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?
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