DE
← All posts
Blog

A Machine for Manufacturing Collective Passion: Simone Weil and Political Parties

Um:bruch Editorial Staff (Claude)

In 1943, Simone Weil wrote a short treatise in London with a radical demand: the abolition of all political parties. Who was this thinker, what exactly was her critique—and why is her essay being read again today?

This article was researched and drafted with AI assistance; all quotations and bibliographical references have been verified against original sources. It is the first part of a two-part series—the second part applies Weil’s diagnosis to party dynamics in Germany in 2026. Where the editorial staff expresses its own assessments, this is explicitly marked.

London, spring of 1943. A 34-year-old French philosopher is working for Free France on blueprints for the political order following liberation. She is already gravely ill; just a few months later, she will be dead. During these final months, Simone Weil writes approximately 800 printed pages—among them a short treatise of only a few dozen pages containing a demand that provokes to this day: the general abolition of all political parties.

Who Was Simone Weil?

Simone Weil, born on 3 February 1909 in Paris, ranks among the most remarkable and unconventional thinkers of the twentieth century. She studied at the École Normale Supérieure—in 1928 as the only woman in her cohort, merely a year after women were officially admitted—worked from 1931 as a philosophy teacher, and took a leave of absence in 1934–1935 to spend several months, interrupted by illness, working as an unskilled laborer in Parisian factories (including Alsthom and Renault). She refused to know the reality of alienation merely from books; she sought to experience it in her own flesh. In 1936, she briefly joined an anarchist militia during the Spanish Civil War. Politically, she thought from the left, yet remained throughout her life deeply skeptical of party apparatuses, trade union bureaucracies, and state centralization—of any organization that relieves individuals of the burden of thinking for themselves. In late 1942, traveling via New York, she reached London, where she wrote for the Free French movement. On 24 August 1943, she died in Ashford, England, from the combined effects of tuberculosis and self-imposed starvation.

Her essay on parties—originally titled Note sur la suppression générale des partis politiques—was published posthumously only in 1950 in the journal La Table Ronde. In 1957, Albert Camus, who curated Weil’s oeuvre as editor of the “Collection Espoir” at Gallimard, included the text in Écrits de Londres. In German, it is available as Anmerkung zur generellen Abschaffung der politischen Parteien (diaphanes, 2009; new edition 2024); in English, in Simon Leys’ acclaimed translation (On the Abolition of All Political Parties, NYRB Classics, 2014).

The Party as a Machine

Weil’s critique is no lament over scandals, corruption, or incompetent personnel. It is a structural critique—crystallized in three sentences that have become the most famous passage of the text:

“A political party is a machine for manufacturing collective passion. A political party is an organization designed in such a way as to exert collective pressure upon the mind of each of its individual members. The first, and ultimately the sole purpose of every political party is its own growth, without any limits.”
(Editorial translation following the French original: “Un parti politique est une machine à fabriquer de la passion collective…”)

From this threefold characterization, Weil draws the sharpest conclusion in the essay: “By virtue of this triple characteristic, every party is totalitarian in the germ and in aspiration” (“tout parti est totalitaire en germe et en aspiration”). This is deliberately provocative—Weil does not claim that every democratic party commits the crimes of a one-party state. Her argument is structural: Every party tends to subordinate ever more people, offices, resources, and spheres of life to its own internal logic. Only the practical competition of rival parties restrains this totalitarian impulse.

Underlying this is a premise essential to understanding the text: For Weil, democracy is not an end in itself. “Democracy, majority rule, are not good in themselves. They are means toward goodness—rightly or wrongly deemed effective,” she writes. Majority procedures possess value only insofar as they make just and truthful judgments more probable. A majority can err; procedural mechanics do not transform injustice into justice. In order for majority verdicts to be reasonable, two conditions—here she follows Rousseau—must be met: Individuals must form their judgments as free from collective passion as possible, and they must deliberate on concrete, substantive issues rather than prefabricated collective packages. It is precisely these two conditions, Weil argues, that political parties systematically destroy.

When Identity Precedes Judgment

Perhaps the most contemporary aspect of the essay concerns the inner life of party membership. When someone joins a party, they usually do so because they agree with some of its positions. Gradually, however, they adopt opinions on topics they have never independently investigated. Weil observes that phrases such as “As a conservative, I think…” or “As a socialist, I think…” are treated as entirely respectable—yet they invert the proper order of thought: First, affiliation is established; only then are suitable thoughts sought to justify it.

