SOLIDARITY ECONOMY

SOLIDARITY ECONOMY
Building Alternatives for People and Planet
Papers and Reports from the U.S. Social Forum 2007


INTRODUCTION

Jenna Allard
Coordinating Committee, U.S. Solidarity Economy Network
Guramylay: Growing the Green Economy


Julie Matthaei
Coordinating Committee, U.S. Solidarity Economy Network
Professor of Economics, Wellesley College


Excerpted from Jenna Allard, Carl Davidson, and Julie Matthaei, eds. Solidarity Economy: Building Alternatives for People and Planet
Chicago: ChangeMaker Publishing (www. Lulu.com/changemaker), 2008

The economy we have been waiting for is here! It has been growing up in our midst, pushing out of the cracks in our dysfunctional economic practices and institutions, and immigrating here via people, practices, and places once thought too marginal, too utopian, or too “underdeveloped” to matter. In this book, we share with you a wealth of new economic alternatives springing up in our country and around the world, and we invite you to become part of this courageous, creative, and diverse global movement to build a solidarity economy.

Our country’s emerging solidarity economy embodies wisdom earned through countless manifestos, meetings, demonstrations, and experiments with change. It is led by our country’s vibrant social movements – worker and anti-class, civil rights and anti-racist, feminist, welfare rights and anti-poverty, ecology, lesbian and gay liberation, disability, and peace movements – in connection and interaction with movements abroad. These movements have engaged millions of Americans in processes of individual and social transformation. They have taught us to recognize and overcome our prejudices; to become more whole and balanced; and to honor our bodies and the Earth. They have taught us to question the competitive consumerist “American dream” which denies us the well-being it promises, while destroying our planet. They have pointed out, each from their own lens, the many ways in which our economic practices and institutions must change if they are to truly embody the American ideals of equality, democracy, and freedom. In this way, our social movements have laid the groundwork for an epochal shift in our country, out of a paradigm based on polarization, hierarchy, competition, and domination, to one based instead on equality, democracy, freedom, and solidarity.

The turn of the millennium saw these social movements, which had cross-fertilized one another for decades in the U.S. and in the world, begin to come together in a global “movement of movements.” The first expressions of this movement of movements came together globally to express a resounding “no” to the current reigning neoliberal economic agenda. This agenda, driven by corporate greed – and epitomized in “free trade,” privatization, and the destruction of social safety nets – had been wreaking havoc on communities across the globe and on our planet itself (see Chapter 1). What Dr. King called the “fierce urgency of now” was further intensified by the impending climate change crisis. The Seattle 1999 demonstration against the World Trade Organization (WTO) – and the many similar demonstrations since then, at gatherings of the world economic powers – represent a dynamic convergence of social movements around this opposition to neoliberalism and corporate-run globalization.

Two years later in 2001, the first World Social Forum (WSF) was organized in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Its goal was to bring people and movements together, based on a shared Charter of Principles, to share visions and solutions, under the motto, “Another World is Possible.” The principles which unify the WSF include opposition to neoliberalism, commitment to nonviolence, and:

…. respect for Human Rights, the practices of real democracy, participatory democracy, peaceful relations, in equality and solidarity, among people, ethnicities, genders and peoples, and condemns all forms of domination and all subjection of one person by another. [1]

Unity around a shared commitment to these basic principles is accompanied by a commitment to valuing diversity. In conscious contrast with traditional leftist discourse, the WSF was organized according to the Zapatista saying, “Un solo no, un million de si” (One no, and a million yeses) – that is, to invite and showcase a diversity of opinions and strategies, and create conversations and linkages among them.[2]

Anyone who agrees with the Social Forum principles and belongs to a social change group is welcome to attend, and the program is largely “self-organizing,” that is, created by the participants, who propose workshops via the Internet. The WSF was created to encourage civil society organizations around the world to introduce into the world dialogue “the change-inducing practices they are experimenting [with], in building a new world in solidarity.”[3]

The first forum drew an astounding 20,000 people from all over the world. Since then, World Social Forum meetings have been held almost annually, in Porto Alegre, Mumbai, Nairobi, and Caracas, drawing up to 155,000 people at a time. Other Social Forums, based in cities, regions, countries, or even in particular issues, have also sprung up like mushrooms – for example, there were 2,560 Social Forum activities in the world in 2005.[4]

These Social Forums reflect the flowering of a new form of consciousness on a grass-roots level – and they, in turn, help educate, develop, and direct this new consciousness. It is a consciousness which stands in solidarity with all struggles for equality, democracy, sustainability, freedom, and justice, and seeks to inject these values into every aspect of our lives, including our economic lives. It is a consciousness which is locally rooted, but globally connected, involving what the WSF Charter calls “planetary citizenship.” It is a consciousness, a set of values, which has the power to transform our economy and society from the bottom up. This new consciousness is the heart and soul of the solidarity economy.

History and Definitions of the Solidarity Economy

The Growth of the Solidarity Economy Movement

The solidarity economy is a global movement. Yet until now, the term has been virtually unknown in the U.S. Like elsewhere in the world, the spread of the solidarity economy framework is closely connected to the Social Forum movement, and for good reason. Both the solidarity economy and the Social Forum movement share characteristics and yearnings. They both desire to synthesize the experiences, values, and visions of progressive social movements, while at the same time respecting their diversity. They both search for a plurality of answers to neoliberal globalization through participatory learning and reflection on our organizing and goals. If not for the “privileged space” of the World Social Forums, solidarity economy organizing would still be a regional phenomenon. And even locally, the Social Forum movement can fuel the growth of the solidarity economy. Illustrating this in their report on the organizing experience of the solidarity economy movement in Brazil, the Brazilian Forum on the Solidarity Economy states:



In our country, the growth of the Solidarity Economy as a movement – going beyond isolated, independent actions, and organizing itself towards a common association, networks configuration and struggle – takes a significant leap with the World Social Forums, a privileged space where different actors, organizations, initiatives and solidarity economy enterprises were able to develop an integrated work that resulted in a demand presented to newly elected president Lula to create a Solidarity Economy National Secretariat (SENAES). Together with the creation of this Secretariat, the Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy was created during the III Solidarity Economy National Plenary that represents this movement in Brazil. We can say that these two organizations, plus the World Social Forum, led the Solidarity Economy in Brazil to a significant growth and structuring.[5]


The term “solidarity economy” may not have spread without the aid of truly global networking, but we see economic activity that embodies progressive social values in every corner of the globe, even if these initiatives do not consciously identify as members of the movement. Paul Singer, National Secretary of the Solidarity Economy in Brazil, argues in an interview that: “Under the form of cooperativism, solidarity economy has already existed for 200 years in practically all countries of the world.” [6] Currently, there are economic actors on every continent that identify as solidarity economy initiatives, and they are forming and strengthening networks to support and learn from each other.

Solidarity Economy Organizing Around the World

Latin America has one of the oldest and most vibrant solidarity economy movements. It is also the place where the term itself was coined, adapted from the work of Luis Razeto, a Chilean professor of philosophy.[7] Razeto writes about the solidarity market, and about creating economic enterprises that embody ‘Factor C’ – cooperation, co-responsibility, communication and community.[8] By the 1990s, solidarity economy organizing and networking was already starting to flourish in Latin America, largely in reaction to the harsh neoliberal policies implemented by authoritarian governments in the previous decade. Activists and academics in Latin America realized that the neoliberal model of development was not working, particularly for the poor. As Marcos Arruda, a prominent Brazilian researcher of the solidarity economy, writes:


Solidarity Economy recognizes humankind, both the individual and social being, not only as creators and producers of economic wealth but also as co-owners of material wealth, co-users of natural resources, and co-responsible for the conservation of Nature. The dominant system leads to the concentration of wealth among the few and the disenfranchisement of the many. Solidarity Economy strives towards producing and sharing enough material wealth among all in order to generate sustainable conditions for self-managed development of each and every member of societies, the peoples and the planet.[9]

The solidarity economy took shape as a way to provide the most excluded and vulnerable members of the community with work and welfare services. Today, it is a mass movement with a strong and critical sense of social justice. Besides many local, national, and regional networks, some left-leaning governments have also begun to champion the movement, creating public sector offices and programs to promote the solidarity economy.

