that is exactly the phenomenon that has occurred regarding 9/11. A large percentage of Americans and people in other countries question the official narrative of the government about 9/11, (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories) yet for any politician to question it would mean extreme ridicule and an end to their political career. Power indirectly suppresses the ability of people to express their sincere opinions.
zizek says something like "a belief can function even if no one believes it", i think he's basically talking about the same phenomenon. his example is how a kid doesn't believe in santa but pretends to to make his parents happy, so considering the power relations in that example you could make an argument that the parents are imposing an "official truth" on their kid.
@@nunyabusiness7278 what is more interesting is how the left, neo-liberals and libertarian conservatives, all shy away from confronting the reality of Sunni/ Shia confrontation, colonization and imperialism; and although not endorsing the 9/11 truthers are more than happy to benefit from public conspiracism. Even our delusions are harnessed by capital to serve its needs which are tranquility, trade, multiculturalism above all other values or outcomes.
Comrades.. how do we make these ideas more popular? Mark Fisher is one of the greatest minds of our times, and he in this tiny room speaking to a few dozen people. What can we do? I think about this all the time,because in a democracy, the only way to get our goals realised is if more people agree.
Brilliant lecture. In a twist of delicious irony, the voice quality in Fisher videos is almost always terrible... which resonates his hauntological points about the medium seeping through the recording and haunting us with the Real - compare the low-quality youtube videos to what Fisher writes about vinyl records and crackle.... Charming but also sad and very very hauntological. We need to continue Fishers project to make him immortal
He is absolutely right. We must concentrate on post-capitalist solutions such as computer communism instead of whining about the injustices of the world. People need to be FOR something, not just against something.
Of course people want a society that is not riddled with economic inequality and inefficiency. The vast majority of people will not say no to a communist society which is able to reduce their working ours while at the same time increasing their wealth. Of course it is to be expected that the economic elites will resist such a project. But we have to keep in mind that NO political decision is unopposed.
@@d.graemer1627 the problem is that people dont know what communism actually is and that it has never actually been implemented in any country. Marx defined communism as being a society in which the MOPs are collectively owned, the proceeds of which are distributed evenly, there is no state, and there is no currency, not as an authoritarian socialist/state capitalist society that we saw in the Soviet Union. It's really sad that they teach that blatant lie in our schools.
Starbucks had wifi that allowed us to do press releases, download leaflets. They had toilets - the others were at the other end of the shopping centre. It was not just the coffee.
The people who worked for Starbucks hated it more than we were supposedly meant to - that is why they were quite supportive. It was similar with some bankers - they had a very good incite into what was wrong with the system. I do not have problems with the people who work for starbucks or people who work in the banking industry.
8 i think I can be difficult and not oppressive/exploitative in a very short period but it was the first guy is going good paying attention but he has no idea how he feels over his inner life is the way I am and how it feels and what he does to be honest with a guy like the rest I know the most difficult time for me and the way we have sex attraction to him in his life is the way we do it was just because he has been getting more and the other direction and he is still a bit nervous so much better when it starts right to be honest I think the people he was going for it were not going on a date *pp90⁰
10:00min But what is of strategic importance is that precisely: what is presented as power´s most unquestionable feature, in this instance, is a site of the weakness of the exploitative relation. Why must they themselves be sustained in a relation of command to others if and only if they are never looked at?
The problem with Postcapitalism arguments, as far as I can tell with little exposure at this point, is they seem to accept some pretty basic assumptions of capitalism and then from within that framework try to explain them away. I think the basic assumptions are wrong in the first place. The people in occupy were not saying "hey look at us in our tents, this is better than capitalism" they were in the tents because they lost their homes in a capitalist system (or they were people supporting symbolically those that had lost their homes). The members of occupy were suffering to point out the failings of capitalism not suggesting this is the way we have to live to combat capitalism. They were fighting capitalism by the message and by their presence in "public" space disrupting business as usual in cities especially near places of power like Wall Street. This is not the anti-capitalist idea: Hey it is not fare you are so rich if we shut down this unfair system we could help the lowest class off the streets. And all of us would have a very low standard of living but at least we would be in it together. That is what a capitalist with very little knowledge about Marxism or Anarchism would say, in other words a straw man argument. With out going on forever here the idea is that with a better use of resources, i.e. not designed to create the super-rich at the expense of everyone else, we could have a high standard of living AND have a more just system.
