Review of Business and Economics Studies, 2017, том 5, № 4

Review of  
Business and 
Economics  
Studies

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Prof. Alexander Ilyinsky
Dean, International Finance 
Faculty, Financial University, Moscow, 
Russia
ailyinsky@fa.ru 

EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Dr. Zbigniew Mierzwa

EDITORIAL BOARD

Dr. Mark Aleksanyan
Adam Smith Business School, 
The Business School, University 
of Glasgow, UK

Prof. Edoardo Croci
Research Director, IEFE Centre for 
Research on Energy and Environmental 
Economics and Policy, Università 
Bocconi, Italy

Prof. Moorad Choudhry
Dept.of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel 
University, UK

Prof. David G. Dickinson 
Department of Economics, Birmingham 
Business School, University 
of Birmingham, UK

Prof. Chien-Te Fan
Institute of Law for Science and 
Technology, National Tsing Hua 
University, Taiwan

Prof. Wing M. Fok
Director, Asia Business Studies, College 
of Business, Loyola University New 
Orleans, USA

Prof. Konstantin P. Glushchenko
Faculty of Economics, Novosibirsk State 
University, Russia

Prof. George E. Halkos
Associate Editor in Environment and 
Development Economics, Cambridge 
University Press; Director of Operations 
Research Laboratory, University of 
Thessaly, Greece

Dr. Christopher A. Hartwell
President, CASE — Center for Social 
and Economic Research, Warsaw,  
Poland

Prof. Sebastian Jaimungal
Associate Chair of Graduate 
Studies, Dept. Statistical 
Sciences & Mathematical Finance 
Program, University of Toronto,  
Canada

Prof. Vladimir Kvint 
Chair of Financial Strategy, Moscow 
School of Economics, Moscow State 
University, Russia

Prof. Alexander Melnikov 
Department of Mathematical and 
Statistical Sciences, University of 
Alberta, Canada

Prof. George Kleiner
Deputy Director, Central Economics and 
Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy 
of Sciences, Russia

Prof. Kern K. Kwong
Director, Asian Pacific Business 
Institute, California State University,  
Los Angeles, USA

Prof. Dimitrios Mavrakis
Director, Energy Policy and 
Development Centre, National and 
Kapodistrian University of Athens, 
Greece

Prof. Stephen McGuire
Director, Entrepreneurship Institute, 
California State University,  
Los Angeles, USA

Prof. Rustem Nureev
Сhairman for Research of the 
Department of Economic Theory, 
Financial University, Russia

Dr. Oleg V. Pavlov
Associate Professor of Economics and 
System Dynamics, Department of Social 
Science and Policy Studies, Worcester 
Polytechnic Institute, USA

Prof. Boris Porfiriev
Deputy Director, Institute of Economic 
Forecasting, Russian Academy of 
Sciences, Russia

Prof. Thomas Renstrom
Durham University Business School,
Department of Economics and Finance,
Durham University

Prof. Alan Sangster 
Professor of Accounting (Business and 
Management) at University of Sussex, UK

Prof. Svetlozar T. Rachev
Professor of Finance, College of 
Business, Stony Brook University, USA

Prof. Boris Rubtsov
Deputy chairman of Department  
of financial markets and banks for R&D, 
Financial University, Russia

Dr. Shen Minghao
Director of Center for Cantonese 
Merchants Research, Guangdong 
University of Foreign Studies, China
Prof. Dmitry Sorokin
Chairman for Research, Financial 
University, Russia

Prof. Robert L. Tang
Chancellor for Academic, De La Salle 
College of Saint Benilde, Manila, The 
Philippines

Dr. Dimitrios Tsomocos 
Saïd Business School, Fellow in 
Management, University of Oxford; 
Senior Research Associate, Financial 
Markets Group, London School 
of Economics, UK

REVIEW OF BUSINESS 
AND ECONOMICS STUDIES 
(ROBES) is the quarterly peerreviewed scholarly journal published 
by the Financial University under 
the Government of Russian 
Federation, Moscow. Journal’s 
mission is to provide scientific 
perspective on wide range of topical 
economic and business subjects.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Financial University
Leningradsky prospekt, 53,  
office 5.6
123995 Moscow
Russian Federation
Telephone: +7 (499) 943-98-02
Website: www.robes.fa.ru

AUTHOR INQUIRIES
Inquiries relating to the 
submission of articles can be sent 
by electronic mail to robes@fa.ru.

