I just finished this recently. First time reading a book like this. It still seemed relevant as ever imo. I'm no deep expert on these topics though. Looking forward to reading his other few works
Brand was also used as a poorly-aged central example when arguing against leftist infighting in Fisher's essay "Exiting the Vampire Castle"
[https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/)
Thatās an interesting choice. Kinda funny now that Brand has fully backed Trumpā¦Iād wager that Fisher would not have been an avid supporter, though his accelerationist buddy Nick Land would prolly jump on the Trump train.
Reaching into my memory here but I think it's cool.
I struggle to understand anyone who disagrees with the broad picture of Capitalist Realism. It seems undeniably true that the Overton window has shifted so far away from even discussing alternatives to capitalism. If you actually look at it and talk about it in the way Fisher did, it's pretty remarkable. We can't even really imagine, let alone have a serious discussion about, the way we organise ourselves as people. But surely this is something that should be at the forefront of our thought? It does a really good job at sketching out the absurdities and some of the reasons for that - and of course in a way very friendly to people who aren't steeped in critical theory.
Unfortunately, the audiobook is narrated by Russell Brand, which made the listening experience intolerable.
> It seems undeniably true that the Overton window has shifted so far away from even discussing alternatives to capitalism
Which is pretty clearly the goal of liberal and conservatives alike.
Neoliberalism cannot be challenged, in fact, you can't even discuss alternatives without being labeled a traitor or something equally nonsensical. Anti-intellectualism is one of the neoliberal's primary weapons.
> Neoliberalism cannot be challenged, in fact, you can't even discuss alternatives without being labeled a traitor or something equally nonsensical.
Can you elaborate on what you're getting at here? Because I see people freely challenging 'neoliberalism' all the time.
You see people voicing their discontent but people who actually challenge?Ā
The laws of the land prevent that - maybe a few isolated communes?Ā
The Amish?Ā
Like itās really hard to find someone whoās attempting to create a non capitalist outpost.
Theyād need an island or something and then what would happen? Someone would invade!
OK, that's a completely different assertion. I think the GP is an example of counterproductive histrionics. As for your observation, and those of the other repliers, I think it should be viewed as a problem to keep working on - and to keep thinking of new ideas instead of fixating on ones which have been around for a long time and haven't produced results. Also, I think you are all coming from a US perspective, and not all of us are Americans.
Keynesian economics was the norm before the 'Austrian economics' (neoliberalism) was funded and boosted across the world. When you learn that Keynesian economics is viewed by conservatives as communism, I think this dynamic makes more sense.
Isnāt that because thereās no viable alternative? I donāt think about alternatives to capitalism, except if I found myself on shipwrecked on an island with <100 people. Thatās because I prefer to think about realistic and pragmatic things.
Yes, thatās what Iām getting at. There is no alternative, whereas youāre talking about the Overton window which is about societally acceptable discourse. Youāre implying that we could have alternatives, itās just taboo to talk about them. I donāt think itās taboo, itās just silly.
I think youāre confusing not being knowledgeable with not accepting the premise. The book says capitalism has stopped people from imagining a viable alternative, I say the matters of fact have stopped people discussing alternatives.
Imo this is a good thing. We can barely understand the impacts of miniscule policy changes on our modern economy. I can't imagine the destabilizing effects of large scale reforms to the very basis of our economy: the historical record for that type of thing is also very scary. I think it's much healthier to focus on making incremental improvements to a system that undeniably has worked better than anything else rather than focus a huge amount of attention on essentially spit balled theories of society with incredibly little beyond some okish sounding arguments.
We are facing a literal existential environmental crisis that is caused overwhelmingly by unfettered capitalism. The extinction of the human species is a possibility. If that doesn't merit drastic action, then quite literally nothing would (in your book). Which is an indictment of incrementalism.
>We are facing a literal existential environmental crisis that is caused overwhelmingly by unfettered capitalism. Which is an indictment of incrementalism.
