Conventional anti-capitalist movements are cloaked in the guise of Marxism-Leninism; however, particularly on the question of internationalism, pluralistic and contradictory trends can be observed even within the leftist current. In contrast, certain ideas are regaining momentum in recent times, among which anarcho-syndicalism, world socialism, and alternative definitions of internationalism are once again widely discussed. Although both Marxism-Leninism and anarcho-syndicalism emerge with the commitment to establishing an egalitarian society, their strategies, organizational forms and structures, and the realization of internationalism lie at opposite poles. Within this complex backdrop of the working-class struggle, the debate over the framework of the fight against global exploitation is profoundly significant both theoretically and practically—because theoretical errors are not matters to be ignored; rather, they determine what we spend our limited resources and time on, whether we are accelerating genuine anti-capitalist struggle or, under its pseudo-guise, serving bourgeois interests. Therefore, the time has come to consider which of these is correct: Leninist internationalism or the diametrically opposed anarcho-syndicalist struggle. Internationalism essentially has two forms. Working-class internationalism is the theoretical and practical unity, solidarity, and struggle of local and global workers against global capitalism. In contrast, bourgeois internationalism represents the global unity of capitalists and state bureaucrats. The core foundation of Leninist internationalism is built upon the concept of democratic centralism and a strong proletarian party. According to Vladimir Lenin and his followers, a successful struggle against the global capitalist system requires a centralized force led by disciplined, professional revolutionaries who will lead the working class. This current emphasizes global organizations such as international committees or the Communist International to guide the international labor movement, from which a specific ideological and strategic guideline is implemented worldwide. In historical reality, Leninist internationalism places the greatest emphasis on the capture of state power. According to them, the first step of the revolution is to smash the bourgeois state apparatus and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat or a workers' state. However, a major contradiction and limitation of this theory lies right here: the process of societal transformation using the state as a tool frequently leads to the extreme centralization of power. The history of mutual relations or alliances among various so-called socialist countries in the 20th century ultimately became subordinated to state bureaucracy and national interests. Consequently, behind this so-called socialist unity, a global network of state capitalism actually developed, where the true freedom and international solidarity of workers worldwide became secondary, and bureaucratic control took precedence. The international unity spoken of by Leninists ultimately cannot rise above the state apparatus and power politics, which incidentally manifests as a different form or prolonged version of bourgeois internationalism. In contrast, anarcho-syndicalism fundamentally rejects the concepts of centralized power of the state and political parties right from the beginning. According to anarcho-syndicalists, the state is not a neutral institution, and it is impossible to transform society by capturing it, because the state itself is the institutionalized form of any kind of exploitation. Therefore, instead of capturing state power through a political party, they advocate achieving economic and social power through workers' direct workplace-based unions or syndicates. Their internationalism is not guided by any bureaucratic or state directives; rather, it is built upon the spontaneous and decentralized solidarity of working people worldwide. In this current, the international labor movement is conducted through tools such as mutual cooperation, direct struggle, and strikes, free from the control of any central command or political high command. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that no state or state leadership can grant workers their liberation; workers must achieve their liberation themselves. Consequently, their internationalism is entirely free from the confines of the bourgeois state or state capitalism. It seeks not merely a transfer of power, but the destruction of the power structure itself. Leninists believe that a steel-hard state power and centralized leadership are essential to defend the revolution and resist imperialist aggression. Their internationalism is therefore a kind of discipline imposed from top to bottom, where in the name of preserving ideological purity, national and party interests often overshadow global worker interests. On the other hand, anarcho-syndicalists believe that this type of centralized control and the development of state capitalism ultimately destroy the core spirit of the revolution and push workers toward new chains and bureaucratic exploitation. In their view, true internationalism is possible only when state borders and the greed for power are completely erased so that workers worldwide can independently determine their own destiny. Leninist internationalism—which is fundamentally a global network of state capitalism—is, in a true sense, bourgeois internationalism. Just as Marxism-Leninism truncates workers' rights to forge a new form of bourgeois internationalism and drives the world's anti-capitalist struggle into an endless dead end, the necessity of independent and decentralized worker solidarity is simultaneously rising with greater urgency. Therefore, which is the true path to liberation—change from above through the capture of state power, or spontaneous revolution from below by shattering the structures of state and power? Through finding the answer to this question, the future of working-class internationalism will be determined, and intertwined with it is the question of the abolition of capitalism and our liberation.

Hollywood’s unions fight for tax credits and jobs but not for the movies themselves. That has to change. Unions can take up policies that could save American cinema not only as a way to make a living ...

There is ideological affinity between Milei and Thiel. Both of them fall under the category of anarcho-capitalist libertarians who see socialism and the decadence of Western society as major threats t...