Care at the centre of an alternative to capitalism

In recent years, the term "care revolution" has given rise to a movement that takes caring activities as the starting point for social transformation. By care - we use this word synonymously with care - we mean, for example, nurturing, comforting, cooking, caring or counselling, in short, everything that people do to look after the well-being and personal development of other people or themselves (self-care). Care is of central importance because a social society based on solidarity depends on people relating to each other. 1. care has no place in capitalismAfter 2007, Hamburg social scientist Gabriele Winker spoke of social reproduction in crisis. She criticised the then current debate on the causes and consequences of the financial crisis, which related the crisis exclusively to banks, markets or the euro. Instead, she emphasised that wages and state social spending had been reduced in order to secure the exploitation of capital, meaning that many people lacked the time and/or money for caring activities, because neoliberalism as a triad of liberalisation, privatisation and austerity policies leads to a double privatisation of caring activities: On the one hand, neoliberalism is increasingly transferring formerly public care and support tasks to profit-orientated companies. On the other hand, rising costs for individuals as a result of this state withdrawal mean that women in particular are increasingly looking after and caring for their children and elderly relatives privately. Where caring activities become a commodity, this is generally associated with flexible working hours that employees cannot organise themselves and poor pay. In addition, neoliberal policies result in a general redistribution in favour of the already rich and at the expense of wage income and state transfer payments. At the same time, the need for growth leads to the comprehensive inclusion of all areas in the profit logic; one of the consequences is the destruction of commons in the Global South, i.e. forests, fishing grounds, grazing land, etc. as the basis for traditional ways of securing a livelihood without market relations (subsistence). The latest figure from Oxfam, according to which eight men had as much wealth as the poorer half of the world's population in 2016, is just one extreme expression of this unequal distribution. But the problem is not just neoliberalism. Care work, which is structurally unpaid or poorly paid under capitalism, is the breeding ground for privatised profit. The subsistence theorist Maria Mies used an image that is often used in feminist economics, according to which the visible economy, i.e. the economy mediated by commodity production and money, is only the tip of an iceberg sticking out of the water, while the larger part of the iceberg, consisting of the unpaid use of care work, natural resources and (especially in the course of post-colonial exploitation) subsistence labour, flows into profit without equivalent value. But we cannot stop at criticising capitalism either - because a large part of its negative consequences are already rooted in the logic of exchange itself: The idea of being able to exchange equal values will always be disadvantageous for those who have little or nothing to offer in exchange. The limited rationalisability and thus, in the case of care work, the high importance of low wages for profitability has historically always led to this being outsourced to underprivileged sections of the population. This has significantly favoured a social division of spheres into male-connoted production and female-attributed reproduction. If you want to understand and describe how a society organises itself, you have to look at it as a whole. It is also important to ask how people organise and distribute the work of reproduction - a question that is all too often left out of the analysis. This field is thus rendered invisible, its historicity and context dependency are negated and the prevailing divisions of labour are declared to be quasi natural and given. This, in turn, goes hand in hand with the devaluation of all those care activities that do not generate income, whereby it is important to also consider the active participation of those exempt from reproduction, i.e. men versus women, but also whites versus blacks or, as is increasingly the case today, people with a passport that is 'worth more' than that of migrants in international care work chains. This is the case, for example, when Polish women are hired 'cheaply' for care work in this country and therefore leave their own children to other women from poorer countries further east. Even if women in particular work in households, the opposite processes can also be observed, for example when male migrants take on cleaning work in Germany due to a lack of other job opportunities. However, this gendered, racialised and/or classist (i.e. exploiting class differences) division of labour is not only accompanied by the assignment of poorly paid or unpaid work to people of a certain identity category. At the same time, such identity categories are often created in this process in the first place, and the nation state, which also emerged in this process, is profoundly functional for the maintenance of capitalism. The state has the task of securing the general conditions of production. This also includes mitigating the consequences of an economy that is solely profit-orientated. So-called welfare state achievements cannot be taken for granted and must be defended; they are concessions and compromises won in hard-fought battles. Nevertheless, they ultimately serve to pacify conflicts. The welfare state also has an inherent disciplinary function. Anyone