this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)
chat
7976 readers
57 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Comrade, not having a sense of belonging is awful. I want to say what you wrote, the feelings and sentiments expressed touch upon my earlier experiences. I recall in my local org a comrade said "we need to recruit more communists since no one else will be my friend or date me." It was an unfortunate situation for that and other comrades. There is a contradiction, being for and of the people (in my part of the imperial core, comrades are not distinct nor revolutionary enough to consist of a 'cadre' in any meaningful sense of the word) entails being with the people. Let me explain.
You and the comrades I mentioned in my local org still have liberal brainworms and self-crit is necessary (it is always necessary, a specific kind is necessary for this affliction) to readily identify with working class people. There need not be an antecedental statement precluding the majority of the population from being friends or potential romantic partners. Without getting to know a person, rejecting them prima facie entails relying on ideas and ideals. As dialectical materialists we must struggle and resolve any kind of idealism which manifests. Recall, even Mao claimed he had believed he was 'clean' when he was playing scholar. So much that he would not carry his own bags and had helpers carry his bags for him. Commenting after that he was wrong to think this way, that only the people can truly be 'clean' (these are lumpenproleteriat, peasants that he is referring to). You are in a similar position, because the people will not, nor can they reject you once you wholeheartedly accept that you are one of them. You have every reason to feel the way you do, likely knowing why will come much later through serious self-crit. I urge you not to take 'low-hanging fruit' as a means of explaining away the material affects which have led to your unsatisfactory and displeasurable current state.
What do I mean, being of the people? I mean adopting the mannerisms to indicate that you are at the very least not a petty bourgeois or labor aristocrat. To give a non-exhaustive list of mannerisms and behaviors I have adopted consciously by watching, investigating and engaging in dialogue with the people:
There was much more I wanted to write but I got carried away with a specific class of examples. Apologies for that comrade. When I walk out, there are a number of unhoused which are increasing due to the deteriorating economic conditions, I always feel closer to them than peers who are of similar socioeconomic status. It's true there is not always a pleasant odour, and I do my best never to react as others already do and thus communicate that information to the unhoused folks. I can stomach an unpleasant physiological sensation for several minutes at most, anything to give a resemblance of humanity to those who have it ignored. I have found appreciative eyes and acknowledging comments after working more deliberately to act as such.
Ok about to fall asleep I'm so tired, hope this helps in some way comrade. I wanna say it'll likely get more unpleasant before it gets better vis-à-vis having a group with which you can identify.
You make some good points throughout, but this is some Patrick Bateman shit lol
You're missing the bit in the middle and being reactionary, comrade. This is done automatically, I did not consciously decide to do these, I noticed and am describing them.
You are correct that they are surface level and therefore appear superficial. The depth of understanding does not come with off-the-cuff dismissal. To quote Mao, "No investigation, no right to speak." Have you asked yourself, and engaged dialectically with your reactionary take, to say "If what this brainwormed Bateman comrade says is true, then how could it be true?" or "If 60% of what Bateman comrade said are good points, to my judgement and evaluation, could it be the other 40% are also good points? Or perhaps 30% of the remaining 40%?"
I likewise did not investigate your claims. You did not give much to investigate in your immediate comment. Obviously there are things which can be investigated. Your comment history, the historical context of your comments, the social structure and culture of this forum, etc.
You were dismissive, which is fine. You did not explain to me and I do not understand. I would appreciate critical comments as that would be most helpful for me, if you are so inclined.
A note, to quote a notable piece in mathematics education, Lockhart's Lament, he states the decrepit state of mathematics education in Amerika has to do with the introduction of concepts. He mentioned, unlike a painter who has an idea and assortment of tools and a challenge to make what they wish. Who struggles in their own manner and gets a result which they have an intimate knowledge of due to their experience. He says the mathematics student is given the finished piece of art and told what the meaning is.
Rather than give a problem and have students attempt to work it out on their own, they are given the entirety of the explanation and the sense of wonder, of learning, is lost. It is no surprise route memorization is practiced.
In my examples I did not strive for the utmost quality of examples as 1. the issues can be worked out by the reader and a novel solution which is most amenable to them can be found, and 2. there is limited knowledge on my part of the audience, or the reader, which for myself and in my experience makes communication difficult as my 'general style' without knowing the specific audience has been called 'incomprehensible' or 'incoherent'. Then I try to do my best to explain or communicate to the audience I believe there to be (to my and obviously others' dismay).
Lockhart's Lament is good
fr fr