It is possible to compare it left with the words of the Spanish writer and philosopher:

«Think, that it is needed already to begin to complement and refute this idea which sounded just: that intellectual persons are an advance-guard which must throw light on alternative models. Above all things, and talk it, knowing that it also belongs to me, intellectual persons to it geared-up badly, as know very little. In our times we push political processes, developed somebody else only. Processes, as it takes place in Venezuela, are developed intellectual not figures, but social and political. Modestly must say that dare not offer an alternative political paradigm. At the same time agree, that it is necessary to be done quickly – to destroy a capitalism. And it is already done, for example, in Venezuela. People are engaged in this very clever, but mainly not intellectuals, not those people which all days long sit in the library, while for them smoke will not go from a head. Democracy of participation, great number of people, thinking jointly and simultaneously, works. .Сам term an intellectual «person» strongly irritates me. And I do not feel that my appearances in the uttery limited public space are strongly important. If to look, that now takes place in the world, then my working as a pen or computer keys is something ultrafine on a background people, fighting, including with a weapon in hands, in other places of planet».

(Not true, striking contrast in looks to the role of intelligentsia and the masses on business of social liberation? In fact, preeminently ideological contradictions of such fundamental plan and are main in dissidences left, in fact actually preeminently they predetermine position on the great number of current political questions, bitter fight round which is only investigation.)

Similar approach of Kagarlitskogo gives to know about itself and in this book. He in principle is not able to examine mass as a subject of history, and only as a «declassed» object of management, passionately thirsty him, that as a result does his sociological constructions caricatures on reality. Here, for example, as he describes a soviet period:

«Society was divided on managers and guided. Naturally, an ordinary citizen existed from now on only as a management object. About what civil laws can in similar case go speech? The centralized vehicle of management resisted mass of worker. But the system reposed not only on fear and repressions. Since the traditional forms of society and connection between people were blasted, the masses of people, essentially, a population needed the centralized state without which it is already impossible it was to treat. .Общество in old sense of word simply disappeared. There was only the «social and political system».

In general, this stage in description of Kagarlitskogo is presented just the set of banal stamps and where and frankly liberal. For an example it is possible to consider assertion about «totalitarian mode». Really not strange for the large left theorist to repeat propaganda of times of Cold war, involved on the pseudo-scientific theories of Khanny Arendt, Zbigneva Bzhezinskogo and Charles Frederic? Clearly, that as an ideological term «totalitarianism» was fully successful, because enabled the propagandist vehicle of imperialism to go away from consideration of economic nature of the different systems and unite under one signboard of two opponents in most frightful from wars, one of which was the fully organic generation of the capitalist system. But as possible to use this term as analytical concept and here – it indeed incomprehensible. Acting thus, the similar left theorists come forward objectively (and quite often, fully consciously) in its «cross hike» against a communism.