From the review: The sheer scope and ambition of Defending Materialism is startling. It proposes nothing less than a wholesale recommencement of materialism, but of a kind that one would have thought to be dead as a dog: mechanical materialism. We know well enough the history of this concept. Or do we? Kolozova (a philosopher), Cockshott, and Michaelson (both scientists) would argue we do not. What we know is a good hundred-plus years of obfuscation, confusion and polemic from the fulminations of dogmatic defenders of Soviet-inspired dialectical materialism, or ‘Diamat’ as it came to be called, to the later onslaught of revisionist efforts by so-called ‘post-Marxists’ (many of whom merely defend a more inclusive liberalism). The latter’s chief enemy is ‘mechanical materialism.’ This conception of Marxism – vulgar Marxism as it came to be called – is accused of all manner of heresies: economism (the belief that the economy is determinative of social and political reality); the metaphysics of the base-superstructure model (closely connected to the former heresy); and a forgetting of the relative autonomy of the cultural, social and political. And who would defend that? These authors do not. What they defend is a scientifically rigorous concept of ‘mechanics.’ Think Newton, not Kautsky.
New review just published online in the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books:
Jonathan Fardy on Katerina Kolozova, William Paul Cockshott and Greg Michaelson's Defending Materialism: The Uneasy History of the Atom in Science and Philosophy
marxandphilosophy.org.uk/rev…