Talk:Capitalist realism

Capitalism is nowadays too powerful to be thrown away. We can only expect its collapse and the emergence of two possible ways:

1. Human extinction 2. Neo-feudalism

Communism is no longer an achievable goal, deal with the great defeat Nitrato de Chile (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
 * Are you a troll? 19:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They strike me as being one. Their sole obsession seems to be with shitposting on articles concerning left-wing subjects and positions. — Oxyaena Harass  20:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really belive that I´m here to annoy people and the lulz? There´re far better places to do that (TF2 chat, for example).
 * No, my questions/comments in Rationalwiki are made in a serious way (except that one of Talk:Spain, the rest are not shitpost, but personal conclusions and/or interpretations of my experience at online left), hoping to be answered or refuted propertly.


 * BTW, why do you think capitalism is still beatable and it´s not too late for that? Nitrato de Chile (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
 * I could not believe there was a talk page for this article but I was not surprised to read comments like yours. I only wonder who you are talking to? The article is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does touch on one Marxist perspective (technological determinism) but it does not make any claims about communism being achievable. The article also says, "...capitalism shall be overtaken by something else, what that something is remains to be seen." That neo-feudalism may emerge (a view also shared by Marxists like Yanis Varoufakis) is nowhere disputed in the article. So it appears you are arguing with no one and playing rhetorical games. Yes, people obviously really believe you are/were here to annoy people. They clearly said as much to you. Nowhere did anyone on the talk page, nor does the article, suggest capitalism is "beatable." It appears you are (or were) bored and looking for communists to argue with. Thus my surprise that there might actually be a discussion on a wiki about the content of such an article and ways to improve it, and my unsurprise that the talk page is an unhinged derailment by a pitiable wingnut. .45.128.36.194 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What in the hell is this?
Maybe I'm just one of those "bourgeois-liberals" with a need of self-sustaining criticism (or maybe it's just that it's always easy to criticize with the hindsight of an extra decade), but this seems pseudoscience all the way down. I mean, leftism and anti-capitalism are good, but here I could only read like the usual marxist dogma (in the unfalsifiable sense of their brand of "materialism") except with a more modern and pop-cultural prose.

The average Joe having heard once "we live in the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried", is not your "socialism vuvuzela" right-wing nutjob, which is not Fisher's bloody students taking an elective course that they eventually regretted. I understand that it's woefully frustrating not to be able to get across even some of the most basic points (whether we are trying to explain climate change, flatearthery, or the socio-economic reality), but motivated/emotional reasoning is still that. Psychology: different actual cognitions with a multi-faceted experience behind.

Then, if you still want to summarily blame corporate and a certain media environment for all the bad information you want, be my guest (and Chomsky's) but just say it outright and discuss framing:
 * don't imply a kind of star-warsy force that even when face to face with somebody in isolation, could still act stronger than any word you might ever utter (unless you give up on the premise of people always retaining a modicum of personal autonomy)
 * don't strawman activists as posers not putting their money where their mouth is just because they once purchased a good from a company that does also happen to have a reputation laundering department (it can be the case that they are hypocrites of course, but it wasn't radical chic to cause the left biggest blows)
 * cut off this reactionary dystopia of impotent governments only being able to cater to business interests because these directly purchase politicians or something, as if the "dupe voters" step wasn't nonetheless the key (or as if their promises weren't actually kept)

I get simplifying the message to.. uh, reach the biggest number of people. But there's dumbing down, and then there's making an 80 pages pamphlet just to underline in the most doomer-baiting way possible the mere fact that "Capitalism is actually unethical at its core, so don't ever co-operate with it". Featuring a lot of bullshit from fraudsters like Lacan, Deluze&Guattari and Zizek, unactionable aphorisms (there is no difference between "authentic" and "gestural" anti-capitalism, if voting is not up to your tastes and you don't even want to preach for literal revolts), and somehow misattributing methodological individualism in the social sciences to Stirner, Smith or Hayek and not motherfucking Weber. --Mirh (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)