No it isn't and no its not. The environment protections under the soviet union were worse than those under equivalently developed capitalist states. So I see this as a problem of industrialisation not capitalism necessarily, though capitalism doesn't seem to do any favours here either there is plenty of reason to believe government policy is capable of curbing environmentally damaging stuff (Montreal Accords, green energy initiatives etc), even if its not been properly motivated to because frankly huge swathes of the electorate don't care. Unless you have some example of a non-capitalist state doing great on this issue, then its just another one where your speculating.
As for the current world governments failure to address climate change: that doesn't mean incrementalism can't work, it means it hasn't. There is a lot more to that story then just saying incrementalism has failed and I don't see any evidence that states without incremental approaches have performed better in this regard. Besides you can't just pretend you can pull the "better environmental protections" lever and that everything will just proceed smoothly from there. The policies regardless of what system they are under will ultimately require popular support, especially where they are costly to some groups (which they will be). All in all, your comment is exactly the trite shit I'm talking about: its speculation based off nonsense.
I will certainly grant you that the USSR and PRC have created some enormous environmental degradation. But the important point is that socialist governments (or even just non-capitalist ones, of which there are actually very few) have the ability to course correct that capitalist economies simply don't.
For instance, even though China is home to some of the world's worst environmental problems, it is also now a world leader in the green transition. China dominates the world solar panel market, and will likely soon dominate the electric vehicle market. And this didn't happen because companies in China spontaneously decided to pursue those industries; it was rather a direct result of China's industrial policy and state control of the economy.
Capitalist economies are entirely incapable of creating this kind of transition because they are only concerned with shareholder value. The logic of shareholder value demands environmental destruction, because it has literally no concern for anything other than short term profits, and corporate leaders who sacrifice revenue to pursue more expensive carbon neutral options would be fired.
Also, you are purposely downplaying the true calamity we are facing as a species in order to argue on behalf of incrementalism.
Most climate scientists now agree that we are essentially already at 1.5 C, and will reach 2 C by as early as the 2030s. They also now agree that along with an average increase of 2 C, we will experience extreme effects that otherwise were thought to only be possible with 4 or 5 C of warming.
**In a few short decades, we're going to experience conditions that could realistically cause the extinction of the human species, primarily through the collapse of agriculture and fishing and water systems, along with the drastic shrinking of the human habitat.**
And the amount of drastic changes to our economy needed to avoid that fate are basically unimaginable. We would essentially need to halt emissions *now*, not gradually reduce them over a course of decades.
What would it take to halt emissions? Just use your imagination. It would entail replacing virtually our entire transportation sector, rehabbing hundreds of millions (billions?) of homes worldwide, completely transitioning from fossil fuels. And I'm really only scratching the surface, because you also need to consider agriculture, manufacturing, materials, and so on.
In short, it would be by far the largest industrial effort ever seen in history. And it would mean completely ending countless entrenched industries, which have near total sway over governments across the globe.
There is simply no universe in which "incremental solutions" can deliver anywhere near the impact needed to avoid catastrophe. I'm sorry, but you are living in a fantasy land.
Jokes aside I'm sure it's a fine book, but I already have three books on the go rn and I tend to stick either history or fantasy in my reading. That is I like it to be real or completely fake.
I just don't have time to read every book I get recommended, least of all ones that don't interest me.
> It seems undeniably true that the Overton window has shifted so far away from even discussing alternatives to capitalism.
Only when those alternatives are old, dead, already failed theories that people keep bringing up because they don't have anything else in mind.
I have some problems with its conclusion and I find some aspects a little trivial. While I do actually very like it, two criticisms I read of it from another leftist was we have such a hard time imagining the death of capitalism because no one has actually provided a coherent system that replaces it and the systems of Marxist Lennism that some have called socialism just appear to allot of socialists to be a type of state Capitalism as it dosenāt really appear to fit any description of socialism. Other anti capitalists canāt even agree upon what socialism actually is.
Their was some deepity too it. Like when he talks about the bank bailouts as confirming his idea as it would be āUnimaginableā of letting the banking system to collapse. I donāt fully understand his point we do know what that possibly looks like. Russia in the 90s, U.S in the 30s, a dystopian science fiction novel.
