Also, the choice of the category "auto-mechanic" in contrast with "intellectual" probably derives from a notion that "physicists-engineers-mechanics" are more likely to hold materialist and not idealist positions on the issue. But, lots of famous physicists have been philosophical idealists. Newton was a believer in God ( Belief in God is an idealist position; see Engels's discussion of this in _Socialism: Utopian or Scientific). Mach was an idealist, a neo-Kantian. Heisenberg of uncertainty principle fame was an philosophical idealist, and his uncertainty principle was put forth as an underpinning to that idealist position. Einstein seems to have been a materialist, explicitly disagreeing with Mach that atoms were just thought-structures or some such.
The original review that gave rise to this thread, seems to be from a neo-phyte rightwinger dipping into a time warp for threadbare anti-left material; and the article is pretty much a mishmash, conflating "liberal" with Marxist , and some other things. But I bet there is really very, very little Marxism taught in the US schools, so this article might stir up more interest in Marxism than is already there.
As to the anthology... might be worth critiquing.
Charles
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com