The promotion of anarchism within capitalist media, coupled with the suppression of Marxist thought, is damning evidence against anarchism as viable opposition to capitalist hegemony. In fact, the two happen to be perfectly compatible. Meanwhile, history demonstrates time and again that revolutions require centralized authority to dismantle oppressive systems. Capitalism tolerates anarchism precisely because it poses no systemic threat, while revolutionary movements succeed only by embracing disciplined, organized force.
Capitalist media platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime glorify anarchist individualism with shows like Money Heist and The Umbrella Academy while demonizing Marxist collectivism. The narratives in the media fetishize lone rebels “fighting the system” through symbolic acts such as heists or sabotage that never threaten the core machinery of the system. By contrast, media vilifies Marxist movements as “authoritarian” as seen in The Hunger Games’ critique of collective resistance vs. glorification of individual heroism. Anarchism’s rejection of centralized power also neatly aligns with neoliberalism’s war on institutional solidarity. Capitalist elites amplify anarchism precisely because it atomizes dissent into spectacle, ensuring resistance remains fragmented and impotent. If anarchism actually threatened capital, it would be censored as fiercely as Marxism.
The reality of the situation is that every effective society of meaningful scale, be it capitalist or socialist, relies on centralized power. Capitalist states enforce property rights, monetary policy, and corporate monopolies through institutions like central banks, militaries, police, and courts. Amazon’'s logistics empire, the Federal Reserve’s control over currency, and NATO’s geopolitical dominance all depend on rigid hierarchies. On the other hand, anarchists refuse to acknowledge that dismantling capitalism requires confronting its centralized power structures with equal organizational force.
What anarchists fail to acknowledge is that revolutions are authoritarian by their very nature. To overthrow a ruling class, the oppressed must organize into a cohesive force capable of seizing and wielding power. The Bolsheviks built a vanguard party to crush counterrevolutionaries and nationalize industry in order to dismantle the Tsarist regime. Mao’s Red Army imposed discipline to expel bourgeoisie and landlords. Engels acknowledged this reality saying that a revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon.
Rejecting this authority ensures that a movement becomes irrelevant in the long run. The Spanish anarchists of 1936, despite initial successes, were crushed by fascists because they lacked centralized coordination. Modern “autonomous zones” such as CHAZ dissolve quickly, as they cannot defend against state violence or organize production.
Anarchism’s fatal flaw is its lack of a cohesive vision. It splinters into countless factions such as eco-anarchists, insurrectionists, anprims, mutualists, and so on. Each one prioritizes disparate goals of degrowth, anti-work, anti-civ, etc., that are often at odds with one another. Movements like Occupy with their “leaderless” structure are effortlessly dispersed by the state. By contrast, capitalist states execute power with singular purpose of ensuring profit accumulation in the hands of the oligarchs. Marxist movements, too, succeed through unified strategy as articulated by Lenin in What Is to Be Done? where he prioritized a centralized party precisely to avoid anarchist-style disarray. The capitalist ruling class understands perfectly well that it is easier to crush a hundred squabbling collectives than a single disciplined force. Hence why anarchism becomes a sanctioned form of dissent that never coalesces into material threat.
Meanwhile, revolutions demand the use of authority as a tool for the oppressed to defeat capitalism. Serious movements must embrace the discipline capitalists fear most. The kind of discipline that builds states, expropriates billionaires, and silences reactionaries.
Excellent post. Its def striking that anarchism’s “propaganda of the deed” non-solution to society’s problems is becoming mainstream in a lot of modern media (v for vendetta is another example). Fidel has this to say:
Did you and your followers use terrorism, for example, against Batista’s forces? Or assassinations?
Neither terrorism nor assassinations. You know, we were against Batista but we never tried to assassinate him, and we could have done it. He was vulnerable—it was much harder to fight against his army in the mountains [than to kill him], much harder to try to take a fortress that was defended by a regiment. How many men were there in the Moncada barracks that 26 July 1953? Almost 1,000 men, maybe more.
Preparing an attack against Batista and killing him was ten or twenty times easier, but we never did that. Has tyrannicide ever served to make a revolution? Nothing changes in the objective conditions that engender a tyranny. The men who attacked the Moncada fortress could have assassinated Batista on his farm, or on the road, the way Trujillo and other tyrants were killed, but we had a very clear idea: assassination does not solve the problem. They’ll put someone else in the place of the man you killed, and the man you killed becomes a martyr to his people. The inadvisability of assassination is an old idea, arrived at and incorporated into revolutionary doctrine a long time ago.
I’d also like to add aimixin’s post on why anarchism is not a socialist ideology:
u/aimixin - originally from r/GenZhou
No, anarchism isn’t just “fuck all the rules”, it’s a whole ideology and it’s riddled with nonsense and contradictions.Anarchists like to put themselves on the same side as socialists, yet anarchism is fundamentally is not a socialist ideology. Socialism is based on the socialization of production, which is something anarchists reject. They are very individualist and view society as oppressive to the individual and want to break up society into small independent units.
A wide gulf separates socialism from anarchism, and it is in vain that the agents-provocateurs of the secret police and the news paper lackeys of reactionary governments pretend that this gulf does not exist. The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer.
– Vladimir Lenin, Socialism and Anarchism
Anarchists are more concerned with morality than actual concrete reality. They have the liberal mindset that the political and economic system is merely a reflection of the beliefs and ideas of that society and has no connection to the society’s material conditions, and therefore to change a political or economic system, all that is necessary is changing people’s ideas.
Because of this, they think building a utopia merely requires imagining that utopia in your head and convincing everyone else of it, and by extension, any country that has failed to achieve a utopia has only done so due to a moral failing on their part. They think the reason every single socialist experiment failed to achieve some imagined utopia is because of moral corruption, that the leadership was just evil and immoral.
