The Great War of 1914 to 1918 shatters the illusions of the European Enlightenment: it is not simply the ability

of human beings to behave rationally, a or!ing to the metho!s an! la"s of s ien e, that is alle! into #uestion$ it is not merely the belief in a stea!y progress of humanity to"ar! pea e an! prosperity %it is the motto of the &absburg 'ustro(&ungarian Empire shortly before its ollapse) ( again in the footsteps of s ien e an! te hnology ( that is tragi ally onfute!$ it is above all the very ontent of s ientifi rationality that is alle! into #uestion * no"here more so than in the sphere of e onomi s+ 'lfre! ,arshall may have e-emplifie! the faith repose! in the pra ti al unity of s ien e an! progress before the War:
From Metaphysics I went to Ethics, and thought that the justification of the existing condition of society was not easy. A friend, who had read a great deal of what are now called the Moral Sciences, constantly said: Ah! If you understood "olitical Economy you would not say that. So I read Mill#s "olitical Economy and got much excited a$out it. I had dou$ts as to the propriety of ine%ualities of opportunity, rather than of material comfort. &hen, in my 'acations I 'isited the poorest %uarters of se'eral cities and wal(ed through one street after another, loo(ing at the faces of the poorest people. )ext, I resol'ed to ma(e as thorough a study as I could of "olitical Economy. *Marshall %uoted in +eynes, ,Ein-., p/012

.t is the notion of / ientifi Truth an! its impli it on ept of 0rogress that the apitalist risis of 1912, the subse#uent Great War of 1914(18 an! the eventual ollapse of the 3ersailles Treaty after the Great 4rash of 1959 together "ith the aban!onment of the Gol! /tan!ar! * it is the literal implosion of all these tenets of the bourgeois "orl! or!er that signal an epochal crisis % f+ &usserl6s The 4risis of European / ien e) not only in the bourgeois appli ation of normal s ientifi metho!s, but also an! above all in the bourgeois self( un!erstan!ing of its s ien e itself an! of its laim to Truth7 The pe uliar genius of 8eynes6s general theory onsists pre isely in its signalling the impossibility of establishing a general theory of e onomi s in!epen!ent of the parti ular histori al an! so ial formation un!er s rutiny+ .t is 8eynes6s !evastating riti#ue of the long run of both 4lassi al an! 9eo( lassi al e onomi s, his peremptory refutation of the s ientifi ability of the apitalist mo!e of pro!u tion to regulate itself automati ally aroun! a s ientifi ally( !eterminable ob:e tive 3alue, "ithout interferen e from the /tate, from the 0oliti al, ( it is this series of novel

reali;ations by 8eynes that represents the most signifi ant a!van e of bourgeois theory bet"een Einstein6s relativity an! &ei!egger6s 3a4sein, all of "hi h emerge! as a response to the life(threatening risis of bourgeois apitalist so iety in the perio! bet"een the t"o Worl! Wars+ 9othing epitomi;e! the 0anglossian optimism of pre( War Europe more than the e-isten e of the Gol! /tan!ar! as a seemingly automati regulation of global tra!e an! in!ustry+ &ere "as spar<ling proof of the harmonious onvergen e of s ientifi rigor an! "elfare ma-imi;ation+ &ere "as evi!en e of the automati fun tioning of the self(regulating mar<et me hanism that oul! re on ile in /ay6s =a" both the labour theory of value of 4lassi al 0oliti al E onomy an! the marginal utility theory of the 9eo lassi s+ The general e#uilibrium mathemati ally i!entifie! by Walras uni#uely brought together for e onomi analysis the form of mathemati al s ientifi pre ision "ith the ontent of utility ma-imi;ation for ea h in!ivi!ual e onomi agent+ 'lrea!y, / humpeter ha! #uestione! the /tati< of bourgeois e onomi s ien e an! the nee! to !evelop a >ynami< analysis of apitalist in!ustrial so ieties as a result of the Great 4risis of 1912+ ?or his part, 8eynes per eive! from the en! of the Great War that the pea e an! prosperity of the Gol!en 'ge ha! been built on very sha<y foun!ations: sha<ier still an! ominously !angerous for him is the insensate re!en e of the vi torious po"ers at the 0aris 4onferen e of 1919 in their ability to return to the ol! pre(War e#uilibria of the Gol! /tan!ar! an! the =eague of 9ations+ To be sure, the elements of his e onomi analysis * to po<e irony at his !erogatory riti#ue of the a-iomati hara ter of neo lassi al theory * remain stea!fastly neo lassi al+ @ut one histori al reality, an imponent presen e upsets all the e#uilibria of the marginalist revolution for 8eynes: the e-treme implausibility of the e#uilibrium of savings an! investment as a spontaneous self(regulation of the mar<et me hanism * the .nvisible &an! that !e rees that supply reates its o"n !eman!+ 9ot for nothing / humpeter * "ho ha! hampione! the role of the entrepreneur in stirring apitalist in!ustry from its ten!en y

