What do you think?
Rate this book
Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology: From Adam Smith to Max Weber
Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology offers an original interpretation of Marx's critique of political economy as the basis of a critique of modern economics and sociology. The core of the book is an account of Marx's theory of alienated labour as the basis of Marx's work as a whole. The critical implications of this theory are developed through an analysis of the historical development of liberal social theory from political economy to the modern disciplines of economics and sociology.
348 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
28 people are currently reading
674 people want to read
About the author
Simon Clarke
169 books16 followersSimon Clarke is a British sociologist specialising in social theory, political economy, labour relations, and the history of sociology. He has a particular interest in employment relations in China, Vietnam, and the former-Soviet nations. He is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Warwick.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 25, 2020
Simon Clarke, like Lucio Colletti or Ellen Wood, is a 'Capital-centric Marxist' who locates Marx's most powerful ideas not in any perfected 'economics' or 'political economy' - nor in some romantic 'humanist' critique of the 'inhumanity' of capitalism - but rather in his critique, from a socio-historical perspective, of the abstract and ahistorical presuppositions of liberal social theory, whether in 'idealist' (Hegelian-Kantian) or 'materialist' (classical political economy-marginalist economics) guise. Moreover, like Colletti or II Rubin, he is able to convincingly and insightfully outline the integral connection between Marx's early writings on alienated labour and the 'mature' theory of value. Bonus: excellent critiques of the irrationality of marginalism and Weber's sociology.
June 29, 2024
Clarke’s profound knowledge of Marx is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because you always learn something new and get a new interpretation. A curse, because he feels compelled to intervene in every obscure Marxologist debate with his criticisms. If you’re invested in the debate, Clarke is bound to change your perspective. If you’re not really, then you’re often just wondering what the relevance is. In this book, I swung between the two extremes.
The ultimate goal of this book was to make a critique of the theoretical state of sociology as a science. According to him, contemporary sociology was deeply formed by the scientific revolution of marginalism. Since marginalism was, in turn, a reaction to classical political economy (CPE) and Marx specifically, his first few chapters are on Smith, Ricardo, and Marx.
In these first few chapters, he tries to flesh out the uniqueness of Marx’s concept of alienated labour. Clarke argues that Marx’ ‘critique’ of political economy is not based on his ‘discovery’ of the historical specificity of capitalist social relations, the recognition of the evils and contradictory developments of capital, nor the development of a materialist reading of history. All can be found in Smith and Ricardo too. His critique is unique because it traces the historical specificity of capitalism in alienated labour, where social relations take the form of relations between things.
As alienated labour is the key concept underpinning his theoretical framework, we shouldn’t be making too much of a distinction between “young” Marx (the anthropologist, the humanist, the philosopher) and “old” Marx (the economist). He comments on both Althusser (preferring old marx) and the Humanist Marxists (preferring young marx) that they are both wrong for assuming a discontinuity in his thoughts. Rather, according to Clarke, Marx “progressively filled his philosophical categories with social and historical content”, which I thought was a smart intervention. The early philosophical work is important, but it needed to be pulled down from the metaphysical into the real process of history. But again, I wonder what the relevance is of this niche Marxologist debate.
Alienated labour makes him able to question Ricardo’s concept of the labour theory of value, as well as his subsequent theory of distribution, as only being able to grasp the immediate relations of productions as they appear without being able to *explain* them historically. Because Ricardo’s theory was trapped in its own philosophical cage, he had to “naturalise” and “rationalise” his concepts. Thus, capitalist social relations were now the “good, natural and rational” order, and everything bad happening was caused by human activity “not part” of capitalism. A gap was opened for sociology.
However, CPE was increasingly questioned by developments in the real world. With the rise of new industrial states, who developed in new ways (German protectionism and state-induced industrialisation), Long Depression in the 1870s, as well as the rise of socialist parties, the fundaments of classical political economy were in danger. Intellectuals now turned to “non-economic” institutions to try to explain what was happening, and a more pragmatic approach to understanding history was taken up. However, the threats of socialist struggle required a theoretical approach that would allow for reform, while simultaneously set a limit to its reforms.
In this setting, the marginal revolution gained ground. Marginalism could dispose of the concept of classes in political economy, which had proven to contain dangerous conclusions, and redefine everything on the basis of individual behaviour. But, although marginalism defined itself in opposition to CPE, the continuity is more important according to Clarke. Marginalism was no more or less ideological than CPE. Both theories eventually served to empirically describe and ‘naturalise’ capitalist social relations. Marginalism, as CPE had done, redrew the lines between “rational”, individual economic behaviour and other, non-capitalist irrationalities. Economics was now the science preoccupied with the “good, natural, rational” relation of humans to external scarcity, while all bad stuff of irrationalities were now the domain of sociology. In my opinion a very sharp argument.
