Reached from Kagarlitskogo not only Marksu, Engels and Lenin. Neither from that nor from this Kagarlitskiy asserts suddenly: «Curiously, that Keynes knew Marksa little, but was acquainted with works of Engels».

Brrr. From where took? What works of Engels he was with a sign? Works of Engels so closely intersect with works of Marksa, that as possible to know one and being not enough acquainted with other? All of it is some delirium. In people talk in such cases: language.

Questions of philosophy and political economy of Kagarlitskiy in the «new course of marxism» walks around carefully. And wherein he is forced though to say something, he demonstrates complete ignorance. Here example of the quite naive-narrow-minded reasoning on poured-economic themes:

«There are instruments and capital goods are factory buildings, machine-tools, raw material in the hands of owners. But it far not main. If there is not money, if money is not capitalised, that not invested in an economy, all of it grows into the senseless heap of objects».

As though factory buildings, machine-tools and raw material are a not capital. However, clearly, that Kagarlitskiy very loves money and paying for the labour on a discredit and vulgarization of marxism will take only in money signs, but not by part of drawing of the book.

The examples resulted here are small part of nonsenses only, taradiddle, forgeries, contained in the book of Kagarlitskogo. That, left ully only, that the book of Kagarlitskogo will get some distribution after its limits and possibly will ruin the several of the innocent souls, forever removing for them interest to marxism.

Publishing the critical review of Mikhail Popova of book of Boris Kagarlitskogo, it is impossible not to mark the incorrect taking of Kagarlitskogo to троцкистам. Actually, Kagarlitskiy in an ideological plan closely joins to such considerably more wide phenomenon western left, to uniting the most various flows of the "new left" and "democratic socialists", with his false морализаторством on the themes of "totalitarianism" and "democracy", and by a finding illusion "above a fight", in practice turning around support of capitalism in Cold war. Only understanding the historical context of origin and development of similar ideas, it is possible fully to realize their real political role in an ideological fight. And this role, unfortunately, is not yet played by them to the end...

As to me as a professor of department of philosophy and of the Saint Petersburg state university is incumbent to read the special course "Marxism in the modern world", I could not go round attention, in 477 pages, book б. Kagarlitskogo, devoted as though to exposition of marxism.

An author on the last side of cover presents itself a certain derelict, which "in 1978 years joined to the underground marxist group" and which, alike, remains a worker-marxist even in Russia, combining now this activity with position of director of Institute of problems of globalization (IPROG). In fact it is not lucky again him. "Marxism today, — an unhappy underground worker writes, — studies are not fashionable, exposed to the anathema, initially rejected all so-called played political scientists". Itself B. Kagarlitskiy on a cover just and presents as the "known sociologist and political scientist".