claiming benefits must be a proper citizen, obey rules, submit to a certain gender regime, etc. Such decisions are also negotiated in civil society. But ultimately the same applies here: Those who are already systematically privileged also have more and more powerful opportunities to exert influence. In addition, resistance is often integrated, also by taking up emancipatory desires and developing subject forms accordingly. Successful self-realisation increases our market value and we no longer just wear our skin on the market, but also our personality, our interests and our creativity. Our ability to bend without breaking (new parlance: resilience), to remain mentally stable and to regenerate quickly are prerequisites for our employability. In this sense, we are also called upon to constantly optimise ourselves. In neoliberal conditions, these demands seem to become our own need. This form of the relationship, which can be described as alienation, is most obvious in care work. The compulsion to compete with one another prevents us from contributing our own values, needs and abilities. Just as it is often not possible today to grow organic food for financial reasons, even if someone is passionate about it, caring for one's own mother for months and years often acutely threatens one's own livelihood and means poverty in old age for many women. Overall, we can state that the current fundamental overburdening of people, especially where care and the need for care are concerned, is not an expression of individual failure. The possibility of successful caring relationships and successful self-care is systemically impaired. Successful care and a generally good life require different economic relationships and a different mode of production. What is needed is a society without equivalent exchange, organised according to needs and abilities. 2. a social alternative is conceivableWe imagine a world in which diverse, especially collective forms of life and care facilities facilitate care and self-care. To achieve this, we need to invent new forms or remember old ones. We also need to look to other regions of the world: The experiences of communal houses, laundry rooms and village farmers contain just as important impulses for a completely different whole as the discussions about commons, open source and community gardens. The goals, objects and methods of history and the social sciences also need to be re-aligned. It is no coincidence that we know more about wars and royalty than about the history of washing clothes. Architecture also needs to be analysed in terms of the extent to which it enables or disables collective care work and collectivity in general. A new, caring ethic and an awareness that we are all needy beings can certainly help to maintain a society based on solidarity, but they cannot be its foundation. Rather, it is about creating a framework that makes it easier for people to relate to others with care. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand care and solidarity as structural principles. There are various suggestions as to what these framework conditions could look like. They all boil down to understanding the conflicts that are currently being resolved by the economy, state and law in terms of capital utilisation as social issues again and negotiating them together:

• How do we want to decide?
• What should be produced?
• How do we deal with the fact that not all needs can be met?
• How will work be distributed in concrete terms?

We cannot provide a blueprint for how these questions are decided. Instead, we would like to roughly outline the direction in which the journey should go.Making decisions together with everyone as directly and decentrally as possibleDecisions must be made in such a way that everyone they affect is involved on an equal footing. At the same time, the needs of those who - for whatever reason - are not involved in the decision-making process must be kept in mind. It is clear that this is not possible through large structures such as parliamentarianism. Instead, decisions must be made as directly and decentrally as possible. Whether we call this democratic or find new terms is not as important as the concrete forms of negotiation that actually include all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.Enabling the satisfaction of needsAn important part of decision-making will revolve around the question of what is produced and how. Even in a post-capitalist society, people will build houses, cook pasta and write books. However, things will be produced as a means of satisfying needs and not, as in a capitalist society, as carriers of value for capital valorisation. Similarly, the activities no longer take place in an alienated form in which it doesn't really matter what you do and under what conditions. Instead of following the credo "labour is the main thing", production is regulated in such a way that it is possible for everyone to "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, herd cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner as I feel like it, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic". Marx forgot an important part of the economy: In our utopia, at its centre are the areas that deal with people's direct needs. These needs also include the realisation and results of care relationships. The primary purpose of the economy must be to ensure that all people have access to the means that enable them to satisfy their needs. This excludes that businesses, houses and other means of satisfying needs are privately owned. It is particularly important to ensure continuity and reliability when it comes to care.Making needs a topicOur utopia of a society based on solidarity can withstand