Money Is Not the Supreme Value – Folha de S. Paulo, May 9, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In my latest article, discussing MDB’s loudly demanded land reform program, I referred to the old Democratic Party, from which the MDB is, in a way, a political great-grandchild.

This reference also made me think of the DP’s adversary, the old PRP, and of the entire political and social landscape of São Paulo before 1930.

Of course, when I thought back to São Paulo from my early years — I was around 21 or 22 then — the stark contrast with today’s São Paulo struck me strongly. I then tried to list the ways in which changes had been most significant due to both local and global events. However, I gave up on the task soon after I started.

In my opinion, the main challenge isn’t just listing all the changes that have occurred since then. Instead, it’s that many of the most significant transformations, which shaped all the others, are impossible to clearly define. Or at least, explaining them all would require so much effort that it would be a superhuman task.

However, there is one important change I want to talk about. It concerns the mostly unconscious shift that has happened in the way many of my fellow countrymen view the importance of individuals in society. Essentially, what changes is the criteria used to determine social hierarchy.

Some contemporary historians are revitalizing the concept of an orderly society as opposed to a class-based society. To simplify somewhat, it can be said that, according to these historians, an ordered society is one in which social stratification is based on two combined criteria: 1) the special mission of each social stratum or class in the country; 2) the level of dignity attributed to that mission, based on abstract criteria, typically religious or metaphysical.

I’ll give one example among many. In nearly all Christian countries in Europe before the French Revolution, the highest social class was the clergy (whose access was open to both commoners and the powerful). This dominance was based on the sacredness of the priesthood and its responsibility for most functions now managed by the Ministries of Education and Public Health. The second social group consisted of warriors—namely, nobles—who were mainly responsible for the mission—marked by special honor—of shedding blood for their country. Being a warrior was the essence of being a true noble, and being a distinguished warrior made one noble. Because of this, many commoners were elevated to nobility for their actions in war. Although less prominent, the nobility also included the judiciary due to the respectability of judicial work. Similarly, the leading figures in civil administration often belonged to this social class. For similar reasons, many kings awarded noble titles to notable figures in literature or culture.

What role did money play in this? It was viewed as a useful and, to some extent, necessary complement to a person’s status. For example, a bishop, general, or diplomat usually possessed the resources needed to maintain their status adequately. However—and this is important—the influence of money did not determine the respect they received, but rather the inherent respectability of their role.

This was strongly felt regarding the bourgeoisie, which, as the merchant class, was also the most influential in the country’s economic life. However, according to the common view, their roles were limited to private activities, regardless of how necessary they might be for the public good and how respectable they were. As a result, they did not hold the same prestige as those involved in managing public affairs, whether in times of peace or war. Their role was considered honorable but not particularly prestigious. This is because the sphere of public life is somewhat more excellent and admirable than the sphere of private life.

Clearly, this criterion cannot be applied without nuance to our era, where managing substantial economic interests often demands considerable intellectual skill in the private sector and, in such situations, involves important responsibilities concerning public affairs.

But if we consider today’s society based on the standards of an orderly society, the person or family holding a prominent role in the economy would not be primarily recognized for the monetary value they possess (seen only as a means of connecting and managing private interests), but because of the inherent dignity of an activity of such significant importance to public affairs. A similar, and sometimes even exaggerated, situation occurred in certain ancient societies. For example, in the Republic of Venice, the merchant class, due to its unique importance in the state’s life, held the top position and almost monopolized the direction of the state.

This was also true, in its own way, in a society as fundamentally different from those that came before it as São Paulo was before 1930. In that society, the wealthy farmer, the successful professional, the banker, merchant, or industrialist played a prominent role. However, the respect given to these individuals did not stem solely from what they owned but from the dignity of their role and the personal value attached to performing it. The farmer was seen more as a patriarch than as a wealthy man. The lawyer, doctor, or engineer was regarded more as a person of knowledge than as a member of the wealthy bourgeoisie. And so forth. As a result, the social influence of the wealthy was roughly the same—as well as sometimes less—than that of the categories I just mentioned.

It was a surviving adaptation of the traditional concept of a society of order.

The Marxist concept of class challenges this idea of order. Since, according to Marx, the economy is the main driving force in history, people should be classified only based on their role in economic production. The value system must be solely functional, ignoring religious or moral standards like dignity and honor. And because, according to Marxism, production stems from labor, it would follow that the highest function belongs to the working masses.

In my view, after 1930, both domestic and international events reduced the significance of traditional honor-based social stratification and introduced a new way of thinking, incorporating traces of Marxist classism into a capitalist society.

In more concrete terms, the importance placed on economic functions started to rely mainly on owning money, which is a more effective material tool for influencing and exerting pressure. At the same time, less profitable functions that are less directly connected to production, such as teaching, the judiciary, diplomacy, military careers, cultural life, and agriculture—lost much of their previous significance.

I recall a small episode that highlights a change in mindset on this topic. I’ll share it with the necessary adjustments so the person involved remains unnamed. Some time ago, I was talking with a contemporary who was very successful in the business world. He explained how, early in his career, he wanted to become a general. To pursue this goal, he enrolled in the Military Academy. At one point, a family crisis arose, and to support his family, he had to pause his studies and focus on business. “Look, Plinio, how it turned out well: If it weren’t for my dedication to my family, I would be a mere general today,” he told me passionately. I was left pondering… “a mere general”? Is being a great businessman more than being a great general or a distinguished magistrate? A large landowner or even a prominent diplomat? Or, ultimately, a selfless priest who represents Jesus Christ on earth: “Sacerdos alter Christus”?

It is only fair to recognize capital as a factor of production and to acknowledge its significant role in our current circumstances. But by thus proclaiming the absolute superiority of possessing money over almost all intellectual, religious, or moral factors of prestige, does one not elevate the economy as the highest value? And does this not unintentionally lead to Marxism?

These reflections are meaningful in practice. They serve as a call to change a mindset that, unfortunately, is spreading among us and can be summarized with this idea: “to have a career is to become rich; the rest is idle talk.”

In effect, this exclusivity essentially denies the religious, moral, and cultural roots of social hierarchy, supports Marxism, and even undermines the wealthy.

* * *

Before concluding, it is fair to note that the widespread and nearly exclusive overestimation of the economic power of the wealthy is not a phenomenon unique to the plutocracy. Instead, it is a mindset that is spreading across all social classes in Brazil from outside influences.

How can someone avoid idolizing money when life is seen from an atheistic view as a competition for material gains rather than the honor that all classes should have to some extent in one way or another?