Mark Fisher's 'Capitalist Realism': a Sober 21st Century Account

‘In one of the key scenes in Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 film Children of Men, Clive Owen’s character, Theo, visits a friend at Battersea Power Station, which is now some combination of government building and private collection. Cultural treasures – Michelangelo’s David, Picasso’s Guernica, Pink Floyd’s inflatable pig – are preserved in a building that is itself a refurbished heritage artifact. This is our only glimpse into the lives of the elite, holed up against the effects of a catastrophe which has caused mass sterility: no children have been born for a generation. Theo asks the question, ‘how all this can matter if there will be no-one to see it?’ The alibi can no longer be future generations, since there will be none. The response is nihilistic hedonism: ‘I try not to think about it’.‘ So begins Mark Fisher’s vision of contemporary Capitalism, a balanced if damning account, which may answer the long standing question over who might be able to do justice to our times. By doing justice, one means being able to effectively render in the written word the dire aspects that characterize society in the UK, without simultaneously reverting to shrill Anti-Capitalist hystericism, and in a way that can be understood widely, not just in closed academic circles; a few guys at the Sorbonne and a smattering of blogging pedants. Yes, Mark Fisher might be that writer – and he does well to appropriate the methods of Žižek, always having a filmic or, often darkly humorous, real life anecdote to hand to back up his claims, whilst avoiding the complexity that blights the work of the aforementioned – though one feels that if he is, he is hamstrung somewhat by the nature of the times he attempts to describe. For whilst one sees an expert diagnosis of the problems in a ‘capitalist realist’ society, i.e. one where (following Žižek and Frederic Jameson), ‘it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism’, one also sees little offered in the way of a cure for our contemporary ills. More on this later, though I must say now, that Fisher has conceded that the length of the study he has undertaken does not permit of solutions. The line that Fisher takes is well worn, and at points one wonders whether he has swallowed Adorno’s better known works, before regurgitating parts of them, having forgotten where he got them from. To be sure, Adorno is an unfashionable figure as regards the critique of Capitalism, yet when Fisher asks, ‘What happens if the young are no longer capable of producing surprises?,’ later going on to talk, vis-a-vis gangster rap and Kurt Cobain, about the fact that there is no ‘alternative’, one wonders whether a genuinely novel artwork might be appealed to as a corrective to the malaise caused by the ‘culture industry’. Two or three pages after approaching the lack of a truly ‘alternative’ scene, Fisher references Žižek, on the way in which we all deceive ourselves – ‘According to Žižek, capitalism in general relies on this structure of disavowal. We believe that money is only a meaningless token of no intrinsic worth, yet we act as if it has a holy value…’ Yet, if money is only illusion, could we not shift its value through a call to a more worthy illusion – i.e. genuine ‘art’, which makes illusion its primary focus? We would then, of course, be stuck asking whether or not ‘art’ can really exist in a society so ridden with ulterior motive, but all the same, this debate, or even a hint towards it, seems conspicuous in its absence. However, to make too much of this would be unfair, and one might anyhow assume that Mark Fisher just doesn’t see art as having an emancipatory value. Another thing he doesn’t see, is the value of the extreme anti-capitalist movement, and he is to be lauded for identifying its faults, having argued that there was – during recent major activist actions) – a ‘sense that the anti-capitalism movement consisted of making a series of hysterical demands which it didn’t expect to be met.’ As a writer I see here a certain bravery in Fisher’s words. He pulls no punches when tackling the worst excesses of Capitalism on the one hand, neglecting to hide behind the veil that philosophical obscurity provides many academic dissenters, whilst having a pop at the extreme Left wing and anti-capitalist factions on the other hand, something unprecedented in writing of the sort he undertakes. What Fisher proposes is that the soft sheen that Capitalism presents be exposed as a mere front, with many of its supposed ‘softeners’ – things fed to the public to condition them to the system – in fact being outright lies. The Liberalist promise of less bureaucracy and state control are two such blatant examples. In the latter case state control has recently been referred to in order to shore up Capitalism. We have the worst hybrid. State Capitalism. We need rupture that sheen somehow, and expose not the realism of capitalism (i.e. the argument that Capitalism is all that is) but the Real which resides beyond it. With reference to the numbing effects of bureaucracy and of our society in general Fisher refers to his experience of teaching teenagers: ‘Depression is usually characterized as a state of anhedonia, but the condition I’m referring to is constituted not by an inability to get pleasure so much as it by an inability to do anything else except pursue pleasure. There is a sense that ‘something is missing’ – but no appreciation that this mysterious, missing enjoyment can only be accessed beyond the pleasure principle.’ The kids don’t ‘get’ that to really enjoy one’s life requires work on their part, and yet their teachers are unable to convey such a message, being that they spend all of their time meeting targets. It is here that a funny line entered my head with relation to the said teenagers: ‘they need an injunction… make art or die!’. Of course, that returns us to my own aesthetic/Adornian sensibilities, but it also points to what is, I feel, most radical in Fisher’s account… his disdain for the values of the youth of today. Of course, one sees when reading Capitalist Realism that such a sentiment on the writer’s part is not borne of a disdain for the said teenagers/young adults themselves… yet the opinion stated is nonetheless seemingly a stoical one, the kind of which will have no doubt left many of Fisher’s readers feeling angry and uncomfortable when they were in their teens. However, far from being the old grouch, one gets the impression that Fisher’s take is a justified one that relates to a world far removed even from that which I inhabited at A-Level college 15 years ago. His description of a student who on one day insists on wearing his i-pod headphones with no music playing, yet on another day insists on playing the music – very quietly – without wearing the headphones is as sharp as it is hilarious. People these days need the constant comfort of the electronic media machine at hand… otherwise reality somehow seems less ‘real’ for them. Yet I feel there is a missed opportunity here, and although Fisher is clear in his disdain for the hedonism of our times (students fall ‘into hedonistic lassitude: the soft narcosis, the comfort food oblivion of Playstation, all-night TV and marijuana.’), when he comes to propose solutions to our problems it he, arguably, reneges on what might have been an opportunity to really ‘mark’ himself out. For where, in places, Fisher attacks the digital age for the dumbing down effect it has on the written word – something that could be easily counteracted with the argument that, well, it is not obligatory that written forms stay the same for all of history – one sees a conservatism, whereas if he eked out the potential of his attack on hedonism he might be seen to approach, conversely, something positively radical. Who would dare deprive the anti-capitalist front of their drugs and party lifestyle? Returning to writing, I don’t personally feel that there are any worthy battles to be fought over written forms, any more than we should be forced to read only the Bible, and in Latin! But changing the world for the better might be easier if many of the factions hungry for change weren’t ‘wasted’ half the time. Fisher references A-Level college. He might have referenced University, where bright kids learn to be dumb, and end up fighting addictions for the rest of their lives. Take into account that a healthy percentage of ‘drink money’ is given to the State, which props up Capitalism, and we have a grim reality that needs to be held to account. In any case, Fisher implies points like these I his disdain for a society which always values the quick route to happiness. At 16 that means being drip fed digital entertainment, at 26 being virtually drip fed mass produced lager, at 66 just being drip fed, old obese, and no longer useful for the task of making more money. Another thing Fisher does well is point to the links between Capital and madness… incidences of pyschosis seem to accord with the level to which a society is Capitalist, and this seems the most damning indictment of our system that Fisher proffers. We are simply not made for the society we live in, and changes are needed, whether they be revolutionary, or in the manner of fine tuning. In the closing pages Fisher both implies the need for rationing, thus returning to stoicism whilst adding an ecological dimension, and alludes to some kind of potential positive rupture in society, even hinting at the useful critical capacity that might reside in the minds of the mentally ill. One wonders here what kind of recipe for change this is… stoicism admixed with schizophrenia? It almost poses a call to look East, where in some cultures breakdowns are characterized as powerful unleashings of spiritual energy which must be allowed to run their course, whilst frugality is a way of life, when not though necessity, as a trait of culture. One hopes, however, that Capital doesn’t stifle these alternatives before it is too late. Perhaps what is needed is intervention in industrializing nations, so that when they supercede the West in technical capacity they will then bombard us with positive cultural images of their own, rather than feeding our dire systems back to us, with a Bollywood bent. For now, however, we have a resurgent social critique in the UK, and thanks to Fisher it may have substance. I have a feeling this is not the best he could offer, but it is needed right now, and if it doesn’t pose solutions entirely convincingly, it as at the least a powerful, coherent and sober account that will reach out to many. Mike Watson ‘Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?’ is available from ZerO Books 2010-02-03T05:48:55-05:00 false true 1161 Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism, Mike Watson

