#GE2017: Capitalism and Social Enterprise
We need an economy that works for all” would seem to be the common ground for at least 3 of the contenders for our new government.
Michael Sheen, a new patron for social enterprise, wants this too. He calls for an economy that benefits everyone, not just the few.
For Jeremy Corbyn its a matter of distributing rewards more fairly.
Addressing activists At Labour’s “state of the economy” conference in west London, Jeremy Corbyn set out his desire to reform capitalism and said his party needed to “deliver the new economy that this country needs”.
“An economy that starts by tackling the grotesque levels of inequality within our society,” went on Mr Corbyn.
“We want to see a genuinely mixed economy of public and social enterprise, alongside a private sector with a long-term private business commitment, that will provide the decent pay, jobs, housing, schools, health and social care of the future. Labour will always seek to distribute the rewards of growth more fairly. But to deliver that growth demands real change in the way the economy is run,” Corbyn said.
For Theresa May, an economy that works for all seems to be driven by Catholic social teaching, in theory.
As for the Greens, Capitalism should exist for the good of people, not the other way around. An economy that works for all includes a living wage.
In 2004, it was the New Labour government of Tony Blair to whom we made our appeal, for economics which benefits people first. A people-centered economy
“Dealing with poverty is nothing new. The question became ‘how does poverty still exist in a world with sufficient resources for a decent quality of life for everyone?’ The answer was that we have yet to develop any economic system capable redistributing finite resources in a way that everyone has at minimum enough for a decent life: food, decent housing, transportation, clothing, health care, and education. The problem has not been lack of resources, but adequate distribution of resources. Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine ever devised, yet it came up short with its classical, inherent profit-motive as being presumed to be the driving force. Under that presumption, all is good in the name of profit became the prevailing winds of international economies — thereby giving carte blanche to the notion that greed is good because it is what has driven capitalism. The 1996 paper merely took exception with the assumption that personal profit, greed, and the desire to amass as much money and property on a personal level as possible are inherent and therefore necessary aspects of any capitalist endeavour. While it is in fact very normal for that to be the case, it simply does not follow that it must be the case.
Profits can be set aside in part to address social needs, and often have been by way of small percentages of annual profits set aside for charitable and philanthropic causes by corporations. This need not necessarily be a small percentage. In fact, there is no reason why an enterprise cannot exist for the primary purpose of generating profit for social needs — i.e., a P-CED, or social, enterprise. This was seen to be the potential solution toward correcting the traditional model of capitalism, even if only in small-scale enterprises on an experimental basis.”
“Traditional capitalism is an insufficient economic model allowing monetary outcomes as the bottom line with little regard to social needs. Bottom line must be taken one step further by at least some companies, past profit, to people. How profits are used is equally as important as creation of profits. Where profits can be brought to bear by willing individuals and companies to social benefit, so much the better. Moreover, this activity must be recognized and supported at government policy level as a badly needed, essential, and entirely legitimate enterprise activity.”
In 2009, it was interesting to note that the Vatican came on board in support of both people- centered economics and the application of profit for social benefit, when Pope Benedict published Caritas in Veritate:
“Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”
“This is not merely a matter of a “third sector”, but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society. “
Taking this beyond the UK in 2004, led to our efforts to raise awareness of neglect in institutional childcare, where we reasoned in a ‘Marshall Plan’ for Ukraine that profit could applied to resolve a wide range of problems, focussing on people and their needs over profit:
This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for “people-centered” economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority — as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine’s poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a “top-down” approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first — not secondarily, along the way or by the way.
Today, I call once more on a Group of MEPs representing a cross-section of these parties, to ask why rhetoric doesn’t align with policy. Why do we die in the trenches, while a political elite seeks to profit?
