I have been referred to as a 'comrade' many times in the past couple of years, and always felt awkward about it, mainly because as an Italian native speaker, when I hear it I cannot help but think of Fascist tugs in black shirts. In Italian, the term from the communist tradition is compagno/a, which, on the one hand, is unfortunately gendered but, on the other hand, refers to the sharing of bread, which somehow feels more inspiring than real estate. Dean alludes to this difference, but isn't curious about it, and quickly jumps into advocating for 'comrade'.

And she does a good job. First, she lays out her critique of the term 'ally'. This is arguably not an difficult task, but she does it exceptionally well. Where allies are defined by their social identity and voluntarily, respectfully support some else's struggle, comrades are united by a shared political vision, and collaborate to achieve it. Next, anticipating a likely counterargument, she explains why, in her view, the fact that comrade abstracts individuals from their social positioning, is a good thing. When we call each other comrades, we are focusing on our common politics, rather than on categories of gender, ethnicity or even class. The point is not that these things don't matter (she is clear in explaining how they do), but that political movements should prioritise 'common work towards a common goal', rather than individualism and difference. This is, I think, a brave argument to make, and I found it convincing. As an historical illustration, she uses examples from the US Black Communist tradition: when the US Communist party could call for Black liberation, and even independence for the Black nation, you could see this in action: being a party member meant embracing this political project. The third chapter outlines four theses about the comrade: (1) comrade names relations of equality and solidarity, in the communist sense it is associated with an utopian will to overcome social difference (2) Anyone can be a comrade, meaning that the only criteria for membership is contributing to the same political project, but not everyone, meaning that comrade is necessarily exclusionary: it is meant to draw a line between us and them, and drawing that line, deciding which differences in opinions still count as 'agreeing', is an ongoing effort (3) Being a comrade means letting go of (some) of one's individuality, accepting a collective will as more important than one's views and even life, (4) the relation between comrades is 'mediated by fidelity to truth' (whatever that means). This section was more abstract, heavy on the jargon, and not always very clear. It also included a lot of Zizek, to whom I'm unfortunately allergic. The final chapter focuses on the conditions that lead to the breaking of comradery relations, either because someone is cast out, or because someone decides to leave because the party is no longer truthful to the political project that called it into life.

This was my first book by Jody Dean, but not the last. Meanwhile, I still feel a little awkward about the word, but with more context for it.