Sanam (S): Hi, everybody, hi Kate.

Kate (K): Hi, Sanam.

S: This is an exciting conversation to have with, as I see, a lot of our friends in the room, because I think it's an extension of several conversations that we've had over the years about shifting power and building accountability. And I wanna start by recollecting, when is the last time we actually met in person? 'Cause we've done a lot of this Zoom stuff. I think we've been pretty good about catching up with each other.

K: You're very good. At bringing people together, Sanam.

S: Rallying people.

K: I won't take any credit for that. Yeah, I guess, I think, did we catch up in early 2020? I think, before things finished.

S: Either, yeah, I think it's late 2019 when you were in Chiang Mai.

K: Right.

S: And we had a catch up because I wasn't able to stay longer, and you had a longer group thing the next day, but we just had a one-on-one conversation.

K: At the funky little bar, right?

S: Yes!

K: Had those great cocktails.

K: I remember.

S: It closed.

K: Aw, you see?

S: Anyway.

K: That's capitalism for you. Capitalism can't abide a crisis, and global capitalism can ride it through and profit enormously, but those local little businesses are easily discarded, and the workers that would've lost their jobs there, so unfortunately it means we have to find another place for a drink next time, but yeah.

S: For sure.

K: Hopefully those people have survived.

S: I hope so too. I think, for those who don't know Kate and me, we know each other from working together in Chiang Mai at the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development. So I think it will be wonderful for you to come back to Chiang Mai, but exactly what you said, this pandemic has really gutted a lot of small businesses and a lot of the places that we love. And I think it's really appropriate to be talking about that right now, especially thinking of the last conversation we had together about building a union of solidarity. And I think this is a great timing to talk about that kind of thing, given that 8th of March just passed, and that's always been an important moment for organising.

K: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, as we know, the 8th of March was about Working Women's Day and the struggle of women, women workers, and that's often overlooked in the corporate boardroom breakfasts for International Women's Day.

S: And for sure--

K: And here tomorrow--

S: That's deliberate.

K: Yeah, absolutely, that's part of the history of capitalism.

S: And I think that's what annoys me a lot about some of the conversations that happen around International Women's Day, where they're just like, "Oh, celebrate the women in your life." And it's just like, "No, that wasn't-- "We're not asking to celebrate women. "We're saying equal pay." We have very clear demands about what we want.

K: Yeah, that's right. Tomorrow here in Melbourne, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, and I should acknowledge that I'm on the unceded land of Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. And tomorrow is actually Labor Day, which is unlike many other places in the world, Labor Day on the 10th of March, because it's the first place to get the eight hour day when workers down tools, who were building Melbourne University and walked up to the parliament to demand the eight hour day. So here we are wedged in between International Women's Working Day and Labor Day to discuss anti-capitalist feminism. And I feel like we've come quite a long way because this is a topic that wouldn't have been necessarily part of the dialogue of global feminism just a few years ago, probably when we were both started working at APWLD it was, we were talking about these issues, but it was hard to resonate within the global feminist movement. Yeah, so I think this is a really great idea for a chat that IWDA is hosting.

S: Definitely and I think you're absolutely right, that it wasn't so palatable to talk about anti-capitalism and how important it is for feminism. But I feel like for me, it's always been very clear that if we wanna define a couple of these terms, if we're talking about capitalism as a system that is constantly growing and constantly accumulating, and we're talking about feminism, as a movement that is supposed to take down, not just patriarchy, but other systems of oppression, then to me, it's very oil and water. It's not compatible. The goals are not the same. And that I think is what we really need to see more closely that if the goal is for us to be equal, is for us to participate together in society and not destroy the planet maybe and share the goods that we have with each other rather than constantly exploiting and squeezing and competing then I think that it, to me, it's very clear that it's not compatible, but there's that creeping, as you said, corporate feminism, that's 'you be you', celebrate women, we can have our cake and eat it too, I would say, would you?

