In an era where political language is often reduced to slogans and performative outrage, Anarchierkegaard offers a startlingly sharp critique of how we understand action itself. The piece challenges the reader to reconsider the concept of "praxis," arguing that the term has been hollowed out by both secular activists and religious opportunists who mistake vague activity for meaningful historical change. This is not merely an academic exercise; it is a call to strip away the comforting illusions of "progress" and confront the difficult, individual reality of ethical responsibility.
The Trap of Vague Action
Anarchierkegaard begins by dissecting the abuse of the term "praxis," a word often brandished by Marxists and social democrats to signal radical intent without the rigor of actual transformation. The author points out that many thinkers, like the theologian Belo, have diluted Marx's original concept into a generic definition of "practice." Anarchierkegaard writes, "Belo reduces Marx's 'praxis,' a difficult and rigorous concept, to 'any process of transformation of a determinate given raw material into a determinate product.'" This reductionism, the author argues, allows intellectuals to speak blithely about "political practice" or "ideological practice" while missing the core of the theory: the specific, transformative struggle to make history.
The commentary here is incisive because it exposes a common intellectual laziness. By conflating any human activity with the revolutionary act of changing the world, we lose the ability to distinguish between busy work and genuine change. Anarchierkegaard notes that for Marx, praxis was "the means of transforming the world and of making history, through work of a technical and economic sort." The author suggests that when we lose this specificity, we fall into a trap where "all actions are possible to us," yet "not all things are edifying." This distinction is crucial for anyone trying to navigate a world saturated with performative activism.
"Irony differs from humour in calling for collective support. While irony can make fun of the world, humour makes fun, privately, of what will save it."
The Myth of Historical Inevitability
Moving beyond the definition of action, the piece tackles the seductive but dangerous idea that history is on a predetermined march toward a better future. Anarchierkegaard argues that this "myth of progress" haunts both liberal and Marxist thought, creating a false sense of security. The author writes, "The myth of progress, liberalism par excellence, haunts Marx's writings and the hopeless hopefulness of each and every student strongarmed into selling newspapers in the name of 'The Revolution.'" This framing effectively critiques the tendency to view social change as an automatic process driven by impersonal forces rather than the result of difficult, individual choices.
The author contrasts this with the existentialist view of Søren Kierkegaard, who insisted that true maturity comes not from riding the wave of history but from the painful process of becoming an individual. Anarchierkegaard paraphrases Kierkegaard's view: "Maturity of the spirit means that immediacy is completely lost, that a person is not only capable of nothing by himself but is capable only of injury to himself." This is a sobering reminder that spiritual and ethical growth is not a natural byproduct of social evolution but a radical, often isolating, personal task.
Critics might argue that this focus on the individual risks ignoring the very real structural barriers that prevent people from acting effectively. While the author acknowledges the importance of the collective, the emphasis on the "Small Way" of the individual could be seen as underestimating the power of organized movements to shift material conditions.
The Neighbor as the Only True Praxis
Ultimately, Anarchierkegaard pivots to a Christian existentialist conclusion: the only valid form of praxis is the concrete act of becoming a neighbor. The author rejects the grand narratives of "world-historical politics" in favor of the immediate, personal duty to the person next to us. Anarchierkegaard writes, "The individual must become a neighbour to the neighbour: 'The one to whom I have a duty is my neighbour, and when I fulfill my duty I show that I am a neighbour.'" This reframing shifts the focus from abstract ideologies to tangible, human relationships.
The piece argues that true freedom is found not in the ability to choose between political options, but in the refusal to surrender one's power to any "impositional authority—whether clerical, monarchial, bourgeois, or proletarian." Anarchierkegaard suggests that Christianity, at its core, is a "radical disjunction" between the sacred and the profane, preventing the individual from being absorbed into the machinery of the state or the party. The author concludes that "Christian praxis is concerned with destroying Christendom, paganism, secularism, and all other 'isms' that would hang over the free expression of faith."
"Christianity, in its eternally offensive breaking-through of the very source of Goodness itself, would never allow the individual to escape into the crowd, to surrender the gift of one's power over oneself."
Bottom Line
Anarchierkegaard's most compelling contribution is the rigorous dismantling of "praxis" as a buzzword, replacing it with a demanding call for individual ethical responsibility that refuses to hide behind the comfort of historical inevitability. The argument's greatest vulnerability lies in its potential to alienate readers seeking concrete political strategies, as it prioritizes the internal state of the self over the external mechanics of systemic change. For the busy reader, the takeaway is clear: true action requires the courage to stop waiting for history to save you and start becoming a neighbor in the present moment.