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?
what do you mean by you haven’t been able to read theory? like is something making it difficult for you or are you not sure where to start, or is it something else? someone here might be able to help you out
It is mostly due to depression and having very little confidence in what people often call "Critical Thinking Skills" And I know that, when I read something, I am literal minded due to autism, so I often make incorrect conclusions, unless I am told outright what the intended message was.
Fuck those people for making you feel that way. I felt a similar way when presented with "theory" as a whole. Some (most) of it needs to be read multiple times and possibly with a companion guide of some sort to understand imo. Anybody who pretends to understand complex archaic language without historical context without re-reading lines multiple times is either a genius or fooling themselves.
Me reading the first chunk of State and Revolution, not knowing who any of the people Lenin was criticizing are:
Fr. Capital and Lenin's works are probably two of the harder reads both for different reasons. Capital is long, weirdly worded, and boring enough that you worry you're gonna miss the insights that make it worth reading. Lenin is the opposite. Very interesting, much easier to understand language, but so fast paced that my brain periodically needed to stop and go back to reread some stuff I missed. Didn't help that I knew very little about Soviet history then.
Don't let anyone make you feel bad for struggling. It's not an easy read, requires some discipline, and most people just educate themselves on shitposts anyway. Especially don't let that discourage you from reading. It really is beneficial imo, you won't regret doing it.
Check out c/neurodiverse if you haven't already
A lot of leftist theory is academic is tone. Quite suitable for a reader that prefers literal and technical writing
The only exceptions are later western theorists like Althussier or Adorno. The main people doing shit (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fanon) are all easy reads.
Actually Mao is probably the most approachable since he wrote for the newly literate.
Im finding Fanon incredibly difficult. The fancy 3-dollar vocab isn't an issue for me (though it will be for many who don't have an academic background), but, at least in Wretched of the Earth, he just kinda started chapter one by rambling along and I still have no idea what his point is yet. I can't seem to tie them back in to any sort of thesis, and my eyes soon glaze over
Fanon is rambling, it's true. He will get to the point but the rambling is an attempt at establishing intrinsic knowledge for the later sections.
But compared to Hegel or Lacan he might as well be speaking in single syllables
I'd suggest Mao then. He's often almost insulting in his literalness.
The early Red Menace episodes from RevLeft Radio that are meant to be companion pieces to some of the shorter foundational pieces of theory helped me out a lot when I was just starting to read theory:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9VMwPK_SqUuE-DQkFtceSbIjE5dzN6QA
I would do the reading and then listen to the episode and it really gave me confidence that I was actually understanding what I was reading.
check out channels like this one if you want to get some info in a more personal way : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPZoYsfoSekIpLcz9plX1Q don't be worried about being literal minded or having incorrect conclusions, just study (reading, podcasts, audio books, whatever you prefer) to gather knowledge and find people to talk to about it and things will become more clear over time.
Oh, I definitely understand depression making it difficult. I used to have a lot of trouble keeping motivated for reading even for things I really enjoyed. What changed it for me was when I started having a long bus ride to and from work, which was an ideal time for me to read and kept me consistent. Maybe audiobooks would help?
As for drawing incorrect conclusions, I think as you learn more about history and political theory, it becomes easier to have confidence in your own understanding. There's no shame in needing help either! I saw some people already suggest companion pieces, which can make the more difficult theory easier to understand. There's also communities here and on Lemmygrad (like !asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml or !genzhou@lemmygrad.ml) where you can ask questions about things that confuse you, people are often happy to answer questions for those looking to learn. Something I think that could help too is reading a book written more recently as well, since they tend to use language that is easier for us to understand. A lot of the foundational Marxist works are very old, and personally I'm not sure about any good modern substitutes for them, but I'm sure there's stuff out there. Maybe someone else can chime in with suggestions.
Sorry if this response is overwhelming, I have a hard time judging that kind of thing and this is just something I get a little overzealous about.
Excellent points; Lemmygrad and Hexbear are sister instances, and both have great resources for learning that don't always overlap, so you'll frequently see both commenters and posters from both instances on each.
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.