Realismo Capitalista (É mais fácil imaginar o fim do mundo do que o fim do capitalismo)

To introduce (let me take it) today I'm going to talk about this book (let me mirror my camera) Capitalist Realism It's a small book, you can read it in an afternoon if you are willing to my copy is from Autonomia Literária I recommend it because has articles at the end that he wrote later so there're articles from 2014 the book from 2009, I'll talk about it. So today we are going to talk about this book and Mark Fisher as a theorist himself debating a little bit about this concept that is his most famous concept of capitalist realism and then I'm going to tell you what have inspired me to finally read the book because it's a book I already knew but I had never sat down to read it and then I wanted to read it because of this here (let me show it to you) Anyone who doesn't live under a rock like Patrick from Spongebob saw this photo. So it's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a deputy I don't know if I can say the term deputy.

. . a democrat American congresswoman going to the Met Gala, which is basically a millionaire's costume party with a dress that costs more than my house written "Tax The Rich".

. . It couldn't be worse.

. . And then on the internet we saw this.

This is not an excerpt from Fisher's book, but it is a paraphrase of Fisher on top of the photo. This is what inspired me to talk about [this subject], we'll go back to what this dress has to do with the concept of capitalist realism but I would like to start from the beginning, so we can understand the term in the best possible way So. .

. First of all, who is Mark Fisher, the author of the book Capitalist Realism. He is a British philosopher and he became very famous at the beginning of the 2000s writing a blog called K-Punk.

This book, Capitalist Realism, he wrote and published it in 2009. . .

I think he wrote it in 2008. . .

It is technically Fisher's second book and it was one hell of a success, an unexpected success, and it's to this day the most famous concept of Fisher's philosophy, the concept of capitalist realism. Recently, I really didn't know, Mark Fisher committed suicide. He committed suicide in 2017 at 48 years old of age, which for those who already know Fisher's work is something that like, really impacted me a lot.

Of course any suicide is already an impactful business but the fact that it's Fisher, and the fact that most of this book is about mental health and about the effect of capitalism on mental health, makes the fact get much more dire. 2017, like, almost yesterday. .

. and left a wife and son, so it's very tragic, very tragic indeed but anyway. .

. So the first thing I wanted to show you is this here, this one here it's Fisher's blog [Chat sent the picture of AOC in Portuguese] So it goes until 2003 I don't know if until 2003 is the oldest he's ever written, maybe the blog has started before 2003, here it only goes until 2003 and it was still online, it's a blog that looks a lot like the 2000s, right? It's basically text and hyperlinks and it's a blog that is like a culture magazine, actually if you read capitalist realism, it gives many examples of pop-culture and he acquired a lot of experience talking about culture through his writing on the blog.

Here's the tip, if you want to read K-Punk, that is the blog that made him officially famous it's all here, I don't know if everything, but there's a lot here. And what I wanted to do, guys, is not only to talk about capitalist realism, but to differentiate (let me find it here) . .

. so let's first talk about this concept here, let's talk a little about Late State Capitalism first. Why?

Because talking to a lot of people regarding Fisher, I told that I was going to do a live on this topic about Capitalist Realism, I saw that there are some people who confuse this things, confuse Late State Capitalism with Capitalist Realism. They are related but they are not the same thing. So let's first talk about what is Late State Capitalism.

I want to make a warning: Late Capitalism doesn't have a final definition, it's not a rounded, closed, consensual concept. It's a very elastic concept and it's getting more and more elastic, but in the academia, when you talk about late capitalism, you're usually referring to this book by Fredric Jameson, a guy who Fisher quotes a lot, including this book. "Postmodernism or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" [rant's about translation] and Fredric Jameson himself he borrows the term late capitalism from Ernest Mandel.

What does he means by "Late Capitalism"? It means that he thinks capitalism is getting close to the end? No!

Actually it's exactly the opposite, basically the structure of contemporary dominant capitalism which is capitalism with unprecedented global reach and especially the global reach allowed by information technology so it is this capitalism that has expanded to all continents and all the most remote corners of the planet and which is deeply interconnected. This is what he calls "Late State Capitalism". [explains English] That is in academia, comes a lot from Fredric Jameson but nowadays we use the term late capitalism a lot in an ironic way, in a pejorative way.

