There are many different terms and concepts in the modern language. But, unfortunately, it is impossible to deal with all of them, because it is simply impossible to know everything. Therefore, this article will tell you what solidarity is and when it is necessary and possible to use this word.
It is worth saying that this concept, on the one hand, does not have an exact, single designation, because it can be considered from social, political, legal and other points of view. Generally speaking, it is better to refer to the original source and translate the given word from Latin, which will mean "strong". However, it is rather difficult to draw conclusions based on this designation alone. Therefore, it is worth considering this term from different points of view.
Understanding what solidarity is, first of all it is best to turn to the concept of “social solidarity”. In this case, it will be much easier to reveal the term itself and everything will become extremely clear. What does this mean? In short, it is the interdependence of people. It is based on the unity of certain actions or beliefs, it is a certain type of mutual assistance and support. Also, people can be in solidarity with each other if they have one goal to achieve which they strive to achieve.
Consider what solidarity is from a political point of view. So, the designation will be very similar. What, then, does the dictionary of political terms tell us? This is the consistency of people in their actions and opinions, mutual assistance and support in the middle of one social group. Again, this is done most often to achieve the same goals.
So solidarity: the meaning of the word can also be viewed from a labor point of view. There is a concept of conveyor solidarity, when all people standing along one machine perform the functions that are needed to achieve a result in a common cause, thereby helping each other to achieve the desired end result. Solidarity workers can be not only along one machine, but also in one work group, firm or other labor unit.
However, there are also concepts such as female or male solidarity. The meaning of the word in this context will be somewhat different. It is rather a household interpretation of the word. This refers to the support of representatives of the same sex in this or that case, even by means of deception or some other kind of dishonesty to the representatives of the opposite sex. So, the husband can lie that he spent the evening with a friend and not with his mistress. And this will be confirmed by the same comrade, although it will not be true. This is what is called male solidarity. However, for the sake of truth, it is worth saying that today this concept has been somewhat distorted and can be perceived in its deformed, incorrect meaning.
The great philosopher and theorist Emile Durkheim spoke about what solidarity is in his works, exploring society and the concept of the division of labor. So, according to him, solidarity itself is something moral that defies explanation, observation or measurement. He said that this is the highest good, a great value that can be recognized by all members of one society. In his opinion, there are two types of solidarity - mechanical and organic. Its first type is found in primitive communities where there was no special division of labor, and members of one group always performed approximately the same functions. Moreover, everything was regulated by religious, traditional or collective views. The second type - organic solidarity - develops already in an industrial society, when each person performs his own specific functions, working for the benefit of the whole society as a whole. At the same time, according to the philosopher, the collective pressure on such a person is significantly weakened.
Most often, solidarity is understood as a kind of bashful (for example, when donating funds in favor of one of the humanitarian organizations), and sometimes forced (solidarity tax on a state) kind of generosity.
Using the word "solidarity" to the place and out of place, our politicians and fine-minded thinkers completely emasculate its meaning. Along with tolerance, it becomes a "politically correct" virtue. This does not mean that solidarity is bad. It only means that it is becoming more and more difficult to use this word. It turns from a concept into a slogan. From idea to ideal. From a tool to a spell.
Solidarity is gradually becoming the property of rallies and newspapers. And this is wrong. Even a politically correct confusion of words is politically dangerous. It is better to return to the exact meaning of the word, the one that is associated with its etymology.
"Solidary" comes from the Latin solidus, which means"solid". The parts of a solid are solid in the sense that none of them can be influenced without simultaneously affecting all the others.
Take a billiard ball, for example. Striking one point sets the entire ball in motion. Another example is a motor. Its two parts are rigidly connected (solidary) if, by setting one in motion, we make the other move as well.
Solidarity is not a feeling, and even less a virtue, but an internal cohesion, interdependence, moreover, objective and devoid of any normative connotation. An oval billiard ball is undoubtedly less comfortable to play, but this does not prevent it from remaining solid. In Roman law, there is an expression in solido, which means "in full, in full." Debtors are joint and several if each of them is responsible for the return of the entire borrowed amount (if the rest turn out to be insolvent). It goes without saying that such solidarity represents a guarantee for the lender and a risk for each of the borrowers. The same thing happens with a married couple who owns joint property: each of the spouses can go broke if the other runs into debt. And the fact that he knew nothing about these debts, or even spoke out against loans, does not change anything. Consequently, the spouses are united by financial solidarity - they are both responsible for everything that can happen to each of them, for everything that each of them does.