K: Well, yeah, that's capitalist feminism, right? So capitalism relies on the idea of individuals, of the self autonomous individual and of course it was the autonomous individual man, white man, in the rational thought that was developed around industrialisation and the idea of community of the dependency of people on each other, outside of, direct family was really an anathema to capitalism and even more so to neoliberal capitalism. And I think that's part of why it's so important to feminism. For me, feminism cannot stand with capitalism because capitalism at the heart is about individualism and sustaining the ideas of the ruling class, right? Capitalism is an idea. It's a ruling idea for the ruling class. And I think that the ideas behind feminism are about disrupting power, not centralising power, of course, in the hands of a few, it's about redistribution of all of power and as well as of resources and that's between of course men and women, but also amongst people. And so I don't think anyone, I think there have been types of false feminism, capitalist feminism that celebrates the individual, but really that benefits very few. And I don't think that's, I think that the ideas behind that are, are increasingly being challenged, but what they're often not explicitly saying is that capitalism is part of that problem of that idea of the individual, of that lean in. Yeah, so I think it's, that's why our conversations around not just how to change the ideas, which is the first step, but also how to build the power to challenge it is critical.

S: I really think that the first step part, as you said with the idea is so important because I always think of Ursula Le Guin and how we live in capitalism and it's power seems inescapable, but I think the more you learn about the history of it, there's a calculation that it's maybe about 500 years of capitalism that we're talking about. And there's a conflation often that, "Oh, being anti-capitalist means being anti-markets "or being anti-business." But that isn't so, markets have existed long before that. And another good memory that I have shared with you, and a lot of people who are in the conversation today is that the Asia Pacific Feminist Forum, where one of the spaces that we convene was a really free market, where we were talking about, share what you have, take what you need, and then have that barter conversation and valuing what you've put into and what labour has been put into whatever everybody else is offering.

K: Hmm, yeah. The really free market--

S: Yeah.

K: Is a solidarity market, right? And the other thing I think we talked a fair bit about in some of those conversations that we had, which is rare, isn't it? To get the free time to actually talk about ideas, but was, what do we say is the opposite of patriarchy? And obviously when you're working in a women's rights movement, we need to talk about what is patriarchy and too often, of course, people would say, "Well, the opposite is matriarchy "or is having more women in particular areas of power." So replacing who's in power, men with women. And I think what our way to disrupt that, was to start to say the opposite of patriarchy is solidarity. And I think that's also part of disrupting capitalism, right? Because capitalism depends on solidarity being broken between people to profit, to enable profit. And I guess the history shows us that, when solidarity was strong, say in the 1970s was the point at which capital was losing its power and solidarity was a lot stronger solidarity with the organised labour, but also in a lot of countries around the world who were challenging colonialism and created, solidarity within those countries, but also between those countries to challenge colonial power. And that was really the birth of neoliberalism is to say, "This solidarity is too dangerous for us as a ruling class. "We have to come up with different ideas "and we have to make those ideas normal. "We have to make those ideas accepted "as the only possible a way to organise the world." And so I think I saw somebody ask about, "Are we talking about neoliberalism or capitalism?" And I think really the only capitalism going around right now is neoliberalism. But for me, I am talking about capitalism. Our first and primary fight is neoliberalism, but I still think that we have to change the narrative and say capitalism isn't the only idea going around, right? And I think that's why all of those ways that we tried to come up with when we were together in Chiang Mai, was about that was saying, "Yeah, there are other ways, "solidarity is one way." And now I'm really also focused on care. So, which is the same, right? It's the same as solidarity, but to talk about a society of care, built around care, care for each other, and as you said care for the planet. And I think that's why another way to disrupt capitalism is really to say, actually, this narrative of the individual is really deeply harmful for women because who ends up doing all that work is obviously women. And we if we build a society around care, the right to care, and to receive care and to value care, we are essentially disrupting this idea of capitalism as the only game in town, right?

S: Yeah, and I've certainly thought a lot about care 'cause we're now in the third year of this pandemic. And honestly, if we had a system, a society, an economy, that was organised around care, we wouldn't be in this situation certainly. But everything you see about this pandemic is taking advantage of the fact that we are assuming that mostly women and girls will give care, will give it for free or for very little. And a lot of our survival in the last three years has been, in the last two years has been relying on that, 70% of healthcare workers who are women, women who are taking the slack in childcare and elder care when there are lockdowns and all kinds of things that we know very well from austerity and policies that have just assumed that women are gonna be there taking the slack and giving free work. So yeah, just to imagine as part of an anti-capitalist future, a future that is centered around care, I think is really exciting and beautiful in a way. Did you see Jane Gleeson-White's article, she's the author of "Six Capitals" and she wrote a really interesting essay last year for Griffith Reviews issue on Utopia. And she was just like, what if, the economy and economists was just a bunch of women sitting on the grass talking about how we want to care for each other?