It is basically the the contemporary market business capitalist culture that dehumanizes us. We use the term late capitalism a lot like this dehumanizing capitalism But I think this division a little insufficient I have a personal definition of late capitalism, and you are free to disagree with me, by the way you are free to disagree with anything, And if you disagree, tell me. In my definition late capitalism is the stage of capitalism in which the contradictions of capitalism are so evident that they emerge to the surface then they become explicit to the population.

Capitalism is a deeply contradictory system it refers to itself as a system free of contradictions actually as being a natural system. Only that in the late stage of capitalism these contradictions get so violent, so obvious, that they are visible Because I like to define it this way? Because all the examples that we use of late capitalism we can see an explicit contradiction.

The explicit contradiction is what bothers us so much. Let's start with maybe the most current and viral, this Amazon warehouse in Tijuana, Mexico. Why do we use this here as an example of late capitalism?

Because it is capitalism with its explicit contradictions. It's Amazon is going to Tijuana in Mexico saying it will bring development and getting embedded in the middle of a f*ing favela. Everyone knows that Amazon went there to exploit these people, it didn't go there to develop the region.

That's why we're using this photo a lot as an example of late capitalism, there's no way to hide the contradictions of capitalism anymore. This is an example, some examples you sent there on Discord: "Be the iFood delivery man in GTA". Why were we calling this one Late Capitalism?

Because now you're going to play pretend of being exploited in the game look how cool! So this here is more than a product placement is more than the game that is an advertisement like "Pepsi Man", it's a simulator of one of the most exploitative job categories that exist and also one of those that grows faster. This here is so ironic, there's nothing left to say, there's this one here too that you sent, "Bank Fans: why is there people who fight on the internet because of fintechs".

Guys, what's the contradiction here? What is the apparent contradiction of late capitalism in bank fans? [Chat guessing the answer] The explicit contradiction of Bank fans is that banks exploits us!

Banks profits from debt and interest. Bank fans root for their own torturer! What else, this here they are NFTs.

Do you know what is an NFT? It's a validation technology to validate cryptocurrency. So for example if you have a file in your cell phone how do you guarantee that that file is the only one and not a copy of a copy?

The NFT to guarantee that that file on your computer or on your cell phone is the only one, Non-Fungible Token. Why do we say that NFTs are so late capitalism? Because it is an explicit contradiction of capitalism in the sense that capitalism says it creates value for us.

Doesn't capitalism paint itself as a system that meets human needs, a natural system even, because it is the system that meets human needs? What are NFTs meeting as a need? You are literally buying a number.

This value does not generate anything! It is value that generates value, it's speculation but more ridiculous. It's a contradiction that cannot be hidden, it is purely speculative.

It's sale and purchase of numbers on computers. But anyway I just wanted to differentiate so that we can know very clearly what is the difference between late capitalism and capitalist realism which is the concept that Fisher uses. Again, concepts that are related but are not the same.

Let's go to Capitalist realism, regarding the book in fact. The most direct definition of capitalist realism I saw was a definition that Mark Fisher gave in a lecture I was watching, one of the things that he said is "the problem of Capitalist Realism is that it is easy to identify but difficult to define". He's definition which I found the most straightforward and the definition I would say if I had to explain what capitalist realism is to someone in an elevator is that capitalist realism is not just the economic and cultural control of capitalism but it is the control of capitalism over our psyche.

It is the psychological control of capitalism and what I find curious is that at no point in the book Capitalist Realism does he mention this definition and I found it to be a very good definition. Let's take the longer definition of capitalist realism. Capitalist realism is very often defined with the phrase that is the subtitle of book: "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".

This is a very striking sentence, and it is a sentence that Fisher attributes to Fredric Jameson, who is the same author of the book that I showed earlier, the book "Postmodernism". Fredric Jameson himself attributes this sentence to someone else so it's a sentence that does not have a very clear origin but it's also very concise and it defines very well what does Capitalist Realism means in essence. Capitalist Realism is not an idea, it is more like an attitude.

It is a fatalistic attitude towards capitalism. It is a feeling that capitalism is inevitable and that there is no reason for us to try to fight it. A deeply depoliticized attitude.

It's an attitude that now, things just are like that and that we have to deal with them. It's just how things are. That's why it has this name "Realism", because I'm being realistic, that's how things are.

The name "Realism" also comes a lot from the idea of adaptation. So the only realistic measure against capitalism is its adaptation, since there's no alternative to capitalism. And then coming back here and this adaptation thing reminds you of something?

