Blute Blog

Sometimes authors seem to choose titles for books, or at least the first part of the titles, because they are grabby even though they do not accurately reflect the books’ contents. Two books like that I have been reading lately are Geoffrey Hodgson’s “From Marx to Markets: An Intellectual Odyssey”, (2025), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, and Mark Vellend’s “Everything Evolves: Why Evolution Explains More Than We Think, From Proteins to Politics”, (2025), Princeton University Press.

The first part of both titles, “From Marx to Markets” and “Everything Evolves”, both tend to grab one’s attention, perhaps in part because of the opening rhymes – Ma in the former and Ev in the latter, but both are misleading. “From Marx to Markets” would lead one to expect that the author’s political views moved from far left to far right. “Everything Evolves” would lead one to expect that the author thinks that well, everything evolves. But in neither case do those reflect the books’ contents.

The first half or so of Hodgson’s book is a wonderful “intellectual odyssey”, a political autobiography set in the context of British and international politics of the times. However, it details his move from socialism to what he calls “liberal solidarity”. “We need a mixed economy where state regulation and some public ownership exist alongside a private sector and markets, reaping the benefits of regulated competition”. And elsewhere, “a mixed, regulated economy with a strong welfare state”. The second half or so of the book is not chronological, but a series of deeply researched and informative essays on definitions, evolutionary economics, institutional analysis, socialism versus liberal solidarity, and economics for a better world. The central thesis of Vellend’s book is that there really are only two sciences – physics and evolution. Little attention is then given to the former, instead the book is about how the “second science” is everywhere else – in all things cultural as well as biological – languages, technologies, and political systems for example. In fact, he emphasizes that he gives no priority to any discipline which is part of the second science including biology.

Actually, a more accurate first part of the title for Hodgson’s book would be “From Marx to the Middle” and for Vellend’s book would be “Everything Else Evolves”. Despite that, I think I like the titles better as they are! Does that mean I value aesthetics over accuracy? Perhaps. Anyway, do not misunderstand me. Despite the misleading first half of the titles, both books are highly recommended.