So, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Humanism and Terror, written in 1947. Basically I tried to take from it what I could, since I am not well versed in philosophy or Marxism or communism, especially in the specific contexts that Merleau-Ponty is talking about. I will write down some points below....

1) Merleau-Ponty has created the best in-a-nutshell definition of Marxism:

"In essence Marxism is the idea that history has a meaning--in other words, that it is intelligible and has a direction--that it is moving toward the power of the proletariat, which as the essential factor of production is capable of resolving the contradictions of capitalism, of organizing a humane appropriation of nature, and, as the 'universal class,' able to transcend national and social conflicts as well as the struggle between man and man. To be a Marxist is to believe that economic problems and cultural or human problems are a single problem and the proletariat as history has shaped it holds the solution to that problem." (129-130)

Another good thing on Marxism:

"Marxism had understood that it is inevitable that our understanding of history should be partial since every consciousness is itself historically situated. . . . Marxism discovered . . . a new foundation for historical truth in the spontaneous logic of human existence, in the proletariat's self-recognition and the real development of the revolution. Marxism rested on the profound idea that human perspectives, however relative, are absolute because there is nothing else and no destiny. We grasp the absolute through our total praxis, if not through our knowledge--or, rather, men's mutual praxis is the absolute" (18)

I think this and his later description of how the unification of the proletariat (even though it is an eventual failure) (located on 147) is a really great description of Marxism for the clueless (ie, me), so I appreciate his frank talk about it. 

2) As far as I can tell, Merleau-Ponty has very contextual, specific things he's talking about but every once in a while surfaces and has these tidbits of interest/wisdom that I've latched onto. I focused on some of the History and Terror ones. His talk on History is interesting and useful particularly because he wants to talk about history as subjective and not teleological. He says that the "paradox of history" is that it is " a contingent future... appears here a harsh notion of responsibility, based not on what men intended but what they find they have achieved in light of the event" (42). So the notion of historical contingency--that history or your place in it is related to intersections of things and not free floating is such an integral point. In another section he says "The Terror of History culminates in Revolution and History is Terror because there is contingency. Everyone looks through the facts for his motives and then erects a schematization of the future which cannot be strictly proved" (91), and that "History is Terror because we have to move into it not by any straight line that is always easy to trace, but by taking our bearings at every moment in a general situation which is changing" (94). So from this, I'm taking that Terror is the not knowing of history/future? not quite sure what he means....

Also, his notion of historical responsibility is interesting, if we want to talk about that, and I think can be related to Arendt. 

3) Violence! He has some interesting stuff to say on violence. For instance, "The original violence which is the foundation of all other forms of violence, is that exerted by History when objectified as an incomprehensible Will before which all individual opinions are compounded as equally fragile hypotheses" (19). An objective history is the original violence.... I think I see his point and I can see how powerful it can be, but not sure how this is the originary violence? 

Then, Merleau-Ponty argues that revolution is violence (i think?):

"A revolution, even when founded on a philosophy of history, is a forced revolution and it is violence; correlatively, opposition in the name of humanism can be counterrevolutionary. [. . .] The irony of fate. . . brings to light not just the terror which each man holds for every other man but, above all, that basic Terror in each of us which comes from the awareness of his historical responsibility" (93). 

Bolded for emphasis and interest. So I think this links back to history and the original violence of history, since revolution is fought based on history? 

Yet later, Merleau-Ponty says that "We do not have a choice between purity and violence but between different kinds of violence. Inasmuch as we are incarnate beings, violence is our lot" (109). So we're stuck with violence but we wanna avoid these other instances of violence and where does that leave us? 

I'm probably just reading these tidbits and not sticking them contextually but some discussion and clarification on this would be wonderful!