"According to Fisher, capitalism has captured the public in such a way that the idea of anti-capitalism no longer acts as the antithesis to capitalism, on the contrary, anti-capitalism acts as a way of reinforcing capitalism. That is done through the media, that seek to offer safe ways to consume anti-capitalist ideas without actually challenging the system. The lack of coherent alternatives as presented through the lens of capitalist realism makes the various anti-capitalist movements fail to target the end of capitalism and Instead of mitigating the worst effects, often through individual activities based on consumption".

This is just to reinforce this idea that the word Realism here is used in the sense that the only realistic measure to be taken against capitalism is the its reform. It's to mitigate it's excesses, it's to adapt to capitalism and "Tax the Rich" is nothing more than an reformist measure. It's trying to mitigate the effects of capitalism without ever fighting it.

So this idea of adaptation and also the use of the word Realism comes also from the idea that any measure that fights capitalism head-on is fantasy. Is idealist, utopian. Practically, it's something like this: "You're thinking of overthrowing capitalism?

Let's be realistic, capitalism will never end. The only thing we can do is try to take away the excesses". That's where the term "realist" comes from too, but let's go to a little historical overview of how did we get to this point.

What does capitalism have to do with neo-liberalism? Who understands a little neo-liberalism can see the echos in capitalist realism. Fisher says that in the 80s when neo-liberalism started to become the dominant doctrine, mainly through [Margaret] Thatcher and [Ronald] Reagan, capitalist realism was gestated, it was built, and in the 90's it was secured.

Fisher says neo-liberalism is the infrastructure of capitalist realism. The two act inseparably, one does not exist without the other. A quote from Fisher "It is by no means clear that the public has ever embraced neo-liberal doctrines with great enthusiasm - people have been persuaded to the idea that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism".

Recalling one of Thatcher's slogans was "There is no alternative" "The typically reluctant acceptance of this state of affairs is the hallmark of capitalist realism. Neo-liberalism may not have succeeded in making this more attractive than other systems but, he managed to sell himself as the only "realist" mode of government "Realism" in this sense is a political achievement neo-liberalism has succeeded and imposed a kind of reality modeled on practices and assumptions coming from the business world". So neo-liberalism is not concerned about selling himself as the best system it sells itself as the only real system.

How was capitalist realism possible and how does it acts in symbiosis with neo-liberalism? There are two movements, and they are two movements and they were responsible for the decomposition of class consciousness. So capitalist realism is only possible with the disintegration of Class Consciousness.

Mainly how it happened on the 90s. Two movements: one is the end of the Soviet Union and the other is something Fisher called "post-fordism". So let's go through parts.

The end of the USSR was a process that started in 1989 and ended in 1991 and, at the end of the Soviet Union, the capitalism ceased to have a real antagonist. From that moment on capitalism had open doors to expand without any kind of interruption across all continents it expanded freely. As you know capitalism is a system that is constantly expanding.

And the question is what happens when a system that needs constant expansion expands to all possible territories? Expands to all possible aspects? What happens is Capitalist Realism.

So this also contributed to the disintegration of class consciousness since there is no clear antagonist to capitalism, a real antagonist. This is an aspect. Second aspect is what Fisher called "post-fordism".

And then there's a problem, guys. As every idea that has "post" in it's name, is an idea a little difficult to define concisely. We can define post-fordism in a somewhat synthetic way saying that it is the production system dominant in the contemporary world.

So in opposition to fordism in which the worker operated machines, he became an expert in what he did, and it was a mass production, post-fordism kind of has an idea of "learn to learn". So instead of becoming an expert only in your function, in the machine, you start to become a technician in a lot of little things. So it is this subcontracting temp work outsourcing world, it's this world of intermittent work, this world of people jumping from job to job.

So post-fordism would be this, becoming an eternal intern [thx chat] Uber's model is totally post-fordist. Uber even sells itself in a very post-fordist way because it sells itself as an income supplement. It is a system that already assumes that you need to supplement your income The very idea of income supplementation is a very post-fordist idea, because Uber if you see its advertisements, it's like "I'm work with X and I'm also Uber driver to supplement my income" and that's a lie, that's just a lie.

For you to get some money from Uber you need to work and work a lot. A much longer journey than accounted for in [Brazilian work law]. "Make your own hours, be your own boss", exactly.