Related materials:
Legitimacy
The word "solidarity" has a broader meaning beyond the scope of legal interpretation. Two individuals are objectively in solidarity if what happens to one inevitably affects the other (for example, if they have the same interests), or if what is done by one involves the other in the activity. This is the basis of the trade union movement, in which everyone defends their own interests, while protecting the interests of the rest of the union members. The idea of collective insurance is also based on this (even capitalist insurance companies base their activities on mutual willingness to share the risk). If the company is poorly managed, all shareholders will be at a loss, but with the best management, each shareholder is entitled to the contributions of everyone else. If a car is stolen from one of them, the rest will jointly pay for its cost - or rather, they have already paid by joining the company. This point makes the distinction between generosity and solidarity especially clear.
Being generous means acting for the benefit of a person whose interests you do not share. You do him good, without receiving anything in return; moreover, you act to the detriment of yourself, that is, you serve his interests contrary to your own. Suppose you gave ten francs to a beggar. He has ten francs more, yours ten francs less. This is not solidarity at all, this is generosity. There is nothing to be ashamed of, but nothing to be particularly proud of. After all, your ten francs will not help him end his poverty-stricken lifestyle. And how many people are there who are generous enough to let him live or pay for his accommodation? On the contrary, showing solidarity means acting for the benefit of the person whose interests you share. Protecting his interests, you protect your own; defending your own, you defend his interests as well.
Related materials:
Structure
For example, wage laborers or employees go on strike to demand higher wages. Their demand applies to everyone, but each of them knows that he is fighting for himself. The same happens when you join a union, sign an insurance policy, or pay taxes. You know perfectly well that you are doing this for your own good (although with regard to taxes, a whole system of controls and sanctions is needed to help you make sure that it is really in your best interest to pay them). This is not generosity, this is solidarity. And here you have nothing to be ashamed of, but again nothing to be proud of. After all, you are acting on the basis of selfish considerations.
Generosity is essentially selfless... No solidarity can be disinterested. To be generous means to give up, at least partially, from self-interest. Showing solidarity means protecting your interests with others. Generosity frees, at least partially, from selfishness. Solidarity is joint and intelligent selfishness (it is much more stupid to live according to the principle “every man for himself” or “we are against them”). Generosity is the opposite of selfishness. Solidarity is the effective socialization of selfishness. This is why generosity is morally valued much more highly. For the same reason, solidarity is much more important in social, political and economic life.
Related materials:
Solidarity and generosity are not at all incompatible concepts, but at the same time remain completely different. If people, in the event of illness, had to rely solely on the generosity of others, millions of sick people would die without any treatment. Therefore, such a simple (in the sense of morality) invention as health insurance appeared - an invention much more modest than generosity, and much more effective. Having health insurance doesn't make us less selfish. But it allows us to receive good treatment in case of illness. No person pays premiums out of generosity. He does this out of his own interests, even if he is forced to obey the rules of compulsory insurance. But in a solidarity society, the protection of the interests of everyone can be effective only in conditions of the simultaneous protection of the interests of all. Nobody pays taxes out of generosity. It would be more than odd for a union to make contributions out of generosity. But the social insurance system, including the medical one, and the trade unions, and the fiscal system have done much more for justice and protection of the weak than all of us put together, in the rare moments of our generosity. With the primacy of generosity, solidarity takes precedence. For the individual, generosity is a moral virtue. For a group of individuals, solidarity is an economic, social and political necessity. Subjectively, the former is valued higher, but objectively it practically does not matter. The second does not mean anything morally, but objectively brings much more benefit.
Well-read people with an extensive vocabulary very often give color to their speech using rather non-standard word forms.
If we turn to the translation of this word from Latin, then the meaning of the word "solidarity" reflects the unity of opinion, the readiness for mutual responsibility for a unanimous action or decision.
That is, for example, a person of solidarity is when he agrees with another person in any life issue or circumstance. Solidarity can exist on a principled level, that is, based on personal inferences.
In other words, solidarity is unanimous, accepting someone's opinions or actions and actively sympathizing with them.
