Address to readers


Staying out of any given scientific paradigms that fasten to colleges or universities, their methods and ideology, I make my research on the independent basis, following the methodology of dialectic and historical materialism, but never reject other methods if they help me to elucidate the problem.

A few words are in order about the language of the books. Many readers of Dialectics of Force, Society: Progress and Force, and even readers of On Love, Family, and the State complained to me – through Internet contact or in person – that the text is difficult to understand, especially in the philosophical parts. “Can you write simpler?” – a common question, even not from ordinary inhabitant, but science workers, so to say.

Ordinarily, I try to write even scholarly books as “simply” as I can, taking care not to use too much scientific terminology. This does not mean, however that simplification must be carried to the level of ABC. It is in the West, by the way that many books even those of scientific content are written in this fashion – especially the textbooks, which at first seemed intended for students with “arrested development.” As a result of using such as textbooks and scholarly books, development simply does not take place. Testimony to this is the annually increasing number of people who are incapable of thinking. Even statistics is not necessary to be convinced of this; it suffices to read certain Internet forums. Therefore, I have to note right away: please, do not waste a time if you never picked up a philosophical book in your life.

My articles wrote in very polemic style. I certainly do not spare those who distort objectivity, leading to unscientific conclusions and false theories that lead to ineffective policy initiatives.

I have read many journalistic and scholarly works by Western authors and found not a single one that gave an adequat evaluation of events in Russia - whether those that are history, or contemporary. This is not because Western researchers are “deficient in the head”; it is simply that they are so engaged ideologically that they are unable to understand: what is good for the West may be unsuitable for Russia, and vice versa. This approach applies not to Russia only.

The thematic scope of my research is rather broad, but all of it is ultimately subjected to one purpose: the debunking of myths or certain established clichés in social sciences and their replacement with scientific truths that are adequate to this or that historical reality. Perhaps this is why my works are written in an attacking style.

The specificity of my approach to all problems is as a follows – I am Russian by origin (see my website

I proceed from Russia’s interests from the perspective of its socialist future; however, as a citizen of the West I proceed from the interests of the Western world – and likely its most conservative part at that. There is no contradiction here: it is obvious to all that the evaluation of any phenomenon depends on the angle of view or on the values system. The latter emerges and develops on a concrete national-historical soil, in a certain climate and space. All the indicated components differ too much between the West and Russia; therefore, their respective world-views are different.

It is almost impossible for Russians to understand this “bifurcation” due to their irrational type of thinking. They almost never use concepts and categories; words and vague terms suffice for them. I hope, though that this “bifurcation” will not seem strange to the Western reader, due to his rational thinking; I may be mistaken, yet I do count on it. After all, Kant and Hegel, Smith and Marx are phenomena of the West.

Alex Battler