Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? - Mark Fisher

Published in 2009 by Zero Books, Winchester, UK

81 pages

The Wall Street financial collapse of 2008, the 2016 US Presidential Election, and the global COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 are just three events within recent memory that have undermined many of our naively-held confidences in the stability and effectiveness of neoliberal capitalism. Those of us in America, in recent years, have seen a popular resurgence of Leftist critiques of neoliberalism and an embrace of “socialism-lite” via the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns, the popularity of left-leaning podcasts such as Chapo Trap House, and the rise of new leaders in Congress such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Within the past few years, in the wake of the Trump administration, it’s become somewhat vogue to (rightly) critique the fundamental flaws within the capitalist framework. While critiques of capitalism have arisen in various corners of political discourse since the days of Ruskin, Proudhon, and Marx and Engels, these critiques are currently taking hold and finally shaping the narrative of popular American political discourse. Yet, why is it that we are just now beginning to attempt to think outside the bounds of capitalism? Why have we seemed to be so beholden to this one system of organizing our lives? While we’ve been aware of capitalism’s exploitation of resources and labor, how often do we tend to neglect the toll it takes on the human psyche?

In his highly-influential 2009 book, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, the late cultural critic Mark Fisher argues, in the space of 80 short pages, that for the youngest generations in our society (those born after the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989), with the lack of any visible, viable alternatives, it has been nearly impossible to think outside of the bounds of capitalism. Building on the work of Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Zizek, Fisher argues that since capitalism is an ideology that needs to conquer in order to proliferate, in the absence of new colonial projects, it has moved to the realm of the psyche, as it colonizes, structures, and dominates our patterns of thinking in ways that are difficult to untangle. Thus, Fisher’s work is an attempt to do just that: to unravel how capitalism structures our thoughts and attempt to propose and articulate a viable alternative that doesn’t fall back on the failed utopian projects of the 20th century. 

Overview:

For Fisher, Capitalist Realism “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).  In essence, Fisher is arguing against the naturalization of capitalism in our Western world, as he calls us to treat it as a historically contingent development rather than an inevitable, natural state. In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the book’s subtitle (‘Is There No Alternative?) is a playful inversion of the late British PM Margaret Thatcher’s triumphant slogan, “There is no alternative [to capitalism].” Throughout the book, Fisher attempts to bring the key tensions within our current capitalist realism framework to the light, examining cultural artifacts (such as film and music) which, although unable to function outside of the bounds of capitalism, still act as a mirror that we can utilize to understand our economic and political condition. 

Fisher argues in opposition to Francis Fukuyama, who believed that liberal capitalism, in the wake of 1989, has now ushered in the climax of history. Fukuyama’s success, however, is that while this thesis has been widely criticized, it has seeped into the popular cultural unconscious. This cultural stagnation and the belief that there can be nothing new/better than liberal capitalism has led to a kind of artistic malaise, in which we constantly recycle old material instead of inventing new and innovative artistic expressions. This leads us to a culture of nostalgia, in which we are constantly looking back into the past for cultural inspiration, rather than looking toward the future and what might be (think of the popularity of shows such as Stranger Things with its retro 80s aesthetic or the resurgence of Disney live-action remakes of their classic 90s animated films). 

Our economic and cultural atmosphere becomes a cyclical loop, in which we invest (both economically and libidinally (aka in terms of desire)) in what is known and comfortable, rather than imagining new worlds.  This leads us to live in a sort of atemporal existence, where time no longer becomes distinguishable or meaningful. In the modern world, we are no longer constrained to an agrarian calendar, or even to the 9-5 workweek. Rather, in a working world increasingly defined by freelance duties and flexible schedules, capitalism has invaded even the private sphere of life, thus taking from us any real sense of time. Thus, by retreating into the nostalgia for the past, we begin to believe that there is no viable future (which is further exacerbated by the environmental crises before us).  Fisher argues that the existence of a political alternative to capitalism in the post-War era (via the USSR) helped to keep capitalism in check, where the bourgeoisie would capitulate to the working class and listen to unions and their demands. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of any viable political alternative, however, there has been little external pressure to constrain the worst demands of capitalism. 

