Category Archives: Text

(Deutsch) Aufruf – 17. September 2011

August 10, 201117 September 1911, Event, Textadmin

17. September 1911 – Aufstand in Ottakring

Der 17. September 1911 ist in Vergessenheit geraten. Ein Tag, an dem mehr als 100.000 Menschen in Wien gegen die unzumutbaren Lebensbedingungen demonstrierten. Ein Tag, der mit drei Toten und hunderten Verletzten endete – und mit der militärischen Besetzung eines ganzen Stadtviertels.

Begonnen hatte dieser Tag mit einer Kundgebung vor dem Parlament gegen die rasant steigenden Lebensmittelpreise. Organisiert hatte diese Kundgebung die sozialdemokratische Partei, und gekommen waren vor allem die BewohnerInnen der Vorstädte, aus Landstraße, Simmering, Ottakring …

Hunger wird gemacht

Der Hunger in den Vorstädten war nicht Folge von Missernten, sondern der Zollgesetzgebung, die den Interessen der Großagrarier folgte. Ebenso hatte es sich mit der Hungersnot in Frankreich 1846/47 verhalten, die auf die massenhafte Ausfuhr von Getreide zurück zu führen war (und die zu massenhaften Aufständen führte). Und genauso verhält es sich mit der Preisexplosion bei Getreide seit 2008, die Folge der Umstellung auf „Bio-Sprit“-Produktion ist und ebenfalls zu weltweiten Hungerrevolten führt.

Ebenso konnte die Wohnungsnot nicht auf die massive Zuwanderung nach Wien zurückgeführt werden. Sie war Ergebnis von Spekulation mit Grund und Boden sowie Baumaterialien. Neu-Ottakring war ein in den 1890er Jahren errichteter, auf dem Reissbrett entworfener Bezirksteil, mit schnurgeraden Straßen, Substandardwohnungen und horrenden Mieten. Die Architektur spiegelt bereits die Angst der Herrschenden vor den „Geistern, die sie gerufen hatten“ (gemeint sind die für die kapitalistische Entwicklung nötigen Arbeitskräfte) wider:

Es gab keine verwinkelten Gassen, die sich, wie in der Revolution 1848, leicht verbarrikadieren ließen. Das gesamte Grätzl war von drei Seiten leicht abzuriegeln: zur Innenstadt stellte der Gürtel mit der hoch geführten Stadtbahn eine ideale Befestigungsanlage dar, nach Süden grenzte ein riesiger Truppenübungsplatz an das Gelände, und im Westen endete das Gebiet an der Vorortelinie.

Verschiedene Sprachen

Am 17. September 1911 explodierte die Wut der VorstadtbewohnerInnen. Nach den Reden vor dem Parlament zogen Gruppen von mehreren tausend DemonstrantInnen durch die Innenstadt. Sie wurden von Polizei und Armee ständig angegriffen und abgedrängt. Dagegen wehrten sie sich mit allem, was ihnen in die Hände fiel.

Und wenn die Presse (und die Sozialdemokratie) später von „unverantwortlichen Elementen“ und „Lumpenproletariat“ sprach, so musste sie gleichzeitig zugestehen, dass die „Exzedenten“ von einem Großteil der Bevölkerung unterstützt wurden: Frauen versorgten Jugendliche mit Steinen, die sie in ihren Schürzen herbeischafften, aus Gasthäusern wurden die Ordnungshüter mit Bierkrügeln, aus den Fenstern der Wohnhäuser mit allem, was verfügbar war, beworfen. Die sozialdemokratischen Führer verstanden ebenso wenig wie die Bürger, warum Papierhandlungen und Schulen verwüstet und Straßenlaternen zerstört wurden. Für sie standen diese Einrichtungen für den „Fortschritt“. Wir verstehen diese Zerstörungswut besser, wenn wir uns an Stelle der Straßenbeleuchtung die Kameraüberwachung öffentlicher Räume und an Stelle der Papierhandlungen und Bezirksämter die Datenbanken der Ministerien und Polizei (sowie die privatwirtschaftliche Sammelwut von Daten) vorstellen.

Was die einen notwendige Voraussetzung für „sozialen Frieden“ und „geordnetes Zusammenleben“ nennen, bedeutet für andere Überwachung, Reglementierung, Unterdrückung jeglichen Ansatzes eines selbstbestimmten Lebens. Und oft Bestrafung und/oder Abschiebung.