They extend this idea not to just the leaders of those countries, but anyone who supports those countries. If you defend any actually-existing socialist country, they will assume you must only do so because you are morally inferior, they will accuse you of being an “evil tankie” and whatever other insult they can imagine to try and attack your character, rather than your arguments, because in their mind, they don’t believe you believe what you believe due to good arguments. They believe you believe what you believe due to a moral failing.
Let’s stop talking in generalities and take a look at a very concrete example: economics. Going back to Smith’s LTV, we understand how capitalist economies are capable of, to some degree, balancing resources to convert the supply into the goods and services demanded, and how market pressures push companies into buying and selling roughly at cost of production. A planned economy can also balance resources because, in principle, they would have access to the information and computational power needed to directly calculate costs of production and allocate resources efficiently to achieve similar, and with sufficient infrastructure and technology, even better, results.
Many anarchists will propose some economic system outside of markets and economic planning, what they call the “gift economy”. They don’t propose this system because they arrived at it objectively through a rigorous analysis of the development of capitalism as Marxists arrive at their understanding, no, they propose it because it sounds morally good to them.
The problem is, a gift economy fundamentally has no way to balance resources. If I could take whatever I want without expectation of returning sufficient materials, you would inevitably have huge shortages in the economy.
Shortages are avoided in market systems by requiring direct recuperation of cost upon consumption (payment), while centrally planned systems may recuperate cost immediately, but since they are centrally planned, resources from one sector can be allocated towards another, i.e. health care could be provided free at the point of service but funded by another sector of the economy, and it would balance out, because planning is centralized and able to do such a thing.
A gift economy lacks both of these features. It has no planning capabilities nor any market capabilities to regulate consumption of resources. It’s not that economic calculation can’t be done, it’s that in a gift economy, economic calculation never even takes place. Once you begin to introduce any sort of mechanism for economic calculation, you inevitably end up with either a market system or a planned economy. The only way economic calculation could be done away with entirely is if we had a post-scarcity society, i.e. the conditions to achieve full communism, which obviously doesn’t exist.
Of course, this is just one example. Anarchists believe in many things and not all believe in gift economies, but it’s an example of something many anarchists fundamentally believe in purely on moral grounds despite it being nonsense economically.
Anarchism is fundamentally based in decentralization which plenty of Marxists such as Friedrich Engels and Che Guevara already criticized this concept as nonsensical and pointed out how decentralized production is the basis for capitalism and will inevitably return to capitalism.
Anarchism is an incredibly self-contradictory ideology that fundamentally is based in morality without any concerns for concrete reality. It’s concerned with trying to force reality to fit into an idealized utopia rather than deriving answers from concrete reality itself. Political and economic systems are not in our heads, they’re in the real, material world, and they have to operate and maintain complex social relations and modes of production. You can’t build a political and economic system based on morality any more than you can build a smartphone based on morality.
Thanks, and very much agree with this. Idealism and individualism are very much the basis for anarchist thinking, and this is precisely what puts anarchism at odds with Marxism while making it perfectly compatible with liberalism. Both liberals and anarchists reject material analysis in favor of moral arguments.
Thanks for your post, really good thought-food!
In fact, the two happen to be perfectly compatible.
If you reduce “anarchism” to “ultimate individual freedom”, I would say your analysis is correct because capitalism shares this tenet, and one could say that what differentiates anarchism from capitalism is just the rejection of any emergence of centralisation whereas capitalist put no predicates on that.
Another way to say that is:
- Capitalism encourages the system to adopt positive feedback loop (increasing efficiency).
- Anarchism wants (but don’t know how to do it) the system to adopt negative feedback loop (regulate, but then, isn’t that a form of power?).
And what authoritarism has to do with that? I would say it comes to the fact that directive leadership is more efficient than participative leadership when I say “efficient” I mean, it is “fast” to go through problem -> solution -> execution.
On the other hand, participative leadership have overhead, but their outcomes tend to be more sustainable because they are capable of working on complex problems, but even there there is still a notion of control / authority because you must ensure a collective converges to a solution, and then you must have enough authority to enforce its execution.
This is something really easy to understand for me, working on distributed systems: when you pool huge amount of resources over the network, those can work on really large problem space (e.g. genetics, climate, …), but they have a significant overhead:
- In consensus algorithm, each participating member must allocate a part of their resources to the said consensus algorithm.
- In other systems, you have an elected member that is the “leader” or the “coordinator” checking everyone is healthy.
- And then sometimes you even have hybrid, where you have a group of members being “coordinators” and themselves using a consensus algorithm to decide who leads at any given time.
Capitalism is naturally biased towards directive leadership because of economism short-termism and its sacrosanct performance (i.e. GDP, growth, KPIs, …). Today, it is evident their system is not sustainable, it was already evident socially, but planetary limits are making that even more obvious in the short-term.
So it is evident the world will change (or a massive part of humanity will perish).
Where I am, personally, heading to is the idea that society is a Complex Adaptive System where authority will always emerge in a shape or another (centralised vs. polycentric), hence the idea of removing authority makes no sense, instead, we should acknowledge authority is part of society and it is up to us to shape it in a way that serves us.
An authoritative state with a planned economy would almost always fail at large scale on the long run, even with enough computing power to allocate resources, because the essential problem is that society is a CAS: how to model society and the economy in a correct way that accounts for unknown unknowns?
On the other end, the culture of the free market and idea that, because this is a Complex Adaptive System, we should not try to control it because a sustainable system will emerge is also pure BS; we see today the result of that socially and environmentally: we have put humanity into an existential polycrisis.
