4 ms·

The British philosopher Mark Fisher coined the term "capitalist realism" for the sense that, since the beginning of the neoliberal era with Reagan and Thatcher

The British philosopher Mark Fisher coined the term "capitalist realism" for the sense that, since the beginning of the neoliberal era with Reagan and Thatcher and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become impossible to imagine an end to capitalism. In fact, "it has become easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism". Perhaps that's why apocalyptic and dystopian fiction has taken over from optimistic futurism - we are no longer capable of imagining Star Trek futures of abundance and idealism.

Barrin92 5y ago
I think it's important to say that it goes deeper than not being able to imagine idealistic, utopian, or abundant futures. Fisher's point was that we aren't able to imagine any future at all any more. And I think that actually involves Star Trek, which with its sort of 'space replicator communism' and adventurism is in itself not really forward looking, it's just optimistic, and entirely a product of its own time, namely 60s and 70s 'golden age' sci-fi.
huetius 5y ago
I have enjoyed what I’ve read of Mark Fisher, though I haven’t read CR except via excerpt and quotation. If you are open to a compelling, non-Marxist analysis of the present malaise, I would recommend the writings of Augusto Del Noce. The past seventy years have made something of a prophet of Del Noce. He predicted, as early as the 1950s, and among other things which were — at that time — unthinkable: the fall of communism, the sexual revolution, and the global supremacy of a new stage of capitalism, which he believed would become its own, existentially suffocating form of totalitarianism. He wasn’t magic, he just had a very logical way of thinking through the consequences of ideas. He didnt have a philosophical system, but drew heavily from Vico and Rosmini, who did. He was also influenced by his own experience with totalitarianism in the early 20th Century, where he briefly became a Catholic Communist in response to the rise of Fascism, before rejecting both. He was also conversant with modern and contemporary philosophy in a way not paralleled by other Catholic thinkers of his time, excepting Ratzinger. If this sounds interesting, a good introduction is this book review[0], written by him shortly before his death, but after having been vindicated by the collapse of the USSR and it’s aftermath. It touches on a number of Del Nocean ideas: the suicide of the Revolution, the heterogenesis of ends, Occidentalism as ideology, Neo-Capitalism, and traditionalism as an ideological reduction of religious tradition. His books are even better — every bit as clear-eyed and unnerving as what I’ve read of Fisher, but with a glint of hope. [0] https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/marxism-died-in-the-east-because-it-realized-itself-in-the-west/ https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/marxism-died-in-th... (don’t be put off by the cold-warrior title, I’m not sure that it’s his own).

Barrin92 5y ago

I think it's important to say that it goes deeper than not being able to imagine idealistic, utopian, or abundant futures. Fisher's point was that we aren't able to imagine any future at all any more. And I think that actually involves Star Trek, which with its sort of 'space replicator communism' and adventurism is in itself not really forward looking, it's just optimistic, and entirely a product of its own time, namely 60s and 70s 'golden age' sci-fi.

huetius 5y ago

I have enjoyed what I’ve read of Mark Fisher, though I haven’t read CR except via excerpt and quotation. If you are open to a compelling, non-Marxist analysis of the present malaise, I would recommend the writings of Augusto Del Noce. The past seventy years have made something of a prophet of Del Noce. He predicted, as early as the 1950s, and among other things which were — at that time — unthinkable: the fall of communism, the sexual revolution, and the global supremacy of a new stage of capitalism, which he believed would become its own, existentially suffocating form of totalitarianism. He wasn’t magic, he just had a very logical way of thinking through the consequences of ideas. He didnt have a philosophical system, but drew heavily from Vico and Rosmini, who did. He was also influenced by his own experience with totalitarianism in the early 20th Century, where he briefly became a Catholic Communist in response to the rise of Fascism, before rejecting both. He was also conversant with modern and contemporary philosophy in a way not paralleled by other Catholic thinkers of his time, excepting Ratzinger. If this sounds interesting, a good introduction is this book review[0], written by him shortly before his death, but after having been vindicated by the collapse of the USSR and it’s aftermath. It touches on a number of Del Nocean ideas: the suicide of the Revolution, the heterogenesis of ends, Occidentalism as ideology, Neo-Capitalism, and traditionalism as an ideological reduction of religious tradition. His books are even better — every bit as clear-eyed and unnerving as what I’ve read of Fisher, but with a glint of hope. [0] https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/marxism-died-in-the-east-because-it-realized-itself-in-the-west/ https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/marxism-died-in-th... (don’t be put off by the cold-warrior title, I’m not sure that it’s his own).