What do you think?
Rate this book
On Revolution
A two-part essay on the “myth” of revolution and the figure of the artist.
Iconic French novelist, playwright, and essayist Jean-Paul Sartre is widely recognized as one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century, and his work has remained relevant and thought-provoking through the decades. The Seagull Sartre Library now presents some of his most incisive philosophical, cultural, and literary critical essays in twelve newly designed and affordable editions.
On Revolution consists of a long essay in two parts in which Sartre dwells upon the “myth” of revolution and goes on to analyze revolutionary ideas in fascism and, especially, Marxism. In the second essay, Sartre examines the figure of the artist and his conscience, especially in relation to communism.
Iconic French novelist, playwright, and essayist Jean-Paul Sartre is widely recognized as one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century, and his work has remained relevant and thought-provoking through the decades. The Seagull Sartre Library now presents some of his most incisive philosophical, cultural, and literary critical essays in twelve newly designed and affordable editions.
On Revolution consists of a long essay in two parts in which Sartre dwells upon the “myth” of revolution and goes on to analyze revolutionary ideas in fascism and, especially, Marxism. In the second essay, Sartre examines the figure of the artist and his conscience, especially in relation to communism.
- GenresPhilosophy
140 pages, Paperback
Published August 12, 2021
5 people are currently reading
44 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Paul Sartre
1,094 books12.9k followersJean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 13, 2021
I think the first, longer essay connected with me a lot more than the second, even though the second more concretely explores a person's artistry and their belief in communism. What I do admire of Sartre is his wearing of many hats - and being great in all of those aspects. I kept note of passages that I think hold water today:
"What [they] want is equal rights, which in no way implies a structural change in the regime of property rights. They merely wish to share in the privileges of their oppressors, which is to say that they are, ultimately, seeking a more complete integration." - I think if we look at oppression and revolution, a lot of it is framed as wanting a "seat at the table" instead of dismantling the system so everyone eats on a more macro level.
"Revolutionaries are not, then, people who claim rights but, rather, people who destroy the very notion of right, which they see as a product of custom and force. Their humanism is not based on human dignity, but denies human beings and particular dignity; the unity in which they wish to merge all their fellows and themselves is not that of the human realm, but of the human species."
"At work, the oppress individual is no longer concerned to please the master; he escapes the world of the dance-band, of politeness, ceremony and psychology; he does not have to guess what is going on in the boss's head; he is no longer at the mercy of someone's mood. His work is, admittedly, imposed on him at the outset and the fruits of his labours are stolen from him at the end. But within these two limits, his work confers on him a mastery of things l the worker apprehends himself as the possibility of infinitely varying the form of a material object by acting upon it in accordance with certain universal rules. In other words, it is the determinism of matter that offers him the first image of his freedom."
"A revolutionary philosophy must account for the plurality of freedoms and show how each, while being a freedom for itself, must at the same time be able to be an object for others."
"[Man] is entirely in the clutches of nature, which can crush him at any moment and destroy him body and soul. He is in nature's clutches from the very beginning to be born really does mean 'coming into the world' in a situation not of his own choosing, with this body, this family and perhaps also this race."
"If the revolutionary retains the materialist myth, the young bourgeois can come to the revolution only through the perception of social injustices; he comes to it out of individual generosity, which is always suspect, since the source of generosity may dry up, and he faces the additional ordeal of swallowing a materialism that is inimical to his reason and that does not express his personal situation." - I think this one is the most relevant to today, as we look at virtue signaling and the relationship between social media, ego, and activism. Right now, activists are not sustaining their fight, as they are not entrenched in any actual struggle, but only as a means to make themselves look to be a good person to onlookers. Individual generosity is always suspect.
"What [they] want is equal rights, which in no way implies a structural change in the regime of property rights. They merely wish to share in the privileges of their oppressors, which is to say that they are, ultimately, seeking a more complete integration." - I think if we look at oppression and revolution, a lot of it is framed as wanting a "seat at the table" instead of dismantling the system so everyone eats on a more macro level.
"Revolutionaries are not, then, people who claim rights but, rather, people who destroy the very notion of right, which they see as a product of custom and force. Their humanism is not based on human dignity, but denies human beings and particular dignity; the unity in which they wish to merge all their fellows and themselves is not that of the human realm, but of the human species."
"At work, the oppress individual is no longer concerned to please the master; he escapes the world of the dance-band, of politeness, ceremony and psychology; he does not have to guess what is going on in the boss's head; he is no longer at the mercy of someone's mood. His work is, admittedly, imposed on him at the outset and the fruits of his labours are stolen from him at the end. But within these two limits, his work confers on him a mastery of things l the worker apprehends himself as the possibility of infinitely varying the form of a material object by acting upon it in accordance with certain universal rules. In other words, it is the determinism of matter that offers him the first image of his freedom."
"A revolutionary philosophy must account for the plurality of freedoms and show how each, while being a freedom for itself, must at the same time be able to be an object for others."
"[Man] is entirely in the clutches of nature, which can crush him at any moment and destroy him body and soul. He is in nature's clutches from the very beginning to be born really does mean 'coming into the world' in a situation not of his own choosing, with this body, this family and perhaps also this race."
"If the revolutionary retains the materialist myth, the young bourgeois can come to the revolution only through the perception of social injustices; he comes to it out of individual generosity, which is always suspect, since the source of generosity may dry up, and he faces the additional ordeal of swallowing a materialism that is inimical to his reason and that does not express his personal situation." - I think this one is the most relevant to today, as we look at virtue signaling and the relationship between social media, ego, and activism. Right now, activists are not sustaining their fight, as they are not entrenched in any actual struggle, but only as a means to make themselves look to be a good person to onlookers. Individual generosity is always suspect.