So if both “control” and “freedom” are a failure, it leaves us with a single option: “steering”. That is, the authority must not take a single permanent shape, instead it must use resilience thinking to evolve through time to be sustainable.
In my view, centralised authority only makes sense when we are in the top-right region of the quadrant where dimensions are
(emergency; simple problem).Revolution is an example of that, the problem is simple: we need to seize power because reform don’t work; and we likely want to do it as soon as possible. Existential crisis are another example, let’s take war, the threat may be imminent and the problem is simple (economy of war, mass mobilisation, …); but you take climate change, the problem is imminent at the scale of humanity but the problem is complex so do we really want a centralised authority? How to make sure it takes decisions that are actually effective?
Where things get really interesting is how to structure authority in the other regions of the quadrant. And that’s where I am really excited because if you are young as me, you will probably face and live the collapse of neoliberalism, which means, you will also likely be able to contribute to a new model that may span some generations (hopefully it can be sustainable for humanity on the long run).
My stance on that is to accept humanity as a CAS, and realise that the more you scale the “scope” (regions, nations, continent, humanity as a whole, …) the more unpredictable and uncontrollable it is. Like, ask any politician aware of the neoliberalism madness, and he will just be genuinely clueless on how to stop the world wide machine.
Hence, I personally see the goal of any centralised power in place (whether revolutionary or not) to shift towards a polycentric authority during stable / peaceful times.
Of course that implies a first important step that is the establishment of a strong shared ethos that will draw the “boundaries” by which all power centres abide by and take a truly holistic approach (social-ecological system thinking, not just economic). The other key is the empowerment of individuals, once you created those “boundaries” (which one may call the “social contract”), if individuals are given clear boundaries, they can engage in positive deviance where they know the limits but also understand why those limits exist to protect the collective.
Another important part of resilience thinking when it comes to distributed systems, is the ability for members to “monitor” their neighbours and ensure they are well-behaving. This implies “transparency” and I think digital is key there, if information flows freely amongst power centers, it becomes easy for power centers to monitor each other and quickly terminate any misbehaving members.
At the end of the day, I don’t know if my vision can be “classified” into any given ideology, but I personally don’t see authority as something in a finite state. Just like water ends up boiling and turns into vapour when it gets heated but condense back to liquid otherwise, authority will adapt to its environment. When this environment is still (peaceful and stable), I personally argue polycentric governance is the ideal equilibrium for humanity.
Generally agree with the analysis. One thing I’d like to add is that central authority is not inherently at odds with decentralization at local level consider. The human body, we have a central planning authority which is the brain, but it doesn’t micromanage the operation of the body as whole. It doesn’t directly control muscle contractions, the digestive system, etc. It does high level planning that ensures the survival of the organism as a whole and provides a central coordination mechanism to guide collective action. Meanwhile, local concerns are handled by individual organs in a way that makes sense in their local context. In fact, we can view a complex organism as an ecosystem or a collective of different organisms all living in symbiosis with each other.
Interestingly enough, Chinese model follows a very similar principle. This is a great read about the mix of central planning at high level and decentralized decision making at local level that China settled on. For example, Chinese system uses markets as a tool for resource allocation, but where resources should be allocated is decided by the government.
The second thing that’s worth noting is that when power structures emerge organically there aren’t checks in balances in place to ensure these structures are fair. It’s better to consciously create power structures than let them evolve in ad hoc fashion. The Tyranny of Structurelessness is a great read on the subject.
Is this an original work? I thought it was very good
Thanks, those are my own thoughts on the subject.
Your thoughts show that your knowledge on anarchism is fairly lacking.
What an amazing counterpoint.
There have been thousands of counterpoint to the same notion and you knew that if you ever engaged with anything about anarchism that wasn’t written 150 years ago by not anarchists.
What I do know is the material historical evidence of what anarchists achieved in over a century and how anarchism is very clearly being used as a roach motel for leftists in the west.
Nah, if you knew anything about “the material historical evidence of what anarchists achieved in over a century” than this post wouldn’t have born.
The second part i can agree with but the counter to that is actually educating yourself about anarchism, not slander.
The historical evidence is clear, anarchism is not capable of challenging capitalist state power. There are no examples of this happening in over a century of anarchists peddling their ideology. That’s why this post was born. Meanwhile, the fact that anarchism is so easily coopted by liberal media while the same cannot be done with Marxism says everything anybody with a functioning brain needs to know.
I think that the glorification of individualism can also be explained by the neoliberal dogma that swept through the world. I don’t think most capitalists know and think about the system in the way you describe it. Could the results of neoliberal individualism be functionally equivalent?
Certainly, and this aspect of neoliberal ideology happens to be compatible with anarchism, or at least in a way it is portrayed by liberal media.
- Anarchism as portrayed by the media is a bad source for anarchist’s actual beliefs. Animal Farm shouldn’t be used to decide what communists believe. Capitalism twists both ideologies.
- Communism and anarchism both believe in building collective power outside of the existing state. They’ll disagree on verbage, but they also generally agree on the structure of a post-revolutionary society. Disagreement is primarily limited to “what is the best path from here to there?”
- The action needed now for both is getting people organized, and I think we should start by doing that under the banner of anti-capitalism. Once we have enough collective power, we can talk about where we throw our weight.
Personally, I like that anarchism starts by instilling post-revolution values in people (collective agency), and I think that will necessarily lead to a better world. On the other hand, I’ve found it’s easier to sell someone on the vision of communism, since it’s a smaller step from the existing structure of society.
Ultimately, there are strengths and weaknesses of each, and I think we should view every project as an experiment to learn from, and not just shit on each other.