>they seem to accept some pretty basic assumptions of capitalism and then from within that framework try to explain them away. I agree, but the problem is precisely how difficult it is to break out of these ideas. What is "capitalist ideology", what is "liberal humanism" and so on? Should we abandon the entire framework of rights, freedom, liberation, that foucault and so on writes about as a "subjection" of capitalism, since all these things are ultimately products of capitalism, the assumptions that underly it in our modern era?
Just because stripping the overly rich of their wealth and conducting taxations on the rich doesn't mean all will have a low standard of living...the trickle down effect is a myth-
The reality is way more simple than the tortured phrasing that Mark is going through. "Capitalist realism" is another phrase for the politics of the unreal, which emerged after the end of colonialism in the 1960s. It's the ideology of neocolonialism, the maintenance of industrial capitalism after it's purpose (the relocation of humanity off-planet) is no longer believed in. It was precisely in the 1960s that the popularity of ecological destruction emerged - what previously was believed by merely a few intellectuals became common knowledge, that industrial capitalism was making the earth uninhabitable. This isn't a problem in-and-of-itself, in fact the purpose of industrial capitalism was precisely that, but the intended, or at least hoped-for outcome, would be to get the baby birds to fly by destroying the nest. The 1960s marked the beginning of the idea that this wouldn't happen, that the race between destruction and relocation would be won by destruction. And in the 55 or so years after the beginning of this idea, reality has only gone further in the direction of destruction, thus leading to greater and greater despair and depression among the population. So the purpose of industrial capitalism is no longer believed in, but human beings who have and still are materially benefiting from this system want to continue to receive those benefits. Enter the politics of the unreal, where the left, right, and center squabble and fuss over this and that, but always in service to maintaining the zombie corpse of industrial capitalism. Furthermore, we really don't know what to do. I mean, anyone well-meaning doesn't know what to do. For the less well meaning, the politics of the unreal is perfectly adequate. The dream of relocation to God was an amazing one. The spiritual home of God became further and further away, from geocentrism to heliocentrism to our current conception of an unknown location, but likely incredibly distant from Earth, as the home of God. So the project of industrial capitalism was spiritually glorious - to destroy the Earth thereby giving humans the push they needed to become reunited with God once more by exploring the universe. This glorious dream justified all of the death, destruction, and oppression. But now, the dream is dead. And all of the happy corpses who we once smiled upon as necessary fuel for our re-unification with God have become ghostly frightmares, causing us to mash our teeth and shake our fists at our own failure.
I think that the first thing we should be doing as a society, is to vigorously work away at reining in corporate power by enforcing existing anti-monopoly legislation and by enacting new legislation that replaces corporate friendly rules and regulations with ones that meet our current needs. There is so much to do, undoing the long-entrenched stranglehold of the corporate state, that we can only pick away at it by using the same means that they used to acquire it...working actively on the party level to rid government at all levels of corporate lackeys, picking away piece by piece, candidate by candidate, vote by vote. The goal is to cut capitalism down to size, where they don't have the legalized means to control everything and everyone...whether we are aware of it or not. Corporations should not be controlling us as they have been, they are our creations and we must be in control of them. They have been miserable failures as the self-serving ones on top, as they lead us to disaster after disaster with no happy ending in sight. It's well past time for Capitalism to back off all of their persistent political meddling...whether they like it or not and return to minding its own damn business...finally leaving us with a true "government for the people and by the people".
Saskia Sassen (expulsion processes and global cities) and Harvey (critique on neoliberalism) as sociologists and critical geographers, Mezzadra and Neilson (historians) on borders, labour and migration, Nancy Fraser on the contradictions of capital and care, Tsing on supply chains and the human condition. All theories are somehow derived from the philosophy of the Frankfurt school.
Typical slide into incoherence in the written intro' at the beginning of this clip : ' We will deal with the articulations of differences, coincidences, shortcuts, ideological juxtapositions and historical and geographical specificities.' Eh ?