Elsewhere in the Global South, in Africa and Asia, solidarity economy organizing, at least by this name, is new but growing rapidly through the creation of forums and networks. Again, sustainable development and wealth redistribution is of critical importance in these places. Africa hosted the Third International Meeting on the Globalization of Solidarity in 2005, and the headquarters for the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of the Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS) is currently located in Dakar.[10] The first Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy was held in Manila, in October 2007.[11] Out of this was created a banking facility that links socially responsible investors to socially responsible enterprises, the Bayanihan Banking Window (BBW). (Bayanihan is a Filipino word meaning community solidarity and cooperation.) These early Asian examples of the solidarity economy are focusing on micro-credit organizations, from the Inner City Development Initiative in the Philippines, to the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Japan has also started its own Solidarity Economy Forum in March 2007, which is composed of academics and activists. They identify the solidarity economy in Japan as composed primarily of producer and consumer cooperatives.[12]

In Europe, there has also been a long-standing movement, mostly centered on the concept of the social economy – taken from the French term économie sociale. Members of the traditional social economy are located within the ‘third sector’ (as opposed to the private profit-oriented sector and the public redistributive sector), and they generally include worker and consumer cooperatives, and non-profit associations and foundations. The ‘third sector’ in Europe has played a major role in providing public services, and also in challenging the boundaries of the other sectors. Evers and Laville, two leading researchers on the social economy and the third sector in Europe, argue that these social economy movements are linked to: “a range of political and economic ideas to create mechanisms for the production of wealth and welfare other than market exchange or state protection. They represent a wide spectrum of collective actions coming from civil society, based on various forms of solidarity.”[13] These expressions of solidarity have grown to include ethical businesses and ethical consumption activities. In addition, the cooperative movement originated in Europe, and today, in the Basque region of Spain, the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is one of the largest cooperatives in the world, and an important and inspiring example of a large-scale solidarity economy. Europeans, particularly the French, have played a leading role in funding research and networking for the social and solidarity economy globally.

Another vibrant example of solidarity economy organizing in the global North is in Canada, and some of this organizing is represented in this volume (see Chapter 15). Much of their initial organizing grew out of the Community Economic Development movement, and used the language of the social economy. Today, there are “networks of networks” across Canada that are organizing cross-sectorally, and are mobilizing support for regional and national solidarity economy policy initiatives.


Defining the Solidarity Economy: From Practice to Framework

Defining the solidarity economy can be quite difficult, especially when those most involved in it, those doing work at the grassroots, often do not have access to the Internet, or the multi-linguistic ability to network with other international initiatives. They certainly do not have the time. We are just now starting to conceptualize the solidarity economy by analyzing, learning from, and connecting these grassroots practices. Globally, the most commonly used definition of the solidarity economy is provided by Alliance 21, the group which convened the Workgroup on the Solidarity Socioeconomy:

Solidarity economy designates all production, distribution and consumption activities that contribute to the democratization of the economy based on citizen commitments both at a local and global level. It is carried out in various forms, in all continents. It covers different forms of organization that the population uses to create its own means of work or to have access to qualitative goods and services, in a dynamics of reciprocity and solidarity which links individual interests to the collective interest. In this sense, solidarity economy is not a sector of the economy, but an overall approach that includes initiatives in most sectors of the economy.[14]

Even this definition leaves a lot of room for the diversity of practices contained within the solidarity economy, but it makes it clear that this economy should be centered on human needs rather than an insatiable drive for profit. Solidarity economy initiatives can also be loosely defined as practices and institutions on all levels and in all sectors of the economy that embody certain values and priorities: cooperation, sustainability, equality, democracy, justice, diversity, and local control.

Because the solidarity economy denotes a multiplicity of practices rather than a unified theory, universal definitions can be difficult to pin down (as you will soon see in this book). Yet this desire not to squelch diversity in order to achieve a comfortable and homogenous uniformity, but rather to consciously pursue a bottom-up approach, is part of the very ethic of the solidarity economy. It is a framework of practices held together by values, in contrast to the abstract theoretical models of socialist alternatives to capitalism that describe egalitarian, oppression-free utopias. These utopias always seem disappointingly out of reach, but the solidarity economy framework has evolved to describe and make visible the plethora of actually existing economic alternatives that are growing up all around us, in the midst of neoliberal capitalism.[15] The solidarity economy framework allows for and values diversity, and honors local knowledge. It provides a messy, loose description of what is already going on, other ways of being and acting to which our dominant, capitalist system has tried to blind us, or that we missed because our noses were stuck in books, reading theory. This imprecision makes the more academically minded cringe, but when we look closely, we can detect a higher organization emerging out of this multitude of authentic, grassroots transformative economic efforts. As Ethan Miller writes:

Solidarity Economics begins here, with the realization that alternative economies already exist; that we as creative and skilled people have already created different kinds of economic relationships in the very belly of the capitalist system. We have our own forms of wealth and value that are not defined by money. Instead of prioritizing competition and profit-making, these economies place human needs and relationships at the center. They are the already-planted seeds of a new economy, an economy of cooperation, equality, diversity, and self-determination: a “solidarity economy.”[16]

The Solidarity Economy at the U.S. Social Forum

The United States, the “belly of the beast” as it were, has trailed the rest of the world both in its participation in the Social Forum movement, and in its development of solidarity economy practices and networks. Nevertheless, regional social forums were held in the Midwest (Wisconsin, yearly since 2003), Northeast (Boston, 2004), the Northwest (Seattle, 2004), the Southeast (North Carolina, 2006), and Southwest (2006). This momentum built towards the first-ever all-U.S. Social Forum in the summer of 2007.

This book documents the “Building Economic Alternatives and the Social/Solidarity Economy” workshop track and caucus meetings which took place at this historic first U.S. Social Forum. These events were organized by the “Solidarity Economy Working Group for the USSF 2007.” A group of economists and economic activists came together under the leadership of Emily Kawano, Director of the Center for Popular Economics (CPE), a nonprofit collective of over sixty economists that works to promote economic justice and sustainability through economic education. Realizing that the USSF was a great organizing opportunity, CPE had decided to focus on organizing a workshop track at the U.S. Social Forum, in lieu of holding its annual summer institute. Emily organized the first meeting of the Solidarity Economy Working Group in January of 2007, at which the group decided to sponsor a track of sessions focused on economic alternatives and the social/solidarity economy. Within a few meetings, a core group had formed: Emily Kawano of the Center for Popular Economics; Julie Matthaei of Guramylay, TransformationCentral.org, and Wellesley College; Ethan Miller of Grassroots Economic Organizing and the Data Commons Project; and Dan Swinney of the Center for Labor and Community Research and the North American Network for a Solidarity Economy (NANSE). Also part of the Working Group, and participating in much of the planning, were Melissa Hoover of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives; Jessica Gordon Nembhard of the Democracy Collaborative; Heather Schoonover of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Yvon Poirier of the Solidarity Economy Quebec; and Michael Menser of American Federation of Teachers and Brooklyn College.

Members of the Solidarity Economy Working Group had attended, and in some cases helped organize, other Social Forums, and were aware of the ongoing critique of the Social Forum movement – that it brings people and groups together for an inspiring event, but that the energy often dissipates afterwards, with little or no permanent effect. We were determined to use the USSF 2007 as an opportunity to bring together economic activists from all over the country to build an ongoing organization focused on growing the solidarity economy. For this reason, we planned both a set of workshops on the solidarity economy, and two caucus meetings, before and after the main workshop days, to use to try to form an ongoing solidarity economy network. Through bi-weekly conference call meetings, we developed a list of groups which were active in the emerging U.S. solidarity economy, from different sectors of the economy and civil society. We contacted them about presenting in our bloc of workshops and participating in our caucus meetings.