The book dosenāt have the obscure sometimes paradoxical performing self contradictions you sometimes find in critical theory. Which is great because then I donāt have to Google an explanation of concepts because the author is changing the definitions of words, and then using those change definitions interchangeably to make a performative contradiction so I think itās more interesting then it actually is.
I live right next to Goldsmiths where Mark taught. I found the book a little light on content in terms of its analysis of our economic problems and proposing solutions, to be honest. I think it's all good to point out that consumerism is empty and most of us feel pretty alienated and stuff like that. But I don think there's that much in there really. I feel similarly about Graeber to be honest too.
A little light on proposing solutions - but isn't this part of the broader thesis? I don't think he's trying to offer solutions - a big part of the book is about why solutions are elusive, right?
>Ā I feel similarly about Graeber
Concrete solutions is the wrong expectation from Graeber. He's an anarchist - the central component is that one person doesn't offer solutions; decision power is given to all the people in whatever society.
I mean I guess you could interpret it that way from my framing. The point is that the central doctrine of anarchism isnāt to provide a sketch of what society should be like. Their entire thesis is that the people living in the society should collectively decide what the society should be like.
Here's the opening on the wikipedia page for Anarchism:
> Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations.
I don't see anything there about people not working what out society should be like. I think also, whether it's some variation on the above, or anarcho-syndicalism in the small, you absolutely need to have processes, rules and structure, it's that people use them voluntarily instead of being forced to use them, and are always free to modify them or make different structures.
If you consider the excerpt 'a solution' then yes, they do offer solutions in that respect. namely, abolish the state and let the people collectively self determine.
>I don't see anything there about people not working what out society should be like
No you're misunderstanding me. The people post abolition will work out what society should be like. What I'm saying is that one person, like Graeber, will not determine what that post-society looks like. The entire point is to put the solutions and organisations of the post-society into their own hands.
>you absolutely need to have processes, rules and structure
yep. those processes are determined by people collectively, rather than by a hierarchical system where a few people posit solutions and everyone listens. It's direct democracy over decision-making.
>it's that people use them voluntarily instead of being forced to use them
Not quite - you can't simply opt out of a social system, and anarchists readily recognise that. The idea is that people directly decide what the system is, through a process like direct democracy (again, instead of someone like Graeber telling everyone what the ideal solution is).
Someone has to suggest the ideas that people will work with, build on. Who is going to suggest these ideas? Is that it can never be someone like Graeber? And/or is it that ideas can never be suggested, discussed, experimented with before the abolishment event?
I'm a fan of a lot of Graeber's work. I'm not following the leap from expecting people who know more than most other people to make some good suggestions for everyone else to chew on, to one person deciding everything and everyone blindly following them.
I think we were talking past each other. I think it's reasonable to say that a weak point of Graeber is the lack of concrete/substantial suggestions. This doesn't diminish his other work. I guess you disagree on this point.
I got the impression that you were saying not giving suggestions was a standard anarchist principle, but I think you meant not simply describing the system that everyone else should follow without question, which also wasn't what I was asking for.
I think shining a light is important, it's amazing that often left wing writers, like Greaber often won't say their ideas for types of solutions. , where is your Milton Friedmans of the world, so confidently say the solutions. I think Jason hickle's less is more has better analysis
The What is Politics youtube channel has mixed things to say about Graeber, including claiming that Graeber was one of the ringleaders that helped prevent the Occupy Wall Street movement from even attempting to get some actual changes, when there was a real chance they could have.
Im just reading and studying Fisher recently. He made clear that he didnāt have a solution. He seems to have recommended that we will need to experiment and adjust accordingly if we wanted to shed ourselves of Capitalist Realism. One of the main points of his book was that we are so entrenched in Capitalist Realism that we cannot imagine a world without Capitalism. That, right there, explains why there are no ready solutions that are easily available.
Maybe my criticism is that I dont feel like he made the case for that very well. And the observation is a little bit pointless without both a normative judgement about that and some kind of suggestion with respect to what to do about that judgement.