COPYRIGHT AND PHOTOCOPYING 
© 2017 Review of Business and 
Economics Studies. All rights 
reserved. No part of this publication 
may be reproduced, stored 
or transmitted in any form or by any 
means without the prior permission 
in writing from the copyright holder. 
Single photocopies of articles may 
be made for personal use as allowed 
by national copyright laws. 
ISSN 2308-944X

Вестник 
исследований 
бизнеса  
и экономики

ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР
А.И. Ильинский, профессор, декан 
Международного финансо вого факультета Финансового университета 

ВЫПУСКАЮЩИЙ РЕДАКТОР
Збигнев Межва, д-р экон. наук

РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

М.М. Алексанян, профессор Бизнесшколы им. Адама Смита, Университет 
Глазго (Великобритания)

К. Вонг, профессор, директор Института азиатско-тихоокеанского бизнеса 
Университета штата Калифорния, 
Лос-Анджелес (США)

К.П. Глущенко, профессор экономического факультета Новосибирского 
госуниверситета

С. Джеимангал, профессор Департамента статистики и математических финансов Университета Торонто 
(Канада)

Д. Дикинсон, профессор Департамента экономики Бирмингемской бизнесшколы, Бирмингемский университет 
(Великобритания)

В.Л. Квинт, заведующий кафедрой 
финансовой стратегии Московской 
школы экономики МГУ, профессор 
Школы бизнеса Лассальского университета (США)

Г. Б. Клейнер, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Центрального экономико-математического института РАН

Э. Крочи, профессор, директор по 
научной работе Центра исследований 
в области энергетики и экономики 
окружающей среды Университета 
Боккони (Италия)

Д. Мавракис, профессор, 
директор Центра политики 
и развития энергетики 
Национального университета  
Афин (Греция)

С. Макгвайр, профессор, директор Института предпринимательства 
Университета штата Калифорния, 
Лос-Анджелес (США)

А. Мельников, профессор  
Депар та мента математических 
и ста тистических исследований 
Университета провинции Альберта 
(Канада)

Р.М. Нуреев, профессор, научный 
руководитель Департамента экономической теории Финансового 
университета

О.В. Павлов, профессор  
Депар та мента по литологии 
и полити ческих исследований 
Ворчестерского политехнического 
института (США) 

Б.Н. Порфирьев, профессор,  
член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Института 
народнохозяйственного прогнозирования РАН

С. Рачев, профессор  
Бизнес-кол леджа Университета 
Стони Брук (США) 

Т. Ренстром, профессор,
Школа Бизнеса Даремского 
университета,
Департамент Экономики и Финансов

Б.Б. Рубцов, профессор,  
заместитель руководителя 
Департамента финансовых рынков 
и банков по НИР Финансового 
университета

А. Сангстер, профессор,  
Сассекский университет 
(Великобритания)

Д.Е. Сорокин, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, научный 
руководитель Финансового 
университета

Р. Тан, профессор, ректор 
Колледжа Де Ла Саль Св. Бенильды 
(Филиппины) 

Д. Тсомокос, Оксфордский университет, старший научный сотрудник 
Лондонской школы экономики  
(Великобритания)
Ч.Т. Фан, профессор, Институт 
права в области науки и технологии, 
национальный университет Цин Хуа 
(Тайвань)

В. Фок, профессор, директор по 
исследованиям азиатского бизнеса Бизнес-колледжа Университета 
Лойола (США)

Д.Е. Халкос, профессор, Университет 
Фессалии (Греция)

К.А. Хартвелл, президент Центра 
социальных и экономических исследований CASE (Польша)

М. Чудри, профессор, Университет 
Брунеля (Великобритания)

М. Шен, декан Центра кантонских 
рыночных исследований Гуандунского университета (КНР)

Редакция научных журналов 
Финансового университета
123995, Москва, ГСП-5,  
Ленинградский пр-т, 53,  
комн. 5.6
Тел. 8 (499) 943-98-02.
Интернет: www.robes.fa.ru.

Журнал “Review of Business and 
Economics Studies” («Вест ник 
исследований бизнеса и экономики») зарегистрирован в Федеральной службе по надзору 
в сфере связи, информационных 
технологий и массовых коммуникаций 15 сентября 2016 г. 
Свидетельство о регистрации 
ПИ № ФС77-67072. 

Подписано в печать: 15.12.2017. 
Формат 60 × 84 1/8. 
Заказ № 1233 от 15.12.2017. 
Отпечатано в Отделе полиграфии 
Финуниверситета  
(Ленинградский проспект, д. 49).
16+

CONTENTS

The Historical Fate of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx

Rustem Nureev  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .5

Implementation of Multivariate Statistical Analysis  

for Warning Forecasting

Zbigniew Mierzwa   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .22

Determinants of Banks’ Profitability:  

Empirical Evidence from Vietnam

Phan Dai Thich  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .37

Methodology of Stratification Research  

of Modern Civil Society in Russia

Marina L. Galas, Tatiana I. Pak   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .46

Limitations of Modern International Finance  

and Accounting Practices through Analysis of Short-Termism

Svetlana E. Erofeeva, Irina O. Yurasova   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .54

Internet Access Cut to the Test of Law in the Democratic Republic of Kongo: 

Violation of the Rights of the Users or Imperative Security?