In the end, we organized twenty-seven workshops on the theme of “Building Economic Alternatives and the Social/Solidarity Economy,” and two Solidarity Economy Caucus meetings. We also studied the Forum program on the web, and asked groups holding sessions on related topics whether we could add them to our program as allied events (we listed 53 in our program; see Appendix A). Jenna Allard videoed both caucuses and many of the sessions for Guramylay: Growing the Green Economy, with the plan of making them available on the Internet (see www.TransformationCentral.org and www.ussen.org) and in written form. Finally, we organized a Solidarity Economy Tent, with daily introductions to the solidarity economy, and workshops on political song-writing and using the Internet for economic and social transformation.
Organization and Overview of the Book

Our goal in this book was to record the events of the Solidarity Economy Track at the first-ever U.S. Social Forum. Although this book contains many vibrant and dynamic chapters that capture the essence of many of the workshops and much of the track, we were not able to obtain write-ups for all the sessions we wished to document. Further, the track of workshops itself was not meant to be a fully coherent or comprehensive representation of solidarity economy initiatives in the U.S. In a sense, both the track and the book evolved organically, much like a solidarity economy project, and they tell the story of the solidarity economy through a diversity of voices and through a diversity of projects.

Creating the sections of this book was in some ways like creating a taxonomy of the solidarity economy: it provides a window into one way of conceptualizing the movement. It also provides a window into some of the unique features of the solidarity economy in the U.S. Each chapter embodies the multidimensional values of the solidarity economy framework – e.g. anti-racist, feminist, ecological, pro-worker values – and describes practices that have both local and global aspects. We focus the sections of the book on the different ways that the solidarity economy is being built and defined in the U.S. It is being defined through visions, through models, and through principles. It is being built through social movements, through cooperatives and socially responsible businesses, through networking and community organizing, through public policy, and through daily practice. Like any categorization, it can and should be rethought and rearranged as other, new minds write and think about these practices.

I. New Visions and Models

Part I begins the project of defining the solidarity economy in a conceptual manner. In order to do this, we must remember that the solidarity economy is a framework, as opposed to an economic model or system with a specific set of assumptions about how things work and a specific set of structures that are most likely to make things go smoothly. The solidarity economy does not, as neoliberal capitalist theory does, try to enumerate certain critical, universal characteristics of human nature – namely self-interest – or advocate for a particular set of economic interactions, namely competition. If anything, the solidarity economy is trying to subvert neoliberal capitalism’s theoretically and oftentimes physically violent colonization of economic space. It is a project of diversification; a project of making space for other practices and relationships. And so, because the solidarity economy’s refusal to be rigidly classified can be best understood by first understanding neoliberalism’s rigid dogma, we start with what we are against in Chapter 1: Why We Need Another World: Introduction to Neoliberalism. In this piece, the authors introduce the Shrink-Shift-Shaft framework to explain some of the effects of neoliberal ideology.

Chapter 2: Social Economy and Solidarity Economy: Transformative Concepts for Unprecedented Times? conceptually distinguishes solidarity economy organizing from social economy organizing. The authors employ a three-sector conception of the economy, with the private profit-oriented logic of neoliberal capitalism making up the first sector, but attempting to encroach upon and shrink both the public and the social sector. The authors argue that solidarity economy organizing is cross-sectoral, and must contend in all sectors, even though the third sector is currently its primary site of organizing. This chapter includes three visual representations of the social and solidarity economy which were presented in the first caucus meeting and informed much of the discussion about the solidarity economy in the workshops.

A good point of balance to any conceptual vision of the solidarity economy is provided by Chapter 3, Between Global and Local: Alternatives to Globalization. Opposition to neoliberal globalization has mobilized the solidarity economy all over the world, and this piece features a conversation about trade and local self-sufficiency among four activists with different concerns and constituencies.

Chapter 4: There is an Alternative: Economic Democracy and Participatory Economics, and Chapter 5: Introduction to the Economics of Liberation: An Overview of PROUTt present three economic models that embody solidarity economy values. Chapter 4 records a debate between Michael Albert and David Schweickart, two important thinkers in the economic alternatives movement. Chapter 5 provides a short outline of the PROUTist economic system, first proposed by Indian philosopher, Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.


II. Defining the Solidarity Economy through Diverse Practices

Part II focuses on the incredible breadth of solidarity economy grassroots initiatives. All the chapters in this section showcase the diversity of organizing in the U.S. that can be counted as the solidarity economy. Chapter 6: Building a Solidarity Economy Through Real World Practices is based on a participatory exercise developed by Emily Kawano and Ethan Miller to illustrate the solidarity economy. Instead of creating practices to fit principle, they instead create principles to fit practice, and it is both inspiring for the participants to see that the solidarity economy exists and works, and for the organizers to realize that the principles of the solidarity economy are so infallibly intuitive. Chapter 7: Beyond Reform or Revolution: Economic Transformation in the U.S. is a roundtable discussion featuring many of the prominent solidarity economy organizers in the U.S., discussing their work, the challenges they face, and their hopes for the future of the solidarity economy movement.

Chapter 8: Building Community Economies Any Time Any Place is a collection of pieces by the Community Economies Collective, a research group located in Western Massachusetts, and founded by J.K. Gibson-Graham. They focus on changing our relationship to the economy, so that instead of assuming that we are passive subjects who have to trust the economist “experts,” we can realize that we are active, creative participants in the economies and communities around us. After an introduction and summary by Stephen Healy, Janelle Cornwall helps us see how many non-capitalist relationships and transactions exist in our lives, just below the surface, in the Iceberg Exercise. Then, Ted White sees a new type of relationship between producer and consumer, an “economy of trust,” in small-scale, local farmstands, and Karen Werner describes how monetary systems work on a conceptual level, and then describes her experience starting one of her own, in the form of a local time bank.


III. Building the Solidarity Economy through Social Movements

Part III is the first of the series of sections which focuses on how the solidarity economy is being built from the grassroots, not on how it is being defined (not that there is always a difference). This section is featured front and center because social movements play an important and unique role in creating the values upon which the solidarity economy is based, and in challenging particular initiatives to live up to them. We want the solidarity economy in the U.S. to be, as Michael Albert describes his own organizing project: “An alliance which gets its gender definition from the feminist movement, gets its anti-racist definition from the movements around race, gets its labor definition from the labor movement, and gets its ecology from the ecological.”[17] Many activists in these social movements are drawn to the solidarity economy because they want to address the structural, economic roots of injustice, and are incorporating an analysis of neoliberal globalization into their work on issues and campaigns.

The social movements represented in this volume are the feminist movement in Chapter 9, the immigrants’ rights movement in Chapter 10, and the movement of women of the African Diaspora in Chapter 11. Although they are not represented in this volume, the Solidarity Economy Track at the U.S. Social Forum included workshops on the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, and a UNITE workshop was listed in our Allied Events, while the environmental movement was represented in our caucuses by the Environmental Health Coalition. Absent from both this volume and the Solidarity Economy Track, however, is the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender movement; we hope to connect with and support their struggles in the future.

IV. Building the Solidarity Economy through
Cooperatives and Socially Responsible Business
Part IV discusses the role of cooperatives and socially responsible businesses in building the solidarity economy. Throughout the world, worker cooperatives have always been a cornerstone of the solidarity economy. And while many leftists dismiss the corporate world as intrinsically exploitative and destructive, Dan Swinney, a member of the Solidarity Economy Working Group and co-creator of NANSE, suggests that a key task of solidarity economy organizing is to pressure and support privately held capitalist firms to take what he calls the “high road”:

There’s a definite low road sector of capital—a portion of the 13,000 publicly traded companies that are larger and can typically roam the world to solve their production problems—at the expense of local communities. But there are 8 million privately held, usually locally-owned companies that represent a large section of the business community that can and will be won to our side.” [18]

In the U.S., locally-owned small businesses are also becoming an important part of the burgeoning solidarity economy, especial through “buy local” and “local first” campaigns, which often form the starting point for more radical economic transformation.

