Citizen Controlled Social Capitalism?

I will attempt to unify the two ideologies of capitalism and socialism in hopes to open your mind of these two ideologies coexisting while including a very radical twist in policy,  giving everyone a better chance to succeed and hoping to level the playing field. Now the best way to start this entry is to begin by defining these two ideologies. Let’s start with the Oxford Dictionary definition of  capitalism:

an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Now we go on to the Oxford Dictionary definition of socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

With that established, I would like to offer my own political and economic theory called “citizen-controlled social capitalism”, which I would define as follows:

a political and economic theory where the merging of the ideas of socialism and capitalism come together and are under the control of the citizens.

Allow me to elaborate on this by using a scenario. Say we have ten businesses owned by ten different private business owners. Let’s say for argument sake that each of these businesses generates an annual gross income of $1 million. Then accounting for expenses such as rental space, electricity, heat, gas, and office supplies, this will leave you a net income of….oh let’s just say once again for argument’s sake….$900 thousand.

If one of these businesses has….let’s say….ten employees. It would be fair that out of those ten employees that they should split that net income ten ways, giving everyone $90 thousand annual income. So let’s now take into account the other nine businesses included in this model. Same numbers that we have used before (ten employees, gross income of $1 million, net income of $900 thousand, $90 thousand annual income). Then there would be a vote within these ten companies, which would include all of the employees, of how much they want to contribute voluntarily percentage wise toward things like funding education, police and fire departments, medical institutions, things of that sort. So with $10 million in generate income from these ten businesses, say everyone agrees on 30% contribution of gross income toward those social programs every year ($3 million). This leaves you with $7 million gross income between the ten businesses ($700 thousand gross income per business). Account for the expenses just like before ($100 thousand per business, $1 million dollars to account for the total of all ten businesses), this would give you $6 million net income for the ten businesses, or $600 thousand net for each business, breaking down to $60 thousand net income for each worker.

The point of creating this model puts everyone on a level playing field. No one would make more than anyone else. In addition to that, everyone within the businesses would have a say on what to voluntarily contribute towards social programs, this would include the workers/employees themselves. It also includes the perks of capitalism allowing everyone to be in charge of themselves instead of someone being in charge of someone else. Everyone would receive a sizable individual benefit while pleasing the collective. This would boost worker moral, possibly eliminating or at least greatly reducing the chance of an employee strike. This would also allow the citizens more purchasing power which is always good for the economy.

Where this differs from the traditional capitalism is that instead of one, or a few controlling the business, each employee receives an equal share of the profits. And this differs from socialism for the fact that the distribution, production, and exchange would be under everyone’s control. There are no bosses, just everyone working towards a greater good while having enough capital to spend, greatly improving economic conditions.

You can also take this to another level when voting on issues such as using traditional electricity or free energy. Granted we have not fully explored complete use of free energy, but at least providing the opportunity for the masses to have a say on whether they want to stick to the traditional way of using electricity or whether the people want to attempt to move forward towards free energy initiatives should be available.

So what about the banks? Well that is a good question. The banks would be used in the same way. This gives monetary control to the citizens. If there is to be a central bank, it would not be under control of private owners like the Federal Reserve (capitalism) or under State control, which would in the end be controlled by a group of people or a particular community (socialism). Instead, an idea would be daily financial meetings that can be televised publicly for the masses to see, in order to discuss and improve economic situations (citizen-controlled social capitalism). There would also be no “too big to fail”. Banks like Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Citibank (which are privately owned) would never exist, let alone receive multi-billion dollar bailouts.

If a citizen wants to start a business and needs to take out a loan with a bank, it has the opportunity to do so. Instead of charging interest on the loan, the bank can be given equity into a business, which can be discussed between the bank and the borrower, thereby generating revenue in order to lend to other citizens who would like to start their own business.  This would benefit the citizens given them the opportunity to start something that is their own and making a decent living in addition to it.

This would allow for harmonious international trade provided that the other parts of the world adopted this exact same economic model. Instead of money being directed into the pockets of the few, it is spend into the economies of the world keeping money moving and the best part is that the currency would be interest-free. No national debt. No debt slaves.

Now you may be wondering if there would be a rich or poor in this type of community. The answer is no. Instead, what there would be is one class. A comfortable class. No one will have more than another. Everyone will live comfortably. In the end, isn’t that what we all want?

Granted this is an economic model that can be improved on as it goes along. Nothing starts out perfect, but with some time and patience and the open mind to try something new, this would be the starting point to a much better life for everyone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s