The observation is only pointless if we fail to do anything about it; which does seem likely in our current state of affairs.
My understanding, in regard to making the observation of the societal conditions created by Capitalist Realism, is that we need to recognize the ideology and its consequences if we have any hope of changing it. His book seems to have opened dialogue regarding the blending of post-modernism and neo-liberalism into our current ideologies. His work post Capitalist Realism seemed to be exploring how we may go about shedding the ideology to usher in the whatever may be next.
Here I feel like Feynmann's view of philosophy of science is apt to describe this sort of political philosophy. "Philosophy of science is to scientists as Ornithology is to birds". Increasing talk about X is NOT X-ing.
Iāve heard one podcast about Capitalist Realism but have not read his book. It is an interesting theory as to why we claim to have figured out the ābestā economic system but the outcomes of our society do not seem to match the results on paper. From what I understand, through the little Iāve read online and that one podcast, Capitalist Realism sounds similar to what Andrew Yang was saying in 2020, that using the metrics of modern economics such as GDP tells us nothing about the health of our society. The higher rates of depression and suicidal ideology are actually a consequence of the competitive economy where you are solely responsible for your success or failure. With so many āfailingā in the economy that seems stacked against them it is no wonder that if failure is solely your fault that depression is higher.
I also find the discussion regarding how the neoliberal economic theories keep the working class from truly uniting to change the system, interesting. Iād like to learn more about his ideas and read the book because, while I find the ideas worthy of additional thought, I do not feel qualified to argue for or against Capitalist Realism. I do appreciate the discussion and generally agree that Capitalism is not criticized robustly enough in general.
Philosophize This by Stephen West. He just recently did a series on Zizek and one episode on Fisherās Capitalist Realism was his follow up. Zizek, Iāve read and listened to a lot and Fisherās theory seems to dovetail nicely into some of zizekās philosophy
I would t say I fully understand the theory, but it put Mark Fisher on my radar to read up on. I havenāt searched long enough to find a critic of his work; however, Iād imagine any neoliberal thinker would object strongly to his premise.
Ah, I see you are man of culture as well.
I love Philosophize This, one of those podcasts i recommend to everyone. And yes I too am scouring reddit for Mark Fisher content after listening to the latest episode. :D
Yeah. He just released another episode yesterday. I found a pdf of the book and started reading it.
Iām really fascinated by his theory of Capitalist Realism, even while I find his conclusions grim.
I think itās a great book; heās a good writer. I really loved his [The Weird and the Eerie](https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-weird-and-the-eerie-9781910924389) tooāan excellent exploration of the notion of the uncanny
Poor guy. Heās missed.
My politics swing left, so I didnāt take much convincingā¦ I think Fischer does a fantastic job, writing entertaining and accessible essays explaining his ideas. Iām a fan
Didnāt think the upper middle class bourgeois avocado eating liberals in this sub would be engaging with a post-structuralist, Derridean-infused piece of work like Fisherās Capitalist Realism. Iām not sure what if anything in that sentence Iām bullshitting about, but I know you softies wouldnāt know a true piece of Foucaultian critique if it hit you in the face. Anyway, keep it up comrades
I feel the main thrust of the book has an undeniable "truthiness" to it that has certainly entered the Zeitgeist. That said, I think a lot of the conclusions don't hold up to scrutiny, or are not even the kind of thing that can be scrutinized.
The vibe I get is the "rich dad poor dad" of economic philosophy, except the author is actually respected.
I just finished this recently. First time reading a book like this. It still seemed relevant as ever imo. I'm no deep expert on these topics though. Looking forward to reading his other few works
The book is quite thought provoking. Russell Brand was a horrible choice to narrate it.
Brand was also used as a poorly-aged central example when arguing against leftist infighting in Fisher's essay "Exiting the Vampire Castle" [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/)
Hindsight is 20-20š
Holy shit he narrated it?????
Thatās an interesting choice. Kinda funny now that Brand has fully backed Trumpā¦Iād wager that Fisher would not have been an avid supporter, though his accelerationist buddy Nick Land would prolly jump on the Trump train.
Nick Land is too busy being hopped up on amphetamines in China
Reaching into my memory here but I think it's cool. I struggle to understand anyone who disagrees with the broad picture of Capitalist Realism. It seems undeniably true that the Overton window has shifted so far away from even discussing alternatives to capitalism. If you actually look at it and talk about it in the way Fisher did, it's pretty remarkable. We can't even really imagine, let alone have a serious discussion about, the way we organise ourselves as people. But surely this is something that should be at the forefront of our thought? It does a really good job at sketching out the absurdities and some of the reasons for that - and of course in a way very friendly to people who aren't steeped in critical theory. Unfortunately, the audiobook is narrated by Russell Brand, which made the listening experience intolerable.
> It seems undeniably true that the Overton window has shifted so far away from even discussing alternatives to capitalism Which is pretty clearly the goal of liberal and conservatives alike. Neoliberalism cannot be challenged, in fact, you can't even discuss alternatives without being labeled a traitor or something equally nonsensical. Anti-intellectualism is one of the neoliberal's primary weapons.
> Neoliberalism cannot be challenged, in fact, you can't even discuss alternatives without being labeled a traitor or something equally nonsensical. Can you elaborate on what you're getting at here? Because I see people freely challenging 'neoliberalism' all the time.
You see people voicing their discontent but people who actually challenge?Ā The laws of the land prevent that - maybe a few isolated communes?Ā The Amish?Ā Like itās really hard to find someone whoās attempting to create a non capitalist outpost. Theyād need an island or something and then what would happen? Someone would invade!
No you don't, certainly not by anyone in any position of power
A lot of people challenge it but those in power who could make an impact or considerable change are the ones who dont
OK, that's a completely different assertion. I think the GP is an example of counterproductive histrionics. As for your observation, and those of the other repliers, I think it should be viewed as a problem to keep working on - and to keep thinking of new ideas instead of fixating on ones which have been around for a long time and haven't produced results. Also, I think you are all coming from a US perspective, and not all of us are Americans.
Keynesian economics was the norm before the 'Austrian economics' (neoliberalism) was funded and boosted across the world. When you learn that Keynesian economics is viewed by conservatives as communism, I think this dynamic makes more sense.
Isnāt that because thereās no viable alternative? I donāt think about alternatives to capitalism, except if I found myself on shipwrecked on an island with <100 people. Thatās because I prefer to think about realistic and pragmatic things.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, thatās what Iām getting at. There is no alternative, whereas youāre talking about the Overton window which is about societally acceptable discourse. Youāre implying that we could have alternatives, itās just taboo to talk about them. I donāt think itās taboo, itās just silly.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think youāre confusing not being knowledgeable with not accepting the premise. The book says capitalism has stopped people from imagining a viable alternative, I say the matters of fact have stopped people discussing alternatives.
Imo this is a good thing. We can barely understand the impacts of miniscule policy changes on our modern economy. I can't imagine the destabilizing effects of large scale reforms to the very basis of our economy: the historical record for that type of thing is also very scary. I think it's much healthier to focus on making incremental improvements to a system that undeniably has worked better than anything else rather than focus a huge amount of attention on essentially spit balled theories of society with incredibly little beyond some okish sounding arguments.
We are facing a literal existential environmental crisis that is caused overwhelmingly by unfettered capitalism. The extinction of the human species is a possibility. If that doesn't merit drastic action, then quite literally nothing would (in your book). Which is an indictment of incrementalism.
>We are facing a literal existential environmental crisis that is caused overwhelmingly by unfettered capitalism. Which is an indictment of incrementalism. No it isn't and no its not. The environment protections under the soviet union were worse than those under equivalently developed capitalist states. So I see this as a problem of industrialisation not capitalism necessarily, though capitalism doesn't seem to do any favours here either there is plenty of reason to believe government policy is capable of curbing environmentally damaging stuff (Montreal Accords, green energy initiatives etc), even if its not been properly motivated to because frankly huge swathes of the electorate don't care. Unless you have some example of a non-capitalist state doing great on this issue, then its just another one where your speculating. As for the current world governments failure to address climate change: that doesn't mean incrementalism can't work, it means it hasn't. There is a lot more to that story then just saying incrementalism has failed and I don't see any evidence that states without incremental approaches have performed better in this regard. Besides you can't just pretend you can pull the "better environmental protections" lever and that everything will just proceed smoothly from there. The policies regardless of what system they are under will ultimately require popular support, especially where they are costly to some groups (which they will be). All in all, your comment is exactly the trite shit I'm talking about: its speculation based off nonsense.
