My Neurodivergent Take on Communism: Beyond Authorial Intent

I recently received some feedback on my approach to understanding communist theory. And it was similar to what i have already heard. The critique, delivered with all due respect, suggested that while my neurodivergent perspective allows me to spot patterns and connections, which is mostly accurate, I might be missing crucial context and interpreting things in unintended ways, leading to potentially inaccurate conclusions. Specifically, it was noted that I "miss some context or comprehend what's said in alternative or implied ways... which can mix up what ML’s really saying, giving theory a new but unintended or even inaccurate meaning depending on the mix-up." This critique prompted me to reflect on the nature of interpretation itself, and I believe the concept of "The Death of the Author" is particularly relevant here.

The critique highlighted the importance of understanding "what ML's really saying," emphasizing authorial intent. However, I believe that focusing solely on authorial intent is limiting. Roland Barthes' "Death of the Author" argues that once a work is published, it takes on a life of its own. Readers are free to interpret it based on the text itself, regardless of the author's original intentions.

This isn't to say I completely disregard context. I strive to understand what communism is and the historical context surrounding communist theory. However, I also recognize that much of the specific historical detail, particularly pre-1980, is unlikely to be replicated in the same way. My focus, therefore, is on extracting the core concepts, principles, and tactics that remain relevant and applicable to modern events and the ongoing pursuit of a communist human civilization. I'm less concerned with replicating historical scenarios and more interested in applying the underlying principles to contemporary challenges. This approach is partly driven by the fact that many pre-1980 historical examples feel irrelevant to current global dynamics and I doubt anyone can change my opinion on that.

Furthermore, a text can contain implied meanings and patterns that the author might not have consciously intended. If multiple readers, including myself, independently arrive at similar interpretations based on these implied meanings, it suggests that the text itself contains the seeds of those interpretations. The responsibility for meaning, then, isn't solely on the reader or the author, but emerges from the interaction between the two and the text itself. It's entirely possible that my "alternative or implied ways" of understanding, while not the intended meaning, still offer valuable insights.

My approach is also informed by the concept of 'praxis,' the dynamic interplay between theory and practice. I believe that theory should not always be static dogma but a living framework that informs and is also informed by action. My focus on applying communist principles to modern events is a form of praxis, testing and refining the theory through engagement with the contemporary world.

While I value historical context, I don't believe it should be the sole determinant of meaning. The "Death of the Author" reminds us that texts are open to multiple interpretations, and my neurodivergent perspective allows me to explore those interpretations in unique and potentially valuable ways. I'm not claiming to have the definitive understanding of communist theory, but I believe my approach, which balances textual analysis with a focus on contemporary relevance and practical application, offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation. And if that makes me a revisionist, then add it to the list of labels applied to me, right next to "accelerationist" given to me by reformists, and "tankie" given to me by far-right wingers; labels I wear as badges of independent thought and a reflection of being willing to do what must be done, to push beyond what is, to what must be.