Resistance Technologies Through Ellul’s Lens

Resistance Technologies Through Ellul’s Lens

Much of my writing has been in the form of a Bitcoin cheerleader because I am convinced that Bitcoin has the capability to change human history’s disastrous trajectory. Commerce has become a weapon of war instead of a means of cooperation and mutual betterment. This piece delves deeper into the underpinnings of my belief.

I stumbled upon an analysis of the work of Jacques Ellul, The “Technological Society,” where he discusses “Technology” and “Technique.” These are significant aspects when evaluating the usefulness of Bitcoin’s place in humanity.

Jacques Ellul, the French philosopher and resistance fighter, spent his life warning about technology’s potential to enable totalitarian control and erode human freedom. His critique centered on what he called “technique” — the mindset that reduces everything to problems awaiting technological solutions. Yet, in Bitcoin and the open source movement, we find technologies that might have given him pause — tools explicitly designed for resistance against centralized power.

Ellul’s experience in the French Resistance shaped his understanding of how power operates and the importance of maintaining channels for dissent. Bitcoin, often called “resistance money,” and open source software share a crucial characteristic with resistance movements: they provide tools and infrastructure for opposing centralized control.

While Ellul was skeptical of technology’s promises of freedom, Bitcoin and open source offer something different from the usual “illusion of choice.” Traditional financial systems and proprietary software lock users into controlled environments where their behavior can be monitored, modified, and restricted. In contrast, Bitcoin provides genuine monetary sovereignty — the ability to store and transfer value without permission from central authorities. Open source software allows users to inspect, modify, and redistribute code to suit their needs rather than being bound by corporate decisions.

One of Ellul’s core concerns was systems becoming so complex that only a tiny elite could understand or control them. Both Bitcoin and open source directly address this through radical transparency. While the technical details may be complex, anyone can verify Bitcoin transactions or review open source code. This transparency shifts power away from central authorities and toward community consensus.

Where traditional technologies often consolidate power in corporate hands, Bitcoin and open source operate through community governance. Bitcoin’s rules emerge from stakeholder consensus rather than shareholder profits. Open source projects often develop through collaborative communities rather than hierarchical corporate structures. This aligns with Ellul’s emphasis on preserving human agency and community autonomy.

Yet tension remains. Ellul critiqued these technologies, which still operate within the technical sphere. They solve problems through technological means and require engagement with complex technical systems. However, they represent a different kind of technology designed to resist rather than enable centralized control.

Perhaps Ellul would recognize a new category of technology in Bitcoin and open source: tools specifically designed to resist the very systems of control he warned about. While still technical, these tools preserve human freedom and agency rather than subordinate them to efficiency or control.

Unlike many modern technologies that simply impose themselves on users, Bitcoin and open source provide options. Users can choose to participate or not, modify the technology to their needs, or reject it entirely. This element of choice and customization preserves what Ellul saw as essential to human freedom.

Technology, the machine (AKA Bitcoin Blockchain), is different from Technique (how we use money). This subtle distinction is the source of enormous misunderstanding about Bitcoin. It is nearly impossible to comprehend Bitcoin without understanding all the ways we use money. One of my favorite books is Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber. In it, David points out that some of man’s first writings were clay tablets depicting a debt ledger.

Some say capitalism was born during the Industrial Revolution. The Luddites in England were not protesting the machine (technology) as much as they were protesting the change from home based work in weaving cloth to factory based work. They were protesting the technique, “how” we made cloth, and efficiency at the cost of humanity.

Ellul states, “Capitalism did not create our world; machines did.” Capitalism was a reaction to the disorder and chaos brought about by the machines of the 1900s.

Like a machine, it promotes efficiency at the expense of humanity. Capitalism is a technique born of technology. Like the technology that created it, it does not consider human values; only efficiency matters.

“The machine could not integrate itself into 19th-century society; technique integrated it.” Jacques Ellul

While integrated but distinct components, a machine is a factory robot, a computer, or a steam engine; these are limited in what they can do and are tools designed for a limited purpose. A Technique Is an abstraction that was borne out of the machine prioritizing efficiency for its own sake, often at the expense of humanity. These result in Processes, Methods, Ideologies, and Bureaucracy.

Historically, the machinery of money has been precious metals, weighed and measured, structured politically, and leveraged into a technique for controlling the populace.

Bitcoin represents a new money technology borne out of the human value of honesty. Nobody can exert control over anyone else using money. The machinery of Bitcoin is the Blockchain, which was developed by men. It is voluntary; nobody mandates that it be used, supporting autonomous decision-making concerning trade and commerce.

The evolution of the blockchain supporting Bitcoin requires human involvement and social agreement. Governance involves human deliberation, and community values influence development.

Unlike the impersonal, cold machine (technology) or the colder and more brutal technique of financialization of the dollar, Bitcoin is a blend of the best of human values with the efficiency of technology. (OK, still cheerleading)

From this understanding comes the phrase, “ Fix the money — Fix the world. “ The technology behind Bitcoin changes the technique by which we use money.

Not enough can be said about this aspect in the difference in technique driven by Bitcoin. Books have been written about this simple aspect, “The Price of Tomorrow, “ “Broken Money,” “Bitcoin Money You Can’t F*%* with,” “The Bitcoin Standard,” and “The Bitcoin Dollar,” just to name a few.

Moving society from a world where financialization efficiency focuses on extracting an ever-increasing wealth from a limited debt-based economically bound populace. To one where things get less expensive and decreasing income can buy more goods and services. However, the significant change is not in how much one can purchase or accumulate because, in a deflationary world, value creation takes precedence over the accumulation of wealth. Jeff Booth describes this well in his book The Price of Tomorrow.

While Ellul might still worry about our increasing dependence on technical systems, Bitcoin and open source suggest that technology can be designed to serve human freedom rather than constrain it. They demonstrate that resistance is possible within the technical sphere- we can create tools that disperse rather than concentrate power, that enable rather than restrict human choice.

Going forward, the challenge may be to recognize this distinction: between technologies that concentrate power and distribute it, between systems that standardize behavior, and those that enable customization. In Bitcoin and open source, we see the emergence of a new category: resistance technologies that serve human freedom even while operating within the technical sphere.

These tools remind us that technology’s relationship with human freedom isn’t predetermined. Through thoughtful design and community governance, we can create technical systems that support rather than suppress human agency and resistance to centralized control.

Whether Ellul would fully embrace these technologies remains an open question. Still, they suggest that resistance to technical domination can be achieved through technical means-a paradox he might have appreciated as a resistance fighter himself.