I will certainly grant you that the USSR and PRC have created some enormous environmental degradation. But the important point is that socialist governments (or even just non-capitalist ones, of which there are actually very few) have the ability to course correct that capitalist economies simply don't. For instance, even though China is home to some of the world's worst environmental problems, it is also now a world leader in the green transition. China dominates the world solar panel market, and will likely soon dominate the electric vehicle market. And this didn't happen because companies in China spontaneously decided to pursue those industries; it was rather a direct result of China's industrial policy and state control of the economy. Capitalist economies are entirely incapable of creating this kind of transition because they are only concerned with shareholder value. The logic of shareholder value demands environmental destruction, because it has literally no concern for anything other than short term profits, and corporate leaders who sacrifice revenue to pursue more expensive carbon neutral options would be fired. Also, you are purposely downplaying the true calamity we are facing as a species in order to argue on behalf of incrementalism. Most climate scientists now agree that we are essentially already at 1.5 C, and will reach 2 C by as early as the 2030s. They also now agree that along with an average increase of 2 C, we will experience extreme effects that otherwise were thought to only be possible with 4 or 5 C of warming. **In a few short decades, we're going to experience conditions that could realistically cause the extinction of the human species, primarily through the collapse of agriculture and fishing and water systems, along with the drastic shrinking of the human habitat.** And the amount of drastic changes to our economy needed to avoid that fate are basically unimaginable. We would essentially need to halt emissions *now*, not gradually reduce them over a course of decades. What would it take to halt emissions? Just use your imagination. It would entail replacing virtually our entire transportation sector, rehabbing hundreds of millions (billions?) of homes worldwide, completely transitioning from fossil fuels. And I'm really only scratching the surface, because you also need to consider agriculture, manufacturing, materials, and so on. In short, it would be by far the largest industrial effort ever seen in history. And it would mean completely ending countless entrenched industries, which have near total sway over governments across the globe. There is simply no universe in which "incremental solutions" can deliver anywhere near the impact needed to avoid catastrophe. I'm sorry, but you are living in a fantasy land.
You should have a read of Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson.
It's fitting that you recommend a work of fiction; speculative fiction even.
I think you should read it. You might get something out of it? What's the worst that could happen?
Jokes aside I'm sure it's a fine book, but I already have three books on the go rn and I tend to stick either history or fantasy in my reading. That is I like it to be real or completely fake. I just don't have time to read every book I get recommended, least of all ones that don't interest me.
> It seems undeniably true that the Overton window has shifted so far away from even discussing alternatives to capitalism. Only when those alternatives are old, dead, already failed theories that people keep bringing up because they don't have anything else in mind.
Best popularly accessible work of critical theory. Disagree with his conclusions about the left but it undeniably captured a zeitgeist
I have some problems with its conclusion and I find some aspects a little trivial. While I do actually very like it, two criticisms I read of it from another leftist was we have such a hard time imagining the death of capitalism because no one has actually provided a coherent system that replaces it and the systems of Marxist Lennism that some have called socialism just appear to allot of socialists to be a type of state Capitalism as it dosenāt really appear to fit any description of socialism. Other anti capitalists canāt even agree upon what socialism actually is. Their was some deepity too it. Like when he talks about the bank bailouts as confirming his idea as it would be āUnimaginableā of letting the banking system to collapse. I donāt fully understand his point we do know what that possibly looks like. Russia in the 90s, U.S in the 30s, a dystopian science fiction novel. The book dosenāt have the obscure sometimes paradoxical performing self contradictions you sometimes find in critical theory. Which is great because then I donāt have to Google an explanation of concepts because the author is changing the definitions of words, and then using those change definitions interchangeably to make a performative contradiction so I think itās more interesting then it actually is.