the fact that strategies for satisfying needs are not harmonised. We will find other ways of dealing with this than is the case in the current situation. It is about new structural principles, other forms of conflict resolution and not about the Garden of Eden. When negotiating concrete plans, neither the renunciation of consumption nor luxury for all can be the last resort. Rather, we must constantly negotiate what is produced under what conditions, taking into account the social and ecological consequences. Open questions must therefore be formulated: Which needs can be met? Which are more important than others? Do we use our pharmaceutical knowledge to alleviate diarrhoea, the fifth leading cause of death worldwide, or to develop the 500th anti-wrinkle cream? Do engineers put their energy into fast cars and ever smaller computers or is the first priority to provide everyone with clean water? In a society based on solidarity, the question of what goods a society provides is posed against a different background: if no one can be forced to participate in a production chain that only works because people are exploited under miserable conditions, the desire for cheap textiles and 2-yearly mobile phone replacements will quickly disappear. Abundance and scarcity take on a completely different dimension when the ecological and social costs of a production chain are included in the decision-making process. In concrete terms, this means that the living and working conditions of all those involved must be included in the discussion when deciding whether and, if so, how daily coffee consumption can be guaranteed for all.Shaping work without coercionThinking further, the question of how we use our time arises. The inspection, redefinition, redistribution and democratisation of socially necessary activities requires a different time regime that leaves sufficient room for political involvement, joint learning and personal development and, last but not least, for taking care of oneself and others. This also includes ensuring a livelihood and basic social rights for all, which is often followed by the objection of how such structures can be ensured to function without compulsory labour. Today, people are forced to do what makes sense for the economy. Everyone has to do gainful employment in order to secure their livelihood. Those who enter the labour market with a poor starting position or are simply unlucky end up having to do the unpleasant, dangerous and poorly paid work. We imagine a society based on solidarity without coercion, in which socially necessary activities are carried out in a way that is appropriate for everyone involved. This abstract provision contains the wish that those who suffer most from a shortage are not ultimately responsible for eliminating it, but that people find a way together. It is almost impossible to predict how judgements will shift and how we and our strategies for satisfying needs will change on the way to a society based on solidarity. Perhaps other or even no necessary work will then no longer be unpopular if work no longer takes place under alienating conditions? Even if this is not the case, we are confident that solutions will be found if society decides to look for them instead of investing the lion's share of productivity in developing the destructive forces of valorisation, death and destruction. 3. People as needy and social beings can shape a caring society The question of whether a caring society based on solidarity is possible or even conceivable is inextricably linked to the question of what it means to be human and what possibilities are inherent in us. These questions are passionately contested, and history shows that supposed scientific truths from the fields of sociobiology, medicine, psychology, history, etc. are often used to legitimise domination and exploitation as 'natural'. In Western philosophy in particular, humans are conceptualised as autonomous, strictly separated from others and completely independent. Nature and even one's own body are conceived as external to him - not coincidentally in male terms here - as a counterpart that can be tamed and disciplined, taken possession of, plundered and sold. We, on the other hand, are convinced that we are physical beings, vulnerable, needy and interconnected. Human history cannot be read solely as the history of tool production or even as the result of bitter competition, constant optimisation of purpose and benefit and the assertion of the strongest. To a much greater extent, the history of mankind is one of co-operation and empathy. From an early age, we are able to read the feelings of others and recognise ourselves in others. More recent interpretations of early history, e.g. by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, focus on the collective rearing of children as an early fact and important survival strategy. Various studies show that people who are socially engaged derive meaning, enjoyment of life and therefore a higher life expectancy from this. There is also evidence that the more egalitarian the society in which people live, the happier and more satisfied, anxiety-free and trusting they feel, and that material growth, insofar as it increases inequality, does not make people happier. We may also be placed in structural competition with one another in capitalist conditions: Every day we see and experience that people also recognise their own concerns in the concerns of others. This is a prerequisite for genuine solidarity, which is more than just help in the charitable sense. In many places, we see people who want to live together differently, create, contribute, care for each other, be active together and look to the future with confidence - needs that