Capital and Ideology

Capital and Ideology Plot Summary

Introduction

Inequality is neither economic nor technological; it is ideological and political. This striking conclusion emerges from examining how societies throughout history have justified their inequalities. Every human society must develop a set of plausible ideas and discourses describing how society should be structured, including explanations for why certain groups hold power and wealth while others do not. These justifications are not merely propaganda - they represent genuine attempts to make sense of social arrangements, even if they often serve the interests of dominant groups. By studying inequality regimes across time and space - from medieval trifunctional societies to modern hypercapitalism - we gain crucial insights into both the persistence and transformation of inequality. The historical approach reveals that extreme inequality is never inevitable or natural, despite what conservative arguments might suggest. Changes in inequality regimes have occurred rapidly in ways contemporaries could not have imagined shortly before they came about. Many of our most precious institutions - universal suffrage, public education, progressive taxation - emerged from political processes that challenged existing inequality regimes. Understanding these historical dynamics provides essential perspective on contemporary debates about wealth, power, and social justice.

Chapter 1: The Evolution of Inequality Regimes: From Trifunctional to Hypercapitalist Societies

Throughout history, societies have organized themselves around different inequality regimes, each justified by distinct theories of justice. The earliest widespread system was the trifunctional society, where power was divided between clergy (those who pray), nobility (those who fight), and commoners (those who work). This arrangement persisted across civilizations for centuries, with variations but similar core principles. The transition from trifunctional to proprietarian societies occurred gradually between the 18th and 19th centuries. Proprietarian societies were built on the sacralization of private property rights, with wealth concentration reaching extreme levels. By 1910, the top 10% owned 80-90% of all wealth in Europe. This system was justified by the belief that stable property rights would ensure prosperity and social harmony. The proprietarian order collapsed between 1914 and 1945 due to world wars and economic depression. These crises triggered radical policy responses including progressive taxation, social spending, and nationalization of key industries. The mid-20th century saw the emergence of social-democratic societies characterized by reduced inequality, expanded education, and stronger labor rights. This transformation was not merely economic but represented a profound ideological shift in what constituted a just society. Since the 1980s, we've witnessed the rise of hypercapitalist societies marked by renewed wealth concentration, financial deregulation, and globalization without adequate governance. This shift occurred alongside the collapse of communism, which had presented an alternative vision of property organization. The fall of Soviet communism contributed to ideological disillusionment about the possibility of creating more egalitarian economic systems. Today's inequality regimes combine elements of modernity with archaic features. While technology and global integration have advanced, we've seen a return to quasi-sacralization of private property reminiscent of the 19th century. This neo-proprietarian ideology has been strengthened by the failure of communism, which is often invoked to discourage ambitious redistributive projects.

Chapter 2: Property Rights as Political Constructions: Beyond Economic Determinism

Property rights have undergone profound transformations throughout human history, reflecting changing social values and power dynamics. The concept of property has never been static; rather, it has evolved from feudal systems where ownership was intertwined with political authority to modern frameworks where property is increasingly viewed through the lens of social responsibility. In early societies, property was often communal, with land and resources managed collectively for the benefit of the group. The transition to private ownership accelerated with the rise of agricultural societies and became further entrenched during industrialization. This shift was not merely economic but represented a fundamental reorganization of social relations and political power. The justification for private property has similarly evolved over time. Classical liberal thinkers like John Locke argued that property rights emerged naturally when individuals mixed their labor with natural resources. This labor theory of property provided moral legitimacy to ownership claims and became a cornerstone of Western legal systems. However, this perspective has been challenged by those who question whether initial appropriation of resources can truly be just when it excludes others from access to necessities. Property regimes have also been shaped by colonial encounters. European powers imposed their conceptions of ownership on indigenous populations, often disregarding existing systems of land use and resource management. This imposition was not merely cultural but served economic interests by facilitating resource extraction and wealth accumulation. The legacy of these colonial property regimes continues to influence global inequality patterns today. The twentieth century witnessed dramatic challenges to traditional property arrangements. Revolutionary movements questioned the concentration of ownership, while democratic reforms sought to balance private rights with public welfare. Even in capitalist societies, property rights became subject to increasing regulation and taxation, reflecting growing recognition that unlimited accumulation could threaten social cohesion and democratic governance. Contemporary debates about property continue to evolve as new technologies create novel forms of ownership. Intellectual property, digital assets, and genetic resources raise questions about appropriate boundaries between private control and common heritage. These developments suggest that property regimes will continue to transform as societies grapple with changing economic conditions and ethical considerations.