In the first chapter in this section, Chapter 12: Growing Transformative Businesses, Jessica Gordon Nembhard offers a framework for thinking about how community-owned cooperatives are formed; Ann Bartz, representing the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, talks about the transformative impact of localization campaigns; and Adam Trott presents a personal account of being a worker-owner at Collective Copies. Chapter 13: Competing by Cooperating in Italy explores the particular conditions in a certain district in Italy that have allowed cooperatives – and their workers – to thrive in an increasingly globalized economy. Chapter 14: Another Workplace is Possible: Co-ops and Workplace Democracy offers a nuts and bolts approach to the organization of co-ops, how the movement in the U.S. has progressed, and how we can continue to build it.

Part V. Building the Solidarity Economy through Networking and Community Organizing

Part V features exciting cross-sectoral work – building alliances among different types of solidarity economy initiatives, and in different sectors of the economy. The first chapter in the section, Chapter 15: Solidarity Economy as a Strategy for Changing the Economy, offers the experience of our international allies to the north and south, who were present at the Forum to support and encourage solidarity economy networking in the U.S. Ethel Cote and Nancy Neamtan describe the solidarity economy movement in Canada, where networks of networks have been able to engage the public sector and receive government funding for their initiatives. Then Nedda Angulo Villareal outlines the different characteristics of the solidarity economy in Peru: how it specifically addresses the problem of poverty, incorporates indigenous forms of economic activity into its practices, and responds directly to the devastation caused by neoliberal policies. Throught networking, the Peruvian solidarity economy has also been able to pressure the government into providing funding for programs that help the poorest and most vulnerable. In Chapter 16: High Road Community Development, Public Schools, and the Solidarity Economy, Dan Swinney describes a grassroots partnership between a solidarity economy organization and the state – in this case to create a school. This local organizing in Chicago includes an impressive array of actors and stakeholders, and is informed by a transformative vision of social change. Our friends in other countries inspire us in the U.S. to think about the power for change we could generate with regional and national networking, while Swinney’s piece shows a powerful example of something which is already happening here.

Part VI: Building the Solidarity Economy through Public Policy

Part VI showcases policy initiatives and democratic processes that embody solidarity economy values – the kind of initiatives and processes that a solidarity economy network could effectively advocate for and build coalitions around. The first chapter in the section, Chapter 17: Participatory Budgeting: From Porto Alegre, Brazil to the U.S., first profoundly questions the elitist assumptions of traditional democratic theory, and then discusses actual participatory budgeting practices abroad and in the United States. It also talks about a new participatory budgeting network which was formed at the U.S. Social Forum to help support and grow these initiatives. In the other chapters, progressive economists advocate specific policy initiatives that express solidarity economy values. Chapter 18: The Sky as a Common Resource proposes a Cap and Dividend Approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, a measure which preserves the idea of the sky as a commons, and recognizes the disproportionate contribution that the richer countries have made to the global warming problem, and the disproportionate effects it will have on the poorer countries. Chapter 19: U.S Economic Inequality and What We Can Do About It addresses two questions: how do we measure inequality (through the Levy Institute Measure of Economic Well-Being), and how do we redress it (through the Basic Income Grant)? Chapter 20: You Are What You Eat talks about the U.S. food system, and how we can organize to make it reflect our own values.

Part VII. Building the Solidarity Economy through Daily Practice

Part VII brings the solidarity economy to the individual level, to where transformative changes start to take place in our own lives. As Heather Schoonover, a member of the Solidarity Economy Working Group for the USSF 2007, commented in the second caucus, “The one question and point that came up in almost every workshop by an attendee was: ‘This is great! I support this! What can I personally do on my own, in my house, today?’ People liked the idea of big changes, but really wanted to know what they could do to bring them about.”[19] We wanted to end the book with the workshops which answered this question; workshops which challenge us to re-evaluate our consumption, work, and investment through the lens of our priorities and values.

The first chapter in the section, Chapter 21: Live Your Power: Socially Responsible Consumption, Work, and Investment, includes both a presentation by Julie Matthaei and comments from the workshop audience that describe the ways that they live their deeply anti-authoritarian, anti-consumerist, and communitarian values in their daily economic practices. Chapter 22: Household Economic Justice Strategies is a short outline of resources for analyzing your own consumption and making it congruent with your values. The section ends with Chapter 23: Spirituality and Economic Transformation, which includes three essays about the relationship between spirituality and the growth of the solidarity economy, and how progressive faith groups are uniting for transformative change.

Part VIII. The Birth of the U.S. Solidarity Economy Network

Part VIII begins with summaries of the two Solidarity Economy Caucus meetings, Chapters 24 and 25. The Solidarity Economy Working Group for USSF 2007 used the first caucus meeting, which took place before the workshops started, to introduce the solidarity economy framework to participants, present reports from experienced organizers in Canada and Peru, and discuss some of the challenges faced by the movement. This provided an excellent foundation for the Working Group’s track of workshops. On the evening of the third and last day of workshops, the second caucus meeting was held, which focused on creating a structure to build on the networking that had occurred, and move forward solidarity economy organizing after the USSF. The benefits of forming a U.S. solidarity economy network, and the various functions such a network could play, were discussed. It was here that Carl Davidson, our co-editor and publisher, first urged the group to publish the conference proceedings, and the idea for this book was born. The caucus ended with a unanimous approval of the Working Group’s proposal to create a U.S. Solidarity Economy Network, with Emily Kawano as Director. Chapters 26: The Emerging Solidarity Economy: Some Common Themes, and 27: Solidarity Economy Organization in the U.S. Context: A Think-Paper Towards First Steps were hand-outs provided to caucus members in preparation for the meetings; the first, to familiarize them with basic information about the solidarity economy framework, and the second, to raise key issues relevant to the formation of a solidarity economy network.

* * *
As we write this, seven months after those historic meetings, the U.S. Solidarity Economy Network (SEN) has taken its first baby-steps as a new organization: creating a structure, applying for and receiving funding, beginning to develop a membership, establishing a website (ussen.org), and planning a first conference for the fall of 2008. As members of SEN’s interim coordinating committee, and editors of this collection, we are excited to herald the creation of this new movement, and we are continually inspired by the grassroots economic initiatives and actors who are not new at all, but have been working to transform our economic system in wonderfully radical ways right under our noses. We hope our book can show you that the solidarity economy is already well underway in the U.S. – it only needs you to join it.[20] Another Economy is Possible!