Tshibola Lubeshi Aimée Murphie, Abetemani Negeleni Ruben  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .62

Greening of Economy as a Factor of the Russia’s Innovative Development

Polina A. Nosko   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .71

Review of  
Business and  
Economics  
Studies

Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

Вестник 
исследований 
бизнеса  
и экономики

№ 4, 2017

CОДЕРЖАНИЕ

Историческая судьба «Первого великого открытия» Маркса

Нуреев Р. М.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5

Применение многомерного статистического анализа  

для конструкции предупреждающих прогнозов

Межва Збигнев  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22

Детерминанты доходности банков:  

эмпирические данные из Вьетнама

Пхан Дай Тхих  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 37

Методология исследования стратификации  

современного гражданского общества в России

Галас М. Л., Пак Т. И.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 46

Выявление недостатков современной международной финансовой 

и учетной практики посредством проведения анализа явления  

«шорт-термизм»

Ерофеева С. Е., Юрасова И. О.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 54

Интернет-доступ в свете закона в Демократической Республике Конго: 

нарушение прав пользователей или императив безопасности?

Тчибола Эйми Мурфи Лубеши, Абетемани Рибен Негелени   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 62

Экологизация экономики как фактор  

инновационного развития России

Носко П. А.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 71

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

The Historical Fate 
of the ‘First Great Discovery’ of Marx

Rustem Nureev
Head of Economic Department, Financial University
Sc.D. in Economics, Ordinary Professor of HSE
Moscow, Russia
depet@fa.ru

SPIN РИНЦ: 9366–0174
ORCID: 0000–0003–1407–2657
ResearcherID: P‑9648–2015
Scopus AuthorID: 35759212500

Abstract. The paper studies the ‘first great discovery’ of Marx in works of his disciples and 
followers. We analyse the background and reasons for rejection of Marx’s economic doctrine by 
Western academia, on the one hand, and the rapid spread of Marxist philosophy, on the other. 
Unsystematic perceptions of the economic legacy of Marx, absolutisation in different periods of 
development of separate published works, their analysis in isolation from other writings of the 
founder of Marxism led to a certain simplification and vulgarisation of his views in the SocialDemocratic literature of the late XIX–early XX century, as well as in Soviet economic literature in 
the years 1920–1980.
Particular attention is paid to analysis of works of Marx’s followers, showing their role as a 
factor of promoting and vulgarising of his writings. There are also studied the factors that 
contributed to primitivisation of Marxism. Why did Marx have ‘no luck’ with the followers? Above 
all, it seems because he was looking for them among the working class. Those few whose did 
not come from the workers’ environment, unfortunately, did not have a fundamental economic 
education. Any departure from strictly economic objectivism perceived not only academic 
scientists, but also the social-democratic theorists as a retreat from historical materialism, the 
rejection of the basic precepts of Marxism. Mechanistic study of materialism in the knowledge 
of socio-economic phenomena, focus on the study of history as a natural-historical process led 
to an underestimation of social practice and its role in the transformation and development of 
society. Understanding history as a result of human activities left in the shadows. This is typical 
not only for Karl Kautsky, but also to some extent for the largest philosopher among the Social 
Democrats —  Plekhanov.
The spread of Marxism ‘in breadth’ has occurred to a much greater extent than it was allowed 
by existing economic, social and cultural conditions of the countries of Eastern Europe. But the 
same Russian reality has become a brake for the spread of Marxism in Russia ‘in depth’ for its 
development in an integrated and adequate primary source form. Finally, we analyse the causes 
of increasing interest to the scholarly Marxism in recent years.
Keywords: materialist conception of history; ‘people’s’ (vulgarized) Marxism; ‘academic’ Marxism.
JEL: B14, B15, B24, B41

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

Историческая судьба  
«Первого великого открытия» Маркса

Рустем Нуреев
доктор экономических наук, профессор
научный руководитель Департамента экономической теории
Финансовый университет
Ординарный профессор
Департамент прикладной экономики, Факультет экономических наук
Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
depet@fa.ru

SPIN РИНЦ: 9366–0174
ORCID: 0000–0003–1407–2657
ResearcherID: P‑9648–2015
Scopus AuthorID: 35759212500

