Peter Ludlow’s analysis is quite devastating. I’m surprised other reviewers didn’t pick up on these remarkable mistakes and omissions.

UPDATE: A couple of readers sent this review by Pascal Engel, which I had not seen, and which makes points related to those discussed by Ludlow. (I should add that I do think much “analytic” philosophy is inherently conservative, because of the heavy reliance on “intuitions” and “common sense,” but this is not “conservatism” in a particularly political sense of the word. The class position of most moral and political philosophers does play a pretty obvious role in what they consider the defensible positions in their fields, but that does not carry over to most other parts of philosophy. Herbert Marcuse underook a similarly vulgar “Marxist” critique of analytic philosophy in 1964 in One-Dimensional Man, and it was not the highlight of the book, and as with Schuringa, it mostly served to reveal that he didn’t know a lot about what he was criticizing.)