Want to hear more from the actors and creators of your favorite shows and films? Subscribe to The Cinema Spot on YouTube for all of our upcoming interviews!
Disappointment abounds even further with HBO’s second episode of The Anarchists. Recalling the end of the previous episode with Lily Forester’s critique of Anarchapulco, The Anarchists Episode Two falls flat.
Plot Synopsis
This episode primarily revolves around two points; redubbing of Anarchapulco to Cryptopulco and the rise of cryptocurrency and its place within the anarcho-capitalist community, and the “forking” of Anarchapulco by Lily Forester and her partner, John Galton as a way of protesting and critiquing the Anarchapulco which, according to Forester, is being organized and run by people who only claim to be anarchists or are completely new to anarchism.
From Anarchapulco to Cryptopulco
Anarcho-capitalism, according to Jeff Berwick and company, is the hatred of the central banking system and the state which created and reinforces it. This episode of The Anarchists adds another layer to the ancap trifle: amassing wealth. Nathan Freeman, at the start of this documentary, said his objective is to help people become filthy rich. With this episode centering primarily on the popularity of cryptocurrency among the Anarchapulco community, we are shown how different ancaps such as Nathan Freeman and Lisa Forester, and John Galton used cryptocurrency in Acapulco.
Before proceeding any further, what is cryptocurrency? At its most basic definition, it is a decentralized system of monies generated and circulated outside of the central banking system. While there are many different kinds of cryptocurrency, the one that is most popular with the ancaps of Anarchapulco and in the mainstream is Bitcoin, which was created by the enigmatic person or persons, Satoshi Nakamoto. Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin specifically, to Berwick’s Anarchapulco community is believed to be the silver bullet to the big bad state and its central banking systems.
According to Juan Gault, “Bitcoin is an attempt to separate money and state, kind of like how the separation of church and state was a kind of pivotal change in human history. Fundamentally, it’s a limit on political will and political power” (11:15). Gault’s definition of the cryptocurrency is followed by a clip of JB saying, “Once enough people are using it we will get rid of most poverty on earth, all wars will end, all big governments will go away. We’re on the cusp of it right now” (11:25).
Now, as many of us know now, the cryptocurrency market has taken a hit but let’s not get into that at this moment because it is neither here nor there. As an anarchist, I can appreciate Gault’s perspective on Bitcoin as a type of currency that is untouchable and near untraceable by the state and the central banking system. There is something intrinsically cool about a currency that can be used in any state. However, the issue with Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining is that it is not something that is accessible to people who do not already have the tools and resources to do so. Ultimately, this only supports my assertion on the “pay to play” nature of anarcho-capitalism.
With cryptocurrency becoming so big within the ancap community in Acapulco, the conference is redubbed from Anarcapulco to Crytopulco. This leads me to ask, two questions: (1) Why has this documentary been dubbed The Anarchists? (2) Can these hyper-capitalists be considered comrades?
Final Thoughts on This Week’s Episode of The Anarchists: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
I’ve spoken about the division of class before and how anarcho-capitalism highlights the issue, but this was only subtly hinted at in the previous episode. Here, the division between the haves and the have-nots is made clear as day. Let’s return to Berwick’s perspective and faith in cryptocurrency as the silver bullet to the state and the central banking system as well as Freeman’s objective of making all the ancaps at Anarchapulco filthy rich.
For some of the ancaps that managed to buy Bitcoin and sell cash it out at the right time, they became rich. Others, like the owners of Vegan Verde and Lily Forester and her partner, John Galton, either sold it before it was extremely profitable or used everything, they earned along the way to survive. This is where Lily Forester’s critique of Anarchapulco comes back into the fray. So far, hers is the only voice of dissent in the Anarchapulco community. Soon, it is revealed that the Anarchapulco conference is being conducted in a top-down manner, with Berwick and Freeman at the top organizing the conference based on who has accumulated the most capital. What this leads to is an alternate anarchist capitalist conference organized and hosted by Forester and her partner, Galton, which leads to their ostracization from the Anarchapulco community.
Moreover, let’s go back to ask if this can be classified as anarchism. The answer, as a fledgling anarchist, is a hard no. My primary reason for disagreeing lies in Berwick’s faith in cryptocurrency which is extremely misplaced. Berwick asserts that crypto has the power to end all wars, poverty, and all governments. If this was even remotely true, we have to ask how can one acquire enough capital to accomplish this? It would be virtually impossible for anyone who did not already have the means to mine Bitcoin. The creation of the corporate state and the abolishment of the public state could only be accomplished by the already wealthy corporate bourgeois class. This would only deepen the divide between classes by further disempowering the lower and middle classes.
Now, the primary issue I have with this documentary is that HBO continues to call this anarchy and what little critique on this ancap community is only implied. With only two episodes into the series, HBO has done nothing to further explore anarchism, critique its weak points, or offer any pragmatic way to be an anarchist in a statist society. The only thing this documentary has going for it is the messy love triangles, murder (which was hinted at by the last minute of this episode), and the inevitable deterioration of Anarchapulco. Without these things, all The Anarchists is is an inappropriately titled documentary and a flimsy, superficial, and extremely irresponsible exploration of anarchism and what it truly represents.
This article was edited by John Tangalin.