For a clearer explanation, you can also refer to the synonyms of the word, then you will understand what it means to be in solidarity:
You can also consider the meaning of the word "solidarity" on the example of objects and their interactions.
Take a billiard ball, for example. When the cue hits one of its points, the entire ball moves, that is, we can say that all its other sections turned out to be in solidarity with each other and began to move at the same time.
Or consider the engine of a car. Its two components are rigidly connected (in other words, are in solidarity with each other). Since, if we set in motion one part, another begins to move.
From this we can conclude that solidarity is not a feeling, but an inner cohesion, cohesion.
In legal practice, the concept of solidarity is often encountered, only it has a clearer definition and a number of conditions.
The term "joint and several obligation" is the equality of competence of the parties in relation to the general rights and obligations to a certain person.
Let us consider this with an example: there is a group of co-owners of a small business (A, B, C) who pursue a common goal in developing their business and obtaining mutual benefits in the future. But at the moment they do not have enough funds for development, and they are forced to turn to the creditor (I).
The creditor gives the required amount, drawing up documents on the terms of a joint and several obligation to one of the co-owners (A). Thanks to this, the lender now has the right to demand the fulfillment of its conditions from the other two borrowers (B, C). That is, now each co-owner is joint and several - this means equal in obligations - and bears the same responsibility to the creditor.
There are two other options:
Social solidarity
When a group of people pursues the same goal, providing each other with support and mutual assistance.
Labor solidarity
You can consider labor solidarity using the example of conveyor workers. People working on one machine perform the functions necessary to achieve the overall desired result.
Male and female solidarity
There is some relationship among groups of men and women in good relationships, in which case solidarity can take place. A solidarity man is one who supports one or a group of men in a particular issue. Most often, such solidarity is ironic and untrue, since the manifestation of support is largely in favor of a situation that is beneficial for a group of people of a given gender.
You can consider this in a typical example of two friends. The husband may lie that he spent the evening with a friend watching a football match, while he himself spent this time with his mistress. And his friend will confirm this, although in fact it is not true.
Solidarity is not a feeling or obligation, it is something that defies explanation, measurement and observation. Solidarity sometimes arises between people in the most unexpected circumstances. It can manifest itself in almost all areas of life. Most often it is aimed at the good, and very rarely can harm others.
SOLIDARITY
SOLIDARITY
1. Active empathy for some opinion or action, community of interests, the same course of action or belief. May 1st is the day of international militant proletarian solidarity. "From economic strikes and strikes of solidarity, the workers began to go over to political strikes ... (after January 9, 1905)." History of the CPSU (b) . "The Social Democrats of the Second International basely betrayed the cause of socialism, the cause of international solidarity of the proletariat." History of the CPSU (b) ... A sense of solidarity.
2. Mutual responsibility, joint responsibility (legal).
Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary... D.N. Ushakov. 1935-1940.
Solidarity- Solidarity ♦ Solidarité The overuse of this word, too widely used over the years, has led to the fact that its strict meaning has almost disappeared. Most often, solidarity is understood as a kind of bashful (for example, when they donate ... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary
Solidarity. Let us turn [...] to the word solidarity (BAS, 14, p. 212). According to the academic dictionary, it has no semantic history in the Russian literary language of the 19th and 20th centuries. It has the same meaning: active sympathy for someone's actions or ... ... History of words
solidarity- and, w. solidarité f. 1. Active sympathy whose l. actions or opinions, community of interests, unanimity. ALS 1. In every society there is solidarity, in ours it is terrible, it is based on the proverb: with wolves you have to howl like a wolf. 7. 12. 1847. ... ... Historical Dictionary of Russian Gallicisms
- "SOLIDARITY" [Polish] polit. a massive Polish trade union association that arose at the turn of the 80s of the XX century. in the city of Gdansk as opposition to the then government regime in the country; denying the Marxist theory of class struggle, proclaimed the defense ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
- (Solidarity) An independent trade union established in 1980 in Poland under the leadership of Lech Walesa. Solidarity exploited widespread dissatisfaction with the communist regime. After massive strikes, he was forced to make unprecedented concessions. ... ... Political science. Dictionary.