Аннотация. В статье исследуется «Первое великое открытие» Маркса в работах его учеников 
и последователей. Анализируются предпосылки и причины неприятия экономической доктрины 
Маркса западными учеными, с одной стороны, и стремительное распространение марксистской 
философии, с другой. Несистемное восприятие экономического наследия Маркса, абсолютизация 
в разные периоды развития отдельных опубликованных произведений, их анализ в отрыве от 
других трудов основателя марксизма привели к определенному упрощению и вульгаризации его 
взглядов в социал-демократической литературе конца XIX —  начала XX в., а также в советской 
экономической литературе 1920–1980 гг.
Особое внимание уделяется анализу произведений последователей Маркса, указывая на их 
роль, как фактору продвижения, так и вульгаризации его произведений. Изучаются также 
факторы, которые способствовали примитивизации марксизма. Почему Марксу не повезло 
с последователями? Прежде всего, кажется, потому, что он искал их среди рабочего класса. 
Те немногие, кто не происходил из рабочей среды, к сожалению, не имели фундаментального 
экономического образования. Любой отход от строго экономического объективизма 
воспринимался не только академическими учеными, но и социал-демократическими теоретиками, 
как отступление от исторического материализма, отказ от основных заветов марксизма. 
Механистическое исследование материализма при изучении социально-экономических явлений, 
ориентация на изучение истории как естественноисторического процесса привело к недооценке 
социальной практики и ее роли в трансформации и развитии общества. Понимание истории 
как результата человеческой деятельности осталось в тени. Это характерно не только для Карла 
Каутского, но и в некоторой степени для крупнейшего философа среди социал-демократов —  
Плеханова.
Распространение марксизма «вширь» произошло в гораздо большей степени, чем это было 
разрешено существующими экономическими, социальными и культурными условиями стран 
Восточной Европы. Но сама же российская реальность стала тормозом для распространения 
марксизма в России «вглубь», для его развития в интегрированной и адекватной первичной форме. 
Наконец, мы анализируем причины повышенного интереса к научному марксизму в последние 
годы.
Ключевые слова: материалистическая концепция истории; «народный» (вульгарный) марксизм; 
«академический» марксизм.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

1. THE BELATED DISCOVERy 
of MARx
At the funeral of Karl Marx on Saturday, March 17, 
1883, at Highgate Cemetery was attended only by 
11 people. His friend and colleague, Friedrich Engels, uttered the phrase, which then might seem 
an overestimation, “And his name, and his work 
will survive the century” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, 
p. 352). Friedrich Engels in a speech at the funeral 
of Marx as his biggest achievement highlights two 
discoveries: the materialist conception of history 
and the law of motion of modern capitalist mode 
of production —  the production of surplus value 
(Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, p. 350–351).
Indeed, to his contemporaries Marx was known 
only by those works that were published in very 
limited editions. The influence of Marx’s writings 
on his contemporaries was quite modest. More than 
three–quarters of Marx’s works were not published 
during his lifetime. But the fact, that the main works 
were published in different countries and in different 
languages. His publications in the New York Tribune 
were focused on current events, polemical works 
such as “The Holy Family” (1845) and “Poverty of 
Philosophy” (1847), and were known only to a narrow circle of friends. “Contribution to the Critique 
of Political Economy” (1859) and “Capital” (1867) at 
that time were not yet understood by contemporaries 
and ignored by the official academic science. The 
second and third volumes of “Capital” was published 
by Frederick Engels after Marx’s death (in 1885 and 
in 1894), the fourth volume —  by Karl Kautsky in 
1905–1910. However, the final volume was leaked 
to the public until after his secondary publication by 
the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in 1954–1961.
The revolutionary “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845) 
appeared only as a supplement to the Engels’ work 
“Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classical 
Philosophy” in 1888; “Outline of a response to a letter Zasulich”—in 1924; “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844”—in 1932; “The German 
Ideology” (1845) —in 1932–33; “Chapter Six. The 
results of the direct process of production”—in 1933; 
“Economic Manuscripts 1857–1859”—in the original 
language in 1939–1941, and in Russian translation 
in 1968–1969; “Economic manuscript of 1861–1863” 
(Notebook IV, XV–XXIII)—in 1973–1980; the first 
and third chapters of the second version of “Capita” 
Volume II —  in 1981, etc. Non-systemic perception of 
the Marx’s economic heritage, its absolutized status 
in different periods of development of separately 

published works, their analysis in isolation from 
the other Marx’s writings —  led to the famous simplification and vulgarization of Marxism’s founder 
views in the Social-Democratic literature of the late 
XIX–early XX century, as well as in Soviet economic 
literature in the years 1920–1980.
Published works lasted for 100 years, and understanding only started at the end of the socialist 
period (Ilyenkov, 1960; Rosental’, 1967; Vazyulin, 
1968; Rosental’, 1971; Kuz’min, 1976). For a long 
time was not the main thing: remove the sacredness with the works of Marx, understanding it not 
as a prophet but as a living person, as a developing scientist. The first steps in this direction in our 
country have been made only in the years 1970–1980 
(Vygodskiy, 1970; Vygodskiy, 1975; Shkredov, 1973; 
Bagaturia & Vygodskiy, 1976; Kogan, 1983; Smirnov, 
1984; Pervonachal’nyi, 1987; Cherkovets, 1988–1989). 
However, in the mid-1980s in Russia has already begun restructuring and the crisis of Marxist ideology 
drew away the creative findings of a new generation 
of Marxists. Creative Marxism began to seem less 
important than what has been done in the Western 
economic science for a hundred years after Marx’s 
death. Meanwhile, the influence of Marx on the 
Western economic science was, to the surprise of the 
Soviet people, more than modest. This was partly 
to blame, and Marx himself.