References

Arruda, Macros. (2005, November). “Annex: Different Names and Practices that are Complementary to Each Other.” in Solidarity Socioeconomy as an Integral New System: Global Vision. Dakar: Workshop on a Global Vision of Solidarity Socioeconomy
Arruda, Macros. (2005, November). “A Global Vision of a Solidarity Socioeconomy: Reflections for Discussion” in Solidarity Socioeconomy as an Integral New System: Global Vision. Dakar: Workshop on a Global Vision of Solidarity Socioeconomy
Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy. (2006, January) “The Management and Organization Experience of the Solidarity Economy Movement in Brazil.”
Evers, Adalbert and Jean-Louis Laville. (2004). “Defining the Third Sector in Europe” in Evers, Adalbert and Jean-Louis Laville (Ed.). The Third Sector in Europe (pp. 11-42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gadotti, Moacir. (1996). “ICEA-Brazil: A Brief History.” São Paulo: International Community Education Association / Instituto Paulo Freire.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1996). The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Gomes, Christiane. (2005, March 27) “A Brazilian Alternative to Neoliberalism: Solidarity” Brazzil Magazine.
http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/8972/79/
Kitazawa, Yoko. (2007, April). “Forum on Solidarity was Launched in Japan” Workgroup on Solidarity Socioeconomy.
http://www.socioeco.org/en/forum-solidarity-economy-japan.php
Miller, Ethan. (2004, revised June 2005). “Solidarity Economics: Strategies for Building New Economies for the Bottom-Up and the Inside-Out” Grassroots Economic Organizing Collective.
http://www.populareconomics.org/ussen/webfm_send/12
http://www.fbes.org.br/docs/Brazilian_Solidarity_Economy_Movement.pdf
Transformation Central. (2008, January 4). “Caucus II: Workshop Feedback” [video file]. Video Posted to:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8414937760070498986&q=transformation+central+description+site %3Avideo.google.com&pr=goog-sl
Workgroup on the Solidarity Socioeconomy. (2001, May). “Proposal Paper on the Solidarity Economy” Alliance 21.
http://www.alliance21.org/2003/article.php3?id_article=552
The World Social Forum Charter of Principles, Principle 11.
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2, accessed Feb. 20, 2008.
World Social Forum Secretariat. An X-Ray of Participation in the 2005 Forum: Elements for Debate William F. Fisher and Thomas Ponniah, Eds. Another World is Possible: Popular Alternatives to Globalization at the World Social Forum. New York: Zed Books, 2003.
Whitaker, Chico. (March, 2006). Speech presented at Left Forum, New York City, NY.

EndNotes

[1] The World Social Forum Charter of Principles, Principle 11. http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2, accessed Feb. 20, 2008.
[2] Chico Whitaker. (March, 2006). Speech presented at Left Forum, New York City, NY.
[3] WSF Charter, Principle 14.
[4] Data is from World Social Forum Secretariat. An X-Ray of Participation in the 2005 Forum: Elements for Debate and Speech by Chico Whitaker, above. For more on the WSF movement, see William F. Fisher and Thomas Ponniah, Eds. Another World is Possible: Popular Alternatives to Globalization at the World Social Forum. New York: Zed Books, 2003.
[5] Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy. (2006, January) “The Management and Organization Experience of the Solidarity Economy Movement in Brazil”, 4.
[6] Gomes, Christiane. (2005, March 27) “A Brazilian Alternative to Neoliberalism: Solidarity” Brazzil Magazine.http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/8972/79/
[7] Arruda, Macros. (2005, November). “Annex: Different Names and Practices that are Complementary to Each Other.” in Solidarity Socioeconomy as an Integral New System: Global Vision. Dakar: Workshop on a Global Vision of Solidarity Socioeconomy, 55.
[8] Gadotti, Moacir. (1996). “ICEA-Brazil: A Brief History.” São Paulo: International Community Education Association / Instituto Paulo Freire. For more on Razeto’s concept of “Factor C”, also see Razeto, Luis. (1997). “‘Factor C’: la solidaridad convertida en fuerza productiva y en el factor económico,” in Globalización de la solidaridad: un reto para todos, Lima: CEP.
[9] Arruda, Macros. (2005, November). “A Global Vision of a Solidarity Socioeconomy: Reflections for Discussion” in Solidarity Socioeconomy as an Integral New System: Global Vision. Dakar: Workshop on a Global Vision of Solidarity Socioeconomy, 2.
[10] To read the Final Declaration of the Third International Meeting on the Globalization of Solidarity, go to: http://www.ripess.net/docs/declaration_dakar_en.pdf
[11] For more information, visit the website: http://www.asianforum2007.net/
[12] Kitazawa, Yoko. (2007, April). “Forum on Solidarity was Launched in Japan” Workgroup on Solidarity Socioeconomy.
[13] Evers, Adalbert and Jean-Louis Laville. (2004). “Defining the Third Sector in Europe” in Evers, Adalbert and Jean-Louis Laville (Ed.). The Third Sector in Europe (pp. 11-42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 36.
[14] Workgroup on the Solidarity Socioeconomy. (2001, May). “Proposal Paper on the Solidarity Economy” Alliance 21.
[15] J.K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996) made this point in 1996; subsequent research by the Community Economies group, whose work is featured in Chapter 8, also takes this stance.
[16] Miller, 6.
[17] This volume, Albert, current page I:39
[18] This volume, Swinney, current page II:53
[19] Schoonover, Heather qtd. in Transformation Central. (2008, January 4). “Caucus II: Workshop Feedback” [video file].
[20] Thanks to J.K.Gibson-Graham for these words, contributed for our book cover.

Seminar on a Solidarity Economy

Seminar on a Solidarity Economy

Marcos Arruda, 3 February 2002
Synthesis
The Seminar's last panel consisted of the presentation of syntheses of the various sessions of the seminar by six participants representing different networks and regions of the world present in the event. No common synthesis was agreed among the panelists; therefore each presentation is one's own responsibility. We believe that this would offer a richer overview of the Seminar.
I will divide my presentation in two parts: a strategic landmark or vision and the strategies to make it real. I emphasize the presence of two women among the four members of the Conference roundtable, and four women among the seven members of this Seminar panel. The relevant role of women is part of the innovations of a Solidarity Economy. Being the last one to speak, I observe that there is an explicit convergence among the syntheses of the various panelists. This indicates that we already have a solid base upon which to build international collaboration in solidarity. I recall that the responsibility of the synthesis belongs to each panelist and emphasize that those who will make the final synthesis, and the most important one, - that which will serve as a guide to practice - are the hundreds of Seminar participants and networks themselves.
1. Strategic Landmark or Vision
a. A Solidarity Economy does not arise from thinkers or ideas; it is the outcome of the concrete historic struggle of the human being to live and to develop him/herself as an individual and a collective. It arises also as the resultant of the crises of civilizational viability of the dominant world system centered on capital, on the market and on competition.
b. A Solidarity Economy is a fundamental part of another societal and civilizational project. Its horizon is not anti-globalization, but a globalization that is based on cooperation and solidarity. A Solidarity Economy is not only a microeconomic project. Nor is it only an economic project. If the human being counts, and since it is a multidimensional being, if economics is the art of the management and care of the various houses he/she inhabits, then the project is at the same time socioeconomic, political, cultural, environmental, energetic and, for many of us, spiritual.
c. A Solidarity Economy is also conceived as a "work economy" (José Luis Coraggio) or "an economy of solidarity work" (Luis Razeto), because it takes the work, knowledge and creativity of male and female workers as a central value. For a Solidarity Economy history, anthropology and economics prove that the woman is a solidarity being par excellence.
d. Other basic values of a Solidarity Economy include:
Basic human needs - inferior and superior -, which demand consciously guides technological progress;
The various human exchanges supported by values such as cooperation, reciprocity, two-way communication, respect for diversity, solidarity and conviviality;
And a harmonious mode of exchange with Nature, our mother and our broader biosystem.
2. Strategies
a. We suggest three ways for the Solidarity Economy to overcome the wall between a democratic politics and a competitive, totalitarian economy:
The rooting of associative and cooperative enterprises in the persons involved, in the territory, the neighborhood, the community, the biosystem.
The mounting empowerment of female and male workers towards becoming the conscious, active and collaborative subjects of their own enterprises as well as of all their spaces of existence, from the local to the global. This involves the development of an economic sector of social ownership and self-management, overcoming specialization and professionalization, and educating workers towards becoming intellectuals, scientists, politicians and eventually government officials.
The growing articulation of self-managed enterprises among themselves, in the form of participatory, transparent and consciously collaborative networks, fed with an energy that seeks to build always new ties of unanimity in diversity, in the respect for the different, in complementarity among the different, from the local to the global.
This is precisely the meaning of the title of this Seminar: Radicalization of Democracy. It implies overcoming the traditional forms of democracy, to the extent that it institutes society as a whole working and creating and recreating life as the subject of its own social and human development.
b. Aware of the impossibility that a Solidarity Economy cannot exist without the simultaneous elaboration of a Solidarity Culture, we recognize the need of a whole new educational system, as well as decentralized educational sub-systems, adapted to the children, youth and adults of the different sectors of each society. This includes certain indispensable factors:
The educational process must be based on the praxis of individual and group autonomy and self-management, on the one hand, and on solidarity, on the other. It must envisage the development of all the potential of each and every educatee. This means that the personal transformation envisaged is integral and will not emerge from ideas or professorial speeches only but above all, from the practice of new values and modes of relation.
Transformation implies risks, obstacles and complex contradictions, not only external but also internal, not only objective but also subjective. Since we are complex, contradictory beings, we must be prepared for this challenge, by developing a philosophy of conflict that make us capable to use dialogue, not coercion in search of persuasion and unanimities around common projects.
Transformation is a long process, which is anchored in the individual, social and historic human being that we are, and also in the reality of globalized capitalism. These are largely contradictory referentials, but paradoxically they hide within themselves the germs and the potentials for radical transformation and supersession of themselves. We need to gather infinite patience and persistence in order to win.
c. We need a double strategy to guide our action: one, critical, the other propositive and creative. To do so demands working on several fronts simultaneously, among which:
Pressuring the private sector, awakening its sense of social and environmental responsibility and working for the adoption of codes of conduct.
Pressuring the State - at the local, national and global levels - for substantial changes towards participatory democracy, social investment, regulations, changes in legislation that introduce, among others, the recognition and the promotion of a Solidarity Economy and other forms of direct democracy such as sectoral popular councils, like the Participatory Budget Council. This front has a superior horizon that of the occupation of State power by organized society at various levels, and the creation of a Social World Bank, an International Solidarity Fund and a World Equitable Trade Organization.
Spreading the project, values and praxis of a Solidarity Economy among society, underlining the importance of reinventing money and its uses, and developing solidarity financial networks at various scales.
c. Enlarging the South-South, South-North, West-East, rural-urban trade and exchange, direct and electronic.
e. Developing methods of macro socioeconomic planning that orchestrate local, regional, national and continental development plans in harmony and solidarity.

Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan

Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan
(1881-1983)
Mordecai Kaplan was born in Lithuania in 1881, just as the big wave of immigration to America was getting underway. He received a traditional Jewish education in Vilna and immigrated along with his family to America in 1889. His family and personal practices continued to be traditional, but as time went on, Kaplan became increasingly disenchanted with orthodox theology and increasingly interested in non-orthodox approaches to Judaism. He graduated from City College of New York, was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary (of the Conservative Movement) and received a master's degree from Columbia University. He served as associate rabbi of Kehillath Jeshurun, an Orthodox synagogue in New York.
In 1909, at the age of 28, Kaplan began to teach at the Jewish Theological Seminary, first heading the Teachers' Institute, then becoming a professor of homiletics and the philosophy of religion.
He helped to create the Young Israel Modern Orthodox movement with Rabbi Israel Friedlander. Due to Kaplan's evolving position on Jewish theology, he was later condemned as a heretic by Young Israel and the rest of Orthodox Judaism, and his name is no longer mentioned in official publications as being one of the movement's founders.
Kaplan was profoundly influenced by the new social science of sociology and recent progress in the physical sciences. He came to see Judaism not as a religion, but as a civilization, characterized not only by beliefs and practices, but by language, culture, literature, ethics, art, history, social organization, symbols, and customs. He promoted the notion of a synagogue-center which offered not only religious prayer services, but study programs, drama, dance, song, sports and exercise.
In 1935, Kaplan wrote Judaism as a Civilization, a book which became the foundation of the new Reconstructionist Movement, and which is still published in paperback. Kaplan taught that we need a reconstruction of the religious foundations of Judaism in light of our understanding that Judaism is a religious civilization. He promoted democracy in the synagogue community and advocated voluntary membership, elected leadership, and respect for the religious opinions of individuals.
Kaplan is also well known for having instituted Bat Mitzvah, when he called his eldest daughter to read the Haftarah on the Shabbat following her 12th birthday. Kaplan continued to study and teach throughout his life until his death in 1983 at the age of 102. His influence is felt far beyond the confines of the Reconstructionist Movement; his ideas found fertile soil in modern, America Jews living in a secular society in the 20th century.
Some key aspects of Kaplan's thinking include:
Judaism is an evolving religious civilization. While our dispersion throughout the world has resulted in some cultural differences, by and large we are united by a common religious civilization and must work toward transcending the differences which would divide us. Our common history is the source of our covenant and what motivates and "commands" us to live Jewishly.
Kaplan did not understand God as a supernatural force in the universe, but rather as the power which makes possible personal salvation, which Kaplan understand as the "worthwhileness of life." "God is the sum of all the animating organizing forces and relationships which are forever making a cosmos out of chaos," Kaplan wrote. God cannot abridge the laws of nature for God is synonymous with natural law.
Prayer is necessary because it helps us become conscious of our conscience, the force within which mediates our relationships and our ability to realize salvation. Moreover, prayer with the community focuses our attention on the community and its needs. And finally, worship offers a release of emotion that can orient us in a positive psychological direction.
Kaplan rejected several traditional Jewish categories, most notably Chosenness. He felt that the term was misunderstood and too often taken as a sign of Jewish superiority, when instead it was conceived as an expression of Jewish obligation to God and humanity. So, too, Kaplan rejected the idea of a personal messiah (that is, that God will send a messiah in the form of a human being). He wrote the "Sabbath Prayer Book" in which he expunged both notions from the prayers. Some Reconstructionist synagogues employ a different version of the Torah blessings to this day, avoiding the phrase "...asher bachar banu mi-kol ha-amim..." (...Who chose us from all the peoples...).

