Conspirituality Podcast

Episode: Brief: Graeber vs Bannon, Anarchism vs Leninism (Part 1)

Host: Matthew Remski
Date: November 22, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the profound tension between two revolutionary approaches—anarchism and Leninism—and how these ideological legacies influence both current opposition to Trumpism and the strategic playbook of the American far right. Matthew Remski draws on the contrasting visions of David Graeber (Occupy Wall Street, anarchist) and Steve Bannon (right-wing agitator and self-described Leninist) to explore why grassroots leftist resistance often lacks power, while MAGA factions skillfully seize it. Using contemporary parallels, historical analysis, and a case study from Vincent Bevins’ recent book, the discussion frames today’s struggle as not just political but spiritual, raising questions about organization, spontaneity, and the enduring risk of authoritarian takeover.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Bannon-Graeber Contrast: Revolutionaries from Alien Sides

• Steve Bannon’s vision: Wants to “deconstruct the administrative state,” aiming to seize and reshape government power through highly organized vanguard tactics.

  • “I'm a Leninist. ... Lenin wanted to destroy the state. And that's my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today's establishment.” (Bannon, quoting Radosh interview, [06:29])

• David Graeber’s anarchism: Sees the system as irredeemably corrupt and advocates for reinventing democracy outside of state structures.

  • “We don't live in a democratic society in America. We have a system of institutionalized bribery. And the only way to challenge that is to reinvent democracy, to provide a model of what real democracy would actually be like by moving outside the system entirely.” (Graeber, [03:05])

• Core thesis:

  • “Both Bannon and Graeber are hostile to the state. They want to see it radically change. They are revolutionaries, although at opposite ends of the political spectrum wanting opposite outcomes.” (Remski, [03:29])

2. Historical Roots: The Left’s Schism Between Spontaneity and Structure

• The split traces back to Marx vs. Bakunin (1869) and became Lenin vs. anarchists.
• The left, through figures like Graeber and Bernie Sanders, inherited the idealism of anarchism (spontaneous, horizontal protest).
• The right (MAGA/Bannon) appropriated Leninist tactics (vanguardism, organized takeover).
• “It’s one thing to recognize that this has happened, it’s another thing to really grasp what it means about what the opposition to Trump lacks...” (Remski, [04:40])
• Key question:
  • What happens when protest movements value spontaneity and moral clarity over organized, strategic power grabs?

3. January 6th and the Failure of Right-Wing Spontaneity

• January 6th, 2021, is dissected as an “anarchic event” where rightwing “spiritual” energy met a lack of concrete plans.
• Conspiritualists like Mickey Willis and Lori Ladd provided comic relief in their mystical interpretations of the riot, but:
  • “They didn’t have a plan. They didn’t know how to grasp the levers of actual revolution... They had nothing but surges of emotion, hymns and prayers on the Senate floor, and their trackable phones uploading riot live streams to Parler...” (Remski, [13:48])
• Despite failure on Jan 6th, right-wing organizers learned—which birthed Project 2025’s vision for a disciplined vanguard.

4. The Strategic Shift: Project 2025 and the MAGA Vanguard

• Bannon and allies pushed for a “personnel machine” to fill government roles with loyalists—a literal implementation of Leninist strategy for a rightist project ([08:20]).
• “There is nothing in the world that could have motivated Graeber to think along similar lines for the benefit of socialism... Graeber was fundamentally, morally, perhaps even existentially opposed to the notion that the state could ever be an instrument of desired social change.” (Remski, [08:44])

5. The Limitations and Hazards of Mainstream Resistance

• Mainstream anti-Trumpism has moral clarity but lacks concrete goals and organization:
  • “What is that mainstream resistance asking for beyond Trump going away? How will it keep his successor away? What is the plan? Who is prosecuting it? ... It can rely implicitly on the hope for a spontaneous political shift.” (Remski, [18:47])
• Resistance risks being “cathartic but co-optable state-sanctioned explosions” without structures for enduring power.
• The case study from host’s youth: activism felt exhilarating but ultimately “fuzzy ... on what I would prefer or how I would build.” (Remski, [25:00])

