The Revolutionary Spirit: Hannah Arendt and the Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War* Joel Olson

28 Pages·2008·2.86 MB·English

The RevolutionaryS pirit:
Hannah Arendt and the Anarchists
of the Spanish Civil War*
Joel Olson
HannahA rendt argued that the only way to keep a revolutionf rom
degeneratingi nto an authoritarianr egimen o more hospitablet o
freedom and equality than the regimei t overthrewi s to createa
republico f broad-basedc ouncils to institutionalizew idep articipation
in public affairs. YetA rendt's claim is incompleteb ecausei t rests on
an analysisa ssumingt hat revolutioni nvolves a simple two-sided
conflict betweeno ld and new and neglects the social aspects of
postrevolutionaryl ife. The complicationsa risingf rom multisided
conflict and the importanceo f the social foundations of participation
can be better understoodb y examiningc arefullyt he experienceso f
Spanisha narchistc ollectivesi n the 1930s. Theire xperiencef leshes out
the practicala spects of establishinga nd maintainingt he federated
council system capableo f maintaininga highlyp articipatorya nd
hence truly democratics ociety.
Joel Olson is a Ph.D. candidatei n political science at the University
of Minnesota.H e is currentlyl iving in Arizona while completingh is
dissertationo n democratict heory and the problem of the white race.
Revolutionh as long been the last great hope of the dispossessed.W hen
the sufferinga nd exploitationo f the old orderb ecomet oo mucht o bear,
the wretchedc an eitherh ope for a better life in the afterworldo r for a
completeo verthrowo f the present.T he historyo f particularr evolutions,
however,h as been characterizedb y failurea s much as by hope. So many
times a revolutionh as made a life of freedom,e quality,a nd social peace
so thrillinglyc lose that its participantsc ould actually live it for a few
days, weeks, even months, only to dash their hopes as the new order is
*Thankst o Lisa Disch, MaryD ietz, KevinM cGuire,a nd the anonymousr eviewerso f
Polity for help improvinge arlierd rafts of this article.
PPoollitiyty VVoolulumme XXe XXIIXX, ,NN uummbbere 44r SSuummmmere 11r99 9977
462 The Revolutionary Spirit
consolidated and the world of oppression, exploitation, and the daily
grind reappears.
Hannah Arendt explores this problem in her classic essay On Revolu-
tion. She examines in particular the tension between the spirit of public
participation that often erupts at the onset of a revolution and the very
different dynamics of the founding of a new political order following the
revolution's triumph. The tragedy of revolution, for Arendt, is that revo-
lutions usually end up destroying the very freedom and equality their
participants sought to assure. The 1917 revolution that created the
soviets, those amazing organs of popular power, soon degenerated into a
totalitarian state; the China of the "speak bitterness" meetings in hun-
dreds of villages during the late 1940s and early 1950s plummeted into
the chaos and pain of the Cultural Revolution. For Arendt, the history of
modern revolutions is a tragic contradiction between the spontaneous
eruption of political action bursting from the streets in a revolution's
first moments and the tired, rigid, authoritarian forms of "revolutionary
organization" that often end up seizing power after the old state is over-
thrown.
The problem Arendt addresses in On Revolution-how do you pre-
serve the revolutionary spirit after the revolution is won?-is a familiar
'
one. What is unique about her analysis is her solution, the republic. A
republic, that is, "the public thing," will enable the revolutionary spirit
to persist beyond the immediate euphoria over a fallen hated regime and
to eclipse the giddy hesitation felt before plunging into the new world. It
translates the space that opens up in the anarchy and exhilaration of a
revolutionary setting into founding institutions that permit humans to
continue to act freely and as equals. Arendt concludes that though
modem parliamentary government may be able to safeguard individuals'
rights and represent their interests via political parties, only a republic or
its sister institution, the council, can ensure the ordinary citizen's ability
to participate in the affairs that affect daily life.2
Yet Arendt's claim that a republic can institutionalize and extend the
revolutionary spirit, though provocative, is incomplete. It is incomplete
because her conception of revolution as a struggle between old and new,
involving the destruction of a decayed regime and the natality of a "new
order of the ages," is too simple. She approvingly quotes Thomas Jeffer-
1. Of course, the Russian Revolution produced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and the Chinese Revolution created the People's Republic of China, but Arendt would be
the first to distinguish her conception of a republic from these socialist states. The shared
name is the only similarity.
