Статья представляет критический анализ интерпретации политической философии Карла Маркса в книге Леви дель Агила Марчены, перуанского философа, работающего в Папском католическом университете в Лиме. Книга опубликована в международной серии Marx, Engels, and marxisms. Исходным моментом ее критического анализа стал полиморфный и несколько претенциозный концепт «the Dualism of Realms», характеризующий, по мысли автора книги, утопичность трактовок в марксистской политической философии проблем государства, индивидуальной свободы и путей ее реализации. В книге «обыгрывается», по существу, только один сюжет, который постоянно присутствует на многих десятках страниц, а именно – выявление «исходных противоречий» Маркса, причиной которых автор считает «неистребимую инерцию» либерализма в его политической философии.
The article presents a critical analysis of the interpretation of the political philosophy of Karl Marx in the book by Levi del Aguila Marchena, a Peruvian philosopher working at the Pontifical Catholic University in Lima (Senior Professor and Chair of the Department of Management Sciences at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú). The work has been published in the international series Marx, Engels, and marxisms. The starting point of her critical analysis was the polymorphic and somewhat pretentious concept of "the Dualism of Realms", characterizing, according to the author of the book, the utopian interpretations in Marxist political philosophy of the problems of the state, individual freedom and ways of its realization. In the book, in essence, only one plot is “played out”, which is constantly present on many dozens of pages, namely, the identification of Marx’s “initial contradictions”, the cause of which the author considers the “indestructible inertia” of liberalism in his political philosophy. In our opinion, Aguila Marchena set himself an extremely difficult and thankless task, given the large number of opponents both among modern supporters of Marxism, which is quite understandable, and in academic science. It is probably for this reason that the author prefers not to get involved in modern scientific controversy and in the final chapters completes his reconstruction “all alone”. As a result, the rethinking of the theme of personality/free state in Marx's philosophy, which the author obviously considers a contribution to science, looks one-sided and dogmatic.