One might think that we are about to defend the accumulators of wealth, the bankers, the richest business leaders, the giants of the economy, whether capitalist or "socialist." Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply wish to explain that these millionaires may not be as rich as they appear, and that poverty itself might be defined by the number of one's needs.
With the invention of metal and paper money, feelings of greed and avarice — which have long dominated human existence alongside selfishness and envy — became even more intense. Through the symbolism attached to money, many discovered that wealth could be concentrated in quantities that no one would ever want if it existed in its actual material form.
For if, instead of possessing millions of dollars, one possessed land, jewellery, automobiles, food supplies, and endless products and services, everything would become a burden. Who would want vast areas of land if they could not cultivate them? What use would there be for enormous quantities of food when one has only a single mouth and stomach, and only twenty-four hours a day in which to consume it? What use would there be for countless clothes when one has only one body, or dozens of pairs of shoes for only two feet? What use would there be for so many cars when only one can be driven at a time? And who would take care of all of it?
In truth, excessive possessions become a form of slavery and a source of pointless anxiety. Too much real wealth would become a nightmare and could eventually destroy one's freedom, one's health, and even one's life. However, if that immense wealth is represented by coins, paper money, or numbers on a screen, one can possess much more. And if a person feels superior to others simply because he possesses more money, he will do everything possible to obtain it, thereby attempting to fill an inner lack of self-worth.
In accounting terms, Louis Even was correct in saying that everyone becomes a capitalist when they possess capital — even socialists, and even those who do not possess any capital at all. Yet there are other factors involved beyond accounting. Capitalism is an entire social system involving countless economic, political, and ideological variables created by capitalists themselves — it is a culture. The same could be said of socialism and socialists, who often appear equally concerned with capital rather than with society itself.
From this broader perspective, Louis Even would probably not say that a person is a capitalist merely because he possesses capital. That would be like saying that a person becomes a zebra simply by painting stripes on himself. Human beings are far more than that.
We are speaking here of every form of capital: technological capital, natural resources, human "resources," money, and other forms of financing. For example, if we consider human labour itself as part of capital, does that mean that we are all capitalists?
Certainly not. Being a capitalist means much more than simply being part of the workforce. Above all, it means placing capital above everything else — even above human persons — to the point of making it into a god. This is also a matter of ideology and values, where capital becomes an end in itself, accumulated and hoarded rather than serving as a means of exchange and commerce.
From this arise dispossession, labour exploitation, extreme wealth, and extreme poverty. Indeed, most of the major problems in the world stem from this struggle over money, whether under capitalism or socialism.
This ideological aspect, which turns money into an idol, is itself enough to make a person a capitalist. In this sense, even a poor person may be capitalist without possessing any capital at all. It depends less upon what one possesses than upon what one would do with it — or wishes to do with it — even if one does not have it.
A capitalist without capital. Simply desiring to become a millionaire can make a person a capitalist, even when there is not a single dollar in his pocket.
By contrast, a cooperative enterprise possessing various forms of capital for productive work is not capitalist for that reason alone, because its principal objective is the well-being of people rather than the accumulation of capital. Thus capitalism can become more ideological than economic. Yet ideology alone is still not enough.
For the current system to function in such an unequal manner, it requires a policy of monetary scarcity created through debt, interest, taxes, insufficient wages, monetary monopolies, disparities between currencies, and a lack of democracy.
Indeed, today's financial system operates on the basis of a shortage of money that impoverishes the majority while enriching a small minority, giving rise to greed, usury, elitism, privileges, power, and social classes. In this way, ninety-nine percent of wealth becomes concentrated in one percent of the population.
In reality, what discredits the rich today is not wealth itself but its contrast with poverty; it is indifference toward the poor and the attempt to justify poverty.
If, on the contrary, everyone were millionaires, who would possess all the real wealth of goods and services if everyone had enough money to accumulate it?
Each person would possess only what he actually needs and would still retain millions that could not truly be used. But that would not matter. After all, it is only money — and, in reality, there would be more than enough of it.
What truly matters is that production reaches those who need it. Real wealth is limited, while money itself can be given almost unlimited values. Yet there is enough real wealth for everyone, while money exists only for a few.