2. The relationship between republics and councils is discussed below.
Joel Olson 463
son's analysiso f revolutionsa s *'contestso f principle,b etweent he advo-
cates of republican,a nd those of kinglyg overnment,"3b ut most modern
revolutionsh ave been at minimumt hree-cornereda ffairs, not duels:T he
Guomindangv ersus the Chinese CommunistP arty versust he Japanese
invaders; Bolsheviksv ersus Mensheviksv ersus Whites versus German
invaders;Z apataa nd Villa versusD iaz versusM aderov ersusC arranza.
Likewise, the Spanish Civil was not simply a war between Franco and
Republicansb ut also a strugglea mong those anti-fasciste lementsw ho
wanted a liberal governmenta nd those who wanted to create a totally
new society.
The SpanishC ivilW arp rovidesa n excellenth istoricalb asis for explor-
ing the limitsa nd strengthso f Arendt'si deas aboutm aintainingt he revo-
lutionarys pirit. The implicationso f a three-corneredfi ght point up one
of the inadequacieso f Arendt'sa nalysiso f revolution.I f there are more
than two sides to a revolution,o r if therei s a strugglew ithint he revolu-
tionary forces in determiningit s directiona nd outcome, where does the
revolutionarys piritl ie? Arendta rguest hat it cannotl ie, at least for long,
in a "social revolution." While accepting that the struggle against
povertya nd exploitationi s frequentlyt he drivingf orce behinda n insur-
rection, she believes it inevitably consumes the newfound freedoms
releasedb y the revolutionarym oment. Thus she insists that in order to
succeed, revolutionsm ust be concerneds trictly with political freedom
and not liberationf rom poverty.
Yet the SpanishC ivilW arw as a social revolutioni n whicht he working
class, particularlya narchistm ilitants,s eized the opportunityo pened by
Franco'sr evolt againstt he Republica nd attemptedt o create a classless
society. The revolutionaryc ommittees,c ollectives,a nd popularm ilitias
establishedb y workingc lass militants,n ot the defenderso f the Spanish
SecondR epublic,w eret he true carrierso f the revolutionarys pirit.4T heir
efforts providea cleare xampleo f a social revolutiont hat did not lead to
terror.Y et they avoidedr evolutionaryte rrorn ot by confiningt hemselves
to a "political" revolution, as Arendt advocates, but by attemptingt o
eliminatep olitics. Their experience-and Arendt's mistakenc ritiqueo f
"the social"-suggests that the key to the "social versus political"
dilemmar aisedb y Arendtl ies in politicizingt he social realm. This polit-
icizations hould not seek to efface the social-politicald istinctionb ut to
provide a public space where social concerns can be continuously
addressed.
3. HannahA rendt, On Revolution( New York Penguin, 1963),p . 33.
4. The SecondR epublico f Spainw as a traditionalli beralb ourgeoisg overnmentI. t was
not similart o Arendt'sc onceptiono f a republic.
464 The Revolutionary Spirit
At the same time, Arendt's analysis helps us understand the tragic
truth of the Spanish Revolution: the revolutionary spirit was not simply
crushed from the outside by the cruel and methodical assault against the
anarchist collectives by Communist and Republican forces, as most
observers-particularly anarchist ones-contend.5 Spontaneously organ-
ized by working class militants with the encouragement of the anarcho-
syndicalist trade union the CNT, the majority of the industrial and agri-
cultural collectives had collapsed within a year. Clearly, something was
chafing at the revolutionary spirit from within the collectives that were
its greatest embodiment. Arendt's analysis of revolution, freedom, and
political foundation provide powerful tools for understanding this devel-
opment. They help us see that the revolutionary spirit was waning from
within the collectives for two reasons: the anarchists' failure to under-
stand the importance of politics and to establish adequate institutions of
popular participation.6
Yet the Spanish experience also challenges the ironic conclusion of On
Revolution, that revolutionaries crush revolutions. In Arendt's view,
revolutionary organizations actually act against popular participation
because it threatens their power. Yet the Spanish anarchists played a
more equivocal role. In some places they acted to tamp down popular
participation, but in others they acted to sustain it. Seventy years of
anarchist and socialist activism had deeply affected the political con-
sciousness of the Spanish working class and strongly influenced the sorts
of political institutions they constructed during the revolution. The
Spanish Revolution thus teaches us that the revolutionary question is
not, as Arendt would have it, how to prevent revolutionary organizations
from destroying the spirit of spontaneity, but how to create organiza-
tions based on nonhierarchical, democratic principles that can and will
institutionalize public participation during and after the revolution.
