Marxism and the working class

The Marxist idea that the working class is "historically progressive" is based on two interrelated propositions.

First, the notion that only a global, centralized planned economy can develop the productive forces and create the material foundations for further social progress. Therefore, capitalism must be abolished. At the same time, capitalism has within itself tendencies that point towards its own dissolution. For instance, centralization and the need for more planning to overcome larger and larger crisis. 

Second, that only the working class has both a material self-interest to abolish capitalism and the capacity to actually do so. Therefore, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class in capitalist society. Since the working class was "created" by capitalism, it's the single most important force within it pointing to its destruction. "Capitalism creates its own grave-diggers".

Today, we know that this perspective is wrong. The working class has never managed to take power anywhere in the world, except briefly. Left to its own devices, when it actually acts like an independent class, the working class never tends towards centralization. Rather, it's syndicalist. The working class becomes centralized only when organized *from above* by Social Democrats and Communists. That is, by the labor aristocracy, "labor" bureaucracy, or a budding state bureaucracy. The argument that the Communist Party is itself a product of the proletarian class struggle won't wash, since Communist regimes can be established *without* the working class or even *against* the working class. 

Some of the more notable working class revolts were directed against Communist regimes: East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Poland 1980-81. 

The idea that a super-centralized planned economy is even possible, is also problematic. In general, mixed economies (regarded as "capitalist" by Marxists) have proven more efficient than the Soviet-style system. It's not clear at all that a global planned economy would work better (or be easier for workers to control). 

The working class is neither better nor worse than other oppressed classes in world history. The medieval peasants often revolted. Sometimes they succeeded. Usually, they didn't. As for the contradictions in capitalist society, they might be solved in several different ways. Nazism was one attempt, Keynesianism another, Stalinism a third. Or they might not be solved, capitalism simply self-destructing due to climate change or what have you. 

There doesn't seem to be any hard teleology in world history. Perhaps there is a kind of soft teleology whereby humans (or some humans) try to become more solidaristic and creative but this can express itself in a myriad of ways. World history could have gone off in completely different directions than it actually did (both for the better or for the worse). Ironically, the most succesful "socialist" societies existed thousand of years ago (or at least centuries ago). If Mao-Stalinism is your thing, ancient Egypt or the Inca Empire might make your day, for a more moderate approach see the Indus Valley Civilization. I'm sure some ancient syndicalist federation can also be found, perhaps among Raetian tribes in the Jura mountains? 

Our present civilization will probably decline (it already is) and fall (or be radically transformed), without neither the bourgeoisie nor the working class having a say in the matter.