Author Hannah Arendt (HannahArendt)

 A Jewish Thought and the United States. Native Germany, 1928 Ph.D. University of Heidelberg,UGGs, Germany. Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933 after the exile in Paris. Moved to the U.S. after the start of the Second World War, had long taught social studies in New York, is an important representative of the Frankfurt School tasks, working to rescue the totalitarian Nazi oppression of Jews under the lost writings, especially Walter. The Ya Mingde work. Arendt died in 1975, after the death of reputation, is considered the most important of the century Jewish thinker. Her books are 27

(a)

these reflections by a few years ago to the twentieth century occurred in the context of some of the things and the controversy caused.

Indeed, as Lenin predicted, this century is a century of war and revolution, but also a full century of violence. The current view, it is these wars and violent revolutions have in common. However, the impact of the current situation, there is another factor, though he did not some people predicted, but it is at least equal importance, this is the technological advances in tools of violence, which has reached such an extent that: There is no political targets can be compared with their potential for destruction, nor a political goal to prove their practical application in the armed conflict is well spent. Therefore, the ancient settlement of international disputes, the final arbitration means - war - has sadly lapsed. Between the superpowers,

the violence and power, force and strength of different, it is often necessary tools (as Engels pointed out long ago.) Therefore, the technological revolution, that is, the revolution in the tool manufacturing, the war is particularly important. The violence only by means of violence and purpose of the decision, but those two issues, if applied to humans, tend to reflect the main features of this: the purpose of facing the danger of overwhelming means. Because the purpose of human behavior and manufacture of different products and can not be reliably predicted. Means of achieving political goals are often associated with short-term goals - not the future world - more closely related. In addition, all acts of violence itself contains arbitrary elements, nothing more than allow the fate of the battlefield - whether good luck or bad luck - play an important role. To determine the mutual destruction only to rule out Means of destruction to those who committed to improving and ultimately the development of technology to achieve such a level: their goal - the war - is about to be completely eliminated. This is the ubiquitous nature of a symbol is difficult to predict.

anyone interested in history and politics who are not of violence in human affairs there is no perception of the role of the usual, but people rarely species is the role of violence and to give special consideration (in the latest version of the This shows that the people of violence and its arbitrary nature of how superficial understanding of this problem has been ignored to the extent: no one to question the obvious things, or for testing. All records from the past who seek some sort of inspiration, almost without exception, to violence as a marginal phenomenon. Whether the war as violence before the events of the decision-making process. Therefore, until recently, students of international relations study also said: structure and economic development of his conflict,

Today, all these are matters of war and violence or the relationship between violence and power are no longer using the old argument. We know that, enough to those We know that a few years time, the machine will completely replace human soldiers soldiers. We also know that in a conventional war seems far from the reason why poor countries so fragile superpower, it is because of their disadvantage.

all of these disturbing new things will ultimately lead to the relationship between force and violence reversed, also indicates a small country with great power relations in the future reversal. A number of countries, violence may be spending may no longer be strong or not strong in this country suggest that this country is no longer a fight against a much weaker power than their reliable guarantee for national aggression. This is another disturbing to think of political science on one of the most ancient opinion, that is, strength is not measured by wealth, sufficient wealth may be corrosive power of wealth, the power of the Republic of particular hazards.

violence in international relations on the effectiveness of the more questionable, it is in dealing with domestic affairs, especially in the more revolutionary is to get the issue of credibility and appreciation. High profile in the New Left reflected in the strong features of Marxism, and Mao's Conclusive to say that a clear understanding of Marx to the role of violence in history, but in his view, this role is secondary: the collapse of the old social system, not the violence, but its inherent conflicts. Does not lead to sudden violence, the generation of a new society. Although the occurrence of pain before the birth of the baby, but not the pain led to the birth of the baby.

Similarly, the Marxist ruling class, the subject of the state as a violent tool for domination, but the real power of the ruling class is not the content of or reliance on violence as the violence there. It is by the ruling class in society for the decision, more precisely, by its position in the production process of the decision. It is often found that even some sad, the leftist revolution under the influence of the teachings of Marx, completely rule out the possibility of using violent means. In addition to small group is always made by a small number of anarchist terrorism, the degree of political assassination is right in most of the privileges,UGG boots, and organized armed uprising in the characteristics of the military reservation.

However, in theory, there exists within these few exceptions. George. Sorel in the beginning of this century have tried to Marxism and the combination of Bergson's philosophy of life (which is rather plain and the present degree of Sartre and Marxist Existentialism combined with a strange similarity) He thought the class struggle from the military point of view, but he eventually made it but a general strike this famous myth, did not include many violent elements. Today, people are more inclined to put it attributed to the non-violent means of action as a political weapon.

