Marxism explains why rational trust is historically scarce but anarchism cannot

Evidence

In contrast with anarchism, Marxism certainly has an explanation of why rational trust is unavailable in principle in many (perhaps, thus far, most) historical circumstances, and of why in contrast it is (or will be) available in others. It does, in that sense, have some explanation of the asymmetry for which anarchism provides no explanation whatever. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1098

A second understanding of politics which regards trust as potentially unproblematic, because dependably available under particular circumstances, is Marxism. In contrast with anarchism, Marxism certainly has an explanation of why rational trust is unavailable in principle in many (perhaps, thus far, most) historical circumstances, and of why in contrast it is (or will be) available in others. It does, in that sense, have some explanation of the asymmetry for which anarchism provides no explanation whatever. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1098

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the ‘asymmetry’ problem — why trust is absent in most historical conditions but supposedly available in some — that anarchism fails to address.
• QUESTION: The claim that Marxism offers ‘some explanation of the asymmetry’ — what precisely is that explanation? Worth chasing how class structure determines trust availability to compare against Luhmann’s familiarity.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1098