Yes. I don't really know where to start criticizing it and I'm also not really interested in doing so. But for one, having read some works of most of the philosophers the author names, I don't see the big difference between the historical view he solely assigns to Lukács and that of other philosophers like Adorno or Derrida, who repeatedly argued for recognizing the continuity of fascism in human societies. Also, the connection between the so called post-structuralists tradition and Nietzsche or Heidegger is a critical one. When Derrida draws on Heidegger or Nietzsche, this is to be understood as an engagement with the negative at work in the tradition of Western philosophy. What seems kind of strange here is that the author dismisses any dialectic at work in the philosophy he's out to criticize, especially when he is drawing so heavily on Lukács and Hegel.