So this outsourcing, this intermittent temporary work this subcontracting, this flexibility of contracts, it weakens union power, and thus it weakens the development of class consciousness. The post-fordist system causes an exacerbated individualization of work and it has a boss but the boss has no face. These two historical movements they contributed to a disaggregation of the working class.

That's what opened up ground for what we call capitalist realism. It's worth mentioning one thing that Fisher doesn't mention in the book but I think it's worth it, We live not only in the post-fordist system, we also live in a post-industrial system (at least in Brazil) Most of the Brazilian labor contingent is moving to the tertiary sector, to the service sector, and the service sector is a sector that also makes it very difficult to develop class consciousness. This type of work in the tertiary sector, in my view, is also a factor that contributed a lot to disintegrate the class consciousness in the workers.

Something else, someone asked about "the end of history", that is something that anyone who knows the concept of "the end of history" will surely see parallels and Fisher mentions it in his book, he talks about Fukuyama. So what's the difference between capitalist realism and "the end of history"? For those who don't know what "the end of history" is, it's a thesis of Francis Fukuyama and was developed in the 90's that said that history had reached its climax at the end of the Soviet Union and the climax of history would be Liberal capitalism, from here on there will be no more system disputes And then in what it differs from the idea of capitalist realism, from the idea that capitalism has no alternative?

Is a difference that parts from the author himself. Fukuyama has as "the End of History" his thesis. He states that capitalism is the last stage of history, he was very ridiculed at the time, which does not mean that there are not many supporters of this theory until today.

This is a statement from Fukuyama. Fisher makes a critical analysis of the feeling that we are at the end of history, the feeling that capitalism has no way out. Is very different, Fisher he does not believe that capitalism has no way out, he is analyzing the common feeling, he is analysing an attitude towards the idea that capitalism has no end.

The idea of End of History is not a prototype of capitalist realism, it is a symptom of capitalist realism. Perhaps the person who most has a capitalist realist conception of the world is Fukuyama, because that is his thesis. That's were they differ, in the author's posture towards the topic.

Fisher talks a little about the fight against capitalist realism. Fisher wrote this book in 2008 and published in 2009 if I'm not wrong, this was after the crisis of the banks in 2008 in the United States, of the crisis in the real estate sector. What's the balance that Fisher does of 2008?

A crisis this serious was not capable of damaging the structure of capitalism. Actually the 2008 crisis reinforced capitalism. En so why is that just so serious?

Because the 2008 crisis made neo-liberalism explicitly contradictory. Neo-liberalism claims to be the anti-state doctrine, to belittle the state as an agent in society, saying that the state is insufficient or incompetent. But everyone knows very well who rescued the US economy and the banks was the state.

So of course this is just bravado, neo-liberalism is against the state on certain occasions. The main focus of neo-liberals is to occupy the state and direct the state to its own interests. Remembering that it doesn't exist capitalism without a state.

They want to instrumentalize the state. So what is the problem? This gives a very strong perspective of lack of alternative, if the most serious crisis that happened in recent years in neo-liberalism was absolutely incapable of damaging it structurally, then what do we do?

And Fisher also talks about the #OccupyWallStreet, that was that movement after the 2008 crisis. Who of you remember this movement? It's even hard to remember.

It's hard to remember because it didn't have any effect. Fisher's reading about it is the problem with #OccupyWallStreet is that it is a direct action, neo-liberalism is an indirect action so it's no use trying to fight an indirect action with a direct action. Neo-liberalism and Capitalist Realism are not implemented in a direct way, they can't be fought in a direct way.

And then we see that the 2008 crisis was not able to catalyze class conciousness, and provide a more critical reading of neo-liberalism, on the contrary, We are living in 2021 a wave of extremely violent neo-liberalism, it is as if the 2008 crisis have never happened or if it did it was just a failure in the system, and when the system is working perfectly it should never happen again which we know to be simply a lie, crises like the one in 2008 are predictable in capitalism, it's a feature of it. Let's see some examples that Fisher uses in the book, and then I'll go there examples that I separated. So you've already seen here Wally a very interesting example for us to understand the cultural aspects of Capitalist realism.

Remembering that Fisher writing on K-punk, his blog, talked a lot about popular culture, music, cinema, comics, these things, so he brings a lot of these references of his to the book Capitalist Realism. Do you remember Wall-e? Do you remember the plot?