2. THE REASONS FOR REJECTION 
of The MARx’S TeAChIngS By 
WESTERN ACADEMIC ECONOMICS
Karl Marx believed that the best in the first volume 
of “Capital” was presented the dual character of labour and analysis of surplus value regardless of the 
specific forms of its manifestation: profit, interest 
and ground rent (Marx & Engels, Vol. 31, p. 277). 
What appeared to be the main for Marx, was not 
so impressive for his contemporaries. Why did it 
happen?
In opposition to the first volume of “Capital” 
Western Economic Community is not surprising 
and it is difficult to find (after Marx), a conspiracy of 
silence. Rare academic writings receive worldwide 
fame immediately at the time of publication. To 
do this, in any case, requires certain assumptions, 
which in this case entirely absent. Marx never taught 
in any more or less well-known university. His doctoral thesis, he got quite a long time ago (in 1841) at 
the University of Jena, known for the fact that the 
school give quickly and without controversy reviews 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

on doctoral dissertation. In any case, Marx received 
his Ph.D. after 9 days after dispatched his thesis 
(Wheen, 2003). Public protection (as in the Soviet 
Union) or wide debates (as in medieval universities), 
of course, was not, also Marx didn’t have teaching 
experience in top schools. Even this simple fact is 
easily explained the delay in the dissemination of 
his ideas. In addition, the product works strife: “The 
Communist Manifesto” can be read in one night. 
But with the Marx’s “Capital” implement such an 
operation is difficult 1. It takes time, desire, and most 
importantly —  a certain level of training. And the 
training is quite serious —  as a special (to be acquainted, at least, the German classical philosophy 
and English and French classical political economy) 
and total (must be at least a university education 
in the humanities, which is unlikely to be found 
among the then working class). Recall that as a great 
achievement in the middle of the XIX century was 
seen by the introduction of compulsory primary 
education in the UK. And England in this respect 
is well ahead of the continent. The lack of interest 
explains the paradoxical fact that the English language is the 1st volume of “Capital” will translate 
only 20 years later, in 1887.

1 “And myself stroking the neck —  told himself S. A. Esenin, —I 
say —  our time has come: let’s, Sergey, sit down for Marx quietly for solving the wisdom of boring lines.”

Yet the question of proletarian origin was exaggerated importance in the XIX and XX century. 
Marx resigned as chairman of the General Council 
of the I International on the grounds that it is not 
representative of the working class 2. It is curious that 
this tradition continues well: in the Soviet Union 
until the mid-80s. Of the twentieth century in the 
departments of political economy of universities 
there were significant advantage people with manufacturing experience, not those who had completed 
school education in current year.
We should not forget the fact that the peak of 
popularity of the labour theory of value (at least 
in its Ricardian interpretation) in an academic 
environment for a long time has passed in the 
70–90-es. XIX century beginning to be more common theory of marginal utility. Although the first 
steps in this area have been made much earlier 
(A. Cournot in 1838 and H. Gossen in 1854), but 
only 1870 was marked qualitative change in this 
area: in 1871 have published William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882) and Carl Menger (1840–1921), 

2 Marx believed himself ineligible for election to the post of 
Chairman of the General Council of the International “because 
he is an employee of mental work, not those who are working 
hands.” While not denying the obvious fact that the General 
Council International can work and people of non-proletarian 
origin.

Fig. 1. Value as the basis of the price level (according to Marx). The interpretation from the perspective 
of neoclassical economists

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

in 1874—Leon Walras (1834–1910). Later, there 
were works Eugen Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1914) and 
Friedrich von Wieser (1851–1926). The theory of 
marginal utility is complemented in 1886 by the 
marginal productivity theory of John Bates Clark 
(1847–1938). In fact, all these changes are of course 
did not find any reflection in subsequent editions 
and translations of the first volume of “Capital”, 
prepared by Marx (1872 and 1875) and Engels 
(1883, 1886 and 1890). In fact, the changes were 
crucial character: instead of political economy as 
a philosophy of economics there is another science —  economics, serving as a set of practical 
recipes to optimize the activity of economic agents 
in resource-limited settings. Although technically 
the term ‘Economics’ will appear in 1871 in the 
“Theory of Political Economy” by W. Jevons, its 
widespread and contemporary content refers to 
a later period: in 1880–1890-es.
Shifting the center of economic research. If the 
focus of the classics of English political economy 
was the sphere of production (Adam Smith) and 
distribution (Ricardo), the constructions of new 
economists increasingly important sphere of exchange and consumption. Change and the scale 
of consideration: in the center is not a state, and 
the firm and the individual. The microeconomic 
framework for the analysis of market structures 

