Wealth as the Foundation of Constitutional Order
Modern wealth distribution is not merely a macroeconomic statistic, but a constitutional problem of our civilization. It serves as a hidden code that defines the scope of real individual freedom and the durability of the social contract. This article exposes the mechanisms that turn meritocratic promises into mythology and cause the system to lose legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. You will learn how the asymmetry between capital and labor, along with new technologies, shapes the power structure and what scenarios await the global economic order.
Labor and Capital: A Legal-Biological Dualism
There is a fundamental difference between the factors of production. Labor and capital differ ontologically: capital is an abstract, scalable resource that can be transferred instantaneously. Labor, on the other hand, is an act inextricably linked to the human body, time, and biological limitations. This asymmetry means that when capital becomes a pure variable, individuals are commodified.
Currently, the concentration of capital is killing meritocracy. When the rate of return on assets exceeds economic growth, the system spontaneously drifts toward oligarchy. This process is cemented by assortative mating—the practice of pairing individuals of similar status, leading to the accumulation of resources and the inheritance of privilege. Under such conditions, "equality of opportunity" becomes a mere rhetorical figure, and social mobility is frozen within "class canyons."
State Models and Mechanisms for Cementing Power
Different systems employ distinct redistribution strategies. The Nordic model neutralizes inequality through universal education and progressive taxation, while the German model ties security more closely to the labor market. Meanwhile, elite lobbying and the "revolving door" mechanism between business and politics create a closed circuit of influence, where the law is calibrated to the dictates of the wealthiest.
In parallel, the commodification of life and the digital trade of data are advancing. Citizenship as a commodity (e.g., "golden visas") leads to the erosion of social bonds and the emergence of a category of "sub-citizens"—individuals integrated into the economy but deprived of rights. In response, the concept of universal basic income has emerged. While it may enhance freedom of choice, it carries the risk of new dependence on the state and fiscal insolvency.
Liberal vs. Political Capitalism: An Analysis of Contradictions
The foundation of liberal capitalism is stable property rights. In political capitalism (e.g., China), ownership is a variable dependent on the will of the authorities, and corruption is structural—serving as a mechanism for resource distribution. The official meritocratic discourse contains a logical contradiction: one cannot simultaneously declare equality of opportunity and tolerate the extreme concentration of capital that makes such equality impossible.
The coming era of AI and automation threatens a new polarization of income, where productivity surpluses are captured by technology owners. Global business, recognizing the risk of revolt and instability, is evolving toward stakeholder capitalism (ESG). Companies are beginning to understand that a certain degree of egalitarianism is economically rational, as it ensures a predictable regulatory environment.
Three Scenarios for the Future of Capitalism
We face a choice between three paths: oligarchic-technocratic (deepening current trends), Nordic neo-republicanism (active de-concentration of capital), or shock therapy (a radical reset of the ownership structure). Will we dare to revise the foundations of the system before a sense of injustice plunges us into chaos? The answer to this question will define the shape of our civilization in the coming decades.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF