Capitalist Realism

thankfully two other people beat me to the punch on this one and i have to say i'm not going to miss it

i'm going to go and read deleuze now

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.

I will admit that I didn't finish this. I got about 3/4 the way through and decided that it was a waste of my time.

What is a "liberal communist"? What is "market Stalinism"? Why would you imply that dyslexia is because we've been brainwashed into only recognizing brand logos and that it can make you a better business executive?

It's very clear that "Stalinism" means something negative that isn't explained and is often oxymoronic (as well as calling George Soros and Bill Gates "liberal communists").

He obviously looks down on the students he used to teach.

He's right that mental health needs to be politicized (and not in the way it usually is in the US, by demonizing the mentally ill and manufacturing consent for the police to execute people on the street), and he's right that we need to look into the social reasons people are ill rather than just the biochemical reasons. And he's right about the fact that being apathetic because you feel powerless is a self fulfilling prophecy.

But for every coherent and good point he makes he rambles on equally as long, and he can't help but drop the term Stalinism constantly and frame Leninists as impotent.

2 stars because it wasn't complete trash.

Full review on: chwiggys-world.de/2020/02/13/fishermark-capitalistrealism/

In the end, I wonder why so often I’m drawn to books on philosophy when reading them so often leaves me dissatisfied or angry, and exhausted at the lengthy sentences.

I don’t think I really would recommend this book to a general audience. A broad and deep knowledge of philosophy, which I do not possess is probably required to get the full extent of insight this short book provides. It draws references to other philosophers and pop culture again and again, and it does a disservice to not understand those references.

For a general audience, this book remains to conceptual to be of much value, and it stays too much in the description of the de facto world we live in instead of actually pointing to a liveable alternative except in the last few pages where Fisher points to actionable strategies in the fight against capital, but those are somewhat removed from the main thesis of this book.

Now I would cringe at the idea that a book needs to be actionable to be of value, but I think together with this and the hints of ableism and anxiety about change dispersed within, this book isn’t ready to be read by a general audience, it is more a working paper, for others to expand upon. Being well versed in anti-capitalist theory definitely improves this read.