As such, in the absence of any viable alternative, capitalism no longer has any external “enemy” to subdue, and now seeks to preemptively eliminate and incorporate any potential dissent. In short, capitalist realism shapes our very thoughts before we think them. For Fisher, we can see this precorporation of capitalist ideology within the tragic life and work of Kurt Cobain, whose voice of dissatisfaction and discontent was packaged, bought, and sold to the masses before he even thought it. Fisher writes, 

Cobain knew that he was just another piece of spectacle, that nothing runs better on MTV than a protest against MTV; knew that his every move was a cliche scripted in advance, knew that even realizing it was a cliche...Cobain found himself in ‘a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, [where] all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum.’ Here, even success meant failure, since to succeed would only mean that you were the new meat on which the system could feed. (9) 

Thus, capitalism anticipates it’s very critique and incorporates it into its ideological framework in order to keep it running smoothly. Even in potentially subversive discourses, such as environmentalism and Green Critiques, we can see these being reincorporated into the capitalist structure, offering us “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” products. While environmental critiques are certainly a way to see the antagonism within capitalist realism (since, according to Fisher, capitalism, in its pursuit of an ever-expanding market, is opposed to any notion of sustainability), it can still serve as an example into the ways in which capitalism can incorporate its critiques into profitable corners of the market. Since capitalist ideology, according to Zizek, has a tendency to place an overvaluation on internal belief rather than external action, we can more often than not create art that critiques the capitalist structure, yet then do nothing to actually change it. For example, we believe that money is just a piece of paper, yet we treat it with a sense of holy reverence, sacrificing ourselves and others to acquire it. 

  This disavowal of belief leads to Fisher’s next critique of neoliberal capitalism: bureaucracy. While neoliberalism claims to be opposed to top-down, authoritarian rule, we see such strict control and management through the proliferation of bureaucracy. In a workplace filled with mission statements, aims and objectives, and performance evaluations, we find ourselves more tightly regulated by what we believe is expected of us rather than by our actual productivity. While power is claimed to be decentralized in neoliberal capitalism, we are more tightly controlled by these increasing layers in bureaucracy, so much so that we begin to work towards accurately measuring our performance rather than tangibly working and being productive. Anyone who has worked or dealt with our state or federal government will undoubtedly be well-acquainted with such endless bureaucracy, where decisions are constantly deferred to someone with higher authority (usually a committee) who then defer their decision to another group, etc. We then occupy a space of perpetual ambiguity, constantly working to please some “Big Other” who is collecting and grading the data of our performance, which becomes even more fraught when the division between auditor and worker dissolves in the invention of the “self-assessment,” where we can neither grade ourselves too low (lest we face consternation) or give ourselves too high of a grade (lest we are chided for not being critical of ourselves). Through our endless enmeshment with the bureaucratic process, we then find ourselves within what Fisher would call a “business ontology,” in which life is framed as a series of economic exchanges and data points to be assessed and measured, rather than an inalienable right (which we can see clearly within our current debate on healthcare). 

Finally, this brings us to Fisher’s most salient point within the book: the social and political causes of mental illness. Fisher makes the argument that there is a disturbing correlation between mental distress and the rise of neoliberal capitalism. Faced with the slow cancellation of a viable future, the dissolution of the lines between work and life, the inability to connect time to a coherent, meaningful narrative, and the inability to meaningfully protest against the demands of capital, the youth of our culture are saddled with an endemic mental health crisis. Furthermore, in a workforce that is increasingly defined by precarity, many working-class folks are finding their condition difficult to live with; someone who spends their waking hours working 2 or 3 jobs finds themselves increasingly alienated from their family and friends, thus becoming more socially anxious and stressed. Fisher wants us to address the ways in which we live and work and how they often contribute to our increasing rates of mental illness. For Fisher, capitalism is inherently dysfunctional, and the cost of it appearing to work is very painfully high. 

Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital’s drive toward atomistic individuation (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRIs). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism. (37)

Thus, Fisher calls us to view depression as a social affliction, rather than just an individualized issue. He writes that mental health has become individualized and distanced from the political, much to the support of capital (especially the pharmaceutical industry).

Through examining the antagonisms and tensions within Capitalist Realism (primarily through environmentalism, mental health, and bureaucracy), Fisher hopes to revitalize an anticapitalist Left that can find an authentic universality to counter capitalism. Fisher is hopeful in this, as he writes that since Capitalist Realism is so pervasive, then any small glimmer of an alternative can have a disproportionate effect, causing the tiniest event to tear a hole in the fabric of our current understanding. 

Commendations:

Throughout this work, Fisher does a commendable job in diagnosing many of the ills that are currently inherent within capitalist realism. Living in 2020, it is indeed difficult for many of us in the Western World to imagine an alternative system to capitalism. My generation (Millennials) were either young children, infants, or nonexistent (including yours truly) in 1989, and we haven’t truly known of a viable alternative to capitalism. Fisher’s work causes us to reframe our understanding of the current political landscape as he shows us the immense impact that the Reagan/Thatcher administrations had in shaping our political discourse in the past few decades. In doing so, he makes the case for a revitalized Left and does so without resorting to the failed socialist projects of the 20th century. 