Die sozialdemokratische Führung verstand den Aufruf zur Kundgebung als „Ventil“ für die Massen, die ihre Wut artikulieren „durften“, und als Unterstützung ihrer Parlamentsfraktion. Die Massen selbst verstanden, dass eine Kundgebung nichts ändern würde, sahen sie sich doch von Anfang an tausenden Ordnungshütern gegenüber, die nur darauf warteten, die Demonstration so rasch wie möglich aufzulösen.

Die Polizei wiederum konnte ebenso wenig wie die Armee begreifen, wieso die Aufständischen nicht abhauten, wenn der Befehl, die Gewehre anzulegen, erteilt wurde. Sie verstanden nicht, dass es für diese Menschen, die in ihrem eigenen Bezirk angegriffen wurden, gar keine Rückzugsmöglichkeit mehr gab. Und sie verstanden nicht, dass Menschen, die für ihre eigenen Interessen kämpfen, sich anders verhalten als zum Dienst für fremde Interessen verpflichtete Soldaten.

Verlorene Schlacht

Der Aufstand in Neu-Ottakring endete noch am Abend des 17. September 1911. Er endete mit dem Einsatz nahezu der gesamten in Wien verfügbaren Truppen gegen die Bevölkerung eines einzigen Bezirksteiles. Er endete mit der militärischen Besetzung des gesamten Bezirks, mit drei toten und hunderten verletzten BewohnerInnen. Und er sollte so rasch wie möglich aus dem kollektiven Gedächtnis getilgt werden, das war sowohl die Absicht der Regierung und der Bourgeoisie als auch der sozialdemokratischen Führung.

Er hatte gezeigt, dass es keinerlei Vertrauen der Vorstadtbevölkerung in die Regierung mehr gab. Er hatte auch gezeigt, dass die Menschen genug hatten von den Reden der sozialdemokratischen Opposition. Und dass sie verstanden hatten, dass „geordnete, disziplinierte Demonstrationen“ nichts ändern. Dieser Aufstand musste so rasch wie möglich unterdrückt werden, ehe er sich so weit entwickeln konnte, dass die Menschen selbstorganisiert ihr Leben in die Hand nahmen.

Wohin selbstorganisierter Widerstand führen kann, lernen wir zur Zeit etwa von den ÄgypterInnen. Die Zugeständnisse, die die Militärs gemacht haben, indem sie Präsident Mubarak verhafteten und anklagten, können die Menschen nicht mehr beruhigen. In immer neuen Mobilisierungen stellen sie immer weitergehende Forderungen, die schließlich nicht nur die Militärführung, sondern das Prinzip der kapitalistischen Verwertung selbst betreffen könnten.

Nicht vergessen

Der 17. Septemer 1911 in Neu-Ottakring ist uns wichtig, und deshalb erinnern wir an ihn. Er ist in vielerlei Hinsicht aktuell. Spekulation mit Lebensmitteln und Wohnraum, Überwachung und Unterdrückung sind so wenig Geschichte wie ihre Ursache, die kapitalistische Verwertung – und der Kampf dagegen.

Am 17. September 2011 werden wir einige der Brennpunkte des Aufstands von 1911 besuchen und neben der Erinnerung an die Ereignisse vor 100 Jahren auch Parallelen zu heute ziehen. Wir gedenken der KämpferInnen in angemessener Form, indem wir sie nicht vergessen, indem wir aus ihren Fehlern lernen, und indem wir den Kampf um ein besseres Leben weiterführen.

Samstag, 17.9.2011

12 Uhr – Volxküche, Infostand und szenische Interventionen am Yppenplatz
16 Uhr – Treffpunkt am Schuhmeierplatz für einen Rundgang durch das aufständische Ottakring
18 Uhr – Straßenfest am Hofferplatz mit Infos, Live-Musik und Volksküche
22 Uhr – Fortsetzung im BOEM* http://boem.postism.org (Koppstraße 26)

Donnerstag, 22.9.2011

20 Uhr – Diskussion mit Wolfgang Maderthaner und Susan Zimmermann (HistorikerInnen) im BOEM* http://boem.postism.org (Koppstraße 26)

anti-corruption council on jugoremedija

July 27, 2011Representation, Text, worker's strugglesnikita

Republic of Serbia

Government of the Republic of Serbia

ANTI-CORRUPTION COUNCIL

72 No: 07-00-6064/2011

27 July 2011

B e l g r a d e

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

-Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic-

B e l g r a d e

Dear Sir,

We are addressing you in connection with the continuous pressure of the executive power exerted on the Zrenjanin pharmaceutical factory Jugoremedija, with the aim of removing from the office the management elected by the votes of its majority private owners, so that the Ministry of Economy could install its own management in this company, where the state is a minority shareholder, and a shareholder without the voting right to elect management members, in light of Article 11b of the Law on the Privatization Agency.

