ABSTRACT
As the foundations of economic orthodoxy, the theoretical constellations of Keynesian and neo-classical economics are often discussed as structuring disparate understandings of economy.2 This is largely predicated on their dissimilar conceptualizations of unemployment and consequent employment generation strategies, such as Keynesian economics’ focus on demand stimulus versus neo-classical economics’ focus on supply-side initiatives.3 However, such examples obfuscate as much as inform on what these mainstream theorizations posit as the ‘limits of the possible’.4 The dominance of Keynesian and neo-classical economics in constructing how economy is understood serves to facilitate capital and the state’s hyper-power within the interregnum. In this sense, they are both complicit in exposing and amplifying risks within the social.
