Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?

This one was a doozy. Effectively, it's a philosophical and critical breakdown of capitalism, the way capitalism is envisioned and "supposed to" work, and the reality of our entrapment in capitalism as an institution and ideology. It's pretty dense for a relatively short read, and it's rather bleak, brutal, and eye-opening, though it's clearly a late-2000s UK work, based on some of its references. It shines a spotlight on our own hypocrisies and humanity's cyclical nature, showing how even anti-capitalist thought has been confined to a capitalist structure - i.e. me complaining about capitalism using Facebook or an Amazon review page, or how Wall-E criticizes capitalism but is ultimately produced by Disney, an enormous corporation. Our distrust for capitalism and our thirst for an alternative has been itself been used to create capital and market to us - your Facebook feed probably uses algorithms to pitch socialist meme pages and T-shirts to you after all, does it not? And this, among other ideas posited by the book, is rough to reckon with. This is a solid book that uses plenty of modern media/pop culture allegories to get its point across, but be prepared for at least a mild existential crisis afterwards.

Fisher provides a short, clearly distilled analysis of the neoliberal (i.e. consumerist) superstructure that alienates people in capitalist societies. He's writing about the UK, but it reads equally well for Americans, which is part of the point – far from being the paragon of bold, individual expression its proponents claim, capitalism in fact molds societies in its image – endlessly reproducing profitable forms of art, culture, and entertainment, reluctant to challenge existing market orthodoxies in the chance such risks won't provide a strong enough ROI. The strongest part of Fisher's book is his direct challenge to the notion of "mental health problems" as individual pathologies – as random chemical imbalances in the individual consumer's neural makeup – rather than evidence of a social and political failure in the system at-large. Fisher challenges the left to "repoliticize" the mental health debate, to "transform the taken for granted into the up-for-grabs." The widespread crisis of depression, anxiety, ADHD, and bipolar disorders must be reframed as a priori evidence of the failures of the system – *not* as individualized flukes that can be resolved through medicine and training in order to better mold the individual into the system's image.

Capitalist Realism is a fantastic book, weaving a depressing and informative net around your mind. I'm a leftist myself, but I can't help but disagree with a few points here. Like, who is this man to say what the "true" state of a person is under the socialist utopia we wish for ( or rather, insisting that everything we enjoy today is just an "intoxicant" )? Freedom from yourself is an awfully conservative argument ( and vaguely fascist, as if there is some kind of "pure" or "natural" state to enjoy things ), which assumes that "negative freedoms" exist. It contradicts socialism's goal of full emancipation. Not to mention frighteningly ableist notions of mental illness as if only capitalism has caused them. This idea that no one truly knows what they want under capitalism is fair, but radical to the point of being beyond the pale ( this is some very far left stuff ). Yes, I'm aware Mark hasn't necessarily said anything in particular was wrong ( such as video games, I love them and think play is very important for human beings and for overall joy ), or that you or me are bad for living or engaging in things a certain way, but for me full freedom means the destruction of social expectations of what men and women are expected to do. There is a certain deep sexism when Mark says that "duty" is paternal, which is of the father, and that seeking enjoyment/allowing enjoyment is maternal, of the mother. Like, it is possible to seek a post-capitalist world while dealing with various intersecting forms of oppression. Mark contradicts himself by employing the emancipating prescription of socialism while accidentally reinforcing notions of purity, as if there is some "natural state", that can only be brought about by destroying the "intoxicants" around us. There is this underlying notion that everything we do must be for the "greater good" and for the "duty" of humanity. Such grand narratives are what have led us astray in the past ( nationalism and neoliberal narratives of personal responsibility and hardwork ), a better moral framework model is "selfish altruism" which stipulates that if everyone is happy, productive, and taken care of... then YOU get what you want AND it is sustainable. This is an even better way of winning over neoliberals or people who are selfish and "intoxicated" by the supposedly intoxicating entertainment around us. If you want to win more people over to socialism, you need to tell them that there is no reason to get rid of movies, video games, music, art, or literature... because they assume these things are products under capitalism, tell them that they can still get what they want under socialism instead of painting this reductionist view that everything we consume is somehow evil or harming us. Like just stop it with this condescending nonsense, Mark. If anything, this almost sounds "boomer-esque", if you will. How old is Mark again? I wouldn't be surprised if the only art and entertainment he enjoys is the oldest stuff from a bygone era. That is the core of the problems with this otherwise fantastic book, it is bereft of joy and humor, it is way too fatalistic. Even if said intoxicants ( such as social media, the internet, or video games ) have brought me such joy, loving friends who support me, and a community that makes life worth living, Mark is the type that would step all over that in pursuit of a materialist analysis. I'm a freelance digital artist, and I'm lucky to have found the niche community that has basically allowed me to survive under the horrors of capitalism. What, my friends aren't real because they aren't face to face with me? Mark, I don't value human interaction as much as you do ( I'm an introvert and AUTISTIC by the way ), I have free will and I don't care what a human being is "supposed" to do ( really, you can't claim that a human is a "social animal", you are just ascribing your personal values onto all of us ). I am not "humanity", I am me, and that applies to you or the rest of us. Like, I am all for a post-capitalist world, but even I identify as a libertarian market socialist. Seize the means of production, get rid of bosses or CEOs, remove the stupid auditing nonsense that Mark brilliantly takes down ( I agree with him on plenty of points ), and transform companies into "syndicates" that are worker-owned. Then, do NOT get rid of the things that people enjoy or rely on, even IF you say they are intoxicants. Like, I can't stand this anti-hedonism and puritanical viewpoint Mark speaks of, it is too close to fascist ideology. Like, you can justify all you want that you are just trying to "free" people from themselves, but WHAT THEN?