Jugoremedija was privatized in accordance with the Law on Ownership Transformation. At the time when the Law on Privatization 2001 came into force, a majority part of Jugoremedija (58%) was privately owned, while a minority part (42%) was state-owned, which was sold to the Company Јака 80 from Macedonia on 10 September 2002. Јака 80 and the Cyprus off-shore company Demeno Trade were owned by Jovica Stefanovic-Nini, who was on the Interpol Wanted List at the time. In 2004 the Anti-Corruption Council furnished information on the ownership structure of Јака 80 to the Agency for Prevention of Money Laundering. So far we have received no response.

The Shares Fund concluded a sales contract with Јака 80, according to which the buyer undertook the obligation to increase the capital of Jugoremedija and thus become a majority owner. The other shareholders, the majority shareholders of the factory, agreed that the capital increase be carried out through investments and modernization of the production plants. However, at the Shareholders’ meeting in 2003 Stefanovic proposed that the increase of the capital be carried out in another way – by conversion of Jugoremedija‘s debt to Јака 80, created on the basis of a disputable purchase of raw materials. The shareholders rejected this proposal. However, Јака 80 registered itself with the court register as the majority owner on the basis of the Contract with the Shares Fund and a forged decision of the Shareholders’ Meeting. In April 2004 the shareholders initiated a court dispute for the cancellation of the capital increase. Responding to their actions, in August 2004 Stefanovic expelled them from the factory with the help of private security staff, the Zrenjanin police and Belgrade gendarmerie units. The Anti-Corruption Council informed the Government in detail about this problem in its Report on Jugoremedija, dated 16 September 2004. The Government responded that it would wait for the outcome of the court dispute initiated by the shareholders.

By the end of 2006 the court deleted the capital increase of Jugoremedija by a final decision and annuled the contract for sale of the shares. The state became again the owner of 42% of shares and the stake of the private shareholders was reverted to 58%. However, before the Shareholders’ Meeting appointed a new management in accordance with the ownership structure established by the court, Stefanovic had concluded a great number of asymmetric contracts between Jugoremedija and his associated companies, with the aim of preventing the change of management by forcing Jugoremedija into bankruptcy and taking it over as the majority creditor. In addition, the production at the factory was stopped in November 2006, also with the aim of preventing business operation of the company after the change of management.

At the Shareholders’ Meeting held on 1 March 2007 the private shareholders appointed a new management, which found the debts of the factory amounting to 2,030,090,824.23 dinars and the first order mortgage over the property of Jugoremedija for a loan drawn by Stefanovic’s company, MD Nini, in an amount of 12.6 million euros. Due to such a situation, no bank wanted to grant a loan for the resumption of production; and, besides the financial problems, the factory was obliged to reconstruct its production plants. Specifically, the Drug Inspection of the Ministry of Health ordered Jugoremedija on 22 March 2006 to bring the production of drugs into compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) within a period of six months as of the receipt of the decision. The employees had been insisting on this investment since the 2003 Company Meeting, but Jaka 80 had declined to do it.

After the court had established the violation of the law in the sale of Jugoremedija shares and deleted the contracts between Jaka 80 and the Shares Fund, it was necessary that the collusion between the officials from the state institutions and the criminal circles be investigated, the liability for the violation of the law established, and that the state, in agreement with the private shareholders, initiate proceedings for compensation of damage caused to the factory by unlawful actions of the responsible persons at the responsible state agencies. Instead of that, the executive power continued exerting pressure on Jugoremedija private shareholders and the management appointed by them.