China is doing great, but I think there are valid criticisms to be made about allowing seeds of capitalist power.
The Zapatistas are doing great in Mexico, but don’t have the power of a centralized state to direct resources.
What do you hope to gain by saying “anarchism bad”? To me, it seems like it’s distracting from the real work of getting people organized.
Sure, the way the media portrays anarchism is a distortion. However, the fact that it is promoted in any fashion is a clear indication that it is not seen as a threat. Otherwise, it would also be demonized the way Marxism is with the likes of propaganda such as Animal Farm.
The disagreement is largely around methods of organization, as Lenin puts it
Meanwhile, Zapatistas are very much not doing great in Mexico:
- https://apnews.com/article/mexico-indigenous-zapatista-rebels-violence-04006895dc4bd430b4b957d459551a12
- https://radiozapatista.org/?p=46648&lang=en
What I actually said, was that Anarchism does not provide a path towards effective resistance against capitalism, and that it is easily coopted by capitalist media. What I’m hoping is that at least some people will consider the points I made and start focusing on proven and effective methods of organizing instead.
The narratives in the media fetishize lone rebels “fighting the system” through symbolic acts such as heists or sabotage that never threaten the core machinery of the system.
This isn’t a portrayal of anarchism. Anarchism is not a bunch of lone wolves, and it is not a system with no rules or organization.
I haven’t seen all the shows you mentioned - are the characters explicitly called anarchists? Tbh it seems like you don’t understand anarchism and are incorrectly attributing things to it.
I agree that media fetishizes individualism, but a much more plausible explanation is that doing so promotes Great Man theory, which is used as justification for capitalists hoarding wealth.
Meanwhile, Zapatistas are very much not doing great in Mexico
Changing the organizational structure to try solving problems their people are facing seems like a feature, not a bug.
start focusing on proven and effective methods of organizing instead
What methods are those, and how do they differ from the organizing that anarchists do?
Some of the shows explicitly mention anarchism, many very much imply it. Also, I never suggested that the media does an honest portrayal of anarchism, merely that it is seen as an acceptable rebel phase for kids to go through.
Changing the organizational structure to try solving problems their people are facing seems like a feature, not a bug.
Retrenching is not a sign of things going well, meanwhile you might want to think a bit why they’re moving away from flat power structures towards a more centralized approach.
What methods are those, and how do they differ from the organizing that anarchists do?
The methods that have been used by Marxists to successfully organized movements that overthrew capitalism. They differ from what anarchists do in having a unified vision and a professional vanguard.
Agree that retrenching isn’t a sign of things going well, but surely you also agree that there are material conditions outside of the control of the Zapatistas that influence things not going well? E.g. drug cartels a problem in many parts of Mexico.
The new Zapatista structure is more decentralized, pushing more power to local centers: https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/
The organization of those local centers into larger federations is where communism and anarchism start structurally looking the same. The primary difference is that anarchists promote bottom up organizations, and communists tend to advocate for more centralized power.
The methods that have been used by Marxists to successfully organized movements that overthrew capitalism. They differ from what anarchists do in having a unified vision and a professional vanguard.
Yes, anarchists don’t organize around a vanguard party taking control of the existing state. Honestly, I think that’s a bad thing to organize around.
Going on strike has historically been the best way to get concessions in the workplace, but union organizers don’t organize around going on strike. Workplace organizing is listening to people’s needs, giving support and reassurance, and empowering folks to apply the existing power they have to get concessions (even if they start small). Ideally, a workplace never actually goes on strike, and management realizes the workers hold all the power and concedes.
To me, that parallels broader political organization in two ways:
- Most folks are unlikely to actually engage in a movement based on a high-risk action that requires a not-yet-reached critical mass
- With collective pressure applied effectively, concessions can be won without violence (though there are obviously limits to what porky will give up without a fight)
Regular folks want their own specific needs met, and do not care about a professional vanguard. You can try to convince them that they should care, or you can just work on meeting their needs (even if you start small). And that means not having a unified vision beyond “organize people and empower them to make their lives better.” That may involve a vanguard party at some point, but only when it becomes a practical tool for improving people’s lives.
… Anyway. I’m sure you’re not convinced, and that’s fine. I hope we can agree that both approaches have merit as ways of improving people’s lives, even if we disagree on which is more effective in doing so.
Agree that retrenching isn’t a sign of things going well, but surely you also agree that there are material conditions outside of the control of the Zapatistas that influence things not going well? E.g. drug cartels a problem in many parts of Mexico.
Are you suggesting Zapatistas face more challenges than communists did in Vietnam or Cuba? The difference is that Zapatistas do not have the aim of liberating all of Mexico or overthrowing capitalism.
The new Zapatista structure is more decentralized, pushing more power to local centers
As you point out next, the structure has become more hierarchical with the local centers being organized by ZAG. This is a similar structure to the one Soviets had after the revolution as well.
The organization of those local centers into larger federations is where communism and anarchism start structurally looking the same. The primary difference is that anarchists promote bottom up organizations, and communists tend to advocate for more centralized power.
Communists advocate for centralized power at high level in order to have a coherent vision and to coordinate action. It’s very much not at odds with decentralized power at the bottom. In fact, this is a great article which explains how Chinese system relies on grassroots power and local decision making. What we’re seeing here is that they’re converging on similar types of power structures to the ones communists consider to be necessary.
Yes, anarchists don’t organize around a vanguard party taking control of the existing state. Honestly, I think that’s a bad thing to organize around.
Communists do not organize to take control over the existing state. They organize to tear down the existing state structures built by the capital owning class, and build new structures by and for the workers. This is precisely what allows communists to actually defend the revolution going forward.
