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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A person can have discipline and be organized without a general or ruler.
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.