'Socialise care! Report from a Care Revolution event on 07.12.2023

The newly established event working group in the Care Revolution network held its first event on 7 December. As a working group, we are looking for topics that are important for our political activities in the care movement and on which we can work on joint issues with other interested parties. It is particularly exciting where we are unsure and would like to have more certainty.

The topic of the first event was 'Socialising care! The "whether" was not in question for us - the exclamation mark is justified. But what exactly that means in the care sector and how it can work were our questions.

What does 'socialising care' mean?

We began with a brief introduction from the preparatory group: everyone, but especially people with extensive care responsibilities and low incomes, i.e. without access to services available on the market, are dependent on a functioning support infrastructure - whether it's a daycare centre or a care service. This applies in particular to women, who make up the majority of single parents and carers, for example. Because care under capitalist conditions is primarily seen as a cost factor and not as a social responsibility, people who are dependent on support are increasingly left to fend for themselves. Increasingly, care areas are also being organised in such a way that it is easier for corporations to make profits. In order to bring about fundamental change, we need to socialise care facilities: Pushing back profit-orientated companies, public provision of needs-based services and democratic decision-making structures in which all those affected are involved. However, understanding and organising care as a social task also means opening up and supporting spaces for self-organisation beyond the nuclear family.

This is all unsurprising and often said. However, it is all too rarely recognised how different different care areas are, if only because of the very different significance of professional work in care institutions and unpaid work in households, and how different socialisation strategies must therefore be. In the next step, we therefore discussed the possibilities of socialisation in the health sector, in care for the elderly and in everyday care work in parallel groups. There was input from insiders in each of the working groups: Nadja Rakowitz from the Verein demokratischer Ärzt*innen and Krankenhaus statt Fabrik, Jona and Nele from the Lossetal day care centre, a department of the Niederkaufungen local authority, and Heide Lutosch, feminist activist and author of the book 'Kinderhaben.

Health, care for the elderly and everyday care

In the group on health, the first starting point mentioned was that financing via health insurance must be placed on a broader, truly solidary basis, in particular by switching to a general citizens' insurance scheme. On this basis, especially if hospital financing were to be switched from flat rates per case to cost recovery, a de-privatisation of the healthcare system could be tackled. Cooperative solutions and democratically organised polyclinics are approaches alongside the municipalisation of facilities. While it is hardly possible to involve patients in the decisions of the facilities within the current legal framework, the survey-based needs assessment of the polyclinic initiatives represents a form of participation.

In the elderly care group, the speakers presented the concept of the Lossetal day care centre. As a work area of the Niederkaufungen local authority, it is not only intended as a contribution to the collective income of the local authority, but also as a component of personal care in old age. A "everyone does everything" principle, limited by qualification requirements, and collective solutions are practised in the facility. Here too, the legal framework makes comprehensive collective solutions difficult. However, even the utilisation of the current leeway enables those working collectively to provide more mutual support and variety; the cared-for persons experience the carers more comprehensively. The focus was on the example of the Lossetal day care centre, which enables people in need of care to stay at home for longer. This is only a small part of the elderly care sector, in which care is largely provided at home (84% of carers, almost none of whom have a day care place; 16% are cared for in nursing homes).

The third group, 'Everyday Care', dealt with unpaid care work. In the introductory input, Heide Lutosch used the example of shopping and cooking to emphasise that communal care is not only more communicative and saves resources, but also requires less working time. However, the idea of communal cooking as an isolated step and self-organised is problematic, as this is only accessible to a few due to the expensive logistical requirements and easily leads to elitist, charitable or commercial solutions or the overburdening of those primarily responsible. Embedding was at the centre of the discussion: Collectivising individual care tasks is absolutely desirable, but requires a framework: Security, e.g. through a reduction in working hours with wage compensation or support, e.g. through the provision of usable spaces or the establishment of communities in which all care work (the AG limited itself to care work that is not directly affective) is organised collectively. "Small", complementary solutions such as "kitchens for all" are not a socialisation of care work, but they do open up important spaces for experience.

An overarching project of socialisation?

In the final step, we tried to combine the experiences from the different areas. A few commonalities were obvious: Firstly, both public care institutions and self-organised care structures are hindered or promoted by the legal framework. Legal boundaries for comprehensive democratisation, the exclusivity of parental status or the current care funding represent such obstacles. In contrast, a comprehensive reduction in working hours, a sanction-free livelihood or usable spaces in public care centres open up new possibilities. This means that fundamental change cannot only be tackled project by project, but also on a large scale. However, the various projects such as the Niederkaufungen community or the polyclinic initiatives show that even within the existing framework, some things are already possible that both directly create better support and care and also open up a view of how things could be. It is important for the individual projects to remain resistant.

Remaining resistant is extremely difficult for individual people and experiments given the circumstances. Disappointments and compromises are inevitable. This makes connections that aim to socialise entire areas of care all the more important. Staying in motion and counteracting norms and experiences of loneliness is a necessary part of the care movement. A valuable point was made here that the idea of loneliness in capitalism should not be overstretched: In the workplace, but also in other places, people come together and have the option of solidarity. The concept of caring, solidary cities was also brought into play, as a cross-section of the various care areas and different care constellations.

The participants were thus able to take away a number of suggestions; the experiment of a three-hour mini-workshop, as intensive and demanding as it was, was worthwhile. However, even in this large-scale setting, two challenges of socialisation were barely addressed: How do paid, unpaid and self-supporting care workers come together in socialisation projects? How do we manage not to forget the larger framework of federal and European policy as a regulatory level through local cross-sectional projects?

There is still a lot to do - also for the event organising group. Thanks to all participants!