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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Totally agree - the work we need to do now is the same for both anarchists and communists. We also have the same end goal in mind.
There are interesting ideas to pull from each ideology, and I just wanted to push back on a blanket dismissal of anarchism.
Thanks for the discussion, I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
Sure that's fair, and definitely agree that it is worth learning from each other to make the left more effective as a whole. For what it's worth, I am rather partial to ideas from anarcho-syndicalism, and I think it's absolutely the correct way to organize labor.