So as many of you are probably aware the author of Capitalist Realism offed himself...

So as many of you are probably aware the author of Capitalist Realism offed himself. A post in a thread not too long ago wondered why and, while I had my suspicions, I went digging through the archives of a his old blog looking for confirmation and I think sections from articles like this probably make that clear:
(k-punk.org/going-overground/)

He's basically describing just how dreadful the commodified society is, and what its modern neoliberal evolution adds into the mix. Combined with the general gist of his Capitalist Realism: popular working class consciousness has come to no longer be capable of seeing beyond the facade of how late capitalism shows itself and realize that it is a class society with clear social relations, and then goes on to describe how much of the left is just as much under the spell of the reality underneath the mode of production, heavily regressing from the left's past with figures like Marx who did have a clear understanding, and it's quite a depressing picture.

Texts like this from his blog, as well as his notion of the leftist vampire castle (for posterity, though I doubt many here aren't familiar: thenorthstar.info/?p=11299) again reaffirm how depressing modernity is. It is then no wonder that knowing that if the political position you are on (communist) has over the years become more and more ineffectual or even self-destructive because it's been taken over by a particular form of leftism that can do nothing but shoot itself in the foot; to the point where even as a leftist any type of counter-discourse is instinctively met with call-outs, branding or even excommunication, you might want to consider saying farewell in such a world.

Mark Fisher RIP.

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-system-s-neatest-trick
youtube.com/watch?v=7TNgCeOpdAw.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-nihilist-communism
edensauvage.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/critique-of-the-consciousness-raising-model-of-revolution-expanded-version/).
bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/08/madison_avenue.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I just got Capitalist Realism yesterday. Looking foward to starting to read it today.

RIP Mark

Leftism itself has been commodified. That's literally supercommodification. Any attempts of a sincere critique from a communist perspective is usually directly integrated into the system itself. There is this scene in the Black Mirror episode 50 Million Merits where the main character stands in front of jury, threatens to kill itself and immediately gets neutered by the jury who appreciates his spirit and grants him access to higher living standard. We've reached a point where you can sell communism itself as a commodity. Sure, Marxist Jargon is still very much rejected as an acceptable discourse within media and culture, but if you look at it, the mainstream media already critisizes capitalism as a means to perpetuate capitalism: Capitalism has reached this unique stage where it doesn't have to present itself as a favorable ideological alternative anymore, it simply presents itself as the only, real alternative, as the wax "things just are". That and then mix in some juicy propaganda about former existing socialist states, of course.

Ted kaczynski was well aware of this way before this guy.
If you read the unabombers writings he roasts the shit out of the left and idpol.
I recently read some of his somewhat new writings and he completely lays down how the system works. How liberals are people who know something is wrong but cant figure out what that is, and they have their rebellion redirected at things that are threats to capitalism like the far right and far left, how the system needs us to be non violent docile consumers. And how liberals think of themselves as the rebels, but are actually the enforcers of the status quo.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-system-s-neatest-trick

First, 50 years ago the System was not yet committed to equality for black people, women and homosexuals, so that action in favor of these causes really was a form of rebellion. Consequently these causes came to be conventionally regarded as rebel causes. They have retained that status today simply as a matter of tradition; that is, because each rebel generation imitates the preceding generations.

Second, there are still significant numbers of people, as I pointed out earlier, who resist the social changes that the System requires, and some of these people even are authority figures such as cops, judges, or politicians. These resisters provide a target for the would-be rebels, someone for them to rebel against. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh help the process by ranting against the activists: Seeing that they have made someone angry fosters the activists' illusion that they are rebelling.

Third, in order to bring themselves into conflict even with that majority of the System's leaders who fully accept the social changes that the System demands, the would-be rebels insist on solutions that go farther than what the System's leaders consider prudent, and they show exaggerated anger over trivial matters. For example, they demand payment of reparations to black people, and they often become enraged at any criticism of a minority group, no matter how cautious and reasonable.

