
The Lost Futures of Mark Fisher - objections
https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-lost-futures-of-mark-fisher/
======
vvdcect
Do checkout "Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?", It's a concise
book that talks about capitalism and its effects on culture and public
thought. I haven't read lost futures yet but I found this really good video
discussing Mark's idea by Cuck Philosophy called "Hauntology, Lost Futures and
80s Nostalgia"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSvUqhZcbVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSvUqhZcbVg)

~~~
claudiawerner
Of course recommended reading on capitalism's effects on culture and thought
are the works of Adorno and Horkheimer, and Marcuse - who seems to have fallen
a little out of favor but his work is as important as it was in the 60s.

~~~
vvdcect
Do you have any recommendations on what books I should pick up? , I've only
read about the authors you mentioned on
[https://plato.stanford.edu](https://plato.stanford.edu) and also through some
philosophy podcasts..

~~~
claudiawerner
"One Dimensional Man" by Marcuse certainly, "Escape From Freedom" by Erich
Fromm and for more contemporary review, Mark Fisher of course. You also can't
miss Guy Debord (his Society of the Spectacle) and, although I haven't read
him yet, Henri Lefebvre's "Critique of Everyday Life" is looking promising
from what I've seen so far. I'd suggest browsing the Verso catalogue for old
(republished) and new books, almost all of them center around cultural
critique of capitalism[0].

[0] [https://www.versobooks.com/series_collections/5-radical-
thin...](https://www.versobooks.com/series_collections/5-radical-thinkers)

~~~
vvdcect
Thank you.

------
nkurz
The opening paragraph of this piece mentions (but does not link to) Fisher's
2013 piece "Exiting The Vampire Castle". If you haven't read it, you probably
should: [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-
vam...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-
castle/).

It's a critique of the progressive liberal left from the traditional far left.
Central to Fisher's thesis is that by emphasizing race and sex, class identity
(which he feels is crucial) is ignored: "I’ve noticed a fascinating magical
inversion projection-disavowal mechanism whereby the sheer mention of class is
now automatically treated as if that means one is trying to downgrade the
importance of race and gender. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, as the
Vampires’ Castle uses an ultimately liberal understanding of race and gender
to obfuscate class."

What I find particularly interesting is how similar this critique is to the
alt-right's criticism of neo-liberalism. I think it's a fine example of the
"horseshoe theory" of politics, where the far-left and far-right share certain
commonalities:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory).

~~~
sewercake
The critiques are similar insofar as they are both critiques, but differ
vastly in their content.

Mark Fisher, and the 'traditional left's' critique of neoliberal identity
politics calls for a centering of class -- that is the power relations
inherent in capital modes of production. This, many would argue is not an
identity, but a _material position_: a specific stance or relationship to the
productive forces in society.

The Alt-Right tends to believe societal conflicts arise from 'culture wars'
between ethnicities, nationalities, religions, etcetera. In this way, they
share an 'identitarian' analysis of political force with the liberals they aim
to critique!

~~~
clydethefrog
If you look at political history, the jokingly made Fish Hook Theory is more
valid than the Horse Shoe.

[https://i.redd.it/ipw1tkw2v06z.png](https://i.redd.it/ipw1tkw2v06z.png)

~~~
msla
If you look at the history of Stalinism, the Khmer Rouge, and Maoism, the
horseshoe theory begins to look appealing again, unless you consider Stalin to
be Fascist.

