eBook, 81 pages
English language
Published Dec. 15, 2009 by Zero Books.
Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? explores Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism," which he takes to describe "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it."The book investigates what Fisher describes as the widespread effects of neoliberal ideology on popular culture, work, education, and mental health in contemporary society. Capitalist Realism was an unexpected success and has influenced a range of writers.The subtitle refers to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's pro-market slogan "There is no alternative".
This is the second book of Mark Fisher's that I've read (the other being "The Weird and the Eerie") where I have the feeling of the words washing over me, but just no idea of what's going on. I'll probably give it a re-read at some point, especially as it's so short, just to see what all the fuss is about, but I'm afraid this read pretty much made no impression.
I don't think this merits whatever praise it gets, especially for how often it's used among leftist writers when developing their arguments.
This book really... feels devoid of its own thought. The analysis and synthesis of ideas doesn't seem to actually take place, with it relying heavily on the thoughts of others. Considering the amount of times I read some variation of the phrase "as Žižek said," I may as well have gone and read Žižek (or Deleuze and Guattari, for that matter).
There are far too many references to too many pieces of media, which makes everything feel entirely vague or superficial. Even if he could adequately build a point using those pieces of media, it falls short and a lot of that analysis is needless? Like there's some media analysis about how names like McCauley are anonymous and without history, while Corleone is full of history because it's …
I don't think this merits whatever praise it gets, especially for how often it's used among leftist writers when developing their arguments.
This book really... feels devoid of its own thought. The analysis and synthesis of ideas doesn't seem to actually take place, with it relying heavily on the thoughts of others. Considering the amount of times I read some variation of the phrase "as Žižek said," I may as well have gone and read Žižek (or Deleuze and Guattari, for that matter).
There are far too many references to too many pieces of media, which makes everything feel entirely vague or superficial. Even if he could adequately build a point using those pieces of media, it falls short and a lot of that analysis is needless? Like there's some media analysis about how names like McCauley are anonymous and without history, while Corleone is full of history because it's a name that comes from a village! And it's like... What was the point of mentioning this? Or even bringing it up? And it kind of feels like a weird way to say that you think history doesn't come from the Irish or the Scottish, but it does come from the Italians.
And the ableism, I swear. This book is a great example of how the "left" (or people perceived as such) provides entry points for harmful conspiracy theory, especially when it starts making an argument for how mental illness is really only addressed now that pharmaceutical companies can sell everyone SSRIs and make lots of money. He falsely claims that we don't discuss social causation of mental illnesses because we "individualised" it to brain chemistry to blame ourselves (which isn't true now, and definitely wasn't true in 2009). He tries to pin the use of the phrase "economic depression" on mental illness, when there's always been another meaning of the word "depression" (it's a very weird attempt at a gotcha and a strange failure to understand basic language).
He tries to claim that mental illness has increased over time without actually recognising all of the factors (so he'll look at numbers but not at factors contributing to the increase in mental illness, which also includes people feeling more comfortable getting help). He tries to claim that dyslexia has increased because ... people don't read since we have a lot of visual information? And... We don't have evidence for this because, like all learning disabilities, we... don't have full numbers of how many dyslexic people existed in the past and throughout time that writing has existed).
It's just... not good, very vapid, and sloppy. I cannot understand how it constantly gets referenced beyond it having a catchy title, a somewhat well-known author, and a few quotable lines.
A scathing indictment of capitalism, by (successfully) putting the blame for several contemporary social ilks on it.
My only criticism is that while it makes a strong case both for capitalist realism existing as an ideology and it being a problem, the book does not make the case for any alternatives. It does contain some actionable suggestions for how to fight capitalism. But it falls short of providing a systemic alternative. As such, while it successfully argues that capitalist realism is a problem, it doesn't fully prove that it's wrong.
Nevertheless, a good read and well argued.
No society survives effects of its material existence on social, economic, political, cultural and personal lives. K-Punk knows like nobody else how to describe the burden of the consumerist society on its every member, from the moment of their waking up to the second of their going to sleep. The ubiquitous presence of market demands, propaganda of individualist existence, and economic hardship which, for most people, leaves no space and time for analysis and introspection, is conveyed in his usual, rare eloquence, and even rarer emotional intelligence.
