideas and principles before people. On the other hand the American Revolution proceeded on a more peaceful route with an uprising against political tyranny based on a natural right not to be taxed without effective representation. From there a declaration of independence emerged, followed an ultimate victory over tyranny and a creation of a constitution that would protect through political checks and balances the rights of the people to fair and responsible government. In the decades that followed the United States has parlayed that revolutionary concept into a political system that for the most part is stable though boring. Any change to its legal functioning as a country must go through the courts. There is the suggestion here that America prospered as a rising world power in succeeding centuries because it proceeded by way of a focused plan by which to fine-tune and control the long-term objectives of its revolutionary agenda by recognizing the need for a workable framework of government that could improve over time. I recommend this book to anyone interested in coming to grips with why some revolutions succeed while others fail.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich? Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.