Introduction

 

The climate crisis is going crazy. The news is coming at us non-stop, making one thing clear: unless everything changes quickly, global warming cannot be limited to 1.5 degrees. One tipping point after another will be passed in the next few years, and some are already happening. The question is no longer whether the climate crisis can still be prevented, but how bad it will become - for whom and where - and whether and how it can be contained. While governments and companies are busy postponing their climate targets or coloring their balance sheets green because they miss even their self-imposed targets year after year, others are striving for real change in the face of the dramatic situation, more ambitious targets and calling for more decisive measures that are necessary to achieve them. Protests against the extraction and use of fossil fuels are taking place around the world. Climate protection has almost become a consensus position in principle, mainly thanks to the relentless work of social movements, particularly front-line communities around the world. 

 

Nonetheless, decisive climate measures often face major opposition not only from the fossil or automotive industries and parties protecting the economic status quo but also from a large part of the general population. It is often said that it is in everyone's interest to achieve climate neutrality as quickly as possible. But perhaps most people, very reasonably, have their short-term material interests in mind. People skeptical of many proposed measures know that an ecological transformation would currently be at their expense because it would not also be a social one. When it comes to the insulation of buildings, for example, many have long noticed that the costs of climate-friendly heating are not borne by the landlords, but by the tenants, who are already struggling with constantly rising rents. They have learned that many landlords use the opportunity to pass on modernization costs to residents to carry out completely unnecessary modernization measures just so that they can then raise rents. People are getting organized to ward this off in many places. And rightly so. Many people are aware that it is not the rich who will pay when it comes to the costs of the transition to climate neutrality. Households will rather see their electricity cut off, water rationed in summer or public swimming pools no longer heated because of the gas crisis than the rich having to do without their private planes or pools, golf courses no longer being watered or the production of unnecessary SUVs being curbed. As long as social and ecological interests are at odds with each other, it is not surprising that many people have little motivation to accelerate the transition to climate neutrality.

 

If climate protection primarily means doing without, there is no reason for many people who already don't have much to fight for it. It is clear that there will be no ecological transformation without losses, but that the crucial question is one of distribution: Who pays? What will be banned, what will remain allowed? Will green technologies be used in such a way that they can be used by everyone or will they remain the preserve of a few who can afford them? The idea of green capitalism, which provides ecologically unproblematic wealth for all, does not hold water. But there is also no political alternative that would credibly combine climate protection and economic redistribution. This absence is driving many people into the arms of right-wing parties that continue to cling to the fossil past, where they can at least hope that as little as possible will change as long as they close their eyes to the future.

 

What does politics still have to offer us on a dying planet? From whom do we expect commitment to a future when the past appears to be the more promising alternative? If the future only means that either everything will become more difficult because I can no longer drive my car but proper public transport is not available, or that everything will become more difficult because I can still drive my car but water will be scarce in summer, if the only hope is that small social concessions can perhaps sometimes still be achieved, that money will just about last until the end of the month, that a few years will remain in relative material security - and only in the Global North - then the future has lost its promise. What we lack is a vision of a future in which we want to live. What we lack is a political project that picks us up and inspires us. Enthusiasm for a major social change, not just so that things don't get worse, but because there is something to be gained. Such a future is possible if we no longer invest our limited resources in SUVs, private jets and new luxury housing, but in care centers, liveable inner cities and unconditional basic supplies of essential goods. If we create public luxury instead of private abundance, the transformation would not mean doing without for the vast majority of people, but rather more economic security, time and freedom. What we lack is a perspective that gives us the desire and hope that the future will not only be different - ecologically - but also better: freer, fairer, more beautiful!

 

A concrete response to neoliberal finance capitalism

Public luxury is not simply a utopia or a narrative, but a concrete counter-proposal that aims to create economic security for all and to open up new horizons for political action: the possibilities of collectively and democratically shaping the economy and society. Such horizons have been lost in recent decades with the economization of large parts of social life and the privatization of public goods, propagated as being without alternative. The associated dismantling of social systems and accessible basic provision of housing, energy, food and much more has led to increasing economic insecurity for the majority of society.