5. See Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution (London: Freedom Press,
1975); Jose Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution (London: Freedom Press, 1990);
Vernon Richards, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution (London: Freedom Press, 1983); and
Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives: Workers'Self-Management: The Spanish Revolu-
tion 1936-39 (New York: Free Life Editions, 1974). For a significant dissent, see Murray
Bookchin's introduction in Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives and Bookchin's To
Remember Spain (San Francisco: AK Press, 1995). To the extent that anarchist scholars
will subject the Spanish Civil War to any sustained critique of anarchists' actions, the criti-
cism is almost entirely directed at the leadership of the CNT (National Confederation of
Labor), who are universally blasted for joining the Catalan and Madrid governments in
September and November 1936, respectively. (Just prior to the war Catalonia had been
granted autonomy, thus there were two Republican-led governments in Spain.)
6. It should be noted that not all the collectives were anarchist-initiated. In fact,
according to Ronald Fraser's Blood of Spain (New York: Pantheon, 1979), some of the
best run and most efficient collectives were initiated and operated by socialist militants. In
this essay, however, I limit my analysis to anarchist collectives.
Joel Olson 465
Moreb roadly,a comparisono f the experienceo f the Spanisha narchist
collectivesa nd Arendt'sa nalysiso f councilsp resentsa n alternativein sti-
tutionalm odel for a democraticp olitics-the federatedc ouncils ystem-
that deservesg reatera ttentionf rom Arendt scholarsa nd political activ-
ists alike. Though often chided as utopian, a renewede xaminationo f
councilse nablesu s to expando ur understandingo f the naturea nd possi-
bilities of democracy.P roviding such an expanded "political imagina-
tion" (the phrasei s SheldonW olin's7)i s one of the fundamentatl asks of
political theory.
I. Revolutioni n Spain
The SpanishC ivil Warb egan on July 18, 1936, when right-wingo fficers
of the Spanisha rmy, led by GeneralF ranciscoF ranco, rose up against
the newly-electedS panishS econd Republic.T he officers' coup inspired
an armedd efense of the government,b ut it also inspireda n attemptb y
anarchistsa nd socialistst o carryt he "strugglea gainstf ascism"o ver into
a social revolutiont hat would smash capitalisma nd create a classless
society.
The numerousc ompetingp olitical organizationso f the period can be
roughly broken into three camps, divided along class and (to a lesser
extent)r eligiousl ines. The Nationalistsc onsistedo f an odd combination
of reactionariesa nd quasi-fascistc orporatists-mid-level military offi-
cers, landowners,c onservativeC atholics (includingt he Churchh ierar-
chy), monarchists,i ndustrialists,a nd fascists-all under the strict dic-
tatorshipo f Franco.T he Nationalistsa s a whole weren ot fascist, though
fascist elementss uch as the Falanged id have considerablein fluence.T he
Republicanc amp representedth ose who wanteda secular,p arliamentary
governmentt hat could modernizea Spains till on the cusp of industriali-
zation. Its forces includedl iberal and left intellectuals,p ortions of the
middlec lass that did not supportF ranco, Catalana nd Basquen ational-
ists, the SpanishC ommunistp arty,a nd the moderatew ing of the Spanish
SocialistP arty and its trade union, the UGT (GeneralU nion of Work-
ers). The revolutionaryc amp consisted of anarchists,l argely organized
in the anarcho-syndicalisttr adeu nion the CNT (NationalC onfederation
of Labor),d issidentM arxistg roupss uch as the POUM (Partyo f Marxist
Unification, for whom GeorgeO rwell fought), and the left wing of the
UGT. The revolutionaryc amp was almost wholly proletariana nd anti-
7. See Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western
Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960).
466 The RevolutionaryS pirit
clerical.F or tacticalr easonst he Republicansa nd revolutionariesfo ught
togethera gainst Franco;t he strugglef or revolutiono ccurredw ithin the
Republicanc amp.
In the initial months of the war, the revolutionariesh eld the upper
hand among the Republicans.T hey not only rushedt o the front lines to
fight Franco, they also began to radicallyr eorganizeS panishs ociety in
the two-thirdso f the countryo utside Francoisth ands. The regularm ili-
tary was abolishedi n favor of workers'm ilitias in which officers were
elected and received no special privileges, owners and landlords were
ousted as fields and factories were collectivizedb y workers, and local
workingc lass militias replacedt he police. For a time, the Spanishg ov-
ernments imply ceased to exist and everythingf rom sending soldierst o
the front to public transportationt o feeding the cities was handled by
a true proletarianp ower. The SpanishR evolutionw as thereforea three-
corneredf ight in whicht he Republicang overnment( whichq uicklya cted
to reestablishi tself after its momentaryd issolution)a nd working class
revolutionarieso n the Left simultaneouslyf ought against Franco and
each other for nearlyt hree years.
As the war draggedo n, efforts by Republicanst o control the revo-
lution were successful: the militias were eliminated, collectivization
controlledo r dismantled,a nd anarchisti nfluencem arginalizedT. he end
of revolutionaryS pain came with the May Days in 1937, when Commu-
nist and Republicanf orces purgedt he POUM and conqueredB arcelona,
long an anarchists tronghold, after a bitter street battle. As a result of
Republican infighting and Franco's superior firepower (supplied by
Mussolinia nd Hitler), the Civil War ended in Marcho f 1939i n a com-
plete victory for the Nationalists.8
II. The Spirit and the Republic
The term "revolutionarys pirit" arouses strong feelings within those
committed to revolution. The early days of the Chinese Communist
Party's resistancea gainst the Japanesea nd the Guomindangi s fondly
8. For good English-language histories of the Spanish Civil War, see Burnett Bolloten,
The Spanish Civil War:R evolutiona nd Counterrevolution(C hapelH ill: Universityo f
North Carolina Press, 1991); Raymond Carr, Modern Spain: 1875-1980 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1980); and Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (London: Eyre and
Spottiswoode, 1961). It should be noted that my analysis of the anarchist role in the
Spanish Civil War is largely limited to secondary sources written in English. This will
undoubtedly limit the depth of my argument, but it is corroborated with enough English
sources to be at least, I hope, plausible.
Joel Olson 467
remembereda s the "Yenan spirit" after the city that symbolizedt he
Communists's trengtha nd commitmentt o the peasantry,a nd the term
"revolutionarys pirit" is sprinkledi n the literatureo n the Spanishr evo-
lution. Arendt'sc onceptiono f the revolutionarys pirit, however,i s very
specific and does not necessarilyi nclude the ecstasy, inspiration, and
couragea revolutionarys truggleo ften stirsi n the heartso f the oppressed
and to whicht he phraseo ften refers.F or Arendt,t he revolutionarys pirit
is the insatiabled esiret o participatei n publica ffairst hat sweepst hrough
a populationd uringa revolution.I t representtsh e spirito f freedom,w hich
is (or shouldb e) the end of all revolutions.F reedomf or Arendtd oes not
mean free will, free choice, or liberation from oppressiona nd want.9
Instead, freedom lies strictlyi n a public realm constituted" directlyo ut
of actingt ogether,t he 'sharingo f wordsa nd deeds.' "1OH umansa re not
truly free until they have the option of participatingi n politicald ebates
and making decisions in a face-to-face manner.11T he revolutionary
spirit,t hen, is the practiceo f freedomi n a new politicalw orld. It existsi n
a spacew here" politicalf reedom,g enerallys peaking,m eanst he right 'to
be a participatori n government,' or it means nothing."12T his spirit
bursts forth in revolutionarys ituationss uch as Americai n 1775, France
in 1789, and Hungary in 1956, when people suddenly find themselves
possessingp olitical power and almost intuitivelyd ecide that it must be
sharedw ith all those who want it (if only becauset here is no longer any
legitimatem eans to deny anyone such power). Although she is careful
never to use the term "democratic"t o describeh er conceptiono f poli-
tics, the affinities of her model with theorieso f participatoryd emocracy
should be clear.13
9. Althoughl iberationf rom materialw ant is a prerequisiteo f freedom.S ee "What Is
Freedom?"i n BetweenP ast and Future:E ightE xercisesi n Political Thought( New York:
Penguin, 1968),p p. 145-49,a nd On Revolution,p p. 31-35.
10. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago:U niversityo f Chicago Press,
1958),p . 198. In this articleI use "publics pace," "politicals pace," and "publicr ealm"
interchangeably.