Fifty years ago, even this proposal carefully gave Sorel's notoriety attracted a fascist, even though he enthusiastically supported Lenin and the Russian revolution. Sartre to Fanon's book, Farmers himself, despite his desire to Fanon's arguments to the end of this preamble. Sartre mentioned Sorel, still said, violence ... ... is re-creation of human beings,

the creation of their own because people belong to this view the tradition of Hegel and Marx areas,UGG shoes, so the above views of those increasingly compelling. People create their own left-wing humanism is the fundamental cornerstone of all, but according to Hegel's view, people create their own by thinking, and Marx that Hegel's metabolism between the form - to create their own humanity to achieve this functionality. One might argue that all these people to create their own views on the common is the situation of human beings against (people as a class of natural species or individual is concerned, they can not control their own lives, which is more evident than ), so Sartre, Marx and Hegel than the common view of the indisputable fact that all the acts of generating even more pertinent. Nonetheless, we think and work hard to deny that in essence, very calm behavior and acts of violence between the great divide. Marx never wrote such a sentence.

I quote the words of Sartre, is to show that even the revolutionaries, according to one of the most representative, eloquent spokesmen were not aware that their thoughts are moving in the direction of new violence changes. If people overthrow the Of course, the existence of such a change its own unique logic, but this is the logic born from experience, not born in the logical development of ideas and views, and this experience is any previous era who did not fully appreciate before.

New Left is a pity that modern weapons can not understand the development closely linked to self-destruction. They are under the shadow of the bomb the first generation to grow up, they are inherited from parents to the violent crime scale of political experience - they know in high school and college camps and extermination camps on the situation, knowing genocide and torture, the war will guide a large number of massacres of civilians. Without all this, even if only with

initial reaction is that people of all manifestations of violence, hate, and full support for non-violent politics. This campaign was a great success, especially in civil rights. Comes to the United States in the Vietnam war protest movement, which again to a large extent determine the climate of opinion in this country. But since then the situation has changed, nor did it secret at all. Even if only:

some new fighters known as the anarchist or red fascists, in addition to an allegation is not too much, Their behavior is attributed to various social and psychological reasons, some of which will be discussed later, but people feel ridiculous is that this shift caused by one of the most obvious and most effective factors - a neither precedent, and could not make a comparison of factors - not people actually pay attention, especially look at the global characteristics of the phenomenon is particularly absurd. The fact is: technological progress in many cases, it seems a direct result of the disaster, especially those far more than just a threat to some of the unemployment level, but also a threat to the entire country, and even the survival of mankind proliferation of technology and machinery. The possibility of a new generation of the end of the world than those who If you ask a person belonging to this generation two simple questions: : First,

specifically, the newly emerging focus on the violence, to a large extent still just a theoretical issue, but it is this interspersed with the remnants of a variety of high-profile Marxist thought puzzling. Who could put in the shape it? Sartre's words and sentences in his superb ability to describe the new faith. He was inspired by a book Fanon, that This ideal is more abstract, and a general strike Bisuolieer ideal theory but also divorced from reality. Fanon it with some of the most acceptable arguments are not equal with, for example, all the movement a little observation, you can know this sentence is not accurate. But if what he said is to maintain self-esteem rather eat bread, and not for the cake to the subject of slavery, it lost the magic of rhetoric.

If people can read these intellectuals irresponsible, high-sounding statements (I have quoted these people, the division of agricultural work harder than most other people's close to reality, but are fairly representative) to from what we know about the uprising in the history of history and knowledge of the revolutionary perspective of evaluating these statements, it is likely to deny their importance, and put them down to whim or emotions of these people in the composition of the product of ignorance and nobility . When they face unprecedented event, you can not find a solution to the problem from the mind means, so he want to bury those of Marx's thoughts and feelings to re-use. Injured people dream of violence, and oppressed people Dream of owning the property of the poor rich; persecuted people dream of idea, of course not surprising. We all know, or those deprived of their right of succession among the downtrodden slave revolt and uprising was rare. Rare occurrence of several it is precisely because And, to my knowledge, in any case, just such a miss in the national liberation movements is the case encountered in the outbreak, it is predicted that these campaigns are doomed to failure - this is often a difficult victory or institutional changes on the world, but only depends on the person's far from the truth . If you think there exists the It will be repeated on a larger scale the most unrealistic fantasies of Marx, and his vision far as legitimate reasons. Existing in such a question: Why are there so many of those who preach violence has not been aware of the emerging view of their teachings with Karl Marx ? decisive differences between? Or put it another way, why are they so stubbornly insist that not only refuted by fact, and obviously with their own political views also conflict with the view? This new campaign raised a positive political slogan, that is, calls for the The slogan of the parliamentary system always suffered from the experience of failure, but it is all since the eighteenth century the only real outcome of the revolution. This slogan has been the world's response to, and constitutes the most important revolutionary movement in the East and West have in common. Nevertheless, both methods of expression, or in the actual sense, it is neither the views of Marx and Lenin, because their teachings are inconsistent. Marx and Lenin in the ideal society, and participation in public activities, demand for public affairs together with their (Indeed, Marx and Lenin himself who is also a similar paradox. Marx is not who support and praised the Paris Commune of 1871 campaign it? Lenin in the Russian Revolution not have published it? But Marx did not understand the commune as a new form of government, but the revolutionary action required a temporary agency: Engels's view, this form of New Left slogan shown in the theoretical issues puzzling weakness. The strange thing is, in practice, but rampage, fearless, so it still remains at the stage of exaggeration, such as applied in the West and the East of representative democracy on the one-party bureaucratic pray for a spell change. Western representative democracy only functions of this representation is also about to disappear, replaced by a huge party machine, which The east is also a party bureaucracy in principle ruled out the possibility of participation.