Her big complaint is why are workers not further rationed from the product of their labor? how could they lay any claim on the product of their labor? how could they be rationed to the point of death (universal healthcare) use a cell-phone, get coffee and talk about like living better and stuff? like it is so confusing they have not confused themselves with all exploitable automata that like being wiped out?
There's a lot of good, pithy and artfully fruitful analysis here, especially for the literature department, and yet, as with most of the post-mod French 80s crowd like Baudrillard, I am not convinced. He's definitely a move forward from them--- but could we have alittle more a little more materialist, class reality next time, please? At every moment it seems like a psalm that's ready to fly away to heaven come the rapture, like holy poetry--- which is what it seems most to be... is it Genesis or Zizek--- or Baudrillard or Ayn Rand for cryin' out loud? (I mean, Owen Jones?... save us all from a future of yet more professional managerial class posing and posturing.--- Good Gog!) (see: Chomsky.)
Great entertainment though.--- Sincerely, it is. One terrific performance after another without an ending, just like --- going round n round in beautiful, suffocating circles--- dear old Baudrillard who has also gone out into the very real darkness of the natural world that surrounds us all at every minute of our existence no matter what we think, or don't, about it.
Is there no one who knows how to edit this absolutely awful audio? It's barely listenable. What a shame. RIP comrade. I will attempt to start thinking in terms of post capitalism, rather than anti-capitalism. You were brilliant. I wish our community could have done something to help keep him around. I too suffer from severe depression. But I've done far less to push this kind of knowledge and thought than you did. I wonder if he knew how appreciated he would be. I doubt it.
The objection Louise Mensch is raising is this: before you take the public step of demanding OTHER people change their way of life according to YOUR vision, at least demonstrate you areprivately capable of making the smallest level of sacrifice in the service of the principles you wish to foist on all people. If you cannot do that, it is frivolous in the extreme to take your views seriously in the public sphere.
counterpoint: in a vacuum, who in their right mind would sacrifice anything to make it so you only get to feed, house, and clothe yourself after doing pointless tasks for some rich guy this "sacrifice" is baked into capitalism so even if you don't believe in it, you still bring it your offerings
I have come to really admire the late M. Fisher. His insights are often quite surprising. When he gets into the heavy "theory", he starts to lose me. It's not that it's totally incomprehensible, but it does make me cringe, just a little.
Pretty much. Imagine a documentary filmmaker like Erroll Morris, who as a service to future generations recorded hours of TELEPROMPTER SUPPORTED discourse with a decent mic...
Mark Fisher is or was one of the most important voices of our time. Too bad he had to go so early. RIP, Mark.
'power can make something an official truth even if no one actually believes it.'
I've never really heard it put so succinctly.
that is exactly the phenomenon that has occurred regarding 9/11. A large percentage of Americans and people in other countries question the official narrative of the government about 9/11, (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories) yet for any politician to question it would mean extreme ridicule and an end to their political career.
Power indirectly suppresses the ability of people to express their sincere opinions.
zizek says something like "a belief can function even if no one believes it", i think he's basically talking about the same phenomenon. his example is how a kid doesn't believe in santa but pretends to to make his parents happy, so considering the power relations in that example you could make an argument that the parents are imposing an "official truth" on their kid.
@@nunyabusiness7278 what is more interesting is how the left, neo-liberals and libertarian conservatives, all shy away from confronting the reality of Sunni/ Shia confrontation, colonization and imperialism; and although not endorsing the 9/11 truthers are more than happy to benefit from public conspiracism.
Even our delusions are harnessed by capital to serve its needs which are tranquility, trade, multiculturalism above all other values or outcomes.
Perfectly describes all fully-realised socialist and communist societies.
Comrades.. how do we make these ideas more popular? Mark Fisher is one of the greatest minds of our times, and he in this tiny room speaking to a few dozen people. What can we do? I think about this all the time,because in a democracy, the only way to get our goals realised is if more people agree.
Well, comrade, I would reckon a clearer audio in this video would help...
Buy a physical copy of capitalist realism and let your mates borrow it and go from there
Unfortunately the last part of "achieving your goals if more people agree" is the seed of totalitarianism -- so, careful.