 

Neoliberal capitalism has been the dominant form of organization in society since around the 1980s, in particular since the end of the systemic competition between authoritarian state socialism and capitalism. Neoliberalism means not only the privatization of public goods and infrastructure and deregulation, but also the subjugation of all areas of society to the market economy logic of competition, profit orientation and private property. In the course of the implementation of neoliberalism, there has been an unprecedented attack on any form of collective ownership that could form the basis for stable public services and a democratic organization of the economy. For example, the former state-owned postal, telecommunications and railroad companies in Germany were transformed into profit-oriented enterprises by means of an amendment to the consitution, and numerous municipalities were forced to privatize their housing stock in the wake of financial pressure and contrived locational competition, thus giving a boost to the financialized housing market. The production capacities of the former GDR were also made accessible to the international market through shock privatization and the introduction of Western Germany’s currency. The consequences of these privatizations can be seen today: In the case of the railroads, systematic savings were made on the rail network, which is now unfit to facilitate the necessary transformation in mobility and leads to constant cancellations and delays. The formerly municipal housing stock now belongs to large profit-oriented corporations, which are constantly increasing rents but cutting back on maintenance, and the privatization in the areas of the former GDR made hundreds of thousands unemployed, which still characterizes the economic and social structures in the eastern German states today. In the traditional sectors of public services (water, electricity, heating, waste management, etc.), there was generally only one provider per region. The formerly state or municipal utilities were privatized against strong resistance and broken up into numerous individual providers. Today, there are hundreds of internet and electricity providers to choose from, while behind them are de facto monopolies or oligopolies that dominate the "markets". Behind the hundreds of electricity providers we have to choose from today in Germany, there are generally only five large energy companies. Although these companies generate plenty of profits, hardly any investment has been made in sustainable infrastructure: The electricity grids have not been expanded for the energy transition, yet the grid fees still account for an increasingly large proportion of electricity costs. But it did not always take the privatization of public property to introduce market logic into large parts of society. Under neoliberalism, areas such as education or healthcare, which remained primarily organized by the state, also became the target of marketization. In order to create profit orientation and competition in the healthcare sector, for example, fixed prices were set for specific healthcare treatments. Since then, a hospital always receives the same reimbursement for a hip operation, regardless of how long or short the patient's recovery process actually takes. This system has inscribed unprecedented profit opportunities and constant pressure to minimize costs into the healthcare system: If you are always reimbursed the same amount by the health insurance companies for a certain operation, then every nurse less and every day that patients are no longer in bed means a potential increase in profit. Health was thus turned into a commodity and almost all areas of the healthcare system were subjected to business logic. The resulting problems were particularly evident during the coronavirus pandemic, when there was a massive shortage of staff and intensive care beds. The marketized system also means that doctors and nurses spend a lot of time on bureaucratic processes because every treatment has to be classified and elaborately justified, which impairs medical care. The system also encourages the provision of superfluous but profitable treatments, resulting in a lack of additional capacity for doctors, psychotherapists and nurses to provide good medical care. Maternity wards and rural clinics have had to close down by the dozen, as basic care simply does not pay off. Instead, more specialist clinics for highly profitable operations were opened in larger cities. The creation of markets did not lead to greater efficiency in the healthcare system, but to a horrendous waste of social resources due to misguided incentives and unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as to inadequate basic care in rural areas.

 

This is not to say that former state institutions are a positive example of a future economy. Traditional state services of general interest were often organized in a centralized, undemocratic and hierarchical manner. What was new about the neoliberal era was that even those areas of society that should in principle be removed from economic logic, because they must be available to everyone unconditionally for a dignified life, were made accessible to capital exploitation at enormous expense. Neoliberal policies have consistently led to a deterioration in the quality of care. Essential infrastructures such as the train service have been completely run down. Not wages, but profits and thus the costs for the public and households have risen. The very goods that are most important to our lives - whether housing, basic services or healthcare - have become more expensive or have been turned into purchasable goods in the first place. Despite some successful and important defensive struggles, such as in the area of care in hospitals, the far-reaching commodification of vital goods has continued in recent years. Through high prices, poor wages or the neglect of investment, profits are made every day from our basic services, for which we all pay.

 

Perhaps the worst effect of neoliberal capitalism is the fundamental lack of freedom and security. Most people have to work more and more and still spend a large part of their income on basic goods such as housing, health and energy. We know very well that it is uncertain whether we will enjoy good healthcare and a roof over our heads tomorrow and in the future. Public luxury based on an expansion of collective ownership is a solution to the social and economic problems of neoliberalism and at the same time shows a collective and just way out of the climate crisis.

 

Public luxury: how everything can be better

Public luxury is the unconditional (i.e. free) access to essential services and goods. All people have a right to high-quality services in the areas of housing, energy (electricity, heating, etc.), health, nursing and care, education, mobility, nutrition, culture, media and digital infrastructure. Public luxury means upgrading everything we really need for a good life and freeing essential, everyday areas from the logic of the market and profit. It also brings previously neglected or marginalized areas of social reproduction to the fore. Public luxury means taking work, such as looking after children and caring for relatives, out of the private sphere and organizing it as a social task. Public luxury creates material security for everyone. Access to basic goods such as housing, heating, food or mobility no longer depends on the individual's ability to pay, nor on state social benefits and associated requirements or restrictions. Whether there is enough money for food at the end of the month, whether the pension is sufficient to avoid poverty towards the final stages of life, whether care for parents or grandparents is affordable - public luxury takes away these economic worries. Public luxury would also make many things in everyday life easier and more enjoyable. There would be high-quality public toilets, public kitchens and affordable, good food for everyone, free and reliable rental bikes on every corner, with an electric motor or as a cargo bike if required, and all without having to download a new app every time. Beyond all this, public luxury brings us a greater degree of freedom: by strengthening and unconditionally providing the things that matter, we gain time for ourselves and for shaping our world together. Public luxury is based on the restoration and expansion of public ownership of infrastructures of general interest and other parts of the economy as well as their public and democratic organization. Instead of leaving the shaping of our economy to privatized corporations and economic calculations that destroy our livelihoods, lead to ever greater economic inequality and destroy public supply structures, public luxury aims to collectively, democratically and justly shape, maintain and improve our economic and social systems. Public luxury is thus an alternative to the private excess of individuals (and the associated poverty of many). In order to organize public services for all, it puts an end to the extreme concentration of wealth. Instead, public luxury creates collective wealth. Instead of private jets, private pools or golf courses, there is well-developed public transport, train stations that invite people to spend time and are not just commercialized transit points, long-distance routes that make even long journeys on overnight trains pleasant, nationwide provision of well-equipped daycare centers, schools and care facilities, free broadband expansion and access, public canteens for all, public swimming pools and access to lakes and rivers, as well as public parks and green spaces that everyone can use. Public luxury is the luxury of the many: Instead of excessive wealth for the few, public luxury means unconditional basic services and a good life for all.

 

Public luxury is a prerequisite for effective, socially just and democratically organized climate protection. Through the collective use of natural resources, less consumption can be combined with social wealth: Public luxury for private sufficiency! A strong public transport sector makes private cars largely superfluous, local libraries for tools and other things that we don't need all the time prevent everyone from having a drill at home but only using it once a year. The collective use of resources allows us to minimize consumption overall without getting lost in debates about sacrifice. At the same time, conflicts between social and ecological goals, such as building modernization, are resolved through democratic organization in public ownership: Public housing management makes energy modernization possible without tenants having to fear large individual rent increases, because the costs are borne jointly and only really sensible modernization measures are carried out in consultation with the tenants.

 

Towards public luxury

The coming transformation scares many people. The desire to hold on to what is known, to what is supposedly safe, is correspondingly strong. As long as the distribution and ownership issues associated with the upcoming transformation are not addressed, many rightly assume that the changes will come at their expense. However, as soon as we think of the necessary transformation towards a climate-neutral economy as part of a larger transformation that fundamentally changes how and, above all, what wealth we produce and how we distribute it, then this fear can dissipate. We have to stop telling ourselves that we all have to do without, when that obviously only applies to those who have to live on their wages while the champagne continues to flow on the luxury yacht. Instead, it is worth fighting for a transformation towards public luxury that creates social rather than individual wealth and enables everyone to live a good and free life. Only then can we approach the upcoming changes with hope. Only in this way will the future become a promise again.

 

*communia is a young progressive think tank based in Germany. Since 2020, we develop and implement strategies for a democratic economy. We support social movements advocating for socialization and develop and test alternative, public and democratic models of ownership. We lay the foundation for progressive economic thinking and action by shaping policy, conducting research and developing narratives and strategies for an economy that serves the many – because it belongs to the many.