opinions on Mark Fisher's books?
I haven't read them. But the covers look cool.
>>25127544I think he's an asshat. He tried so hard to gaslight his followers into Schopenhauerian pessimism (Schopenhauer was an influence on critical theory, albeit not by name). If communism is so true and Hegel believes the dialectic follows towards higher states of consciousness (most critical theorists tend to reintroduce Hegel into Marxian theory - Georg Lukacs in particular is like this) then wouldn't it produce an enlightened class of proletariat free from the shackles of capitalism? Fisher says no and re-emphasizes the aimless will hiding behind critical theory's roots. He also bears the notion of being elitist (like most Marxists are, even if they deny it) by simply asserting (Through Schopenhauer) that class consciousness is simply "the thing in itself" hiding being representations. Therefore the proletariat only see signifiers of class consciousness and class consciousness is unavailable to us intrinsically. So he simply asserts we must accept defeat and follow him off the proverbial cliff like Heavens Gate or The People's Temple much like his predecessor Guy Debord did. Its strikingly similar to Eduard Von Hartmann's theory put into praxis.
>>25127563>dey wuined me schoppie!
>>25127544I have a soft spot for him because he was quite formative for me, but you can tell he was having a really hard time thinking in marxist terms (this is kind of what capitalst realism is about in the first place). Hes stuck in 2000s university jargon, doing vaguely idealist, non-concrete analysis of media using french post-structural thinkers, etc. Marxists are at their strongest when they can give a very concrete, clear-minded analysis of the subject at hand and its historical context, and translate that in to clear, actionable conclusions. Fisher is not doing that. For example, ive been reading Georg Lukacs recently and despite him wrestling with quite complicated philosophical/hegelian ideas of history, it is very striking how exact and well supported by concrete examples his historical analysis is.
>>25127598Not an argument
>>25127544Capitalist Realism sent me into a spiraling depression a few years ago, especially since I was also reading from the blind pill chart.I feel bad for him and understand why he did it.
>>25127544Nick Land on Fisher's death
that recent frutiger aero fad proved him to be a full on clown, wish he waited enough to see it happen, so that hed AAACKeven harder
Capitalist realism is only popular because it's 90 pages. He writes slop for chapo pseuds. Nobody who brings him up ever makes a single good point. This thread will prove it.
>>25127544You bring him up too often.>>25127997What an idiot.
>>25127802>modern society is le stable?? its hard to topple it with simple subversion? ithats it im going insain AAAAAAACCCKK
>>25127544Test
>>25128044stop ban evading nigger
>>25127544coward physiognomy. imagine taking advice from this bloke.
>>25127544They're used extensively as a pretext for trolling by commies on /lit/.
>>25127997holy chudgasm
>>25127604>Hes stuck in 2000s university jargoncos he is dead. he won't be using zoomerspeak.