Going on strike has historically been the best way to get concessions in the workplace, but union organizers don’t organize around going on strike. Workplace organizing is listening to people’s needs, giving support and reassurance, and empowering folks to apply the existing power they have to get concessions (even if they start small). Ideally, a workplace never actually goes on strike, and management realizes the workers hold all the power and concedes.
All of these actions are done within the context of the existing capitalist system and are coping mechanism. They do not lead to liberation on their own. Of course, unionizing helps build worker discipline, and teaches people to work together producing militant labor that has potential to be organized by a vanguard and liberate itself.
Regular folks want their own specific needs met, and do not care about a professional vanguard.
You’re discussing this as if it was some abstract debate where we don’t have multiple concrete examples of this approach working in practice already.
Anyway. I’m sure you’re not convinced, and that’s fine. I hope we can agree that both approaches have merit as ways of improving people’s lives, even if we disagree on which is more effective in doing so.
We can agree that both approaches aim to improve people lives, but the effectiveness of each approach is not an abstract discussion. We have over a century of history that should be studied in order to inform the methods that should be used going forward.
they’re converging on similar types of power structures to the ones communists consider to be necessary
Yes, and anarchists consider them necessary too. We have the same end goal in mind.
Anarchists talk about “prefiguration”, building the new power structures in the shell of the old, and that’s what we’re seeing with the Zapatistas. They have post-revolutionary power structures now, without first dismantling capitalism.
That’s what I find appealing about anarchism - focusing on organizing people and building the new world now, in your community, in whatever ways you can.
Communism ultimately aims for an eventual withering away of the state, and anarchism aims to move there more directly.
unionizing helps build worker discipline, and teaches people to work together producing militant labor that has potential to be organized by a vanguard and liberate itself.
I brought up unionizing just to discuss organizing in general - most people don’t join a union because they want to go on strike, they join because they have needs. They stay engaged if they see the union make progress in addressing their needs.
Similarly, most people don’t want communism because they want to form a vanguard party, they want communism because they’re suffering under capitalism. They stay engaged if they can see communism make progress in lessening their suffering.
We’re not at a point where we need a vanguard party to organize unions for their own liberation, since the unions don’t have enough power (in the US).
We’re at a point where we need to get people organized at all, and the best way to do that is to start making their lives tangibly better.
That’s what I find appealing about anarchism - focusing on organizing people and building the new world now, in your community, in whatever ways you can.
I don’t see how that’s exclusive to anarchism, communists do the exact same thing and that’s a prerequisite for having any sort of a revolution. The difference is that communists organize with this greater goal in mind and they accept the necessary power structures from the start. That’s why communists have managed to achieve many successful revolutions around the world.
We’re at a point where we need to get people organized at all, and the best way to do that is to start making their lives tangibly better.
Sure, the west is no where close to a revolutionary moment right now, and any kind of organizing is ultimately better than no organizing. We can agree on that.
The promotion of anarchism within capitalist media, coupled with the suppression of Marxist thought, is damning evidence against anarchism as viable opposition to capitalist hegemony.
Over here capitalist media and state media are the same outlet and never in my life i’ve seen them promoting anarchism. They don’t even mention anarchists as such unless when it’s useful to portrait “anarchism” under bad light, they are usually referred to “extremists” or “antagonists”.
Meanwhile, history demonstrates time and again that revolutions require centralized authority to dismantle oppressive systems.
This sound like a generalization that isn’t necessarily true and one could argue that replacing an oppressive system with another is no revolution at all.
Capitalism tolerates anarchism precisely because it poses no systemic threat
I’m not sure where you live, in pretty much every country in the world self thought is discouraged and education is rooted in conformism.
while revolutionary movements succeed only by embracing disciplined, organized force.
Discipline and organization are not dependent on a central authority. State media is working hard in making sure you don’t hear about success from “others”.
I literally provided concrete examples of shows doing just that. There are plenty of other examples such as Mr. Robot or V for Vendetta. Some are more subtle than others, but the message is always that resisting authority should be done by lone rebels, and loose self organizing groups. Some shows name anarchism explicitly, others merely imply it.
This sound like a generalization that isn’t necessarily true and one could argue that replacing an oppressive system with another is no revolution at all.
That’s a nonsensical statement that only somebody whose material needs are met could blather. The reality is that anarchists have nothing to show in over a century, while Marxists have run many successful revolutions. Each and every time the standard of living, literacy, and life expectancy, all shot up dramatically. The quality of life immediately improves after socialism is established, and the fact that you can’t see value in that shows that you are a deeply unserious person.
I’m not sure where you live, in pretty much every country in the world self thought is discouraged and education is rooted in conformism.
Yet, the material conditions and capitalist exploitation breed discontent despite whatever education people are exposed to. Anarchism and anti-authoritarianism are used as release valves to funnel this discontent away from serious organizing that might challenge the system.
Discipline and organization are not dependent on a central authority. State media is working hard in making sure you don’t hear about success from “others”.
They are in fact dependent on central authority as history clearly shows. There is a reason why militaries aren’t organized as federated best effort types of outfits. Meanwhile, there are no successes for state media to avoid reporting on. That’s the reality.
I literally provided concrete examples of shows doing just that. There are plenty of other examples such as Mr. Robot or V for Vendetta. Some are more subtle than others, but the message is always that resisting authority should be done by lone rebels, and loose self organizing groups. Some shows name anarchism explicitly, others merely imply it.
The examples you provided are fictional movies popular for their alternative plot. If you are interested in anarchism read authors like Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Bakunin or Kropotkin. “Anarchism” is not a football team, saying anarchists have nothing to show in over a century sounds like a misinterpretation of anarchism and an insufficient knowledge of history.