Cm … Synonym dictionary
Solidarity- (Solidarity), an independent trade union movement in Poland that emerged in 1980 following a wave of strikes in Gdansk organized by the Free Trade Union of the Baltic Coast. Among the demands of the strikers was the creation of a trade union not controlled by the committee. ... ... The World History
The trade union in Poland emerged as a movement in 1980. Legalized in April 1989. It is part of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The number of St. 2 million members (1992). The governing body is the All-Polish Commission (VC). Until 1990, the leader ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
SOLIDARITY, and, wives. 1. see solidary. 2. Active sympathy with what n. opinions or actions, community of interests, unanimity. Day of International Workers' Solidarity (May Day). Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. ... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
The feeling of belonging and the practical implementation of it. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Solidarity
SOLID A RNO, and, f.
1. cm. .
2. Active sympathy opinions or actions, community of interests, unanimity. Day of International Workers' Solidarity (May Day).
Solidarity
trade union in Poland, emerged as a movement in 1980. Legalized in April 1989. It is part of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The number of St. 2 million members (1992). The governing body is the All-Polish Commission (VC). Until 1990 the leader "Solidarity" was L. Walesa. On the base "Solidarity" political parties were formed - the Agreement of Centrist Forces and the Democratic Union, as well as other parties and trends.
Solidarity
1) consistency in views and actions based on common goals and interests;
2) unity of beliefs and actions, mutual assistance of members of a social group, based on a community of interests and the need to achieve common goals; shared responsibility.
"Solidarity"
trade union in Poland, emerged as a movement in 1980. Legalized in April 1989. It is part of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The number of St. 2 million members (1992). The governing body is the All-Polish Commission (VC). Until 1990, the leader of Solidarity was L. Walesa. On the basis of Solidarity, political parties were formed - the Agreement of Centrist Forces and the Democratic Union, as well as other parties and trends.
Solidarity
solidity, solidarity, pl. No, wives(from lat. solidus - durable) ( books.).
1. Active empathy for some opinion or action, community of interests, the same course of action or belief. May 1st is the day of international militant proletarian solidarity. “From economic strikes and strikes of solidarity, the workers began to go over to political strikes ... (after January 9, 1905 G.).» History VKP (b) . "The Social Democrats of the Second International basely betrayed the cause of socialism, the cause of international solidarity of the proletariat." History VKP (b) ... A sense of solidarity.
2. Mutual responsibility, joint responsibility ( legal entity).
Solidarity
(fr. solidarite)
community of interests, common understanding of DOS. principles of worldview, shared responsibility. This concept has acquired in Russian philosophy of particular importance in connection with the spread of the ideas of socialism in Russia. It is already found among Herzen and the Petrashevists, but it became one of the central categories of social philosophy among the ideologists of populism from the end. 60s XIX century. In the views of Lavrov, M. A. Bakunin, L. I. Mechnikov, Kropotkin, Mikhailovsky and dr. The leaders of the populist movement S. are regarded as the most important factor in the development of the human society, whose growth leads to progress and general prosperity, and the loss leads to a mutual struggle for existence, poverty, and exploitation. Bakunin, ex., understanding S. as a reconciliation of all material and social interests of each with the human responsibilities of each, considers it in the closest connection with freedom and characterizes the latter as the development and "humanization" of S. An even broader understanding of S. was in Lavrov, who saw her not only among people, but also in the organic world as a whole. Mutual support and S. provides, he believed, the survival of the species in the fight against dr. species and is a factor in its progressive development. Human S, having arisen as a continuation and development of S in the organic world, began to collapse under the influence of individualism and the desire for profit. Personal interest was brought to the fore, which led to a general struggle of all against all. In these conditions, the teachings of socialism arose, designed to return about to the principles of S. as a means of achieving universal equality and prosperity. Public S, according to Lavrov, can be durable only if economic competition is eliminated. As a moral task, he put forward the need to develop in oneself and in others those "habits C", without which the realization of a better social system is absolutely inconceivable. Mikhailovsky concept "S." closely linked with the concept of "cooperation". C, he believed, can exist only between people who are equal in position in society, and such equality is possible only under conditions of simple cooperation, where there is no division of labor between individual members, a common goal causes mutual understanding and, as a consequence, C. interests and mutual assistance ... L. I. Mechnikov placed the concept of "S." to the very center of his sociological concept, considering S.'s growth in society as the main driving force of historical progress. Like Lavrov, he believed that S.'s phenomena