Here we have, a think, one of those points at which Marx the scientist (critique of political economy) and Marx the philosopher of history touch. There is _nothing_ in his core analysis of capitalism which _necessitates_ the claim that capitalism has an "historical task." I tend to agree with Marx's historical or philosophical claim here, but that is all it is, a historical claim, not anything which flows _necessarily_ from the nature of capitalism (as, for example, the necessity of endless growth within capitalism does, but that of course can lead to unviersal destruction as well as to a new form of production).
Carrol
^^^^^ CB: However , Marx doesn't make the separation between the science of history and philosophy that you do. For Marx, there is only one science - the science of history ( I believe that's in _The German Ideology_). So, the science of capitalism is a branch of history, historical materialism.
As to the historical task, capitalism creates the potential for its own transcendence in socialism. That potential necessarily follows from capitalism doing its thing. Fulfilment of that potential ain't necessarily so.