Chapter 3: The Transformation of Political Cleavages: From Class to Education-Based Conflict

A dramatic transformation has occurred in the structure of political conflict in Western democracies since the mid-20th century. In the 1950s-1960s, less educated voters overwhelmingly supported left-wing parties, while the educated elite voted for conservative parties. By the 1990s-2000s, this pattern had completely reversed: highly educated voters became the core constituency of the left, while less educated voters increasingly supported right-wing parties. This reversal reflects the emergence of a "multiple-elite" party system replacing the class-based system of the post-war era. The left has become what might be called a "Brahmin left" - dominated by intellectual and cultural elites with advanced degrees. The right has maintained its character as a "Merchant right" - representing business and financial elites. This has created a political landscape where each coalition is anchored by different elite groups rather than representing a clear class division. The transformation was gradual and unintended, occurring as educational opportunities expanded dramatically. Children of working-class voters who accessed higher education often maintained their left-wing voting patterns, while those who remained less educated increasingly abandoned left parties. This suggests the less educated came to perceive left parties as representing the interests of educated elites rather than addressing their concerns. This educational cleavage reversal occurred across Western democracies despite their different political histories. It appeared in the United States, where the Democratic Party evolved from supporting slavery to championing civil rights, and in European countries with strong socialist traditions. The universality of this pattern suggests structural factors beyond national peculiarities are driving this change. The reversal coincided with declining voter turnout among less advantaged groups. While participation rates were relatively equal across social classes in the 1950s-1970s, significant gaps emerged by the 2000s-2010s. This withdrawal from electoral politics by less educated and lower-income voters further indicates their sense of abandonment by traditional left parties.

Chapter 4: Participatory Socialism: Democratizing Power Through Social Ownership

Participatory socialism offers a framework for addressing contemporary inequality that avoids both the authoritarian centralization of historical communism and the atomized individualism of market fundamentalism. At its core, participatory socialism combines social ownership of productive assets with democratic decision-making at multiple levels—from individual workplaces to national and transnational institutions. Unlike Soviet-style socialism, it preserves markets as coordination mechanisms while subjecting them to democratic control and limiting the concentration of economic power. Power-sharing in firms represents a crucial element of this approach. The German co-determination system, which gives workers representation on corporate boards, provides one model that could be expanded and deepened. More ambitious proposals would require large companies to allocate 50% of board seats and voting rights to workers, while limiting individual shareholder voting rights to prevent concentrated control. Such arrangements would transform corporations from instruments of shareholder wealth maximization into democratic institutions balancing the interests of various stakeholders. Progressive taxation forms another essential component of participatory socialism. A progressive tax triptych—combining taxes on income, inheritance, and annual wealth—would both generate revenue for public needs and prevent extreme concentration of economic power. Permanent land reform through progressive property taxation would address the growing problem of housing inequality, while carbon taxes would incorporate environmental costs into economic decisions. These measures would need constitutional protection to prevent their erosion through tax competition or political capture by wealthy interests. The proceeds from progressive wealth and inheritance taxes could finance a universal capital endowment provided to each young adult. This would transform the current system where inheritance is highly unequal into one where every citizen receives a significant stake in society's wealth. For example, in developed countries where average private wealth is approximately 200,000 euros per adult, a capital endowment of 120,000 euros (60 percent of average wealth) could be provided to each person at age 25. This would open up new possibilities for home ownership, education, or entrepreneurship, dramatically increasing economic opportunity for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Educational justice represents a third pillar of participatory socialism. Current systems often reproduce inequality by providing better resources and opportunities to already-advantaged students. Genuine educational justice requires equitable funding across schools, transparent and fair admission procedures for higher education, and lifelong learning opportunities accessible to all. This approach rejects both market-based education that treats learning as a private investment and bureaucratic standardization that ignores diverse needs and talents.

