ABSTRACT
In the analytical-theoretical first part of his book, Rudolf Bahro attempts to write an alternative history, not only as a rejoinder to the official orthodoxy but indeed against the Marxist tradition in general. As a methodological-theoretical justification for his alternative, Bahro invokes the unsuitability of Marxian categories for the formative aspects of history. Bahro's historical theory is not sufficient for a better understanding of actually existing socialism. The basis for the purported overestimates is provided by Bahro with an ingenious and barren inspiration. It rests in the Hegelian methodological hypothesis of the unity of the logical and the historical, in which Marx remained largely entrapped. Bahro's reproach against Marx comes to a head in the following statement: It was probably necessary to be both an anarchist and a Russian, to perceive behind the authority of Marx and his doctrine, in the year 1873, the shadow of Stalin.
