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.
Ok, you’re raising solid points. I’m not going to pretend anarchism doesn’t have issues it needs to address. But I think the framing here misses what’s actually going on.
First off, the “anarchism” being promoted by capitalist media isn’t anarchism. It’s depoliticized rebellion. Aestheticized lone-wolf heists and symbolic sabotage that don’t touch capitalism’s foundations. It’s the same way capitalism promotes “feminism” as buying more stuff or “environmentalism” as using paper straws. Real anarchism (collective organization, mutual aid, dismantling hierarchy) gets either ignored or crushed. If anarchism really was compatible with capital, you’d see Amazon Prime making shows about federated workers seizing factories and abolishing landlords. Weirdly, they don’t.
Second, yea, revolutions need discipline, organization, and the ability to defend themselves. But the choice isn't "be organized or be anarchist." Real anarchists know this. The Spanish CNT had armies. The Makhnovists in Ukraine fought off both the Whites and the Reds. Rojava exists today under constant siege because they take organization seriously without surrendering to top-down hierarchy. Discipline doesn't have to mean centralizing power into a new ruling elite. That just recreates the same shit under new colors.
And sure, anarchism has a lot of tendencies and disagreements. So what? Diversity isn't the problem. Capitalism is hyper-centralized and still constantly fractured by crisis and competition. It's not fragmentation that kills movements, it’s lack of strategy, material support, and the overwhelming violence of the state. Saying “anarchism failed because it’s messy” ignores how much raw force is thrown at making sure it fails.
Honestly, history shows centralized “revolutionary” states usually end up as new oppressive regimes. You can seize power in the name of the people and still end up building gulags and secret police. Anarchists aren’t in denial about the need for revolutionary force. We’re in denial about handing that force over to a new class of rulers.
My bottom line is: the answer to anarchism’s problems isn’t “become authoritarian but with good intentions.” It’s building better ways to organize collective power; horizontally, democratically, and with real teeth when necessary. That’s way harder than just copying capitalist hierarchies, but in my honest opinion it’s the only thing actually worth fighting for.
Sure, but the very fact that the ideology can be easily coopted by capitalist media is damning all of itself. Notice that it's not possible to do with Marxism because it clearly identifies both the problems within capitalism and the effective way to fight against this system. Hence why Marxism is demonoized while Anarchism is repurposed.
Except that it demonstrably doesn't. Claiming that socialist states such as USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, or Laos are in any way comparable to capitalist ones is simply false equivalence.
It is a problem when you're trying to resist a well organized centralized system.
Lack of strategy, material support, and so on are all symptoms of fragmentation and lack of common vision, and shared support structures. Meanwhile, Marxists have time and again shown that it is very much possible to overcome state violence.
History shows the opposite of that.
Anarchists are in denial of effective methods for a revolutionary force, and hence why Anarchists have little to show aside from rhetoric in the past century.
The fact that you think Marxists merely copy capitalist hierarchies shows the profound ignorance on your part regarding the subject you're attempting to debate.
Marxism has been repurposed as well, in a more sophisticated way, through the Frankfurt School and the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism
The difference here is that Marxism has a clear and consistent theory behind it. Things like Frankfurt School and Congress for Cultural Freedom are less repurposing of Marxism as an attempt to drive people away from Marxism. The problem with Anarchism is that there is no consistent theory in place, it's a bunch of different ideologies that are loosely similar. Furthermore, authority being seen as a negative and something to be avoided ensures that anybody can claim to be an anarchist and simply doing anarchism their own way. It's a fundamentally atomized movement.