The name "unequal capitalism" was introduced by the Jesuit priest Jean-Yves Calvez (1927-2010) in a book published in French.

“Changer le capitalisme” constitutes his response to a famous letter on neoliberalism that the Latin American Provincials of the Society of Jesus wrote at the end of the last century.

Apparently "Changer le capitalisme" has not been translated, despite the fact that its author (philosopher, theologian, profound connoisseur of Catholic social doctrine and world-renowned expert on Marxism) was already considered the greatest living Jesuit intellectual.

Calvez suggests not using the term "neoliberalism" and replacing it with "unequal capitalism" due to his intention to distinguish between economic liberalism (freedom of exchange and competition) on the one hand, and liberalism as a philosophical position on the other hand.

In "Changer le Capitalisme", Jean-Yves Calvez says that he considers himself a liberal. He claims that the problem is not liberalism, the problem is what he calls unequal capitalism: the brutal inequality that currently exists in the control of capital and the consequences of this inequality.

Calvez acknowledges the validity of von Hayek's arguments about the efficiency of a less regulated market.

Thus, in the Avant-propos of the book, published in 2000, Calvez says the following:

“The central thesis of this work can be summed up in a few lapidary words: a regime of social relations of freedom, but without sharing responsibilities, contradicts itself and leads to the domination, even if it is discreet, of some, and it heralds the tension of the majority. The latter is translated, according to situations and times, into apathy or revolt.

In our days we live in injustice, without well-being and without joy. Doesn't the daily experience of life at work, for most of us, lead us to think more and more often in that situation?

The task that concerns us, then, is clear, particularly in the economic domain where true power is so little shared.

The 20th century, we know well now, has failed in the reforms.

The 21st century has a great program ahead of it.

Stating it, making it visible is one of the objectives of this book.

Reader, do not look for precedents, because the situation is very new. ”

Roberto, you have raised an important issue here, which, to my mind, focuses on the extent to which the current Coronavirus health crisis has accentuated the vast differences between developed and developing economies, on the one hand, as well as the growing inequalities between the rich and under-privileged in society. Part of the explanation for such a divide is the predominantly capitalist system that mainly obtains in the West but which has been practised in various guises throughout the world. The question then becomes 'is there a better economic system that can alleviate, if not bridge, the growing gap between nation states and individuals?' Whilst some are proposing a more humane form of capitalism that seeks to address the gap in a more humanitarian way (i.e. not only through winner takes it all approach), others propose a structural redress or a levelling of the hierarchies of power, wealth and control. Interesting...

Thank you John for your answer.

In Europe and mainly to cope with unequal capitalism in Europe, a response to Calvez year 2000 proposals and challenges was given in 2007.

Eight years after Calvez's book, a collective work directed by Gaël Giraud and Cécile Renouard, “Vingt propositions pour réformer le capitalisme”, also appeared in French. Written by Giraud and Renouard based on the opinions of experts in financial markets and business finance, economists, philosophers and mathematicians, the book analyzes and defends twenty proposals whose implementation (fundamentally) in Europe could lead to a reform of capitalism as suggested by Father Calvez.

The authors make two assumptions:

-The first assumption is the impossibility of analyzing the financial aspect of the 2007 crisis independently of the rest of its economic aspects.

-The second assumption is that this crisis does not mean the end of liberal capitalism as such, but the inability of a certain capitalist model to ensure the development of European societies.

They argue that the crisis that started in 2007 shows that this socio-economic model has been exhausted. Some questions are raised that they intend to answer during the development of the book:

What rules to impose on the market so that it can adequately fulfill its role?

How can we make our economic system take more into account the challenges of preserving the planet and fighting poverty?

How to subordinate economic growth to sustainable development?

In a review article, published in Spanish, they explain their position of promoting a reform and not a revolution:

“The position that we defend consists, in the perspective of a radical reformism, in articulating several planes. Why reform and not revolution? On the one hand, it is about not aggravating the situation of the poorest on the planet. No alter-globalist and / or anti-capitalist movement has yet proposed a credible alternative applicable to the entire planet, let alone has precisely defined the stages to achieve it. We share most of the convictions and objectives set by these movements, but we are committed to carrying out transformations without violence; the demonization of dominant economic actors is not only simplistic but often counterproductive; on the other hand, there is no intangible monolithic capitalism but plural forms of capitalism. ”

One consequence of the present pandemic is the acceleration of the processes described above by Jean-Yves Calvez in his book "Changer le Capitalisme" (Bayard, Paris, 2000).

I understand that the scenario that arises with the pandemic and, possibly, with the period after it, will mean a confrontation between two trends: a brutal attempt at economic concentration by large companies to the detriment of small and medium-sized companies and with pressure on the precariousness of labor laws, on the one hand; on the other, a strong intervention of the State to rebuild the productive apparatus with a search to recover the level of employment and to strengthen health policy, especially. An unfortunate, but possible, variant is that the State intervenes assuming the losses of the big company, pressing negatively on the well-being of the population. It would be very important to build an awareness of the disastrous trend of current capitalism, on the population and on nature, but this requires a sustained popular struggle in which the academy must actively participate proposing alternatives to the current financialized and concentrating model of capitalism. . The indigenous proposal of Good Living has to be an important contribution to rethink this. I accompany some works on the matter.

Article Algunas Claves del Aporte de los Intelectuales Indígenas par...

Article Desarrollo económico y/o Buen Vivir: dilema actual del latin...

Félix, thank you for your comments and the attachments related with the indigenous proposal of "good living".