open-ideas-mark-fisher-s-capitalist-realism-a-sober-21st-century-account

15783

‘In one of the key scenes in Alfonso Cuarón’s 2006 film Children of Men, Clive Owen’s character, Theo, visits a friend at Battersea Power Station, which is now some combination of government building and private collection. Cultural treasures – Michelangelo’s David, Picasso’s Guernica, Pink Floyd’s inflatable pig – are preserved in a building that is itself a refurbished heritage artifact. This is our only glimpse into the lives of the elite, holed up against the effects of a catastrophe which has caused mass sterility: no children have been born for a generation. Theo asks the question, ‘how all this can matter if there will be no-one to see it?’ The alibi can no longer be future generations, since there will be none. The response is nihilistic hedonism: ‘I try not to think about it’.‘ So begins Mark Fisher’s vision of contemporary Capitalism, a balanced if damning account, which may answer the long standing question over who might be able to do justice to our times. By doing justice, one means being able to effectively render in the written word the dire aspects that characterize society in the UK, without simultaneously reverting to shrill Anti-Capitalist hystericism, and in a way that can be understood widely, not just in closed academic circles; a few guys at the Sorbonne and a smattering of blogging pedants. Yes, Mark Fisher might be that writer – and he does well to appropriate the methods of Žižek, always having a filmic or, often darkly humorous, real life anecdote to hand to back up his claims, whilst avoiding the complexity that blights the work of the aforementioned – though one feels that if he is, he is hamstrung somewhat by the nature of the times he attempts to describe. For whilst one sees an expert diagnosis of the problems in a ‘capitalist realist’ society, i.e. one where (following Žižek and Frederic Jameson), ‘it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism’, one also sees little offered in the way of a cure for our contemporary ills. More on this later, though I must say now, that Fisher has conceded that the length of the study he has undertaken does not permit of solutions. The line that Fisher takes is well worn, and at points one wonders whether he has swallowed Adorno’s better known works, before regurgitating parts of them, having forgotten where he got them from. To be sure, Adorno is an unfashionable figure as regards the critique of Capitalism, yet when Fisher asks, ‘What happens if the young are no longer capable of producing surprises?,’ later going on to talk, vis-a-vis gangster rap and Kurt Cobain, about the fact that there is no ‘alternative’, one wonders whether a genuinely novel artwork might be appealed to as a corrective to the malaise caused by the ‘culture industry’. Two or three pages after approaching the lack of a truly ‘alternative’ scene, Fisher references Žižek, on the way in which we all deceive ourselves – ‘According to Žižek, capitalism in general relies on this structure of disavowal. We believe that money is only a meaningless token of no intrinsic worth, yet we act as if it has a holy value…’ Yet, if money is only illusion, could we not shift its value through a call to a more worthy illusion – i.e. genuine ‘art’, which makes illusion its primary focus? We would then, of course, be stuck asking whether or not ‘art’ can really exist in a society so ridden with ulterior motive, but all the same, this debate, or even a hint towards it, seems conspicuous in its absence. However, to make too much of this would be unfair, and one might anyhow assume that Mark Fisher just doesn’t see art as having an emancipatory value. Another thing he doesn’t see, is the value of the extreme anti-capitalist movement, and he is to be lauded for identifying its faults, having argued that there was – during recent major activist actions) – a ‘sense that the anti-capitalism movement consisted of making a series of hysterical demands which it didn’t expect to be met.’ As a writer I see here a certain bravery in Fisher’s words. He pulls no punches when tackling the worst excesses of Capitalism on the one hand, neglecting to hide behind the veil that philosophical obscurity provides many academic dissenters, whilst having a pop at the extreme Left wing and anti-capitalist factions on the other hand, something unprecedented in writing of the sort he undertakes. What Fisher proposes is that the soft sheen that Capitalism presents be exposed as a mere front, with many of its supposed ‘softeners’ – things fed to the public to condition them to the system – in fact being outright lies. The Liberalist promise of less bureaucracy and state control are two such blatant examples. In the latter case state control has recently been referred to in order to shore up Capitalism. We have the worst hybrid. State Capitalism. We need rupture that sheen somehow, and expose not the realism of capitalism (i.e. the argument that Capitalism is all that is) but the Real which resides beyond it. With reference to the numbing effects of bureaucracy and of our society in general Fisher refers to his experience of teaching teenagers: ‘Depression is usually characterized as a state of anhedonia, but the condition I’m referring to is constituted not by an inability to get pleasure so much as it by an inability to do anything else except pursue pleasure. There is a sense that ‘something is missing’ – but no appreciation that this mysterious, missing enjoyment can only be accessed beyond the pleasure principle.’ The kids don’t ‘get’ that to really enjoy one’s life requires work on their part, and yet their teachers are unable to convey such a message, being that they spend all of their time meeting targets. It is here that a funny line entered my head with relation to the said teenagers: ‘they need an injunction… make art or die!’. Of course, that returns us to my own aesthetic/Adornian sensibilities, but it also points to what is, I feel, most radical in Fisher’s account… his disdain for the values of the youth of today. Of course, one sees when reading Capitalist Realism that such a sentiment on the writer’s part is not borne of a disdain for the said teenagers/young adults themselves… yet the opinion stated is nonetheless seemingly a stoical one, the kind of which will have no doubt left many of Fisher’s readers feeling angry and uncomfortable when they were in their teens. However, far from being the old grouch, one gets the impression that Fisher’s take is a justified one that relates to a world far removed even from that which I inhabited at A-Level college 15 years ago. His description of a student who on one day insists on wearing his i-pod headphones with no music playing, yet on another day insists on playing the music – very quietly – without wearing the headphones is as sharp as it is hilarious. People these days need the constant comfort of the electronic media machine at hand… otherwise reality somehow seems less ‘real’ for them. Yet I feel there is a missed opportunity here, and although Fisher is clear in his disdain for the hedonism of our times (students fall ‘into hedonistic lassitude: the soft narcosis, the comfort food oblivion of Playstation, all-night TV and marijuana.’), when he comes to propose solutions to our problems it he, arguably, reneges on what might have been an opportunity to really ‘mark’ himself out. For where, in places, Fisher attacks the digital age for the dumbing down effect it has on the written word – something that could be easily counteracted with the argument that, well, it is not obligatory that written forms stay the same for all of history – one sees a conservatism, whereas if he eked out the potential of his attack on hedonism he might be seen to approach, conversely, something positively radical. Who would dare deprive the anti-capitalist front of their drugs and party lifestyle? Returning to writing, I don’t personally feel that there are any worthy battles to be fought over written forms, any more than we should be forced to read only the Bible, and in Latin! But changing the world for the better might be easier if many of the factions hungry for change weren’t ‘wasted’ half the time. Fisher references A-Level college. He might have referenced University, where bright kids learn to be dumb, and end up fighting addictions for the rest of their lives. Take into account that a healthy percentage of ‘drink money’ is given to the State, which props up Capitalism, and we have a grim reality that needs to be held to account. In any case, Fisher implies points like these I his disdain for a society which always values the quick route to happiness. At 16 that means being drip fed digital entertainment, at 26 being virtually drip fed mass produced lager, at 66 just being drip fed, old obese, and no longer useful for the task of making more money. Another thing Fisher does well is point to the links between Capital and madness… incidences of pyschosis seem to accord with the level to which a society is Capitalist, and this seems the most damning indictment of our system that Fisher proffers. We are simply not made for the society we live in, and changes are needed, whether they be revolutionary, or in the manner of fine tuning. In the closing pages Fisher both implies the need for rationing, thus returning to stoicism whilst adding an ecological dimension, and alludes to some kind of potential positive rupture in society, even hinting at the useful critical capacity that might reside in the minds of the mentally ill. One wonders here what kind of recipe for change this is… stoicism admixed with schizophrenia? It almost poses a call to look East, where in some cultures breakdowns are characterized as powerful unleashings of spiritual energy which must be allowed to run their course, whilst frugality is a way of life, when not though necessity, as a trait of culture. One hopes, however, that Capital doesn’t stifle these alternatives before it is too late. Perhaps what is needed is intervention in industrializing nations, so that when they supercede the West in technical capacity they will then bombard us with positive cultural images of their own, rather than feeding our dire systems back to us, with a Bollywood bent. For now, however, we have a resurgent social critique in the UK, and thanks to Fisher it may have substance. I have a feeling this is not the best he could offer, but it is needed right now, and if it doesn’t pose solutions entirely convincingly, it as at the least a powerful, coherent and sober account that will reach out to many. Mike Watson ‘Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?’ is available from ZerO Books

