Will I get bullied for not meeting standards here?
Will I get bullied for not meeting standards here?
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?
You're viewing a single thread.
No one reads theory, they just tell people to read theory. One day someone will actually read theory and tell us what the hell we're all doing here.
Both are true
Everybody thinks they're the vanguard, nobody thinks they're the proletariat. We need a whole hell of a lot more of one than the other.
The vanguard is the proletariat. They're not separate from the masses, but rather the most politically advanced and organized section of it
The first among equals as it were. Let's put it this way, artists and ditch diggers are equally important in a socialist society but for some reason everyone wants to be artists.
The first among equals as it were.
Wow its literally like Animal Farm 1984
What are you talking about, man? You seem to be thinking that a vanguard party is a bunch of pointy head intellectuals pushing up their glasses. It's just the people who are politically aware and actively engaging in organized class struggle. Do you think a ditch digger cannot join or would not be welcomed into a vanguard party?
Read some Mao and free your mind from anticommunist State Department talking points
I'm 100% in favor of vanguardism but ideology doesn't cloud my perception of what it is. My original sentiment was that not everybody is the leader of the revolution, not even most people, not even many people, but everybody is still a revolutionary.
When left libertarians argue that communism is authoritarian do you argue that it's not and that it's actually democratic and blah blah blah or do you say yes, authority is required to maintain a socialist state in the face of reaction? All the guys whose names get letters tagged onto Marxism got that, and all the guys that nobody's heard of who thought differently got killed or subverted.
left libertarians
communism is authoritarian
The political compass is not theory.
It's an extremely prominent and recognizable strain of left wing thought.
My original sentiment was that not everybody is the leader of the revolution, not even most people, not even many people, but everybody is still a revolutionary.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Outside the context of an actual mass movement for a revolution, this isn't the case. Most people are not revolutionaries, and if they were they'd likely be in the vanguard.
When left libertarians argue that communism is authoritarian do you argue that it's not and that it's actually democratic and blah blah blah or do you say yes, authority is required to maintain a socialist state in the face of reaction?
I certainly don't adopt their childish notions of "authoritarianism," a term popularized by the CIA to conflate communist and fascist governments. I don't say "uhh actually authoritarianism is based
"Socialist states are definitionally more democratic than a bourgeois state because the government represents the interests of the proletariat rather than the tiny fraction of the ownership class. Democracy is not bad or unsocialist. Bourgeois democracy is bad because it is not, in fact, democratic. Authority can be effectively wielded to crush reaction by the democratic, socialist state. The USSR was democratic. Cuba is democratic. China is democratic.
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.
The whole class has been ignoring the homework? It was all in the syllabus, and I kept reminding you to do the reading!
You all know the final isn't being graded on a curve, right? It's covering all of the material from the whole year.
Aw man, professor sounds mad, if we cant pass this class we'll be turning linen into coats our whole lives... We need a study montage set to The Distance by Cake! stat!
Lemmygrad is the good class where everyone does the homework.
Hexbear is where the slacker class clowns get placed.
Lemmygrad is the Mike Wazowski and Hexbear is the James P. Sullivan, got it.
As an admin you're expected to be part of the vanguard party that cleanses us of our false consciousness.
All I know is the true value of linen.
The true value of linen was the coats we made along the way.
It's an excellent cooling material; even other organics can't compare
The value of linen is equal to the amount of labor involved in the production and transportation of it. No more, no less.
Socially necessary labor value plus the natural value of the linen, as nature is a source of value as well as labor.
free gifts are free so they're worth nothing
So... They weren't actually being serious? And were just repeating a phrase all this time!? Another incident of me being Literal Minded...
He's joking. People definitely read theory. But can I let you in on a little secret? I only read like, the first 40 pages of Capital vol 1, said "oh wow that's just impossible for me to read right now" and watched a bunch of videos from The Marxist Project so I could grasp the most important concepts. I've focused on reading about history instead, because it's a lot more palatable for me, and I think in most conversations with other people it's most helpful to know a lot about history and a little about the economic laws that govern history, than to be an expert on those laws but not know enough details about history to make convincing arguments to people. Of course, once I feel more comfortable I'll give the big book another crack!
I recommend that if you hate capitalism and feel like all this crap is made up BS, you should do something similar to break into leftism. Read something easier and more modern; anything Parenti, Chomsky, Vincent Bevins, etc. then you can complement your understanding of history with a bit of understanding of Marxist theory, you can read a bit of Mao or Stalin, who actually made some very nice essays explaining dialectical materialism and its application. You can look up lectures on Marx, I recommend David Harvey, Michael Hudson, and Richard Wolff. Just take it at your own pace, it's not like there's an exam to pass.
I've read all three volumes of Capital, and I can confidently say reading it is something you should do eventually, but it would be counter productive to read it without already having a fairly good understanding of most of it's core concepts and having built up a tolerance for dry, difficult reading. Starting with it is the theory equivalent of trying to read Ulysses as your first novel or playing battletoads as your first videogame.
Also, I've talked to people who haven't read it in its entirety but definetly understand it better than I do.
There is a new translation of it into English that just came out that's supposed to be a lot easier to understand but I personally haven't checked it out yet.
Paul Reitter's recent translation is really good! I think it's a much more approachable translation for modern readers, and it's the only translation in English that's based on that last (4th) German edition of the book.
Having said that, my personal copy of Capital is from 1906 with some beautifully penciled marginalia from the comrade who originally owned it, and I can't bring myself to replace it or justify buying yet another copy just to loan out or reference corrections that were already penciled in to my copy in the margins.
That is so cool.
Chomsky
I recently picked up the 1986 book Prisoners of the American Dream by Mike Davis because someone posted the first page on twitter. Haven't read that much of it but based on what I have read it seems like a very approachable book for leftists looking to get into the reading.
Also on Hexbear's literature comm there's a post (https://hexbear.net/post/109424) directing one on how to access the 'Socialist Theory Reading Group' on the education site Perusall. The weekly reading group portion of that has fallen into disuse but the library has a bunch of archived PDFs that are all readily accessible and can be easily downloaded. For instance there's three titles I can see from Parenti, two from Chomsky, and The Jarkarta Method by Vincent Bevins.
The Perusall might not be the most user-friendly thing out there for a newbie looking for a beginner's reading list, but I just wanted to mention it.
It's a gag, a lot here do, but also a lot dont or haven't but mean to. There's like...a LOT of books and different viewpoints and stuff it's a pretty robust subject and so even amongst the avid readers no one has read everything.
A lot of people here have read theory, but also a lot of have not. Both categories will tell you to read theory. The point is more telling people to not argue out of their ass and be knowledgeable.
I'm being a little flip honestly. Ive read 50% of capital (about 500 pages) and haven't picked it up in months. This shit was written in the late 1800s, it's not easy to do. I don't fault anyone who hasn't read it. There are a lot beginners lists out there to get you stated. But that said, anyone who seriously talks down to you for not having read theory is not a good comrade and could benefit from some self critique.