Meeting an Old Friend: Discovering the Solidarity Economy at the USSF
Megan Wade Antieau, Solidarity Economy
Prior to the U.S. Social Forum, the term “solidarity economy” did not exist in my vocabulary. When I saw that there would be a Solidarity Economy Tent at the Forum, I brushed it off as probably being about fair trade. Important, but not necessarily exciting in contrast to the Forum’s many other offerings.
But then I began attending workshops, and it was like putting a name to a face, and then furthermore, finding out that this seemingly modest friend is in fact very well known and quite a player in many different circles. Like Jenna, who has posted below about her Forum experience, much of this happened in the workshop “Building the Solidarity Economy from Real World Practices,” as well as the workshop “Beyond Reform or Revolution: Economic Transformation in the U.S.” (Details and video clips from all these workshops are available here.) During these sessions, practices and structures that I did not necessarily associate together were linking themselves under a single name.
Community Supported Agriculture? That’s the solidarity economy.
Other sorts of small scale or organic agriculture? The solidarity economy.
Worker and housing cooperatives? Solidarity economy.
New bartering systems – those swap meets held on my campus? Solidarity economy.
Community or complimentary currencies? Solidarity economy.
Community schools? Once again – the solidarity economy.
And so I found out that I already was rather familiar with this thing, ‘the solidarity economy,’ despite thinking I knew nothing about it. This is in part precisely because of how the solidarity economy functions. It has come about through diverse experiments and practices across the globe, rather than through the application of some grand economic theory hatched inside the walls of academia. These practices, emerging from the ground up, have collectively begun to hold enough weight to start truly providing not just alternative economic practices but alternative economic systems to the neoliberal capitalist economy.
I met several others at the Forum having roughly the same experience myself. Some of these folks are self-dubbed environmentalists, who sat there momentarily puzzled, thinking “CSA’s? Wait, that’s about sustainability, not about economics.” Indeed, it turns out that many of these practices, by their very nature, are more sustainable. But by that same nature they also sit in opposition to economic globalization, making them part of a battle on par with that which today’s environmentalists face. Other folks were at the Forum to talk about creating a culture of real democracy, and it didn’t take them long to realize the overlap: ‘democracy’ is as much about economic democracy as it is political democracy. In fact, walking through the , one found definite overlap with the Solidarity Economy Tent. The group I attended the Forum with, for instance, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, include in their work for democracy the running of a local community currency project and events like their annual “skill share” in which community members come to swap their own knowledge.
In this way, the events tied to the Solidarity Economy Working Group epitomized what I saw as the underlying message of the USSF: none of our struggles, our work for new systems (sustainable, democratic, or otherwise alternative) are isolated. They are linked, and sometimes, they may even require the same tools and projects. The third workshop on economics that I attended, “Feminist Economic Transformation,” underscored this once again. Moving towards a solidarity economy, with its different ideas about value and ‘work,’ can be, and is, part of the fight for women’s liberation. Feminism need not be premised on working for ‘equality’ in the current system; it can be about bringing about new systems that are themselves based in equality.
I left the Forum, then, with a better language with which to talk about the need for and the connection between all of these various movements, and one of the key terms is undoubtedly “Solidarity Economy.”
Megan Wade Antieau July 20, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“Even so, affluenza has reached the point where government interference is necessary to control these wants…”
This statement makes me nervous. I agree that government interference will be a part of the “cure” for affluenza, but I think it needs to have more to do with controlling firms rather than people. The concept of a government controlling the “wants” of the people brings to mind several failed experiments – Cuba, for example. People have natural “wants” that for the most part are perfectly reasonable – we want to be comfortable, we want to be well-liked, we want to be happy. The problem is when unregulated firms go out and advertise, brainwash and capitalize on those wants, attaching false solutions to them. We will be comfortable if we have a big house and an expensive car, we will be well-liked if we wear designer clothing, we will be happy if we keep buying things that make us happy. Yes, now these attachments or amendments to our wants are fully internalized by the public, but I think it makes more sense for the government to go about addressing the cause of the problem – advertisement and unregulated firms, rather than the effect – a public that buys unnecessary and unhealthy products.
I like the idea of limiting options to children, but I think it would be even more effective in the long-run to limit the amount of advertising of unhealthy foods that reaches children. It’s a good first step to take unhealthy food out of school, but the children are still being inundated with advertising outside of school. Kids tend to want what they can’t have, especially when they know what it is and that other kids like it.
Lauren, I really appreciate your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If you read on, I clearly say that the government can’t control the wants (desires) of the people directly. What I was trying to say in the phrase you commented on was that the government will be necessary to control affluenza (whether that be by a carbon tax, limiting the food options to children, or by controlling advertising–which I think is a very good point). I meant that the government (in some cases) will have to control the wants in an indirect way by controlling the causes. I should have been much more explicit in saying that. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Sorry for nitpicking about the wording, Ali. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I’m sort of having an inner debate right now about how much government regulation I want in general and I think I took it out on you!
I think it’d be cool to do something like an ad campaign to teach children about healthy consumption, a mix between regulating advertisement and regulating consumption.
I, too, find it especially interesting to consider the role of government intervention in the context of both affluenza and our country’s current financial situation. We live in a country that very much values capitalism and individualism. Many people are very wary of government intervention and its potential to “rob” the individual of rights and infringe upon our personal freedoms. With lingering Cold War-era taboos against communism and socialism, some people look very negatively upon the notion of government control. However, I believe that the government should hold the fundamental role of acting in the best interest of its citizens. In that context, the government should step in and enact programs that promote the overall well-being of the people. I agree that, in fighting against affluenza and strengthening our country’s economy, government action is necessary and has the potential to bring about a great deal of positive change.