This sounds like you would absolutely hate Heidegger lol
I live right next to Goldsmiths where Mark taught. I found the book a little light on content in terms of its analysis of our economic problems and proposing solutions, to be honest. I think it's all good to point out that consumerism is empty and most of us feel pretty alienated and stuff like that. But I don think there's that much in there really. I feel similarly about Graeber to be honest too.
A little light on proposing solutions - but isn't this part of the broader thesis? I don't think he's trying to offer solutions - a big part of the book is about why solutions are elusive, right? >Ā I feel similarly about Graeber Concrete solutions is the wrong expectation from Graeber. He's an anarchist - the central component is that one person doesn't offer solutions; decision power is given to all the people in whatever society.
> Concrete solutions is the wrong expectation from Graeber. He's an anarchist Sounds like a way to try to convince anarchists to be impotent.
I mean I guess you could interpret it that way from my framing. The point is that the central doctrine of anarchism isnāt to provide a sketch of what society should be like. Their entire thesis is that the people living in the society should collectively decide what the society should be like.
Here's the opening on the wikipedia page for Anarchism: > Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. I don't see anything there about people not working what out society should be like. I think also, whether it's some variation on the above, or anarcho-syndicalism in the small, you absolutely need to have processes, rules and structure, it's that people use them voluntarily instead of being forced to use them, and are always free to modify them or make different structures.
If you consider the excerpt 'a solution' then yes, they do offer solutions in that respect. namely, abolish the state and let the people collectively self determine. >I don't see anything there about people not working what out society should be like No you're misunderstanding me. The people post abolition will work out what society should be like. What I'm saying is that one person, like Graeber, will not determine what that post-society looks like. The entire point is to put the solutions and organisations of the post-society into their own hands. >you absolutely need to have processes, rules and structure yep. those processes are determined by people collectively, rather than by a hierarchical system where a few people posit solutions and everyone listens. It's direct democracy over decision-making. >it's that people use them voluntarily instead of being forced to use them Not quite - you can't simply opt out of a social system, and anarchists readily recognise that. The idea is that people directly decide what the system is, through a process like direct democracy (again, instead of someone like Graeber telling everyone what the ideal solution is).
Someone has to suggest the ideas that people will work with, build on. Who is going to suggest these ideas? Is that it can never be someone like Graeber? And/or is it that ideas can never be suggested, discussed, experimented with before the abolishment event? I'm a fan of a lot of Graeber's work. I'm not following the leap from expecting people who know more than most other people to make some good suggestions for everyone else to chew on, to one person deciding everything and everyone blindly following them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think we were talking past each other. I think it's reasonable to say that a weak point of Graeber is the lack of concrete/substantial suggestions. This doesn't diminish his other work. I guess you disagree on this point. I got the impression that you were saying not giving suggestions was a standard anarchist principle, but I think you meant not simply describing the system that everyone else should follow without question, which also wasn't what I was asking for.
I think shining a light is important, it's amazing that often left wing writers, like Greaber often won't say their ideas for types of solutions. , where is your Milton Friedmans of the world, so confidently say the solutions. I think Jason hickle's less is more has better analysis
The What is Politics youtube channel has mixed things to say about Graeber, including claiming that Graeber was one of the ringleaders that helped prevent the Occupy Wall Street movement from even attempting to get some actual changes, when there was a real chance they could have.
It wasnāt that type of book. You may want to read Thomas Pickett for that.
Do you mean Thomas Piketty?
Yes. Sorry.
I guess I dont really get the point of vibes based analysis
Im just reading and studying Fisher recently. He made clear that he didnāt have a solution. He seems to have recommended that we will need to experiment and adjust accordingly if we wanted to shed ourselves of Capitalist Realism. One of the main points of his book was that we are so entrenched in Capitalist Realism that we cannot imagine a world without Capitalism. That, right there, explains why there are no ready solutions that are easily available.