Ber Borochov - Biography

Ber Borochov - Biography
Ber Borochov was born June 22, (or July 4, according to the new calendar) 1881 in Zolotonshi in the Poltava district of the Ukraine. Two months after his birth Borochov’s parents moved to Poltava. A branch of' 'Hovevei Tzion was established there, and Borochov’s father Moses Aaron, a Hebrew teacher, was an active member.
His father, Moshe Aharon, a Maskil of the former generation, had progressive views. His house was a meeting place for members of the BILU and for pioneers of the Second Aliya as well as for Jewish intellectuals and writers.
Ber Borochov (1881-1917)
Among the guests were A.Z. Rabinowitz, an early Hebrew writer who favored national and social revival, the founders of Gedera, the father of Yitzhak Ben Zvi and others. Borochov's orientation to the land of Israel and the heritage of the Jewish people were embedded in his childhood experiences. When he was eleven years old he tried to run away from home and go on Aliya to Palestine. He was caught and returned. However, young Borochov did not get a basic Hebrew education.
Borochov attended the government Gymnasium (high school). He did not know enough Hebrew to write in it, and though he later became one of the greatest researchers of the Yiddish language, he did not know it well as a youth.
At school, Borochov came in contact with other ideologies, even though quiet agrarian Poltava was an out of the way place with little industry, because Poltava had become a town of exile for revolutionaries and dissidents. The best of the progressive intelligentsia were concentrated there, those who formed the Social Democratic and Social Revolutionary parties in later years. They had great influence among young students.
Borochov participated in study groups that were the fore-runners of revolutionary cells, and was recognized as a leader. At that time he was mostly interested in philosophy, but studied social sciences, history, and economics, gaining a broad knowledge of Marxist literature. From youth he excelled as a gifted lecturer and profound analyst, as well as an organizer and central person.
Borochov joined the Social Democratic party while still a student. He did not enter a university owing to his resentment over antisemitism.
When he lived in Yekatrinoslav (now Dniepropetrovsk) his was active in the S.D., lecturing to workers and students. However, the policy of the S.D. regarding the Jewish problem did not satisfy him. He was expelled from the party in May 1901, for nationalist deviationism, and organized a labor club with Socialist Zionist leanings. Borochov tried to merge Socialsim and Zionism. At that time, he founded, together with S. Dubin (Shimoni) one of the first associations of "Zionist Socialist Poalei Tziyon" with a membership of about a hundred, workers, clerks, apprentices. From the start, this movement met with the opposition of official Zionist circles,
In its first year of existence, Poalei Tziyon in Yekatrinozlav organized a self defense group, that fought with gangs of rioters, and it led a workers' strike. In 1902 Borochov published his first article in print on "The characteristics of the Jewish mind.' He saw in the tendency to monism a defining characteristic of Jewish thought. The article was a reply to the thesis of Karl Kautsky concerning the supposed Jewish tendency to abstraction and generalization.
The period of 1901 to 1905 were years of revolutionary ferment in Russia, which suffered under the yoke of Tsarist absolutism, years of crisis and deprivation, riots and growth of new forces in the Jewish community. The Zionist workers party was initially in a state of organizational and ideological chaos. In parallel a severe struggle raged in the Russian Social Democratic party, leading to development and crystallization of opposing factions.
Borochov spent this time in research and thought, slowly forming the basis of his world view, and principles of his ideology. His opposition to the then-current Zionist-Socialist notion of non-proletarianization caused his alienation from the movement for a while. He saw this doctrine, which claimed that the Jewish proletariat could never be proletarianized because of opposition by anti-Semites, as self-contradictory and illogical (if it couldn't be proletarianized it was not a proletariat) and as removing any basis for a proletarian Zionist movement (if there are no workers, there is no need for a workers' movement).
His article "On the Question of Zionist Theory" in February of 195 is deeply pessimistic regarding the future of the Diaspora. However, it does not reflect his later more mature thought.
The controversy over Uganda catalyzed Borochov into public action. His materialist-historical vision helped him to understand the place of the land of Israel in the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, and to see the artificiality of that favored the Uganda plan. His essay, "To the Question of Zion and Territory" reflects these views. Unfortunately, the
Borochov joined the Poalei Tziyon Party in November 1905, after the Sixth Zionist Congress, when the question of the "night refuge" in Uganda (the supposed offer by the British of Uganda as a Jewish national home, which created a temporary split in the Zionist movement resulting in Territorial Zionism) was raised. His opposition to Uganda or any other territory than Palestine being made the new Jewish homeland resulted in his famous essay "To the Question: Zion and Territory." However, the pressure of the recent pogroms made this solution popular. Another solution favored by Poalei Tziyon members at that time, was the idea of Jewish political autonomy or territorial autonomy within the Diaspora, notions that were popular with some other socialists as well. Borochov rejected both of these solutions. At the Poltava conference (November 1905), Borochov helped to formulate the Poalei Tziyon program. The Poltava conference was held in the shadow of the Tzarist counter-revolutionary terror. Some of the participants in the conference were arrested, including Borochov. The members of the central commitee later met secretly in Constantinograd and in Simferopol in the Crimea to complete the patform. Borochov did most of the work, which was later published as Our Platform in July 1906, and which he published in the journal he edited, Yevraiskaya Ravotzaya Chronika - The Jewish Workers' Chronicle, along with other materials under various pseudonyms.
On June 3, 1906, the Czarist government disbanded the Duma, and on the same night Borochov was apparently a arrested again. He soon escaped from prison and settled for a time in Minsk. Constantly spied on by the police, Borochov was forced to leave Russia, and in the latter part of 1907 he left for Krakow and then to the Hague. In the summer of 1907, Borochov helped found the World Confederation of Poalei Tziyon when he attended the world congress held in Krakow. He became a member of its administration and for a time was also its secretary.
He went to Vienna to edit the Party organ, Das Freie Wort (The Free Words), from 1907 to 1910. Borochov visited England, France, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland. He was a correspondent for a number of European and American Jewish papers. During this period he also attempted unsuccessfully to unite the Jewish socialist and labor parties.
During these wanderings, Borochov was married to a friend from Poltava, Luba Meltzer, who joined him in Switzerland. He kept in touch with the remnants of the Russian party in a period of severe persecutions and underground activity.
His financial situation in these wanderings was poor, and his little family was often in distress. His plans for visiting Palestine were postponed for lack of means, but he continued to study, learn languages and write a series of important studies including, The Jewish Workers' Movement in Numbers. He also became a Yiddish philologist , and wrote works on Marxist and proletarian ethics.
With the outbreak of the World War, Borochov was forced to leave Austria, and he came to the United States. He became one of the outstanding proponents of a democratically organized American and World Jewish Congress. He remained a Social Democrat and protested against sections of Poalei Tziyon who joined the Bolsheviks. In March of 1917, the Mensheviks came to power in Russia. Borochov returned to Europe en route to Russia. He stopped in Stockholm and helped to prepare the memorandum containing the Poalei Tsiyon demands before the Holland-Scandinavian Socialist Conference. Leaving his wife and family in Stockholm, he proceeded to Russia to attend the Third All-Russian Poalei Tsiyon Convention. In Russia, Borochov contracted pneumonia and died in Kiev on December 17, 1917 at the age of 36. In 1963, his remains were reinterred in the cemetery at Kibbutz Kinneret, alongside the other founders of Socialist Zionism.
Ber Borochov - Ideology
Borochov's ideological stands changed throughout his life. His signal achievement was to derive Socialist Zionism from classic Marxian theory, thereby providing an ideological framework for Zionist revolutionaries. The hallmark of his ideology was the belief that economic forces alone did not determine history and that each people was subject to unique national conditions, that were being ignored by Marxist historians. These questions are dealt with at length in "The National Question and the Class Struggle." Borochov also advanced a mechanistic "Borochovian" explanation of the Jewish problem, based on the fact that the Jews, being guests everywhere, were never fully integrated into the class structure of their society, and were restricted by law from following those occupations that were closest to the core of national economies. The Jewish class structure formed an "inverted pyramid" with fewer real proletarians and more professionals, intelligentsia and people engaged in non-essential consumer production, according to Borochov. As economies developed, native populations produced their own professionals and intelligentsia, and competition for jobs in all spheres intensified. This generated antisemitism, because native populations coveted the jobs and positions of Jews, and it forced Jews to migrate from country to country, in a "stychic process" that would inevitably bring them to their own country,. Palestine, when all other possibilities were exhausted. This mechanistic ("vulgar determinist') view gave way to an understanding of the spiritual and cultural roots of Zionism, and a more humanistic view in his last recorded speech.
Borochov's views on the Arab question formed the basis of socialist Zionist ideology, and refute the charges that Zionists planned to expel the Arabs of Palestine. In his last recorded speech, Borochov said:
Many point out the obstacles which we encounter in our colonization work. Some say that he Turkish law hinders our work, others contend that Palestine is insignificantly small, and still others charge us with the odious crime of wishing to oppress and expel the Arabs from Palestine...
When the waste lands are prepared for colonization, when modern technique is introduced, and when the other obstacles are removed, there will be sufficient land to accommodate both the Jews and the Arabs. Normal relations between the Jews and Arabs will and must prevail. (Ber Borochov - Eretz Yisrael in our program and tactics, Kiev, Sept. 1917)

Borochov believed that Arab and Jewish proletariat would have similar class interests, and would develop a common front in the class struggle. This ideology did not fit the reality of Palestine before WW I, where Arabs were competing with Jews for jobs. However, subsequently, the Zionist workers movements tried to establish joint organizations with Palestinian Arabs.
The National Question and the Class Struggle deals with the central contribution of Borochov to Marxist thought. Stripped of the Marxist jargon, Borochov's thesis amounts to pointing out that nationalist and ethnic motives play as strong a part in history as class ideology. The thesis was to prove itself correct, tragically, not only for the Jewish people, who were eventually ejected from the mainstream of Bolshevik politics, but also for the German Social Democrats who supported World War I, and again it would prove itself correct in Soviet imperialism and Stalin's genocidal nationalities policies. A fuller and more systematic exposition may be found in Our Platform.
Borochovian ideology was a cornerstone of the Poalei Tziyon movement, and in particular of Hashomer Hatzair (later MAPAM - the United Workers Party of Israel), which opted for a binational state solution until this proved to be impractical.
Ami Isseroff