While Marx moved from metaphysical to historical analysis to formulate his critique of CPE, marginalism disposed CPE of its residual historical content to generalise, universalise, and ultimately naturalise capitalist social relations. Marginalism insulated rational economic behaviour from the other scientific domains of human behaviour when CPE could no longer. Sociology was formed as a counterweight to this insulation, where they conceptualised the historical and sociological limits of economic rationality (this intellectual task was expressed in fierce debate), but ironically simultaneously allowing for such insulation.
Let me make a final comment for contemporary debates. After 2008, the neoclassical theory in economics has been criticised for being too abstract, too detached, too idealistic. In response, sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have called for a return to an analysis of “real” economic processes, revising much of the assumptions made in neoclassical economics. I think Clarke’s criticism is applicable here as well. Since sociologists are now calling to study the limits of neoclassical economics, they simultaneously stay trapped in its cage: they merely veil and question its universality, but don’t embark on a fundamental criticism of neoclassical economics. They define their study as a “counterweight” to the assumption of capitalist rationality, but they don’t question it all together.
The ultimate goal of this book was to make a critique of the theoretical state of sociology as a science. According to him, contemporary sociology was deeply formed by the scientific revolution of marginalism. Since marginalism was, in turn, a reaction to classical political economy (CPE) and Marx specifically, his first few chapters are on Smith, Ricardo, and Marx.
In these first few chapters, he tries to flesh out the uniqueness of Marx’s concept of alienated labour. Clarke argues that Marx’ ‘critique’ of political economy is not based on his ‘discovery’ of the historical specificity of capitalist social relations, the recognition of the evils and contradictory developments of capital, nor the development of a materialist reading of history. All can be found in Smith and Ricardo too. His critique is unique because it traces the historical specificity of capitalism in alienated labour, where social relations take the form of relations between things.
As alienated labour is the key concept underpinning his theoretical framework, we shouldn’t be making too much of a distinction between “young” Marx (the anthropologist, the humanist, the philosopher) and “old” Marx (the economist). He comments on both Althusser (preferring old marx) and the Humanist Marxists (preferring young marx) that they are both wrong for assuming a discontinuity in his thoughts. Rather, according to Clarke, Marx “progressively filled his philosophical categories with social and historical content”, which I thought was a smart intervention. The early philosophical work is important, but it needed to be pulled down from the metaphysical into the real process of history. But again, I wonder what the relevance is of this niche Marxologist debate.
Alienated labour makes him able to question Ricardo’s concept of the labour theory of value, as well as his subsequent theory of distribution, as only being able to grasp the immediate relations of productions as they appear without being able to *explain* them historically. Because Ricardo’s theory was trapped in its own philosophical cage, he had to “naturalise” and “rationalise” his concepts. Thus, capitalist social relations were now the “good, natural and rational” order, and everything bad happening was caused by human activity “not part” of capitalism. A gap was opened for sociology.
However, CPE was increasingly questioned by developments in the real world. With the rise of new industrial states, who developed in new ways (German protectionism and state-induced industrialisation), Long Depression in the 1870s, as well as the rise of socialist parties, the fundaments of classical political economy were in danger. Intellectuals now turned to “non-economic” institutions to try to explain what was happening, and a more pragmatic approach to understanding history was taken up. However, the threats of socialist struggle required a theoretical approach that would allow for reform, while simultaneously set a limit to its reforms.
In this setting, the marginal revolution gained ground. Marginalism could dispose of the concept of classes in political economy, which had proven to contain dangerous conclusions, and redefine everything on the basis of individual behaviour. But, although marginalism defined itself in opposition to CPE, the continuity is more important according to Clarke. Marginalism was no more or less ideological than CPE. Both theories eventually served to empirically describe and ‘naturalise’ capitalist social relations. Marginalism, as CPE had done, redrew the lines between “rational”, individual economic behaviour and other, non-capitalist irrationalities. Economics was now the science preoccupied with the “good, natural, rational” relation of humans to external scarcity, while all bad stuff of irrationalities were now the domain of sociology. In my opinion a very sharp argument.
While Marx moved from metaphysical to historical analysis to formulate his critique of CPE, marginalism disposed CPE of its residual historical content to generalise, universalise, and ultimately naturalise capitalist social relations. Marginalism insulated rational economic behaviour from the other scientific domains of human behaviour when CPE could no longer. Sociology was formed as a counterweight to this insulation, where they conceptualised the historical and sociological limits of economic rationality (this intellectual task was expressed in fierce debate), but ironically simultaneously allowing for such insulation.