11. I say "option" becauseA rendta rguest hat freedomf rom politics is one of mod-
ernity'sm ost importantl iberties.A rendt, On Revolution,p . 280.
12. Arendt, On Revolution,p . 218.
13. See Leon Botstein, "HannahA rendt," PartisanR eview, 45 (1978):3 68-80;J iirgen
Habermas," HannahA rendt'sC ommunicationCs oncepto f Power," SocialResearch,4 4
(1977):3 -24; JeffreyC . Isaac,A rendt, Camus,a nd ModernR ebellion( New Haven:Y ale
UniversityP ress, 1992)a nd "Oasesi n the Desert:H annahA rendto n DemocraticP olitics,"
AmericanP oliticalS cienceR eview, 88 (March1 994): 156-68.F or authorsw ho rejectt his
claim,s ee MartinJ ay, "HannahA rendt,"P artisanR eview,4 5 (1978):3 48-68,a nd Sheldon
Wolin, "HannahA rendt:D emocracya nd the Political," Salmagundi6, 0 (1983):3 -19.
468 The RevolutionaryS pirit
Oncet his revolutionarys pirito f freedoma ppears,t he next challengei s
to make it a permanentp art of the humane xperience." The question[ is]
no longerh ow much freedomt o permitt o action, speech, and thought,"
Arendtw rites, "but how to institutionalizea freedomw hich [is] already
an accomplishedf act."14B ut therei s a deep and powerfulh istoricalt en-
sion betweent he revolutionarys pirita nd any institutiont hat would pre-
serve it. She formulatest he tension this way:
The perplexity was very simple and, stated in logical terms, it
seemedu nsolvable:i f foundationw as the aim and the end of revo-
lution, then the revolutionarys pirit was not merely the spirit of
beginnings omethingn ew but of startings omethingp ermanenta nd
enduring;a lastingi nstitution,e mbodyingt his spirita nd encourag-
ing it to new achievementsw, ould be self-defeating.F rom whichi t
unfortunatelys eems to follow that nothing threatens the very
achievementso f revolution more dangerouslya nd more acutely
than the spirit which has broughtt hem about. Should freedomi n
its most exalteds ense as freedomt o act be the price to be paid for
foundation?15
The paradoxicalt ask of revolutioni s to take somethinge ntirelys pon-
taneous and new-the revolutionarys pirit-and make it durable and
permanent.O nly by doing so can freedome ndureb eyondt he revolution
itself.
Although this paradoxd isturbsA rendt throughoutO n Revolution,i t
is clear that a republici s her answert o this dilemma. She never details
what her notion of a republicang overnmentl ooks like; it seems, how-
ever, to be similart o the governmentc raftedb y the FoundingF athersi f
they had somehowi ncorporatedt own meetingso r similarb odiesi nto the
Constitution.A s MargaretC anovan and Jeffrey Isaac argue, Arendt's
republicd ependsu pon the traditionalt ools of democraticg overnment-
constitutions, laws, constitutional institutions-but it also requires
public freedom and participation,a nd thereforea public space.'6H ow
this space would be organizeda nd how it would mesh with constitutional
institutionsA rendtl eaves to future citizens.
14. Hannah Arendt, "Totalitarian Imperialism: Reflections on the Hungarian Revolu-
tion," Journal of Politics, 20 (1958): 26.
15. Arendt, On Revolution, p. 232.
16. Margaret Canovan, Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 208; Jeffrey C. Isaac, "A New Guaran-
tee on Earth: Hannah Arendt on Human Dignity and the Politics of Human Rights,"
American Political Science Review, 90 (March 1996): 61-73.
Joel Olson 469
The principleso f Arendt'sr epublicanisma re easiert o discern,f or they
are deeply indebtedt o the traditiono f classicalr epublicanism.'1In this
tradition,t he state is free if it is the commonp ossessiono f its citizensa nd
not ruled by a sovereign, and if it is a governmento f laws, not men.
Arendt also borrows classical republicanism'ss ense of pathos, or
tragedy.B ecauset he republici s ruledb y its citizens,i ts existenced epends
on the virtueo f its citizenry,s o the republicm ust be everv igilanta gainst
corruption.G ivenh umann ature( or for Arendt, humanp lurality),h ow-
ever, maintainingc itizens'v irtuei ndefinitelyi s impossiblea nd the repub-
lic's decay is inevitable;t he only question is how long can the republic
last. The tragic sense of a fragiler epublicb orne of humans'g reat deeds
and subjectt o humans' weaknessesi s prominentt hroughouth er work,
particularlyO n Revolution.
