Libertarian or historical self-management: It has anarchist roots, and is the first sense of self-management that arises in history, where leaderless group production, horizontal organization, direct democracy and collectivized management are the driving force of its operation.

State self-management: It is generated, promoted by the government, being implemented from the top down in hierarchical terms and government platforms, where the state promotes its development and study, seeking community decision, aiming only at a certain autonomy of the people, within the limits that the government direction would grant.

Liberal self-management: Refers to the decision-making of the worker in his productive unit in the process, as a result of the social division of labor within a company. A certain self-control of the worker being established, only to delegate power to only increase productivity and increase the profit of the employer(s), without them losing control.

Self-management without an employer: Based on the non-existence of an owner and a process of employer emptying of companies. In another sense, the appropriation of the means of production is a constituent of direct action, a fact considered as a political act, but this is diluted over time, because it only remains stuck in the vindication of salaried work as a right, but it dies because it does not fight for social transformation and sometimes becomes an authoritarian methodology similar to a traditional company.

Micro-community self-management: It is a kind of proto-self-management, where a group of people spontaneously or suggested by a collaborator (professional, religious, community leader, etc.). They organize a venture of actions, goods, services, ideas, or demands that affect them, for community purposes. It is a short process in time, it can only last a couple of days, not presenting a political proposal for social change, given that its interests lie in working for the realization of a felt need.

External agent self-management: This occurs when the self-management experience is promoted and commanded by person(s) from outside – of another social class, nationality, profession, party, among others – who usually manage(s) the obtaining of resources for the initiative, and with whom covert power relations are configured. The actions would be characterized by a certain verticality instead of horizontality in decision making (not always, and sometimes with a totally different intention). The dynamism of this category is enormous: an outsider can favor libertarian self-management and, in the next moment, adopt the role of “external agent” director. This external command can also become a constant state, or generate conflicts between “internals” and “externals” in decision making. Such a position may have roots in the Leninist idea of ​​avant-garde, in which the “intelligentsia” of the party or cause must be obeyed in an almost military style, since they “know what has to be done.” This still persists in some militant experiences.[9][10]​.

Libertarian or historical self-management: It has anarchist roots, and is the first sense of self-management that arises in history, where leaderless group production, horizontal organization, direct democracy and collectivized management are the driving force of its operation.

State self-management: It is generated, promoted by the government, being implemented from the top down in hierarchical terms and government platforms, where the state promotes its development and study, seeking community decision, aiming only at a certain autonomy of the people, within the limits that the government direction would grant.

Liberal self-management: Refers to the decision-making of the worker in his productive unit in the process, as a result of the social division of labor within a company. A certain self-control of the worker being established, only to delegate power to only increase productivity and increase the profit of the employer(s), without them losing control.

Self-management without an employer: Based on the non-existence of an owner and a process of employer emptying of companies. In another sense, the appropriation of the means of production is a constituent of direct action, a fact considered as a political act, but this is diluted over time, because it only remains stuck in the vindication of salaried work as a right, but it dies because it does not fight for social transformation and sometimes becomes an authoritarian methodology similar to a traditional company.

Micro-community self-management: It is a kind of proto-self-management, where a group of people spontaneously or suggested by a collaborator (professional, religious, community leader, etc.). They organize a venture of actions, goods, services, ideas, or demands that affect them, for community purposes. It is a short process in time, it can only last a couple of days, not presenting a political proposal for social change, given that its interests lie in working for the realization of a felt need.

External agent self-management: This occurs when the self-management experience is promoted and commanded by person(s) from outside – of another social class, nationality, profession, party, among others – who usually manage(s) the obtaining of resources for the initiative, and with whom covert power relations are configured. The actions would be characterized by a certain verticality instead of horizontality in decision making (not always, and sometimes with a totally different intention). The dynamism of this category is enormous: an outsider can favor libertarian self-management and, in the next moment, adopt the role of “external agent” director. This external command can also become a constant state, or generate conflicts between “internals” and “externals” in decision making. Such a position may have roots in the Leninist idea of ​​avant-garde, in which the “intelligentsia” of the party or cause must be obeyed in an almost military style, since they “know what has to be done.” This still persists in some militant experiences.[9][10]​.