The Anarchists

Episode 5 Update: I want to be fair to the show. Four stars out of ten doesn't mean terrible, but rather low mediocre. There are so many ideas that could have been explored here, but the main threads aren't about philosophical ideas or interesting personalities, but rather about greedy or foolish or alcoholic people who think they're on the road to utopia. I watch because I want to respect the work of the filmmakers... but this still isn't adding up to much. Contrary to the series' title, its promise, it's not about anarchy. Some episodes are about how bitcoin swindlers can hijack a concept (Anarchapulco). Other episodes are about bad things happening to people who've made bad decisions and at the same time been burned by life and by others. Yet other episodes are about grief. The series is a bit of a rambling mess. It's become background music to me, even though I really wanted to see an exciting exploration of anarchy. --

Anarcho-capitalism only works in a world in which homesteading can legitimately be practiced. In other words, not on earth. It's basically the philosophy of "I'm in the lifeboat, pull in the lifelines."

The people in this doc are very un-Randian takers and losers, not builders. The alcoholic quasi-leader Jeff Berwick made enough money to sail around the world before starting his little cult in Acupulco. Where did his money come from? Wealthy investors pouring money into his '90s dot-com that went bankrupt a few years later because his dot-com business was actually vapor, nothing, hot air. His partner in the venture tried to kill himself by jumping from the eighth floor of a building... but somehow failed. And yet, hobbling on crutches, he was able to recommend a book ("The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve") to Berwick that set him to thinking how great it would to be totally free. You know, to have other people do stuff for you while you drink on your boat that you bought after the company that you openly admit you had no idea how to run lost all its value for other investors but whose structure allowed you to escape with the loot.

Another set of winners is a young couple facing decades in prison for a 2015 pot bust who decide to become fugitives... and get money from their family to go on the run to Acupulco. You know, just like true entrepreneurs do. (This couple is somewhat sympathetic to me, though. I hope they shed some of the battiness around them and have a decent life.)

And then there are Berwick's organizers (because Berwick knows how to open a bottle of hooch but not much else of practical value), a couple from Georgia who advocate "unschooling." Because what good is a society where people might actually learn a thing or two that isn't just based on their childish whims? In fact, when your child gets an illness or a serious injury, who cares if your unschooled, untaxed society hasn't provided roads, ambulances, medical training, money for biotech research? You can simply heal your kid with herbs from your tomato patch, right? The one your parents wired you the money for.

Yes, government can be a problem. It definitely overreaches. But government is nothing more than an organizing principle, a means to resolve disputes and to provide defense, including from environmental disaster. The "anarchists" spewing nonsense here want to tear down American democracy so they can start over. In other words, they have absolutely no concern for the disabled, for the elderly, for anyone at all who will get mowed down as society is destroyed. Theirs is a sociopath's philosophy.

I'm barely two episodes in. As the filmmaker spent six years making this, starting with his initial flirtation with anarchy, i'm not quite sure if he'll have the chops to provide reasonable counter arguments to the nonsensical arguments put forward by this motley crew. As my headline suggests, I think these people reveal their naivete every time they open their mouths, but it would still be nice to hear a sober perspective.

As Episode 1 of "The Anarchists" (2022 release; 6 episodes of about 50-55 min each) opens, we are on a beach somewhere and a book burning event is taking place at night, involving even small kids. We then are introduced to some guy named Jeff Berwick, who decides that he wants to live in anarchy (literal meaning: "un-rule"), and by golly, wouldn't Acapulco, Mexico be a great place for that? We then go the "Anarchapulco 2015", the initial festival/gathering for those interested in the movement. At this point we are 10 min into Episode 1.

Couple of comments: this series is directed and executive produced by Todd Schramke, who seems to have been embedded in Acapulco for long stretches over a period of years. Let me admit upfront that I have never heard of Berwick or this "movement" until now. Having seen the first episode, it only raises more questions than it answers: most of these people are kooks, pure and simple. There's never a conspiracy theory that they don't like ("the federal reserves secretly rule the world!"). Then there is this: how do these people support themselves? None seem to have a job. Third: where are the Mexican authorities in all this?

Episode 1 premiered this past Sunday on HBO and then streams on HBO Max, where I caught it. New episodes air Sunday evenings at 10 pm. If you love a good documentary or are interested is understanding how far down the rabbit hole some people will go to find the "truth", I'd readily suggest that you check this out, and draw your own conclusion. I can't wait to see how all of this is going to play out.

*UPDATE 7/27/22* I've now seen 3 episodes, and this is getting weirder and more fascinating viewing as it goes on. Just wild. Highly recommended.

*UPDATE 8/18/22* I've now seen all 6 episodes, and I really enjoyed the entire mini-series, that is until the very conclusion of the 6th and last episode, which kinds just ends, like in the middle of a sentence. Then the closing credits started rolling, and I felt really let down that director Schramke didn't post an update what became of the main players in this real-life drama. Absolutely unacceptable. I was ready to upgrade my original rating of 7/10 to 8/10 but because of the way the series wrapped up, I am leaving it at 7/10.

It's funny how people who are leaving reviews are angry about the people in this show. The name of the show makes it sound more extreme then it really is. It's basically about libertarianism and or expats. It about people who want more freedom and less government involvement, or who want to leave their country. This show is very current about todays society. Tonnes of Canadians and Americans have moved to mexico over the last few years for a new lifestyle. Well see what happens in the next episodes.

First, because it is most important, I will note that nobody in this documentary besides the anti fascists protesting in the streets shown briefly are actual anarchists. Nothing about capitalism is anarchist at all.

I enjoy this documentary because their ideology is hilarious and falls apart easily, even as seen in the documentary. The documentary is good for laughing at dumb people who believe they're smart.

Good God - What a train wreck of humanity. This is a compelling documentary - but compelling in the way that one cannot tear oneself away from viewing the scene of a horrible accident. It's a well-done setup, but unfortunately for the filmmakers, the subjects of this documentary are so unlikeable, so cluelessly self-absorbed, and so irredeemably stupid that there is little enlightenment on offer and even less sympathy to give. Anarchists? Hardly - just a motley crew of drug dealers, fakes, frauds, charlatans, and other assorted liars, scammers, and narcissistic idiots. Anarchy as a way of life may already be nothing but a pipe dream for the hopelessly clueless, but if this cast of drug-addled imbeciles, hippies, and meth-heads, and the crypto scammers for whom they serve as useful idiots are any indication, that pipe dream is further away from reality than ever. So kudos to the filmmakers for the effort, but ultimately, one is left not asking, "Who did it?" but rather "Who cares?"