to e#uilibrium * "ill lael 8eynes the e onomist of stagnation+ 's "e sa" in a separate stu!y, ho"ever, / humpeter privilege! the innovative aspe ts of apitalist enterprise, but faile! to apture the nee! for the bourgeoisie to govern, to omman! an! !ire t this innovative entrepreneurship in a manner that avoi!e! the !estru tive aspe ts of apitalist innovation that inevitably threatene! apitalist so iety itself7 ?or 8eynes, instea!, /ay6s =a" "oul! hol! in the spe ial ase in "hi h supply %investment) an! !eman! % onsumption) oul! a!:ust instantly an! seamlessly to variations in their respe tive s he!ules+ .n su h a ase, there "oul! be not so mu h an e#uilibrium of #uantities as rather a harmony of information be ause the e#uilibrium "oul! onsist in the perfe t mat hing of !eman!s %the informational e#uivalent of onsumption) an! e-pe tations %the mental e#uivalent of investment)+ .n su h an e onomy all information relevant to pro!u tion an! onsumption s he!ules "oul! be imme!iately an! omnis iently available to all mar<et parti ipants in su h a "ay that no !is repan y oul! arise bet"een supply an! !eman!: supply "oul! a!:ust to <no"n !eman! an! !eman! "oul! a!:ust to available supply+ This atta < against neo( lassi al e#uilibrium theory, as e-poun!e! parti ularly by =eon Walras, ha! alrea!y been laun he! !evastatingly by ?rie!ri h &aye< in the 1951s+

?or the @ursar of 8ing6s 4ollege %as in!ee! for &aye<), here the neo lassi al s hool ha! illi itly % h+5, GT) allo"e! the form of the s ien e to rationali;e the ontent of apitalist e onomi so iety, to :ustify its on!u t, to ertify its legitima y+ The error of all previous theories is that they fail to !istinguish bet"een form an! ontent: the form serves merely as a "arranty of the optimality of apitalist a tivity, of the reality of bourgeois so iety7 Aust as !i! &egel, for "hom the philosophy of history is the history of philosophy be ause "hatever is real is rational an! "hat is rational is real, so has e onomi s ien e illicitly be ome the s ientifi ertifi ation of present e onomi on!u t an! pra ti e7 .t is not so mu h that the apitalist e onomy re#uires !ifferent s ientifi

ategories for its analysis7 8eynes insists that the tools of analysis are the same as those that an be use! for any e onomi so iety+ @ut the a tual "or<ings of the apitalist so iety are !ifferent from those of other so ieties in the sense that the basi fa tors of pro!u tion an! !istribution %3alue an! 0ro!u tion) "or< !ifferently in this so iety+ 8eynes !istinguishes bet"een the tools of e onomi analysis an! the fabri of so iety: the same s ientifi tools an be applie! to !ifferent histori al e onomi so ieties that are ma!e !ifferent by their institutional frame"or<s+ This is the hallenge that 8eynes thro"s against the postulates of the 4lassi al E onomi s:
Most treatises on the theory of 5alue and "roduction are primarily concerned with the distri$ution of a gi'en 'olume of employed resources $etween different uses and with the conditions which, assuming the employment of this %uantity of resources, determine their relati'e rewards and the relati'e 'alues of their products. *6h.72 &he %uestion, also, of the 'olume of the available resources, in the sense of the si8e of the employa$le population, the extent of natural wealth and the accumulated capital e%uipment, has often $een treated descripti'ely. -ut the pure theory of what determines the a tual employment of the a'aila$le resources has seldom $een examined in great detail9. I mean, not that the topic has $een o'erloo(ed, $ut that the fundamental theory [p.5] underlying it has $een deemed so simple and o$'ious that it has recei'ed, at the most, a $are mention.