'In one of the key scenes in Alfonso Cuarón's 2006 film Children of Men, Clive Owen’s character, Theo, visits a friend at Battersea Power Station, which is now some combination of government building and private collection. Cultural treasures – Michelangelo’s David, Picasso’s Guernica, Pink Floyd’s inflatable pig – are preserved in a building that is itself a refurbished heritage artifact. This is our only glimpse into the lives of the elite, holed up against the effects of a catastrophe which has caused mass sterility: no children have been born for a generation. Theo asks the question, ‘how all this can matter if there will be no-one to see it?’ The alibi can no longer be future generations, since there will be none. The response is nihilistic hedonism: ‘I try not to think about it’.' So begins Mark Fisher's vision of contemporary Capitalism, a balanced if damning account, which may answer the long standing question over who might be able to do justice to our times. By doing justice, one means being able to effectively render in the written word the dire aspects that characterize society in the UK, without simultaneously reverting to shrill Anti-Capitalist hystericism, and in a way that can be understood widely, not just in closed academic circles; a few guys at the Sorbonne and a smattering of blogging pedants. Yes, Mark Fisher might be that writer - and he does well to appropriate the methods of Žižek, always having a filmic or, often darkly humorous, real life anecdote to hand to back up his claims, whilst avoiding the complexity that blights the work of the aforementioned - though one feels that if he is, he is hamstrung somewhat by the nature of the times he attempts to describe. For whilst one sees an expert diagnosis of the problems in a 'capitalist realist' society, i.e. one where (following Žižek and Frederic Jameson), 'it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism', one also sees little offered in the way of a cure for our contemporary ills. More on this later, though I must say now, that Fisher has conceded that the length of the study he has undertaken does not permit of solutions. The line that Fisher takes is well worn, and at points one wonders whether he has swallowed Adorno's better known works, before regurgitating parts of them, having forgotten where he got them from. To be sure, Adorno is an unfashionable figure as regards the critique of Capitalism, yet when Fisher asks, 'What happens if the young are no longer capable of producing surprises?,' later going on to talk, vis-a-vis gangster rap and Kurt Cobain, about the fact that there is no 'alternative', one wonders whether a genuinely novel artwork might be appealed to as a corrective to the malaise caused by the 'culture industry'. Two or three pages after approaching the lack of a truly 'alternative' scene, Fisher references Žižek, on the way in which we all deceive ourselves - 'According to Žižek, capitalism in general relies on this structure of disavowal. We believe that money is only a meaningless token of no intrinsic worth, yet we act as if it has a holy value...' Yet, if money is only illusion, could we not shift its value through a call to a more worthy illusion - i.e. genuine 'art', which makes illusion its primary focus? We would then, of course, be stuck asking whether or not 'art' can really exist in a society so ridden with ulterior motive, but all the same, this debate, or even a hint towards it, seems conspicuous in its absence. However, to make too much of this would be unfair, and one might anyhow assume that Mark Fisher just doesn't see art as having an emancipatory value. Another thing he doesn't see, is the value of the extreme anti-capitalist movement, and he is to be lauded for identifying its faults, having argued that there was - during recent major activist actions) - a 'sense that the anti-capitalism movement consisted of making a series of hysterical demands which it didn’t expect to be met.' As a writer I see here a certain bravery in Fisher's words. He pulls no punches when tackling the worst excesses of Capitalism on the one hand, neglecting to hide behind the veil that philosophical obscurity provides many academic dissenters, whilst having a pop at the extreme Left wing and anti-capitalist factions on the other hand, something unprecedented in writing of the sort he undertakes. What Fisher proposes is that the soft sheen that Capitalism presents be exposed as a mere front, with many of its supposed 'softeners' - things fed to the public to condition them to the system - in fact being outright lies. The Liberalist promise of less bureaucracy and state control are two such blatant examples. In the latter case state control has recently been referred to in order to shore up Capitalism. We have the worst hybrid. State Capitalism. We need rupture that sheen somehow, and expose not the realism of capitalism (i.e. the argument that Capitalism is all that is) but the Real which resides beyond it. With reference to the numbing effects of bureaucracy and of our society in general Fisher refers to his experience of teaching teenagers: 'Depression is usually characterized as a state of anhedonia, but the condition I’m referring to is constituted not by an inability to get pleasure so much as it by an inability to do anything else except pursue pleasure. There is a sense that ‘something is missing’ – but no appreciation that this mysterious, missing enjoyment can only be accessed beyond the pleasure principle.' The kids don't 'get' that to really enjoy one's life requires work on their part, and yet their teachers are unable to convey such a message, being that they spend all of their time meeting targets. It is here that a funny line entered my head with relation to the said teenagers: 'they need an injunction... make art or die!'