Conclusions

Is it an inescapable characteristic of capitalism to give rise to a social structure where classes remain rigidly separate? The first three decades of the post-war period refute this judgement. In the model of economy and society that saw its beginnings in those years, a powerful growth not only allowed all classes to improve their level of well-being. This was not the only change. Absolute mobility was accompanied by relative mobility. Although all classes enjoyed the increase in earnings, the extent to which each enjoyed the increase in GDP was different, which gave impetus to the reshuffling of people among different income and status positions. The increase in well-being primarily had the effect of boosting the individual component of identity, the status libertatis. But the other component, the status civitatis, was also enhanced, because the dignity of work in the joint venture of production increased. By the end of the sixties, in most Western European countries, wage dynamics accelerated, linking to that of productivity. The working class was able to obtain the “just reward” theorised by Aristotle for the first time. During the seventies, the conquest of social rights by workers fuelled social conflict. While workers were gaining the dignity of work, the resulting income redistribution began to pose a threat to socio-economic balance. It challenged the power asymmetry between social groups. At the beginning of the eighties, in the large companies that were protagonists in the global markets, in the major banking and financial institutions, and in the political class of advanced countries, the belief spread that the “shape of the game” of capitalism, being based on the full command of companies over income distribution, could not withstand further shocks.