Scan barcode
A review by fipah
Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher
3.0
I have no idea what I read and I feel unqualified to give a proper rating, so 3 stars.
This book exemplifies Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly (link to the official study here). I just did not understand anything.
This is a proper philosophy-grade text. Personally, I feel this verbose language is trite, clichéd and unnecessary, though that does not mean the content is bad. I just can't judge it because, on top of the complicated language and jargon, the text requires the reader to know a lot of political science theory and politics, philosophy + lots of -isms and their implications in general. And the way the author referenced popular movies... I just could not get what he was trying to say. I felt like screaming 'pls just tell me in plain English and I'll actually follow your line of thought and finish the book and get something out of it.'
The text is full of words and phrases such as:
libidinal,
medicalized conditions made into effective antagonisms,
captured discontent,
constitutive imperative,
and my favourites ascesis and anodyne.
Just take this sentence 'Contrary to Curtis's account of blogging, blogs can generate new discourse networks that have no correlate in the social field outside cyberspace.' Omg. Just say that blogs are unique. Now imagine every single sentence is like this.
A friend recommended I read this in order to understand in a explain like I'm five fashion the reasons why capitalism is funded on exploitation, what is wrong with capitalism and neoliberalism, why and how to fix it. This clearly is not a book that would serve such purpose. I understood more from [b:The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions|32603498|The Divide A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions|Jason Hickel|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1496341783l/32603498._SY75_.jpg|53184514], for example, I'd recommend that book.
This book exemplifies Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly (link to the official study here). I just did not understand anything.
This is a proper philosophy-grade text. Personally, I feel this verbose language is trite, clichéd and unnecessary, though that does not mean the content is bad. I just can't judge it because, on top of the complicated language and jargon, the text requires the reader to know a lot of political science theory and politics, philosophy + lots of -isms and their implications in general. And the way the author referenced popular movies... I just could not get what he was trying to say. I felt like screaming 'pls just tell me in plain English and I'll actually follow your line of thought and finish the book and get something out of it.'
The text is full of words and phrases such as:
libidinal,
medicalized conditions made into effective antagonisms,
captured discontent,
constitutive imperative,
and my favourites ascesis and anodyne.
Just take this sentence 'Contrary to Curtis's account of blogging, blogs can generate new discourse networks that have no correlate in the social field outside cyberspace.' Omg. Just say that blogs are unique. Now imagine every single sentence is like this.
A friend recommended I read this in order to understand in a explain like I'm five fashion the reasons why capitalism is funded on exploitation, what is wrong with capitalism and neoliberalism, why and how to fix it. This clearly is not a book that would serve such purpose. I understood more from [b:The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions|32603498|The Divide A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions|Jason Hickel|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1496341783l/32603498._SY75_.jpg|53184514], for example, I'd recommend that book.