K: Mm, yeah, exactly. I mean, I think that what if, is a really important part of this is to all, to think of alternatives because sometimes it's hard to step out of it. So again, with the pandemic, if we looked back and said, "What if every country around the world decided "to absolutely prioritise all people, "being able to deal with this?" What if we said that, "Vaccines, aren't going to be left to the market. "Actually, they're going to be produced collectively "at the fastest rate possible. "We are gonna allow every country to use "the information that any other country produces. "And we're going to support all those public health systems "and the workers that deliver them to get it out as fast "as possible." Well we actually would be having this conversation in person then wouldn't we? We would've been able to reduce the length of the pandemic. Yeah, so the pandemic should be an opportunity to challenge capitalism and capital that's, in fact, the opposite has happened. we've had the growth of billionaires at an unprecedented level during this pandemic, there's something like workers lost something like $3.7 trillion just in the first year. Whereas billionaires gained 3.9 trillion in that same year. Most of it, a lot of it from workers, but a lot of it from the public services we diminished in the interest of billionaires. And it's really shown us I think that that capitalism, isn't the answer, capitalism can't stop a crisis, but it can profit from a crisis. And it absolutely has profited from this crisis and every other crisis we know, but horrifyingly, the same metric has been used with the climate crisis. This last week we've had the new UNFCCC report showing us what a disaster it is to keep going down the path of assuming that capital will save us, that they will come in with renewable energies or big cars or whatever it might be and if we act, the ruling class ideas will enable the ruling class to save us. So yeah, I mean, this is just--

S: The wolf to protect the sheep.

K: Yeah, exactly. If this is not the moment, then when? What crisis are we waiting to for, to turn away from the disasters of capitalism?

S: I mean, it frightens me very much because I thought that the 2018 IPCC report was frightening enough and was clearly the alarm bell for making all of the changes that we know are necessary. And some things that we were actually not that optimistic about such as the cost of investing in renewables has actually reduced. So now we know we have the data saying that it will be cheaper if we just stop subsidising fossil fuels. And I think another interesting thing, you mentioned conflict reminds me of this point that if we divested from fossil fuels, not only are we protecting the planet and potentially creating a new renewable energy industry that I hope is centered around communities and not just randomly building a national grid and taking land from people, but it could also reduce conflict because a lot of the nations that are driving conflict, and I think we have this conversation right now at the start of this Russia-Ukraine conflict, but certainly this conversation has taken place regarding the Middle East. And the fact that Saudi Arabia gets a lot of its money from oil as well. And that promoting peace could be also promoting the end of the fossil fuel industry.

K: Absolutely, I mean, I think, resources of, whether it be carbon-based resources have driven a whole range of conflicts. And of course they're mainly held in the ruling class in some countries that is state owned, but we know that the ruling class won't give up, if that's their source of income, that's their source of power. So yeah, I think firstly, we need to nationalise all those resources so that if we had accountable governments, if we had governments that were actually gonna focus on the public and on the climate crisis, that they would be able to end the dependency, that they would be able to move quickly. There's nothing really, that means stops us from being able to move quickly, apart from the interests of those that don't want that to happen who really are in the minority. I mean, we represent workers in energy and actually spoke to the union in Ukraine in the power stations there, but workers can also see the need to move, but what's really stopping that is, they're not being offered any public sector jobs we've just been told that they have to privatise and lose. Yeah, so there's a whole, any time that those interests, I guess, govern any type of crisis is a major threat. So yeah, I reckon on my shopping list of how to bring down capitalism, nationalising a range of things, but including anything that gives billionaires power over other decisions to do with climate change would be one of them. So nationalising resources has to be one of them.

S: I think I'm very adjacent to that of supportive of universal basic income. And we've had this conversation as well about how we definitely should have universal basic income, but it cannot substitute all of the services that we need, which is something that we've been seeing in some countries.

K: Yeah, the problem is some neoliberal advocates call for a universal basic income, right? So that's also, we have to ensure how, what is the--

S: How it comes about.

K: Yeah.

S: Yeah.

S: Because I think another common thing that happens is that, some of these ideas do move from the left to the center, but the center always tries to adapt it and maintain capitalism.

K: Yeah, 'cause a universal basic income can enshrine individualism. It's the idea that you could have an income that every person gets it and makes the individual decision how to spend it. And then you get that it's basically like a voucher system for your health and education and all those other things. So I think a universal right to work where we say there won't be unemployment actually. And there'll be, we need a whole range of community based jobs that everybody will have the right to have and everybody will have the right to have an income. But at the same time, we will have universal public services and expanded public services in even in areas that we are not thinking of would be critical for this shift. And that right to work would be basically universal basic income, but it wouldn't be 40 hours a week or more that most workers do. And I think that's also part of what's on my shopping list is this idea that we have to change the way that work has been framed and the idea around, 40 hour week, which should, if we looked at how capital has gained in the last 40 years, the productivity gains should, if they were distributed fairly, it would mean that most of us would only have to work three days a week. In fact, it should be the standard working week.

S: I was thinking that that the eight hours was a gain a hundred years ago, but eight hours a day is not feasible. And why should it be when we have that much wealth, we have that much technology. We could give people a lot more leisure, a lot more joy, if they could just do what they want, without having to think about survival.

K: Yeah, and when I guess this might have been something that we could have come to earlier as feminists, right? That when feminists were able to gain the right to work, it should have been a redistribution of work, and of the hours, and instead it was mainly gained by capital because of course the living wage was based on the idea of a man and his dependents, and instead we should have said, "Well, no, we can redistribute those hours of work. "And we would have a three day a week." And I think that's critical. It's also critical for the climate crisis. One because, we shouldn't consume as much as we are, but also because sustainable living takes time, all the things we need to do to spend more, to go on public transport, to mend our own clothes, to live more sustainably, we need that time and we need that joy, but we also, the bread and the roses, but yeah, we also need to be able to contribute to community and our public contributions, living in a society should allow us that time. And, increasingly people have withdrawn from collective organisations because they just are overworked, overstressed and trying to survive. And that includes unions, although most of the reduction in unionism is a deliberate attack of course, by capital and the global governance. Should we try and list some of our other demands on the shopping list?

S: Yes. I remember once saying to you that, I wish minimum wage applied to everybody in government, especially in legislation, because then maybe they would care a little bit more about what they're saying somebody can survive on when that that's not the income that they're getting for just showing up a couple of days a week in parliament.

K: Right. Yeah, I mean, I think we have to change our governance as well, but my first thing is get money out of government, right? Get capital out. We should not allow big corporations to be able to donate for political parties at all. And we should not allow them to have any say over either global governance or national governance. And, we've seen the opposite happen, right? You basically can't run in most countries unless you're either a billionaire you're backed by billionaires and even the left parties, even those that represent labour, take money from big capital. So for me, get money out of governance, that's the only way to restore democracy. I mean, there was a study in the US, I think it was MIT who found that they are not living in a democracy, they are living in a plutocracy, basically ruled by the rich, because all of the decisions that they studied, that were made as a consequence of the influence of big capital. And so that's really critical for me get capital out of any governance, if we think there's a possibility to get--

S: Yeah, and that's dangerous, not just for individual countries like the United States, as you've said, but for global intergovernmental spaces as well, because COP26 last year, there was a report from the BBC saying that, there were 506 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP and barely that number of organisers, Indigenous people, and so on who actually are fighting for change there. And yeah, I think that that is definitely a sticking point for me. I also get scared of blended finance because that I think is part of that problem of mixing together public money and private money and speculating with public money. That's done by so called investors.

K: Yeah, I mean, with getting capital out of our governance, we know that they have a bigger say at the UN, right? Than people and being in the labor movement, I think it's a proud history that the labor movement gained the ILO before the UN, after the first World War, it was like--

S: At a time when people were still scared of workers and--

K: Exactly, and it was like, okay, to avoid, global revolution, we'll give you the UN and you'll have an equal say. So we'll give you the ILO. It's the one part of the UN where actually it's not just governments, it's an equal, well, it's governments and then an equal say between unions or workers and employers, but in the rest of the UN, capital has actually got a seat as an observer state and workers and people don't. So it's very clear that this is quite new, but they've progressively made their voice heard, but even worse than that, even worse than the UN, and the role of capital there, is the trade agreements. So outside of the UN our global governance is clearly more enforceable through trade agreements than with any international standards, any international law. We've got these trade agreements that set the rules that say, you must trade between each other, according to rules that are pro-capital, and that are deeply neoliberal. You cannot go backwards. You cannot stop privatising and nationalise things. You cannot start regulating capital. You must keep giving foreign capital the rights to be in your country and you can't go backwards, I mean, it's extraordinary. Or you can be sued and face billions and billions of dollars of awards, which of course, many developing countries have and effectively, have to cut their public services as a result, I mean, that is the fact that what was, I think it was Deutsche Bank that called these trade agreements, a Magna Carta for investors, so that they have their human rights standards except its investor standards that overrides anything else in international law, I mean, that's gotta be where we start, right? We've got to immediately eradicate those. They're stopping action on climate as well. Like many countries have faced action when the governments have said they wanna phase out fossil fuels, they'll be sued by big corporations in these global investor courts--