~~~
musik
It is quite popular among the hard left to handwave away the crimes of the
likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, by saying they are capitalists!

~~~
cazum
Really? I've never heard that before and I've spent a not insignificant
portion of my life in hard left circles.

People will often say that Stalin's USSR was not communist, but was rather in
a pre-communist phase. In the USSR this stage was known as the dictatorship of
the proletariat, which according to Lenin, would eventually fade allowing a
state-less, class-less society to flourish. Obviously they never got to that
stage, but honestly even arguing this is semantics. Communism vs precommunism
is a real time waster of a political debate, but I've never heard anyone
describe any stage of the USSR as "capitalist". Perhaps state capitalism, if
you really want to stretch that definition, but that's still a very different
thing.

Generally lefties will distance themselves from Stalinism and Maoism by
describing those forms as "authoritarian socialism", as opposed to
"libertarian socialist" ideologies like what they had in socialist Catalonia,
or Anarcho Communism as it's described in The Conquest of Bread.

------
beat
Excellent, thoughtful review of one of the great modern social theorists. I
really enjoyed _Capitalist Realism_ , and will be diving into this one, too!

------
hguant
The New Yorker article referenced in the first paragraphs of this piece
provides a nice overview of k-punk and Fisher's writings, but other wise
offers very little of substance.

[https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/mark-fishers-
k-p...](https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/mark-fishers-k-punk-and-
the-futures-that-have-never-arrived)

------
wz1000
> I would not claim that Islam is monolithically malign, of course, but
> someone less constrained by their unconscious sense of ideological
> appropriateness would ask why interpretations of the faith lead people
> towards evangelistic violence and puritanical tyranny so much more than
> interpretations of other faiths.

After WWII and decolonisation, a new breed of educated, progressive and
secular leaders arose across former colonial states. In the Middle East, this
was characterised by the influence of Egypt's Nasser. These leaders weren't
afraid to stand up to religious fundamentalism. Here is a 1966 video of Nasser
making fun of the Muslim Brotherhood trying to force women to wear the
hijab[0]. There were secular governments across the Middle East, including
Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

However, these secular and socialist leaders were seen as too close to the
Soviets by the US, despite many of them explicitly participating in the Non-
Aligned movement, and America and its allies quickly acted to counter their
influence and depose them when possible.

The major political opponent to anti-imperialist socialism across the Islamic
world were the religious fundamentalists, so they were the ones who were
backed by the West.

Western support for Saudi's and their Wahhabist ideology is well known.
Indonesia's Sukarno was deposed in an American supported purge backed by
Islamic fundamentalists, described by the CIA itself as "one of the worst mass
murders of the 20th century". Hamas was propped up in Palestine by the
Israelis as a counter to Arafat's secular Fatah[1]. Western efforts to
undermine Nasser and fund his political opponents(surprise... Islamic
fundamentalists) are well documented. The crushing of Nasserism in the Arab
world with the help of the Saudis and Israelis is regarded as one of the great
triumphs of post WW2 American foreign policy. The groups that formed Al Qaeda
and the Taliban were supported by Americans as counters to the Soviets in
Afghanistan. There is also consistent American support for the Pakistani
government, even in the face of genocide of millions[2], in an attempt to
counter the spooky "socialist" and secular India.

And all that is discounting the reactionary sort of fundamentalism that might
arise as a result of constant war and interventionism by the West in the
Middle East.

It makes me sad when I see "westerners" criticizing Islamic extremism without
recognizing their own culpability in the current state of affairs. It is
short-sighted and illogical to divorce the political and social situation in
the Islamic world from centuries of western foreign policy.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fswb4a9jcU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fswb4a9jcU)
[1]:
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide)

~~~
beat
That phrase bothered me for a different reason - namely, the role of Christian
evangelism in western imperialism. Christianity became a key justification for
the racism and orientalism necessary to justify the imperialism, the idea that
enlightened Christian Europeans were going to save the ignorant savages and
degenerate oriental kingdoms from themselves. Without the racism and
orientalism, imperialist ambitions become too morally difficult to maintain.

So I don't think the problem is Islam, or even Christianity. I think the
problem is the political usefulness of evangelical religions.

Of course, the horror we talk about when talking about the violent nature of
Islam is "terrorism"... which is, really, just a form of asymmetric warfare,
all that's available when one side has tremendous military superiority. If the
armies were more equal, the situation would be different.

This is actually related to another minor gripe I have about Mark Fisher. He
talks a lot of the problems of left-wing online activism, and he's right, but
the problem as it stands today isn't a new flaw of the left (this thinking has
always been around, as he has noted). Rather, it's that the internet and
social media make it so easy to be a mob. The right-wing Twittersphere is as
bad as the left, and uses much the same tactics. The correct answer is for us
to stay off of social media...

------
mcguire
I dunno.

Every time I try to read these sort of discussions, typically from the left
but also just as typically from the right, I'm left with the impression that
the author believes that there are Good People and there are Bad People. The
Good People are oppressed or misled by the Bad People, who are overtly or
covertly, consciously or unconsciously, acting for their own benefit, whether
that benefit is defined economically, socially, morally, or psychologically.
The author argues, or just simply assumes, that if everyone, who are obviously
Good People, would put on the author's revolution's uniforms or at least act
according to the author's dictates or suggestions or hints, everything would
be good and wonderful, full of rainbows and butterflies, with egalitarianism
and respect for all the Good People and the Bad People taught the error of
their ways so that they became Good People. (Or at least put up against a wall
and shot.)

The problem is, and I'm an old man and can say this from experience, that the
whole argument, right from its assumptions, is a load of horse shit. There are
no Good People. They don't exist. Or maybe they do exist, but they're like
those fairies also called "Good People"; you call them that to prevent them
from souring your milk and killing your goats. In actual fact, there are only
Bad People. They're everywhere. That person you think is a good person?
They're a Bad Person. It's Bad People all the way down.