Arendt makes two novel contributionst o this classical republican
base. First is her recognitiono f the fundamentalh uman condition of
plurality," the fact that men, not Man, live on the eartha nd inhabitt he
world."18T he public sphered oes not consist of the glorious exploitso f
heroesn or the unifiedv oice of a GeneralW ill but of the multiplea ctions
of uniquei ndividualsb roughtt ogethert o govern as equals. Her second
contributioni s her insight that spontaneitya nd novelty, or natality, are
key elements of politics. Politics is not only about making choices,
Arendt remindsu s, it is also about initiatingn ew possibilities.I t is the
responsibilityo f a republict o somehow capturet his novelty and, ironi-
cally, providei t with a foundationt hat will allow it to endurei ndefinite-
ly. This, of course,r elatest o pathos, for what is new eventuallyb ecomes
old and the impossible task of republicang overnmenti s to somehow
refuse the aging process and prevent freedom from petrifying into
administration,r epresentationa, nd bureaucracy.
The republic, however, is not the only political institution Arendt
offers as a potentialg uarantoro f the revolutionarys pirit.T he historyo f
revolutions,f rom the Paris Communeo f 1871t o the Russians oviets of
1905a nd 1917t o the RevolutionaryC ouncilso f Hungaryi n 1956,r eveals
another form of political organization that can potentially preserve
public participation:t he council. Councils are political bodies indepen-
dent of the state and all partiest hat exercisep oweri n such a way that all
those who are interestedm ay participatei n political affairs. They often
spring from ordinaryp eople in a revolutionarys ituation and are, for
Arendt, the spontaneousm anifestationo f the revolutionarys pirit. "The
17. Much of the followingd iscussionc omes from Canovan,H annahA rendt, ch. 6.
18. Arendt, The Human Condition,p . 7.
470 The Revolutionary Spirit
councils say: we want to participate, we want to debate, we want to make
our voices heard in public, and we want to have the possibility to deter-
mine the political course of our country." Further, "Since the country is
too big for all of us to come together and determine our fate, we need a
number of public spaces within it.""9
As councils emerge spontaneously, then, so does the means by which
to connect them. The federal principle links individual councils to a
series of higher councils at the local, regional, and national levels, and
beyond. These higher councils consist of representatives elected by par-
ticipants in the immediately lower bodies. Arendt's federal principle, it
should be noted, is very similar to the Spanish anarchists' federalism.
The main difference is that in Arendt's system, representatives to higher
councils are not directly beholden to the opinions and desires of those
they represent, whereas they are in the anarchist model. Arendt argues
that it is a violation of political freedom to chain higher council repre-
sentatives to the decisions of their constituents because this would kill
any possibility of creating new opinions based on the expanded experi-
ences and perspectives gained in the higher bodies. Thus, altough society
is organized like a pyramid in both federative models, in the anarchist
model power flows from the bottom up. In Arendt's model, on the other
hand, it is generated at each layer of the pyramid, beholden to no man-
dates above or below.20
The ideal republic for Arendt is one that incorporates the council
system, because councils guarantee participation in a republic. However,
as Canovan points out, Arendt never considers aloud whether the council
system might be fundamentally at odds with republicanism. How, for
example, would federated councils exist alongside the three branches of
government in the U.S.? Arendt never says, but several Arendt scholars
argue that she sees no fundamental incompatibility between councils and
republicanism. Borrowing a term from Tocqueville, Margie Lloyd argues
that Arendt is a "liberal of a new kind" who rejects individualism but
embraces many liberal institutions and principles such as freedom of
speech and rule of law.21 Jeffrey Isaac admits that Arendt saw a basic
incompatibility between councils and representative government, but he
19. Hannah Arendt, "Thoughts on Politics and Revolution," in Crises of the Republic
(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), pp. 232-33.
20. Arendt, On Revolution, p. 278. For the best discussion on Arendt on councils, see
John F. Sitton, "Hannah Arendt's Argument for Council Democracy" in Hannah Arendt:
Critical Essays, ed. Lewis P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman (Albany: SUNY Press,
1994): 307-29.
21. Margie Lloyd, "In Tocqueville's Shadow: Hannah Arendt's Liberal Republican-
ism," The Review of Politics, 57 (Winter 1995): 31-58.