jadis

On the one hand, yes, clearly: the authors I'm most familiar with on this topic wrote with the USSR in mind. But those same authors (Raymond Aron, François Furet, Pierre Rosanvallon) would probably make the following argument: the governance-shaped lacuna, the absence of theory of political power, is there in Marx whether you push for an armed revolution with all the fanaticism of a Lenin or go the other route (let's pretend I know what that is).

Another, not unrelated, critique of Marx is that he thought in teleological terms. In other words, he pretended to have discovered the universal mechanism of history and saw every event as a step in the march toward the inevitable horizon. Those who make this critique are likely to describe history as determined by multiple factors, random, unpredictable, contradictory, opaque, given to multiple interpretations and so forth, rather than defined by the "monotone" theme of class struggle.

This view has its merits in my opinion. Whether those involved in political struggles today can dispense with capitalism's greatest critic is another question, and one I'm spectacularly unqualified to even begin to ponder.