Wall-e is basically following: the earth is completely devastated and humanity habits a space station, only it is a space station that is kind of a space capitalism, a galactic capitalism. Everyone is obese no one walks, everyone floats on chairs, everyone communicates through screens and they keep drinking this goo in a big cup, sold by Buy&Large Remember the phrase "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"? The world in Wall-e literally ended because of capitalism explicitly, and then capitalism it just expanded to the only place it hadn't expanded yet, the space.

It's capitalism IN SPACE, it destroyed the planet, made Earth uninhabitable and it remains the system. It is literally this sentence. It's much easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

Not even the end of the world is capable of overthrowing capitalism. Quoting here Fisher: "The end of Wall-e presents a version of this fantasy (that any problem can be solved by the market) - the idea that the infinite expansion of capital is possible, that the capital can reproduce without work (on the Axiom spaceship, all the work is done by robots), that the depletion of Earth's resources is just a temporary little technical problem and that after an adequate period of recovery, the capital will be able to terraform the Earth itself, and recolonise it. So, you remember the function of Wall-e is to clean Earth and then when Earth is cleaned and becomes habitable people return to colonize Earth with the same capitalism.

Here the people flying, there's people in chairs, they are talking to each other through a screen. I had never seen the movie from this perspective, the idea of capitalist realism is capitalism getting into our psyche. This goes unnoticed.

I'm not judging the movie OK? , I'm not talking about the quality of the movie. And then Fisher raises another aspect of this movie, so I'm going to read a sentence here from the book and then we discuss.

"A film as Wall-e exemplifies what Robert Pfaller calls 'interpassivity': the film performs our anti-capitalism for us, thus authorizing us to continue imposingly consuming. The role of capitalist ideology is not to make an explicit defense of anything with propaganda, but hide the fact that the operations of capital do not depend on any kind of subjectivity or belief. (.

. . ) As long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad we are free to continue participating in capitalist exchange".

Two aspects here; the first is the aspect capitalist realist in Wall-e goes by how the movie that explicitly demonstrates the destructive power of capitalism, the drive of capitalism to literally make Earth uninhabitable and the movie is obvious regarding that, it was the exacerbated consumption that devastated Earth, even if it doesn't use these words, it doesn't hide this message, but it's a Disney movie, guys. Disney is a mega corporation, an hyper transnational corporation. It's capitalism criticizing itself, but why is it that capitalism is capable of criticizing itself and no one leaves the film, no one watches Wall-e and becomes radicalized?

Nobody watched and goes "my God this is our destiny? We need to do something about it, we need to end this system! This system is going to end us!

"? Why nobody does this? Because we have a defeatist attitude towards capitalism.

We think "yea, capitalism will destroys us, we can do about it? ". Nothing, there is no real antagonist, there is no practical measure, so we have an apathetic stance towards the film, so this type of capitalist criticism within capitalism itself is harmless.

. . Remembering AOC's case Why is she capable of going to an event of this magnitude in a dress written "Tax the Rich", which is a ~critic~ to capitalism?

Because this here is harmless. This here is not a threat. The ruling class knows that the only threat to capitalism is the organization of the class worker.

Lenin said that our only weapon in the struggle for power is our organization, the demobilized working class, no matter how much criticism is made of capitalism, no matter how much Marx and Lenin we read, no matter how many movies and how many Black mirror series criticize capitalism, there's nothing we can do, we don't have the power to do it, the ruling class knows this. The demobilization of the working class allows this type of capitalist criticism within himself, in addition to Marx's own idea, this is an old idea, there's no reason not to talk about, because it's nothing new that capitalism is a monster that manages to commodify absolutely everything, including his own books. I'm gonna show something else, it's an example that Fisher uses, this here.

Who is old and remember this? Is there someone old like me remember this, Live 8? So look guys, it's a guitar in the shape of Africa.

Now let's talk about philanthropy. The Live 8 is on Wikipedia, a series of shows that happened on the 2nd and 6th of July 2005 in the member countries of the G8 and South Africa, that's why I asked who's old, there must be people the chat that wasn't even born. The event happened before the 31st G8 meeting in July 2005, also coinciding with the 20th anniversary of Live Aid, which is what people were getting confused there in the chat.

