29
materialistic interpretation of history Marx made a salto mortale and drew a radical
conclusion unsupported by logic or facts: that every progressive spirit must be on the side
of the proletariat (the children of the light) in the fight against the bourgeoisie (the
children of darkness and forces of evil). The endpoint of history, argued Marx, is
socialism and one must embrace it to be on the side of progress. Aron was uncomfortable
with this (dogmatic) conclusion because he saw in it a leap of faith that he was not able to
make in spite of his appreciation for Marx’ genius. “After having studied Marxism for
almost an entire year,” he affirmed, “I concluded with regret that, in this form, it was not
acceptable. The analysis of history does not permit one to determine the policy to follow
and to foresee, as an end result, a society from which contradictions among men would
be eliminated. .. Even today, I am interested in the Marxism of Marx, but not in that of
Brezhnev, which is very boring. But Marx’s Marxism is very, very interesting” (Aron
1997, 41).
The departure from Marx is further illustrated by Aron’s nuanced position on
determinism and probabilism in history. While refusing to admit that forces of production
determine history, he acknowledged the importance of ideas, forces of production, and
contingency in determining the course of history. He did not think that this question
permits a precise response, but pointed out that the story of mankind is an unfinished and
unpredictable story. Every political situation, argued Aron (1978, 237), “always allows
for a margin of choice, but the margin is never unlimited.” Hence, political theorists
should attempt to elucidate the goals that societies should pursue as well as the means at
their disposal. But they ought to investigate the realm of the possible by also taking into
account prior goals, preferences, and principles. To study these goals in a vacuum,
Convention