While the new management was struggling to restart production and prevent bankruptcy, by 13 March 2007 the Tax Department of the Ministry of Finance had already delivered an order to Jugoremedija to immediately, under the threat of enforcement, settle the entire debt for tax and social insurance contributions incurred during Stefanovic’s management, dating from December 2003. In other words, even the state agency, which had tolerated Stefanovic’s failure to settle these debts and allowed an accrual of tax debt to an amount of 79,787,950.93 dinars and contributions debt to an amount of 26,084,610.64 dinars, now, after the establishment of the legal order at Jugoremedija, threatened to initiate the procedure for enforced collection of the debt. The Anti-Corruption Council informed the Government that the Ministry of Finance used the collection of the tax as an instrument of pressure on the new management. The Government did not respond to this letter, and Jugoremedija managed to pay the entire accrued debt within a short time and remove the bankruptcy threat. Mladjan Dinkic was the minister of finance at the time.

In 2008 the Shareholders’ Meeting of Jugoremedija decided that the company would provide investments on its own in the reconstruction of the factory in order to bring it into compliance with the GMP requirements, and the Ministry of Economy agreed that a new tender for the sale of shares be organized only after the completion of this investment. However, at the moment when the investment in the construction works had been completed, before Jugoremedija was awarded the GMP Certificate and the investment could be realized through an increase of the value of the shares, the Ministry started putting pressure on the management to promptly organize a tender. The factory management did not agree to publish the tender before the completion of the months-long procedure of obtaining the GMP Certificate. Soon after that, on the basis of tabloid texts and anonymous complaints, a police investigation was initiated against the director of Jugoremedija because of alleged abuses during the reconstruction, which has continued from the first police factory raid on 18 June 2010 until the present. The investigation started eighteen days before the Shareholders’ Meeting, with an obvious aim to arouse mistrust among the private shareholders in the work of the management, and that a new management, which would accept the proposals of the Ministry of Economy, be appointed at the Shareholders’ Meeting. In spite of the pressures, the private shareholders backed the business policy of the management at the Shareholders’ Meeting. On 9 August 2010 the Anti-Corruption Council informed the Government about the abuse of police at Jugoremedija and recommended the Government examine the actions of the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Interior and inform the public of its findings. The Government did not respond to this letter either.

On 11 May 2011 inspectors of the Zrenjanin Police Administration carried out another raid on the factory and confiscated the documentation relating to the joint investments of Jugoremedija and a group of its shareholders in the new penicillin factory. It was an investment which was a part of the reconstruction of the production plants of the factory so that it would be in compliance with the GMP requirements. When an official of Jugoremedija asked on whose complaint the police acted, they replied “on an order from above”. The Anti-Corruption Council advised the Government with its letter of 24 May that the result of the police investigation that had been continuously conducted at Jugoremedija was that business banks decided not to cooperate with the company, assessing it as unstable, which has seriously jeopardized its financial state and business capability. At the same time, the Anti-Corruption Council addressed the High Prosecutor’s Office in Zrenjanin requesting information on whose order the investigation at Jugoremedija was conducted. We have received no response to either of these letters.

At the meeting at the Ministry of Economy held on 7 July this year, the state secretary Branislav Zec set a condition to Jugoremedija saying that the state would help them to overcome the problems with the business banks if the management elected by the votes of the private shareholders resigns, and is replaced by persons nominated by the Ministry. Article 11b of the Law on the Privatization Agency does not provide that votes borne by state-owned shares are used for the election of the company management members, which means that the Ministry’s request was that, at the Shareholders’ Meeting scheduled for 8 August, the private shareholders were to elect with their votes a management that would be controlled by the minority shareholder. Branislav Zec again threatened the director of Jugoremedija with a police investigation related to the construction of the new penicillin factory, and after the meeting at the Ministry, the Revenue Department has been conducting detailed controls at Jugoremedija on a daily basis. According to the statements made by the inspector conducting the control, it is conducted on the basis of an order of the Minister of Economy and Regional Development Nebojsa Ciric.

The present situation at Jugoremedija does not differ at all from the situation in 2002, when the Shares Fund imposed Jovica Stefanovic’s management on the majority shareholders. It is indispensable that the Government examine this case and urgently take necessary measures, the more so because in 2006, after the court had cancelled the contracts for sale of Jugoremedija shares and its capital increase, it failed to initiate proceedings for the establishment of the liability for the violation of the law and the caused damage, which enabled that the violation of the ownership rights of the private shareholders be continued to date.

