Abstract. The emergence of the neoclassical school is often depicted as “marginalist revolution”. The author argues that this is incorrect. In his opinion, neoclassical revolution meant a transition to the subjectivist interpretation of the very subject of economy. The actual source of this Subjectivity was not the marginal analysis; it was the domination of positivist philosophy in XIX – the beginning of the XX century. Marginalism just served as a way to express this subjectivity in mathematical form, but was not the essence of the revolution. The main feature of classical school was the recognition of “value”. The neoclassical school denies it. But it should be stressed that denial of “value” means the refusal of an objective measurement. So far, despite its mathematization, neoclassic is, in its essence, a qualitative concept. If we deny the existence of “value” the money turns into a sign without a standard. In terms of practicalities, such a situation triggers widespread financial manipulations. The author concludes that the elimination of the category “value” is a misleading theoretical approach. However, it is favorable for the key players of the world economy. So far, the discussion about “value” is, in effect, the discussion about the legitimacy of all modern world economic order. A return to the category of “value” will mean a return to the classical school of economic theory. However, as the author stresses, this will not destroy the key points of the modern economic theory, but just imply a capital repair of its foundation.