You know the neoliberal left, that everybody hates and is clearly in the wrong
in all situations? They weren't always the powerful political war-horse they
are now. (One could argue that they aren't a powerful political war-horse now,
but that's neither here nor there.) The Baby Boomers? They learned identity
politics because they had to. They were begat into a time when your race or
manner of speech or the shape of your nose defined a significant fraction of
your destiny. Without them, the whole _but it 's really about economic
inequality and opportunities_ or whatever would be laughably, pointlessly,
silly: simply none of it would apply if you were black, female, Hispanic,
southern European, a new immigrant, eastern European (I had to laugh at one
Neo-Nazi a while back; judging by his name and look, he was a Slav. If you
can't find irony in a Slavic Neo-Nazi, you've missed the whole boat.)...

And yet, the Baby Boomers are indeed rat bastards.

Have you heard of the Liberal's Lament? "Last guys don't finish nice." Those
most in need of help are the least likely to look like they deserve it. Those
miners and factory workers that the old-timey traditional liberals fought so
hard for? Racist and sexist as fuck. Sure, some of the leaders believed, or at
least acted, in equality across the skin-tones, but most didn't and the rabble
were all rabble. They aren't all going to rise, phoenix-like, Eminem-like, and
become wonders and paragons.

And so, whenever I see something about some group, left, right, or center,
just needing a little reform or revolution to really fix things right, I am
going to ask, "What will go wrong?" Because it ain't going to go right. It
will end up badly, even if it succeeds, at least according to the next
generation.

Sigh.

Cynically,

mcguire

"You do it. I'm bitter."

------
noahth
As a fan of Fisher, it's interesting to read an open-minded review of his work
from someone on the right. But the bit about Islam can't be left unchallenged.
The reviewer says:

>>> I would not claim that Islam is monolithically malign, of course, but
someone less constrained by their unconscious sense of ideological
appropriateness would ask why interpretations of the faith lead people towards
evangelistic violence and puritanical tyranny so much more than
interpretations of other faiths.

But here in America we still have Christians practicing evangelistic violence
and working to enforce puritanical tyranny. There's nothing unique about Islam
in this regard, unfortunately. Like nearly any religion, it can be mustered to
support incredible love or horrific cruelty.

~~~
prepend
You are right that any philosophy can be distorted and made horrific. It’s
kind of like how even lots of water can be poisonous if drank in sufficient
quantities.

It’s hard for me to bring up a topic like this without being lumped into straw
man town of equating “some religions tend to have more violently dangerous
people, as data like the pew opinions show” with “some religions are
universally bad and racism is ok.”

I think an understanding of my first quote is important while my second quote
is not worth, to me, discussing because racism is really harmful.

That being said, while the kkk is very real and caused massive historical
violence and even today has a non-zero level of threat. The evalgelistic
Christians are about as dangerous, in terms of violence, as followers of Eris
working to further the Eschaton.

Other philosophies and religions are currently more dangerous and we need to
engage with, learn about, and support constructive ways to change minds so
apostasy stops being a capital offense in our world.

~~~
aabeshou
[https://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_ch...](https://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/)

[https://www.splcenter.org/20180723/terror-
right](https://www.splcenter.org/20180723/terror-right)

~~~
prepend
Aside from those sources aren’t really reputable, that’s why I said that the
right threat is non-zero. It does exist, it’s just less than other threats.

OKC was 1995. It makes me feel old but that’s 25 years ago. I would worry more
if Montana had turned into an ISIS-like dystopian recruiting all these
dumbasses to gather from around the world to make a super Pope or something.

~~~
aabeshou
That's the first time I've heard SPL isn't reputable. Anyway, it's not an
opinion piece, it's just a list of violent events. If you find one that's not
true, please say so.

The article is a record of right-wing violence, which are due to strains of
white supremacy (often Christian supremacy as well), going up to 2019. So
Islam is far from exceptional when it comes to ideologies prone to violence.

You're not one of those people who dismiss everything that disagrees with them
as "fake news", are you?

So if Islam is not the only ideology that can turn violent, then why do people
like to focus on it so much and act like it's the number one threat to the
world that's flying under our radar? And people ignore the fact that US
activity in Muslim countries has been so barbaric, which is obviously going to
make people angry.

This is why people talk about Islamophobia, because the fixation goes beyond
logic.

------
pierrebai
This piece exhibits the usual problem of using words and expression so
abstract or vague that anyone reading it can pour in the undetstanding ones
wants. People discussing will often disagree because they have different take
on simple words. Just i the opening two paragraphs I can mention: "cultural
and political theorist", "censorious moralism", "Poshleft moralisers",
"kangaroo courts", "structural critique", "inspire and energise", "speculative
realism", "knowing postmodern pretension". Add in the usual tendencies for
hyperboles and denigrement of anything they disagree with, it adds up to
something only people already adhering to whatever cause it's about will read.

~~~
boo_boo
Might want to take that reaction as impetus to read more