The worrying conclusion can be inferred from the actions of the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Interior at Jugoremedija that in case of companies where the state is a co-owner, its representatives abuse the fact that they are at the same time a part of the executive power, using their position to exert pressure on private owners. At Jugoremedija such pressure has gone so far that business decisions made at the Shareholders’ Meetings and the Management Board in accordance with the law have become the subject of a constant police investigation. At the same time, this investigation does not cover all the members of the management bodies where such decisions were made; rather, they are exclusively directed at prominent business officials, which paralyzes the business operation of the company and discredits its business reputation to such an extent that it jeopardizes its survival. Therefore, it is very important that the Government establish the background of this constant pressure.

Only in this way will the Government eliminate the suspicion of its involvement.

Specifically, considering the fact that in 2006 it failed to investigate the existence of the collusion between the executive power and the criminal circles which enabled suspicious capital to control a pharmaceutical factory for four and half years, and especially considering the fact that the relation of the state representatives towards the private owners of Jugoremedija has not changed even after the court decisions of 2006, a conclusion can be inferred that the collusion between the executive power and the criminals has effectively remained intact. Moreover, it can be concluded that only owing to the pressure of this collusion, the Government has not taken any action in the meantime to provide equal protection of the ownership rights of all the owners and the security of contracts, which are the basic preconditions for the development of the economy and which are the basic tasks of the Government. Therefore, the Government must establish who is behind these pressures whose aim is the removal of the company’s management elected legally by the votes of the private shareholders. What is behind these actions of the state agencies which discredit the reputation of Jugoremedija and cause damage to the private shareholders and to the state? What interests motivated the state secretary at the Ministry of Economy when he presented untrue information about the situation at the company and falsely presented the private shareholders of Jugoremedija as its workers?

The professional and wider national public and the European Commission share the same attitude that curbing the collusion between the executive power and criminal circles is the most important issue in combating corruption in Serbia, which makes it indispensable that the Government examine in detail the drastic violation of the elementary rights of the private owners of Jugoremedija and inform the public of its findings within the shortest possible time. As the problem at Jugoremedija is manifested in a very dangerous way, because it threatens to fully destroy this factory with a majority private ownership, whose products are at the same time of strategic importance for Serbia, the Anti-corruption Council is going to submit all the documentation it has at its disposal to the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office for the purpose of the initiation of an investigation and shedding light on all the circumstances in connection with this drastic case of systemic corruption which has already been going on for almost ten years.

Yours faithfully,

Council PRESIDENT

Verica Barac

Anti-Corruption Council on Jugoremedija

July 27, 2011Representation, Text, worker's strugglesjugoremedijanikita

The Anti-Corruption Council adressed to the Government in connection with the pressure of the executive power on the Jugoremedija

July 27, 2011

The Anti-Corruption Council adressed to the Government in connection with the continuous pressure of the executive power exerted on the Zrenjanin pharmaceutical factory Jugoremedija, with the aim of removing from the office the management elected by the votes of its majority private owners, so that the Ministry of Economy could install its own management in this company, where the state is a minority shareholder, and a shareholder without the voting right to elect management members, in light of Article 11b of the Law on the Privatization Agency.

After the court had established the violation of the law in the sale of Jugoremedija shares in 2006 and deleted the contracts between Jaka 80 and the Shares Fund, it was necessary that the collusion between the officials from the state institutions and the criminal circles be investigated, the liability for the violation of the law established, and that the state, in agreement with the private shareholders, initiate proceedings for compensation of damage caused to the factory by unlawful actions of the responsible persons at the responsible state agencies. Instead of that, the executive power continued exerting pressure on Jugoremedija private shareholders and the management appointed by them.

In-Between Castles and Barracks…

August 3, 2008Analysis, Return of the Gastarbeiters, Textnikita

Dear Readers, today is Sunday and Sunday’s in Serbia are usually very relaxed days. Too much for my taste, so I want to use this occasion to share some impressions with you. Our workshop now lasts for more than 2 weeks and that days have been very dense in terms of content. We have been introduced to the City of Pozarevac by few individuals and local active people, and have been well received here. After the first week, where we met local industrials, politicians, activists, people from various local cultural or social intitiatives, I face difficulties to find a way to relate with our workshop subject. What is somehow a burning subject here, is the disappearance of the middle class, so I walk around between castles and barracks. If you press the gallery in this post, you will find few images, from the seminar, from the first steps around the town, from our close encounter with the International Roma Union of Serbia, but also images from our visit to a local illegal settlement, inhabited IDP’s (inner displaced people) from Kosovo.

My initial motivation, to participate in that Workshop “the Return of the Gastarbajter” was to have a broader overview of that phenomena, that is also part of my own story. My parents were migrants from Yugoslavia, and I was born and raised in Austria. People in Serbia, often claim that the reasons for migration were always only economical, and that only non-educated, almost illiterate people moved towards Western Europe and further. In my case, my parents had an decent education, and they managed to somehow focus to live, where they are, and not to build castles for a imagined future, for an uncertain return to the places, where they moved from.

Here we have here loads of houses, I call them castles, built by the gastarbajters, that seem more a monument of their absence, than to serve for living. People started moving from this region, called Branicevski Okrug, from the 70ties, and their main destinations, were Austria, Germany and France. In the reagion Branicevo live about 250.000 people, and they believe that 70.000 live in Austria. Another peak of the migration was also during the violent disintegration of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ), and during that time, that phenomena of building huge representational houses appeared. During the period of the hyperinflation, were people in Serbia used to work for an average loan of 10 DM (german marks, 5 Euros today), for the Gastarbajter, earning money abroad, it was quite easy to build huge houses. They believed that one day, after 20 and more years working abroad, that they will return with their families and live in that huge houses. Also, under socialist law it was impossible to invest in a kind of business, as business was part of the public affairs, and in a society which functions under a communist premise, private property in a public field was impossible. Than happened, that a kind of competition between, or about status symbols started, so everyone tried to build a house, which is bigger than the neighbors one. Although my fellow Serbs, believe that they are special with that attitude, I used to say that greediness is international.

You can for sure imagine, that building such huge houses, during a period, where people worked for almost nothing, in an hard struggle to survive, feed a lot of hate, between that different layers of societies. On one side, almost everyone in Serbia, survived or survives due to that money, sent back by people from abroad, but still resentments were fed, somehow understandable if you have to cue for hours for bread, flour, oil and sugar, while others are building palaces. On the other side, gastarbajter complained that they had to pay high bribes for the legalization of their buildings, and that they are only seen and recognized as the one who bring or have to bring expensive presents and money, when they return once a year from abroad, usually in very fancy new and big cars. A very complex situation.

To add, or to illustrate our complex situation, you will detect, that I switch sometimes from I to we, and from we to I, as I want to provide you with a subjective perspective, but as there are more people in our workshop, some of my sentences match also common perspectives… so an additional complexity was provided by the Open Forum, during the Seminar, which was open for the local community to present their perspectives on the phenomena around Gastarbajter. Their impact on the local culture, economical situation, political situation etc… This was very well attended, and the local Roma Association, the International Roma Union of Serbia responded most to our invite. Many Roma people have been or are Gastarbajters, and the phenomena of the big representative houses is widespread between them. Also the Association IRU Srbija is run by a guy, who was himself Guestworker in Austria, till he lost his residency permit, due to an change of law. That what he percieved as being kicked out from Austria, was also his initial point and entrance to the field of Activism. IRU has now around 70 members. They have an office and they organize different programs, like they remove old furniture from different household, mainly inhabited by old people, who don’t need them anymore, or can’t effort to pay these items being removed, and IRU redistributes that different stuff, to the needs of different people.

Thanks to IRU, some of us also came in close contact to people living in shanties, and tragically one baby died today in such a temporary shanty, of meningitis. Reality intrudes in a tough way. In a way, if you try to focus on migration, you can’t ignore that fact, that many people here live in such conditions, and that by disappearance of the middle-class, solidarity faded away. Next Sunday there will be the opening of our show, or the presentation of our interdisciplinary artistic workshop. It will happen in public space, so all of you near, are invited to come.

Alexander Nikolic

Permanent Temporary Situation

July 30, 2007Analysis, Return of the Gastarbeiters, Textadmin

The Life and Perspective of the returning Gastarbeiters in the Municipality of

Kučevo

I never live here

My home is where I am not

But I am always in it

In my thoughts of return

My only home are distances

(Ana Čugurović)

These lines sound like the chorus of every story we heard from the gastarbeiters we talked to in mid July 2007 during the two week field research in Kučevo as a part of the project named Art Interventions-The Return of the Gastarbeiters.

When we left Belgrade we brought with ourselves a certain amount of prejudices and stereotyped beliefs about the people we would question about their dreams, their lives, work abroad, the return… At one point of our journey many of the stereotypes started being confirmed…

Notable absence

….since the houses were larger, more luxurious, having more and more windows with shutters, and the front yards were getting emptier as our bus drove further from Belgrade. Where did all those rich people live? Why weren’t they in their houses? Did every gastarbeiter dream of putting their hard earned money into grandiose mansions of stone or was it something else?