I'm not sure how to explain these inconsistencies will eventually be a phenomenon, but I suspect this is a typical nineteenth-century doctrine of the underlying causes of staunch views on human development. These people will be reluctant to depart from the liberal, socialist and communist ideas link, the amendment is unable to rise to the writings of Marx and Lenin are desirable and reflect the degree of maturity. (Paradox has always been liberal thought the weakest link, this conflict is now firmly convinced that the development of both the view and the same stubborn refusal to look at Marx and Hegel, history, and the only Marx and Haig Seoul's point of view is enough to prove the legitimacy of this belief.) humanity as a whole is the continual development and progress of the argument, or the development of all human movement is the rule of law, this view still unfamiliar in the eighteenth century ago, only to nineteenth century, became an almost universally accepted dogma. It is the view not only to promote the discovery of Darwin in biology, but also made people realize that human nature can not resist because there is forward movement, but also triggered a new philosophy of history: from Hegel , the organic development of philosophy from the perspective of a clear understanding of progress and development. Marx drew on Hegel's idea was that each organism is pregnant with the seeds of their offspring produced the same. This view not only the most innovative, but also to the permanence of historical progress only possible ideological guarantee.

specifically, the final analysis only based on a metaphor on the guarantee, not a doctrine of the most solid foundation. Unfortunately, however, Marx is to rely on such assurances made a number of philosophical doctrine. As long as we view it as other historical comparison of the problems it will immediately be revealed. For example, the rise and fall of empires, the same thing occurs again and again forever, yet the nature of any contact number of events presented by the contingency of the order - all of these records can be found and all reasonable, but no one can ensure that the linear time thus ensuring a continuous and sustained progress in history. In this area the only way to contend with, is to be seen as the beginning of the world, the golden age of the source of all this ancient knowledge, but it is not the historical progress prompt, but very sad irrefutable fact that the continued recession.

If satisfied with the present, trying to find a better world, we can only enter the future (in addition we have no other way), but this makes the idea of peace of mind but contains some very sad side effects. First of all, is this fact: the future of human life is not a single person's value as the single most determining a person's future is death. If we put aside that aside, just think in general, there would be clearly against the development of the thesis, as Herzen said, form, since future generations can enjoy the labor of their ancestors, and do not need to pay the same price. Only the last one ... ... and people would be lucky to come live in (uncovered) housing. had his shortcomings. It is not only time, without interrupting the continuity of the premise to explain the things of the past, but also how the various actions into the future guidelines. Overthrow of Hegel, Marx found that the viewpoint of development has changed the direction of historians have observed, they no longer look in one direction toward the past, but face the future with confidence. The concept of development to answer the The most basic answer is this: Let us now have better, stronger, and more. (Our current political and economic theory all the typical features - liberals on the development of faith at first seems very sensible - are based on this view exists.) More mature from the left point of view, the concept of development to guide us to the current conflict inherent in the development of a comprehensive thing. Whether in that case, we have received no such guarantees: in addition to what we already know will have a How convincing the words of Hegel: conflict. Because of these views and theories provide a comfortable, theoretical and pseudo-science, you can escape from the reality of the sanctuary and popular. However, because we are here concerned primarily with issues of violence, so I must draw attention to an easy misunderstanding: If we as a chronological history of the sustainable development process, it may only form of war and revolution violence in order to interrupt the process. If this is true, if really only be interrupted by violence in the field of human things, mechanical operation, then those who preach violence should have won an important victory, though to my knowledge, at this point they never succeeded.

, however, is not a simple act, but the combined effect of all the action off the running of things, otherwise they will automatically go on, and can therefore be predicted. Violence and the difference between non-violence is that the former insisting on things you want to destroy the old, while the latter is mainly concerned with how to create new things.

