The impact of ambitious and alternative projects linked to social economy are necessary ; even more than classical economy, they require a lot of planning and long term vision. In a world where corruption is widespread, defending idealistic models suppose even more energy and hard work. But, in the beginning of this century, social and solidarity economy model can respond to many challenges.
Anyway, in my opinion, money has to come into the balance. Kant said that money is the first measure of power. Moreover capitalism is not immoral but amoral, it is a tool and it depends on people how you deal with it. That is the reason why capitalism can be human and idealistic, and money can serve positive causes. Moreover, without money, it is impossible to compete with ‘cynical’ industries that can have important impact and influence. To this extend money is a necessary tool to this process.
However building alternative models look to be necessary. In fact it is possible to say that we live in a period where a lot of traditional distinctions are questioned. For instance, in philosophy, the distinction between nature and culture had a lot of consequences : Descartes thought that mankind had to be the master and possessor of nature, which had a lot of negative impacts as science was emancipating from theology. Thinkers like Hegel tried to reconcile this distinction and create links, however all the industrial revolutions didn’t take nature enough into consideration. But the Hegelian will of reconciliation didn’t weight much compared to the Marxist radical fight of classes, and in this context the necessity of capitalism to expand itself at any cost to survive, which cannot take nature into consideration. The fight between capitalism and communism couldn’t allow social and solidarity economy to really thrive, and of course environment was not a great concern compared to the “Star war” of Ronald Reagan.
Traditionally rivalry and curse for progress have been necessary to have and sustain power. In my opinion social and solidarity economy has to take this detrimental factor into account. This kind of model cannot develop without concern for economical and scientifical development. This model has to be ambitious, try to attract top ingeneers and technicians, aim at offering interesting salaries and promote a real sustainable ambition. Thinkers have also to contribute to this model, as a great side of this model is that it has to be invented. The idea is to create links between money, technical progress and sustainability. Many causes can participate to that : for instance, concerning religion, promoting a moderate approach and interpretation of texts that allow progress is detrimental ; it can contribute to reveal talents from regions of the world where conservative view hamper people to accomplish their potential. That is the reason why social and solidarity economy has to attract also thinkers, as it still has to be built. The idea of Deleuze, for instance, who was looking for alternative model but refusing autoritarism that is implied by communism, can be inspiring to this extend.
Taking into accounts realities, even sad ones, to build alternative models look to be necessary. But many initiatives have been made to this extend. Thinking global can be important, and I think being internationalist to this extend can be efficient. Marx, to promote communism, had the process to think global and it helped him to build a powerful movement. Too often social economy is local, with isolated initiatives, as it looks to be necessary to build bridges beyond countries and continents. This approach is facilitated by the new technologies, and this process has to be developed.
The observer 