 You have made a name for yourself on being the go-to voice increasingly in the anglophone world on Marx. You come from a geography background, but now you're, I think, the preeminent voice, it's fair to say, on the writings of Marx. After 30, 40 years of teaching Marx, of reading Marx, do you not get bored of it? Or is there always something new that you're learning? Is the thinking that deep and that important? Well, one of the great things about Marx is he's a very complex writer, and so you're always finding new wrinkles in what he's doing. But the other thing is, of course, the world is changing. When I was teaching Marx in 1970, volume one of Capital was pretty hard to make relevant to Davey Life, because you still had a welfare state around, a lot of state intervention, and Marx doesn't cover all of that. But of course, since then, we've had a kind of, well, we've got to have more market, more market, more market. And by the time you get to the 1990s, actually, Marx's Capital, volume one, was beginning to tell a story which was right on your doorstep. And right now, it's right on the money in terms of explaining what the hell is going on in the world. Right, so that's a retaught that you often hear critics of Marxism, they say, well, look, that was relevant to the 19th century. They have a chronological understanding of relevance, right? But what you're saying is the complete opposite, that actually... Yeah, it's more relevant because we're back in the sort of story that Marx tells about what happens in competitive market economies. But it's also more relevant because when Marx was writing, Capital was dominant only in a very small corner of the world, you know, sort of Britain, Western Europe, and maybe east of the coast of the United States, but the rest of the world was untouched by it, except through merchant trading. Now, of course, Capital's everywhere established. I mean, there it is in China, there it is in Russia, there it is in India, there it is in Indonesia. So in some ways, geographically, it's become far more widespread. So I think right now, I'd argue that reading Marx is far, far more significant now than it was in 1957. Couldn't agree more, yeah.