Let me make a final comment for contemporary debates. After 2008, the neoclassical theory in economics has been criticised for being too abstract, too detached, too idealistic. In response, sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have called for a return to an analysis of “real” economic processes, revising much of the assumptions made in neoclassical economics. I think Clarke’s criticism is applicable here as well. Since sociologists are now calling to study the limits of neoclassical economics, they simultaneously stay trapped in its cage: they merely veil and question its universality, but don’t embark on a fundamental criticism of neoclassical economics. They define their study as a “counterweight” to the assumption of capitalist rationality, but they don’t question it all together.
October 22, 2023
Mi puto padre. Much to think about x2
February 17, 2025
Me ha costado lo suyo acabarlo. Pero sin duda una obra capital del pensamiento social, una crítica brutal a la sociología y a la ciencia social burguesa y un libro que injustamente no ha tenido el reconocimiento que se merece.
October 7, 2024
Qué tan diferentes hubieran sido las clases de Sociología de haber tenido este libro como referencia.
August 25, 2024
Grande Clarke. Muy buen libro para introducirse en la crítica de la economía política de Marx —debido a la claridad en su exposición— y para estudiar el nexo entre la economía política —renovada a través de la teoría marginalista— y la sociología moderna.
Read
March 20, 2025⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2
Resumo do apéndice “Estado, lucha de clases y reproducción social”:
En xeral ben pero algo decepcionado. Está ben como exposición xeral e básica dos debates arredor do Estado capitalista nun contexto marxista pero non creo que expoña nada especialmente novedoso.
O argumento central é interesante: a loita de clases ten que ver tanto coa forma como co contido da política. As análises que extrae a partires de aí están ben, especialmente as exposicións que fai de distintas posturas existentes no contexto marxista.
Unha boa pequena lectura para quen teña dudas sobre o tema. Quedo pendente de ler o resto do libro jejeje
Resumo do apéndice “Estado, lucha de clases y reproducción social”:
En xeral ben pero algo decepcionado. Está ben como exposición xeral e básica dos debates arredor do Estado capitalista nun contexto marxista pero non creo que expoña nada especialmente novedoso.
O argumento central é interesante: a loita de clases ten que ver tanto coa forma como co contido da política. As análises que extrae a partires de aí están ben, especialmente as exposicións que fai de distintas posturas existentes no contexto marxista.
Unha boa pequena lectura para quen teña dudas sobre o tema. Quedo pendente de ler o resto do libro jejeje
March 17, 2025
Clarke hace una exposición buenísima sobre el origen de la sociología como un campo de conocimiento que parte de la división artificial entre economía y sociedad, y por ende de la naturalización de las relaciones capitalistas de producción.
El anexo sobre el Estado es de lectura obligatoria para entender cómo el desarrollo histórico del capitalismo y la lucha de clases hacen necesaria dicha institución, aunque esa necesidad no se deduzca de la propia esencia del capital al situarse en otro nivel de abstracción.
El anexo sobre el Estado es de lectura obligatoria para entender cómo el desarrollo histórico del capitalismo y la lucha de clases hacen necesaria dicha institución, aunque esa necesidad no se deduzca de la propia esencia del capital al situarse en otro nivel de abstracción.
February 17, 2025
An astonishing review of the clash between the classical economic theory and Marx, and the later theories that led to modern sociology.
In this book, Clarke confronts a new field of study, "sociology" -which emerged after the alienation of the capitalist categories from the social reproduction of society-, with the alienation of work and the class struggle.
In this book, Clarke confronts a new field of study, "sociology" -which emerged after the alienation of the capitalist categories from the social reproduction of society-, with the alienation of work and the class struggle.
November 8, 2024
A stimulating intellectual read
This book is an intellectual breath of fresh air with provocative insights on almost every page. It provides a great foundation for understanding modern economics
This book is an intellectual breath of fresh air with provocative insights on almost every page. It provides a great foundation for understanding modern economics
September 26, 2020
Great Book. Must read.
July 13, 2021
best ever
June 28, 2023
Clarke’a reading of the Frankfurt School does not stand the test of time, but otherwise this is in many ways a remarkable piece of scholarship.
November 13, 2024
Yes!!!!!!
January 23, 2025
Did you finish,
I didn’t
I didn’t
May 21, 2025
Es probablemente uno de los mejores análisis de la sociología moderna y sus orígenes que he leído en mucho tiempo
February 10, 2022
Probably one of the most clear, concise, and effective explanations of why Marx's work transcends the limits of political economy and is able to rise to "a critique of" political economy, beyond common conceptions of "Marx locates capitalism historically whereas the political economists don't". Clarke also offers great insight into modern sociology, the emergence of marginalism (beyond pure conspiracies of "reaction against Marxist revolution"), and a refutation of simplistic Ricardian socialism.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews