The first mistake of this compendium is the titular equation of the left--or radicalism in general--with Marxism. The second: the assumption that there exists something which can be characterized as ""Marxist scholarship."" And though the editors acknowledge that Marxism doesn't take to the idea of ""disciplines,"" that's the way the book is set up--with a professed Marxist surveying each of the academic fields. And what do they survey? Variously, the writings of Marxist academics (however diverse in outlook); the writings of non-academics of a Marxist bent; the writings of non-Marxists--perceived to be Marxist-influenced. Predictably, the results demonstrate nothing. Sociologist Richard Flacks is least hampered by the ""discipline"" problem, perhaps because sociology is the least well-defined of the disciplines: he winds up virtually equating Marxism and sociology as the scientific study of social interaction. The equation of ""Marxist"" with ""radical,"" on the other hand, carries over into repeated reference to the ""emancipatory"" or ""transformative"" nature of Marxist studies, which is then narrowly connected with political action--a conceit particularly pronounced in the essay on psychology by Dana Bramel and Ronald Friend, who worry that Marxist advances in social psychology may be exploited to stifle social change. (Distressingly, many Marxist works of considerable scholarly achievement--like the writings of historians Herbert Gutman and David Montgomery--are carelessly thrown in with anything else that deals with class.) And, among the several contributors, only economist Herbert Gintis (co-author, with Samuel Bowles, of Schooling in Capitalist Society) is an exemplar, rather than a reporter, of leading work in the field under survey. As a state-of-the-art report, indeed, the book will probably do more harm than good.