文、圖｜Lukas Warning／居住在柏林的政治經濟學者，Communia 共同創辦人

編譯｜林宛柔／本刊編委

Communia

Communia 是一家總部位於德國的年輕智庫。自 2020 年以來，他們制定、提倡民主經濟策略，支持倡導符合社會的公民運動，並且發展與嘗試具替代性、屬於大眾和民主的社會模式；透過制定政策、進行研究，以服務大眾的經濟為目標發展敘事和訂立策略，進一步奠定先進的經濟思維和行動——因為她屬於每個人。

近期他們提倡《屬於每個人的奢侈：充滿願景的未來》（Public Luxury: A Promising Future ），期待進一步達成經濟與生態公義，創造屬於每個人的未來！

現況

氣候危機變得越來越無法控制。有件事正失控地向我們襲來：未來幾年將會經歷一個又一個的臨界點。對地球來說，臨界點已經發生。癥結點不再是氣候危機是否可以預防，而是氣候危機會在何時、何處、對哪些社群造成多大的影響？人類又如何可以遏制氣候危機？而政府和企業一邊忙著，一邊卻又延遲達成碳中和的氣候目標，試圖將資產負債化整為零；甚至年復一年地未能實現自己設定的目標，以致其他人必須面對嚴峻的形勢，制定真正的目標，並呼籲採取更多措施，來努力實現真正的變革。

世界各地正在發生反對開採和使用石化燃料的抗議活動，而且遍地開花。氣候正義成為普遍的共識，這要歸功於公民運動，特別是世界各地第一線社群的不懈努力。儘管如此，氣候政策不僅往往面臨石化或汽車產業，以及鞏固經濟現狀的各方強烈反對，同時也面臨一般民眾的反對與質疑。人們常說：儘快實現氣候中和，得以進一步符合公共利益，但大多數人皆須合理地考慮所面臨的物質利益。許多對氣候政策持懷疑態度的人們都知道：目前的氣候轉型政策將以他們的利益為代價。例如，許多人早就注意到氣候友善供暖的成本不是由房東承擔，而是由租戶承擔，使得租戶必須苦撐著面對不斷上漲的租金。許多房東利用向租戶轉嫁現代化的成本，並且進行不必要的改建，以便提高租金。這種情況必須防範，否則富有的人便不須負擔氣候中和所要擔負的成本。

只要社會利益和生態利益相互矛盾，越來越多人便不再支持氣候中和的政策。氣候公義的關鍵問題是分配問題：誰來買單？什麼將被禁止？什麼將被允許？氣候友善的綠色科技是為了讓每個人都可以運用，還是少數有能力的人才有的專利？綠色資本主義聲稱能為所有人提供財富且對生態不造成威脅的理念，是站不住腳的；但也沒有任何政治的替代方案，能夠同時達到氣候與經濟公義。這種情況正迫使許多人投入右翼政黨的懷抱。這些政黨繼續堅持過去的方法，希望盡可能減少社會的改革，對未來眼不見為淨。而我們缺乏的是一種讓我們能夠渴望和期盼的願景——不僅促成生態的公義，並且是更好、更自由、更公平、更美麗的未來！

對新自由主義金融資本主義的具體回應

「屬於每個人的奢侈」不僅僅是一個烏托邦或一種敘事，而是一個具體的反提議：旨在為所有人創造經濟上的安全，並為政治行動開闢新的視野——集體且民主地塑造經濟和社會的可能性。

隨著近代社會結構經濟化和公共服務的私有化，並政治上被宣稱無其他社會改革的可能性，整體社會逐漸瓦解，加上住房、能源、食物等基本供應的瓦解，導致大多數人的經濟不安全感日益加劇。自 1980 年代，特別是專制國家社會主義與資本主義之間的系統性競爭結束以來，新自由主義資本主義成為社會的主導組織形式。新自由主義不僅意味公共財和基礎設施的私有化，並放鬆政府的管制，也意味社會各領域都屈服於市場經濟的邏輯——競爭、利潤導向和私有財產。在新自由主義推行過程中，每個國家都受到前所未有的影響，例如：德國透過修憲，將原來的國有郵政、電信、鐵路公司轉變為營利企業。許多城市迫於財政壓力，將住房存量私有化、區位競爭，從而推動金融化的住房市場。從前的市政住房存量，現在則屬於大型營利性公司，而這些公司不斷提高租金，卻削減維護費用。前東德地區的私有化導致數十萬人失業，這仍然是東德經濟和社會結構的特徵。前國營或市營企業，在強烈抵制下被私有化，並分解為眾多的個人供應商。如今有數百家網路和電力供應商可供選擇，而他們的背後卻是「市場」主導的壟斷或寡占。儘管這些公司利潤豐厚，卻鮮少投入永續基礎的建設。