The next few days we tried to find out more about the people who built these houses and confirm or prove wrong the stereotypes that followed them through conversation.

When they would receive us in their large houses, we would get the feeling that something was missing, as if the light was shining too short in the rooms. Their personal things weren’t giving the impression than anyone was living there, they were set for return. Everything but them was covered with dust. These people always return somewhere and stay nowhere.

They told us that only few old people were left in their home villages, which were far away from the main roads and almost deserted, their land was in weed, that their children didn’t want to accept them as inheritance, than nobody wanted to plough them and that everybody searched for the way to go away.

Confirmed stereotypes

Mid July 2007, under the project Art Interventions-The Return of the Gastarbeiters, we have conducted a field research among gastarbeiters in Kučevo, under the guidance of Prof Saša Nedeljković. The problem of people returning to Serbia hasn’t been a prominent subject of our anthropologists’ works, although they were familiar with it. Therefore, we have made an effort to extract some general problems and raise new questions, as to say the least, on the example of the gastarbeiters from Kučevo.

We talked with a great number of local gastarbeiters, who were willing to cooperate by talking about their lives, working abroad, thinking to come back…. Taking into consideration that they were a part of the economic and social structure of the greatly undeveloped municipality of Kučevo, we wanted to find out how much were they contributing to their community and whether they interact with their environment actively. The answers to these and many other questions we were able to get only from the story about their entire life: before they left, during the time they lived there and after they came back. Although the people we spoke to weren’t all the same sex and age, the stories they told revealed a standard pattern. The countries they went to were different (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Sweden, France, the Netherlands), but the problems they all came across when they left were mostly similar.

The years of crisis and the increase in the unemployment rate at the beginning of the 1960’s influenced the mass migration of the population of the former Yugoslavia in search for “temporary” work in the countries of West Europe. They would usually go “into the unknown”; looking for a job they couldn’t get here because the number of people looking for a job was a lot bigger than the number of jobs available.

After they left, they faced a new culture they knew very little about. They were not well informed of the conditions of working and living and the rights and obligations they would have. The problem of not understanding and accepting the new culture was mostly caused by the fact the workers did not know the language of the country they came to. They set off thinking “they could earn more there” (or, even simpler, that they would find a job there), and that they would return “when they have earned enough”. One of the people we spoke to, who had spent forty years in Germany, shared his original pans with us: “I thought at the time that I was going to work for some time and then buy a car and make a small house and then come back. I thought it would last for 5-6 years, or 10 years, but then, the children came, I married there..“

Through the conversation we concluded they willingly accepted the fact that they would work harder there, but the reality was often more difficult and demanding than what they had hoped for. However, they accepted all of those terms thinking that their staying was only temporary. That was also one of the reasons of their slow adapting to the environment.

The confusion and the environment’s rejection of their behaviour were caused by the fact that the gastarbeiters lived according to two set of rules in two different environments. Their life abroad meant overtime and saving money, and rejection of the Western spending pattern, but their life here reflected the thinking of the typical “Western consumers”, who spent their hard earned money in the way it was often difficult to understand. These problems were concerned with personal integrity and the social and cultural identity of the guest worker of the first generation.

Part of these workers, who left for temporary employment abroad which usually lasts longer than they had previously thought, started their families in those countries. Their children weren’t so easily accepted into the society. Recalling one unpleasant situation, one of the people who returned, described us the schooldays of his son: „He attended the German school for a year. Once I went to the school and saw him standing alone in the corner, poor boy. Little German kids were running around and playing. The poor boy was standing alone in the corner. He was a foreigner at the time, that happened in ’72 or ’75-’76. He started school but didn’t know the language. He was born there and I was sorry to say to my wife: Look, Imma gonna take him immediately to Yugoslavia to go to Tito’s school, ya hear! “.. Today’s situation changed because there are programs developed to help the children of foreign workers adjust better. Many of the Western countries were aware of the difficulties the foreign citizens were facing so they developed the appropriate psychological and social programmes that included both parents and children. One of the people still living and working in Switzerland approved of the people involved who helped when his daughter was about to start going to the kindergarten „giving him advice that the child should learn to speak Serbian well at home before she started learning foreign languages…“ “She goes to the Swiss kindergarten, there are no Serbian kindergartens. There are additional schools in Serbian. It was interesting to us that we spoke to the teachers before she started going to school. I spoke only Serbian to my daughter. Before she started preschool, she went to the kindergarten… Three times a week per three hours she would learn German. She also started learning the language with the help of TV. The way to communicate is easy and children learn German very easily, and they learn it on the basis of the Serbian language. When me and my wife went to the kindergarten she was going they told us to speak only Serbian with her in the house, because learning more languages required one basis. Our mother tongue was Serbian, and she had to speak Serbian in order to overcome the learning of other languages easier. I speak only Serbian to her…“