S: Yeah, that's actually the outcome of NAFTA, that NAFTA ended up blocking a lot of environmental protections that could have been in place, but every time any proposal came up it got shot down because of the threat of an investor state dispute settlement. I guess, that also just makes me think about what you were saying earlier about vaccines, because I think a big part of our work last year was the TRIPS waiver campaign. And to me, it's just terrifying to think that we are in a crisis. That's not debatable at this point. And you're saying that we can't just corral all of our resources and produce not just the vaccines, but also all of the medicines and all of this, everything that we need, why are we competing against each other and fighting and stealing and speculating like, this is not the moment to speculate, but I suppose like a lot of people have learned in war zones, some people think that that's the moment to increase their value.

K: Yeah, I mean, obviously it was like, you say it wasn't just the vaccines that's the most clear evidence is how the trade rules have stopped countries being able to produce the vaccines they needed. But like you say, everything that's required, whether it be the PPE, the personal protective equipment or the medicines or the equipment, but also the other things that people just needed in their everyday lives to survive, the supply chain had failed. And that's because, at globalisation has enforced the idea of chasing the cheapest capital around the world. And you can't have national industry if you don't have cheap capital. And the only way to break unions is to shut down their capacity to organise around manufacturing and other areas. And so, yeah, I think this has come home to roost where we could see, the global supply chain is really dependent and on some particular countries, and if they stop, we all stop. we can't get everything that we wanted and, it's basically irrational, isn't it? That we would allow this to happen, that this is the way that our governance has happened. That we'd sign off rules in an anti-democratic process as it has to happen. And that's really the most extraordinary thing, isn't it? That we think we live in democracies, but our own High Courts cannot enforce the rules. It's other secretive tribunals that can. Yeah, I mean, unfortunately the pandemic doesn't seem to be shifting too many countries, few, I mean, it's great news, I heard that Chile, when the new president was elected, he said, "This is the birthplace of neoliberalism "and it will be it's death." And they're doing some things that I guess we are talking about, they're talking about enshrining, the right to care in their constitution and building a governance of care, not a governance of capital. So they're some hope, I guess, in some places.

S: I've always told myself so long is we're not dead, there's always hope.

K: True

S: I mean, it's a grim way to think about it. But I think that's the other part of both being part of this climate justice activism, and also part of the union movement that it's incredibly violent. And we work with a lot of people that are putting their lives on the line for these things that we believe in.

K: Yeah, well, I just want one more idea. I think that we should discuss, because capitalism of course has its history of industrialisation and when did the means of production shift during that period? But now we're also, we've gone through another big shift and that is we are basically living in a database society. So there's another component to capitalism, which isn't as obvious as, the means of production being capital and factories and workers, it's also that the biggest companies in the world, the most concentrated monopolistic power is now in data. And so one of my demands for a feminist future for a feminist fossil fuel free future, that we used to talk about, is that we need to nationalise data, that we need data sovereignty, that we need all the idea of people's data, that's intelligence, that's information to be collected, and governed collectively. I think that is a very disruptive idea for capitalism because capital is always looking to expand, right? It has to find something more and more, and it's found expansion in data, in information about us, produced by us, but also really important information about the climate or about where we need to build services. And in this last couple of years about our health, our global health, and that's now all in the hands of private capital and they are reaping the benefits. So of course we can see that the biggest companies in the world are data companies, even those that were once, physical capital, like General Electric are now data companies. And they are the ones that profited most from this pandemic, even though of course, the Big Pharma did as well and they are in the new rules of the global economy, including in the trade agreements that I think are very rarely discussed at any level by governments. They don't even understand what they're signing off on. I mean it's extraordinary when you tell people that we have now signed onto global rules that say that big data companies don't have to have a local presence, right? They don't have to set up an office. They cannot be told where to keep their data. So there can be no contracts that says big data companies have to localise data in the country that they're gathering data from, even if that data's from government, right? 'Cause they're getting all these government contracts and privatising our public services through these contracts with government. And thirdly, the one that, I think is even more shocking is that nobody including governments can demand to see the algorithm that are now ordering our lives. So those three rules are now part of international trade agreements that are binding, that you can't get out of. It's not like your human rights where you can, pay some lip service to them and get out of it the next day.

