On July 5, 1687, the World was fully formed. The dense pages of ” Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica “by Sir Izaq Newton, constituted the most solid scientific background on which the upcoming” century of logic “was built. As a consequence of this period, there was the frantic technological progress, which in turn dramatically changed the all LEGAL economic and social structures of the then world. two hundred years after the Great French Revolution Urban confirmed the dynamics of all these changes, but also the inevitable genesis of a New Age and Order, the gates of which humanity was getting ready to traverse, with definitive historical consequences.

However, the landmark of the Principia was not exhausted in the practical limits of applied mathematics and engineering. Perhaps the greatest of its contributions has been the fundamental interconnection of its theoretical burden with a subversive – methodological – reflection of understanding everything: concepts, ideas, natural phenomena, but even social changes or economic upheavals. A slow process that began with Ancient Classical Philosophy, symbolically arrived that Saturday, July 1687, at its full maturity, offering the ultimate tool in every theoretical quest. In unwittingly, the World bowed to the concept of Linearity.

In his amazing work for philosophers – as he calls them – of The Worldly Philosophers : The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers / 1953, Simon & Schuster ), economist Richard L. Heilbronner , gives the third chapter the lush title ” The   Wonderful World   of   Adam Smith . ” Of course, imprinting – albeit at a purely theoretical level – of the economic and business circle of the middle of the 18th century was far from the description of a” wonderful world. “And yet, in their beginnings, economics as science, not based rather than broader Newtonian worldview: y = a x + b. increases demand, prices are rising, falling production costs, increase profit. on the contrary, if the voltage is reversed, the results are the opposite. Truly a wonderful (see predictable) world !

Linear methodology has spread to other aspects of economic activity (taxation, financial and monetary planning) at a rapid pace. Until the time frames of the Second Industrial Revolution, there was a conceptual identification of general economic engineering with the corresponding applied technological – productive. As a central idea, the two schemes obey the same logical structures. All of the linear content. The acceptance of the linear perception of things has been a horizontal acceptance. The classic, but then fully applied, Marxism completely embraced this scheme. After all, central financial planning necessarily required assumptions with a strong linear character to make it executable. Characteristic indicator was, in the years of socialism, the undeniable bond between any teaching positive direction and in economics: the agronomy studies or the study of production technology, it was necessary to be accompanied by serious specialized financial knowledge.

And precisely because the economy is leading and society is following, Linearity has embraced the entire body of human activity, in the mid-nineteenth century, and almost in the first half of the twentieth century. International Relations, the development of the sciences and the Arts , were bowed to the Linear Logic. It is characteristic that even early surrealism could not escape a generally accepted harmony. The Crucifixion of Salvador Dali ( Corpus Hypercubus , 1954) is a tangible proof of Logical Surrealism – of course, if the condition is probable.

However, the final conclusion moves to the limits of irony and probably touches them, leaving a brave footprint: Linear Logic, Linear Reading and Implementation of Ideas (especially with regard to the economic field) was revealed by great totalitarianism. And probably to them owes its spiritual longevity. However, when the 1929 Crisis appeared, a small vibration shook the whole architecture. It is worth remembering the enormous stress that struck the economists of the time, with t the n sudden appearance of the highest unemployment – parameter completely absent from all economic models and theories until then. Although, the relatively immediate response on a technical level, combined with the general historical relief and correction of the Second World War, restored the linear readings. These were finally confirmed by the aftermath of the enormous prosperity of the post-war decades. The last spiritual reserve of Linear Logic was the Keynesian Economics. Up there.

And in the field of ideas, Nature despises the gaps. The long hegemony of the whole Newtonian perception was disputed when in 1905 and then in 1915, Albert Einstein, published Theories of Special and General Relativity. In addition to the indisputable scientific revolution brought about by these theories, they shaped the concept of relativity for the first time. In itself, this discussion, apart from mathematics, and other purely theoretical implications, led to a total reflection of overall social and political observation. At the same time, it also concealed a rather disturbing observation: Contrary to Newtonian perfection, which reassured her predictability, the Theory of Relativity disputed precisely this – that it is possible to have a somewhat large general prognosis of things. Of course, such a prospect, only with anxiety, could have filled – especially – economists.

Nevertheless, the strong point of the post-war bipolar world has ensured, for almost half a century, the clear and clear limitation of Relativity in the predetermined scientific contexts for which it was originally formed. In the territorial waters of the theoretical economics, the Keynesian hegemony, fueled by the Liberal and Marxist Orthodoxy, felt spiritually irreplaceable and practically unique. But the collapse of the left-hand side of the triangle has fatally crippled the entire construct. The answers that were to be given immediately in the early 1990s reminded many of the concept of Relativity. Now, the formulation of all kinds of policies did not require the use of technological and productive correlations with a specific economic impact but the consideration of particular historical (religious, social, traditional and other related) specificities, with uncertain economic consequences. It is worth mentioning the civil war in the former Yugoslavia in order to understand the extent of conceptual diversification.

Today, with the financial crisis of 2008 still having consequences in a large number of national economies, Linearity of the past finds fertile ground to exercise enough of its given charm. The juncture we experience in our country is a brilliant example. Political Economy, as a concept and cognitive field that helps to understand and then find the tools that will lead to solutions, is still being crowded for the sake of Economic Policy, today’s management, essentially in terms of the past. Indeed, the use of past frameworks is necessary as the immediate need of the present infrastructure is fatally covered only in this way. Linearity then returns from the back door, but at the price of the utter contempt of what is today. Example: How is it feasible to design an industrial policy based on sheltered employment when the total division of labor is currently based in Southeast Asia? Or, whether it is feasible to keep inexperienced regulatory frameworks, into a global economy that suffocates in such conditions?

Of course this is just a small and minimal example. But it reveals the magnitude of error in general targeting. In fact, Economic Liberalism does not contradict the State Planning, but the (necessarily existing) Relativity, the (simplistically misleading) Linearity. Throughout this struggle, there is only one problem: that the New always prevails over the Old. Considering Relativity as a continuation and derivative of Linearity, a vast segment of today’s world seems to be pleased to choose backwardness.