Here's something that might seem a bit controversial at first glance, but I think she has a good point:
> What frightened me in your essay was the gospel of love which you begin to preach at the end. In politics, love is a stranger, and when it intrudes upon it nothing is being achieved except hypocrisy. All the characteristics you stress in the Negro people: their beauty, their capacity for joy, their warmth, and their humanity, are well-known characteristics of all oppressed people. They grow out of suffering and they are the proudest possession of all pariahs. Unfortunately, they have never survived the hour of liberation by even five minutes. Hatred and love belong together, and they are both destructive; you can afford them only in the private and, as a people, only so long as you are not free.
-- Hannah Arendt, Letter to James Baldwin, November 21, 1962
Or how about all the works of poems, prose and literature, where sentiment of a revolutionary or nationalist aspiration (say against a foreign empire occupying your people's lands) are hidden through code words, to avoid the imperial censors, like we saw by the many peoples of the Austrian Empire in the 19th century?
Or is he talking about art as the ends itself to promote or prevent a revolution rather than a means? That seems like an impossible aspiration to reach, so the qualification seems pointless. The masses won't risk lives for art, but they will for bread. And if you write a song to that effect, they'll gladly sing along.
I think this gives some clue why few people same to hate strongly today.
