Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.14 AVERAGE
4.14 AVERAGE
Someone gave this an “ableism” content warning. Probably because they’re [redacted]!
Content Warnings
There is no ableism in this book
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
In this short book, Fisher shows how the proclamation that there is no alternative to contemporary capitalism has resulted in a cultural malaise that causes a number of problems. First, it makes us so unable to imagine an alternative that we are better capable of imagining the end of the world, than the end of capitalism. According to Fisher, this is reflected in contemporary popculture, especially in dystopian novels and movies. In these, we are often offered dystopian views of the world that is destroyed by not unimaginable calamities such as artificial intelligence, ecological catastrophes or pandemics, or a combination between them. What is not rarely depicted in these movies, is a form of capitalist regime that is even more exploitative and selfish than our current one.
Secondly, Fisher shows how the social fragmentation and increasing pressure on indviduals to achieve and look out for themselves causes major mental distress on an evermore increasing level. Instead of viewing the mental health plague a problem that can be located on the level of the individual, Fisher argues we must look at the social, systematic causes of mental health problems and adress and solve them on that exact same level.
In the third part, Fisher shows how neoliberalism did not lead to an abandonment of bureaucracy, but to an alteration and intensification thereof. It has become so decentralized and disseminated however, that it is hard to dismantle it by ways of critique.
Many authors believe these developments have led to a cynical collective (sub)consciousness. Fisher, on the other hand, speaks of reflexive impotence, which consists in recognizing that things are going wrong, while at the same time realizing that one can do nothing about it.
Finishing not on an entirely negative note, Fisher argues that the ideological gaps and contradictions that ensue from capitalist realism offers a chance to find new ways of subjectivity and governance.
Secondly, Fisher shows how the social fragmentation and increasing pressure on indviduals to achieve and look out for themselves causes major mental distress on an evermore increasing level. Instead of viewing the mental health plague a problem that can be located on the level of the individual, Fisher argues we must look at the social, systematic causes of mental health problems and adress and solve them on that exact same level.
In the third part, Fisher shows how neoliberalism did not lead to an abandonment of bureaucracy, but to an alteration and intensification thereof. It has become so decentralized and disseminated however, that it is hard to dismantle it by ways of critique.
Many authors believe these developments have led to a cynical collective (sub)consciousness. Fisher, on the other hand, speaks of reflexive impotence, which consists in recognizing that things are going wrong, while at the same time realizing that one can do nothing about it.
Finishing not on an entirely negative note, Fisher argues that the ideological gaps and contradictions that ensue from capitalist realism offers a chance to find new ways of subjectivity and governance.
This is an important if flawed book. I don't agree with everything stated in the book, I do however believe that anyone interested in anti-capitalism should read this.
Not nearly as accessible as I thought it would be and, maddeningly, no footnotes or references are included, but here's the book so far as I understand it:
Capitalism is a seemingly endless, treacherous ocean we are all drowning in. There is no end in sight, and every time we struggle against it, trying to swim for shore, the ocean seems to only grow. No, really, it gets bigger the more you struggle. It isn't clear that there is a life raft, or even if we would recognize one if it miraculously came along, or if it would only serve to drown us faster, helping the ocean absorb us. The end.
Not surprising that some people don't love it, but there are some fantastic passages, particularly his thoughts about mental health, and the questions it raises are important, if disconcerting. It threw into relief my own inner neoliberal, which every leftist hates, but maybe it's good for us?
Capitalism is a seemingly endless, treacherous ocean we are all drowning in. There is no end in sight, and every time we struggle against it, trying to swim for shore, the ocean seems to only grow. No, really, it gets bigger the more you struggle. It isn't clear that there is a life raft, or even if we would recognize one if it miraculously came along, or if it would only serve to drown us faster, helping the ocean absorb us. The end.
Not surprising that some people don't love it, but there are some fantastic passages, particularly his thoughts about mental health, and the questions it raises are important, if disconcerting. It threw into relief my own inner neoliberal, which every leftist hates, but maybe it's good for us?
