Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Solidarity Economics

Defining Solidarity Economics
But what exactly is this "solidarity economy approach"? For some theorists of the movement, it begins with a redefinition of economic space itself. The dominant neoclassical story paints the economy as a singular space in which market actors (firms or individuals) seek to maximize their gain in a context of scarce resources. These actors play out their profit-seeking dramas on a stage wholly defined by the dynamics of the market and the state. Countering this narrow approach, solidarity economics embraces a plural and cultural view of the economy as a complex space of social relationship in which individuals, communities, and organizations generate livelihoods through many different means and with many different motivations and aspirations—not just the maximization of individual gain. The economic activity validated by neoclassical economists represents, in this view, only a tiny fraction of human efforts to meet needs and fulfill desires.
What really sustains us when the factories shut down, when the floodwaters rise, or when the paycheck is not enough? In the face of failures of market and state, we often survive by self-organized relationships of care, cooperation, and community. Despite the ways in which capitalist culture generates and mobilizes a drive toward competition and selfishness, basic practices of human solidarity remain the foundation upon which society and community are built. Capitalism's dominance may, in fact, derive in no small part from its ability to co-opt and colonize these relationships of cooperation and mutual aid....

At its core, solidarity economics rejects one-size-fits-all solutions and singular economic blueprints, embracing instead a view that economic and social development should occur from the bottom up, diversely and creatively crafted by those who are most affected. As Marcos Arruda of the Brazilian Solidarity Economy Network stated at the World Social Forum in 2004, "a solidarity economy does not arise from thinkers or ideas; it is the outcome of the concrete historical struggle of the human being to live and to develop him/herself as an individual and a collective. 
Similarly, contrasting the solidarity economy approach to historical visions of the "cooperative commonwealth," Henri de Roche noted that "the old cooperativism was a utopia in search of its practice and the new cooperativism is a practice in search of its utopia." Unlike many alternative economic projects that have come before, solidarity economics does not seek to build a singular model of how the economy should be structured, but rather pursues a dynamic process of economic organizing in which organizations, communities, and social movements work to identify, strengthen, connect, and create democratic and liberatory means of meeting their needs.
Success will only emerge as a product of organization and struggle. "Innovative practices at the micro level can only be viable and structurally effective for social change," said Arruda, "if they interweave with one another to form always-broader collaborative networks and solidarity chains of production-finance-distribution-consumption-education-communication."
This is, perhaps, the heart of solidarity economics—the process of networking diverse structures that share common values in ways that strengthen each. Mapping out the economic terrain in terms of "chains of solidarity production," organizers can build relationships of mutual aid and exchange between initiatives that increase their collective viability. At the same time, building relationships between solidarity-based enterprises and larger social movements builds increased support for the solidarity economy while allowing the movements to meet some of the basic needs of their participants, demonstrate viable alternatives, and thus increase the power and scope of their transformative work.
Dollars & Sense — Real World Economics
Other Economies are Possible!
Organizing toward an economy of cooperation and solidarity
Ethan Miller

5 comments:

Dan Kervick said...

Interesting. I like approaches that recognize that there is not real difference between society and "the economy". Producing, exchanging, bargaining, promising, giving and taking are things that go on everywhere.

Tom Hickey said...

Right, as he says, neoclassical economics is about a very small subset of behavior in a tiny niche of the global economy. What he doesn't say is that the neoclassical conception is not even very representational wrt to this small segment.

Peter Drubetskoy said...

This might be worth a shout out on MNE:
"Why Republicans Can’t Propose Spending Cuts"
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-republicans-cant-propose-spending-cuts.html

John Zelnicker said...

Tom -- This is almost exactly what Roger keeps saying, but in a different language and metaphor. And we need to use all the different metaphors we can if any real change in the cultural and collective consciousness is going to be achieved.

The right wing currently controls the framing. We need to change that using any and all ways of talking about community, options, interpersonal relationships, etc. We are indeed a social species.

Tom Hickey said...

Right, they are all about "human action" whereas what is significant is human interaction. They miss that completely and even deny there is anything real corresponding to society. They just don't get institutionalism and systems.