All of this begs the question, where then can we place authoritarian collectivism, evolutionarily and politically? Its failure was an unheard-of historical blunder, apparently without parallel. Other projects of total change usually accrued to individual destines out of this world, in the ‘beyond’ of spiritual life. Others were more closely related to processes that were already unfolding in social life, such as those put forward by radical Protestant sects in America or Calvin's rule in Zurich. Communism was supposed to be such a project, but it was much more ambitious. Its dreams were, however, carefully distinguished from utopianism, especially in that Marx and Engels ([1848] 1978; Marx [1867] 1962) identified economic and social developmental trends within capitalism and modernity overall – in the contradiction between social, capitalist accumulation and private appropriation, entailing class structure and conflict. In their view, these trends should lead in a more or less straightforward manner to socialism and then communism. Marx’s extreme confidence in his scientific understanding of those trends assured him that this was the only possible evolution from the stage humanity had reached, capitalism supposedly representing the last ‘antagonistic’ social formation (Marx [1859] 1971). When placed within a unilinear perspective of evolution, presupposed by the mainstream of Marxism until the recovery – problematically staged – of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ in the second half of the twentieth century, socialism and communism were inexorably on the agenda, even though they had to be brought about by historical agents.

Both doctrine and practice, however, present problems that conspired to push, rather hard, away from the cherished goal. The doctrine suffered from the identification of those trends, particularly regarding class evolution (indeed a simplification) and the outcome of class struggle (the consciousness of the proletariat and the choice to end exploitation and oppression) that, out of necessity, were seen as entailing an emancipated society. The problems of practice stemmed from revolution occurring only in economically very backward countries, to start with Russia, furnishing a model that was not actually exportable to more advanced ones. That being said, it was imaginarily exported and forced on workers’ organizations more deeply committed to socialism in advanced capitalist countries, even though revolution was defeated across Europe.