Scan barcode
A review by books_ergo_sum
Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher
reflective
3.0
Is this the most popular Leftwing White Guy™️ book? It might be. Did I think it was just okay? Yup.
This book was all about: capitalist realism. Aka, an ontology where capitalism is everything/everywhere—even protests and our most intimate thoughts are capitalism. Because capitalism isn’t just a system we exist in, it’s literally everything. Ourselves included.
For 2009, this was a great insight. And it definitely makes you think twice about anti-capitalist counterculture movements. I do wonder if capitalism is losing its realist (ontologically everything) quality—but that’s not a problem for this book, really.
There were three things that did made me hesitate, though:
▪️ has capitalism changed?
▪️ WWHS? (what would Hegel say?)
▪️ girl, the Stirner
This book had a very Office Space (1999) movie version of capitalism. And I think the question for the text is: when capitalism evolves, does Fisher’s thesis still hold? Or, to what extent is this book really about “ideological realism”? Which leads me to…
Hegel. You know, that 19th century ‘unity of the unity and difference of the ideal and the real’ ideological realism guy.
👍 points for developing even a limited-ly Hegelian thesis (the realism of capitalism plus the Aufhebung-like way we overturn it through its own internal untenability)
👎 minus points for not mentioning Hegel once (despite quoting people who quote Hegel in their works) and the confusion this lack introduced
Which brings me to Stirner. Fisher argued that the individualism of capitalist realism presupposes the 19th century philosophy of Max Stirner, who he wants to oppose
But this book was ultimately very Stirner-y at its core—individualistic, nihilistic, “union of egoists” vibes. Which was not only in tension with Fisher’s concept of capitalist realism (no one hated Hegel’s ideological realism more than Stirner)…
I also think it just doesn’t work. Take, for example, what Fisher says about Palestine. He argued against the “spectacular politics around (noble) causes like Palestine” in favour of… (the more individualistic) not filling out forms for your boss 🫤 And I think history has proven him wrong here.
This book was all about: capitalist realism. Aka, an ontology where capitalism is everything/everywhere—even protests and our most intimate thoughts are capitalism. Because capitalism isn’t just a system we exist in, it’s literally everything. Ourselves included.
For 2009, this was a great insight. And it definitely makes you think twice about anti-capitalist counterculture movements. I do wonder if capitalism is losing its realist (ontologically everything) quality—but that’s not a problem for this book, really.
There were three things that did made me hesitate, though:
▪️ has capitalism changed?
▪️ WWHS? (what would Hegel say?)
▪️ girl, the Stirner
This book had a very Office Space (1999) movie version of capitalism. And I think the question for the text is: when capitalism evolves, does Fisher’s thesis still hold? Or, to what extent is this book really about “ideological realism”? Which leads me to…
Hegel. You know, that 19th century ‘unity of the unity and difference of the ideal and the real’ ideological realism guy.
👍 points for developing even a limited-ly Hegelian thesis (the realism of capitalism plus the Aufhebung-like way we overturn it through its own internal untenability)
👎 minus points for not mentioning Hegel once (despite quoting people who quote Hegel in their works) and the confusion this lack introduced
Which brings me to Stirner. Fisher argued that the individualism of capitalist realism presupposes the 19th century philosophy of Max Stirner, who he wants to oppose
But this book was ultimately very Stirner-y at its core—individualistic, nihilistic, “union of egoists” vibes. Which was not only in tension with Fisher’s concept of capitalist realism (no one hated Hegel’s ideological realism more than Stirner)…
I also think it just doesn’t work. Take, for example, what Fisher says about Palestine. He argued against the “spectacular politics around (noble) causes like Palestine” in favour of… (the more individualistic) not filling out forms for your boss 🫤 And I think history has proven him wrong here.