The History of Hashomer Hatzair

The History of Hashomer Hatzairand The Kibbutz Artzi Federation

jewish virtual library

The Kibbutz Artzi is a federation comprising 85 kibbutzim founded by the Hashomer Hatzair youth movement. In 1998 it numbered around 20,000 members and its entire population (including children, candidates, parents of members etc.) totaled approximately 35,000.
The History of Hashomer Hatzair and The Kibbutz Artzi Federation
Hashomer Hatzair, the initial Zionist youth movement, was founded in Eastern Europe on the eve of the First World War. Many Jewish youth, affected by the process of modernization which had begun among Eastern European Jewry, sought a means of maintaining their Jewish identity and culture outside the stifling barriers of the shtetl and of Orthodox Jewish life. On the other hand, they were troubled by the crumbling of the foundations of society around them and by the growing anti-Semitism which threatened their very existence. In its early stages the movement was heavily influenced by the Scout Movement organized by Baden-Powell and it embraced scouting as a basic principle to teach ghetto youth self-reliance, outdoor life and a love and knowledge of nature. Another important influence upon them was the Wanderfoegel movement in Germany, which emphasized youth's independence and creativity.
Hashomer Hatzair forthwith adopted a Zionist ideology and stressed the need for the Jewish people to normalize their lives by changing their economic structure (as merchants) and to become workers and farmers, who would settle in the Land of Israel and work the land as "chalutzim" (pioneers). They were influenced, as well, by the burgeoning socialist movement, and they dreamt of creating in their new homeland a society based on social justice and equality.
The first members of the movement went to settle in Palestine in 1919, immediately after the war. There they found not "a land of milk and honey", but rather a barren, impoverished, undeveloped country lacking all means to maintain them. "If you will it, it is no legend" Theodore Herzl had said. They had the will, and a movement behind them, so they found the way. No one could build the land for them, therefore they had to do it on their own. Individually it could not be done, so they banded together and formed kibbutzim, collective settlements. The idea evolved naturally as a result of the conditions they found in Palestine. A few kibbutzim were already in existence when they arrived, particularly Degania, the first kibbutz, in the Jordan Valley
In 1927, the kibbutzim of Hashomer Hatzair, until then individual and separate settlements, decided to join together for greater mutual aid and to provide a focus for the world organization. The federation was named the Kibbutz Artzi. The movement's goals became clearer and a pattern was set for future development. At its inception the Kibbutz Artzi numbered four kibbutzim, with 200 members. In the following years Hashomer Hatzair spread throughout the Jewish world and its impact began to be felt in Jewish communities everywhere. Adult members of the movement emigrated to Palestine and formed new kibbutzim. In 1937 the very first kibbutz of Americans was settled at Ein Hashofet, named in honor of Justice Louis Brandeis, a warm supporter of Hashomer Hatzair. On the eve of the Second World War, the Hashomer Hatzair youth movement numbered 70,000 members world-wide.
In the spirit of the goals that the original founders had set for themselves, the movement established schools, cultural facilities, a publishing house and a daily newspaper, joint economic projects and instruments for mutual help.
The years of the Holocaust brought catastrophe to the Jewish people, it also destroyed the core of the Hashomer Hatzair movement in Europe, many of whose members fell in activities against the German forces. Hashomer Hatzair was active in leading resistance in the ghettoes, the forests and the concentration camps. In the Warsaw ghetto, members of the movement were among the organizers of the Jewish Fighting Organization, and a member of Hashomer Hatzair, Mordechai Anilewicz, stood at its head. In Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia and elsewhere in Nazi-occupied Europe, members of Hashomer Hatzair were to be found in the front ranks of the Jewish and general resistance and in attempts to rescue Jews.
As the war ended and the remnants of European Jewry were freed from the death camps, members of Hashomer Hatzair were among the first to organize the "illegal" flight of the survivors across the borders of Europe and to take part in the illegal immigration to Palestine, whose gates had been barred by the British. The leader of the refugees aboard the famed illegal immigration ship "Exodus" was a member of Hashomer Hatzair.
At the same time Hashomer Hatzair was active in the Haganah, the underground army of the Jewish community in Palestine. Together with the other kibbutz federations, its members formed the nucleus of the Palmach, which served as the shock troops in the war for Israel's independence. When the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, six Arab armies attacked the new nation and tried to crush it still-born. The battles were bitter. High in the annals of the struggle stand kibbutzim of the Kibbutz Artzi which were settled along the borders of the new country and were among the first to bear the brunt of the attack. Kibbutz Yad Mordechai (named for the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto revolt) and Kibbutz Negba, blocked the path of the Egyptian army to Tel Aviv. These and other Hashomer Hatzair kibbutzim were in the forefront of the effort of the entire Jewish community to win the final liberation of Israel.
The Kibbutz Artzi Federation in the State of Israel
In the first years of the new state the Kibbutz Artzi took an active role in settling new kibbutzim. The kibbutzim played an important part in reclaiming the barren lands, in absorbing new immigrants and in securing the borders of the country. However many of the functions that had been fulfilled by the kibbutz movement in the pre-independence period were now taken over by the state. The central role that the kibbutz had played diminished and with it the attraction of the kibbutz to young people.
In the course of time the kibbutzim grew and changed, in keeping with the changing times and environment. The development was not always smooth, and the movement often experienced periods of crisis as well as of prosperity. During the 1960's and 70's the standard of living of the kibbutzim rose immensely and they no longer needed to struggle to eke out a bare existence. In this last decade, the Kibbutz Artzi, together with the entire kibbutz movement, has been going through one of its most difficult crises. The change of government in the late Seventies; the revision in the direction of the national economy, which affected all the productive areas of the economy; a delay in adjusting the internal organization and administration of the kibbutz to the new conditions, all brought on economic difficulties, and in its wake an undermining of confidence of many of its members.
Today, on the eve of a new millenium, the Kibbutz Artzi is attempting to deal with its distinctive path as a cooperative, humanistic society. It is doing so by carrying out far-reaching changes in the structure and activities of its economy; in its organization and administration; in fostering culture and education; and in readjusting the democratic structure of its society.
At the same time, the Kibbutz Artzi continues to maintain its educational activities and the absorption of hundreds of youth from outside the kibbutz, while continuing in its social and political activity. It also takes part in the national task of absorbing new immigrants. The endeavor to guarantee the future of the kibbutz is accompanied both by anxiety and with much hope for the future, as well as with a belief in the ability of the kibbutzim and the movement to renew themselves, and to continue to develop humanistic and cooperative forms of life that will fit the needs of the individual and of society in the future.
Facts and Figures
Agriculture (as of 1998): The kibbutzim of the Kibbutz Artzi own 209,000 acres of agricultural land, of which 127,000 acres are under crops. These include: 11,000 acres of orchards; 59,000 acres of unirrigated field crops (wheat, barley etc.); and 45,000 acres of irrigated crops (cotton, flowers etc.); 17,000 acres of vegetables and hothouses.
The kibbutzim also produce 175,000,000 liters of milk; 25,000 tons of chicken; 10,000 tons of turkey; and more than 4,000 tons of fish per year.
Industry: In 1996 the total industrial production of the 121 factories of the Kibbutz Artzi was $1,217,000 of which $446,000,000 went for exports. The factories may be found in fields as diverse as plastics and rubber, metal, food, paper, electrical appliances and electronics, chemicals and pharmaceutics, furniture etc.
Services: In recent years many kibbutzim have entered the service industries as a means of augmenting their incomes. These include Guest Houses, Bed and Breakfast facilities, Hot Springs and Food Stores.
Outside income: A growing component of kibbutz income comes from the salaries of kibbutz members who work outside the kibbutz in their professional capacity, such as lecturers and teachers, health workers, engineers and business managers.
Source: The Kibbutz Artzi Federation