{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016236162361623615, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.135746606334842, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Marx, Russia, and Soviet History

Ironically, as historians and social thinkers inspired or influenced by Marxism question one another about the relevance or validity of even the most basic of Marxist categories and postulates, those most hostile to Marxism remain much more certain as to what it is and must be. The old orthodoxies are crumbling faster than the non-Marxists can keep up with, and repeatedly their barbs are directed toward notions that have been significantly modified or abandoned by the formerly faithful. In place of the old fundamentalism, an open-ended dialogue on the basic sociological and theoretical questions—the relationship of state to society, the nature of class and consciousness, and the processes of underdevelopment—has become the dominant mode of discussion among Marxist intellectuals, among them most actively, historians. The contributions of Marxist historians to the history of the European working class or of theorists to an understanding of the state or the concept of class are well known. Strange as it may seem to those outside the field, this dethroning of orthodoxy has as yet had little effect on Russian and Soviet studies. Western scholars of the USSR have been at pains to separate themselves from the Soviet Marxist categories that dominate native writing and, given the liberal or conservative pref-