I want to call attention to some important observations by philosopher Paul Russell (British Columbia/Lund) in the earlier thread on omissions at SEP. In an initial comment, Professor Russell noted that it was surprising there were no entries on Lenin or Gramsci, both significant thinkers in the Marxist philosophical traditions. I now reprint in its entirety his more recent comment:

[A]long with the two names I mentioned above (Lenin and Gramsci) I would also add that of Nikolai Bukharin. After Lenin, Bukharin was arguably the most important philosophical theoretician of the Russian Revolution. His work was admired by Lenin and was subject to criticism by, among others, Gramsci and Bertrand Russell. The Bukharin/Gramsci debate was not only a very important debate in within Marxist theory, it shaped much of the history of Marxist thought and had real impact in the political world. This debate is also is highly relevant to any assessment of "analytical Marxism" (i.e. as it developed at the end of the 20th C).

There is, in any case, little or nothing about the debate concerning Lenin/Bukharin/Gramsci et al in the SEP. What this shows is that there are significant movements and developments in philosophy (e.g. Marxism) that are still sorely neglected in the SEP. Despite its considerable merits and achievements, the SEP has a rather narrow and contentious conception of what 'philosophy' is. It is arguable that this reflects a deeper problem, with what could be called the "APA outlook". This is an outlook that includes a rather crude understanding of how philosophy can and should be politically "active". It is heavily focused on “professional” issues (and interests) and it is largely disconnected from real world politics and history - lacking any credible understanding of the role that philosophy has had and that it might play outside its narrow academic/professional concerns.

On Bukharin:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/25/archives/bukharin-and-the-bolshevik-revolution-by-stephen-f-cohen.html

https://monthlyreview.org/product/philosophical_arabesques/

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/25/archives/bukharin-and-the-bolshevik-revolution-by-stephen-f-cohen.html

Arguably, Bukharin's most important work was "Historical Materialism":

https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm



Finally, if anyone is trying to gauge how unbalanced the SEP is – and, arguably, the way in which this reflects a lack of balance and judgment throughout contemporary philosophy – you might consider the number of listings in the SEP that are devoted (entirely) to feminism and feminist issues.