Anarchism and anti-authoritarianism are used as release valves to funnel this discontent away from serious organizing that might challenge the system.
Organization does not imply authority or rulers. Authoritarian organizations can be used as a release valve too and one could argue they are easier to manipulate and control.
They are in fact dependent on central authority as history clearly shows.
A person can have discipline and be organized without a general or ruler.
That’s the reality.
I’ve been banned and censored before from this sub and lemmy.ml simply for challenging the narrative. I’m not going to reply here any further. You are welcome discussing authority in a less authoritarian sub where none of us will be silenced.
Not to butt my head in, but you did ask for examples of anarchism being pushed in western media, and when Yogthos replied with several examples, you took issue with the fact that they were works of fiction. The fiction was the point Yogthos was making, though, fictional narratives within liberal society include anarchist messaging, but largely not Marxist. I think you were misunderstanding Yogthos’ point from the beginning.
The rest of your comment is largely saying that horizontal organization is a thing that can exist and has existed, and I’m not trying to argue against that (though I do believe centralized systems are not only natural but necessary, and must be studied so as to master them democratically and equitably), my point is more related to the point on fiction.
I would like to know what you are trying to hint at when discussing a “non-authoritarian” community, presumably one without moderation, ie a matrix chat of some sort or something would probably do the trick.
There’s nothing against central systems in anarchism, only against central_ized_ ones.
I agree, anarchism is very unlikely to affect any meaningful change. It probably won’t be able to get the critical mass necessary to do things since most anarchists are the laisez-faire type (in the sense they will not “force feed” your ideology - they’ll just tell you it exists and what it is and leave it up to you to decide, NOT in the capitalism sense).
Is that good? Depends on your outlook. It’s always a good defense to let people decide for themselves, but how big of a reason is this for “the anarchist failure”?
The real problem with leftists is the unending infighting. Disagreements on a non-fundamental level have caused many movements to fall into obscurity, and whenever a revolution did happen, it was always an auth-type that got rid of the anarchist types through underhanded means.
Call this wishful thinking, but: It’s only a matter of time until a positive velvet revolution happens with no real ideologue leader that will be based on intelectualism rather than a personality cult and authoritarianism.
Frequently the auth-types took over the means of power by stabbing the anarchists in the back (eg. Stalin).
A revolution, while requiring guns, requires an incredible mass of people from all walks of life to happen - the current means of government must be unworkable for at least a quarter of the population and the vast majority needs to be at least indifferent to the change.
Central organising is a concern, but anarchism isn’t opposed to its very idea, it’s opposed to running the central aspects with an iron fist.
Since that causes silly problems like people desagreeing, the bane of any movement which, if it wants to be successful, absolutely has to get shit done as opposed to endlessly polemicising about meaningless details. Having a meaningful arbitrable solution is a good way to deal with that.
About the media: I agree, western propaganda is bad. But, you have to know this little fact: much of the propaganda (western or otherwise) isn’t created as propaganda - it isn’t created by someone woth the explicit goal of “I have to paint xy as good and z as bad”. Most of it is indoctrinated people creating something they like and want to create. Any such creation follows from the creator’s material conditions, including their outlook on life, which is shaped by propaganda they themselves consumed.
Essentially, Hollywood is a giant echo chamber. The US is. Any other society is, as well. It just depends on how strong the echo isself is - does it die down immidiately or does one sound create an undying cacophony?
While there are pieces of target-created propaganda coming out of Hollywood, I dare say that most are, in fact, unintended propaganda - people come up with stories they like, think up some “what-ifs”, a plot, heroes, villians and conflicts.
With the US being as individualist as it is, no wonder that the vast majority of heroes are solo players, not even fanatical members of an organization. They’re almost always painted in this US-ian individualist manner becuase the artist is a product of the US culture, mentality and media. Hiwever, the same applies to any other place.
A notable counterexample is the priest - be him good or bad, he’s not a “solo player” - he’s always a member of his church and acts accordingly, which isn’t the result of the church’s unending current effort to propagandize all priests as members of a highly hierarchical organization - they did that a long time ago, and it’s paying dividends even now: people know priests to be just “a cog in the machine”.
As the saying goes: don’t attribute to malice what you can to stupidity or ignorance.
Manufactured consent is a hell of a drug.
Typed up on mobile, please forgive any sausage finger induced typos.
There are a few premises here that are false, but form the basis of your analysis.
-
Marxists come to power by “stabbing Anarchists in the back.” This hasn’t been true, historically. Marxists gain popular support on their own merit, conflicts with Anarchists are secondary to that movement, and frequently the Anarchists work with the Marxists.
-
“Non-authoritarian” revolution is possible. This right here is anti-Materialist. We do not need to “wait for the good ones” to lead a revolution. Revolution around the world faces similar struggles, and all governments are “authoritarian,” revolutionary ones included. “Authoritarianism” is a buzzword that doesn’t mean anything, what matters is which class is in power and which class is being represented. Even Anarchist revolutions are slandered as “authoritarian,” all cases will involve once class asserting its authority over others.
-
Anarchists only oppose “authoritarian” centralism. This isn’t true. Anarchists tend to support limited hierarchy at most, if Anarchists supported beyond that then they would likely be Marxists. The core difference between the two is in centralization vs decentralization, Marxists believe Centralization is not only natural but necessary, and must be studied so that it can be democratic and equitable. Anarchists believe decentralization is the only way to prevent the notion that “power corrupts.” An Anarchist okay with a central government and public planning, etc is adopting generally conflicting stances.