. Of course, that returns us to my own aesthetic/Adornian sensibilities, but it also points to what is, I feel, most radical in Fisher's account... his disdain for the values of the youth of today. Of course, one sees when reading Capitalist Realism that such a sentiment on the writer's part is not borne of a disdain for the said teenagers/young adults themselves... yet the opinion stated is nonetheless seemingly a stoical one, the kind of which will have no doubt left many of Fisher's readers feeling angry and uncomfortable when they were in their teens. However, far from being the old grouch, one gets the impression that Fisher's take is a justified one that relates to a world far removed even from that which I inhabited at A-Level college 15 years ago. His description of a student who on one day insists on wearing his i-pod headphones with no music playing, yet on another day insists on playing the music – very quietly - without wearing the headphones is as sharp as it is hilarious. People these days need the constant comfort of the electronic media machine at hand... otherwise reality somehow seems less 'real' for them. Yet I feel there is a missed opportunity here, and although Fisher is clear in his disdain for the hedonism of our times (students fall 'into hedonistic lassitude: the soft narcosis, the comfort food oblivion of Playstation, all-night TV and marijuana.'), when he comes to propose solutions to our problems it he, arguably, reneges on what might have been an opportunity to really 'mark' himself out. For where, in places, Fisher attacks the digital age for the dumbing down effect it has on the written word - something that could be easily counteracted with the argument that, well, it is not obligatory that written forms stay the same for all of history - one sees a conservatism, whereas if he eked out the potential of his attack on hedonism he might be seen to approach, conversely, something positively radical. Who would dare deprive the anti-capitalist front of their drugs and party lifestyle? Returning to writing, I don't personally feel that there are any worthy battles to be fought over written forms, any more than we should be forced to read only the Bible, and in Latin! But changing the world for the better might be easier if many of the factions hungry for change weren't 'wasted' half the time. Fisher references A-Level college. He might have referenced University, where bright kids learn to be dumb, and end up fighting addictions for the rest of their lives. Take into account that a healthy percentage of 'drink money' is given to the State, which props up Capitalism, and we have a grim reality that needs to be held to account. In any case, Fisher implies points like these I his disdain for a society which always values the quick route to happiness. At 16 that means being drip fed digital entertainment, at 26 being virtually drip fed mass produced lager, at 66 just being drip fed, old obese, and no longer useful for the task of making more money. Another thing Fisher does well is point to the links between Capital and madness... incidences of pyschosis seem to accord with the level to which a society is Capitalist, and this seems the most damning indictment of our system that Fisher proffers. We are simply not made for the society we live in, and changes are needed, whether they be revolutionary, or in the manner of fine tuning. In the closing pages Fisher both implies the need for rationing, thus returning to stoicism whilst adding an ecological dimension, and alludes to some kind of potential positive rupture in society, even hinting at the useful critical capacity that might reside in the minds of the mentally ill. One wonders here what kind of recipe for change this is... stoicism admixed with schizophrenia? It almost poses a call to look East, where in some cultures breakdowns are characterized as powerful unleashings of spiritual energy which must be allowed to run their course, whilst frugality is a way of life, when not though necessity, as a trait of culture. One hopes, however, that Capital doesn't stifle these alternatives before it is too late. Perhaps what is needed is intervention in industrializing nations, so that when they supercede the West in technical capacity they will then bombard us with positive cultural images of their own, rather than feeding our dire systems back to us, with a Bollywood bent. For now, however, we have a resurgent social critique in the UK, and thanks to Fisher it may have substance. I have a feeling this is not the best he could offer, but it is needed right now, and if it doesn't pose solutions entirely convincingly, it as at the least a powerful, coherent and sober account that will reach out to many. Mike Watson 'Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?' is available from ZerO Books

a review article for Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism

active

Mark Fisher's 'Capitalist Realism': a Sober 21st Century Account true

2010-02-15T16:23:07-05:00

768