That is the !estiny of mathesis: ( to be its o"n fulfillment+ .f one !efines, as !i! Bobbins an! &aye< "ith their / ien e of 4hoi e, the available resour es as given an! therefore fully employe!, then it follo"s that e onomi analysis boils !o"n to the mere mathemati al sele tion of the metho! of allo ation an! !istribution of these resour es onsistent "ith the ma-imi;ation of human "elfare+ @ut the problem, as 8eynes points out, is that the a tual employment may "ell not be full * that there may be involuntary unemployment of the available resour es not be ause of some interferen e or !isturban e or sho < e-ternal or e-ogenous to a histori al e onomi so iety, but rather be ause of its very mo!us operan!i, be ause of the real institutional ontent of its behaviour7 The tas< of e onomi analysis then annot be to !evise a mathemati al !es ription of an i!eal reality, a perfe t state, a

general e#uilibrium, an! then to attribute all the evi!ent fla"s of this reality to some !isturban e or e-ogenous sho <7 The tas< of s ientifi analysis is to register these sho <s as part and parcel of the economic system un!er onsi!eration an! then to suggest changes to the current institutional asset to prevent these sho <s from !estroying the pea e an! prosperity, the e#uilibrium of the e onomi so iety in #uestion+ 's 8eynes puts it "ith a half(!erisive tilt at e onomi s ien e:
&he cele$rated optimism of traditional economic theory, which has led to economists $eing loo(ed upon as 6andides, who, ha'ing left this world for the culti'ation of their gardens, teach that all is for the $est in the $est of all possi$le worlds pro'ided we will let well alone, is also to $e traced, I thin(, to their ha'ing neglected to ta(e account of the drag on prosperity which can $e exercised $y an insufficiency of effecti'e demand. For there would o$'iously $e a natural tendency towards the optimum employment of resources in a Society which was functioning after the [p.34] manner of the classical postulates. It may well $e that the classical theory represents the way in which we should li(e our Economy to $eha'e. -ut to assume that it actually does so is to assume our difficulties away.

The ultimate goal for 8eynes is to preserve so iety * e onomi so iety, $ourgeois so iety+ 'n! it is lear from the very first lines of &he :eneral &heory that the ma:or, most imminent threat to the e-isten e of bourgeois so iety is the involuntary unemployment of human resour es * of labour+ .t is this !is repan y bet"een the available resour es for employment an! the a tual employment of those resour es that threatens the stability an! the very survival of apitalism an! of bourgeois so iety: the #uestion then is to establish "hy su h a discrepancy e-ists an! ho" it an be reme!ie!+ E-isting e onomi s assures us that any unemployment of available resour es is either voluntary or fri tional, if it is not !ue to politi al interferen e "ith the self(regulating mar<et me hanism+ @ut provi!e! this me hanism is allo"e! to operate freely, then full employment "ill return in the long run+

This is pre isely the un!erlying philosophi al frame"or< that 8eynes hallenge! finally in &he :eneral &heory+ T"o on epts imme!iately !eman!e! 8eynes6s attention there: one "as the notion of long run, "hi h re#uires a ertainty verging on faith in the ability of the mar<et to steer a so iety to pea e an! prosperity+ 'n! the other "as the assumption of the free!om of e onomi agents * of in!ivi!uals+ 'n! on e again it is the e-perien e of the Great War that onfutes both these re!os of e onomi s ien e+ ?or the War has !estroye! all ertainties, s ientifi an! moral, all faith in values an! repla e! them "ith one frightening ertainty: ( the ertainty of !eath+ >eath "ith its finality is the only ertainty an! value that the War has brutally onfirme!+ 9ot only is the future of the long run not assure!$ not only is it un ertain * an! here un ertainty omes to o upy a entral role in 8eynes6s e onomi analysis+ @ut also the free!om of hoi e on the part of the in!ivi!ual that neo lassi al theory an! its marginal utility postulate implies a rationality on the part of the in!ivi!ual in e-er ising his hoi e or his e onomi on!u t * a rational free!om of hoi e that the very absur!ity an! irrationality of the European ivil "ar an! its near annihilation of so ieties an! ivili;ation have #uite simply !emolishe!7 .n!ivi!uals a t neither independently of one another, nor rationally a or!ing to the !i tates of s ien e: e onomi analysis itself, in see<ing to !es ribe rigorously their behaviour an! to pres ribe their on!u t along s ientifi ( rational lines, sho"s on lusively that there is no obvious ob:e tive !efinition of free!om or in!ee! of rationality7 .f in!ee! the !i tates of s ien e "ere true, then the very ability of human beings to per eive them as su h %as true instea! of false) means that a ting in a or!an e "ith these !i tates is still optional * a fa t that un!ermines an! in!ee! !estroys the very s ientifi ity of the !i tates of s ien e or s ientifi la"s+ .t is pre isely the assumption in both 4lassi al an! 9eo lassi al e onomi s of the a-iomati ne essity of the e-isten e an! of the spontaneous automati operation of these institutions that 8eynes hallenges from the very first senten es of the General Theory+