Chapter 5: Transnational Democracy: Regulating Global Capitalism for Social Justice

The challenges of inequality and social justice cannot be adequately addressed within the confines of the nation-state. In a globalized economy where capital flows freely across borders while democratic institutions remain primarily national, individual countries face severe constraints in their ability to implement progressive policies. Tax competition, regulatory arbitrage, and the threat of capital flight undermine democratic sovereignty and force a race to the bottom in taxation and social protection. Overcoming these limitations requires new transnational democratic institutions capable of regulating global capitalism and establishing norms of fiscal, social, and environmental justice. The European Union exemplifies both the potential and the limitations of existing supranational governance. While the EU has created an integrated market and common currency, it lacks the democratic institutions necessary to implement progressive taxation or robust social policies. Decision-making remains dominated by intergovernmental bodies like the European Council, where unanimity requirements on fiscal matters effectively give veto power to small tax haven states. Meanwhile, the European Parliament, though directly elected, lacks the authority to initiate legislation or levy taxes. A more democratic alternative would involve creating a European Assembly with genuine fiscal powers, composed of representatives from national parliaments. This assembly would be empowered to approve common taxes on high incomes, large fortunes, corporate profits, and carbon emissions, with the proceeds funding public goods like climate protection, research, and development assistance. By building European parliamentary sovereignty on the foundation of national parliaments, this approach would involve national deputies in European decision-making rather than allowing them to blame "Brussels" for unpopular policies. Beyond Europe, we need to transform the legal framework governing international economic relations. Current trade and investment agreements prioritize the free movement of goods and capital while neglecting social and environmental standards. These should be replaced with more ambitious "codevelopment treaties" that include verifiable objectives for fiscal, social, and environmental justice. Trade liberalization would then become a means to achieve these higher goals rather than an end in itself. The question of migration and borders represents another crucial dimension of transnational justice. The current system, where goods and capital move freely while people face severe restrictions, contains profound contradictions. Wealthy countries that benefit from global economic integration have a moral obligation to contribute to development and accept a fair share of migrants, particularly those fleeing poverty and conflict that Western policies have often exacerbated. However, managing migration requires democratic legitimacy and cannot simply involve abolishing borders overnight.

Chapter 6: Educational Justice: Challenging Meritocratic Myths and Structural Inequalities

Educational systems have become central to contemporary inequality regimes, serving both to justify disparities and to reproduce them across generations. The expansion of formal education throughout the twentieth century initially contributed to greater equality by increasing access to knowledge and skills. However, as educational credentials have become increasingly important for economic success, educational systems have developed new forms of stratification that often mirror and reinforce existing social hierarchies. In the United States, extreme disparities in school funding—linked to property taxes and residential segregation—create vastly different educational opportunities based on family wealth and location. Higher education has become increasingly stratified, with elite universities functioning as gatekeepers to prestigious careers while maintaining admission practices that favor the already privileged. Legacy preferences, athletic recruitment focused on elite sports, and the growing importance of extracurricular activities all advantage students from wealthy families, even as these institutions claim to select purely on merit. European systems face different but related challenges. In France, the grandes écoles system creates a rigid hierarchy that channels a small, disproportionately affluent group into elite positions. The United Kingdom maintains class divisions through its two-tier system of public and private schools. Even in Nordic countries with more egalitarian traditions, educational advantages increasingly accumulate to those from privileged backgrounds. These patterns reflect what can be called "educational hypocrisy"—the gap between meritocratic rhetoric and the reality of unequal opportunity. The ideal of educational meritocracy has become a central justification for inequality in contemporary societies, with disparities in income and status supposedly reflecting differences in educational achievement rather than structural advantages. However, this meritocratic narrative masks profound inequalities in educational investment and opportunity that begin in early childhood and persist through higher education. Far from providing a level playing field, our educational systems often amplify existing social advantages while presenting the resulting outcomes as the fair result of individual merit. In France, for example, public educational investment is distributed highly unequally across students. Within a single age cohort, the 10 percent of students receiving the smallest public investment receive only 65,000-70,000 euros each over their educational careers, while the 10 percent receiving the most benefit from 200,000-300,000 euros of public spending. This disparity arises primarily from differences in the length of schooling and access to selective tracks, particularly the preparatory classes for elite universities where per-student spending is substantially higher than in non-selective institutions. Addressing educational inequality requires both greater transparency about current disparities and substantive reforms to funding, admission procedures, and institutional structures. This means moving beyond the false choice between market-based approaches that treat education as a private good and bureaucratic standardization that ignores diverse needs. Instead, educational justice requires democratic deliberation about educational goals, equitable distribution of resources, and recognition of multiple forms of knowledge and achievement. By reconceiving education as a common good rather than a competitive sorting mechanism, we can begin to disconnect learning from its role in justifying inequality.

