On Revolution is a work of political theory that glorifies the American Revolution. Many of its views are controversial, because it states that the French Revolution is not as important as it is made out to be. Many readers agree with Arendt's conclusions on the American Revolution, but not her conclusions of the French Revolution.
Arendt starts her novel with the controversial claim that the American Revolution is to thank for the French Revolution, and the American Revolution was more, in a certain sense, "revolutionary". In her previous works, which are references in this book, she has discussed the three "mindset" classes of society.
One of these classes is laborer. This is the lowest class, because anyone can be a laborer, and it does not require any mental effort. The next class is a worker. This sounds to be the same as a laborer, but it is in fact very different. A worker is someone that uses their knowledge to create, such as a work of art. The highest you can get is an actor, someone who uses their wisdom to fundamentally change society, and that change will make them immortal in terms of human history.
Arendt says that the American Revolution's leaders were all actors - they all wanted to change the world for the better, so they created a society where everyone (except people that weren't free in this "free nation") would feel welcome. In this, they succeeded, and the United States of America was born.
She continues to say that the French Revolution, although inspired by the American Revolution, was fundamentally less "great" than the latter. This is because its leaders were people out for lower bread prices, not people that were legitimately concerned with the government and its policies.
However, Arendt neglects the fact that, one the French revolutionaries got started, they did demand that the government alter its fundamental values. The French Empire, after the multiple revolutions, switched from an absolute monarchy to a more republican government, like America (keep in mind that the modern day definition of Republicanism is different from older "republicanism").
Arendt's book is very controversial because, although the American Revolution added a deep sense of nationalism to its citizens, she neglects the fact that the French also became more united, and the revolution wasn't just for bread.
