No. 3 / 2026 — Autumn

Among the most perverse forms of pragmatism, the top-down change of the order stands out from afar. In its present form, top-down change has become the natural expression of politics. The understanding of things seems to stem from reason only where reason is a means of convincing us that the explanation of the possible is the same as the possibility of antinomically defining reality.

It's in this manner that, in the preceding years of economic crisis, the themes of individualism and the market came to be comfortably tolerated as indicated by the acceptance of solutions suggested by the antinomic themes of interventionism, in order to save the market from its own excesses and to invest public funds in the resuscitation of the imminent egoism in the functioning of competitive markets. What conceals the lack of ideological coherence, as well as that of epistemic consistency, is the appeal to the Enlightenment process of offering change, originating in Aristotelian philotheistic thinking, where order is the expression of vertical dependence.

Regardless of the horizon of significances used in sustaining the motivations of political ideologies pertaining to the solutions to this crisis, the offer is ultimately identical: the individualists (in the role of market fundamentalists) cancel the public economy's debt of covering the failures of the private economy, while the interventionists (in the role of strategic planners) are adhering to cleaning the market through the temporary nationalization of losses.

We find ourselves in the exceptional circumstance of obtaining the same result through diametrically opposed methods of dealing with the problems of the economy. But the accepted result is predefined, and its consequence is the actual reformulation of the problem. In other words, the result is to the antinomic political ideologies a fixed given, the only thing left to do being the repositioning of the terms of the problem.

Changing the problem of the economy in order to reach the established result is the source of the prolonging of the crisis, and may even bring about the possibility of making it a permanent crisis. Providentially, for the demiurgic ambitions of political ideologies, the crisis saves them from allocating too large a resource for an identity of scope, after giving them the chance for cutting the costs for methodological identity to the maximum. Top-down change thus became the correct path.

It came to the point where the methods which have shaped for three centuries the mistaken path of antinomic identities, have been discarded in the wastebasket of inefficient social control. In a simple manner, political ideologies have gathered under the flag of the pragmatic principle of "the end justifies the means". After all, the direct expression of the goal of power are the methods for controlling liberty, and they - just like money - have no smell, although they can have colors, forms, and various sources. The common methodological background of political ideologies, highlighted by the crisis, needs though the reproductive framework of the crisis. If there were a premise for imagining the conclusion of the crisis, this situation can only entail for political ideologies the acceptance of some - rather derisory - costs, while expecting the inverse effects of the methods used for coming out of the crisis: the immediate spillover into another crisis.

Around the methods of the top-down change and of erasing the identity of means, which are called upon by political ideologies during a crisis, there is a stimulated silence which holds a double cause: on the one hand, the fear that in the end the presence of political ideologies in the perimeter of economicity will be shown to be unnatural, and on the other hand, the gross disparity in the means utilized for a purpose which does not belong to economicity. And this because holding political power by any means justifies the interest in the individual control of the circuits of wealth, whereas the purpose of economicity is to be a means for inter-subjectively opening access to the same circuits.

Political power wants the control of wealth, when wealth is the object of a different dispute, that of legitimacy imparted by productiveness and not one of political whims. Wealth is an individual goal disputed in an inter-subjective context certified by efficiency. When it turns into a political goal, wealth becomes a referendum theme resolved by the counting of votes.

The greatest enemy of Economics is Political Economics. The top-down management of the economy is the consequence of the universal preference for political ideologies for the crisis, as only this makes top-down change possible.