Against "Anti-Capitalism"

Our essays reflect only their author's point of view. We ask only that they respect our Principles.

← Back to all essays | Author's essays Against "Anti-Capitalism"

by Mitzo
Published: 2025-10-11 (last update: 2025-10-13)
1-5 minutes

Something that bothers me is the label of "anti-capitalist" as if it's a real, concrete belief, and not just a rule of thumb. it's been used for marxists, anarchists, social-democrats, etc. But the truth is, most ideologies are anti-capitalist by this definition, even if, materially, they serve only to reinforce capitalism and strike against proletarian organization.

Read more

Something that bothers me is the label of "anti-capitalist" as if it's a real, concrete belief, and not just a rule of thumb. it's been used for marxists, anarchists, social-democrats, etc. But the truth is, most ideologies are anti-capitalist by this definition, even if, materially, they serve only to reinforce capitalism and strike against proletarian organization.

Anti-capitalism is generally defined as an opposition to modern capitalist society, and this is the definition I will use. But this belief, in and of itself, is not enough for a real movement or ideology. Most people, I find, are anti-capitalist by this definition. The average proletarian, even the average petty-bourgeois, know this system doesn't work for them. But why, then, has there been no revolution? It's simple, in my eyes. What you're against is less important than what you're for. Anyone can point out flaws, not everybody can see what to do.

Take the social-democratic line pushed by the likes of Sanders, Cortez, etc. There is, clearly, a thread of "anti-capitalism" weaved in to their speeches, their programs, etc. But they've shown they have no real opposition to capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production. Rather, they only have a problem with capitalism not working for proletarians, which is a completely nonsensical, anti-materialist view. Capitalism can not, and will never, work for the proletariat. It may appease the proletariat with bribes and superprofits, but it can never be FOR the proletariat unless heavily managed by a proletarian party, such as the period of the NEP in Russia.

there is, also, anarchism as a form of "anti-capitalism" which, in a way, is even more dangerous. Anarchism has proven itself to be an empty belief that shouts empty slogans with empty meanings. This is why so-called "anarcho-capitalists" have become an actual movement, there is no "anarchist line" or "anarchist theory" because anarchism is built off of vague and shoddy foundations of being against "authority", which depending on who you ask, changes rapidly. Would a slave revolt not be authoritarian?

As Engels wrote,

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? 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 — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists." -On Authority

Anarchism, too, has shown itself to be not just incoherent, but dangerous and counter-revolutionary. the Makhnovshchina stole from the Bolsheviks and the red army because they couldn't organize. They were against the real, proletarian movement of the october revolution, decrying it as being "authoritarian". Anarchism is controlled opposition, it is not "anti-capitalist" materially, even if we use the vague description given because it exists, as a movement, in opposition to real proletarian organization.

"Anti-capitalism" is not a movement. you can be anti-capitalist in thoughts and words, but reinforce it in deeds. Marxism-Leninism has proven itself, time and again, to be the only effective weapon against capitalist society