I ha'e called this $oo( the General Theory of Employment, .nterest an! ,oney, placing the emphasis on the prefix general. &he o$ject of such a title is to contrast the character of my arguments and conclusions with those of the classical C1D theory of the su$ject, upon which I was $rought up and which dominates the economic thought, $oth practical and theoretical, of the go'erning and academic classes of this generation, as it has for a hundred years past. I shall argue that the postulates of the classical theory are applica$le to a spe ial ase only and not to the general case, the situation which it assumes $eing a limiting point of the possi$le positions of e%uili$rium. Moreo'er, the hara teristi s of the spe ial ase assume! by the lassi al theory happen not to be those of the e onomi so iety in "hi h "e a tually live , with the result that its teaching is misleading and disastrous if we attempt to apply it to the facts of experience. *p02

Euite evi!ent here is 8eynes6s attempt to repli ate "ith his general theory in the sphere of so ial s ien e the profoun! trans(formation that Einstein6s theories of special an! general relativity * elaborate! a full t"enty years earlier bet"een 1912 an! 191F ( operate! on the 9e"tonian un!erstan!ing of the universe that ha! prevaile! in the physi al s ien es from the mi!!le of the seventeenth entury+ E#ually, 8eynes6s "ell(<no"n !istin tion bet"een un ertainty an! ris< e hoes &ei!egger6s notions of >a(sein as, on one han!, unboun!e! possibility lea!ing to the authenti ity of free!om before !eath an!, on the other han!, as averageness or #uoti!ianity * notions elaborate! in his -eing and &ime, a masterpie e that signals the en! of both Wilhelmine ivili;ation an! the !elusions of the Europe of la $elle ;po%ue+ .t is impossible fully to un!erstan! the re'olutionary hara ter of 8eynes6s general theory "ithout paying lose attention an! om(prehen!ing the un!eniable parallels bet"een his novel un!erstan!ing of so iety an! Einstein6s e#ually revolutionary re!efinition of the physi al universe as "ell as &ei!egger6s 3e4stru(tion of Western metaphysi s an! s ien e+ The !e isive !ifferen e bet"een the theories of 8eynes in e onomi s, Einstein in physi s an! &ei!egger in philosophy as against those of their 4lassi alG9e"tonian an! 9eo( 4lassi alG,a hian ounterparts is that these last remain

profoun!ly essentialist, that is to say, they interpret the "orl! in terms of an ob:e tively true reality that is apable of being !e(fine! by means of om(prehensive theories that lin< stri tly an! une#uivo ally * s ientifi ally an! truthfully * the ob:e ts of this reality to one another "ithin the !imensions of spa e an! time+ @oth the 4lassi alG9e"tonian an! 9eo( lassi alG,a hian theories of so iety an! of the physi al "orl! maintain, albeit "ith signifi ant !ifferen es, that it is possible to om(prehen! the osmos oherently by assigning !is rete i!eas to !is rete things as "ell as to their mutual relations+ This is <no"n as the ordo et connexio rerum et idearum "hose truth is un!erstoo! to be the adae%uatio rei et intellectus+ The i!ea, the theory, is so stri tly on(ne te! to the thing %the ob:e tive reality it !es ribes), it is so a!e#uate to or o(herent "ith this reality, it e-(plains this reality so ompletely, that it is intelle tually in!istinguishable from it, an! therefore ob:e tively true+ To be sure, in the #uotation above, 8eynes :umbles together un!er the title of lassi al theory "hat are in fa t #uite !istin t e onomi theories, 4lassi al 0oliti al E onomy %/mith, Bi ar!o an! ,ar-) an! 9eo( lassi al 0oliti al E onomy %,enger, Aevons an! Walras) * an! he !oes this all the better to emphasise the brea< "ith the past that he inten!s to ma<e :ust as !i! Einstein by going beyon! the 4lassi al physi al s ien e of 9e"ton as "ell as the 9eo( lassi al or neo( empiri ist one elaborate! by Ernst ,a h+ 4ontrary to 8eynes6s superfi ial onflation of the t"o, there are signifi ant !if( feren es bet"een 4lassi al an! 9eo( lassi al theories in that the former base their essentialism e- lusively on an ob( :e tive re(ality, on a osmos ma!e up of things that e (sist in spa e an! in time, "hereas the latter re!u e the osmos to the interior e-perien e of inter(sub:e tively ertifiable fa ts of e-perien e that an be or!ere! logi o(mathemati ally in a simplifie! manner+ .n this spe ifi regar!, 8eynes remains tie! to the ,a hian vie" of s ien e a or!ing to "hi h mathemati s is the servant of e-perien e an! serves only to simplify its fa ts+ Einstein "ill !emonstrate instea! that it is possible for mathemati s to repla e human e-perien e altogether+ Simplex sigillum 'eri %simpli ity is the hallmar< of truth)+ / hopenhauer6s re:e tion of the 8antian !istin tion