One can read in Matthew 19:16-22:
"Then a young man came to Jesus and asked Him:'Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?'Jesus replied:'"Why do you ask Me about what is good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the Commandments.''Which ones?'the young man asked. Jesus answered:'You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honour your father and mother; and love your neighbour as yourself.'The young man replied:'"I have kept all these Commandments. What do I still lack?'Jesus answered:'If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow Me.'When the young man heard these words, he went away sorrowful, because he possessed great wealth."
Certainly, in a financial system built upon debt and scarcity — a system that enriches a few while impoverishing the majority — "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24). Jesus was right. But it was not because the rich person himself is necessarily evil.
What is truly defective is the financial system itself — the monetary design of the economy and the management of money that traps both those who possess it and those who do not.
Jesus also spoke of the emptiness of accumulating riches (Luke 12:32 ff.), but the wealthy seem never to realize this. Many millionaires could not spend all their money over several generations. Yet they remain poor rich people — always needing more money and more power.
Even the Greek philosopher Epicurus, three centuries before Christ, warned restless hearts: "Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you do not have." He advocated balance and interior peace.
But Jesus was not an economist, nor did He come to propose financial solutions. He simply made a diagnosis: the rich do not enter the Kingdom of God because they do not let go of their wealth and their greed.
In reality, the financial system alone distorts human nature and disrupts the entire social order.
History teaches us that a "good capitalism" is not really capitalism, and a "good socialism" is not really socialism either. Goodness has never been their defining characteristic; both have often become distorted and harmful in practice.
Jesus, however, pointed toward a new paradigm. He had different ideas, a different vision, and a different system. He invited people to share bread and other riches as He Himself did, without expecting anything in return.
This implies a new model of the human person: capital placed at the service of people and, consequently, a better society where generosity, trust, fraternity, freedom, and honesty flourish — qualities often lacking in both capitalism and socialism.
For this reason, Louis Even promoted throughout the twentieth century the model of Economic Democracy developed by the British engineer Clifford Hugh Douglas, convinced that it represented the closest practical approach to the social justice promoted by Jesus.
If money ceased to be scarce and became accessible to everyone, no one would be more important
than another. Money would lose many of the elements that feed selfishness, envy, and competition.
If money were no longer scarce, how could anyone manipulate or bribe others if everyone already possessed the money they needed — and even more?
No one would live in anxiety over an uncertain future. No one would fear for the future of their children because the system itself would provide security and hope. No one would need to become rich. Everything depends upon abolishing the system of scarcity so that the vices associated with capitalism and socialism — exploitation, theft, and dependence — may disappear.
The abundance of money would mean private property for everyone rather than for a privileged few. It would represent capital and wealth for each individual.
And beyond satisfying needs, it would gradually reduce them, because people would increasingly abandon what is superfluous and focus on what is truly necessary, leaving less room for greed.
Saint Francis of Assisi expressed it this way: "I desire little, and the little I desire, I desire but little." And thus, possessing nothing, he possessed everything.
So no — it is not human nature to be a usurious capitalist, a hypocritical socialist, or someone beyond hope like the rich young man.
It is the scarcity of money within the financial system that permits greed and domination throughout the world, encouraging what is weakest and poorest within human nature — where even the poor themselves need conversion.
Obviously, the principal responsibility lies with the bankers who create and distribute money; then with politicians who permit and enforce such systems; followed by wealthy business leaders and social elites who benefit from them; and finally with the poor, who perform the labour and create real wealth while hoping to climb the pyramid of money.
In this way, the economy shapes society itself: its politics, thoughts, emotions, and customs. But if the system itself changes, then usury, selfishness, and their driving force — envy — disappear as well.
There will be no class struggle and no dictatorship of any kind, whether of the rich or of the proletariat. There will be Economic Democracy, where society more closely resembles the Kingdom of which Jesus spoke.
We will discover another model of the human person — a kind of humanity 2.0 — something not yet fully known, yet already present within ourselves.
Did you know that local currencies could become one of the first stones in building that Kingdom?