The solidarity economy is a specific form of organization and operational structure of economic activities in a certain area, and which is essentially characterized by self-management, that is, by the autonomy "Autonomy (philosophy and psychology)") of each unit or undertaking, as well as by equality and equality between its members.
There are different authors who have dedicated themselves to conceptualizing solidarity economies, Paul Singer and Euclides Mance being two of their main interpreters.
For his part, Singer proposes that the solidarity economy is a possible strategy to fight against social inequalities and unemployment: "The construction of a solidarity economy is one of those alternative strategies, which takes advantage of the changes in production and work relations caused by big capital, to launch and promote the foundations of new ways of organizing production and exchanges, based on a very different logic from that which governs a typical capitalist market. Everything leads to think that the solidarity economy It will allow, after a few years, to give many the opportunity to enter production on their own account (individually, or collectively through, for example, a cooperative), even though today the possibilities that these same people would have of getting a job would be too remote..." ([Singer-2002], page 138).
As far as Euclides Mance is concerned, the concept of solidarity economy goes even further, since to the generation of numerous jobs, he adds the idea of solidarity collaboration, oriented towards the construction of a post-capitalist society, where a reasonable and unhindered life is guaranteed for all people: "...we consider solidarity collaboration as shared work and consumption, whose reciprocal link between people is first characterized in a moral sense of co-responsibility for the progress of society as a whole, and for the good life of each and every one of its members, seeking to expand to the maximum possible, the concrete exercise of personal and public freedom..." (see that in this definition, the concept of the human exercise of freedom is highlighted) ([Mance-1999], page 178).
, the model applied almost considered that the employee was a kind of property of the employer, since the degree of dependence of the former on the latter was very strong, completely separating him from the means of production and the tools he used, and thus distancing him from any outline or form of solidarity economy. This conception was still reflected in the language, since human and material resources were repeatedly spoken of then, thus making the labor force another resource, on the same level as the means of production and raw materials or inputs. On the contrary, the basic concept in the popular solidarity economy is very different, as it refers to the “set of productive enterprises of collective initiative, with a certain degree of internal democracy, and that treats work and the worker in a privileged way compared to capital, whether in a rural environment, whether in an urban or suburban environment. Underestimating the formation of alternative enterprises to the usual normally accepted capitalist patterns, objectively speaking, is a way of increasing and promoting social shortcomings of all kinds and unemployment. (...) solidarity economy ventures potentially find in collective work and in the motivations of workers, an important source of competitiveness and efficiency, today recognized even by contemporary capitalism, on the contrary, and thus exposing another case, competitiveness is obtained through economies of scale, as well as through a growing division and specialization in work, associated with rigid production lines - automated or not -, which in several aspects is alienating. and brutalizing for the operator.” ([Gaiger-2002], page 64).
For Paul Singer"), the definition of the solidarity economy especially considers the relationships between the worker and the means of production, since within the solidarity company it is considered that the workers are the owners of all or most of the means of production. (...) The solidarity company basically belongs to the workers themselves, and therefore, its main purpose is not to maximize the profit of the enterprise, but rather the quantity and quality of the work." ([Singer-2002], page 4).
The solidarity economy is presented as a reconciliation of the worker with the means of production, and providing, according to [Gaiger-2003], a professional experience based on equity and dignity, during which enrichment occurs from a cognitive and human point of view. With the most motivated people, the division of benefits accepted by the associates is based on solidarity: "the interest of the workers in guaranteeing the success of the enterprise, stimulates greater commitment from each person with the production process, as well as with the minimization of both waste and discards as well as idle time; the quality of the product or service generated is fundamental, in addition to inhibiting absenteeism and negligence" ([Gaiger-2002], page 34).
Therefore, one of the concepts that is intrinsically linked to the realization of a solidarity enterprise is that of local development. With the tendency to increase the performance of the associated work, it is necessary to promote local development both in the economic and social aspects, understanding that it is defined as the “process that mobilizes people and institutions, seeking the transformation of the local economy and society, creating income and work opportunities, overcoming difficulties to in one way or another favor the improvement of the living conditions of the local population” (Jesús, in: [Cattani-2003], page 72).
According to [Gaiger-2002], four economic characteristics establish the capitalist mode of production: production of merchandise with the sole objective of commercialization; separation between workers and the means of production; transformation of work into merchandise, through the salaried employee; existence of profit and capital accumulation, on the part of the employer and owner of the means of production.
One of the main characteristics of the capitalist model is to generate inequalities and combine possibilities: in this context, a part of the workers undoubtedly succeeds through specialization and good salaries, while another part of the workers lose their qualifications, and over time even become miserable ([Singer-2004]). This situation is the result of competition, which contrary to what one might initially think, is not antagonistic to cooperation (both always coexist, and what really characterizes a mode of production is the predominance of one or the other). In fact, when competition stands out in relation to cooperation, the tendency is to exclude those who for one reason or another fail or are not fit. On the other hand, when cooperation predominates, a very tolerable and egalitarian environment is established, making recovery processes for impoverished economies possible (Myrdal, in: [Arroyo-2008]).
The solidarity economy, according to Wautier (in: [Cattani-2003], page 110), is oriented from a sociological point of view, and « accentuates the notions of project, local development, and plurality of forms of economic activity, taking especially into account the "public utility" (in the form of various services, intended, mainly but not exclusively), for the needy or excluded population ».
It can also be said that the solidarity economy is based on relationships in which practices of solidarity and reciprocity are not used as mere compensatory and/or redistributive devices, but as determining factors in the reality of material and social life.