displace macroeconomic scale political economy. 
Changes and micro-economic foundations of the 
analysis itself. If the focus of Adam Smith and David 
Ricardo was the law of value, that of John Stuart Mill, 
this role is played by the law of supply and demand, 
and at the Menger, Jevons, and William L. Walras — 
the law of diminishing utility. Change not only the 
purpose and object of study, but also the method of 
analysis. In place of formal and dialectical logic is 
gradually coming mathematical logic. The focus of 
research is comparative statics, optimization and 
equilibrium models. These changes are summarized 
Alfred Marshall (1842–1924) in his “Principles of 
Economics” (1890).
Not surprisingly, in these circumstances, the 
intricate construction of Karl Marx’s dialectic was 
no demand. From the standpoint of what was then 
the science they seemed more to the past than in 
the future, more theoretical than practical. Being cut off from the modern academic science, its 
newest search and discovery, it is in the silence of 
the library of the British Museum was interested 
in secular trends in the development of political 
economy, in terms of which new ideas seemed a 
vulgarization of the classical foundations. If Marx 
was interested in the cost as the basis of market 
prices and the entire first volume of “Capital” is 
premised on matching price value, then it is much 

Fig. 2. The subject of research neoclassicism —  the relative price changes

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

more interested in the contemporary cases of deviation of prices from values. If the focus of Marx 
is perfect competition, then the focus of neoclassical —  market structures that grow out of this 
perfect competition: pure and natural monopoly, 
monopolistic competition and price discrimination, 
oligopoly and monopsony.
To oversimplify, clarify this with an intuitive 
graphical example. In modern language of economics, 
Marx mainly interested in the absolute equilibrium 
level (see Fig. 1): why pies are sold for 10 roubles, 
and modern cars for hundreds of thousands. The 
focus of economists —  is neoclassical, on the contrary, the relative change in prices. With respect 
to perfect competition means shifts demand and 
supply curves (see fig. 2). However, the current 
economy is, of course, is not limited to the analysis 
of perfect competition, and explores all types of 
market structures (and not only in relation to the 
markets of consumer goods and services, but also 
to the markets of resources).

3. ThRee MySTeRIeS of The 
MATERIALIST CONCEPTION 
of hISToRy
“In general, —  Karl Marx wrote in the Preface to 
“A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”—Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production South designated as 
progressive epochs in the economic formation of 
society” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 13, p. 7).
Attention is drawn to the fact that in this classic 
work of world history periodization given in– completely incomprehensible, at first glance, the form. 
Firstly, it is unclear why the four modes of production correspond to only one formation, and secondly, 
why she named this formation as something strange: 
no socio–economic, social and economic (the word 
‘economic’ somehow put in the first place). Third, the 
unknown is itself a list of modes of production: the 
primitive no, nor communist system, but indicated 
some Asiatic mode of production, and the slave 
system called antique.
The first answer that one is tempted to is that 
the translation of this phrase from German made 
incorrectly, inaccurate, untrue. However, if we look 
at the original (Marx, 1939, p. 338), and learn the 
history of the translation of this place, it is easy to 
see that this is not so. Translations of this place in 
the second edition of the works of Marx and Engels 
made … Lenin, more precisely, given in the same 

form in which it did Lenin for his work “Karl Marx” 3. 
Therefore, the problem is not in the form of transfer, 
and the content of the phrase. Try to answer the 
questions posed in order.
1. The fact that, along with the now common use 
of the term ‘socio-economic, formation’ in the sense 
of a certain stage in the progressive development of 
human society arising on the basis of certain social 
mode of production, and therefore characterized by a 
certain level of development of the productive forces, 
a certain type of production relations and towering 
above them in the form of an add–historically certain public institutions, ideas, and forms of social 
consciousness; along with the use of the concept 
of ‘socio–economic system’ is found in Marx and 
the use of this concept in other, more broadly —  as 
a group of formations that are similar in type of 
production relations, the nature of class division, 
nature of the state, forms of social consciousness. 
Thus, Marx in a number of papers brings together 
all the information in one class.
In the preface to the work “A Contribution to 
the Critique of Political Economy”, in which Marx 
gave a detailed description of the materialist conception of history, the concept of ‘formation’ have 
consumed in a double sense. “In general, —wrote 
Marx —  Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as 
progressive epochs in the economic formation of 
society. The bourgeois relations of production are 
the last antagonistic form of the social process of 
production … developing in the womb of bourgeois 
the productive forces of society create also the material conditions for the solution of this antagonism. 
Therefore, social formation is completed prehistory of human society” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 13, pp. 
7–8). From the context it is clear that in the first 
case, the concept of formation includes all antagonistic modes of production so Marx did not write 
any of tribal or of communist forms of property, 
which appeared in “The German Ideology”, in the 
second —  only one bourgeois. This does not deny 
the relationship that exists between the concepts 
of ‘mode of production’ and ‘formation’, but only 
emphasizes that the antagonistic formations have 
several features in common.