Brilliant lecture. In a twist of delicious irony, the voice quality in Fisher videos is almost always terrible... which resonates his hauntological points about the medium seeping through the recording and haunting us with the Real - compare the low-quality youtube videos to what Fisher writes about vinyl records and crackle.... Charming but also sad and very very hauntological. We need to continue Fishers project to make him immortal
Well put, my unknown friend. Finnisher, I reckon. :D
#avengemarkfisher
@sadiq has like a cat on hot brix
He is absolutely right. We must concentrate on post-capitalist solutions such as computer communism instead of whining about the injustices of the world. People need to be FOR something, not just against something.
Good luck with that; no one wants "computer communism" lmao.
Of course people want a society that is not riddled with economic inequality and inefficiency. The vast majority of people will not say no to a communist society which is able to reduce their working ours while at the same time increasing their wealth.
Of course it is to be expected that the economic elites will resist such a project. But we have to keep in mind that NO political decision is unopposed.
Nonsense. We find more alliance and more strength in being against something.
@@d.graemer1627 the problem is that people dont know what communism actually is and that it has never actually been implemented in any country.
Marx defined communism as being a society in which the MOPs are collectively owned, the proceeds of which are distributed evenly, there is no state, and there is no currency, not as an authoritarian socialist/state capitalist society that we saw in the Soviet Union. It's really sad that they teach that blatant lie in our schools.
@@Dystisis i want computer communism, fuck you
Rip, Mark
Sören Kierkegaard: "Life is not a problem to be solved. It is a reality to be experienced."
great thinker.. rip
the video a 3:45 isn't on youtube anymore (at least at that link) does anybody know if it's been uploaded by someone else
ruclips.net/video/ih_oXgnOPKE/видео.html
Love Mark. Just realised that he sounds a bit like Garth Merenghi.
which, I would add, is a very hauntological character.
He reminds me of Terry Jones oddly enough
Starbucks had wifi that allowed us to do press releases, download leaflets. They had toilets - the others were at the other end of the shopping centre. It was not just the coffee.
The people who worked for Starbucks hated it more than we were supposedly meant to - that is why they were quite supportive. It was similar with some bankers - they had a very good incite into what was wrong with the system. I do not have problems with the people who work for starbucks or people who work in the banking industry.
8 i think I can be difficult and not oppressive/exploitative in a very short period but it was the first guy is going good paying attention but he has no idea how he feels over his inner life is the way I am and how it feels and what he does to be honest with a guy like the rest I know the most difficult time for me and the way we have sex attraction to him in his life is the way we do it was just because he has been getting more and the other direction and he is still a bit nervous so much better when it starts right to be honest I think the people he was going for it were not going on a date *pp90⁰
00⁰
⁰u0
So does the library
10:00min But what is of strategic importance is that precisely: what is presented as power´s most unquestionable feature, in this instance, is a site of the weakness of the exploitative relation. Why must they themselves be sustained in a relation of command to others if and only if they are never looked at?
The problem with Postcapitalism arguments, as far as I can tell with little exposure at this point, is they seem to accept some pretty basic assumptions of capitalism and then from within that framework try to explain them away. I think the basic assumptions are wrong in the first place. The people in occupy were not saying "hey look at us in our tents, this is better than capitalism" they were in the tents because they lost their homes in a capitalist system (or they were people supporting symbolically those that had lost their homes). The members of occupy were suffering to point out the failings of capitalism not suggesting this is the way we have to live to combat capitalism. They were fighting capitalism by the message and by their presence in "public" space disrupting business as usual in cities especially near places of power like Wall Street. This is not the anti-capitalist idea: Hey it is not fare you are so rich if we shut down this unfair system we could help the lowest class off the streets. And all of us would have a very low standard of living but at least we would be in it together. That is what a capitalist with very little knowledge about Marxism or Anarchism would say, in other words a straw man argument. With out going on forever here the idea is that with a better use of resources, i.e. not designed to create the super-rich at the expense of everyone else, we could have a high standard of living AND have a more just system.
Yeah what ever happened to that Occupy thingy?
