What is Capitalist Realism and how it operates: discussing the work of Mark Fisher (2009)
In current times, “Capitalist Realism”, by Mark Fisher, becomes an increasingly updated and necessary essay, putting into question what many claim to call Realism. But well, what would this real be? Is the realist one who really works with reality or someone who merely accepts the conditions of the moment? Is it possible to promote change being realistic? Or just accept a fatalistic condition?
By bringing the concept of capitalist realism, previously treated by other authors, back to the debate, Fisher manages to revive all these reflections (which does not exclude Marxists who confuse the concept with historical materialism), in addition to expanding and describing all that that composes it. Capitalist realism is more than a thought, but it is also what defines our way of acting. Or rather, it is through the imposition of incapacitation that he acts, preventing us from thinking, acting, and living outside of his conditions. While it seems to be an abstract idea, it also does not exist without our participation.
But, after all, what does this concept mean?
When the capitalism becomes as a fact
There is no single meaning, but in short, I would like to propose capitalist realism as the naturalization of neoliberal capitalism as if they were innate to the nature of human beings. As if it were part of its axiological nature. In the same way that a position is naturalized, treated as a natural order, a fact, the opposite happens with what goes against this order. What happens is the action of an impossibility discourse about what was possible before. In this case, there is the dissemination of a supposed infeasibility about alternatives to neoliberal capitalism.
An ideological position is never entirely successful until it is naturalized, and it cannot be naturalized as long as it is still thought of as a value rather than a fact. At this point, Fisher elucidates the philosopher Alenka Zupančič:
“(…) The principle of reality is itself ideologically mediated; one could even say that it constitutes the highest degree of ideology, the ideology that presents itself as an empirical (or biological, economic) fact, necessity (and which we tend to perceive as non-ideological). It is precisely here that we must become more attentive to the workings of ideology.”
Capitalism becomes a fact, the starting point for thinking about solving problems, not their source. In this way, any viable solution is found within capitalism or making it “lesser worse” through reformist policies that are based on the idea that more altruistic, philanthropic individuals could reduce systemic ills. It is a very similar discourse, as pointed out in the work, with which the ecological agenda is treated. Responsibility for an environmental chaos is individualized, as if all you had to do was turn off the water before washing your hands or skimp on the shower for all problems to be solved (as global advertisements reinforce). Meanwhile, the structural cause that really leads to the problem goes unpunished.
It is based on this conception that ideas and theories arise, such as Fukuyama’s theory of the end of history, where the end of history would happen with the consolidation of “free capitalism” and “liberal democracies”. It is at this stage that history would have its maximum evolution since capitalism would become a fact and non-negotiable. Dominantly, this is the conception of the moment. Even if more criticism is directed at this idea of the end of history (even the author himself sought to reformulate his text), it is still based on it, capitalist realism, which continues to reign supreme.
And, precisely because of this, we consequently have a general feeling of absence of the new, where creation is replaced by the recycling of the past. It is enough to see, for example, so many Hollywood cinematographic works that were successful in previous decades and are only relaunched under the name of a sequel, or the attempts by fashion and the phonological industry to revive styles from a certain period, appealing to revive the identity of those movements.
Fisher also speaks directly of something called the pre-corporation of ideas: the formatting and modeling of desires and of hope itself by capitalism, now represented by alternative zones that would only repeat contestations carried out in the past as if they were a novelty.
It is also in this part that Fisher very well elucidates a very important note by the philosopher Slavoj Žižek:
that anti-capitalism is widespread, including within capitalism itself and by its main actors.
Not even anti-capitalism, even if only in idea, can escape appropriation. The example mentioned is about the already cliché scripts of Hollywood productions where the villain is some big corporation. The same goes for Globo’s (the biggest tv channel in Brazil) duality by putting some mega landowner villain in its soap operas while passing the call of “agro is pop” or what happened in the Kurt-MTV relationship. Criticism is appropriated and resold, as these large corporations know that this will generate even more controversy and audience. Fisher even points out (p.19):
“Cobain knew he was just another piece of the show, that nothing worked better on MTV than a protest against MTV; I knew that her every gesture was a cliché, scripted in advance, and I knew that even knowing it was a cliché.”