cannot be compensated for by consumption and status alone. The same applies to the need for recognition, security and self-determined time. Numerous commercials suggest that freedom, influence, recognition, self-determination and self-realisation can be achieved through purchasing and consumption decisions. Political projects, such as the precarisation of wage labour, are also advertised using terms borrowed from social movements, such as freedom and self-determination. In this way, our emancipatory desires are addressed, with the effect of channelling and taming them and silencing their resistance. People everywhere experience and reflect on the fact that these desires and needs are at best deficient, precarious or only realisable for a few in the given capitalist conditions, i.e. due to the system. Accordingly, more and more people are experiencing that what they have to give each other in terms of commitment, knowledge and skills is not needed on the market, is not recognised or is undervalued, that their income is not sufficient for a dignified life or that they are excluded as superfluous and become the object of state discipline. There is therefore an immense contradiction between current conditions on the one hand and how people could utilise their potential and satisfy their needs on the other. We draw hope from this contradiction and the resistance it provokes. We are also hopeful that the collective knowledge and technical possibilities exist on which a different mode of production could be based. For example, more ecological mobility would be possible for everyone. Sufficient good living space could be created everywhere, including for lifestyles beyond isolated small families. Technological developments could make it possible for production to be decentralised, in closed material cycles and with comprehensive information sharing. The material possibilities for satisfying the needs of all are largely given. If knowledge is shared, it becomes more, not less. 3D printers may soon make it possible to produce goods tailored to local needs on site and shorten transport routes. Renewable energies could also be generated and utilised locally as far as possible. Centralised planning would at least be required to a much lesser extent than was conceivable ten or twenty years ago. Our aim is not to claim that technological progress here and now, or even in the foreseeable future, will solve all problems and satisfy all needs. Rather, we want to ask what would be possible if there were truly democratic negotiations on where to direct technological development and our collective intellectual resources. In short, what would happen if human needs and a community based on solidarity, rather than profit, were the guiding principle? The movements that are searching for ways of living together in solidarity and demonstrating the insanity of a system that inevitably jeopardises the continued existence of the planet continue to give us hope. The movements for climate justice, for social rights for all, for peace and global solidarity, for the shared and self-organised use of goods and resources (commons) and, last but not least, the feminist movement are just a few examples. We are given hope by those initiatives that directly attack capitalist logic and, for example, demand that universities put their own beliefs to the test, as well as by all those who fight for the democratisation of all areas of life. We know that a joint project is not a given, but is something that has to be painstakingly and joyfully developed on an ongoing basis: we hope for alliances of those forces that are committed to a society and economy based on solidarity in order to shift the balance of power together. Finally, we are hopeful about initiatives and projects in which people are already trying to live, act and do business according to a different logic here and now. Such projects are places of shared learning in which people can change through their actions and reflection on them and further develop their ability to organise themselves together. Nevertheless, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they always come up against systemic limits and are necessarily limited in their scope. They often run the risk of being appropriated for neoliberal purposes. Nevertheless, they show a growing desire to treat each other with care and not in competition. It is this desire that nourishes our hope. We see particular potential in those projects that combine self-organisation and property issues and also strive to network in order to increase their political visibility and effectiveness. 4. struggles for care are the entry point to a society of solidarityIn this section, we would like to explain why we believe that caring for one another is so important for the development of a society of solidarity. On the one hand, we are concerned with changes in the care sector itself, and on the other with the importance of the principle of care as a formative element in a society based on solidarity. Firstly, we are striving for a socialisation of the care sector. By this we mean that the decisions are no longer made by the owners of capital, but by all those involved in care relationships. We believe that this area in particular offers good conditions for trialling solidarity-based practices. The following arguments speak in favour of this: 1) Care is of existential importance in people's lives. This is because we are dependent on the care work of others at every point in our lives. This applies not only to birth and death, illness and development as a child. Even as adults without physical limitations, we cannot live without receiving food, comfort, advice or encouragement, not only from ourselves but also from others. The fact that we as humans are vulnerable beings runs through our lives. That is why it is of immediate importance for all people to ensure that this existential area is cared for in line with their needs. 