In the end, any revolution that is successful will be slandered as “auth.” If it lasts more than a few years, you’ll find that the revolution has crushed the Capitalist dissent and managed to fortify itself from internal and external threats. Rather than decry this basic and essential process, we must study it to become more effective so as to minimize the excess that comes from ineffective practice.
-
Me if i knew nothing about anarchism
Bolsheviks are betrayers of the working class Remember Kronstadt, traitor
Kronstadt started the 1917 revolution. The Kronstadt uprising the Bolsheviks put down was in 1921. Do you honestly think that the Kronstadt sailors who fired the first shots of the revolution were still just chilling in Kronstadt four years later? In the midst of a bloody civil war, with all of the imperialist forces of Europe and America landing troops in the former Russian Empire and supplying the reactionary White forces, do you think that’s the time to stab the Red Army in the back and create an opening for reactionary forces to crush the revolution and reimpose capitalist rule?
Do you also cry for the CIA-backed (check the recently declassified archives) Hungarian nazi collaborators (who perpetrated violent pogroms against the remaining Jewish population of Hungary during their color revolution) that Khruschev’s forces crushed? Do you weep for the
(check the recently declassified archives)
JFK Files Reveal CIA Role in the 1956 Hungarian Uprising: The tankies were right
That doesnt reveal shit. Hungarian Freedom Fighters is/was an NGO in the US formed AFTER 1956.
Yeah, there isn’t really a huge amount of evidence for CIA involvement in 1956. MI6 involvement seems a bit more likely, but the evidence is barely better, and even if they were involved, it’s pretty clear that the uprising was native in character (i.e. Kruschev in internal meetings referred to socio-economic issues as the cause, the MI6 guy says the uprising itself was a result of other events, and CIA documents like CIA-RDP60-00594A000100090005-2.pdf refer to it as spontaneous, and indicate they were caught off-guard, with only one Hungarian officer).
The antisemitic pogroms and ‘fascistic elements’ are probably real and were widely reported on, and it’s a lot better of a rebuttal to Hungarian revolution arguments. The number of deaths that resulted is relatively low too, even the suppression of small communist uprisings like the Jeju uprising involved several times as many deaths, without even mentioning the extremes like the Jakarta method. Of course any amount of death is bad, and it should’ve been stopped pre-emptively and peacefully (e.g. reducing economic austerity, less de-Stalinization), but Kruschev was leading.
“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956). This pretty decent writeup by a Hexbear goes over some details and gives more quotes.
The legality of the invasion is dubious at best, but that’s in many ways beyond the point. The UN didn’t rule on it thanks to the USSR’s veto, and because the Suez crisis was ongoing at that very moment, weakening any Western claim to the legal/moral high ground. The people uprising did attack Soviet troops that were already occupying Hungary, but that’s a pretty weak self-defense argument. And the USSR did kinda use force against Hungary’s political independence, a violation of the UN charter (of which both parties were a member). Again, it doesn’t really matter, I don’t think people really care if an invasion is legal or not.
The antisemitic pogroms and ‘fascistic elements’ are probably real and were widely reported on, and it’s a lot better of a rebuttal to Hungarian revolution arguments. The number of deaths that resulted is relatively low too, even the suppression of small communist uprisings like the Jeju uprising involved several times as many deaths, without even mentioning the extremes like the Jakarta method. Of course any amount of death is bad, and it should’ve been stopped pre-emptively and peacefully (e.g. reducing economic austerity, less de-Stalinization), but Kruschev was leading.
The reason of the pogroms not having as many victims is simple: They were heavily marginalized in the movement (as i also point out in the post you linked), which was mostly dominated by communists who wanted less soviet influence on hungarian domestic politics. There were workers patrols going around districts with houses marked for pogroms to protect them. Most of the people rising then hated fascists more then they hated the Rákosi regime and they were adamant that they are not looking to reestablish capitalist property relations. This is never mentioned by people like Aptheker.
Sorry, I don’t get it. I don’t speak American
1 year old account, 0 posts, 6 comments all in this thread
Aí dento gringo arrombado do carai
More like you can’t accept the truth and therefore invent a lie about being an illiterate dumbass
LOL, no. They didn’t get what I meant and you didn’t get what I meant. Much like OP telling bullshit about anarchism out of simple ignorance. Why should I make the effort to explain it all to you if you don’t want to make the effort yourselves? It’s fine, keep going on with your circle-jerking shenanigans. You’re doing a lot for the cause!
Kronstadt
Non-authoritarianly licking the boots of Tsarist generals.
You must be so charming in cocktail parties
what an amazing counterpoint you’ve mustered
No anarchist revolution has ever won
Good to see my left unity comrades ripping the mask off
Sorry, what’s the appropriate response to that high quality comment I was replying to? I made a very basic critique of anarchism after they made a direct accusation of being “traitors”.
That you took exception with the comment and not with the post is already a mask off moment
The post wasn’t made on Hexbear, I assume specifically for complying with the left unity rule. But it’s also a thoughtful critique of anarchism, or at least trying to be - that’s perfectly permissible within left unity. We can criticize each other.
It’s not thoughtful at all, it’s the same uninformed bs regurgitated by sectarian marxists who never ever engaged with anarchist literature at all lest they knew that On Authority is completely misrepresenting anarchist views of revolution, that has been debunked countless of times
It really is a litmus test on whether one is criticising anarchism in good faith whether they take a look at if there was an anarchist response to Engels at all or not (the other is whether one accepts that anarchist revolutions were actually successful on anarchist terms countless of times, just as marxist revolutions were successful on their terms countless of times), because most just assume that the argument ended then and there. I only included three links, but next time y’all are trying to “criticise” anarchists, take at least the minimum effort and write “on authority” in the searchbar of the anarchist library and engage what we are actually saying, not what Engels made up to be mad at.