Summary

Inequality regimes represent complex systems that intertwine property relations, political power, and social identities. Throughout history, these regimes have evolved from ternary societies divided between clergy, nobility, and commoners to proprietarian systems centered on private ownership, social-democratic arrangements with significant redistribution, and contemporary hypercapitalist structures. Each regime develops its own justifications, from divine ordination to meritocratic narratives, while facing challenges from those disadvantaged by its arrangements. The current regime combines extreme wealth concentration with new forms of stratification based on educational credentials, creating multiple elite factions that dominate political systems while leaving many citizens without effective representation. Addressing contemporary inequality requires developing new institutional frameworks that can democratize economic power at multiple levels. Participatory socialism offers one such framework, combining social ownership, progressive taxation, educational justice, and transnational democracy. Unlike previous socialist projects, it emphasizes democratic deliberation and decentralized decision-making rather than state control. By reconnecting economic arrangements to democratic governance, such approaches can help create more just societies where prosperity is widely shared and human dignity respected. The path forward lies not in technical fixes or elite management but in revitalizing democratic politics as a means of collectively determining how we organize our economic lives.

About Author

Loading...

Thomas Piketty

Thomas Piketty (French: [tɔma pikɛti]; born May 7, 1971) is a French economist who works on wealth and income inequality. He is the director of studies at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He is the author of the best selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which emphasizes the themes of his work on wealth concentrations and distribution over the past 250 years. The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.Piketty was born on May 7, 1971, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy. He gained a C-stream (scientific) Baccalauréat, and after taking scientific preparatory classes, he entered the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) at the age of 18, where he studied mathematics and economics. At the age of 22, Piketty was awarded his Ph.D. for a thesis on wealth redistribution, which he wrote at the EHESS and the London School of Economics under Roger Guesnerie.After earning his PhD, Piketty taught from 1993 to 1995 as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he joined the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as a researcher, and in 2000 he became director of studies at EHESS.Piketty won the 2002 prize for the best young economist in France, and according to a list dated November 11, 2003, he is a member of the scientific orientation board of the association "À gauche, en Europe", founded by Michel Rocard and Dominique Strauss-Kahn.In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up. He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign. Piketty resumed teaching at the Paris School of Economics in 2007.He is a columnist for the French newspaper Libération, and occasionally writes op-eds for Le Monde.In April 2012, Piketty co-authored along with 42 colleagues an open letter in support of then-PS candidate for the French presidency François Hollande. Hollande won the contest against the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in May of that year.In 2013, Piketty won the biennial Yrjö Jahnsson Award, for the economist under age 45 who has "made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is significant to the study of economics in Europe."Piketty specializes in economic inequality, taking a historic and statistical approach. His work looks at the rate of capital accumulation in relation to economic growth over a two hundred year spread from the nineteenth century to the present. His novel use of tax records enabled him to gather data on the very top economic elite, who had previously been understudied, and to ascertain their rate of accumulation of wealth and how this compared to the rest of society and economy. His most recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.

Read more

Related Books by Thomas Piketty

Loading...

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Thomas Piketty

Groundbreaking Research That Unravels Economic Disparity in Our World Today

★★★★☆4.1