Yeah, I would really like to answer both, because I think both lead to similar conclusions.

Yes.

Let me first talk about Neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics, right?

So, Neoclassical economics arise. economics and there is a good argument,

historical economics, historically,

and there is a good argument, historical argument

to be made on this respect, it arises as a way of moving our attention the economics profession

away from Marx basically because all the way until marks the classical economists

where the orthodoxy in the economics profession right and the labor theory of value was the

orthodoxy and all of the theories that were aligned with it, even some kind of a

tendency of the rate of profit to fall like that you can see in Ricardo already and you can see

also some what you can, like socialist leanings in

Adam Smith where he would say something like, okay, you shouldn't take the

interests of the capitalist class at face value because there is this distinction between the private profit-driven

incentives of these people and the social benefit of the entire societal corpus, right?

So even Adam Smith and David Ricardo

had some of these ideas, and you can see

as a big tradition of socialism arising from Ricardo,

which Marx was critical of of and Engels as well.

But it is specifically with Marx that the classical tradition comes to a theoretical, let's say, coherence that is no longer ideologically convenient in a

capitalist mode of production, right?

It's no longer useful to ideologically justify the capital small production and therefore new

...