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?

  • PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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 rizz"

    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.