Taking cues from Zizek, Fisher deftly utilizes a litany of examples from pop culture (mostly cinema) to illustrate his central points. This makes for a relatively accessible and readable critique of capitalism. He goes beyond a simple critique of capitalist economics and delves headfirst into the issue of mental health. As a sufferer of acute depression (indeed, it was a struggle that he wrestled with his entire life and one which ultimately overtook him), Fisher brings a personal touch to his account by stressing the social causes of mental distress. This, when paired with the facelessness of bureaucracy (where no one is ultimately responsible for collapses or crises because the network is so complex that there is really no oversight or anyone who understands it, ie. “there is no Big Other”), makes for a compelling argument against the current corporate capitalist system.

Furthermore, Fisher rightly makes a valid distinction between capitalist realism and neoliberalism: Capitalist Realism is inherently anti-utopian, as it asserts that, despite all of the flaws and antagonisms within, it is the only game in town, while neoliberalism is utopian in glorifying market forces, asserting that they will lead to the greatest good. Thus, Fisher points out, these entities support and reinforce one another. Capitalist realism keeps neoliberalism’s naivety and positivity in check while neoliberalism protects us from despairing and encountering the antagonism within capitalist realism. This is an important distinction to make, and one I had not previously considered, especially when it comes to defining new ways of moving beyond both of these systems. Fisher reminds us that neoliberalism is a relatively new movement, birthed out of the social and political conditions of the late 70s and early 80s. He brings us back to the stark realization that neoliberalism is not the inevitable end of history, but rather a historically contingent development that can (and should) be altered for the better. 

To counter the forces of capitalist realism, Fisher sketches out a few starting points in which the Left could utilize to overcome the antagonisms of late capitalism. First of all, the Left needs to abandon the old, failed projects of the 20th century; it cannot be reactionary against the forces of Capital, but must instead work to build its own authentic universalism. By working to define and work with the unfulfilled desires that have been left by the failure of neoliberalism, the Left can come to redefine the way we organize ourselves. For example, instead of individualizing and internalizing mental illness, it should be externalized and focused outward against the forces of Capital. Or, to use another example, we could reduce bureaucracy, redefining who controls our work and reevaluating what we are collectively struggling toward. Beyond these few examples, however, it's a bit unclear just how the Left is supposed to organize to create a new universal movement against capital. 

Critique:

While Fisher points out three main avenues of antagonism to interrogate (namely, mental health, bureaucracy, and environmentalism), Fisher leaves most concrete solutions to the reader. While Fisher does a commendable job in utilizing pop culture references, not only are they a bit dated (and thus probably out of touch with the younger generation), but they also tend to be a bit eclectic in range, leaving a few of the chapters feeling unfulfilled, like a great setup to a joke that was missing the final punchline. Fisher’s writing style is often fast-paced and urgent, which can lead to chapters that feel rather incomplete and rushed. Many of Fisher’s arguments would most likely have packed more of a punch if he had allowed himself to flesh out the ideas he introduces in greater detail, allowing these concepts to have some space to breathe and become more robust.

Fisher, despite his correct diagnosis of the problems within the state bureaucracy, leaves the role of the state and the power of institutions to organize power in a new social movement rather ambiguous. While Fisher is adept and perceptive of the very real pressures and antagonisms of our current economic and political system, they are also inherent contradictions and tensions that exist in any form of social organization. Even if we could escape the perils of Capitalist Realism, we would still be at a bit of a loss of how exactly to organize state power. The pathologies that exist within Capitalist Realism would, almost undoubtedly still rear their ugly heads within whatever new system of social organization that we would create. The key question would then be about how we should manage these pathologies. But even if Fisher is correct in his assessment, it's unclear whether his hopeful vision forward is warranted. If Fisher was right, then things might be worse than they appear. 

If capitalist realism has so shaped our thoughts and anticipated them before we even think them (ie. Kurt Cobain), then any critique of capitalism is thus implicated within the system itself as well. If capitalism shapes every facet of our lives, then how can we critique it without getting trapped into its very rearticulation (such as the case with “alternative” music or a protest against MTV airing on MTV)? Fisher seems to be seeking a transcendental position to critique capitalism, which cannot exist when we are looking outward from within the current system. Although Fisher is optimistic in positing a potential disruptive Event that could tear a hole in our current understanding of reality, if capitalism really shapes the way we desire, then how can our desire to articulate a way to overcome capitalism be outside of it? In this scenario, the human subject is frozen, captive to the ideology of Capitalist Realism and impotent to do anything about it. While we can distract ourselves from despair, we cannot resist the endless demands for pleasure and excess. Framing our condition in these terms can often lead to a kind of Leftist defeatism, where the revolution is constantly delayed or deferred to the next generation. While Fisher is quick in his wit and sardonic in his criticism of our current culture, we must be attentive and critique the ways in which we often find enjoyment in our misery and cynicism.

