What is the difference between a civil society of shared values and citizens with personal social capital ?

[Seiriuqni]

I know citizens with personal social capital means people who are interested in interaction and helping each other ...while a civil society of shared values means a society that share same values obviously .. but can you guys rephrase a deeper, clearer difference ? and which might be better for a democratic nation to work ?

[radish]

1.The two sets co exist in most western societies

.2.The key term here is 'contradiction'

3. as even those with political beleifs that argue for indivdiualism , freedom of choice, and the benefits of of a free market, depend on the underlying sets of values based on social capital

4. Different Western socities however place greater or lesser emphasis on each of your two sets of values:
4.1 the Scandinavian societies or the 'Welfare States' veer more to openly acknowledging the importance of the underlying shared values and social interractions and are prepared to fund them.

4.2 In contrast the 'free market' societies (the USA and other similar societies, especially if the Republicans/ the Conservatives/ the Econoimc Rationalsits are in power) prefer to mask the importance of social capital and prefer not to fund policies to support them using the argument that these are 'natural' aspects of a 'civil society'

5 As a sociologist interested in the structural bases of gender inequality I'm more inclined to recognise the importance of providing funding to help to maintain the otherwise unpaid labour (especially the unpaid labour of caring for- children, the elderly, the physically and mentally ill ,and for families of prisoners) that underpins the various important forms of social capital. However, not all sociologists necessarily agree with this perspective