In this way the activists are able to maintain the illusion that they are rebelling against the System. But the illusion is absurd. Agitation against racism, sexism, homophobia and the like no more constitutes rebellion against the System than does agitation against political graft and corruption. Those who work against graft and corruption are not rebelling but acting as the System's enforcers: They are helping to keep the politicians obedient to the rules of the System. Those who work against racism, sexism, and homophobia similarly are acting as the Systems' enforcers: They help the System to suppress the deviant racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that cause problems for the System.

But the activists don't act only as the System's enforcers. They also serve as a kind of lightning rod that protects the System by drawing public resentment away from the System and its institutions. For example, there were several reasons why it was to the System's advantage to get women out of the home and into the workplace. Fifty years ago, if the System, as represented by the government or the media, had begun out of the blue a propaganda campaign designed to make it socially acceptable for women to center their lives on careers rather than on the home, the natural human resistance to change would have caused widespread public resentment. What actually happened was that the changes were spearheaded by radical feminists, behind whom the System's institutions trailed at a safe distance. The resentment of the more conservative members of society was directed primarily against the radical feminists rather than against the System and its institutions, because the changes sponsored by the System seemed slow and moderate in comparison with the more radical solutions advocated by feminists, and even these relatively slow changes were seen as having been forced on the System by pressure from the radicals.

Looks like someone's been watching the Zero Books Youtube channel: youtube.com/watch?v=7TNgCeOpdAw. ;^)

But yeah, that's pretty much it. We only have a chance if we manage to find a new way that stands outside of the commodity relationship, or at least as much as possible, abut if we don't use it efficiently enough to create a permanent value-negating force it will just get recuperated and pics related await us all.

So, in a nutshell, the System's neatest trick is this:

1.For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the System needs to bring about deep and radical social changes to match the changed conditions resulting from technological progress.

2.The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.

3. Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists "rebel" against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the System and in favor of the new values that the System needs us to accept.

4. In this way rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been dangerous to the System, are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the System, but useful to it.

5. Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is drawn away from the System and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearhead the social changes.

Terrible praxis, based theory.

And yeah, even though Kaczynski predates Fisher's take by a lot and touches on the same areas a lot as well, there have even been others before him. Hell, even the old Moor himself 150 years ago had to fight his way through a whole bunch of left cancer and make sure it didn't take hold in the workers' movements. The difference is that back then, the cancerous parts of the left hasn't fully metastasized to their current point yet, and could ineed still be kept at bay. Today it is indeed not "the System", as Teddy names the capitalist mode of production, that is the biggest enemy of the communist movement; it's now the left itself. And I don't think the left can be reformed either; it needs to be totally destroyed and rebuilt truly communistic for us to even begin thinking about forming an opposition to "the System".

so libs play the role as the rebel, even though they support things capitalism actually wants, they want to absorb minority groups into the capitalist system. They want more women ceo's, and black executives.
The anger from conservatives and the right is not directed at capitalism. But the sjw activist.

What does this have to do with OP's post?

Basically, yeah. The conservative liberals stand for the idealized "old" and "traditional" commodified society, while the progressive liberals stand for a newer, more inclusive one. Both believe that their suggestions are the best way forward for capitalism (or "the world" or "society", as they will call it; as if it is impossible to transcend it), and depending on the situation both may or may not have the best idea for keeping the system running as efficiently as possible.


I think he picked up on the Kaczynski post there.

(And the Kaczynski post kinda of touches on the vampire castle and capitalist realism again, and so on.)

I dig it

How can you write something like this and fly the tankie flag at the same time? The Bolsheviks were pioneers in recuperating revolutionary tendencies to serve Capital's needs.

I'm not post-left; I'm ultra-left. With all my respect for certain post-leftists, just being edgy and trying to lifestyle your way out of capitalism is not going to even being solving any of the issues pointed out ITT.

If you want something describable as "post-left leftcom" (councilist), though, there's always shit like this: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-nihilist-communism (short intro here: edensauvage.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/critique-of-the-consciousness-raising-model-of-revolution-expanded-version/). Doesn't get my seal of approval though, and the overwhelming majority of left communism/ultra-leftism has always thought that stuff like this is just poetic hands-off vulgar materialism.