3 Lenin V. I. Collected works 5th ed. Vol. 26, p. 57. Characteristically, the translation of this phrase in such a concise and 
refined form VI Lenin did not come immediately. Initially, he 
gave another translation (Lenin V. I., Vol. 1, p. IX), from which 
in his later work, he refused.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

The use of the concept of ‘formation’ in the broadest sense is typical for “Sketches response to a letter 
V. I. Zasulich” where Marx uses the concept of ‘primary (archaic) formation’ and ‘secondary formation’. 
“Farming communities, —Marx writes in the third 
sketch an answer to a letter V. I. Zasulich —  being 
the last phase of the primary social formation, is 
at the same time, the transition to the secondary 
phase formation, i. e. the transition from a society, 
based on common ownership, to a society based on 
private property. The secondary formation covers, 
of course, a number of societies based on slavery 
and serfdom” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, p. 419). In 
the second sketch Marx observed that capitalism is 
also based on private property that “the people who 
have it (the capitalist mode of production —  R.N.) Is 
the most developed, both in Europe and in America, 
seek only to ensure that break the shackles of his replacing capitalist production cooperative production 
and capitalist property —  the highest form of archaic 
type of property that is owned by the Communist” 
(Marx & Engels, Vol. 19, pp. 412–413).
The history of mankind is divided into three 
Marx’s ‘big’ formation: primary, based on common 
ownership (the primitive communal system I ‘Asiatic 
mode of production’ as a transitional stage to the 
secondary formation), secondary, based on private 
property (slavery, feudalism and capitalism) and 
the communist —  social formation (Boroday, Kelle, 
& Plimak, 1974, pp. 61–75).
2. The key to solving the second problem, the 
well known position of Engels on the two sides of 
the production and reproduction of immediate life 
formulated them in the Preface to the first edition 
of “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and 
the State”. “According to the materialist conception, —wrote F. Engels —  a defining moment in history is ultimately the production and reproduction 
of immediate life. But it itself, again, is of two kinds. 
On the one hand, the production of the means of life: 
food, clothing, housing, I tools necessary for that; on 
the other —  the production of human procreation. 
Public order, in which people live a particular historical epoch and a particular country are determined 
by both kinds of production: stage of development, 
on the one hand —  labour, on the other —  the family. 
The less developed work than the limited numbers of 
its products, and consequently the wealth of society, 
the stronger the dependence of the social system 
of tribal relations. Meanwhile, as part of this, based 
on the generic structure–society increasingly more 

developing productivity, and along with it —  private 
property and exchange, differences of wealth, opportunity to use someone else’s labour force and 
thus the basis of class antagonisms…
The old society, resting on tribal associations, explodes in a collision newly formed social classes; its 
place a new society organized in the state, the lower 
part of which was no longer tribal, and territorial 
associations —  a society in which family structure 
completely dominated by the property and which 
is now free to deploy the class contradictions and 
class struggle, is the content of the whole of recorded 
history up to the present time” (Marx & Engels, Vol. 
21, pp. 25–26) 4.
In light of the statements of Engels on the two 
sides of the production and reproduction of immediate life becomes clear and the second part of the 
problem why the secondary (antagonistic) formation 
is named in the Preface “…to the Critique of Political 
Economy”, ‘economic community’. As part of the 
initial formation played an important role of material, 
social, but not purely economic factors (production 
of human procreation). As a result of labour within 
the tribal relations were created preconditions for 
a class society, for a radical change in the ratio of 
two sides of the production and reproduction of 
immediate life when family completely dominated 
by the system of private property.
Marx proceeded from the fact that the transition to communist social formation should also be 
considered in light of the ratio of the two sides of 
the production and reproduction of immediate life. 
After all, the main purpose of this formation and the 
primary means of achieving it, on presentation of 
Marx, is the all-round development of personality, 
which, although it achieve full material well-being, 
but cannot be reduced only to him.
3. Answering the first question, we essentially got 
a significant part of the answer to the third: in the 
above-cited site Preface “…to the Critique of Political 
Economy”, Marx indicates only antagonistic modes 
of production. Views on the initial —  primitive —  production method specified in the 70–60-es. XIX century through research of J. Bachofen, A. Gaktsgauzen, 
M. Kovalevsky, L. Morgan and others. The concept of 
‘Asiatic mode of production’ means a state system 
of rural agricultural total. The term ‘Asian’ in this 
context has never had a strictly regional importance 
and served to designate a universal stage of human 

