Capitalist Predisposition and ‘Alternatives’ : A Response to Capitalist Realism

This paper argues that — because of the lack thereof — the discourse on predisposition of capitalist and dialectical literature is the first step in attacking cumulative, reactive systems such as capitalism. The state of dialogue often centers around the formation and transcension of economic systems, particularly that of the definitional hegemony of capitalism. However, corroborated by Fisher’s ‘Capitalist Realism’, I argue that regardless of any approach taken, all subsequent systems will still be subject to the capitalist gaze. I will attempt to assess the (1) gravity of subjugation the capitalist gaze holds over certain approaches and, (2) the pragmatic viability of adapting such an approach and its difficulties. It is precisely the conversation of values and disposition that we can solely imagine a world beyond what seems to be an impasse, which currently is capitalism.

This paper will not set out to define the specific woes and conceptions of capitalism and its alternatives. In literal terms, it is ‘an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit’ (Oxford Languages, 2025). Operationally furthered, it is a system of subjugation of classes in the acquisition and use of capital, production, and material sustenance in society (Marx, K., & Engels, F. 1845).

In the broadest ideological definition, Capitalism can be described as ‘that which is subsequent’, where the root of its conception is the reactionary amalgamation of prior states of being. State, not that of the government, but the general term of ‘how things are’. Marxist thought proposes such as ‘Historical Materialism’, where previous conditions are of production and one’s environment. The proposal emphasises historical points (such as feudalism and the industrial revolution) shaping ideological and material stratas, which subsequent generations and further historic points are beholden to (Marx, K., & Engels, F. 1845).

An ‘Idealist’ approach by contrast, is not concerned with the material, physical sphere — an abstracted basis of thought. This is where, regardless of a particular instance, a broader claim, a ‘top-down’ approach exudes how things become and are unalienable to certain concepts (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2020). The Hegelian brand of Idealism then condenses into ‘the incorporeal conceptualization of how material realities ought to exist is actualized within the mind’ (Taylor, C. 1975). Capitalism then becomes a mere stepping stone in Hegel’s grander project of ‘the absolute’ where the continual dialectic course and destruction of previous states are in service to a later one. Contra Marx, crucially, it is not necessary for one particular state to inform the eventual conception of the ‘ideal’ one (Hegel, G.W.F 1980).

The above, however, are still concerned with states of being in general. Despite Marx and Engels’ works directly responding to the genesis of capitalism, subsequent conversations have fleshed it out further. Capitalism arguably cannot fit into the prior categories, as its plasticity and amorphous nature might not be reactionary by nature, but an amalgamation of societal cracks filled with the concept of capital (Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. 1977). A ‘postmodernist’ approach, seeing this discourse, then posits in futility the bankruptcy of methods to remove these shackles. In particular, the marketplace of ideas, culture, and value ( Jameson, F. 2016).

This is where Fisher positions ‘Capitalist Realism’, where the culmination of these ideas impose a standstill. Modifying a quote from Jameson: “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”. The accumulation of generational fatigue, structural conformity, nihilism, and the ‘lack of alternatives’ stretch the inevitability of capitalism indefinitely. The adaptation of a relativist bargaining method, citing a lesser of evil mindset dissuades the movement towards alternatives (such as socialism), citing them as unviable. But most crucially, it posits that the progenitor of these issues is the ‘predisposition’ of values that allowed capitalism to emerge and be perpetuated in the first place (Fisher, M. 2009). This precise bi-pass is the main contention of this paper: can a conditional or ideal position bypass the threat of precondition?

Predispositions are those that guide us unconsciously to certain paths. This is especially dangerous, as we might not realize the full factors of how we assess and form ideas in the first place. Sympathetic to Hegel and the Idealists, I will argue later that maintaining a position free from predisposition is possible in spite of its difficulty. Operationally, we can view predispositions as the ‘unspoken values that form our further values’.

I define the ‘capitalist gaze’ as the set of values and mental states unconsciously tied to the consideration and assessment of alternative systems and modes of thought. It is the lens through which we view not only capitalism, but also non-capitalist systems that ought to be seen as separate. The most condensed manifestation of this is the insistence of viewing alternatives through the lens of productivity and workforce motivation — where the exclusion of incentives is automatically taken as the inexistence of labor. This feeds into Fisher’s hypothesis that ‘no alternatives are possible’. Through this principle, I argue that this statement is false, because Fisher themselves commits to the precondition of assessing that the particular strength of capitalism ought to be the measure of all systems. As Einstein wrote: “All things are geniuses, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will believe itself as stupid”. Capitalist critiques are justified in their above mentioned approach; it is truly hard to separate the realities and hardships of people if the ever pervasive hands of capital and production proliferate in all aspects of life. This does not, however, invalidate the following critiques of possible points of predisposition.

Marx and Engels will be the stand in for the conditional approach. They are extremely prone to the subjugation of the capitalist gaze as the core of ‘Historical Materialism’ is that of production. It posits that labor and capital are the driving force of society. It splinters, stating that (1) ideological formations ought to be centered on labor and, (2) material conditions and environmental state are its worldly assessment of success. When asked which is prior, the Marxist will say that both (1 & 2) engage in a cyclical transformation of each other — which renders it justified as an approach. But examining its values, it is also tethered to the qualities and goals of capitalism: the maximal extent of labor. The question condenses itself: did capitalism make historical materialism a persuasive angle or the other way around. I argue the former, because while labor is a core part of society, so are things such as spirituality, communication, and the arts. It is then not the inherent value of labor to a human’s psyche that elevates it above all else, rather it is its ease of capture that allows for a global domination through our need for sustenance. I can perfectly imagine an alternative world, where contrasting our own, we have sufficient sustenance but a large excess of spirituality or other disciplines.

Idealism then I propose is the best alternative to rid ourselves of this predisposition. Inherently, it forces an agnostic look at what an ideal system looks like. However, this is precisely its difficulty: what makes a system ideal? This lends itself to the possibility of the emergence of new predispositions or dispositions that inform its idealized choice. But crucially, contrary to conditional predispositions, it should not be informed by the current paradigms and should not assess other paradigms as such. Even if predispositions were to emerge, at the very least they are not anchored towards the capitalist assessments and ideas of what makes a system better than the others. It is our only chance of conceptually ridding ourselves of the unconscious shackles capitalism imposed upon us.

Unequivocally, the viability of either approach is reflected in the propensity of their beliefs. There is a reason why historical materialism and Marxist thought are seen as an alternative. They necessarily entrench themselves in the realities of the current world, showing a direct line of conditions that demarcate itself from that of capitalism. However, the lack of deeper conceptual separation as pointed at above is also the reason why it is said that no true communist society has ever existed. It’s because they are still tackling the problem in terms of the capitalist’s playground. By contrast, the abstract nature of Idealism leads to overly idealistic systems that in no way can be applied. They can surely be possible on paper, but too much detachment makes application impossible.

Ironically, the exercise of attacking capitalism in particular is a part of my own predisposition, that it ought to be the standard that an abstract system ought not become. I will not posit a marriage between the two, because I believe they are mutually exclusive. This is what I think the root of the problem of outlasting capitalism lies. It is impossible to think of any other alternative, or what lies beyond, because we still carry the baggage of what capitalism is and how life ought to be in the first place. These are the extent of my abilities, maybe in future, a completely detached, non-reactionary system might supersede any other. I still hold out hope that it is possible even if not in my lifetime.

References:

Seth, A. (1978). The Development From Kant to Hegel: With chapters on the philosophy of religion.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2020, January 9). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#Heg

Taylor, C. (1975). Hegel. Cambridge University Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1977). Capitalism and schizophrenia (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Viking Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). The Encyclopaedia Logic, with the Zus tze: Part I of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences with the Zusätze (Vol. 1). Hackett Publishing.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1980). Lectures on the philosophy of World History. Cambridge University Press.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1845). The German ideology.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The communist manifesto (1848). New York.

Mazurski, K. R. (1991). Communism and the environment. In Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy (Vol. 5, №4, pp. 39–44).

Engels, F. (1886). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative?. John Hunt Publishing.

Jameson, F. (2016). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. In Postmodernism (pp. 62–92). Routledge.

Oxford Languages (2025). ‘What is capitalism?’

Bibliography:

Hegel’s Dialectics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2020, October 2). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/