There was a show by these artists here: U2, Paul McCartney, Mariah Carey, Madonna, Laura Pausini (I don't know who it is, I confess), Elton John, Stevie Wonder Coldplay, Robbie Williams, REM, Linkin Park, Green Day and Pink Floyd reunion. What was the demand of the Live? The purpose was to pressure world leaders to forgive the foreign debt of the poorest nations and promote trade that respects the interests of African nations.

Fisher he puts this in words very clearly, the purpose of Live 8 was to pressure world leaders to decree the end of poverty by law. The end of poverty is decreed Talk about philanthropy is something a little abrasive because this type of protest like Live 8 and We Are The World, and Live Aid with Queen, is a kind of protest that's a little curious because it's a kind of protest that everyone agrees with. It's such a moralizing protest.

It's a protest that is based so much on a moral issue, that it's a protest that no one is against. Who would be against the end of poverty? Are you against the end of poverty?

So that's why when we criticize philanthropy, there are people who turn to us saying "but are you against giving food for those who are starving? ! " That's not the question.

Why are we against this type of measure? Because it doesn't work! It doesn't work, it has no effect, it never had and never will.

This is the criticism that we make, and not the criticism of the type "you shouldn't donate to those who need" that's not the point. This kind of philanthropy particularly like Live 8 insists that capitalism's problem is a lack of charitable individuals, is a lack of charity is a moralizing problem, if enough charitable individuals decide to end up starvation directly, it ends. This way you don't need any political solution, you need to act immediately, you need to put politics aside in the name of an ethical emergency and this reminds me a lot of my childhood because between 1995 and 2005, I remember very well of this time, this kind of philanthropy appeared a lot on TV and it was something that marked me a lot, I remember thinking even as a child "why there's so much effort and never.

. . Why doesn't poverty ended, if so much rich people got together to help?

" I remember thinking that. So this here proposes not only an adaptation of capitalism, but an individual course of action for the adaptation of capitalism. We just need that some specific individuals to want, these charitable individuals.

And that's what I said, the problem is systemic, the problem is political, this thing of "let's leave the politics aside and let's help, let's get to action, we need to do something immediately", it doesn't matter if you have good intentions, it doesn't work. I'm going to show you something, who know this thing here? I confess I found about this here in Fisher's book I didn't know it existed, and it exist until this day.

It's Product RED, I confess I've never heard of it and I'd rather not have ever heard it. This is capitalist realism level 1000, I think it is the most explicit example of capitalist realism That's the gist: the representative of this Product Red is Bono. He's not the owner but it is the representative.

Words of Bono: "Philanthropy is like hip music that is sang hand in hand. RED is more punk rock, is more hip hop, must appear with pure commerce. The point is not to offer an alternative and not even the mitigation of capitalism, is to treat capitalism as the only game to be played".

This here is total [capitalist] realism. This is to accept that not even the mitigation of capitalism is possible. Product RED is a licensed consumer brand to associated companies like American Express, Apple, Converse, Motorola, GAP, Giorgio Armani.

It's an initiative created by Bono and Bobby Shriver to raise funds for the Global Fund, organization that fights AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and COVID-19. I. e.

it's red products of these brands here, Apple, Nike, Head, American Express, GAP, Converse, Giorgio Armani, Motorola, The Independent, NEED magazine, Hallmark, Dell, Windows Vista, Beats by DRE, they have products that are red and every red product you buy from these brands, a part will goes to this Global Fund to try to solve AIDS or solve COVID, so this is using the fetish of capitalism to raise funds to mitigate the effects of capitalism. It's late capitalism and capitalist realism solving f*ing nothing. I couldn't find a more explicit example for Late Capitalism.

Each associated company created a product with this brand and the profit obtained from the sale of the products goes to the manufacturing company, but a part of the profit of each sales item is donated to the Global Fund, for example for each iPod Nano Apple donates $10. Do you know how much an iPod Nano costs? Going through another subject about Capitalist Realism, the capitalist realism also intensify a very common feeling of neo-liberal capitalism of individualization.

If you can't beat the system, you must abuse this system. It's a race to become the oppressor instead of the oppressed. As we can't beat this system, it's more worthwhile becoming the oppressor and damn the others.

Play the game. Get rich or die trying no matter what, and can you see how this is an ~individual solution~ ? Because it is a solution that starts from your own point of view.