2) Caring relationships are not only of central importance in life, good care also requires time and attention to individual characteristics. This is why many people realise how absurd it is to structure and control the care sector based on criteria such as profitability, maximum efficiency or market competition. 3) In this sector, care recipients, people who provide care with and for loved ones or in social projects, and care workers can meet more easily than in other sectors in their intertwined interests and, if possible, on an equal footing. People contribute their different needs and have different information, which must be taken into account when organising the care relationship. In the care sector, it is therefore particularly clear that decisions are better when everyone involved in the care relationship can contribute their point of view. 4) A large part of care work takes place in a decentralised location because schools, doctors' surgeries, canteens or neighbourhood centres must be regularly and easily accessible. Decisions about such decentralised facilities can also be made locally. This makes it easier to try out practical forms of direct democratic decision-making, as negotiation processes can take place directly between all those involved. It is conceivable, for example, that care councils could be set up in neighbourhoods and towns where people come together to jointly organise healthcare, childcare or mutual support in the organisation of everyday life. 5) Various ways of organising the care facilities that people depend on are conceivable. A democratised social infrastructure, e.g. in the form of communal hospitals, has its place, as do commons supported by the community, such as self-managed polyclinics. In this way, different concepts of how healthcare can take place come together. We see such diversity as fundamentally positive. The aforementioned care councils can ensure that these services as a whole meet the needs of the neighbourhood. The necessary coordination processes will certainly also lead to friction. However, it is preferable that conflicts can be dealt with openly instead of having owners or committees labelled as experts making decisions and the majority of those affected having no influence. However, the concept of the Care Revolution does not only see the importance of care for the entry into a society based on solidarity in relation to the care sector itself. As a second aspect, we consider it necessary for care for one another to become a guiding principle in all areas of society. Successful care relationships are characterised by the fact that the fundamental neediness of people and their dependence on one another are experienced positively, as the satisfaction of the needs of all those involved in the care relationship. And this is precisely what makes a society characterised by solidarity and mutual support. If we contrast the instrumental shaping of social relations in capitalism with the principle of caring for one another, this is not limited to care work as such. Agriculture, mobility, housing construction, software development, art - everywhere it is about people working together and in this process satisfying their own needs as well as the needs of those who use the results of their labour. And when people, while working together and sharing the results of their work, relate to and care for each other, they care for each other at that moment. In this sense, caring for each other becomes a principle that permeates society as a whole: co-operative economic activity serves to satisfy the needs of all members of society. It is precisely this, and not market success, plan fulfilment or anything else, by which it is to be measured. Such a direct orientation of the economy towards human needs also requires that all people, whether collectively, in the neighbourhood or at regional and supra-regional level, can say what they need. This applies to what they want to contribute as well as to what they need from others. Everyone must be listened to equally: Caring for one another and discrimination are incompatible. The fact that all people participate equally in decisions and are heard is not just a question of recognition. It also requires democratic forms that encompass all areas of life. Under these conditions, we believe that a society can be characterised by mutual support. This support, which in close human relationships is understood as a caring relationship with one another, can be thought of as solidary behaviour between groups of people. We are therefore striving for a society in which caring for one another is recognised as a social principle. And we have tried to argue that the concept of care is inextricably linked to needs-orientation, the reduction of discrimination, democracy and solidarity, and that only in this connection does it make sense at a social level. Many different movements and groups strive in one form or another for such a society in which people relate to each other in a positive and supportive way instead of competing with each other and instrumentalising each other. Many describe their idea of such a society without using the term "care". And many are looking for starting points in areas other than care. We would like to invite all these people to support each other in our struggles, to share experiments in living together as well as visions for the future, and to draw each other's attention to problems and contradictions. And we look forward to receiving invitations from you.