Autopsy of Revolution: Jacques Ellul's Dissection of Uprising and Change

In Autopsy of Revolution, Jacques Ellul takes a scalpel to the idea of revolution itself, peeling back the layers of romanticism, ideology, and historical myth that surround it. Unlike many thinkers who see revolutions as engines of progress or inevitable social movements, Ellul views revolutions as complex, often contradictory phenomena—neither inherently good nor entirely transformative. They are, in his eyes, both necessary and futile, driven by human desperation but incapable of delivering on their lofty promises.

“Revolution is not the driving force of history but one of the threads from which history is woven.”

This isn’t a book that glorifies rebellion, nor is it a cynical dismissal of revolution as mere chaos. Instead, Ellul offers a cold, clear-eyed analysis of what revolutions are, why they happen, and why they so often fail to achieve the radical change they promise.

Revolts vs. Revolutions: A Critical Distinction

One of the first things Ellul does is draw a sharp distinction between revolts and revolutions. While these terms are often used interchangeably, Ellul argues that they represent fundamentally different phenomena.

1. Revolt: The Immediate, Emotional Outburst

• Revolt is the raw, spontaneous eruption of human anger and desperation. It happens when a situation becomes intolerable—whether it's hunger, oppression, or humiliation.

• Revolts are deeply personal and visceral. They don’t require ideology or a political plan; they are simply the cry of “No more!”

• However, revolts are reactionary in the sense that they often seek a return to a perceived better past. The rebel doesn’t necessarily have a vision for the future—they just want the current suffering to stop.

“Revolt breaks out when daily existence becomes intolerable, not because of political theory, but because survival itself is at stake.”

2. Revolution: The Structured, Ideological Movement

• Revolution, on the other hand, is organized, ideological, and systematic. It seeks not just to overthrow the current regime but to reshape society according to a new vision.

• Revolutions are historical projects—they claim to advance history, often with grand narratives of liberation, justice, and progress.

• Unlike revolts, revolutions require planning, leadership, and structure. They are typically co-opted by elites or intellectuals who give the movement direction and legitimacy.

“Revolutions are always constructive: they must open the way to exultant tomorrows.”

But herein lies the paradox that Ellul explores throughout the book: most revolutions begin as revolts, fuelled by raw emotion and desperation. Yet, in order to succeed, they must be transformed into something more structured and ideological. This transformation often strips them of their original energy and authenticity.

The Myth of Revolution: Why We Romanticize Uprisings

Ellul spends a significant portion of Autopsy of Revolution dissecting the mythology that surrounds revolutions. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, these events are often portrayed as inevitable, heroic struggles that bring about progress and justice. But Ellul warns that this is a dangerous illusion.

1. Revolutions Are Not Inevitable

Contrary to Marxist theory, which sees revolutions as the inevitable outcome of historical forces, Ellul argues that revolutions are not predestined. They are the result of specific historical conditions, human choices, and often random events.

• Revolutions don’t occur simply because people are oppressed. History is full of oppressed populations that never revolted.

• Revolutions are not guaranteed to succeed, and even when they do, they rarely achieve the radical transformation they promise.

2. Revolutions Do Not Guarantee Progress

One of Ellul’s most provocative arguments is that revolutions do not inherently lead to progress or justice. In fact, many revolutions end up replacing one form of oppression with another.

• The French Revolution promised liberty, equality, and fraternity but descended into the Reign of Terror and eventually gave rise to Napoleon’s authoritarian regime.

• The Russian Revolution overthrew the Tsarist autocracy only to establish Stalin’s brutal dictatorship.

“Revolution does not guarantee freedom. It often merely replaces one master with another.”

3. The Co-Opting of Revolutions

Ellul points out that revolutions are often co-opted by elites who steer the movement away from its original goals. The raw energy of revolt is harnessed by those with political agendas, turning spontaneous uprisings into structured power grabs.

• Revolts may begin in the streets, but revolutions are often consolidated in parliaments, party congresses, or military juntas.

• The very ideologies that claim to guide revolutions often serve to justify new forms of control and repression.

Revolutions Within History vs. Revolutions Against History

Ellul introduces a fascinating distinction between two types of revolutions:

1. Revolutions Against History

These are revolutions that reject the current trajectory of society and seek to return to a perceived golden age or establish a radically new order. They are often messianic in tone, promising a complete break from the past.

• Example: The Russian Revolution aimed to overthrow not just the Tsar but the entire structure of capitalist society, envisioning a classless utopia.

2. Revolutions Within History

These revolutions do not seek to overturn the entire system but to adjust or reform it. They operate within the existing historical framework, aiming for incremental change rather than total transformation.

• Example: The American Revolution sought independence from British rule but largely preserved existing social and economic structures.

Ellul argues that most revolutions end up becoming “revolutions within history” even if they begin as radical breaks from the past. The pressures of governance, the need for stability, and the inertia of existing institutions often force revolutionary movements to compromise.

“The revolution that seeks to overturn history ultimately becomes part of history’s unfolding.”

The Theology of Revolution: A Dangerous Fusion

Ellul devotes an entire chapter to the theology of revolution, critiquing the way religious language and imagery are often used to legitimize political violence and upheaval.

• Revolutionary movements frequently adopt quasi-religious narratives: the idea of a chosen people, the promise of salvation, the necessity of sacrifice, and the hope for a utopian future.

• This fusion of politics and religion can be incredibly powerful—but also deeply dangerous. It turns political ideologies into absolute truths and justifies any means necessary to achieve revolutionary ends.

“The danger is not in the revolution itself but in the sacralization of revolution, the belief that it is holy, inevitable, and righteous.”

Ellul’s critique here is both theological and political. He warns that when revolutions take on a religious fervour, they become immune to critique and prone to fanaticism.

Is Revolution Necessary?

Despite his critiques, Ellul doesn’t dismiss the idea of revolution entirely. He acknowledges that revolution is sometimes necessary—but not in the way we often think.

• Revolution is necessary when a system becomes utterly intolerable—when incremental reforms are impossible, and the only option is a complete break.

• However, Ellul cautions against placing too much hope in revolution as a solution. Even necessary revolutions can fail, betray their ideals, or give rise to new forms of oppression.

“Revolution may be necessary, but it is never sufficient.”

Conclusion: Living in the Shadow of Revolution

In Autopsy of Revolution, Jacques Ellul forces us to confront the messy, contradictory reality of revolution. He dismantles the myths that surround it, exposing both its necessity and its futility. Revolutions are neither the engines of progress we romanticize nor the chaotic outbursts we fear. They are human responses to unbearable situations—imperfect, unpredictable, and often disappointing.

But Ellul’s message isn’t one of despair. By stripping away the illusions, he invites us to approach revolution—and all forms of political action—with humility, realism, and moral clarity. Change is possible, but it will never be as clean or as complete as we hope.

In the end, Ellul reminds us that the real challenge is not just to overthrow oppressive systems but to avoid becoming oppressors ourselves.

I believe this work should remain free and accessible to everyone because these ideas matter—now more than ever. But if you find value in what you’re reading, consider becoming a paid subscriber.