Once you become the oppressor you are oppressing others and there's an excerpt from the book (I'm going to change the camera) there's an excerpt from the book that resonates a lot with me. Let's talk about individualization now, and how capitalist realism is exacerbating individualization. Quote from Fisher: "This problem is approached from another angle in a Campbell Jones' article entitled "The Subject Supposed To Recycle".

By posing the question of who is the subject who should recycle, Jones denatures the imperative so consensual nowadays that not following it seems nonsensical, unethical even. It's supposed that everyone should recycle; no one, whatever their political persuasion, must resist this determination. The demand for us to recycle is in fact posited as an pre-ideological imperative or post- ideological: in other words, precisely in the space in which ideology always remains.

But the subject who should recycle, arguments Jones, presupposes the structure that does not recycle: by making recycling a responsibility of "all", the structure outsources its responsibility to consumers, becoming invisible". This reminds me too much of my infancy, because as I lived at that time of Live Aid, of We Are the World, of philanthropy on television, these things like fundraising and [Brazilian TV Fundraisers] I remember my school talking a lot about recycling. This tone of "recycling is an individual responsibility of each one" was so strong in me that I in my house in São Paulo, I lived in the middle of the woods, I must have been about 9yo.

I took it this issue of recycling so personally, I decided to start separating garbage in my house so I there was a plastic garbage can this big and I started to fill it with recycled material like milk boxes, PET bottle, juice box, everything I thought was recyclable, and I filled it to the top and then I said. . .

"Now what? " I couldn't do anything with that garbage, and I didn't have a practical, feasible way to separate That garbage and bring it to a Recycling station. In front of me I had a basket full of recycled garbage that didn't knew what to do with.

I just felt guilty about throwing everything away, that sh*t started housing spiders, started to get cockroaches and I don't know if this is still very imperative in schools but in mine it was a lot and I remember feeling so much guilt, so much guilt about turning on the faucet, not participating in the recycled waste, that I started doing it in my house because of my own guilt, but I reached the limit of the system: what should I do with the recycled waste? Nothing I couldn't do anything, I had nowhere to recycle this waste. So I think this reading from Fisher here that he even gets from Campbell Jones very correct.

Once recycling becomes everyone's responsibility it presupposes a structure that does not recycle the structure starts to become invisible then capitalist realism works in this way in which the measures to try to attenuate capitalism depend on you, depend on our individual posture and only that. The structure is not addressed because it's invisible. I'm gonna show the examples that I have separated here that are not in the book.

This print here is famous. "Against Amazon and Other Essays About The Humanity Of The Books" been sold on Amazon. Someone published, one of these days, it on our discord, something like "Guys, Lenin's books for free on Kindle" I even published "what stage of capitalism is this" because that is why Amazon is able to publish and sell a book that is against itself?

Because this book is harmless, is not a real threat to capitalism. Another example, "Black Mirror", this episode of Black Mirror that is kind of an analogy for work, they have to pedal to generate energy then they are rewarded with the coins and such, is capitalism criticizing itself again. Netflix is the biggest streaming company in the world in hundreds of countries and then she criticizes the system itself, look how beautiful, right.

Here, The Boys is an example too, it's like "superheroes are being co-opted by the capitalist structure to be part of the cruel system" and it's the same thing, the same thing. Someone already mentioned in the chat the "Nobel of Peace: is this Greta Thumberg's year? " Guys, why Greta Thumberg has so much space to reach the biggest stages in the world and criticize world leaders?

Because her criticism is completely harmless. What is the demand she makes? "Our leaders should do something about climate change".

Do you understand how this is asking to mitigate the effects of capitalism? Your leaders of the capitalist world should do something about climate change. Her criticism is very moral, not structural Her speeches are very appealing to ethics and morals to create commotion, that I can't help but see a parallel with the concept of Chomsky's manufactured consent, which is capitalism also allows criticism of itself to create an illusion of a system that is free.

Of a system that is permanently self-critical, and that strives towards constant improvement. And then the response of world leaders, the ~progressive world leaders~ to this type of speech by Greta Thumberg is a default public relations response. I'll give an example, when there was the stoppage on Twitch, I predicted this and that's what happened, Twitch made a public relations default response.

They responded "we are hearing what you are talking about, we are working to better serve you, we want Twitch to be a space for all people where everyone feels welcome". The answers that are given to Greta are the same. "We are hearing what your generation is saying, we are working so that all the best happens and so that our future generations have a healthy life and don't go through what we are going through".

OK, and? Remembering that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize OBAMA won the Nobel PEACE Prize Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize OBAMA won the Nobel PEACE Prize *Obama* won the Nobel *Peace* Prize BARAK OBAMA It's not another Obama, It's Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, OK? *BARAK OBAMA* that's it here it's very funny, it was 0froggy who sent me 7 Apocalyptic bunkers to survive the apocalypse, no matter your budget there is a huge market of bunkers in the United States.

There is even a reality show of people who make the coolest bunker. There's a castle-shaped bunker, bunker in the shape of a tower, in the form of a spaceship, hobbit house, because like, if this isn't capitalist realism, I don't know what else could be. Is It's not just imagining the end of the world instead of the end of capitalism, it's waiting for the end of the world.

These are bunker for those who are on a tight budget This tiny bunker by $25000, in South Dakota. Here's one for $400,000 this one for almost $1 million, $1. 19 million in Wyoming, buy your bunker NOW!

look how amazing. Doomsday Bunkers is the name of the show. [joke bout affordable housing] that's it buy your bank now in up to 108 months, if the world ends sooner, you don't have to pay, stonks.

Let's talk about the most tense part of Capitalist Realism, the mental health part. regarding individualization, even using recycling as an example, Fisher identifies the individualization of capitalist Realism in two ways, one that I mentioned, the measures to mitigate capitalism are the personal responsibility of each one, there is a part, the other is one that we know very well: your success in capitalism it's only up to you. It's a very neo-liberal thing, in fact.

Where does it unite with capitalist realism? It unites once capitalism has no alternative you HAVE to know how to acquire that success, whatever it takes. This is what Fisher called privatization of stress, that's when he gets to part that's very bitter about the book knowing that Fisher committed suicide in 2017, the part of mental health the first thing he addresses about privatization of stress: Fisher talks all the time that neo-liberalism only fights the state's bureaucracy in speech.

The neo-liberalism is deeply bureaucratic but it has a different way of implementing this bureaucracy, so for example, instead of you working in the factory, or another type of sector, how this type of bureaucracy is implemented in neo-liberalism? Fisher says that instead of having state regulatory agencies, capitalism internalizes surveillance so we start to nag ourselves, we surveil ourselves. We stay in the perpetual state of anxiety, even though we are highly critical of capitalism, because we feel in our guts that capitalism has no alternative in the short term, we compel ourselves to work at all the useful time that we have to be able to survive in this system, no matter how much we criticize capitalism, we don't they don't see anything on the horizon.

So this idea that our failure is the result of our own incapacity. And not only our failure this fruit of our own ability but that we simply have no alternative but to work on all our time. And this is the privatization of stress.

When it comes to mental health, is no surprise to anyone that capitalism transforms the issue of mental health into an individual solution. We are experiencing an increasing wave of cases of depression and anxiety and other disorders too, but the solution that this system presents us is an individualized solution. There are two common solutions: Pharmaceuticals or our famous well-being, self-help, coaching, namaste, good vibes, meditation.

But the two solutions have something in common, they are individual solutions. Let's go for an excerpt from Fisher: "The dominant ontology today denies the possibility that psychological illnesses have a possible origin in social nature, obviously the biochemicalization of mental disorders is strictly proportional to its depoliticization. Consider them an individual chemical and biological problem is a huge advantage for capitalism firstly it reinforces the characteristic of itself to direct its impulses to an exacerbated individualization (you are not well because of the chemical reactions of your brain).

Secondly it creates an enormously lucrative market for pharmaceutical multinationals to unload their products (we can cure you with our selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). Of course there is a neurological instance, but that doesn't say anything about its cause, nor why these neurological instances are more and more frequent). Is there a neurological Instance?

Yes. It is no coincidence cases of depression and anxiety are becoming more and more common. Nothing justifies this increase apart from capitalism or neo-liberalism.

Is not that there are more genetic lines that are carrying us depression and anxiety in an atavistic way. The issue is since the system has no solution, since we don't have an horizon, the only solution we see possible is to use pharmaceutics or use this wellness system of coaches, meditation; but both are individual solutions because the collective solution is unfeasible. It is unimaginable.

It is very painful to read Fisher talking about mental health and to see how he ended up.