Fisher is another leftist in the tradition of Nagle, Zizek and that Zer0 Books crowd in general who make some astoundingly rightish friendly critiques of Capital. It's a shame even up until his suicide he still clung to the witches and ogres who spat on his grave after his death, utterly remorsefully. One progressive openly joked about his death on Twitter shortly after it.
Why he - and his clearly intelligent readers - would continue to attempt to curry favor with these sort of degenerates (and their ideology) boggles the mind. There is a wide community of nationalists and reactionaries who are far more receptive to his ideas.
Regardless his concept of capitalist realism as this totalizing ontological premise of modernity is phenomenal. Modern neoliberal society is founded on rootlessness and disorder, this is the 'real' in modernity.
He compares this to Lacan's Big Other which is the fundamental psychological order of the collective unconscious. As with Capitalist Realism it can never be fully acknowledged and defined. It is outside the realm of acceptable and even approachable discourse.
Fisher's view here flows perfectly with Dugin, Deneen and Schmitt's assault on schizophrenia at the core of Liberalism. The sacrificial center of Generative Anthropology is nowhere to be seen. Liberalism assumes a society without a center, a society without a society.
Where Fisher struggles is when he tries to form a coherent alternative. He says we have to reply to globalism of Neoliberalism with a globalism of our own, most likely defined by worker's rights and progressive social values. He's remarkably vague but I think it's clear his opposition is just Corbyn.
To me he's missing the obvious thread that his relation to is implied throughout this book. His Deleuzian jab not just at Capitalism but Liberalism itself is MacIntyre's Catholic Marxism. It's Lasch's populism. It's Deneen.
The future for the left lies not in an outdated form of international progressivism. On a philosophical level this can never amount a challenge to Liberalism; it's entirely defined by it. On a practical level it does not answer the fundamental insecurities of working class people to the face of globalism.
The true future of the left should be in a radical synthesis of working class values on an economic and a social level. This is communitarian populism or social nationalism - the term is less important. We need to listen to Matthew Goodwin. The left must affirm rootedness, identity and community. Weil, MacIntyre, Deleuze, Lasch, etc is our future.
Why he - and his clearly intelligent readers - would continue to attempt to curry favor with these sort of degenerates (and their ideology) boggles the mind. There is a wide community of nationalists and reactionaries who are far more receptive to his ideas.
Regardless his concept of capitalist realism as this totalizing ontological premise of modernity is phenomenal. Modern neoliberal society is founded on rootlessness and disorder, this is the 'real' in modernity.
He compares this to Lacan's Big Other which is the fundamental psychological order of the collective unconscious. As with Capitalist Realism it can never be fully acknowledged and defined. It is outside the realm of acceptable and even approachable discourse.
Fisher's view here flows perfectly with Dugin, Deneen and Schmitt's assault on schizophrenia at the core of Liberalism. The sacrificial center of Generative Anthropology is nowhere to be seen. Liberalism assumes a society without a center, a society without a society.
Where Fisher struggles is when he tries to form a coherent alternative. He says we have to reply to globalism of Neoliberalism with a globalism of our own, most likely defined by worker's rights and progressive social values. He's remarkably vague but I think it's clear his opposition is just Corbyn.
To me he's missing the obvious thread that his relation to is implied throughout this book. His Deleuzian jab not just at Capitalism but Liberalism itself is MacIntyre's Catholic Marxism. It's Lasch's populism. It's Deneen.
The future for the left lies not in an outdated form of international progressivism. On a philosophical level this can never amount a challenge to Liberalism; it's entirely defined by it. On a practical level it does not answer the fundamental insecurities of working class people to the face of globalism.
The true future of the left should be in a radical synthesis of working class values on an economic and a social level. This is communitarian populism or social nationalism - the term is less important. We need to listen to Matthew Goodwin. The left must affirm rootedness, identity and community. Weil, MacIntyre, Deleuze, Lasch, etc is our future.
emotional
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Capitalist Realism has a lot of interesting ideas and raising a lot of interesting points, but there are a few things preventing me from rating it higher.
