Preface
I discovered Jacques Ellul recently (beginning of summer 2024) while I had time to read Critical Theory. I’ll therefore speak in the present tense though I probably will not be able to effectively and completely go over the immense body of work of its writer. It’s also important, in order for me to produce a critical analysis of his work to make a preface about my mindset and personal context that I am experiencing while discovering his work.
Jacques Ellul is dear to me because of three distinctive elements :
- He is a christian anarchist and supported the logical reasoning for me to identify as one
- He is a marxian, effectively disassociating himself from the marxist movements, and therefore orthodox communism while retaining Marx’s work as quintessential for any critical theory
- He is french, like me, and I can find most of his books easily, which prompts me to collect them.
I am in a time of my life which could precisely be equated to a crisis : one of identity and means to achieve my purpose. This crisis is not sudden, rather it is a long process of mutation. It is multi-factorial and decisive in my life, but it includes namely :
- The rejection of marxism-leninism as an identity and systematic approach to the world
- The growth and solidifying of my christian faith
- The exploration and redefinition of my purpose and capacities
- An deep highlight of freedom and honesty as my core values
Thus, Jacques Ellul is deeply important to me because he satisfies this need in me to deconstruct my “belief” in marxism-leninism, the logical relationship between true Christianity (and not a rehashed heretical version of it) and a true Progressive and Critical mindset on society and a class-based system. Jacques Ellul both encompass humility and intellectual curiosity so well that I wholly relate to him on a deep level. Skimming through his books give me this ha-ha! moment, long awaited unraveling of logical knots that were long left untended for in my intellectual closet.
Jacques writes completely differently than Bourdieu, does not force himself to be the most rigorous thinker, has an easy-going tone and a calm but deep-cutting analysis of technicity, theology, the class-based system and anarchist and revolutionary modes of thinking.
On Anarchism and Christianity
I would like to start my critical analysis of his work by introducing my thoughts on this apparent dichotomy : to be a christian and an anarchist. At length, it is Ellul who explains it in a much better way, but as it is an analysis anchored in my personal journey, I cannot stress enough the importance of a dialogue between the reader and the writer. Thus, I will rearrange some notes I wrote on that subject.
Why am I a Christian who is no longer a marxist-leninist ?
It could please some and make some grin, but I am an orthodox Christian first and subsequently an anarcho-communist secondly. Probably in the same sense Jacques Ellul and Leon Tolstoy were.
I uphold the ethical and rational premises that promote everybody’s right to live and to determine their means to which they constitute their life. Every personal moral imperative stems from personal interest and every collective moral imperative stems from the collective interest that is linked to the previous premise.
These premises, posited as values, require the rejection of any system of hierarchy, domination, oppression, control, exploitation, discrimination and violence that make the right to live and self-determination impossible. The rejection of these forces is of an ethical nature. This rejection necessitates the criticism, scrutiny, opposition and deconstruction of anything that legitimizes said system. These are rational processes which are based on empirical evidence and constitute revolutionary practice necessary for people to obtain self-determination as a first basis.
The aim is not merely to condemn and reject this system based on the fact that is is opposed to our ideas but to do anything in one’s capacity to obtain liberty and self-determination which are the means for a free society based on mutual aid and equality to exist. It is because this system does everything in its power to make this society impossible that it should be condemned.
This system based on hierarchy, domination and power takes any kind of form, whether it be through a state, corporation or religion, and is determined by the relations of production determining society.
A society free of hierarchy, domination and power is one free of the domination and violence of money, class, race, gender, hierarchical structures, traditions, institutions, and anything that is considered against human fulfillment and freedom to act according to it.
Systems are inherent to the human condition, as reason use systems to function (mathematics and philosophy), but don’t need to be coercitive. The same way, religion as a system doesn’t have to be coercitive. The common atheist anarchist critique of religion is based on a) poor knowledge of theology b) poor reading of history c) poor understanding of the anthropological nature of spirituality. A man is known by his fruits, and if I believed the classical marxist-leninist reading of anarchism stating “It doesn’t work because history shows anarchists can’t organize and efficiently replace the system they oppose” I would not be a christian. Because anarchists (and communists alike) typically reject religion on two aspects as a hierarchy system responsible for domination and oppression that is why they (rightfully so, according to reason) will not go into a further analysis. Which is not needed of an atheist anarchist. But too often, anarchists will accept spiritual belief as a personal freedom, and endorse christian anarchists for their practical and rational anarchism. Their criticism contained in their rejection fails where a) the historical reading of religion seems to suffice though insufficient in and of itself and b) poor knowledge of theology and spirituality is not analyzed further because it is not necessary for an antheist to do so.
Therefore, it is the duty of a christian anarchist to resume this anarchist criticism of religion and show its inconsistencies so he can be rationally both while adding consistency and logical analysis to the intellectual corpus of anarchist theory.
I would like to take on such a task, but first, I would like to explain why I am no longer a marxist-leninist.
Marx’s philosophy is a system, though it was never constitued as one by Marx or even Engels. It is based on three determining factors (necessary ingredients) a) Hegelian dialectics b) Materialism d) Revolutionary philosophy. It is an enclosed system based on a dialectical union of rationality and empiricism that use premises, can take the form of a method, and come to logical conclusions which the most compelling counter-arguments have never been more than a) what about human nature ? and c) What about the millions of deaths of communism ?
Both answers generally go as follow : It doesn’t exist, and, it’s more complex than you think… or it doesn’t exist.
