A review by colin_cox
Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher
5.0
Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism was written ten years ago, and even though it offers a precise, critical response to the banking crisis that marred Barak Obama’s first presidential term, it remains deeply prescient. According to Fisher, capitalism is an ideology that perpetually self-fashions and possesses no “transcendent Law,” instead “it dismantles all such codes, only to re-install them on an ad hoc basis. The limits of capitalism are not fixed by fiat, but defined (and re-defined) pragmatically and improvisationally” (6). Capitalism certainly morphs and reconfigures itself according to its momentary needs, but Fisher’s key insight resides in the notion of realism itself. Later in the book, he argues, “Capitalist realism as I understand it cannot be confined to art or to the quasi-propagandistic way in which advertising functions. It is more like a pervasive atmosphere, conditioning not only the production of culture but also the regulation of work and education, and acting as a kind of invisible barrier constraining thought and action” (16). Fisher evokes the consumerist shrug that seems to come when confronted by the daunting ineptitude of the individual faced with the intractableness of capitalism. That shrug is a resignation to the lack of alternatives to capitalism. The irony, of course, is that if each subject acknowledged the profundity of the shrug, alternatives might arise. According to Fisher, that is perhaps capitalism’s great strength: it assures us that alternatives cannot and do not exist. This, if I may, is why theory matters. It breaks this phantasmagoric inevitability by inviting the subject to consider these ideas. Many critics of capitalism have rightly argued that capitalism continually divides us as subjects by separating (on a theoretical level) work and consumption. Mantras such as “I’m working for the weekend” suggest a never-ending cycle of uninterrupted work followed by uninterrupted pleasure (or consumption). Books like Capitalist Realism encourage readers to interrogate the efficacy of such notions.
Capitalist Realism is less of a prescription and more of a diagnosis, but that is not to say that Fisher fails to gesture towards specific solutions. One option, for example, involves “invoking the Real(s) underlying the reality that capitalism presents to us” (18). Here, Fisher makes a clear move towards psychoanalytic theory, which heavily influences many arguments he makes throughout the book. On a smaller scale, Fisher articulates the problems with institutionalized “managerialism” and the steps needed to antagonize it. On a larger scale, however, Fisher suggests that awareness in the key. He writes, “We need to begin, as if for the first time, to develop strategies against a Capital which presents itself as ontologically, as well as geographically, ubiquitous” (77).
Capitalism is a myth just like any other, but its power comes from the disavowal of its mythical status. Fisher closes the opening chapter of Capitalist Realism by analyzing the relationship between hip-hop and capitalism. He writes, “the circuit whereby hip-hop and the late capitalist social field feed into each other is one of the means by which capitalist realism transforms itself into a kind of anti-mythical myth” (11). Here, his point resides in the zero-sum attitude that capitalism presents. There are winners and losers, and if you are not a winner, then you are a loser. According to Fisher, the sorts of ideas are present in gangster films and neo-noir stories as well. These aesthetic mediums, while not alone nor the primary culprit, reproduce a simple yet powerful idea that ensures capitalism’s survival: this is just how it is.
Capitalist Realism is less of a prescription and more of a diagnosis, but that is not to say that Fisher fails to gesture towards specific solutions. One option, for example, involves “invoking the Real(s) underlying the reality that capitalism presents to us” (18). Here, Fisher makes a clear move towards psychoanalytic theory, which heavily influences many arguments he makes throughout the book. On a smaller scale, Fisher articulates the problems with institutionalized “managerialism” and the steps needed to antagonize it. On a larger scale, however, Fisher suggests that awareness in the key. He writes, “We need to begin, as if for the first time, to develop strategies against a Capital which presents itself as ontologically, as well as geographically, ubiquitous” (77).
Capitalism is a myth just like any other, but its power comes from the disavowal of its mythical status. Fisher closes the opening chapter of Capitalist Realism by analyzing the relationship between hip-hop and capitalism. He writes, “the circuit whereby hip-hop and the late capitalist social field feed into each other is one of the means by which capitalist realism transforms itself into a kind of anti-mythical myth” (11). Here, his point resides in the zero-sum attitude that capitalism presents. There are winners and losers, and if you are not a winner, then you are a loser. According to Fisher, the sorts of ideas are present in gangster films and neo-noir stories as well. These aesthetic mediums, while not alone nor the primary culprit, reproduce a simple yet powerful idea that ensures capitalism’s survival: this is just how it is.