anarchism as aesthetic tool
at some point in the past century, anarchism became unrecognizable — not because its core ideas changed, but because of what it began to represent. the internet played a major role in this transformation. on one hand, it gave people access to radical political thought in ways that were previously impossible. anarchist theory, history, and organizing became more accessible, allowing many to educate themselves and engage with movements directly. but at the same time, the internet also became a breeding ground for misinformation, romanticization, and distortion — so much so that even people who identify as anarchists sometimes operate under an understanding of the ideology that is detached from its historical roots.
misrepresentation of anarchism isn’t new. from the late 19th century onward, anarchists were demonized in media and political discourse as violent, bomb-throwing nihilists whose only goal was destruction. this portrayal wasn’t accidental — it served the interests of the ruling class, who feared the growing anarchist movement and sought to discredit it. this depiction evolved over time, but its core remained the same. in the 20th and 21st centuries, anarchism became a cultural shorthand for rebellion, anarchy-as-chaos. whether it was bands, films, or comic book, “anarchism” was used as a visual and thematic tool, stripped of its politics. mainstream media, largely controlled by corporations and neoliberal interests, constructed an image of anarchism that was both unappealing to the general public (as something reckless and destructive) and appealing to teenagers looking for an edgy, countercultural identity. and when those teenagers grew up, they were expected to grow out of it ,just as they grew out of their old music tastes and fashion choices. this was part of a broader historical trend of neutralizing political ideologies by turning them into commodified, temporary aesthetics. the more anarchism was presented as chaos rather than a structured critique of hierarchy and power, the easier it was to dismiss as childish idealism.
the idea of anarchism as a vague, aesthetic rebellion paved the way for something even more insidious: the emergence of so-called “anarcho-capitalism.” at first glance, ancap appears to be just another branch of anarchist thought, one that replaces state control with free-market absolutism. but under scrutiny, it becomes clear that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism at all—it is a complete rejection of anarchism’core principles, rebranded as something radical. anarchism has always been explicitly leftist. it originated as a movement opposed to all forms of hierarchy—whether enforced by the state, capitalism, or other institutionalized power structures. classical anarchist thinkers like bakunin, kropotkin, and malatesta saw capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with freedom because it creates economic hierarchies that are just as coercive as state power, if not more so. anarcho-capitalism, however, attempts to remove the state while keeping capitalism intact. this is a contradiction in terms: capitalism requires structures of enforcement — whether in the form of private security, corporate monopolies, or contractual coercion — to function. historically, we have never seen a capitalist system sustain itself without a state apparatus maintaining property rights, regulating markets, and controlling labor. even the most commonly cited “stateless” historical societies, such as medieval iceland, eventually developed concentrated power structures that led to social collapse or external rule.
many of the people who identify as ancaps are, in reality, libertarians or neoliberals who want to strip away regulations while maintaining existing economic inequalities. their vision of “anarchy” is about shifting power away from governments and into the hands of private entities, which would create a system just as, if not more, oppressive than the one we have now. this is why anarcho-capitalism often attracts reactionary elements: its rhetoric appeals to those who want to justify extreme individualism, economic elitism, and unchecked corporate control under the guise of radicalism. if anarchism is a rejection of all unjust hierarchies, then capitalism — an economic system built on inequality and exploitation — cannot coexist with it.
some defenders of anarcho-capitalism argue that hierarchy is only bad when it’s enforced by coercion and that private property and free markets allow for voluntary interactions. however, this ignores the fact that economic power is coercive. if someone owns all the land, housing, and resources in a given area, those without property are forced to work under the conditions set by property owners in order to survive. the absence of a state does not mean the absence of coercion — it just shifts control from a centralized government to a decentralized class of wealthy elites.
others claim that anarchism should not be inherently leftist and that opposition to capitalism is an unnecessary addition to anarchist thought. but history does not support this claim. every major anarchist movement has been anti-capitalist. right-wing attempts to separate anarchism from its socialist roots are revisionist at best and dishonest at worst.
none of this is to say that anarchism can’t be expressed aesthetically. there is something inherently cathartic about anarchy as a countercultural force — whether through art, music, or symbolism. many people, myself included, engage with anarchist imagery and aesthetics because it resonates with a desire for rebellion and liberation. but it’s important to recognize that without a deeper political grounding, anarchy as an aesthetic can easily become hollow.
if anarchism is to be taken seriously, it needs to be reclaimed, not just from the media’s cartoonish depictions, but from those who attempt to redefine it in ways that contradict its very essence.