The markets "react". The markets "punish". The markets "reward". The markets "lose confidence". The markets "demand" reforms. These are not economic terms. These are theological terms. The markets are not mechanisms — they are deities. And like all deities they are capricious, unpredictable and merciless.
I. The anatomy of a religion
Every religion has its elements. The deity: the markets — omniscient, for they know the "true" value of all things. Omnipotent, for no government can resist them for long. Omnipresent, for they pervade every aspect of life. Unfathomable — no one can really understand them, only interpret them.
The priests: economists, analysts, financial journalists. They interpret the signs of the deity. That their prophecies are regularly wrong does no harm to their authority — as with all priesthoods. The sacrifices: tax cuts for companies, deregulation, flexibilisation of the labour market, cuts in social benefits. These sacrifices are offered to appease the markets. Whether they "work" is irrelevant — they are ritually necessary. The heretics: whoever questions the markets is excommunicated. Their arguments are not refuted but ignored.
The decisive point: the markets are not a force of nature. They are man-made institutions that follow man-made rules. But they are treated as if they were as unchangeable as gravity.
II. The language of submission
"We must win back the confidence of the markets." As if the markets were an offended feudal lord to whom one must pay homage. "The markets expect reforms." As if the markets had wishes that it is our duty to fulfil. "We cannot resist the markets." As if every resistance were not only pointless but sinful.
Angela Merkel spoke of "market-conforming democracy". The phrase was a slip of the tongue — but a revealing one. It betrayed the true hierarchy: it is not the markets that must fit democracy, but democracy that must fit the markets. That is blasphemy against democracy. But in the religion of the markets it is pious submission. ALTERNATIVLOS ("there is no alternative") is the amen of this theology — and whoever pronounces it shows that he has fully internalised the religion.
III. The priests and their interests
Who actually are "the markets"? The markets are not an anonymous force. The markets are people — more precisely: a small group of people with a great deal of money who make decisions that are then referred to as "the markets". Fund managers, bankers, hedge fund operators, asset managers.
These people have interests. They profit from low taxes, weak regulation, flexible labour markets. And how convenient: that is exactly what the markets "demand" too. The priests of the market religion do not preach objective truth. They preach their interests — disguised as cosmic necessity.
The markets are not a force of nature. They are an interest group with a very successful PR strategy: they have managed to present their particular interests as universal laws. That is the core of the Megamachine: not conspiracy but emergent legitimation. The priesthood needs no master plan — it follows its interests and calls that truth.
IV. The circular argument
The genius of the market religion is its circular argument. Why must we do what the markets want? Because otherwise they will punish us. Why can they punish us? Because we have given them that power. Why have we given them that power? Because we believe they are right. Why do we believe they are right? Because they punish us if we don't.
The circle closes. The power of the markets justifies itself. That is the structure of every successful religion: a closed system that immunises itself against criticism by defining critics as heretics and interpreting their arguments as proof of their sinfulness. It is also the structure of the Megamachine: emergent self-preservation without a subject, without a plan, without a villain.
V. The heresy
What if we stopped believing? What if we treated the markets as what they are: man-made institutions that function according to man-made rules — rules that can be changed, institutions that can be rebuilt, power relations that can be shifted?
This is not a utopia. The "golden years" of post-war capitalism were years of strong regulation, high taxes, controlled markets. And those years brought more prosperity to more people than the deregulated decades that followed. We like to forget that — because it calls the basic assumption into question: that the markets must be free in order to function. Bretton Woods as a forgotten lesson is the subject of another paper in this series.
We face a choice. Not between capitalism and socialism — that debate is as dead as the Cold War. But between two questions: how can we satisfy the markets? Or: how can we shape the markets so that they serve us? The first question is the question of a believer. The second is the question of a citizen. The first leads to submission. The second to shaping.
Gods die when people stop believing in them. The markets will not rule for ever. The only question is: what comes after? And how much damage will they do before we wake up?