In the end, my main line of critique comes from the question of human subjectivity and agency within such a pervasive and all-encompassing ideology such as Capitalist Realism. Our social world is not one that exists independently, waiting to be analyzed and deconstructed as a wholly Other object. Rather, it is built between the ways in which we, as human beings, interact with one another and integrate our experience with the Other into our own understanding of the self. Throughout the book, it seemed like abstract concepts such as “capitalism” have an agency all their own. While I think that Fisher would argue that, like all ideologies, they exist virtually by virtue of our belief in them, it still stands that when it comes down to it, we are the reality that remains. Overcoming Capitalist Realism won’t automatically cause us to be more humane, loving, or peaceful people. That requires a change within us. There is no Capitalism without willing (capitalist) subjects, so in addition to the systemic issues of capital, we also need to address why capitalism is so alluring and entrenched within our psyche. This includes the very real ways in which we are not wholly rational beings, and often act against our own self-interest. Although, much to his credit, Fisher recognizes that there is no transcendental, objective human experience wholly apart and separate from the social and political world in which we inhabit. We are all intimately shaped by our situational frameworks, and Fisher rightly calls us to see the ways in which our environment shapes the very way we think about our problems, even if we do need to do more than just “think differently” in order to move forward and overcome the issues that he enumerates in this work.

In addition to diagnosing the ways in which our socioeconomic system shapes our ways of thinking, we must also be attentive to the ways in which we operate within the fractures and tensions of our given ideologies. When such a diagnosis is found, then we can begin to offer individuals better ways of desiring to motivate and propel them to progress. To blame a system apart from the people that perpetuate it is reductionistic, ultimately creating another scapegoat. Again, while Fisher’s diagnosis of systemic issues is quite astute, we must also pay attention to the universal role of lack and desire within the human subject in order to create a truly emancipatory, radically different model of social organization. Undoubtedly, I’m sure that Fisher himself might have seen this critique as being bound up in the trappings of Capitalist Realism. Yet, I think it might help us glimpse some more possibilities of what could exist, if only we had the courage and imagination.

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, Fisher never had the opportunity to fully develop these ideas into a fully robust, conclusive critique of capitalism. When he lost his battle with depression just over three years ago, those of us on the Left lost a vibrant and brilliant voice for the cause. Nearly eleven years after writing Capitalist Realism, the forces of neoliberal capitalism have continued to shape the world in unprecedented ways. Several of his observations still stand, such as the remaining bureaucracy within our public institutions, the return to nostalgia via cultural forms such as television and music, the increasing mental health crisis among our youth, etc. There are many aspects of our society that Fisher might have accurately predicted. For example, concerning an increasingly unstable economy, he writes, “It wouldn’t be surprising if profound social and economic instability resulted in a craving for familiar cultural forms, to which we return in the same way that Bourne reverts to his core reflexes” (59-60). To say that he predicted the rise of neo-fascism and the reactionary alt-right would be a bit of a stretch since there is a long history of rising xenophobia and unbridled nationalism in times of uncertainty. Yet, unfortunately, many of his criticisms still hold up today. 

Yet, there are also many aspects of today’s political discourse that Mark might not have anticipated, such as the rise of socialist candidates such as Corbyn and Sanders, along with the rising leftist populism in America, exemplified by figures such as AOC. Yet, despite these budding potentials for progress, we’ve seen a marked backlash from the capitalist establishment. Jeremy Corbyn was readily defeated in 2019 by Boris Johnson. Despite the growing dissatisfaction with the political establishment and the economic status quo, resulting in the ascendency of the Sanders campaign, it seems that even in the face of such widespread support, the Left in America still struggles to find a solid footing. In 2020, the moderate, “more electable” candidate Joe Biden ultimately became the Democratic nominee for president, leading many leftists to fear a repeat of the Democrats’ failure in 2016. While there was a short-lived hope for a progressive presidential platform, recent setbacks have left many on the Left with a growing sense of unease and discontent. 

Yet, in his speech announcing the end of his campaign on April 8th, 2020, Sanders addressed his supporters, saying, “As many of you will recall, Nelson Mandela, one of the great freedom fighters in modern world history, famously said, ‘It always seems impossible until it is done.’ And what he meant by that is that the greatest obstacle to reach social change has everything to do with the power of the corporate and political establishment to limit our vision as to what is possible and what we are entitled to as human beings” [emphasis mine].  Here, in the speech urging his supporters to keep the struggle for progressive values going forward, we can hear the faint echoes of Fisher’s famous critique. As a collective, we need to envision ways of imagining beyond what is deemed as possible. If we are to glimpse beyond Capitalist Realism, as Fisher hoped, then as he insisted, “an effective anti-capitalism must be a rival to Capital, not a reaction to it; there can be no return to pre-capitalist territorialities. Anti-capitalism must oppose Capital’s globalism with its own, authentic universality” (79). Only by mobilizing our shared discontent can we thus move forward and envision new ways of existing and organizing our social relations.