Marx: Historicism versus ahistoricism, utopianism v. reality

Ok, what got me thinking about this (amongst other things) was a comment that suggested that Soviet communism was an accurate reflection of Marxist ideas. Most people who identify themselves as Marxists (at least in Western Europe/USA) would regard Soviet communism as not Marxist in much the same way as people who identify themselves as Christians would regard the Inquisition as not Christian.

Here's my own postmodern take on it. Marxism, amongst other things, is a theory of historical development, that has a certain relativistic aspect to it. Historical change is driven by class conflict. And each class has it's own idea of rationality, what is good, and identifies it's own interests as what is good, what is rational, with goodness and rationality itself, objective reality. When one class supersedes another as the dominant force in society, then it incorporates what is of value in the previous ruling class while discarding anything that is not progressive. (Note that Marx spoke approvingly of capitalism insofar as it was revolutionary force that dismantled feudalism, aristocracy, and traditionalism. If Marx regarded capitalism as evil, it was only in so far that it attempted to hold back the forces of change that it unleashed and stop historical progress.)

Ok, I'm with him when he's looking backward and explaining how we got to this point. But when Marx starts talking about communism and revolution, he stops being a historian and starts becoming a philosopher (by philosopher, I'm using a derogatory sense of the word, someone who thinks they can stand outside of tradition or history and critique it from an objective point of view that is not reliant on any particularly culture, class interest, or tradition)/poet/prophet. He stops doing what he called "scientific socialism" and starts doing precisely what he criticizes as utopian socialism. He trades his historical relativism (I'm using relativism here in a sense that does not disqualify the idea of historical progress) for an ahistoricism that lays the groundwork for dictatorship/authoritarianism. It assumes that at some point there will be as Frances Fukuyama once said, an "end to history".

If Marx's account of history is correct, and history is a tale of classes who thought their values/way of life was the omega of history, only to be superseded by others, isn't the idea of a revolution that attains some sort of ideal utopian society an invitation to authoritarianism/repression? An invitation to attempt to stop the forces of change (once the alleged ideal society had been attained)?

I have no doubt that Marx would have been repulsed by the Soviet Union. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the ahistorical/utopian elements of Marxism might not have laid the groundwork for such a state having become possible. And I would go so far as to say that any worldview that has a utopian aspect has dictatorial implications lurking somewhere in it's background.

Without wishing to pose as an expert, I'd like to point out that some of the assumptions and characterizations of Marxist thought above are simplistic and inaccurate. There are lots of interesting debates that the post might originate, but it may not be correct to tie them all to Marxism. There are some decent introductions on Wikipedia to the immense, almost inexhaustible body of Marxist writings, and reading them might help to at least clarify some of the misconceptions.

Marx's theory of history, or, why Marx does not in fact envisage an "end to history" (an alleged "end to pre-history", yes, but this is not the same thing.)

Marx's caveats about Historical Materialism, or, why Marx himself tried to dismiss the misuse of his concepts to make predictions about the course of history and the "inevitability" of events or historical processes.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or, some key differences between what Marx said and the modification and evolving application of his ideas by others like Lenin.

Permanent Revolution, or, how Marx and others envisaged the various possibilities and outcomes of revolution.

Criticisms of Fukuyama's thesis, notably Derrida's from Specters of Marx:

For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.

A better way to frame the discussion might be to reference Bakunin's criticism of Marx's ideas.

>I would go so far as to say that any worldview that has a utopian aspect has dictatorial implications lurking somewhere in it's background.

This is a fairly common thread running through much of 20th century post-war thought, especially in Europe. A good statement for a discussion, but I'd just like to point out, and I'm not trying to actively discourage anyone, that its exact relation to Marxism and interpretations of Marxism is something of a minefield; there is an immense body of writing on this subject from scholars in various fields, most of which I am not familiar with; it would take a fair amount of specialized knowledge and argument to distinguish between the known knowns, the known unknowns, and so on.

Edit: syntax.

Marx's project was to critique capitalism, not write a blueprint for a future society. The tiny bit in The German Ideology where he "described communism" certainly does not describe a world like that created by the Bolsheviks in Russia, and when he said that the Paris Commune was an example of proletarian dictatorship, this was more of an expression of what he did not mean by proletarian dictatorship than anything else.

If one reads Critique of the Gotha Programme or really any work by Marx, it is impossible to reconcile his ideas with the ideologies of Leninism and Stalinism, which owe more to Kautsky and the 2nd Internationale than to Marx himself.

Actually even the Soviets didn't think that the Soviet Union instantiated Marx's ideas, so the question is a non-starter.

Lenin claimed that soviet socialism was preparatory to communism (which basically just meant fulfilling the promise of the Communist Manifesto), but was not itself a realisation of a Marx/Engels ideal.

Of course they probably thought that the Soviet Union was inevitably en route towards something like the ideal communism at some future time, and that inevitable progression is a Marxist idea in itself. As 'inaudible' has suggested, Lenin was already parting from Marxism at a very early stage and, of course, when Lenin died the party ideology became even more distant from it's origins. Soon Soviet ideology became increasingly pragmatic, albeit often repressive and murderous. The Communist Manifesto doesn't argue for rule by dictatorship, instead the people are supposed to be happy with the new conditions and fall into line voluntarily, having realised all the benefits.

I can't claim to be an expert, but I live in an ex-Soviet state.