"More and different" - What are the benefits of solidarity-based care practices against the right?

Article in the Perspectives series by AK Reproduktion Berlin(article as PDF) Three years have passed since the action conference and the adoption of the Care Revolution resolution in 2014. A lot has changed in our network, but also in Germany and the world. We, the AK-Repro Berlin, would like to use the following text to encourage further discussion of an important aspect of these changes: Namely, that right-wing movements and parties are gaining massive support here as elsewhere and that the discourse surrounding refugees and migration confronts us with racist thinking and behaviour on a daily basis. There was already a workshop on this topic at the 2016 nationwide network meeting in Hamburg. What do these developments mean from a care-revolutionary perspective and what conclusions can we draw from them for our activities? Only if we address this question will we, as care revolutionaries, be in a position to counter the right-wing developments. [caption id="attachment_2815" align="alignnone" width="750"] This art action at Oranienplatz in Kreuzberg in August 2016 "drew attention to the precarious situation of refugees in Germany and the fate of the millions who still want to come". Photo: Steffen Geyer. CC-BY-NC[/caption] The refugee and migration movements of summer 2015 have shaken up the social constellation and the political field. They have shaken up the EU's crisis regime, which has caused enormous social and economic cuts in the countries of southern Europe. The established parties and political institutions are suffering from an enormous loss of trust and, with dwindling legitimacy, authoritarian modes of governance are gaining ground at national and European level. The right is succeeding in interpreting the long-standing economic and social crisis and its consequences in people's everyday lives in racist terms and fuelling a social climate in which fear and competition dominate. This constellation also includes the catastrophic care provided to refugees by the German state. This not only reveals the partly structurally racist nature of the social systems, but also the dramatic consequences of decades of savings on public infrastructure (not least public administration). A humanitarian catastrophe could only be prevented, particularly in the winter of 2015, because millions of people spontaneously and voluntarily stepped in with 'welcome initiatives' to provide refugees with the bare necessities through donations and, above all, practical solidarity. This movement of solidarity was surprising and something qualitatively new in this country. It has made it clear that the willingness of many people to accept an increasingly dehumanising policy without a second thought has its limits and, conversely, that the potential for practical solidarity is much greater than most (left-wing) people would have thought. At the same time, the political and social right has succeeded in exploiting this situation, which has been labelled the 'refugee crisis' in the media for months, for its own ends. Local Pegida offshoots and existing neo-Nazi structures have been able to mobilise masses of people for 'we are the people' rallies and demonstrations and organise violent and life-threatening attacks on refugees and their accommodation. In 2016, almost 1,000 attacks were carried out on refugee homes, 857 of which had a right-wing extremist background according to the Ministry of the Interior, i.e. around 93 per cent. In the process, 560 people were injured, including 43 children. So while neo-fascist groups attack people and buildings at night, the AfD capitalises on the mood during the day [caption id="attachment_2818" align="alignnone" width="320"] The AfD is positioning itself against the reception and care of refugees. Photo: JouWatch. CC-BY-ND[/caption] The AfD thus achieved what numerous right-wing parties had previously failed to do: it was able to establish itself as a political force to the right of the CDU/CSU in German federal politics. It also succeeded in politicising the obvious 'supply crisis' in racist terms, presenting it as a supposed battle over the distribution of scarce resources and proposing national-social 'solutions'. Its demagogues complain about the high costs of caring for and accommodating refugees, pitting refugees against people living in poverty or on the margins of poverty with a German passport. However, their scandalisation is based on a false comparison: no person with a German passport has become poorer because of refugees. Poverty and the crisis of social reproduction are the result of established policies that have been in place for decades. Furthermore, the AfD was able to populistically capitalise on the widespread impression that 'politics' is acting over people's heads and present itself as the only real 'alternative' to the ailing political establishment. As a result, it achieved double-digit results in state elections from a standing start. It forms a kind of rallying point that is able to unite very different parts of the right-wing spectrum and far into the so-called centre via anti-Muslim racism, anti-feminist and trans/homophobic issues. Overall, the right is becoming more offensive and is managing to gather more and more people behind it. Their politics are not only directed against refugees, but also against women*, non-heterosexuals, the poor and socially marginalised people. Reactionary family role models, racism and hatred of an open society characterise the political world view of the right-wing populist movement. This growing right-wing populism, which has joined forces with the new right and is taking on neo-fascist traits in parts, is by no means just a German phenomenon. The enormous success, albeit narrowly missed presidency, of the Front National in France, the referendum on BREXIT and the election of Donald Trump as US president all draw their strength from similar constellations. These international rights are also mutually reinforcing, with Trump citing Brexit in a positive light and the Front National and AfD using Trump's victory for their own self-affirmation. Fierce debates are raging over the question of how to proceed with social development in the face of this sometimes dramatic situation. In the media and political arena, the constellation is polarising between (authoritarian) neoliberal forces on the one hand and right-wing populists on the other. The solidarity initiatives, individuals and left-wing forces described above are barely present in the media in Germany and are not finding a united political expression. Their committed, solidarity-based work has not yet been translated into political opposition. [caption id="attachment_2819" align="alignnone" width="750"] Together "Against nationalism, racism and sexism" - Care Revolution stands up for the right of all people, without exception, to dignified care. Photo: strassenstriche.net. CC-BY-NC[/caption] We consider it an urgent challenge to work on such a common political expression and to make a kind of 'third pole' in this constellation publicly effective. A queerfeminist, anti-racist and social alternative - one that includes all people and addresses social inequalities - to current politics is absolutely necessary. We believe that this is possible. The Care Revolution network can be part of such a social force that stands up against right-wing projects with solidary care policies. In any case, it is worth fighting for!What can all this mean for us