Talk:Capitalist realism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Article[edit]

It would appear that this article is attempting to talk about two entirely different things that have little to do with one another, and neither to a great extent. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be split into two articles and given a disambiguation page? --Caturdayz (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the advertising material to the Michael Schudson article. No need for a separate disambiguition page seeing as few articles link here.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than make a new page, which may be a possible route, I am currently planning to expand upon one subsection of the page, Fisher's idea of capitalist realism. I mostly plan to give a more in-depth overview of his ideals expressed in his book, as well as his blog and some of his dialogues and interviews. What does everyone think as some preliminary sources to go off of? Fisher, Mark. Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?. Winchester: Zero Books, 2009. ISBN 978-1846943171

Mark Fisher and Jeremy Gilbert, 'Capitalist Realism and Neoliberal Hegemony: A Dialogue', New Formations, 80--81 (2013), 89--101 (at p. 90); doi:10.3898/NEWF.80/81.05.2013.

Mark Fisher: “Crises of Capitalism won’t in and of themselves deliver a better world”, CEASEFIRE. 30 Sept. 2010. Retrieved 14 Feb. 2017 Moss effect (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this article should focus solely on Fisher's idea of capitalist realism. In the lead section, it should mention other uses but provide links to separate articles. It is un-encyclopedic to discuss two contrasting ideas on the same page. Dotytwo (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to the disjunctive appearance of the article, it seems there may be a greater degree of connection between the term's use by different authors, in both discussions of art and politics. The "Mark Fisher" section, for example, contains a quote in which Fisher refers to the term's use in discussing art, indicating a possible relation between Fisher's use of the term and its previous usages. However, fully illustrating these connections may be beyond the scope of this article, unless "Capitalist Realism" were re-conceived as an objective phenomenon (instead of a subjective talking-point). In this way, the introduction's mention of the term's use to "...describe commodity-based art..." through differing time periods and regions could instead be replaced with an actual discussion of--and focus on--such commodity-based art itself. This may even encompass all of the authors and information already present in the article, along with much else. Fido333 (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography of potential sources for POL 150C2 group 4A: "Living with Pop. A Reproduction of Capitalist Realism." Living with Pop. A Reproduction of Capitalist Realism. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. "Living with Pop. A Reproduction of Capitalist Realism." Living with Pop. A Reproduction of Capitalist Realism - Announcements - E-flux. N.p., 26 July 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. "Capitalist Realism at Kunsthalle Düsseldorf." Capitalist Realism at Kunsthalle Düsseldorf | Fmacba. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. Schudson, Michael. 1984. Advertising as capitalist realism. In Advertising, The Uneasy Persuasion: Itâs Dubious Impact on American Society. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 209–233. Copyright © 1984 by Michael Schudson. Reprinted by permission Basic Books. All rights reserved. Fisher, M. & Gilbert, J. "Capitalist Realism and Neoliberal Hegemony: A Dialogue." new formations: a journal of culture/theory/politics, vol. 80 no. 80, 2013, pp. 89-101. Project MUSE,

Fido333 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Contrasted to "Socialist realism"?[edit]

Capitalist "propaganda" has different, and often conflicting purposes. Advertising obviously has to fit the object or service marketed, and the sort of advertising of a life-insurance company ("Save For That Better Tomorrow") is very different from that for a cruise line ("Live Like a King Today!). Techniques of advertising are so diverse that they could hardly be discussed here. Institutional advertising is very different from product-related advertising. I know well that the word propaganda is the word in use for advertising in Spanish-speaking countries.

What would "capitalist realism" be in contrast to "socialist realism"? As with socialist realism, it would include glorification of industrial production, but only by capitalists, or big construction projects by private entities (let us say a privately-funded toll road) not funded by the government, or privatization of parts of the public sector. This would probably be little different in essence from "socialist realism" except that it would have to be more subtle and less clumsy because 'capitalist' states are generally less repressive than 'Socialist' states.

Another would be the glorification of tycoons, investors, and big land-owners, or politicians friendly to capitalists. But this is nothing new, and it didn't always have a political purpose. If it begins to have elements of propaganda (as in "The Shareholder Is the Worker's Best Friend" or "Al Dunlap, a True Hero of Workers"), it would be propagandistic. So would it be if it were a poster that derided "union bosses", "tree huggers", or "liberal do-gooders").

People who have a choice and some intellectual discretion generally recognize propaganda of any kind as such when it is one-sided ("Big Oil creates lots of jobs and makes your life easier) or when it is demonstrably false (cartel pricing is good for you). The higher the level of formal education over an extended time that people have and the greater the recent experience of freedom, the less vulnerable people are to the cruder forms of propaganda except when it is tailored for a self-selecting clique. Pbrower2a (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review POL 150 C2[edit]

This is a peer review section that is an assignment within the University of Arizona course "POL 150 C2"

Overall impression : Great expansion on the underdeveloped term "Capitalism Realism". The structure is interesting. A balance is needed between the origins of the term , its ideological & artistic uses and its definition. A background (sub-content section) in the terms' aspect in contemporary capitalism. In terms of the mechanics of the article, it is generally clear, however I'd suggest that a modification of the lead section is required. I'd suggest that definitions of the terms realism and capitalism realism be included in the lead section along with their uses. Grammer and spelling are fine


Alzubair Amush Thoar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzubaira (talkcontribs) 00:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a great start. Some sections are short, but I assume you'll fix that after the draft stage. You use citations in each paragraph, which is good, and, if anything is too similar to the original source, be sure to either quote it (if loses meaning when changed or you are directly quoting someone) or put it in your own words. I also like that you link certain terms to other articles so the reader can know ?what you are referencing. All in all, good job, and you should be fine as long as you stay on this track and keep these things in mind. Bcambri95 (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to look at sources from Robert Hahnel and Milton Friedman to help you construct an article which shows different perspectives while also giving you more info to write on. Also you could include films, like snowpiercer, to give examples of the definition of capitalist realism, as Fisher did write about the film. --Laylims (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The article itself is well written and conveys the information it has clearly, however the organizations feels a bit disjointed. Along with the sections of Sigmar Polke and Michael Schudson seeming to be a bit too brief. Maybe combining the Polke section with the In Art section to show artists have helped perpetuate the term Capitalist realism. Besides that a few of the sentences feel a bit short, but there are few typos. Szadroyoung (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)szadroyoung

My first instinct on reading this was that it was about two separate topics, a comment echoed (and somewhat resolved) in the first comment made on the talk page. I would still argue that the page feels disjoint. My recommendation is to make some sort of synthesis between the art and the economic practice. The advertising and Fisher's assertions need not necessarily be separate. --Googol88 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The organizational structure of this article is a little odd. You start in the lead by talking about different uses over time, but then your main subheadings are people's names, which do not give any indication as to which name is correlated to which use. Also, the phrase "although attested earlier" might be clearer if changed to "although first used earlier" (if this is not the intended meaning, then the intended meaning of this phrase is quite unclear and I cannot figure it out. It might help to make the names subsections of the article instead of main sections, and have the main sections be the major uses of the term over time. Also, I'm sure you'll get to this after the page is finished, but the grey box with the quick info is decidedly lacking and a little misleading, with the new direction of the article in mind. Hope that helped! Astoken (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually saw this article before the class started its wiki project. I was surprised about the emphasis on art considering our introduction to the ideology as more of a political one. However, I don't see many changes besides the grammar changes. I think your editors would benefit from a link to the specific sandbox that your drafts might be saved in. Moreover we would also benefit from some details of your work here on the talk page. In the meantime, I look forward to your revisions. Celinanguyen (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)