@@johnmiller7453 capitalism. People have to work to support themselves, you cant just keep something like that going on forever.
Occupy was controlled op in my opinion.
>they seem to accept some pretty basic assumptions of capitalism and then from within that framework try to explain them away.
I agree, but the problem is precisely how difficult it is to break out of these ideas. What is "capitalist ideology", what is "liberal humanism" and so on? Should we abandon the entire framework of rights, freedom, liberation, that foucault and so on writes about as a "subjection" of capitalism, since all these things are ultimately products of capitalism, the assumptions that underly it in our modern era?
Just because stripping the overly rich of their wealth and conducting taxations on the rich doesn't mean all will have a low standard of living...the trickle down effect is a myth-
Watching this in 2020.... damn
Oh I wish he and Zizek had dialogued!
Btw, the link at the beginning he's referring to is this ruclips.net/video/ih_oXgnOPKE/видео.html
The reality is way more simple than the tortured phrasing that Mark is going through. "Capitalist realism" is another phrase for the politics of the unreal, which emerged after the end of colonialism in the 1960s. It's the ideology of neocolonialism, the maintenance of industrial capitalism after it's purpose (the relocation of humanity off-planet) is no longer believed in.
It was precisely in the 1960s that the popularity of ecological destruction emerged - what previously was believed by merely a few intellectuals became common knowledge, that industrial capitalism was making the earth uninhabitable. This isn't a problem in-and-of-itself, in fact the purpose of industrial capitalism was precisely that, but the intended, or at least hoped-for outcome, would be to get the baby birds to fly by destroying the nest. The 1960s marked the beginning of the idea that this wouldn't happen, that the race between destruction and relocation would be won by destruction. And in the 55 or so years after the beginning of this idea, reality has only gone further in the direction of destruction, thus leading to greater and greater despair and depression among the population.
So the purpose of industrial capitalism is no longer believed in, but human beings who have and still are materially benefiting from this system want to continue to receive those benefits. Enter the politics of the unreal, where the left, right, and center squabble and fuss over this and that, but always in service to maintaining the zombie corpse of industrial capitalism.
Furthermore, we really don't know what to do. I mean, anyone well-meaning doesn't know what to do. For the less well meaning, the politics of the unreal is perfectly adequate.
The dream of relocation to God was an amazing one. The spiritual home of God became further and further away, from geocentrism to heliocentrism to our current conception of an unknown location, but likely incredibly distant from Earth, as the home of God. So the project of industrial capitalism was spiritually glorious - to destroy the Earth thereby giving humans the push they needed to become reunited with God once more by exploring the universe. This glorious dream justified all of the death, destruction, and oppression.
But now, the dream is dead. And all of the happy corpses who we once smiled upon as necessary fuel for our re-unification with God have become ghostly frightmares, causing us to mash our teeth and shake our fists at our own failure.
Well that's not what Elon Musk and Besso think with their Space projects. The project is more alive than ever.
We could still yet see God *accelerationism
enters the chat*
I think that the first thing we should be doing as a society, is to vigorously work away at reining in corporate power by enforcing existing anti-monopoly legislation and by enacting new legislation that replaces corporate friendly rules and regulations with ones that meet our current needs.
There is so much to do, undoing the long-entrenched stranglehold of the corporate state, that we can only pick away at it by using the same means that they used to acquire it...working actively on the party level to rid government at all levels of corporate lackeys, picking away piece by piece, candidate by candidate, vote by vote.
The goal is to cut capitalism down to size, where they don't have the legalized means to control everything and everyone...whether we are aware of it or not. Corporations should not be controlling us as they have been, they are our creations and we must be in control of them.
They have been miserable failures as the self-serving ones on top, as they lead us to disaster after disaster with no happy ending in sight.
It's well past time for Capitalism to back off all of their persistent political meddling...whether they like it or not and return to minding its own damn business...finally leaving us with a true "government for the people and by the people".