In its essence, Marx, as a political theory, is a dogma. This dogmatic political theory is called marxism-leninism. It is a dogma where one is asked to adopt materialism and to reject ethics in order to believe in it. No ethics and morals have ever been contained or necessary in Marx’s system. Therefore one doesn’t need to think for themselves or take action for themselves, but only to follow a scientific method that doesn’t require moral judgments.
Nevertheless, Marx’s immense intellectual, scientific and literary work is the most compelling of 19th century Europe that no philosopher can ignore.
Marxism-leninism, as a political theory is no more than a religion. Salvation, conduct, hierarchy, determinism, messianism and all elements present in Christianity are present in Marxism-leninism. And as a Christian, I cannot have two religions, or believe in any gods but God, unless I want to live in contradiction. Furthermore, I cannot live in antagonism, whereas Marxism posits atheism and rejection of religion as necessary.
The same question can be asked of marxism-leninism that of religion (and not only christianity) : what of the millions of deaths ? (or even enslaved ?). Both suffer from the same fate because they are both religions.
Anarchism is a broad theory that also puts humankind in the center of its philosophy, but explores its interests and its potential to a wider extent than marxism-leninism because it has a praxis of ethics necessary for its self-determination.
I don’t even merely suppose that I am right in being Christian and Anarchist, and that both systems are synergic and right. They might be both rationally true in their reponses, but I am accountable for the how I respond to the world through the systems I abide to.
Christianity posits that freedom, self-determination and meaning of one’s life are contained in the communion with God through Christ. As Ellul and Tolstoy have said, a christian can be nothing else than an anarchist. But an anarchist can be anything else as long as they are anarchists.
The true sadness doesn’t lie in the fact that atheist anarchists reject Christianity as a conservative hierarchical system of domination and oppression, with God as its tyrant, though it is wrong. The true sadness lies in the fact that christian anarchists understand atheist anarchists but the latter don’t understand the former.
It is a matter of contradiction for atheist anarchists to hypocritically endorse and ally themselves with christian anarchists when they consider christianity is a conservative hierarchical system of domination and oppression. It would be the same as if they allied with right-wing libertarians.
They can’t deny that christian anarchists hold a rational stance because they don’t understand this rationality through the fact that they don’t understand christianity.
Their analysis and reading of Christianity dates back from the 19th century of Bakhunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon, and as it has not been upgraded, they will need to read Ellul’s theology, and Tolstoy’s essays, and if they are practical and rational, will only become different from Christian anarchists for a question of faith, nothing more, nothing less.
Anarchists ask themselves questions when they make a critique of Religion, that of Christianity, and are poorly equipped in matters of theology and philosophy of religion. It is practical and rational for them to ask these questions to anarchist Christians, the ones who hold no participatory position in domination, oppression and violence. Because it is in the interests of anarchist Christians to have a critical and rational view of their theology.
Christian anarchists have nothing to learn from atheist anarchists, but to be better anarchists, and atheist anarchists too.
To be a better Christian is synonymous with being a better Anarchist.
In this entry I’d like to make commentaries of Ellul and Tolstoy’s books, examine my experience as a student unionist who has been questioning himself politically while experiencing a growing faith in Christ, and finally, to talk about theology of revolution – or rather, means to consciously contest the status quo, the machine of technicity, oppression, domination in a hierarchical and optimized manner aiming at the collective liberation of humanity.
University as a spectacle of violence
Fascists really like naive people. They are easy to mold, to persuade, to convert, to manipulate, to destroy. They like passionate people, eager to fight, ready to die. Marxism prefers rational and cold people, creative, structured and organized. If Fascism is the philosophy of Bestiality, marxism is the philosophy of atomic science. Both are cold, but one is better.
This is the unconscious logical process I went through when I decided to join a meeting at my university. There, somme delegates of the communist youth lead the debate : How can students organize themselves in order to seize the means to modify their administrative and learning conditions ?
I was baffled, it was so simple, clear, and easy. Not only did it feel exhilirating and new, but also this revolutionary praxis had real effects on the world. Though I later noticed the heaps of efforts and management needed in order to invade the oppressive machine of capitalism through the collective. A real bureaucracy, technique, administration and hierarchy is consistently formed in order to process these things. I was taken into another machine. “The party said you need to sort yourself out, you’re a revisionist” or “A comrade needs to attain rigorous discipline because he is the representative of the party”, and finally : “You are not required, but you are needed”.
I found my second church : I would go to meetings, protests, reunions, congresses, I would sing songs, read and analyze books, dream of the international revolution, ask permission from the party leaders, do my volunteering work. Everything and everyone had to be processed and cut down, extirped, lasered down, observed through the dialectical scientific method. “This is just bourgeois propaganda” or “You’re practicing bourgeois ideology !” and finally : “You are perpetuating the structures of domination through your petty behaviour!”
Thus, we repented, asked for forgiveness, or would be excluded if we were considered to be a degenerate element. All of my friends were communists, all I talked about was Marx, we wondered in bed : how to attain total class consciousness, what is the concrete material conditions of the Nepalese proletariate ? What should we think of this political candidate ? Then we asked the party, we made a conclusion, wrote it into a paper.
Do you see the point ? Yes, armed liberation of the people, dismantling of the capitalist-imperialist modes of production, critique of ideology and dictature of the proletariate were and are all effective and necessary means to progress humanity. Does adhering to the party, getting your membership card printed, your schedule planned out for you, your role given, the intellectual method handed out to you all necessary ? I’m not sure.