ABSTRACT
Hannah Arendt reveals little knowledge of modem warfare, that is, little about the ambiguities of modern conflict—counterinsurgency, paramilitary struggle, police action, guerrilla action—that would show that war is becoming obsolete. For Arendt, the French and American revolutions are diametric opposites. For people of revolutionary lands, they both stand as beacons in the search for the new. Even if they generously assume that Arendt is speaking exclusively in terms of political revolution, it is not the case that violence is a necessary or sufficient component. The revolutionary elite would be guardian of the nation. How this differs from the "betrayal" of revolutions by political parties, how this guardianship could avoid becoming a political party, is not discussed. The big question of revolution is precisely the "mix" between economic rationalization and political reason. Polarization of these may make a stimulating treatise but it cannot define the experimental character of most contemporary revolutions.