already exist in the organic world. “Biology,” he wrote, “studies the phenomena of the struggle for existence in the field of flora and fauna, while sociology is only interested in manifestations of solidarity and unification of forces, that is, factors of cooperation in nature” (Mechnikov L. I. Civilization and the Great Historical Rivers M., 1924.S. 43). Moreover, if Bakunin closely linked S. with human freedom, then Mechnikov considered the facts of "forced S." and "forced S", linking them with the level of development of cooperation. The degree of freedom, according to Mechnikov, shows the level O, being a criterion of progress. According to Mechnikov, about basically goes through the same C steps as the organic world as a whole. Forced unions, held by an external coercive force, are replaced by subordinate unions arising from the division of labor, which, in turn, must give way to free alliances that unite individuals by virtue of their "conscious desire for C". In Kropotkin's works, the term "S." less common than dr. ideologues of populism, and is usually replaced by the term "mutual assistance", expressing the same content. All this indicates that the concept of "S." is one of the most characteristic in populist sociology and philosophy of history. S.'s original interpretation was given by Levitsky within the framework of his concept of "organic worldview". It is associated with the "metaphysics of the temporal process," where S. is regarded as a "factor of development" that has received the highest development in Christianity, a cut "is the purest expression of solidarity that has outgrown family, feudal, clan, national and other frameworks" (Foundations of organic world outlook, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1948, p. 150).
◘ L and t .: Bakunin M.A. Philos. op. and letters. M., 1987; Onge. Philosophy. Sociology. Politics. M., 1989; Kropotkin P. A. Bread and Will. Modern science and anarchy. M., 1990; Lavrov P.L. Philosophy and Sociology. Fav. manuf.: In 2 t. M., 1963. T. 2; Mechnikov L.I. Civilization and great historical rivers. M., 1924; Mikhailovsky N.K. What is progress? Pg., 1922.
A. T. Pavlov
Solidarity
Solidarity
♦ Solidarité
The overuse of this word, too widely used over the years, has led to the fact that its strict meaning has almost disappeared. Most often, solidarity is understood as a kind of bashful (for example, when donating funds in favor of one of the humanitarian organizations), and sometimes forced (solidarity tax on a state) kind of generosity. But why should we be ashamed of our own generosity, especially since we show it too rarely? And how can coercion turn into solidarity?
Using the word "solidarity" to the place and out of place, our politicians and fine-minded thinkers completely emasculate its meaning. Along with tolerance, it becomes a "politically correct" virtue. This does not mean that solidarity is bad. It only means that it is becoming more and more difficult to use this word. It turns from a concept into a slogan. From idea to ideal. From a tool to a spell. One gets the impression that solidarity is gradually becoming the property of rallies and newspapers. And this is wrong. Even a politically correct confusion of words is politically dangerous.
It is better to return to the exact meaning of the word, the one that is associated with its etymology. "Solidary" comes from the Latin solidus, which means "solid". The parts of a solid are solid in the sense that none of them can be influenced without simultaneously affecting all the others. Take a billiard ball, for example. Striking one point sets the entire ball in motion. Another example is a motor. Its two parts are rigidly connected (solidary) if, by setting one in motion, we make the other move as well. This means that solidarity is not a feeling, and even less a virtue, but an internal cohesion, interdependence, moreover objective and devoid of any normative connotation. An oval billiard ball is undoubtedly less comfortable to play, but this does not prevent it from remaining solid.
In Roman law, there is an expression in solido, which means "in full, in full." Debtors are joint and several if each of them is responsible for the return of the entire borrowed amount (if the rest turn out to be insolvent). It goes without saying that such solidarity represents a guarantee for the lender and a risk for each of the borrowers. The same thing happens with a married couple who owns joint property: each of the spouses can go broke if the other runs into debt. And the fact that he knew nothing about these debts, or even spoke out against loans, does not change anything. Consequently, the spouses are united by financial solidarity - they are both responsible for everything that can happen to each of them, for everything that each of them does.
But the word “solidarity” has a broader meaning that goes beyond legal interpretation. Two individuals are objectively in solidarity if what happens to one inevitably affects the other (for example, if they have the same interests), or if what is done by one involves the other in the activity. This is the basis of the trade union movement, in which everyone defends their own interests, while protecting the interests of the rest of the union members. The idea of collective insurance is also based on this (even capitalist insurance companies base their activities on mutual willingness to share the risk). If the company is poorly managed, all shareholders will be at a loss, but with the best management, each shareholder is entitled to the contributions of everyone else. If a car is stolen from one of them, the rest will jointly pay for its cost - or rather, they have already paid by joining the company.
