Today's crisis has revealed that for economic theory, apart from its fundamental inconsistencies, living side by side with political ideologies can only spell failure. Us, the ones from the European Orient, we are somewhat entitled to declare - based on our direct experience with ideology-creating contexts - that in the Economics-Politics functional relationship the winning games are as such because ... Society loses. Sure, the economy loses first, even in both of its guises: that as a theory (Economics) and that as an activity (the economy).

What really comes off as shocking is that the loss - of consistency (in the case of Economics) and of substance (in the case of the economy) - is unrelated to the quality of the dominant economic vision. Being rigorous, something such as this does not exist because, essentially, what we call dominant economic vision is proven to be the Economics-Politics mixture, in which the control function for the effects is held by Politics. Otherwise there is no alternate reason for the economy to be considered - in spite of fundamentalist perceptions - a product which does not sell but under the brand of Politics, coming to be exactly what we believe it should not be: Political Economics.

Translating the explanation of this knowledge in the field of significations of fractal theory, we could argue that the functional entity resulting from the confluence of the two instruments for the operationalization of the societal is composed out of one third Economics (with conceptual and actional content) and two thirds Politics. In the projected arrangement the homothetic relations are respected regardless of form and scale.

What is construed as a potential for bifurcation (towards either failure or win) in the mix area resides in the control of the segment (either linear, of perimeter or of volume) disputed at the confluence between the one third of Economics and the two thirds of Politics. Two situations can be observed here: on the one hand, the case of the prevalence of the propensity towards economic rationality, where the trend is for the moderation of a little over one half of the double measure of the Politics segment, thereby reducing the risk of crisis and launching into an upward trend; on the other hand, the case where the expectations of Politics weigh heavier, where rationality is often defied and the one third of the confluence belonging to Economics is being altered, even in its integrity.

The state of permanent tension, illustrated by the trends in the area of confluence, has explanations belonging to different perspectives, to which specific procedures of action are being attached. They indicate that the control of the mechanisms of wealth matter for Economics (at the value of a third of a viable entity) and the function for the control of power takes precedence for Politics (at the value of two thirds of the resulting societal entity). The reunion of the two functions is inconsistent, because the possibility of compromise is excluded, and the result can only be of either one nature or the other. In fractal language, Economics has the function of generating the rule for covering the territory of Society with the homothetic dimension specific to the state of rationality, while Politics has the function of generating an internal structure of the Social according to the rule of fluctuating arrangements, with no internal homothecy in the Mandelbrotian sense. And for this reason the double target is proven to be a one-way highway to failure.

The mechanical solution to covering the Social is the very raw failure which we experience as generalized crisis, when Politics forcefully pushes it way towards achieving its goal. It achieves, though, this counter-performance by minimizing the reliable manifestation of the specific segment of Economics. The solution is to restart the dynamics in the Economics-Politics area of confluence. For this, the function of Economics is to enlarge the space of rationality over at least half of the fractal dimension with which Politics intersects the area of confluence. Which means that Economics has to functionalize its own segment and, at the same time, in order to achieve the viability of the confluence it has to control -based on socially-tested efficiency criteria - the most part of the dimension of Power.

The fine tuning between the two levels of action in the area of confluence (which, obviously, is also a noise interval) pertains to the awareness to the link between the physical entities and the biological entities (between artifacts and human nature in the field of Economics and between decisions and inter-subjectivity in the spectrum of Politics). But it also pertains to the fact that the mechanisms of wealth and power put together tend to eliminate the societal goals of both Economics and of Politics.

The most important issue for this explicative model inspired from the theory of fractals is that the area of confluence between Economics and Politics has to be characterized, at some point, by a mechanism for managing the tensional movements of influence. It's evident that something like this must exist when the final goal belongs to a different level in the configuration of reality, where the reliable sense transcends into viable, because we're talking about a complex, dynamic and open system, which is the human society. In such systems the fracturing (not as much methodological but operational) has catastrophic consequences. Fractalization as a support for understanding and explaining gradually reveals both the mysterious confluence between being reliable and being viable (simultaneously and non-contradictory), as well as the influences of transforming the state of rationality by levels of substantiation, meaning one represented by the mechanism of wealth and the other represented by the organism of power.

The fractalization of the Economics-Politics functional complex demands for it to be understood as a perimeter of the field of action, where the societal entity which contextualizes the tensional trends is permanently being configured, through interpolations and extrapolations (which in the end are nothing but consensual arrangements). This eminently rational perspective protects us from compromising the reliability of randamental mechanisms and from altering the viability of the societal organism. Thus, the fractalization of the Economics-Politics post-Enlightenment super-territory distinguishes the demarcation line of the horizon of the understanding of the compromise between conflicting states in the dynamics of societal systems and, at the same time, points to the level in between whose limits the explanation is coherent and unavoidably consistent.

The Reliable-Viable transformational consequence of the tensional dynamic in the Economics-Politics area of fractal confluence is the sole natural resource which neutralizes the toxic effects of the crises which open-close the cycles of modernity.