Does anybody know about other thinker's names that are related to the topic? I foind it incredibly interesting
deleuze and guattari are the foundation of most of contemporary "continental philosophy" and critical theory
slavoj zizek
Saskia Sassen (expulsion processes and global cities) and Harvey (critique on neoliberalism) as sociologists and critical geographers, Mezzadra and Neilson (historians) on borders, labour and migration, Nancy Fraser on the contradictions of capital and care, Tsing on supply chains and the human condition. All theories are somehow derived from the philosophy of the Frankfurt school.
Read Jean Baudrillard. I wonder if Mark did because most of what he is talking about here has been covered.
leigh phillips is pretty good
"This cell phone was made by workers, not capitalists, you bootlicking dog."
Prescient!
Typical slide into incoherence in the written intro' at the beginning of this clip :
' We will deal with the articulations of differences, coincidences, shortcuts, ideological juxtapositions and historical and geographical specificities.'
Eh ?
You should have gone to Art School, this bollocks passes fo conversation.
The intro is about certain phenomenons that occurs in the present time.Fisher ideas of how this seemingly seperate phenomenons are actually connected
24:00
I am so sorry they didn't give this guy a 50$ lavalier microphone. FFS the echo in that room makes this hard to stomach
3:00
1:01:50 fellow leaning on bookshelf...
2:42
poor Mark...
Jesus loves you ❤ 💖 💕 💗 💓
Her big complaint is why are workers not further rationed from the product of their labor? how could they lay any claim on the product of their labor? how could they be rationed to the point of death (universal healthcare) use a cell-phone, get coffee and talk about like living better and stuff? like it is so confusing they have not confused themselves with all exploitable automata that like being wiped out?
There's a lot of good, pithy and artfully fruitful analysis here, especially for the literature department, and yet, as with most of the post-mod French 80s crowd like Baudrillard, I am not convinced. He's definitely a move forward from them--- but could we have alittle more a little more materialist, class reality next time, please? At every moment it seems like a psalm that's ready to fly away to heaven come the rapture, like holy poetry--- which is what it seems most to be... is it Genesis or Zizek--- or Baudrillard or Ayn Rand for cryin' out loud? (I mean, Owen Jones?... save us all from a future of yet more professional managerial class posing and posturing.--- Good Gog!) (see: Chomsky.)
Great entertainment though.--- Sincerely, it is. One terrific performance after another without an ending, just like --- going round n round in beautiful, suffocating circles--- dear old Baudrillard who has also gone out into the very real darkness of the natural world that surrounds us all at every minute of our existence no matter what we think, or don't, about it.
to think that leftists love Slavoj Zizek while this guy can spout truths for hours non stop
Is there no one who knows how to edit this absolutely awful audio? It's barely listenable. What a shame. RIP comrade. I will attempt to start thinking in terms of post capitalism, rather than anti-capitalism. You were brilliant. I wish our community could have done something to help keep him around. I too suffer from severe depression. But I've done far less to push this kind of knowledge and thought than you did. I wonder if he knew how appreciated he would be. I doubt it.
Helped "sell magazines" to hipsters and disposable culture initiates. High praise indeed.
Capricious Men shut up
Sanders/Corbyn: There is an alternative
The objection Louise Mensch is raising is this: before you take the public step of demanding OTHER people change their way of life according to YOUR vision, at least demonstrate you areprivately capable of making the smallest level of sacrifice in the service of the principles you wish to foist on all people. If you cannot do that, it is frivolous in the extreme to take your views seriously in the public sphere.
balls
Nice on paper buy they'll never go for it 😆
counterpoint: in a vacuum, who in their right mind would sacrifice anything to make it so you only get to feed, house, and clothe yourself after doing pointless tasks for some rich guy
this "sacrifice" is baked into capitalism
so even if you don't believe in it, you still bring it your offerings
I have come to really admire the late M. Fisher. His insights are often quite surprising.
When he gets into the heavy "theory", he starts to lose me. It's not that it's totally incomprehensible, but it does make me cringe, just a little.
"Um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um..."
Pretty much. Imagine a documentary filmmaker like Erroll Morris, who as a service to future generations recorded hours of TELEPROMPTER SUPPORTED discourse with a decent mic...
this man is pretty clueless
hyuhyuuyh What is it about his argument that you would dispute?
you are lost, please read more!
not enough lobster for you ?