This point makes the distinction between generosity and solidarity especially clear. Being generous means acting for the benefit of a person whose interests you do not share. You do him good, without receiving anything in return; moreover, you act to the detriment of yourself, that is, you serve his interests contrary to your own. Let's say you gave ten francs to a beggar bum. He has ten francs more, yours ten francs less. This is not solidarity at all, this is generosity. There is nothing to be ashamed of, but nothing to be particularly proud of. After all, your ten francs won't help a homeless person end his homeless lifestyle. And how many people are there who are generous enough to let him live or pay for his accommodation?
On the contrary, showing solidarity means acting for the benefit of the person whose interests you share. Protecting his interests, you protect your own; defending your own, you defend his interests as well. For example, wage laborers or employees go on strike to demand higher wages. Their demand applies to everyone, but each of them knows that he is fighting for himself. The same happens when you join a union, sign an insurance policy, or pay taxes. You know perfectly well that you are doing this for your own good (although with regard to taxes, a whole system of controls and sanctions is needed to help you make sure that it is really in your best interest to pay them). This is not generosity, this is solidarity. And here you have nothing to be ashamed of, but again nothing to be proud of. After all, you are acting on the basis of selfish considerations. And are there really few bad guys in the world who are union members, have insurance and pay taxes regularly?
Generosity is essentially selfless. No solidarity can be disinterested. To be generous means to give up, at least partially, from self-interest. Showing solidarity means protecting your interests with others. Generosity frees, at least partially, from selfishness. Solidarity is joint and intelligent selfishness (it is much more stupid to live according to the principle “every man for himself” or “we are against them”). Generosity is the opposite of selfishness. Solidarity is rather an effective socialization of selfishness. This is why generosity is morally valued much more highly. For the same reason, solidarity is much more important in social, political and economic life. We admire Abbot Pierre more than the overwhelming majority of "average" union members, insurance policyholders and taxpayers. But in terms of protecting our interests, we rely much more on the state, trade unions and insurance companies than on the holiness and generosity of our neighbors. And, to clarify, this does not in the least prevent Abbot Pierre from insuring his life and property, participating in a trade union and paying taxes (at least value added tax, which everyone pays without exception), just as it does not prevent the insured taxpayer and union member from sometimes showing generosity to others. Solidarity and generosity are not at all incompatible concepts, but at the same time they remain completely different.
If people, in the event of illness, had to rely solely on the generosity of others, millions of sick people would die without any treatment. Therefore, such a simple (in the sense of morality) invention as health insurance appeared - an invention much more modest than generosity, and much more effective. Having health insurance doesn't make us less selfish. But it allows us to receive good treatment in case of illness.
No person pays premiums out of generosity. He does this out of his own interests, even if he is forced to obey the rules of compulsory insurance. But in a solidarity society, the protection of the interests of everyone can be effective only in conditions of the simultaneous protection of the interests of all.
Nobody pays taxes out of generosity. It would be more than odd for a union to make contributions out of generosity. But the social insurance system, including the medical one, and the trade unions, and the fiscal system have done much more for justice and protection of the weak than all of us put together, in the rare moments of our generosity.
With the primacy of generosity, solidarity takes precedence. For the individual, generosity is a moral virtue. For a group of individuals, solidarity is an economic, social and political necessity. Subjectively, the former is valued higher, but objectively it practically does not matter. The second does not mean anything morally, but objectively brings much more benefit.
At this point, morality and politics diverge. Morality dictates to us something like this: insofar as we are all selfish, we will try to behave a little less selfishly. Politics, in turn, calls: insofar as we are all egoists, we will try to act together and rationally, we will seek and find an objective coincidence of our interests, because this will allow us, as subjects, to act together (as a result of which solidarity, primarily dictated by necessity, can become a civic and political virtue). Morality extols generosity. Politics emphasize and justify the need for solidarity. That is why we need both, but more of politics. What is better - to live in a society consisting of selfish people, although not all of them are equally selfish, or to live in a society without a state, without a social insurance system, without trade unions and insurance companies? Asking a question like this is like asking: which is better, civilization or natural state, progress or barbarism, solidarity or civil war?
