Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? is a 2009 book by British theorist Mark Fisher, published by Zero Books. It 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".
I should have read Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" at the very beginning of my incursion into philosophy - it would have made many concepts easier to grasp. It's a solid introduction to concepts such as "reality versus The Real", "the big Other", to the critique of ideology.
The tone is closer to "anecdotes told over beer" than to a formal philosophical essay. To my understanding, the book is, after all, an extension of ideas that Fisher was already writing about on his blog.
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.
This book ties together a lot of strands of modern thought into a coherent narrative about the corrosive effects of capitalism. I'm sure I missed a lot the first time through, so it's on my list for a re-read.
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.
I appreciate Fisher's clear identification of three fissures (eh?) in capitalist realism to explore and exploit (though he only skips chapters off the surface of the latter two): environmental catastrophes, mental health issues endemic to Western cultures, and center-less deracinating bureaucracy.
All the book’s arguments, insights, and examples are relevant and clear. I could roll them around, poke at them, find faults, find ways to fit them with or compare them against others, prove and store them for later. It's wide-ranging, provocative, but not so wild or different from what (in 2021) is beached like dead whales on the shores of the WEIRD middle class.
Um livro curto, com ideias muito grandes, apresentadas e ilustradas de uma forma bem interessante. A ideia principal do livro é construir uma teoria de que a situação em que o mundo se encontra hoje é uma na qual o capitalismo é tido como sinônimo de realidade. O titulo do primeiro capitulo é basicamente tudo o que o livro quer explicar: Por que é mais fácil imaginar o fim do mundo do que o fim do capitalismo? (pense em alguma ficção pós apocaliptica e perceba como isso é o padrão)
Não diria que é um livro possivel de entender completamente sem ter algum conhecimento prévio, pra se manter curto e focado, o livro não gasta muito do seu tempo explicando algumas teorias/ideias já de certa forma estabelecidas na filosofia: ele não vai te explicar as ideias de Deleuze, Lacan e Jameson, nem o que é territorialização/deterritorialização (alguem realmente sabe?). Mas …
Um livro curto, com ideias muito grandes, apresentadas e ilustradas de uma forma bem interessante. A ideia principal do livro é construir uma teoria de que a situação em que o mundo se encontra hoje é uma na qual o capitalismo é tido como sinônimo de realidade. O titulo do primeiro capitulo é basicamente tudo o que o livro quer explicar: Por que é mais fácil imaginar o fim do mundo do que o fim do capitalismo? (pense em alguma ficção pós apocaliptica e perceba como isso é o padrão)
Não diria que é um livro possivel de entender completamente sem ter algum conhecimento prévio, pra se manter curto e focado, o livro não gasta muito do seu tempo explicando algumas teorias/ideias já de certa forma estabelecidas na filosofia: ele não vai te explicar as ideias de Deleuze, Lacan e Jameson, nem o que é territorialização/deterritorialização (alguem realmente sabe?). Mas acredito que se você estiver curioso e interessado em aprender tais ideias, o livro tem muitas, e faz ilustraçoes interessantes. (No meu caso, por exemplo, eu sabia da existencia de uma teoria do "grande Outro" mas nunca tinha a visto sendo ilustrada/explicada, e achei que o capitulo que fala sobre isso foi muito bom, inclusive divertido com umas metáforas e exemplos engraçados)
Em poucas páginas o livro explica diversas posições diferentes de normalização da situação pós moderna, querendo substituir esse conceito por realismo capitalista, da normalização da burocracia, à medicalização de problemas sociais no ambito da saude mental. Ótimo quantidade de conteúdo compreendível e agregador para a sua pequena quantidade de páginas. Gostaria que essa fosse a segunda, terceira leitura.
Like Adam Curtis's Hypernormalisation, this book is a heady attempt at parsing the continuum of what Fisher calls "the Real" and "the big Other." He invokes Marx, Baudrillard, Lacan, "Office Space," Nirvana, and "Children of Men" with equal deference, utilizing pop culture and theory to explain the puzzling, if no less certain, links between neoconservativism and neoliberalism, and posits a leftist anti-capitalist project based on critical analysis of capitalist realism's offerings and shortcomings, as much as its obfuscatory sleight of hand aims at perpetuating a sense that it is, itself, unalterable and unable to be opposed.
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.
While it’s an excellent overview of our current situation, I found Fisher’s last chapter-where he haphazardly provides a sort of outline for moving forward-to be the weakest part of the book. That said, Fisher’s arguments for the now are nonetheless very compelling and timely.
I've known this book forever and I always thought I knew what it says until I read it. It's true, I knew! But what a refreshing and succinct view on the theories of capitalism and its problems! Definitely recommended for all — even for people who know what it says!