(b)

I was in the context of these experiences, the desire to make violence in the political field this question.

This is not easy, because in six years to be on Sorel said: I generally do not want to talk about violence, referring to the phenomenon, once described it as an individual phenomenon, and now I have to reconsider this view. If we look at literature describing the phenomenon of power, to immediately find from left to right of the political theorists agree that the power of the outbreak of violence is just the most outrageous performance. C. Wright. Mills wrote: The rule of the people. violence agency So, let us once again turn to those who deny the country's political and legal regulations to contain only the superstructure and the performance of some of the potential strength of the secondary right argument. Let me to Bertrand. De. Ruwonaier (BertranddeJouvenel), for example, his He writes: Is the relationship among countries indicates that there is no violence, loss of power to it? The answer seems, in our understanding of power may be. De. Ruwonaier interpreted as the rule of power tools, and rule exists because of human As he wrote it: If the power is the essence of the effectiveness of the command,cheap UGG boots, then nothing beats the power out of the barrel of guns more powerful. Bertrand. De. Ruwonaier and Mao Zedong in the political philosophy seems to be an important basic point - the real power - to reach a consensus on the issue.

these definitions, and ancient Greece, has been used to explain the various forms of government on the rule of a man some say is consistent - a dictator or a monarchy ruled by the minority and oligarchic elite, or majority rule of the aristocracy and democracy, today, we should be in such form together with the latest, and perhaps the most terrible forms of domination: bureaucracy. Bureaucratic politics is a complex rule system, no one held to account - whether personal or elite, and regardless of the minority or the majority, this rule is a more appropriate name for: no politics. Indeed, if we rule as a tyrant can not be correct evaluation of their own government, then it is clear that no political form of government is the most brutal of all kind, since we can not even happened a responsible person not found. This state is caused by the insurgency of today's events around the world the most powerful one of the reasons.

In addition, emerging out of today's human nature more modern, more scientific, more rich in philosophical sense conclusion. Has the power of these ancient words have been greatly strengthened. Birth of a number of human domination of natural instinctive desire and violations found, and appeared before a similar philosophical statement. John. Stewart. Muller said: desire. If we believe their experiences on these issues, you should know that submission, willing to obey others, follow the rule of the powerful people such as human nature, the strong sense from a psychological desire to want to at least the same prominence and power, and political domination may be more closely related.

Germany have such a saying: people who want to order, we must first learn to obey. This sentence points to a psychology of human life in fact, that is: the will to power and integrating subject to the will of each other; therefore contrary, a strong people unwilling to submit to others, often others arms control and command have the same degree of resentment. Others do not obey is a happy thing, but that does not necessarily mean over others and be happy. From the perspective of history, if you have to do reasoning, it can not explain the existence of slavery in ancient meaning. The express purpose of economic slavery, is to the public from the heavy domestic work of liberation, so that they participate in the community of equality in public life. If there really is no more than calling the shots, control other people more happy things. Then the owners would not take the family to step.

However, there is this other history, a tradition other words, we've talked about them compared to the same old, same stood the test of time. When Athens as their own form of government, subject to When the eighteenth-century French revolutionaries destroyed the ancient system of all documents and establish the Republic, they set up such a model is. Republic of mind that they are a form of government (the people's power is based on rule of law) will end the era of rule by people, they kind of government known as the Unfortunately, however, is that they are still talking about the subject, but is no longer subject to human, but to obey the law. Of course, they actually mean is the people who support the laws adopted by consensus.

such support is by no means does not cause the slightest doubt. For reliability, he can not request a violent act of The support of the people of a country given to legislation to power, but this support is nothing but the law came into effect in the development and people's attitude to the continuation of that agreement. (In the case of representative government, said people can manage those who rule over them.) Are all political organizations and the actual performance of the power; once people no longer support the real power of them, they will lose energy and gradually decline . This is exactly the Madison in the following sentence to express this meaning: Strength of the people, that is, the power of the government, (And therefore found that, as Montesquieu, dictatorship is the most brutal of various forms of government power but also the most vulnerable one.) Indeed, between power and violence, one of the most obvious difference is that power is always dependent on the number, but they rely on tools of violence, and to reach a certain point, even the tools are no longer needed. Most people are not legally binding rule, that is not constitutional, democratic government the power to suppress the small number of people will be very fierce, while stifling political dissent without any violence, it will also very effective. Concentration, uncontrolled power to give the However, this does not mean that power and violence is one thing.

I think the political status quo of science is quite sad, because our language is not will power, strength, force, power, authority and violence of these key phrases separately, although they that are more obvious phenomenon.