this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
37 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23323 readers
247 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

[The tone of this post is earnest, not in any way meant to be a complaint. I want to be a better comrade]

I'm someone with a very dense cross-section of privileges. (If i didn't grow up poor i might win the least oppressed demographic trophy)

This makes me feel as though I cannot speak on anything important without coming across like I'm whitemansplaining, regardless of whether I consider myself knowledgeable on the topic.

Should i just accept that my voice isn't really needed in most conversations? (A white guy telling an iranian expat that Reza Pahlavi was actually not good for iranians isn't ever going to accomplish anything, is it?)

Not to say I'm an encyclopedia of theory but i consider myself well enough read to apply dialectical and historical materialist analysis to most topics.

I spend a lot of time around people of all walks of life and I feel as though it's kinda disrespectful of me to pipe up and correct the record on basically any topic beyond the mundane like videogame strategy.

I guess i don't even really know what kind of answer I'm looking for here. Maybe just validation that it's ok for me to be silent when someone is just plain wrong about an important topic? Idk. Thanks for reading

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It really depends on

1: how much do you actually know about the topic 2: who is your audience

If you are really well studied on Iran, but talking to an Iranian gusano, no amount of facts really matter because it isn't about the truth to this audience. Don't waste your time (or be added to their list as a threat)

If you are talking to a friend, coworker, family member, or someone you organize with who is actually open to being educated and you are knowledgeable on a topic, I would say it is your responsibility as a communist to educate others.

Being aware of your privileges might change how you communicate so that the audience can receive what you are saying, but it doesn't preclude you from being able to talk about a topic you are knowledgeable about. The whole point of treating Marxism as a science is that it is universal, if you are doing it correctly your identity shouldn't be in conflict with an analysis of material reality. It is only a conflict with the audience's desire to hear someone with your identity speak on something

To a more recent example here on hexbear, I make it a point to challenge people talking about Venezuela with the "no investigation no right to speak" line because the people dooming about Venezuela literally have no idea what they are talking about and are just coping with their pessimism by preemptively discarding a revolutionary movement comprised of millions of people who need our support. They read a headline or one particular article and form their entire opinion about a subject over it. It's like when all the libs suddenly had opinions on Ukraine despite not knowing anything about maidan or systemic annihilation of ethnic Russians for a decade before the SMO.

I do that one because people reading who might not be commenting need to see a correct and well informed line on the topic, and they need to see someone pushback against ultras and wreckers, otherwise they are only going to see bullshit liberal idealist takes and think they are correct. Combating liberalism is another responsibility of communists after all.