4 A detailed analysis of this provision, see (Nureev, 1984, p. 5).

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 4, 2017

development. Marx refers to the Asiatic mode of 
production is not only ancient and medieval East 
(India, Turkey, Persia, China, etc.), but also countries in Africa (Egypt), the Americas (Mexico, Peru), 
Europe (the Etruscans, and others). On a certain 
stage of their development (Ter-Akopian, 1973, pp. 
167–220; Nureev, 1976, pp. 205–233; Platonov, 1978, 
pp. 259–270). Therefore, the term ‘Asian’ is a kind of 
irrational categories: designating part, he at the same 
time characterizes the whole. Application along with 
a meaningful term (‘state system of rural communities’), conditional (‘Asiatic mode of production’) is 
widespread in science. We have long operate such 
concepts paired hours as antiquity —  slave mode of 
production, the Middle Ages —  feudalism, the new 
time —  capitalism recent times —  socialism —  the 
first phase of the communist formation. The specificity here is not that Marx and Engels used the two 
terms (‘the system of rural communities’ and ‘Asiatic 
mode of production’), and that the inclusive term is 
not opposed to the term time and space, geographical. The origin of this term is explained, apparently, 
by the fact that in today’s Marx and Engels East they 
found the remains of these public-communal forms.
Used by the classics of Marxism, the term ‘antique mode of production’ means the slave mode 
of production. It should be remembered, however, 
that under the slave system were slaves although 
important, is not the only element of a complex 
socio–economic structure of ancient societies. Division into slaves and slaveholders never covered the 
whole of society; the number of slaves was never 
more than half of the population, even in the most 
developed slaveholding states. Therefore, the term 
‘antique mode of production’ as used by Marx and 
Engels, is of some importance from the point of 
view of modern science (Nureev, 1979, pp. 22–55).

4. ‘PEOPLE’S’ (VULGARIZED) 
MARxISM AnD The DeveLoPMenT 
of MARxISM In BReADTh
In a number of countries (and Russia in this case 
is no exception) primarily occurs mainly spread of 
Marxism in breadth. As for the spread of Marxist 
ideas in depth, it is not only in Russia but also in 
most of the gains was modest. This is due, above 
all, the intellectual level of students and followers 
of Karl Marx, as well as uncompromising attitude 
of the founder of scientific communism to his opponents. “By his political enemies —  wrote TuganBaranovsky —  Marx was ruthless, but his enemy 

was made easy —  it was not enough to be his follower. One of the saddest pages of biographies of 
the great economist is its relationship to various 
prominent people with whom his fate was pushing 
and with whom he differed in their views. All polemical clashes Marx distinguished extraordinary 
abundance of personal malice of the enemy and 
produce a painful impression with his lack of moral tact. It is difficult to specify such other masters 
in the destruction of the enemy by expressing his 
most scathing contempt, and it is difficult to specify another writer, albeit a tool to move so often and 
so readily” (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1996, p. 203).

Why did Marx not ‘lucky’ with the followers? 
Perhaps, above all, because he was looking for them 
among the working class. “… For the millions of 
human hearts Marx’s theory of socialist paradise 
earth meant a new ray of light and a new sense of 
life. —  wrote J. A. Schumpeter —  It does not matter 
that almost all of these millions were not in a position to understand and evaluate the teaching in 
its true meaning. Such is the fate of all doctrines” 
(Schumpeter, 1995, p. 37).
The few that did not come from the working environment, unfortunately, did not have the fundamental economics. It is no secret that even having 
studied all his life Engels never received a university 
education. As rightly observed by J. A. Schumpeter, 
“intellectually and in particular as a theorist, he was 
well below Marx. You cannot even be sure that he 
has always understood the meaning of his teachings. 
So its interpretation should be approached with 
caution” (Schumpeter, 1995, p. 78).
Even further in the characterization of Engels 
are Jean-Marie Albertini and Ahmed Sliema. “Friend, 
colleague, philanthropist, Marx was the first of its 
vulgarizer. Engels … could indicate simplify, clarify 
and to avoid what he thought too controversial. In 
the last period of Marx’s life, almost reclusive, was 
his mouthpiece. In general, he carried out a reformulation which allowed to spread Marxism” (Albertini 
& Silem, 1996, p. 104).
As for the ‘in-law’ of Karl Marx, he is, in his 
opinion, they clearly had no luck. Charles Longuet 
(1839–1903) he calls “the last Proudhonist” and Paul 
Lafargue (1842–1911) —“the last Blanquist”. Even 
stands out for its well-read Karl Kautsky (1854–1938) 
seemed to Marx first ‘shallow mediocrity’.
However, the impact of popularisers and vulgar underestimated. They have contributed to the 
spread of folk Marxism, which is a unique social