Mountains of books have been written about Karl Marx. About his life, about his versatile, vigorous activity, about his struggle, unceasing and tireless, about his suffering, about his great books, about his powerful thought, about his discoveries and victories, about his selfless service to the cause of the liberation of the proletariat. We will not repeat previously said by others. We'll tell a different story. About another person. Our story is about an unsolved, not understood by anyone, who lived a mysterious, unknown life. Who wrote one book, the meaning of which no one fully understands to this day, because it is written in ordinary human language, but its true meaning is not expressed in open text. About someone who was a man of action, but went down in history as a thinker. Who is considered a great scientist, although he has not completed a single scientific work, has not proven a single hypothesis and is confused in the elementary concepts of his scientific specialty. About a man whose defeats are declared victories. To whom imaginary victories are attributed, and real victories are declared failures or hidden. We will tell you about a person who did not become what he only wanted to become. Which became something that it did not intend to be and did not strive to be. About a man who lived the life of a loser and died a loser, enjoying the respect of all of Europe as a winner. About someone who was born to rule, but was forced to think. Who was fit to command the nations, but only had the chance to command his own wife. About a man who claimed to have discovered the meaning of History, while he himself was an instrument of an unknown Providence. Who is he?

***

I began writing this manuscript in the mid-70s. and interrupted work in the mid-80s. It was called “Deceive Nature: The Secret of Value of Karl Marx” and was supposed to consist of three books: “The Great Revolutionary”, “The Great Scientist” and “The Great Man” - according to the three hypostases in which my hero existed in the public consciousness. Today, again, many turn to Marx for answers to the questions of the day or for confirmation of their political inclinations and passions. So my work, which may have partly lost its former sensationalism, still remains relevant, and I bring to the attention of readers the first part of the trilogy. Evgeniy Mayburd, December 2010