Still on this topic, it is noted that individuals increasingly become hostages of a space in these capitalist affiliations in order to be able to publicize or reach a minimum audience. It is clear that the area of action should not be restricted to virtual environments controlled by these figures, but, in an ideological dispute, it will be necessary to act in an environment in which they are the ones who define the rules of the game. And that is why, in this field, anti-capitalist criticism itself is restricted and dependent on the existence of these controlled spaces: YouTube, Twitter, Medium, among others. If one of these vehicles decides to take down any channel for any reason, to whom will it complain? For what alternative will he reach his audience? There is an obligation to accept the defined conditions.
Mark also to describe and analyze the conditions in which capitalist realism transforms the conditions of the labor market, imposing not only capitalism as a fact, but neoliberalism allied to it. It is from 1979 onwards that these conditions receive the characterization of “post-Fordism” to demarcate a new bureaucratically hierarchical productive dynamic, but which at the same time is decentralized and deregulated in several sectors, which, together with short-term policies and temporary work lead to the precariousness of work itself and, as a consequence, of physical and mental health. It is under these conditions that the “Business Ontology” expands to all areas, including education and health, on a proposition that even these rights should be managed under the logic of a company (or supposedly equal to a business logic), accompanying, of course, all its bureaucracy and being guided by the expansive obtainment of profit and unlimited effectiveness.
The post-Fordist work works with two main pillars: a high bureaucracy with great control and indefinite postponement.
Indefinite postponement is the way in which control societies manage to operate. The indefinite extension of work goes hand in hand with internal policing, so that the existence of a figure occupying the position of vigilantes is no longer necessary, since the individual becomes the policeman of his own actions. All this so that leisure and free time is now also redirected to work and the work shift extended to home. This self-surveillance is complemented by bureaucracy, so that the report of what was produced becomes even more important than your own work, as well as the exhaustive self-evaluation processes, in which the evaluator himself (you) is always encouraged to evaluate negatively to point out possibilities for improvement. The image, for what Fisher calls THE GREAT OTHER, starts to occupy the top of the hierarchy not only at work, but in any environment of forced competition. In schools, appearing to be learning, with superficial grades based on studying to pass and presence merely so as not to overshoot, is far more important than actually engaging in learning. The behavior is restricted to what is evaluative and worthy of note. In the same way that, similarly, a company’s value in the financial sector is defined by speculation and expectations, in post-Fordism, you are defined by what you appear to be, merely by image.
This is where everything breaks down in public relations.
The Realism Capitalist and the mental health
As a consequence of all this condition, I would like to highlight in the work when Fisher writes about mental health and how capitalist realism operates on it, emphasizing how collective depression and anxiety are increasingly socially normalized, so that if it even makes it common to have such a crisis due to the conditions we live in. The high rates that grow more and more from year to year are no longer a trigger to denounce the commodification of life within capitalism, quite the contrary. What happens is the individualization of these disorders, so that the treatment and study of psychology itself is built around a method that looks for problems within the individual, not outside of him. The depression is depoliticized. Supported by this, the idea that Fisher calls “Magical Voluntarism (p.140)”: the false belief that it is within the power of each individual to become what he wants to be, ignoring any structural condition and treating exceptions as given rules. As a consequence, the feelings of: productive servitude, easy replacement, guilt for not being useful (by capitalist standards), functional and emotional overload and many others are ignored. This all culminates in a general aggravating situation called “Fatalistic Submission”, that is, the acceptance of current conditions and the belief that everything can get even worse than it already is. That is, a condition of giving up because of tiredness about something that you cannot believe in changing.
Finally, we can highlight Fisher’s immense contribution in rebuilding a bridge of dialogue between different authors (such as Deleuze, Zizek, Foucault, etc.) through the deconstruction of paradigms imposed as real, as the only viable solution, showing that what is considered need is only contingent. In addition to questioning this project of capitalist realism, the work goes much further and seeks progressive articulations for the overthrow of neoliberalism through a collective project in an attempt to kill a zombie, as stated in his article:
(https://www.opendemocracy.net/mark-fisher/how-to-kill-zombie-strategizing-end-of-neoliberalism).
More than an activist, professor, researcher and writer, Mark Fisher was a major contributor to the democratization of education and the construction of critical thinking, putting in evidence the contradictions of the capitalism and your neoliberal pillars.
