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?
i'm in the same boat. some advice my friend gave me is to read the sparknotes, wikipedia, or some kind of other summary first (for each chapter individually as you read or for the entire work) before reading the real thing so i know where they're going.
my process now is to read a summary of chapter one, then read chapter one, read a summary of chapter two...so on and so forth. if it's an academic article with no summary i alternatively try to read the abstract and conclusion (and the discussion section if available) first before going to the main body.
it's honestly been very helpful at least for me cause it makes things less confusing so i hope it can help you too. i have a lot of trouble with interpreting things completely wrong as well and it suuucks.
As a teacher of literature there is nothing wrong with reading a summary first. I encourage students to do it because when you're reading what's important isn't merely what is said but how it is said and the context it exists in. So knowing what's coming (yards of linen, coats, or the French revolution) is important, but understanding how it's presented.
I think is what you get from reading the material i.e. "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living" and understanding that this is why revolutions often clothe themselves in the trappings of the past because we cannot escape history (or, as Marx puts it one sentence before, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."). Reading a summary to understand the broad strokes allows you to recognize the meaning in the text as you encounter it, rather than middle through.
Most importantly, you can use the summary as a point of productive dialectical disagreement. If you accidentally read the CIA summary of Marx that's not a problem, you can use the disagreement between your reading and the summary (as long as your reading is grounded - this is where conversation with comrades and such can help) to actually understand the text. Summaries, after all, are focused on one set of priorities and assumptions, and if you disagree that's not a problem - you're just noticing something different in the text.
So use summaries, but never feel chained by them.