and our care policies?However, the topics and practices that are reflected in the network look very different in detail. The rise of the right affects different groups in the network in different ways. In the 2014 resolution, we summarised a number of things that the Care Revolution network advocates, with the demand for a good life for all worldwide as a common denominator. How can we give this demand a concrete form under changed conditions and express it in our everyday struggles? Solidarity is a central point for us here. On the one hand, solidarity works against the neoliberal idea of an isolated individual and prevents already marginalised groups from being played off against each other. On the other hand, practices of solidarity also stand for communication at eye level, against exclusion and stigmatisation of minorities based on appearance / sexuality / economic liquidity / passport - ultimately for the fact that all people are entitled to equal rights. Right-wing initiatives such as Pegida capitalise on neoliberal isolation by making a real offer to become (collectively) politically active, to empower themselves, to be part of a movement against "those at the top". In doing so, they offer seemingly simple solutions by demanding that only German people should be supported by the welfare system. This quickly identifies "the enemy": refugees who claim the welfare system's money for themselves, which would put Germans at a disadvantage. Behind this logic lies an authoritarian, racist understanding of politics that interprets the obvious gaps in the social system as a battle for resources between Germans and non-Germans. These claims have been factually refuted by numerous studies. Refugees, for example, have not caused any financial disadvantages for Hartz4 recipients. From a perspective of solidarity, it must now be a matter of discussing and making concrete offers to people to engage with them, but also to distance themselves from those who declare racism and neo-fascism to be their basic understanding of politics. In fact, there is a lack of offers and initiatives from the left in many places, especially in rural areas. Pegida and other groups offer simple and often post-factual answers, but their practices also fill a gap in political activism. A pole of solidarity must therefore also reach outwards and be visible to the wider population. Power is created through joint political action. A central response of the care network against racist agitation should be to specifically strengthen the positive experience that conditions can be shaped and changed in an emancipatory sense through one's own solidary political action. Solidarity practices (as in the welcome initiatives, but by no means only) represent an important moment of political 'counter-power' in this situation - for two reasons: On the one hand, they provide concrete practical answers and thus partly remedy politically manufactured crisis consequences and shortage situations. Secondly, they offer learning opportunities for a different way of working together and collective self-empowerment. Political frustration can be countered by the experience of being able to change and shape one's own living conditions together. [caption id="attachment_2820" align="alignnone" width="683"] A civil society initiative in Hamburg is setting up accommodation for refugees in May 2014 (!) after the city's government apparently found it difficult to do so. Photo: Rasande Tyskar. CC-BY-NC[/caption] We observe that many people (in working life, in politics, in everyday life) have perhaps never had such an experience or have lost hope that conditions will change in favour of solidarity. This must also be about talking about real alternatives so that they can even become conceivable. The discussions we are having around the idea of a care revolution and the activities of the groups in the network are already an important and successful approach here. They are living and expanding - albeit in small steps - a perspective of solidarity that is based on people's needs and offers the prospect of a desirable life. By focussing on solidarity-based action, we can counter right-wing populist projects that aim to exclude and isolate. However, the work of the welcome initiatives also involves a contradiction that is currently central to society: solidarity-based and voluntary work that is intended to change society quickly finds itself in the situation of closing gaps in public services through unpaid work in light of current policies. Gaps that have been torn by the austerity policies of recent years. Gaps that bear witness to political decisions against a society based on solidarity. In opposing this brutal austerity policy, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to compensate for the worst shortcomings and thus stabilise the structures that have created the problem. We will not achieve a fundamental change in social conditions in this way. We can only counter this kind of calculated and even comprehensively state-supported "volunteerisation" of public services by being aware of this contradiction and combining our practices of solidarity with concrete political struggles to change these conditions. This does not mean withdrawing from voluntary work - on the contrary, it is about finding a way in which our activities can be more and different than simply plugging gaps. Let's think about the prospects of rebellious, political volunteering. This 'more-and-different' also involves creating a material basis for such 'counter-power'. Lived solidarity, where people share when and what they can, enables experiences of what other social structures can look like that are more needs-orientated. However, a medium to long-term perspective also aims, for example, at the expansion of collective enterprises, self-managed health centres, cooperatives and the like, as they are already part of our network. The 'more-and-different' means that such solidarity practices should be based on reciprocity, at least an attempt at eye level and a shared interest in change. This idea can be illustrated by the difference between 'solidarity' and 'charity': solidarity is based on common interests and the communication of needs, while charity is one-sided in favour of those supposedly in need and always implies different hierarchies: some give, others take; some have, others need; some are active, others are more passive; some can leave if they want to, others are dependent on benevolence. In this way, dependencies stabilise instead of finding approaches for a common struggle. The resistance and struggles of those who are labelled as 'needy' are made invisible. Such moments often creep in even where the exact opposite is desired - here, it is important to repeatedly become aware of the socially produced inequalities. It is about testing the cohesion between equal people and groups and the commitment to a common future and moulding it into binding structures. It is about fighting for equal rights for all and making the existing struggles for these rights visible. Even if it may sound rather large, we are convinced that the practices and experiences mentioned also represent an important response to the crisis of representation outlined above, to political discouragement and not least to the growing movement from the right. It is crucial that we do not allow ourselves to be played off against each other, because the attacks by conservative and right-wing forces exacerbate social inequalities and are aimed at all those who want a world of solidarity.