This paper discusses Marx’s critique of the market in the light of Allan Megill’s recent book, Karl Marx: the Burden of Reason. Megill offers two main arguments concerning Marx’s critique. Firstly, Megill claims that, contrary to Marxian orthodoxy, Marx’s well-known theory of alienation does not in fact amount to an unambiguous critique of market society – in particular, Megill maintains that Marx lacks a clear argument demonstrating that worker alienation is an inevitable effect of the system of private property. Secondly, (...) Megill claims that the real reason why Marx rejected the market was because Marx could not account for the market’s arbitrary behaviour in terms of his rationalist conception of science (which Megill characterises, roughly speaking, as a synthesis of Hegel’s rationalism and Newtonianism). I take issue with Megill’s reading of Marx on three counts. Firstly, I claim, in opposition to Megill, that Marx does indeed have a coherent theory of alienation and one that undoubtedly implies that worker freedom and private property are incompatible. Secondly, I contend that Marx was not actually committed to scientific rationalism and hence could not have been opposed to the market on such grounds. Thirdly, I submit that Marx’s deep misgivings about market anarchy were based instead on his belief that the arbitrary nature of the market was a major barrier to individual freedom (and moreover formed an integral part of the whole system of private property). Finally, I discuss Marx’s claim that a fully planned economy is an essential prerequisite for the full and proper realisation of individual freedom, and consider, briefly, in this light, whether market socialism might in fact be a superior instrument for the fulfilment of Marx’s emancipatory aims. (shrink)