在新自由主義下，教育或醫療等主要由國家制定的社會福利，也成為市場化的目標，例如：為了在醫療照護領域創造利潤導向和競爭，對特定的醫療處置設固定價格；健康變成一種商品，醫療照護系統中幾乎所有領域都受到商業邏輯的影響，由此產生的問題在新冠肺炎流行期間尤其明顯，當時醫護人員和重症監護床位嚴重短缺。市場化系統意味醫生和護士必須在官僚程序上花費大量時間，導致醫護人員配合提供多餘但有利可圖的治療，醫生、心理治療師和護士無力提供良好的醫療服務。由於基本照護根本無法帶來報酬，數十家產科病房和偏鄉診所不得不關閉；相反地，在大城市開設了更多高利潤業務的專科診所。新自由主義政策導致照護品質持續下降。

基礎建設與大眾運輸等重要設施已完全癱瘓，維持生活的成本也因此增加，我們的生活成為最重要的商品——無論是居住權、基礎建設還是醫療保健——變得更加昂貴，或者成為可購買的商品。新自由主義資本主義對我們最嚴重的影響，就是自由和安全的根本性缺乏。大多數人必須越來越大量的工作，但仍須將大部分收入花在住房、健康和能源等基本生活「商品」上。我們無法得知明天或未來是否能享受良好的醫療照護和棲身之所。基於一個擴張集體所有權的「屬於每個人的奢侈」是解決新自由主義社會和經濟問題的方法，同時也是解決氣候危機的一個集體和公義的出路。

屬於每個人的奢侈：如何讓一切變得更好

屬於每個人的奢侈是無條件（即免費）獲得基本服務和商品。所有人都有權在住房、能源（電力、暖氣等）、健康、照護、教育、活動、營養、文化、媒體和數位基礎設施等領域獲得高品質服務。屬於每個人的奢侈，意味著我們可以獲得生活真正需要的一切，並將基本的日常從市場和利潤的邏輯中解放出來。屬於每個人的奢侈，意味著將照顧孩子和親人等工作從私人領域中抽離出來，將其作為社會任務。屬於每個人的奢侈，為每個人創造物質保障，獲得住房、暖氣、食物或旅行等基本需求。這些需求不再取決於個人的支付能力，也不再取決於國家的社會福利和相關要求或限制——月底是否有足夠的錢買食物，退休金是否足以在生命的最後階段免於貧困，是否負擔得起照顧父母或祖父母的費用？ 屬於每個人的奢侈，消除了這些經濟上的擔憂。屬於每個人的奢侈，也會讓日常生活中的許多事情變得更容易、更令人愉快：有高品質的公共廁所、公共廚房和人人都能負擔得起的美味食物，每個角落都有免費可靠的租賃自行車，可以配備電動馬達或貨運自行車。屬於每個人的奢侈，為我們帶來更大程度的自由：透過強化和無條件提供重要的東西，我們為自己贏得時間，並得以共同塑造我們的世界。屬於每個人的奢侈，是恢復並擴大我們基於公共利益基礎設施和經濟及其公眾和民主組織的所有權，而不是將我們的經濟的塑造留給私有化公司和經濟計算。屬於每個人的奢侈的目標，是集體、民主和公平地塑造、維持和改善我們的經濟和社會體系。

因此，屬於每個人的奢侈，是私人奢侈（以及多數人的貧窮化）的替代方案，為所有人提供公共服務，結束財富的極端集中，取代少數人的財富。她創造了集體財富，沒有私人飛機、私人泳池或高爾夫球場，擁有發達的公共交通、火車站，進一步吸引人們前來消磨時光，而不僅是中繼站；長途旅行路線也使夜間火車的長途旅行變得愉快，並提供設備齊全的日托中心、學校和護理設施，免費提供網路、給所有人的公共食堂、公共游泳池，以及走往湖泊和河流的步道等等公共設施，還有每個人都可以使用的公園和綠地。屬於每個人的奢侈，是多數人的奢華，而不是極少數人的財富，她意味著無條件的基本服務和所有人的美好生活。屬於每個人的奢侈，提供了具有效力、社會公義和民主的氣候保護的先決條件。資源的集體使用使我們能夠最大限度地減少整體消耗，而不會迷失在相關犧牲的爭論中。同時，社會和生態公義之間的衝突，例如建築現代化，可以透過民主化的公民組織來解決：公共住宅管理使能源現代化成為可能，而租戶不必擔心個人租金大幅上漲，因為成本是共同承擔的，只有與租戶協商後，才能採取真正明智的現代化改建。

邁向屬於每個人的奢侈

面對即將到來的轉變讓很多人感到害怕，更強烈地需要掌握知的權利與安全。只要即將到來的改革與其相關的分配等問題沒有得到解決，許多人便認為他們得要擔負改革的代價。然而，一旦我們將邁向氣候中和經濟的必要改革視為更大改革的一部分，從根本上改變我們生產財富的方式，最重要的是改變我們創造財富和分配財富的方式，那麼這種恐懼就會消失。我們必須向屬於每個人的奢侈這樣的改革而奮鬥，創造社會財富而不是個人財富，並使每個人都能過美好而自由的生活。只有這樣，我們才能充滿希望地應對即將到來的改變；只有這樣，未來才會再次成為有效的願景。

Communia 官方網站

─  原文 ─

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.