I’m curious how “Marxist” history differs from other ways of thinking about historical events, and how well it is accepted among historians. I have very little understanding of modern Marxism, but one feature of Marxism that seems at odds with historian’s thinking is the idea of some sort of natural progress in an economy/society that leads to a specific ideology (communism). My understanding is that historians generally don’t like talking about “progress” in history, since every event has a complicated and unique set of circumstances leading up to it.
More generally, Marxism might lead you to pay more attention to the economic and class conditions of the people you are studying, but that that doesn’t seem to be specific to marxism anymore. I would think all historians would try to consider the importance of class and wealth in their work. Since I don’t know a lot about Marxism I’m wondering if these are valid concerns. What else should I think about? How does Marxist thought influence historians?
This is a really great question. While you are waiting for a specific answer you may be interested in this from u/commiespaceinvader on Marxian Historical Theory.
What you're referring to is historical and dialectical materialism. In short, it posits that there is an objective reality regardless of perceived conditions based around material conditions throughout the history of humanity. Nothing can be taken out of context, as everything influences everything.
It has its origins in Hegel, who viewed history through a lens of attempting to connect everything back to religion and God shaping ideas that man used. Marx flips this concept on its head by suggestion human concepts come from the world developing around them.
A big concept of dialectical materialism is class conflict, which shows the moving of class relationships along history, from primitive communism, in where the concept of ownership is largely absent apart from individual possessions; the tribe shares everything, to slave society, where class conflict develops between slave owners and the slaves themselves, to feudalism, where the state is ruled by a monarch and their servants in the forms of lords and serfs versus the peasants, to capitalism, where instead of the means of production being controlled by say, monarchs and their servants, are instead in the hands of the ruling class (bourgeoisie), who use this power to further their interests versus the working class (proletariat), to communism, where the concept of a state dissolves as society becomes classless again, as workers are able to meet their own needs through the ownership of the means of production. Keep in mind that socialism as a separate concept wasn't really present in Marxist writings until Lenin defined it as such, as both Engels and Marx used the terms interchangeably.
This theory would eventually go on to form the cornerstone of Marxism-Leninism under Stalin's refining of the concept. The reason Marxist historical materialism is usually viewed differently from other forms of historical thought is because Marx attempts to show the underlying ideas and concepts shaping further events, in which he views communism as simply inevitable; the next step of human evolution.
Some good texts to further understand the concept other than Stalin's aforementioned Dialectical and Historical Materialism are:
The Germany Ideology, Marx and Engels
/u/thucydideswasawesome has previously written on Marxist historiography here defining it as
a study of history based 1) on the study of the material world and 2) through dialectical relationships between contradictory forces within a given context.
while /u/tenminutehistory has written on the distinction between Marxist and Marxian analysis of history here.
/u/thucydideswasawesome and I also did a recent podcast on Marxist historiography and contemporary academia where we specifically focus on Marxist historiography and it's sometimes adversarial, sometimes complementing relationship with postmodern schools of thought.
More generally, Marxism might lead you to pay more attention to the economic and class conditions of the people you are studying, but that that doesn’t seem to be specific to marxism anymore. I would think all historians would try to consider the importance of class and wealth in their work.
Everyone has already given you great answers but I want to clearly address this final point you make.
You are correct that all historians would try to consider the importance of class and wealth in their work. That is, present-day historians. That is because we have all been influenced and specifically trained to consider these things in our research and writing, because of Marx. We also consider race and gender, the other two pillars of postmodern scholarship, thanks to other philosophers and activists and brilliant academics like Foucault.