The most immediate and most pedantic issue I have with the book is the complete lack of references. I know not every book needs references, but this is one that would seriously benefit from a bibliography. Fairly often you'll get little lines of "as Doopy-Doo said" or "according to Doopy-Doo," while never stopping to let me know who the hell Doopy-Doo is, or where they said this. There's no attempt to introduce the other thinkers mentioned, it's just assumed that the reader is already intimately familiar with Žižek and Baudrillard, and when a direct quote is given it's assumed that either the reader doesn't care which book it came from (which would seem to undermine the point of directly quoting rather than just paraphrasing) or the reader already knows damn well (which means that most of the discussion would be redundant).
This ties in with an ever-pressent problem in that it's not really clear who this book is for or what it's supposed to do -- it *looks* like a slim, fun book that should be broadly accessible to anyone, and often presents itself in this way. The brevity, the frequent references to pop culture, the informal tone would make it seem like this is a beginner friendly pop-theory book. But the off-hand references to philosophers like that the general public has typically not studied (off-hand Nietzsche references would be one thing, off-hand Spinoza references are another) give off a different vibe.
The skimpiness of the book works against it in many ways. As I mentioned initially, some very interesting ideas are raised, but then they are simply left there. The book is full of just-so statements that are never argued or backed-up, and novel ideas that are never fleshed out and developed. It's essentially a series of teasers. I would love to get more in depth about Fisher's idea of Market Stalinism, or the effects of capitalism on mental illness, or the deep symbiotic links between neolibralism and neoconservatism, but Fisher never takes the time to argue or expand, he just drops some ideas and seems to leave the rest to you. Now, presumably a lot of these ideas have already been introduced in more depth elsewhere, and presumably some of the other writers Fisher makes passing reference to have lengthier discussions on these topics, which is one of the reasons why a bibliography would have been a really nice addition to this book. But as a standalone volume, I'm left having to take a lot of Fisher's statements on faith because he rarely takes the time to argue his case and give me a reason to believe him.
In short, this was an interesting but a frustrating read, which left me wanting more but with no idea where to start looking for it.
The most immediate and most pedantic issue I have with the book is the complete lack of references. I know not every book needs references, but this is one that would seriously benefit from a bibliography. Fairly often you'll get little lines of "as Doopy-Doo said" or "according to Doopy-Doo," while never stopping to let me know who the hell Doopy-Doo is, or where they said this. There's no attempt to introduce the other thinkers mentioned, it's just assumed that the reader is already intimately familiar with Žižek and Baudrillard, and when a direct quote is given it's assumed that either the reader doesn't care which book it came from (which would seem to undermine the point of directly quoting rather than just paraphrasing) or the reader already knows damn well (which means that most of the discussion would be redundant).
This ties in with an ever-pressent problem in that it's not really clear who this book is for or what it's supposed to do -- it *looks* like a slim, fun book that should be broadly accessible to anyone, and often presents itself in this way. The brevity, the frequent references to pop culture, the informal tone would make it seem like this is a beginner friendly pop-theory book. But the off-hand references to philosophers like that the general public has typically not studied (off-hand Nietzsche references would be one thing, off-hand Spinoza references are another) give off a different vibe.
The skimpiness of the book works against it in many ways. As I mentioned initially, some very interesting ideas are raised, but then they are simply left there. The book is full of just-so statements that are never argued or backed-up, and novel ideas that are never fleshed out and developed. It's essentially a series of teasers. I would love to get more in depth about Fisher's idea of Market Stalinism, or the effects of capitalism on mental illness, or the deep symbiotic links between neolibralism and neoconservatism, but Fisher never takes the time to argue or expand, he just drops some ideas and seems to leave the rest to you. Now, presumably a lot of these ideas have already been introduced in more depth elsewhere, and presumably some of the other writers Fisher makes passing reference to have lengthier discussions on these topics, which is one of the reasons why a bibliography would have been a really nice addition to this book. But as a standalone volume, I'm left having to take a lot of Fisher's statements on faith because he rarely takes the time to argue his case and give me a reason to believe him.
In short, this was an interesting but a frustrating read, which left me wanting more but with no idea where to start looking for it.
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced