Warning: Slight spoilers

First off, in my opinion, The Matrix: Resurrections is probably one of the best sequels I've ever seen. The way it simultaneously feels like a loving return and embrace of the original trilogy, while also being an intense deconstructionist is fantastic.

However, in addition, a key theme of the film is how revolutionary struggle is commodified by the oppressors as a way to placate the masses. In the film, Neo, now back inside the Matrix, has had his past as a revolutionary hero - all his exploits and feats in defeating The Matrix and the Machines - rewritten in his memory to be the plot of a video game trilogy he was the creator of. The program itself has turned his fight and struggle into a product, a fiction, that now imprisons Neo. He is even being forced by his boss at his company to dredge up the Matrix IP and make a forth game, despite thinking doing so feels diluted and pointless. The villain in the film goes on to describe how this sheen of revolution, of progress, that the games have, is intentionally used to give the people trapped inside the matrix at false sense of hope and entertainment, all while keeping their unaware minds in control. I think Lana Wachowski chose to very overtly set the film in San Fransisco, amid the capitalist, controlling class world of the Silicon Valley tech/video game industry.

I highly recommend you all go see this new film, especially if you're a fan of the original. It continues the story in an incredibly creative way that feels like an antithesis to the glut of cinematic universes and IP products fed through the film industry in the last 20 years. Not to mention it's still fun as hell and full of great style and action.

Also, if you're interested, on the podcast I do with my friend, we covered the trans-revolutionary politics of the original trilogy in last weeks episode and the episode we put out today, so check that out if you want: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6m4X8kWbVbyucC5QM1hQgk https://open.spotify.com/episode/2mdoEvOHnxgya3CovXcgT5

It's just hard, because I know the people I'm referring to are generally good, empathetic people who care about social justice. They just have unfortunately had their consent manufactured in favor of these pro-imperial/US talking points. They genuinely think there's a humanitarian crisis and that China is killing a minority. They simply just don't realize everywhere they're being informed by is steeping in anti-communist, right wing sources vying to create propaganda.

It's honestly so much easier dealing with a shitty reactionary than a liberal who simply doesn't recognize their own biases. And you trying to reveal said propaganda to them comes off as you being a heartless freak trying to justify some terrible act, no matter how legitimate your proof against said narrative is.

Like, what if I am wrong? Idk, sometimes it just feels like I must be, because I'm so outside the narrative. For instance, people trying to justify Israel's treatment of Palestine is complete BS to me, so isn't that how my defense of China sounds to said liberal? I just get worried sometimes that I'm the one brainwashed and on the wrong side of history. I don't want to be the bad guy, I'm just trying to do what I beleive to be right. But isn't that how every shitty side in history feels?

This has been a topic on my mind a lot recently, but I've been afraid of asking it here since I thought I would be being accused of/banned for being sectarian. While I am more on the ML side of things, I really have no qualms or issues with Anarchists and mostly consider our political differences insignificant in the face of global capitalism as it is now. In my eyes, we're a long way off from the reality of needing to debate how a new society will be structured/governed, so, at the end of the day, whether someone is anarchist or ML is not really a major issue to me. As long as they're against the current status quo and understand the need from change, they're cool by me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that feels like the prevailing belief, in so many words, I've seen other MLs express as well. However, it feels like the majority of sectarianism I've seen pop up is always Anarchist accusing MLs and communists of being as bad as fascists, or supporting genocide, or being evil, etc. I feel I never see it the other way around. At the most, MLs just tease and rib anarchists, but don't view them as evil or reactionary, as some Anarchists see to view MLs. I'm basing this off of things I've seen/experienced online, and from IRL friends who consider themselves anarchists, but who've recently started espousing anti-communist talking points (ie: using the word tankie, saying communist dictators are/were as bad as fascists, etc.)

So why does it seem to come to this most of the time: Anarchists more often being unwilling to work with MLs and accusing them of being fascists, and not the other way around? Is this just a flawed perception on my part? A bias or point of propaganda I've had seep in and need to try and overcome? Is it a valid observation? If so, why does it play out like this?

I'm really sorry if this is still considered sectarian. I really just wanted to express these feelings/observations and seek input/correction from others on them, rather than bottle them up and potentially form prejudices. As mentioned, I personally don't have issues with others having different beliefs among the left, as long as they're fighting capitalism and imperialism, and being supportive of their fellow, diverse comrades.

EDIT: I just wanted to thank everyone who's commented for their thoughtful responses. You've given me a lot to think about, both in challenges to my bias observations/experiences, and in explanations more clearly articulated and knowledgeable than what I understood. Thanks for understanding my intent and keeping it civil.

(I swear didn't watch it I just scrubbed through it please don't take me to the gulag)

EDIT: Link, in case you have an hour and forty minutes and hate yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7aWz8q_IM4