I gave that first FAQ link a read. I don’t think any serious critique of anarchism as political theory rests on “anarchists want total individualism without any organization” (now, anarchist activists on the other hand do often have that issue). The critique is that the goal anarchists want to achieve - a truly non-hierarchical and voluntary society - can’t be reached in a single step, and hence coercive state mechanisms lead by working-class socialist democracy are a necessary intermediate stage. For example, pulling a Bakunin quote from the piece:
"At the moment of revolution, in the midst of the struggle, there is a natural division of functions according to the aptitude of each, assessed and judged by the collective whole: Some direct and others carry out orders. But no function remains fixed and it will not remain permanently and irrevocably attached to any one person. Hierarchical order and promotion do not exist, so that the executive of yesterday can become the subordinate of tomorrow. No one rises above the others, and if he does rise, it is only to fall back again a moment later, like the waves of the sea forever returning to the salutary level of equality…” [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 414–5]
Here isnthe main issue: the moment of revolution itself creates the new world, the new order of absolute equality and abolition of all hierarchy. This is totally unrealistic - huge swathes of society will still be embedded in hierarchical mindsets. The physical infrastructure and supply lines will depend on uneven distribution of resources and knowledge that can’t be instantly turned over. The operation of industrial society is os so vast and complicated that it can’t simply ve rewritten in a single day - very few people and systems are prepared to so radically change without dramatic decreases in production and output.
The egalitarian society must be constructed through hard work across the whole of society with many opposing classes and groups who do not want to build socialism and will work actively to undermine it. How do you deal with the fascists and capitalists who will scheme to tear down the new society and restore their old exploitative privileges? How does the moment of revolution change them such that they cannot carry out those goals? You need capacity to repress those people.
And the ideas of the masses will still be influenced by the old capitalist order, so we must also do the hard work of convincing billions people to live in accordance with free and equal association, which takes a constant and improving demonstration that socialism is worth building and fighting for. What will you do if after the revolution, 40% of people just don’t want to live that way? Will you give up, because it would take the exertion of authority to advance society? I hope not, or the gains of the revolution are wasted.
And of course, what if the revolution doesn’t sweep the whole world all at once? How will you defend your revolution from the massive military machines of the imperialists, which wield their coercive and exploitative systems as an industrial holocaust against you?
I know these aren’t new questions to anarchists, so please direct me to the standing answers.
the other is whether one accepts that anarchist revolutions were actually successful on anarchist terms countless of times
Ok, I’m genuinely not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you give some examples?
unity with other Marxists. Unity with opportunists and ultras leads nowhere but the hole.
Yeah sure
Don’t worry, when anarchist revolution does win we’ll invite you over to snort Lenin’s ashes
The historical record shows that hell is more likely to freeze over so 💅
We can think of something sooner if you’re that eager to see my Pokémon plushies. Relax, friend
I’m sure y’all gonna have a successful revolution right after China’s economy collapses.
I would gladly switch to anarchism if your revolution manages to win instead of being crushed by capitalists.
I would gladly switch to communism if you wouldn’t threaten fellow workers with death. That’s what anarchists would get in the past for fighting alongside the reds. Do you plan to keep that odious tradition? When the time comes, will you drive your red State over the bodies of former comrades? Because, yes, anarchists do in fact fight. I would fight. OP claims anarchism is about passivity, but that’s just ignorance. The difference between us is that you plan to stop fighting when the capitalists are gone. Anarchists will keep fighting until all States are gone.
Anarchists will keep fighting until all States are gone.
How, through anarchist mandatory conscription? And with what tanks, missiles, aircraft, drones, and intelligence-gathering satellites are you going to fight every capitalist/imperialist state until they’re swept away? Are they going to be built through voluntary collectivism?
Tanks are easy to get! First you have to befriend a tank manufacturer…
Your belligerence comforts me, actually. It tells me you’re not that far from the reactionaries I’m used to fight against everyday. I know good communists, nice communists. You’re not. You’re just a warmonger.
So you have no answers for how anarchists would deal with the realities of siege socialism[1][2], should you ever actually win?
I know good communists, nice communists. You’re not. You’re just a warmonger.
Didn’t you just say that you wanted to fight until all states were gone? But now I’m the warmonger? Make up your mind.
Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Pure Socialism vs. Siege Socialism ↩︎
The socialist state is a necessity to survive against capitalist onslaught, and wanting to dismantle it before capitalism is crushed is suicidal behaviour. How would anarchists deal with the Entente intervention or Nazi Germany or USA?
If history repeats itself, then I guess we’d have to survive being betrayed and executed by communists first, huh? Do you see what I’m trying to tell you? Sure, have it your way, build your shiny Soviet State. I will even support it (while you refrain from bashing proletariat heads in). And after the revolution triumphs and capitalism is over, do you swear your commissars and supreme leaders won’t find another boogeyman to rally their armies against? Marx himself wrote socialism is supposed to be temporary, a passage that would enable us to reach actual communism, a stateless society— or did I get that wrong too? ‘Cause if you think that can never happen, that all we can aspire to is the socialist state, then we’re wasting each other’s time and we cannot reconcile. I stand by what I said earlier: the difference between us seems to be that you will cease to fight when capitalism is over, and I won’t until power abuse goes on.
Yeah, communists don’t like it, when you attack socialist states, and will strike back.
And after capitalism is over - it will be time for getting rid of the state, and what will be needed for it, will be seen at the time. Maybe it will wither away voluntarily, maybe it will be smashed in an another revolution.
Ok that would be really cool, I hope we can skip straight to full communism. You get to work.
You bet 💃