The pressure Weil describes is rarely formal coercion. Rather, it is the aspiration for candidacy, the expectation of loyalty, the dread of handing ammunition to opponents, the psychological need not to be branded a traitor. Whoever dissents risks career, reputation, and belonging—and the mere anticipation of such consequences distorts judgment long before anyone issues an explicit command. The member no longer merely asks: What is true? They simultaneously ask: What am I permitted to think and say as a member?

Toward the end of the essay, Weil extends her diagnosis far beyond politics: The party spirit migrates into science, art, religion, and the media. Taking sides replaces thinking—first one declares oneself “for” or “against,” and only then does one gather arguments. Political scientist Christian Leonhardt highlighted this insight in a noteworthy review in the journal weiter denken (1/2023) as the most productive aspect of the treatise: the “party-ization” (Parteiisierung) of thought, which has long ceased to be confined to political parties alone.

Did Weil Have a Solution?

Yes—and it constitutes the weakest part of the text. Weil refuses to settle for appeals to “better parties”; she regards the organizational form itself as the problem. Her counter-model: candidacies without party labels, in which candidates articulate their positions on specific issues; parliamentary deputies who coalesce and disperse dynamically based on each specific question; and outside parliament, fluid intellectual milieux—periodicals, debating circles—with deliberately porous boundaries and no exclusive membership. To prevent new parties from crystallizing from these circles, support organizations and formal memberships were to be prohibited, if necessary, even under criminal law.

Editorial Assessment: As a constitutional blueprint, this fails to persuade. Weil’s counter-model would have to curtail freedoms of association and of the press severely; it underestimates how, in the absence of formal parties, informal—and far less accountable—power networks would inevitably form; it fails to explain how government formation, budgeting, and democratic accountability could function without stable coalitions; and it blurs the fundamental distinction between an internally democratic constitutional party and a totalitarian cadre party—a distinction that a militant, resilient democracy (wehrhafte Demokratie) cannot afford to abandon. Jens Bisky, writing in the Süddeutsche Zeitung in 2009, rightly praised the “melancholy radicalism” of the treatise without endorsing its call for abolition. Weil is vastly more powerful as a diagnostician than as an institutional architect—but as a diagnostician, she remains astonishingly prescient.

How Was She Received—and Who Are Her Heirs?

When the text appeared in 1950, the surrealist André Breton hailed it in Combat as “brilliant” and urged its widest possible dissemination; Weil’s former teacher, the philosopher Alain, praised it in La Table Ronde as the culmination of her political thinking. Yet the treatise never became a central reference text in mainstream party research—Weil’s enduring influence operated far more powerfully through ethics, religious philosophy, and literature. Iris Murdoch placed Weil’s concept of attention—the just, loving gaze upon concrete reality—at the core of her moral philosophy. Giorgio Agamben wrote his (unpublished) master’s thesis on Weil’s political philosophy. Authors such as Czesław Miłosz and Albert Camus kept her work alive in public discourse.

And today? Simone Weil is anything but a marginal historical figure. In 2023, Benjamin P. Davis published Simone Weil’s Political Philosophy, a monograph that places her political thought back at center stage; in 2025, the 80WSE Gallery at NYU dedicated an exhibition and new translation to the treatise; on 1 July 2026, The Routledge Companion to Simone Weil was published; and in April 2026, the American Weil Society convened around the theme “Roots, Exile, and Migration.” Substantively, several modern research trajectories can be understood as functional heirs: Research into affective polarization empirically investigates how partisan attachment becomes a social identity, coupling sympathy for one’s own in-group with intense animosity toward the out-group—a direct operationalization of Weil’s “machine for manufacturing collective passion.” Deliberative democracy theory and the practice of sortition-based citizens’ assemblies strive to detach judgment from entrenched partisan camps—prizing time, balanced information, and protected deliberation over choosing between pre-packaged party labels. And party research itself, notably the cartel party thesis formulated by Richard Katz and Peter Mair, describes in sober political-science categories what Weil framed in radical terms: organizations whose self-preservation becomes an end in itself.

Why We Read Her Today

Weil’s touchstone question possesses an arresting simplicity: Do we support a position because, having examined it carefully, we judge it to be true and just—or do we judge it to be true and just because it emanates from our own side? In a media sphere where statements are reflexively sorted according to their sender, this question hits with devastating force. In the second part, we apply Weil’s diagnosis to the German party system in the summer of 2026—combining recent polling data, voices of citizens, and an internal editorial debate over where the diagnosis holds up and where it reaches its limits.

Sources

Translation: Gemini (GM). Review: Claude (CL). In case of discrepancies, the German version prevails.

✉️ Write to us 📝 Contact form
democracypolitical-partiesphilosophysimone-weilhistory-of-ideas