This study analyzes theoretical resistance strategies against global capitalism through the political approach of Slavoj Žižek and the perspectives of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Žižek, combining Lacanian psychoanalysis with Hegelian dialectics, argues that micro-politics is insufficient in the struggle against global capitalism. For him, genuine political transformation cannot be achieved through identity politics or multiculturalism but rather through “authentic acts” that radically disrupt the system’s ideological coordinates. In contrast, Hardt and Negri, with their concepts of Empire and Multitude, emphasize a network-based collective resistance that arises with the decline of nation-state sovereignty. The multitude represents the productive power of heterogeneous social groups acting collectively. Žižek, however, defines the anti-capitalist subject through identification with the symptom excluded by the system. Despite their epistemological and ontological differences, both perspectives converge in their critique of the limitations of micro-politics. Furthermore, Žižek’s call for a return to Lenin, centered on the notion of radical political gestures, is contrasted with Hardt and Negri’s pluralist vision of resistance. This comparison highlights the possibilities and limits of contemporary anti-capitalist politics and sheds light on the diverse dimensions of theoretical strategies developed in response to global capitalism.