S: Like we're trying, we'll get to it.

K: Yeah. But yeah, these are binding rules that several countries have now signed up to and that they wanna expand into the World Trade Organisation. And that tell us that the future of power, which is in these monopoly big corporates can never be broken unless you wanna bankrupt your own country. Yeah, so that would be my on my shopping list without a doubt.

S: I've also been thinking about, what do you think about the need to break up companies when they become too big and too powerful and too government substitute like, and whether that's something about size or whether that's something about time, because when I look at Shell or Exxon Mobil, I'm just like, those are colonial companies. I don't think they need to exist anymore.

K: Yeah.

S: But when I look at Google or a lot of other companies that as you said, are handling data, I'm just like, that is also too big. That they have more money and more power than, I don't know, the last third of small countries.

K: Yeah absolutely.

S: And they have too much decision making power.

K: I mean, those antitrust laws can do something, but I think we should nationalise data. We should have a sovereign data, right? And there's no, some countries are doing things to give themselves, like even Germany has got the Bundescloud, right? So that's their national cloud instead of Amazon. Most countries now, Amazon's biggest business is in our public service data and taking contracts from governments to hold our public data. But why not have our public data on a public cloud? Why can't we do that? Why can't we build the public services that we used to build? Like right now you would never have a library built, if the libraries hadn't been invented.

S: It would sound like a socialist plot, yeah.

K: It would, wouldn't it? And how beautiful are libraries?

S: Yeah.

K: Yeah, so, I mean, these are all ideas I think that we have to embrace as a feminist movement, not just as trade union movement and elsewhere. 'Cause they're deeply feminist and they're deeply antifeminist if they're maintained in the way they are. Yeah, I mean, that's a very short amount of the number of things that would be on my shopping list. What about you, have you got any last to add to the shopping list or?

S Yeah, You've distracted me with libraries because that is also one of the things that I really think needs much more support and investment as well because what a lot of people don't realise, especially when they live in urban centers is how crucial libraries are in remote communities, in rural areas because they're providing the services that a lot of people are not. That's where people go to access the internet. That's where people go to learn about what's happening in local communities and stuff like that. And it is substituted for public services that ought to be in place, helping people out, whether that's older people looking for information about how to register for, I don't know anything that they need, how to make their appointments online, because that's another terrible aspect of moving everything online, we're forgetting that we're leaving a lot of people behind. And I guess the last thing I would add to my shopping list is to a have policy that doesn't forget, that, yes, if we can all participate in the internet, it's a democracy, but it's not possible for everybody to participate in the internet. And that is also something that we need to think about more carefully. And as you said, it's just more feminist to think about how can we make sure that everybody can participate in something?

K: Well, I think libraries are part of the community of care, right? So if there is one thing I would take away, it's probably that, as I said, we need to disrupt the idea of the ruling ideas are how you move to a new system, right? We can only move to a new system by disrupting that these are actually just ideas and disrupt that by a new idea of care and libraries are about caring. They're about giving people opportunities, about bringing community together. And we can have those new, big ideas in this way that we reorganise ourselves around both the right to care, but also that it's public, that we need public care. So I think care should be nationalised, that nationalisation of care, whether it be childcare, disability care, or age care, gives women, of course, the opportunity, both hopefully for decent work, if we really support that, but also that the burden of care, the unpaid care, is to some extent redistributed between families and the state. So for me, I think this one final takeaway, I mean, it would be, let's really try and popularise this idea and push as much as we can for care as a public good.

S: I fully agree.

S: And I think my last thought would be, we should always be asking why not? Because a lot of the things that we talk about, people are just like, well, you can't do that. And it's just like, but why not? We have the wealth, we have the space, we have the technology. Why not? We can do things differently. And I feel like we could keep talking about this for ages, but I guess we should bring other people in.

K: Yes, we can see a lot of people who have thought a lot about capitalism and feminism. It'd be great to, connect with everybody here.

S: So Bronwyn, would you like to come back in?

Bronwyn: My goodness, thank you both so much. That was so fascinating. I've got like 10 different ideas of like new ways to disrupt the capitalist system. The first one being libraries for everyone and everywhere. And that's just like, make everything about libraries. So thank you very much. I'm gonna ask everyone--