June 7, 2025
While the two essays seemed too disparate to be included in the same collection, especially considering the second was a foreword to another book, the first was fresh, provoking, and all-too-timely. Part II of 'Materialism and Revolution' delivers the blow that part I slightly idles in setting up. Essentially, Sartre aims to de-mystify the concept of pure, objective, rational materialism touted by some Communist party leaders at the time. Idealism and materialism (in its aforementioned form), Sartre argues, both disappear the real--'the one because it denies the existence of the thing, the other because it eliminates subjectivity' (78). As such, neither on its own is adequate for a continuation of the revolutionary Communist movement.
Turning to materialism specifically, regarding all things as matter, facts, and as matters-of-fact with pure objectivities is a mystification in itself. Subjectivity must be part of a revolutionary philosophy, Sartre argues, because to deny it is to deny the real, or 'what is impermeable to a subjectivity' (78). I appreciated Sartre's emphasis on contingency, uncertainty, fallibility, and the 'human project' in conceiving of a functional revolutionary philosophy. Most compelling was the discussion of this 'human project,' which I understood in conversation with Nietzsche. It seems as though action or creation (decidedly Zarathustrian in the sense of 'overcoming' or 'self-actualization') paired with a subjectivity that is able to reflect, or transcend itself, is the way to continue exercising and forging freedom.
An introduction including the historical and philosophical context of the debate Sartre is embroiled in would heighten the essay's impact. But as always, there is much more to be dissected, even on just the single page of the essay I have chosen to focus on...
Turning to materialism specifically, regarding all things as matter, facts, and as matters-of-fact with pure objectivities is a mystification in itself. Subjectivity must be part of a revolutionary philosophy, Sartre argues, because to deny it is to deny the real, or 'what is impermeable to a subjectivity' (78). I appreciated Sartre's emphasis on contingency, uncertainty, fallibility, and the 'human project' in conceiving of a functional revolutionary philosophy. Most compelling was the discussion of this 'human project,' which I understood in conversation with Nietzsche. It seems as though action or creation (decidedly Zarathustrian in the sense of 'overcoming' or 'self-actualization') paired with a subjectivity that is able to reflect, or transcend itself, is the way to continue exercising and forging freedom.
An introduction including the historical and philosophical context of the debate Sartre is embroiled in would heighten the essay's impact. But as always, there is much more to be dissected, even on just the single page of the essay I have chosen to focus on...
December 27, 2022
Written in 1946, a critical account of the faults of both idealism and materialism, at a time of "crisis in marxist thought", Sartre tries to assert how it is human subjectivity, and the revolutionary subjectivity, that should bring about a revolutionary humanism, "and it will become manifest to all persons of goodwill that it is truth that is revolutionary. Not the abstract truth of idealism, but the concrete truth - the truth willed, created, maintained and won through social struggle by human beings working for the liberation of humanity.", followed by a second section devoted to reflections about the artist's position and role in the depiction and change of the world he exists within.
December 27, 2025
Jean-Paul Sartre is perhaps one of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century. Throughout his life he searched for a combination of Marxism and existentialism. This book contains two essays: "Materialism and Revolution" and "The Artist and his Conscience." The former makes up the majority of the book so I'll focus on that here.
Sartre examines what he perceives as the weaknesses of Marxist historical materialism (more accurately, Stalinist interpretation of it). He argues that workers are oppressed and their work tasks are outlined for them by the capitalist. The product of their labor is taken from them by the capitalist. But between these two limits, the workers have their first experience with their own ability to change the world. "The worker apprehends himself as the possibility of infinitely varying the form of a material object by acting upon it in accordance with certain universal rules." Paradoxically, it is the determinism of matter that offers the first taste of freedom and self-actualization.
It's no wonder, then, that materialism appeals to the workers movement as a philosophy. It allows the oppressed class to demystify and desanctify the position of the ruling class. We are all humans; members of the same species. There is no a priori or divinely-ordained moral system. We can create a new world.
At the same time, we are not robots. The contingency of our existence extends to our choices as well. We must choose to create a new social order. And if we succeed, the one we create could take any number of forms.
Ultimately he says, "idealism and materialism both make the real disappear." What we need is revolutionary realism which preserves the material world and human subjectivity. Because it is only through our actions within and against the material world that we comprehend it and ourselves.
There are some beautiful, inspiring passages in this book. Whether Sartre is entirely successful in bridging the gap between his philosophical influences, I can't say from just this book. But I'd love to read more of his work.
Sartre examines what he perceives as the weaknesses of Marxist historical materialism (more accurately, Stalinist interpretation of it). He argues that workers are oppressed and their work tasks are outlined for them by the capitalist. The product of their labor is taken from them by the capitalist. But between these two limits, the workers have their first experience with their own ability to change the world. "The worker apprehends himself as the possibility of infinitely varying the form of a material object by acting upon it in accordance with certain universal rules." Paradoxically, it is the determinism of matter that offers the first taste of freedom and self-actualization.
It's no wonder, then, that materialism appeals to the workers movement as a philosophy. It allows the oppressed class to demystify and desanctify the position of the ruling class. We are all humans; members of the same species. There is no a priori or divinely-ordained moral system. We can create a new world.
At the same time, we are not robots. The contingency of our existence extends to our choices as well. We must choose to create a new social order. And if we succeed, the one we create could take any number of forms.
Ultimately he says, "idealism and materialism both make the real disappear." What we need is revolutionary realism which preserves the material world and human subjectivity. Because it is only through our actions within and against the material world that we comprehend it and ourselves.
There are some beautiful, inspiring passages in this book. Whether Sartre is entirely successful in bridging the gap between his philosophical influences, I can't say from just this book. But I'd love to read more of his work.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews