And no, I don’t mean, the supposed “Playful Bullying” (that will upset me too, same with being teased), or being even lightly prodded.

The other day, I was questioned on whether I “actually am a leftist”, by a friend. After I nervously answered fairly basic questions such as believing in healthcare and collective labor, they weren’t convinced. Ever since that day, I felt like I couldn’t be a leftist, especially since I lost any confidence in my ability to be “better” according to that person’s standards. If I couldn’t satisfy their standards that one time, what would be the point of trying to read theory and trying again? Yes I admit, I haven’t tried to read theory. I have no confidence that I would do it correctly.

So, I was already completely lacking in confidence in actually being a good enough leftist. But after that incident where I was bullied and picked on, even for a few minutes… Something in me gave up trying to keep up with the people on this website. It also made me fear and lose confidence in trying, for fear that I would encounter other “Secret Tests of Character” like that.

I feel as though in terms of personality, I am too quiet, too shy, and I have too little to say or contribute anyways, to feel at home here. It feels as though speaking the loudest and having lots to say is what matters the most here, and that is something I cannot do.

So, given that everyone insists “read theory”, which I haven’t been able to, does this mean I am not at the standards I seem to see here?

  • SchillMenaker [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    We’re both arguing past each other. The person who started the thread who wondering if they’re a bad person for not reading theory is who I responded to by saying that not everybody has to be at the vanguard. You then took offense that I made a distinction between the vanguard and proletarian mass before pulling a hard U-turn and making a clear distinction between the vanguard and proletarian mass by arguing that they are the ones whose actions are revolutionary regardless of whether there is a revolution. Up until this point we largely agree but you seem to be chafing at the lack of sugar coating on my part. I don’t need that to be committed, do you need that?

    I disagree about democracy. Democratic elements are very socialist, but the principles of democracy as an overriding governmental structure are anti-socialist. Take the recent Venezuelan elections, I don’t give a shit even if Maduro rigged the election, sustaining the revolution is always more important than democracy. The state obviously has to find a way to respond to the discontentment but allowing reaction to vote its way back in to power can not be allowed.