HOW IS SOCIAL CAPITALISM MOST CONCISELY DEFINED?
IT COMPRISES A SOCIO-ECONOMIC PHILSOPHY WHICH –
Maximises the direct (as contrasted with merely the representational) power of the individual in society, in terms of both management and ownership (the one being meaningless without the other), achieved through differing systems of co-determination and share-ownership.
Promotes an egalitarian society of equal chances, but balances this against, firstly, the aspiration for higher standards in all spheres of life and creativity; and, secondly, the demands of liberty for the full potential of individual development.
Social Capitalism reflects and advances the above through maximising the spread of wealth throughout the community, achieved through the principle of Productive Profitability challenging the process of Rentier capitalism, or the accumulation of ever-greater wealth into the hands of a decreasing ownership class.
Whilst acknowledging that in ideal circumstances less government is best government, it maintains that people power (or the state) must exert ultimate authority in: a) correcting imbalances arising from the financial-industrial system; b) fulfilling the demands of a constantly evolving society; and, c) attending to external crises howsoever caused.
By contrast the following aspects of socialism and the left are repudiated –
1 – The call to class war, together with its narrow subjectivity, as unacceptable and unnecessarily divisive to today’s modern middle-middle majority.
2 – Economic doctrines, such as the labour theory of value, or production for use as opposed to profit (when carried to its logical outcome), are discredited and useless tools in solving the immediate issues of our time.
3 – The missing “gene” of socialism, which always ultimately ensured its failure, was the inability to appreciate the need for business values, or the business instinct, or wealth creation, or the failure to formulate social business values as central to the doctrines for social justice.
Social Capitalism’s critique of the existing financial-industrial system is that –
Global or transnational capitalism, being the fullest development of Rentier capitalism, is not only unaccountable to any national or democratic authority, but even unaccountable to itself for its ultimate consequences. As a system which is driven by the irresponsibility of money profits for their own sake, without the human will or guiding hand towards any specific social direction, it leads in advanced industrial economies to:- de-industrialisation, unemployment, loss of pension rights and poverty; and in Third world countries to:- slave-wage conditions, dispossession of self-sustaining communities, social oppression and hunger. Meanwhile, Rentier capitalism on any scale in any society promotes a widening divide between rich and poor.