bet"een i!ea an! ob:e t of the i!ea ha! entaile! the interiorisation of e-perien e, so that no" even !reams "ere !istin t from "a<ing life not in reality but only in onsisten y or regularity, not in substan e but in form: !reams an! reality, appearan e an! reality are li<e pages of the same boo< * so that "hat matters is the internal onne tion of i!eas un!erstoo! in a inemati or pi tographi sense, or!ere! in a manner apable of mathemati al simplifi ation an! pre!i tability+ 's images or phenomena lin<e! only by the prin iple of suffi ient reason, the simplisti empiri ism of this perspe tive on <no"le!ge remains tightly relate! to the 9e"tonian vie", not hallenging in the least the 8antian syntheti a priori !erivation of physi al )aturgeset8en %natural la"s) from observable regularities or patterns of events+ The epo hal reversal that Einstein6s physi s performs on the Galileian(9e"tonian vie" of the osmos base! on Eu li!ean geometry is that, in the theory of relativity, spa e an! time be ome a fun tion of mass an! energy * that is, of the thing7 .n!ee!, mass an! energy be ome inter hangeable %sub:e t to the la" of entropy) through the one universal onstant in!epen!ent of the initial inertial system of observation that is represente! by the spee! of light+ %.n the famous formula EHm 5, is the onstant for the spee! of light+) .n the spe ial theory of relativity, the spee! of light is establishe! as the one universal onstant in!epen!ent of the inertial system onsi!ere!+ The general theory of relativity e-plains ho" this apparent para!o- * that light still travels a"ay at a onstant spee! even from an observer in motion ( is possible by hypothesi;ing that it is the mass of things that "arps spa e an! time along non(Eu li!ean geometries * so mu h so that spa e an! time are fuse! into one, into spa e(time+ The thing or mass is no" so entral to the Einsteinian vie" of the "orl! that even light itself may be bent by, an! in!ee! may even not be able to es ape from a very massive bo!y "ith a suffi iently strong gravitational pull %a bla < hole)+ 's a result, simultaneous events are no longer possible in Einsteinian physi s as they "ere in 9e"tonian me hani s be ause things or bo!ies no longer sit inertly in spa e an! time in!epen!ently of one another7 Their relative

lo ations an no longer be e-presse! in absolute !imensions of spa e an! time, but rather ea h thing has a uni#ue lo ation in spa e(time+ There are no universal 4artesian o( or!inates in the Einsteinian osmos$ the geometry of the osmos in not linear(Eu li!ean: ea h thing is a mass "ith its o"n spa e(time+ .n 4artesian s holasti ism, the res %the thing) is e-tensa %e-ten!e!) * in other "or!s, things an e-ist only inside spa e+ .t is the temporal !imension that pre(supposes the e-isten e of the res ogitans+ >es artes first, then 8ant, per eive! that the re!u tion of time to simple !is(pla ement "oul! in!ee! ma<e time in!istinguishable from spa e+ The !uration of a spatial !ispla ement an be gauge! only sub:e tively % f+ @ergson, <.E'olution 6reatrice, an! &usserl6s notion of in(tention or epoche6)+ .n the "or!s of 8ant6s prefa e to the 6riti%ue of "ractical =eason, the osmos is !ivi!e! into the starry s<ies above me %ob:e tive spa e), an! the moral la" insi!e me %sub:e tive time)+ This is the meta( physi al presupposition of Eu li!ean geometry that is at the very basis of Galilean(9e"tonian me hani s+ ?irst, the !imensions of the thing %spa e an! time) ome before the thing itself: they represent the ne essary !imensions or o( or!inates "ithout "hi h the thing "oul! have no e ( sisten e or lo us or meaning "hatsoever+ .f the thing(in(itself an be given a meaning at all, it is only as the ob(:e t of human per eption un!er the regular gui!an e of the human senses an! of the human intelle t %or un!erstan!ing, 5erstand)+ The e (sisten e of the !imensions of the osmos an! their or!ering a or!ing to human on epts %-egriffe) is one an! the same thing+ The osmos annot e (sist , it annot be graspe!, "ith(out this on( eptual %=t+ cepere, to grasp) or!ering by the human intelle t+ 's 8ant on lu!e!, intuition "ithout on epts is blin!, on epts "ithout intuition are empty+ .n other "or!s, for the human intelle t, the la"s of physi s arise simultaneously "ith the things that onstitute the universe: the thing is a fun tion of its !imensions in spa e an! time+ ?urthermore, the things that populate the osmos are bo!ies or missiles that are totally independent of one another+ That is "hy 9e"tonian spa e an observe but simply

annot e-plain gravity$ nor oul! it even yet <no" or !ivine the omple-ities of nu lear physi s+ The osmi spa e an! time of Galileo an! 9e"ton is fille! "ith in!ivi!ual bo!ies "hose relation to one another is omparable to a me hanism * that is to say, it is regular an! pre!i table li<e the behaviour of a ma hine+ @ut it is essential to remember that this me hanism of bo!ily relations is neither !ea! nor alive+ ' me hanism nee! not be in(animate: even a living bo!y an be a me hanism so long as it respon!s to the la"s of nature+ What !istinguishes a me hanism, then, is the pre!i tability of its behaviour in a or!an e "ith la"s of nature that in!ee! e-hibit a !ivine or natural or!er in the osmos %the very Gree< "or! osmos refers to a spa e sub:e t to la"s, to a nomos)+ %In these themes, 4arl / hmitt6s The =eviathan an! Ernst 4assirer6s .n!ivi!ual an! 4osmos are essential referen es+ The i!ea of the ma hine as more than a neutral instrument but rather as a politi al ten!en y of given so ial institutions is to be foun! alrea!y in ,ar-, then in 9iet;s he an! Weber an! finally, in his riti#ue of &echni(, in &ei!egger+)

.f the e onomy is a me hanism that onne ts a given #uantity of inputs "ith a given #uantity of outputs, it is a-iomati that there must be a s ientifi an! mathemati al "ay of ensuring that this e onomy fun tions automati ally * an! that an o ur obviously by eliminating or avoi!ing any !isturban es %e-ternal sho <s) or interferen es %politi al measures an! institutions) that may influen e or !isrupt its operation+ 4rises therefore are not internal to the e onomy, but entirely e-ternal+ .n!ee! it an be sai! that if the e onomi la"s of the mar<etpla e e onomy are <ept in pla e, its reproduction "ill be in large part spontaneous or automati + 'n! it is e#ually obvious that, for a so iety to repro!u e itself, the aggregate savings of the so iety must e#ual the aggregate investments: this, in a nutshell, is the meaning of /ay6s =a": it is "hat must obtain to ensure that the

sought(after e#uilibrium of the e onomy is attaine!, "hether one a!opts so ialist or liberal poli ies+ /ay6s =a" is the tangential point that onne ts the so ialist line "ith the liberal ir le+ 'n! it is /ay6s =a" * the fun!amental =a" of E onomi s * that ma<es possible the !etermination of an e onomy that operates spontaneously an! automati ally if the la"s of e onomi s are respe te!, in su h a "ay that ivil so iety, the E onomy, an fun tion entirely in!epen!ently of the 0oliti al, of the /tate, "here the /tate is a negative /tate, li<e the e onomy a mere ma hine or me hanism, onfine! to the prote tion of the self(regulating mar<et an! ensuring that publi opinion, the moral an! religious persuasions of iti;ens, !o not interfere "ith the mar<et an! are onfine! to the publi sphere of !ebate an! !eliberation+ This homologation of the 0oliti al free(!om, "hi h allo"s iti;ens to e-ist as moral members of a !iale ti al publi sphere, an! of the s ientifi ne essity of the E onomi al "here the in!ivi!ual atten!s to his self(interest a or!ing to his nee!s, as a bourgeois * this homologation of the onventional sphere of the 0oliti al an! the hypotheti al me hanism of the E onomy is "hat unites both 6lassical "olitical Economy %Bi ar!ian an! ,ar-ist) an! )eoclassical "olitical Economy+ .n this s hema, universally a epte! before the Great >epression, the /tate is seen as a night"at hman state %in =assalle6s phrase), as a /tate of =a", as the enfor er of la"s that prote t the homologation a hieve! by the 0oliti al E onomy for the effi ient operation of the e onomy in a free so iety+ .n this s hema, the /tate plays no signifi ant part, if it plays any part at all, in the substantive fun tioning of the e onomy e- ept as a guar!ian, e- ept as poli e, ensuring that the self(interests of the in!ivi!ual bourgeois are <ept "ithin the ambit of the la"s of the mar<et so as to preserve life, liberty an! estate+ @ut this is pre isely "here the homologation, the e#ui(valen e of the 0oliti al sphere an! the E onomy brea<s !o"n+ ( @e ause the self(interest of the in!ivi!ual mar<et parti ipants may not ne essarily onverge or be onsistent "ith the self(interest of other in!ivi!uals+

's ,arshall ha! "arne! "ith regar! to Aevons6s mathemati al al ulations of marginal utility, these assume! that the utilities of the in!ivi!ual "ere ompatible "ith those of other in!ivi!uals "ithin the sphere of e- hange !efine! an! regulate! by the mar<et7 9o", this assumption "as mere e onomi !ogma an! oul! in no guise lea! to the ertainty of on rete truth+ Aust li<e the Eu li!ean spa e of Galilean(9e"tonian me hani s, the la"s of e onomi s presuppose a-iomati ally the e-isten e of a ommon utility bet"een all mar<et agents$ they postulate the e-isten e of a /mithian enlightene! self( interest "hereby the self(interest of the single bourgeois is someho" ompatible "ith that of every other bourgeois at least in the sense that they an o(e-ist+ This ommon utility is the e onomi e#uivalent of the Galilean(9e"tonian !imensions of spa e an! time in "hi h all in!ivi!uals move an! that ma<es their movement relative to one another al ulable by the la"s of me hani s+ .n other "or!s, the utility of in!ivi!uals is the ommon element, the ether that provi!es the spa e in "hi h these bo!ies an intera t as a me hanism, in a or!an e "ith the la"s of me hani s+ ?urthermore, these in!ivi!uals, li<e the bo!ies of Galilean( 9e"tonian physi s, are entirely in!epen!ent of one another * an! "hat ma<es them in!epen!ent, "hat allo"s them to be so, is pre isely the fa t that they share a ommon spa e, "hi h is the spa e of utility+ Were in!ivi!uals to lose this ommon property of utility, it "oul! be impossible to lo ate a spa e in "hi h these in!ivi!uals oul! ever behave a or!ing to properties that an be regulate! mathemati ally, that is, a or!ing to the la"s of e onomi s+ @ut the possibility of su h e onomi la"s militates against the very in!ivi!uality of the in!ivi!uals that ma<e up the e onomi spa e permeate! %li<e the ether of physi s) by utility+ ?or, even assuming the e-isten e of e onomi la"s, it is evi!ent that the agreement by all mar<et parti ipants to abi!e by them is !epen!ent on the s ientifi rationality of in!ivi!uals an! on the e-isten e of a ivil so iety in "hi h there is onsensus to be governe! by a /tate, by politi al institutions, that "ill enfor e the un!isturbe! operation of the

la"s of e onomi s, su h that the mar<et for the e- hange of utilities an be truly self(regulating an! automati an! regular an! pre!i table * or s ientifi + /u h agreement, ho"ever, is antitheti al to the notion of in!ivi!uality+ Keyness great discovery, like that of Einstein, was that it is not individuals that are su !ect to econo"ic laws, ut rather the other way round# the so$called laws of econo"ics "ust necessarily end to or e warped y the specific political entities that shape the space of econo"ic analysis.