I lost my train of thought here: there are a lot of social theorists on the left, while Habermas isn’t actually a radical communist. I was referring to a slew of people like Habermas, and we have Marxuse’s Reason and Revolution as a good example. Lukacs, Gramsci and many others need a continuation of Last and First Men.
At the same time we need to consider why the ‘eonic curtain’ falls so swiftly at the period of the modern divide, around 1800 plus, and the way that the riddle of the early modern tends to cast a spell on later thought. The whole generation of philosophy since the era of Sartre and Foucault has produced an enigma that is likely to prove confusing to later leftists. The future will always return to this moment to get its bearings. In any case, the question of philosophy is actually more difficult than science, because it has not method like theory/experiment. And the nature of the project gets lost. Look at Schopenhauer: he got frantic in later life and began fulminations against Hegel as he saw his own perspective swamped in the dialectic, then the onset of materialism.
In any case, I see no reason why the left has to be subject to hard materialism. A materialist cast does fine, but not if it is dogmatic and starts turning its dialectical complements into heresies. One curious outcome is the way that dialectics was turned into a fetish itself outlawing dialectic. Dialectic should be a display of counterpoints, and complements, beside contradictories. Dialectics should involve the study of complements like absolute idealism, transcendental idealism, and materialism together and should be the guard against facile belief systems. But dialectics has itself become a belief system. LFM proposes a variant dialectic: dialogical meta-dialectic: a dialectic critique of the dialectic and its logic.