But back to the disadvantaged, to the poor and homeless. Some of them stand in the subway and try to sell us something. Let's say you buy something from them. What do you show in this case - generosity or solidarity? It depends on your motives, which can be ambiguous. To simplify, let's say this: if you act out of your own interests, then we are talking about solidarity. But what might be your interest? The fact that you are trying to put yourself in the shoes of this bum? Then you show not so much solidarity as compassion. Or is it that the very existence of such a "business" allows you to hope that if you happen to lose your job, you can do it too? This, of course, is a very dubious argument, since your purchase today is unlikely to have such a noticeable impact on the underground sale of all kinds of nonsense in the metro. Another assumption looks more plausible: you buy this or that thing from a homeless person, because it seems to you that it will be useful to you. Therefore, your motive is self-interest and you are not acting out of generosity, but out of solidarity. Conversely, if the purchased item is immediately sent to the trash bin because you bought it solely out of compassion for the seller, in order to provide him a service, then your motive was generosity, not solidarity. What's better? From the point of view of morality, generosity. But the generosity you have shown is not able to solve the real problems of the beggar salesman. He has got a few more coins, yours - a few less, but he still remains thrown out of society, and the society itself remains the same unjust. It would be much better if he sold really good goods that millions of people would willingly buy, based on their own interests, that is, motivated by selfish motives. From the point of view of morality, their actions would deserve less respect, but in a social sense, they would bring much more benefit to the beggar: he would cease to be an underground beggar trader, but would become an ordinary seller.
This is the most amazing thing. When I buy goods in a store, neither I nor the seller is acting out of generosity, as are the manufacturers of the goods and the owner of the store. We pursue each of our interests, but we find it only to the extent that our interests coincide, at least partially (if this were not so, the store would be closed). This is the market (Market). Like any market, it operates on the principle of selfishness. But its effective and long-term functioning is possible only under the condition of creating and maintaining an objective coincidence of interests (which can sometimes take on a subjective form). The market is driven by selfishness. Solidarity is the governor of this engine.
You will say that this is a preaching of liberalism. But why should one be afraid of the word "liberalism"? In a market society, goods are better and of better quality than in a non-market one. This is common knowledge. If the manufacturer and the seller of the clothes are interested in buying these clothes, they will try to improve their quality. The market in this area operates much more efficiently than planning and any control (a non-market economy almost inevitably leads to the emergence of a black market). But it would be an obvious mistake to believe that the market can solve all problems in general. First, because the influence of the market extends only to commodity production (whereas freedom, for example, is not a commodity, just as justice, health and human dignity are not commodities). Secondly, because the market by itself is not able to provide sufficient regulation of its own functioning. What would trade be like without trade law? And can this right itself be a commodity? The right of sale ceases to be a right. And what about what is not for sale at all? Take the press, for example. To completely and completely outsource the mass media to the market would mean to question their independence (in the face of monetary power), their quality level, their diversity and pluralism. Therefore, a system of press protection and a system of press subsidies was developed. It by no means abolishes market mechanisms (a newspaper that no one reads has very little chance of survival, and this is very good), but it softens and limits their influence. Information is also a commodity. But freedom of information is not a commodity. You can buy a newspaper. You cannot buy the freedom of the journalist and the reader.
The same applies to health care, law, education and even, albeit to a lesser extent, food and housing. None of these phenomena can be completely free of the market. And none of them should be completely outsourced to the market (unless deliberately abandoning any kind of protection for the weak). The market creates solidarity, but it also creates inequality and uncertainty about the future. He creates marginals. This is why we need the state, trade law, social rights, the right to freedom of speech, etc. For the same reason, we need trade unions, associations, equal control and management commissions, etc. The market is more efficient. than the command-and-control system. But universal law (democracy) is better than the law of the jungle. The social security system works more efficiently in society than generosity. But it is also politically more fair than the activities of private insurance companies. This is precisely the main delusion of the ultra-liberals. The market creates solidarity, but this does not mean that the market is sufficient to solve the problem of solidarity. And this is the main delusion of the supporters of collectivism. The market alone cannot serve as a solution to the problem of solidarity, but that does not mean that the market can be dispensed with. So long live politics, trade unions and social security.
