system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is Marx irrelevant in economics but important in other fields?

Marx is omnipresent in sociology, very important in philosophy, important in anthropology, and influential in history. I am well aware of *why Marx is considered archaic* in economics (LTV, TRPF, etc); what I want to know is why is there such a disconnect between those other fields and economics?

I realize this question may be read as passive-aggressive (I have noticed such tones with similar questions in the past), but I'm asking because I've always found it a strange disconnect and don't often get charitable answers, so I figured I'd ask economists themselves.
gpt
Other fields don’t necessarily want Marx for the same things that economists might use him for. (Although obviously there are some in non-economics fields who read Marx’s economics uncritically and without knowledge of modern work, but such is the nature of disciplinary boundaries)

In sociology, for example, so much work is on stratification, and Marx introduces class as a unit of analysis. In contrast, economics doesn’t often consider class except insofar as that income is a constraint on behavior, rather than having any notion of class consciousness. (For better or for worse)

Marx also for them introduced a lot of ideas about how economic constraints interact with social life, e.g. his concept of “alienation.” This is obviously exactly the domain of a sociologist!

Obviously these things are very different from using Marx’s ideas on price theory or economic growth! Those are more relevant to economics, and they’ve largely not been deemed useful, which is why you don’t see Marx much in economics.