Economy

Economy means to tend - nemo - the household - oikos. The significance, however, is less an observation, than the description of a method. Tended in such-and-such a way, the household shall be in a good state, whereas if not: the opposite. Who tends? The head: master, husband, parent. Ostensibly the good will benefit everyone - slaves, wife, children - but all is dependent on his will. Thus we are speaking of a kind of management which is non-democratic and limited.

We today are confused in how we use it. When we do, we are including millions of people: either in a nation, several or the globe. These are, of course, strangers to each other; with no prospect of this ever changing. So that insofar as they are joined at all, it is not by blood or marriage or any kind of familiarity, but as buyer and seller anonymous; a group so vast as to make a household microscopic.

Acting upon this group, we imagine a sort of omniscient and omnipotent entity, a selfless master, whose judgment on particular commodities and activities is always prefixed "the market for…". And in this way we are directed to that which is viable; i.e., will save or make us more money than another. Those we consider to be listening we call savy, and those not we brand madmen. On the same basis we dismiss activities in themselves. For instance, it is not uncommon to hear people say that agriculture is not worth doing.

Whence comes this usage? I think one can find something like an explanation in the phrase "representative-democracy." It too is a perversion. Democracy means rule by the people. It does not mean deputation to a few; it definitely does not mean unmandated license. It can best be understood in the context of its origin: the city. There, thousands of citizens were supposed to join together and decide on things submitted to them. By adding "representative" there is a contradiction.

This has, I suspect, created a certain tension. We ask ourselves: aren't we the rulers? Why do the politicians not do what I say? Or more likely, this is only barely expressed. And then the answer is that they are corrupt; the idea that democracy was never intended never occurs. But that is the best explanation. The term was popularized in the 19th century by Ben Butler, a Democrat politician. It was never suggested by the Federalists. But in our ignorance, we are frustrated. We think: the people have a right to decide things. That's what our Constitution is about. We don't need these hacks.

Then in despair or seduction we turn to the idea of the "economy." We say: we can rule ourselves. The household will run itself. We want purity. We want to leave. So we give that word the significance of: that which does not have politicians; that which we rule directly. Our voice is not ignored or perverted by parties; it has an effect. Things happen as a result. People who sell us things change what they sell. And this dialectic is progress; what results is the right path.

The trouble is that you are buying a mop. You can buy one that is larger or lighter or cheaper; but it remains such. And if you get one to your liking, it is no revolution. You are still a slave, wife, child. This fact makes itself clear in the fatalism of particularly staunch supporters of this ideology. They use it far more frequently to say why nothing can be done. Thus when a change is suggested, they respond: oh, there's no market for that. The competition. The price. Just can't be done. Will never happen. And even when it's something they like, they will often say: ah yes. Back when I was a child. But you know, have to make way for progress.

"My dollar my vote" is - I think - a just equivalence. Precisely because of the latter's modern passivity: they act within an always already existing context. The mind must become increasingly specialized; content to make puerile choices; to mortify the desires. I would suggest we distance ourselves from all of this. The thing is to choose something not available. What is good should not be impeded by abstractions. The cult of the possible is simultaneously ignorant. But that would require more: an idea of that of which a good household or community consists