Fisher says at the beginning of Chapter 3:

“A moral critique of capitalism, emphasizing the ways in which it leads to suffering, only reinforces capitalist realism. Poverty, famine and war can be presented as an inevitable part of reality, while the hope that these forms of suffering could be eliminated easily painted as naive utopianism. Capitalist realism can only be threatened if it is shown to be in some way inconsistent or untenable; if, that is to say, capitalism’s ostensible ‘realism’ turns out to be nothing of the sort.”

His two main inconsistencies are climate change and poor mental health. I see that others have added to this list, like Silvia Federici’s claim that unpaid labor such as child rearing and other domestic labor will disintegrate in a capitalist system or Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’ claim that increased automation and the reduction of production costs will result in a nonexistent consumer pool. I have no depth of knowledge about those claims, but they make sense to me, and I might add that films such as Blade Runner portray ecological collapse, poor mental health, radical loneliness, and perhaps other blatant inconsistencies with capitalism.

But interpassivity drains the consumer of their responsibility to upset the system, and the urge to rebel against such inconsistencies are marketed once again to the consumer. How could this be negated? And at what point does media, rather than “doing the work” for the viewer, inspire the viewer to make change? Is this a matter of the approach of the viewer, or does it have to do with the nature of the media itself?

This is my first Lemmy post and I have no idea if these kinds of lengthy, dense posts have any place here. I’ve just gotten into Capitalist critique and I’m interested in what people think about this, and I would appreciate any input. I have many more question besides this one!