Can the economy be social when the existential of time is enframed as an economic good in order to secure it against the very relationality of this economy, that claims what the social is? How can the “social economy” as a term do justice to the aspirations of people, when the understanding of the economy, focuses on goods and services rather than the product of the form of life the market for our time produces? It is often touted as a way of framing “solutions” for issues that are non-for-profit. Yet if profit is always derivative profit, so monetary so completely disregards the originary or the benefit of the “existential arbitrage” our way of life entails, then solutions offered are the basis for managerialism pure and simple. It becomes a way of defining the aims of corporate social responsibility, that champions corporatism in all its varying guises. Responsibility here is to manage the effect of an entity in reference to the social it defines. And how does corporatism define the social? If its principle modus operandi is an opportunity defined by a market then the social is newspeak for the consumer, though the way the social is defined by CSR is always supplementary to this, even if it has the pretence to be otherwise. The stakeholder spruiked to replace the shareholder, is a way of saying there is interest to maintain the way of life never questioned so broaden the engagement from shareholders to stakeholders to allow “shared value creation” whereby competing interests are dealt with through what is shared in preserving the current way of doing things. So if the social is supplementary it is subordinate to the principal activity of seeking a return on the form of life presupposed for there to be such a thing as “responsibility”. We could say the ultimate responsibility of “corporate social responsible” is to maintain the form of life presupposed, as it is never the domain of questioning when the social they are responsible for is framed this way.