6. Lessons from Global Protest: Vincent Bevins’ “If We Burn”

• Case: Movimento Passe Livre (MPL) in Brazil

  • Small, anarchist-inspired, horizontally organized group protesting bus fare hikes ([33:42]).
  • Explosion of support after police violence; their anti-hierarchical, leaderless ethos left them unable to shape outcomes as movements scaled.
  • “If we act without planning for what happens after victory, someone else will define the meaning for us.”
  • Right-wing vanguardists quickly created confusingly similar groups (MBL), co-opted the protest’s energy, and steered events toward impeachment and authoritarian resurgence ([35:09]).

• Bevins’ warning:

  • “Whatever else Lenin did... he was correct about the organizational necessity of a dedicated, disciplined, cohesive vanguard, a secret, professional, inner core party to achieve revolutionary political change...” (Remski, [41:05])

7. The Occupy Legacy and Prefigurative Politics

• Graeber and Occupy modeled activist values (horizontalism, consensus, acting as if already free). “Direct action is a matter of acting as if you are already free...” (classic Graeber, [39:00])
• This approach broadened political horizons and built solidarity, but failed to win concrete reforms.
• Critics argue that refusal to make demands or build structure led to burnout and defeat.
• “A general collapse of credibility in government very easily leads to really dark places.” (Remski, [40:48])

8. Spiritual Parallels and the Fascist Response

• The left’s hope for “miraculous, spontaneous change” parallels New Age thinking and mystical approaches to transformation.
• Meanwhile, “fascists reflect on the same debates,” many adopting Orthodox Christianity alongside vanguard strategies—a sign that the right is “preparing not just to win, but to rule.”
• “Do we understand the same thing?” (Remski, [43:00])

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Bannon on destroying the state:
  • "I'm a Leninist. ... Lenin wanted to destroy the state. And that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today's establishment." ([06:29])
• Graeber on democracy & corruption:
  • "We don't live in a democratic society in America. We have a system of institutionalized bribery. And the only way to challenge that is to reinvent democracy, to provide a model of what real democracy would actually be like by moving outside the system entirely." ([03:05])
• Remski on protest culture and burnout:
  • "I started going to protests, very clear on what was wrong, but pretty fuzzy on what I would prefer or how I would build... I wasn’t sure what I had accomplished or what any of us had accomplished." ([25:00])
• Bevins' core lesson (via Remski):
  • "Whatever else Lenin did, or whatever else we think about him, he was correct about the organizational necessity of a dedicated, disciplined, cohesive vanguard... particularly in opposition to undirected, spontaneous movements that value full democratic transparency." ([41:05])

Important Segment Timestamps

• Episode Introduction & Thesis: [01:37]
• Bannon’s “Leninist” Admission: [06:29]
• Bannon on Project 2025 Vanguard: [08:20]
• Analysis of Jan 6 Spiritual New Age Response: [13:48]
• Host’s Reflection on Activist Burnout: [25:00]
• Brazil’s MPL Case Study (Vincent Bevins): [33:42]
• The Leninist Argument & Left’s Deficit: [41:05]
• Concluding Reflection, Spiritual Parallels: [43:00]

Concluding Notes

Matthew closes with an incisive summation: for all the creativity, inclusiveness, and inspiration of current resistance movements, their allergy to organization leaves a vacuum. The right, taking cues from Leninist methods, shows no such weakness, and has already constructed the mechanisms to seize and hold power. The underlying question for the left—and anyone opposing authoritarianism—is whether the lesson of history will be learned, or whether the “beach under the cobblestones” (Sous les paves la plage) will keep receding before a new tide of disciplined reactionaries.

Next episode: Part 2 will continue exploring the anarchist/Leninist conflict and its spiritual legacy in organizing for (or against) systemic change.