When many people encounter unfairness, they attribute the problem to “capital.” This reaction essentially comes from an intuition: under apparently uniform rules, resources continue to concentrate in the hands of a few; and because this outcome is stable, repetitive, and hard to trace and hold specific individuals liable for, people tend to look for a “culpable subject.” But this understanding is wrong, because it misreads structural outcomes as moral objects.

True capital is not a particular group or an intention, but a structural mechanism that self-amplifies under conditions of uncertainty and scarcity by organizing resources, time, and risk. It itself has no moral attributes; it only follows the logic of replication, expansion, and efficiency. People’s mistake is to personify capital, treat the amplification effects as the cause, and take local experience as an explanation for the whole—thereby ignoring that what truly drives widening disparities is the differing degree to which institutions, rules, and structures constrain the “amplification mechanism.”

Therefore, a sense of unfairness does not mean that capital does evil; rather, it is the inevitable distribution result produced when capital operates within a given structure. If one stops at emotional attribution, one will miss the real key issue—how to design structures that can constrain amplification effects and prevent the uncontrolled transfer of risk and responsibility.