It took me a fairly long time and a second read to come up with an view on Fisher 's brief but fairly deep book. With good engagement with some of the major theorists of postmodern thought Fisher casts a picture of Capital as that which cannot be thought beyond. With deference to a number of the other reviewers, I think it is dismissive of his argument to say there are lots of alternatives. If one believes that, one should confront the argument directly. It seems to me that Capitalism does have an inherent blocking function. The provisional space Fisher opens is in the development of full blown alternatives to Capitalism that grow out of the promises Capitalism makes and not only does not but cannot keep. Towards the end of this book Fisher gives a number of examples. Capitalism promises an end of bureaucracy, but we live in the most standardised world imaginable. Capitalism promises joy for the individual, but we live in a world of increasing affective disorder. We approach catastrophic ecological collapse. In this space alternatives can be developed. Again, with respect to other reviewers, I really do not care whether this is Zizek lite or otherwise. There is a well thought out argument here that deserves more engagement and less branding. A good book and heartily recommended.

Aun no lo termino, a pesar de ser un libro pequeño.

"Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?" von Mark Fisher ist ein tiefgründiges und kritisches Buch, das sich mit der allgegenwärtigen Präsenz des Kapitalismus in unserer modernen Gesellschaft auseinandersetzt. Fisher argumentiert, dass der Kapitalismus nicht nur als wirtschaftliches System, sondern als kulturelle Realität so tief in unser Leben eingebettet ist, dass es schwierig geworden ist, sich überhaupt Alternativen vorzustellen. Besonders beeindruckend fand ich seine Analyse, wie der Kapitalismus psychische Probleme verstärkt und eine ständige Krise des Individuums verursacht. Fisher zeigt auf, dass viele gesellschaftliche und persönliche Probleme – wie Arbeitsstress oder Depression – eng mit den Anforderungen des kapitalistischen Systems verbunden sind. Das Buch ist nicht nur eine Kritik, sondern auch eine Aufforderung, über Alternativen nachzudenken, selbst wenn diese im aktuellen Diskurs kaum Raum finden. Es regt dazu an, den Status quo zu hinterfragen und sich mit möglichen Wegen auseinanderzusetzen, wie man diesem allumfassenden System entkommen könnte. Es gibt sie mit Sicherheit, diese Alternative, wir müssen sie nur finden und erproben.

Me ha gustado esa idea que trata de transmitir el autor de que percibir el sistema productivo capitalista es algo "natural" e "inevitable" es un gran error. Además incorpora numerosas referencias y citas interesantes, que invitan a seguir leyendo las fuentes que cita el autor. Aunque es un libro pequeño la edición es buena.

book. A post Deleuze/Deridda masterpiece, A step forward in actual thinking. f.e. “The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRls). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.”

In this book, Mark Fisher adopts a very persuasive way of describing this "loss of alternatives" exemplary of late capitalism. He combines the thoughts of classic thinkers, while relying heavily on "postmodern" thinkers (Deleuze & Guattari, Baudrillard, Foucault, etc.). This "postmodern" type of work shows quite well when he uses Hollywood movies to reflect on the current state of our culture and its outlook on the future. Capitalist Realism speaks a language that is accessible to today's youth, both in terms of phrasing, themes and references. It is a breeze of fresh air heavily anchored in the classics, but renewed and readapted to today's oppressing reality. Mark Fisher shows that it is clearly possible to produce and practice true critical theory outside of academic circles and peer reviewed articles. A highly recommended read.