Such as? Bolsheviks moved to production for use wherever it was possible. The tendency to drive down wages and prolong working hours was almost non-existent until Krushchev reforms let the managers act in some sort of competition with each other (reestablishing production for exchange, exporting surplus etc.). Show me where Stalins socialist construction and the post-WW II era had the laws of capital operating in the USSR. The fact that there is still the law of value must be explained by the fact that the USSR was a socialist country in a capitalist world, which means they were in direct competition with each other.

By turning revolutionary theory into an ideology.

I am starting to realise that too. My best efforts to get people to focus on important things, and actually spread the ideology, are met with frustration. Their biggest concern is doing apolitical activism. Groups I was in that called themselves anarchist have been infiltrated by platformists who turned them apolitical, and focussed on activism. They don't realise how this helps to maintain capitalism. They think the working class will just spontaneously learn the theory by doing activism. It is exactly as Bordiga described.

Ultra-leftists need to unite.

anarkiddie here. I try to participate in my local FNB and even go out of my way to feed the homeless in my city and clothe them.

I'm even thinking about making a table out by city hall and trying to trigger a conversation with people who maybe done understand what the left is or who are curious to learn more.

what more do I do?

Please don't do this holy fuck
Back to raydid

What are you doing?

I have never looked at that channel but I did just start watching Black Mirror and suddenly that episode started getting talked about in /leftytrash/. Really hit me in the feels tbh.

That actually sounds like a decent idea if you have literature and do not show up in some retarded costume.

Semi-Relevant Adam Curtis: bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/08/madison_avenue.html


It's a tangent, but there's an interesting thought here that's mostly just me sperging about British politics as usual, but also offers a possible ray of sunshine.

I was reading a post by a member of Labour's shadow cabinet who resigned in the early 1990s (Before Blair took over), and they basically noted that the political aim of New Labour - indeed, the key emphasis of the "New" was to displace the Conservatives by targeting a very specific segment of the voter-base. A relatively small one, but one overrepresented in media, etc as the "middle class"

The sort of people who would vote Labour or Liberal when the going was good - Harold Wilson in the 1960s for example - but would guiltily vote Conservative the rest of the time, especially if their local candidate put up a "liberal" sort of appearance. (i.e. Liberalism, not Liberal Party.), or as was perhaps more clearly exemplifying their social status - the kind of people who were very happy to sing the praises of public (local authority, not our weird euphamism for private) schools, but when they had kids of their own would begrudgingly note that their darling was just too shy or sensitive - so, with a heavy heart they would have to be sent to private (in british euphemisms "public") fee paying school…

The "New" in "New Labour" existed essentially as a substitute for "Not Labour", this could be a party with a pretence of governing for everyone - the vestigial Labour allowing liberals to feel good about themselves, while the "New/Not" reassured them that actually, none of those nasty things like trade unionists, higher taxes, etc would burden them. You see where I'm going with this? New Labour was a commodity. Now, Labour had been essentially trying to commodify itself for much longer than that - The move from the red flag to the rose as the logo, for example, and the big focus on branding was essentially one big attempt to slip Social Democracy with Neil Kinnock's face into power by selling the brand. But New Labour's purpose was distinct: It was to become the natural party of government by being the best commodity of the lot, selling Labour's brand name for conscience alongside the knowledge that they'd disavowed any meaningful moves to help the poor. One has to wonder if this hasn't been recreated more widely, in part explaining the boredom of post-politics.

Now here's that hope I promised you: What happened to New Labour? It imploded. It's a joke now. Near nobody would dare use that brand name anymore, if they could even dig it out of the pools of Iraqi blood that it drowned in. The Conservatives utterly failed to sell themselves as a similar party - returning us perhaps to the older voting habits of those populations: Guilty-Tory. So perhaps, just perhaps the attempt to turn something as contentious as politics into a bland commodity is bound to collapse in on itself sooner rather than later.

And if not, at least Trump shows we've moved to hiring loud clowns instead of faintly creepy men with octobarreled names.

bump

F

Damn man, I haven't been reading much lately, I'd saved Capitalist Realism a while ago and hadn't touched it, I just went over the first chapter and it brought a tear to my eye, I really need to read more damn books.