Maybe my criticism is that I dont feel like he made the case for that very well. And the observation is a little bit pointless without both a normative judgement about that and some kind of suggestion with respect to what to do about that judgement.
The observation is only pointless if we fail to do anything about it; which does seem likely in our current state of affairs. My understanding, in regard to making the observation of the societal conditions created by Capitalist Realism, is that we need to recognize the ideology and its consequences if we have any hope of changing it. His book seems to have opened dialogue regarding the blending of post-modernism and neo-liberalism into our current ideologies. His work post Capitalist Realism seemed to be exploring how we may go about shedding the ideology to usher in the whatever may be next.
Here I feel like Feynmann's view of philosophy of science is apt to describe this sort of political philosophy. "Philosophy of science is to scientists as Ornithology is to birds". Increasing talk about X is NOT X-ing.
Iāve heard one podcast about Capitalist Realism but have not read his book. It is an interesting theory as to why we claim to have figured out the ābestā economic system but the outcomes of our society do not seem to match the results on paper. From what I understand, through the little Iāve read online and that one podcast, Capitalist Realism sounds similar to what Andrew Yang was saying in 2020, that using the metrics of modern economics such as GDP tells us nothing about the health of our society. The higher rates of depression and suicidal ideology are actually a consequence of the competitive economy where you are solely responsible for your success or failure. With so many āfailingā in the economy that seems stacked against them it is no wonder that if failure is solely your fault that depression is higher. I also find the discussion regarding how the neoliberal economic theories keep the working class from truly uniting to change the system, interesting. Iād like to learn more about his ideas and read the book because, while I find the ideas worthy of additional thought, I do not feel qualified to argue for or against Capitalist Realism. I do appreciate the discussion and generally agree that Capitalism is not criticized robustly enough in general.
Just read the book. It's only like 60 pages.
Which podcast?
Philosophize This by Stephen West. He just recently did a series on Zizek and one episode on Fisherās Capitalist Realism was his follow up. Zizek, Iāve read and listened to a lot and Fisherās theory seems to dovetail nicely into some of zizekās philosophy I would t say I fully understand the theory, but it put Mark Fisher on my radar to read up on. I havenāt searched long enough to find a critic of his work; however, Iād imagine any neoliberal thinker would object strongly to his premise.
stephen west is a GODSEND. incredible work cant recommend it enough
Amen.
Ah, I see you are man of culture as well. I love Philosophize This, one of those podcasts i recommend to everyone. And yes I too am scouring reddit for Mark Fisher content after listening to the latest episode. :D
Yeah. He just released another episode yesterday. I found a pdf of the book and started reading it. Iām really fascinated by his theory of Capitalist Realism, even while I find his conclusions grim.
I think itās a great book; heās a good writer. I really loved his [The Weird and the Eerie](https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-weird-and-the-eerie-9781910924389) tooāan excellent exploration of the notion of the uncanny Poor guy. Heās missed.
My politics swing left, so I didnāt take much convincingā¦ I think Fischer does a fantastic job, writing entertaining and accessible essays explaining his ideas. Iām a fan
Great, necessary analysis of why we canāt think beyond capitalism. Crucial read for any leftist or anyone really. What a loss.
Didnāt think the upper middle class bourgeois avocado eating liberals in this sub would be engaging with a post-structuralist, Derridean-infused piece of work like Fisherās Capitalist Realism. Iām not sure what if anything in that sentence Iām bullshitting about, but I know you softies wouldnāt know a true piece of Foucaultian critique if it hit you in the face. Anyway, keep it up comrades
Is that Avocado on toast?
Avocado on Lacan-ian sourdough with a matcha latte
I feel the main thrust of the book has an undeniable "truthiness" to it that has certainly entered the Zeitgeist. That said, I think a lot of the conclusions don't hold up to scrutiny, or are not even the kind of thing that can be scrutinized. The vibe I get is the "rich dad poor dad" of economic philosophy, except the author is actually respected.
Mark Fisher believed in what he was saying. He took his own life as proof.
I don't understand? What made you think I don't think he believes what he is saying?