The period we live in looks like the return of big colonization areas. As we live in the XIXth century was a relative period of peace, but with a system which is going step by step towards a reactionary order. Different factors explain this idea.
First the level of education is decreasing dangerously. This lack is probably encouraged by a lot of people in the system to be very promoting this kind of behaviour. This is the reason why education is an important asset in society. For instance, in the Middle Age, Thomas d’Aquin was implementing education while writing a great deal. This movement participated to the Renaissance of the Western world. Going back to the principles of social and solidarity economy, which is linked to the economic system of the XIXth century.
We live in a period of a return of classical issues. New forms of wars of religions emerge with the rise of Islamism as well as the return of rivalries of power such as between the United States and China. It looks that the Cold War was a parenthesis in history when the fight for or against capitalism was a major subject. If this fight may come back one day it is not the case today, and we assist on the contrary to the return of rivalries as it existed between Athenes and Spartes, or between France and England in the XIXth century.
In this return of “classical” political and economic fight, and in a period of industrial revolution as we live today, the social and solidarity sector has a role to play. Its ability to reach a real economic development and contribute to cause on an international scale can contribute to build a real force that can make it contribute to face the challenges of this century. Social and solidarity economy should contribute to the artificial intelligence race, to make new technologies more accessible to everyone and bring more their positive sides, and build a more inclusive system where more people will be able to benefit from the changes of this century.
There was a internal fight in the XIXth century between Marx and Proudhon concerning the fight of classes. While Marx was advocating the unstoppable fight, Proudhon (from a more popular background than the “great bourgeois” Marx) was supporting a more active dialog between classes, and the ability to go beyond the current system a pacifical way. The reconciliation between classes, which was advocated by the socialist Fourier for instance, doesn’t go without a more generous contribution of the privileged classes to the common good ; but it doesn’t imply mankind should be radically separated between the “good” proletarians and the “bad” privileged. To this extend the social and solidarity economy takes into account the best sides of liberalism : the sense of work and merit, as well as entrepreneurial spirit. However the axis on education is even more taken into account than classical liberalism for a long term success. As the Marxist view showed its great inefficiency in numerous ways, this kind of alternative capitalism, which may lead to Fourier, or more radically to Proudhon, as well as Deleuze which are promoting a non authoritarian new system, can be an alternative that should be more taken into account.
To this extend old recipes can contribute to be efficient. Reformist ideas can bring responses to these issues as it did in the past. For instance the fight for laicity was not against religions : it was to put religion into private space, which was a response to centuries of religious wars, which brought a great deal of slaughters. It is the reason why working in a spirit of dialog and compromise, but standing firm on principles can be an efficient path ; the sense of nuance is a detrimental value in reformism, and it looks that this spirit of dialog is too often absent nowadays. Promoting this spirit can fight communautarism and the rise of extremism which are rising everywhere.
The dialog between cultures can also pass by the social and solidarity sector. This economic sector stems from the XIXth century and kept a lot of approaches of this time. Real political engagement “in the noble sense” may be possible. The idea is not to idealize this sector but to say there are possibilities and opportunities to make it able to bring responses to these kind of issues. For instance the foundation Coexister was created in France to promote religious dialog. These initiatives are too rare and then don’t respond enough to the worrying rise of extremism everywhere. However this spirit of promoting demanding debates in a spirit of openness are really necessary today.
The observer 