User:RD/9k/anti-Jake theory (Q618)
Main entry
anti-Jake theory
-> a model or organization that has been rebuked by "Jake", the Marxist theorist who was once a real person, but in order to protect the guilty and keep from stirring up back-and-forth arguments that could cloud an objective analysis of what he is saying, is now a hypothetical archetype. this shouldn't be an Item, but Jake's positions have been so bizarrely inconsistent that it's impossible to tell whether these positions are accurate or informative or anything just by what things they go against.- anti-Jake theory -> not to be confused with Jake (Fazbear Frights), Jake (Animorphs), or Jake the dog (Adventure Time). "Jake" was literally the first name that popped into my head when I had to think of an alternate name.
it is kind of conceptually funny to imagine him depicted as Jake the dog though, as if Rainicorns are somehow actually an interesting allegory for the conflict between North Korean Marxism and other Marxisms. their personalities are not very similar but I'm a sucker for unnecessarily complicated allegories like that
Pro-Jake theories
Capitalism is like a battery
/ Capitalism is like a battery — when the reaction runs long enough and the battery runs out, it will be stuck at the other end -> I really do not think this is true with respect to individual countries. capitalism in the United States may run like a battery sometimes but the place the battery runs out is China while the batteries in the United States stay perfectly charged because nobody ever has to run them.
so, why is this?
Transgender issues are not "tertiary cultural issues"
-> because of the contributions of "Jake" ... to the peripheries of Marxist theory it might be just fine to mark this part of mainstream Marxism-Leninism [...]. it's still pretty widely believed in places like China and Iraq that they are tertiary, but I think this is in error.There is no Overton window
/ The concept of the Overton window does not describe anything in material reality -> heard this from a mainstream Marxist-Leninist. I had to think about this a while. but after thinking about it, I think this is not just false, but dangerously false. here's the thing. when you're a Materialist, the specific words and clusters of terms people use to describe things don't matter; finding an ontology which models reality is what matters. so when people talk about "the Overton window", if the statements they're saying are statements about a real thing after all, then the statements will be true regardless of whether they said "Overton window". so, can that happen? yes. it is fully possible for physical people to file into an area, push out other physical people who don't fit or are not allowed, and totally change the observed culture of the group based on the people who are still there. this process can happen for a bunch of white supremacists taking over an area and pushing out everyone else. this process can happen with the population of North Korea pushing out Japanese and European empire and creating a North Korean republic. this process can happen with the Soviet Union forming a Leninist party and making sure only things that are broadly compatible with Marxism and not allowing anyone in the country to connect into big blocs of external empires are allowed at the moments that it truly matters. in my mind, this is the cause of people talking about "the Overton window". but it's very real. the existence of a mainstream Marxist-Leninist workers' state forming and pushing out the staunch bourgeois allies or the Trotskyists is a real thing. the existence of Liberal republics forming and pushing out all the monarchists and Communists is real. so if you tell your would-be Communist allies that Overton windows don't exist, you risk totally blinding them to the actual processes of history that create things like clusters of White supremacists. and then everyone is stuck arguing about "culture" and whether Gramscianism is valid or real and getting absolutely nowhere. in the end I think it's more accurate to say that Overton windows technically do exist, and people are just wrong about why they exist.- It is okay to teach conspiracy theories such as alternative hypotheses about 9/11 to advance distrust of Liberal-republicanism, even if they are unfalsifiable -> this was a very bad strategy for Jake to use when he also wanted people to believe the CDC. conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma" or mask mandates being a vector for Totalitarianism work about the same way as conspiracy theories about anything else. if people don't stick to what is provable, they quickly start believing whatever feels like it grants them the most freedom. which is often not what is sensible. often there is a weirdly specific pattern to these things, where people build in their mind an abstract concept of "Non-Totalitarianism" and then they immediately run from whatever violates it. religious cult starting to look like Totalitarianism? run. Communist party starting to look like Totalitarianism? run, and boycott all Cubans. president starting to look like Totalitarianism? run, and start spinning a narrative that nobody should vote for him ever. even if he's Obama. Gramscians who are trying to extend over society and make pronouns mandatory starting to look like Totalitarianism? run. mask mandates starting to look like Totalitarianism? run. atheism starting to look like Totalitarianism? run, and start promoting peaceful coexistence with religion. this is how people think. they don't have actual values. their only value is Non-Totalitarianism and they will eventually accept literally anything that doesn't violate it no matter how much they claim to hate that thing. you can get people to love and accept homophobes and transphobes and racists and misogynists and whoever you want as long as you can make a sufficient case they're Non-Totalitarians who are appropriate people to run to when people are running from other things. everyone's baseline belief is that every problem in society will automatically be fixed the moment you forcefully expel the people who are the very worst problems and if things aren't getting better you just need to exercise prejudice against more and more individuals. letting anyone build a conspiracy theory off just 'questioning authority' is bad news.
- Telling people about the current prevalence of Covid will empower institutions to implement disease prevention measures -> Jake proved this one false on his own channel. he was super angry about it initially and kept aggressively trying to get people to care about it but then he eventually "stopped thinking about it" because in practice not only were none of the people he was trying to reach able to do anything but he wasn't able to organize anyone either. this is not something I can just "let go". Marxism is the study of predicting real-world movements, and speaking quite literally, Jake did not successfully predict how to stop institutions from pulling out disease prevention measures. I am not aware of any time at which he admitted he was wrong or tried to propose a new model of what happened.
- I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized
Anti-Jake theories
U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist
/ Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement / (9k)anti-Jake theory
/ -> Jake's words on "Red Spectre" were that its criticism of Hoxha was comparable to Maoist infighting with other Marxisms. to me this is an especially confusing 'Jakeism' because it feels like in the end Jake and Bolshevik Organization are kind of just saying the same thing about each other's version of Marxism, that each of them has become overly inflexible and incapable of recognizing other parties that could be valid mainstream Marxism-Leninism as Marxism-Leninism. but Jake is still convinced there's such a thing as him being right and the other organization being bad. there isn't at this point, arguably. it seems to me more like every version of mainstream Marxism-Leninism is a little wrong and it all needs correction for parties across the world to actually become able to cooperate but prior to violet Marxism nobody knows how to correct it.
Related
U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist
/ Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement / (9k)stay with the program
(Marxism) / we believe we've found the correct program, and that's the program we have to stick with / (9k)
Ideologies or fields
-
⧼hue-ins-domain-spacer/⧽ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
1-1-1