Inequality Regimes: The Political Structure of Division
Inequality is not an accidental byproduct of economic growth, but the result of deliberate institutional choices. An inequality regime is a coherent system of institutions, beliefs, and habits that legitimizes the right of some to control the labor and lives of others. Structurally, it is deeply embedded in the pre-reflective fabric of the community, defining the boundaries of what is permissible in the realms of property and power. This article analyzes how these patterns evolved from estate-based societies to modern particracy and identifies why property has become an ideological shield for elites, paralyzing redistribution.
The Trifunctional Order and the Sacralization of Property Rights
The historical trifunctional order was based on a triad: oratores (those who pray), bellatores (those who fight), and laboratores (those who work). These functions served as the constitutional code of the era, where the nobility and clergy extracted rents in exchange for military security and the promise of salvation. Although the French Revolution abolished estate privileges, it resulted in the sacralization of property rights, elevating them to the status of an inviolable natural right. The fear of challenging old titles ensured that the new order became the foundation for the 19th-century ownership regime.
The most brutal manifestation of this system was the extension of property principles to people. In the Atlantic plantation system, human beings became chattel that could be insured or mortgaged. Even after abolition, the logic of the system dictated that owners be paid substantial compensation for the loss of "property," while the emancipated received no support, perpetuating structural violence and the extreme concentration of wealth during the belle époque.
The Egalitarian Phase vs. Hypercapitalism
The period from 1950 to 1970 in Europe and the US was an egalitarian phase, during which inequality actually declined. It was supported by mechanisms such as high progressive taxation, public education, and social security systems that cushioned life's risks. However, since the 1980s, we have seen a return to extreme wealth concentration—hypercapitalism. Today, the top decile in the US controls nearly three-quarters of private wealth, which translates into unequal influence over the climate and global stability.
Modern models for correcting capitalism offer alternative paths. The Scandinavian model relies on deep wage compression and extensive redistribution, while the German market correction emphasizes a system of co-determination and employee representation on supervisory boards. Both approaches prove that limiting the arbitrariness of capital is possible without destroying the dynamics of an innovative economy, provided there is a strong social consensus.
The Brahmin Left and the Mechanisms of Particracy
Modern political conflict has been transformed: the old class divide has been replaced by a dispute between the Brahmin Left (the educated elite) and the Merchant Right (the beneficiaries of capital). In this configuration, the bottom 50% of society loses real representation, a void exploited by nativism. These movements build a narrative of "globalist elites" versus "real citizens," skillfully swapping the fundamental conflict over property structure for identity and cultural disputes.
The concentration of wealth builds the foundation of particracy, where parties become vehicles for competing factions of capital. The phenomenon of oligarchic capture ensures that donations, lobbying, and media control effectively narrow the field of permissible policy. When capital colonizes the language of public debate, concepts like "fiscal responsibility" become tools for protecting property rents, and the democratic system drifts toward oligarchy despite maintaining electoral procedures.
Equality of Capabilities and Theoretical Aporias
The alternative to the current crisis is the vision of a capability equality regime. This involves the temporalization of property (e.g., through progressive inheritance taxes), global fiscal coordination, and the democratization of the corporate interior. The goal is not uniformity but—as Amartya Sen points out—ensuring everyone has real access to the opportunities for a life they have reason to value. This prevents the dynastic solidification of fortunes and stabilizes the institutional environment.
However, one must recognize the aporias of this theory: the risk of underestimating the role of AI in building new asymmetries and the tension between global capital flows and the national character of institutions. In a world where capital flows globally while redistributive concerns remain stuck within national borders, are we condemned to an eternal struggle against inequality? Perhaps it is within this very tension that the opportunity for a new social contract and the creation of a global framework for local justice lies.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF