Abstract

"Bourgeois" and "Marxist" historiography are neither irreconcilable nor simply coordinated. While "bourgeois" historiography is characterized by relative distance from its subject, most "Marxist" historiography is absolutely identical with ideology and state interest, often clearly distorting the past. This does not correspond to Marx's concept of scientific method. But there is a difference between ""state Marxism" and "'free Marxism." Free Marxism exists only in a liberal society, "the West," representing the maximum of critical distance and being, insofar, a characteristic part of bourgeois scholarship. Only State Marxism is clearly antagonistic to it, being the product of a mobilized state led by a small minority whose dissensions do not find public expression