The life and way of thinking of the second generation was drastically changed compared to their parents’ life. The practice of the first generation was to form a marriage with other people from Yugoslavia, while their children refused to follow that rule – forming a mixed marriage was perfectly natural to them. Many of the people we interviewed, members of the first generation, proudly emphasized the fact that they didn’t accept the citizenship of the country they went to believing they were preserving their national identity in this way, which wasn’t the case of their children.

On the other hand, part of these workers started their families in the home country, and most of those families remained there. No matter whether they followed the first or the second pattern, the member of the first generation of migrants invested all their money into houses (spacious, having high fences, massive gates, ornamented with concrete sculptures…), and invested all their hope in returning.

They came to Serbia on regular basis, whenever they would be on vacation. Today, their children rarely come because they believe this kind of vacation would cost them a lot comparing what would they gain from it, so they rather go to a third country. Thus, the houses remained empty, and all the effort made to build them was made in vain.

No matter how long they stayed in the country of temporary employment, our gastarbeiters, migrants of the first generation, rarely found friends among the citizens of that country (they mostly socialized with the workers from the former republics of Yugoslavia). The level of communication with the country’s home population was rather low. However, the need for knowing each other better was reduced to minimum. The workers of the first generation counted on coming back from the beginning, at first it would be temporary (vacations) and then permanently (retirement). Their social status changed after the return, and they were given the opportunity to actively influence their environment, which usually doesn’t happen; their money only influenced a specific form of architecture in Eastern Serbia, but this kind of influence could be described as rather passive.

From the conversation with the members of the local authorities and with the people that had returned we have concluded that there was (ill) will for cooperation on both sides. The representatives of the local authorities claimed that the gastarbeiters weren’t willing to invest their money in any of the projects of the municipality, while, on the other hand, most of the gastarbeiters claimed that nobody ever asked them to invest in any kind of particular project. Many of them were owners of private businesses, and stated that they were not willing to cooperate with the local authorities because they believed their money wouldn’t end up in the right place. In their statements we could detect subconscious opinion that the authorities were corrupted and taking bribe, and that they wouldn’t be able to deal with these situations in a legal way in this country… This kind of atmosphere is inappropriate for any kind of constructive dialog so their lives continue in mutual misunderstanding. What should be possibly further investigated is whether this was a typical problem of the transitional society or was it the lack of will, knowledge and capability to create a better living environment.

What seems to be the issue here is that both those who have the power (members of the local authorities) and those who have money (people who returned from abroad) are unwilling to share the power. Both sides complain about the other side and believe they are entitled to do so. „If I would live here, I would have run for the president of the municipality. This very moment“, says one of the people who believes that he has adopted a pattern of organized state system and bureaucracy while living and working in the West and who was willing to apply them in this country.

It seems like the gastarbeiters, by being temporary in both countries, lose the ability to identify themselves as members of any of the two societies they temporary live in, so they are identified as The Others in both places. They don’t see themselves in those ways, of course, they think they are the people who want to repeat the experiences of one society into the other, but since that is impossible (or, in rare cases very difficult or slow), they remain to wander, behaving in the right way in wrong places, or observing from a different perspective, doing wrong in the right places.

It is possible to notice that the problem of the gastarbeiters has many layers and many perspectives. The fact that they were not adapted and not willing to actively participate in every new environment, and the fact that they could not adapt themselves even to the old environment, influences others to classify them always as the “gastarbeiters” which explains their constant marginal status. After they left abroad, they separated themselves from the old environment, at the same time they rarely or never became accepted. Them being marginalised could last for a very long time (sometimes more than 40 years). For us, their marginal status doesn’t cease, because the end of one marginal status can easily mean the beginning of another one. During that period the population of both countries shows misunderstanding towards them, or “tolerates” them, while both sides accept the existing and create new stereotypes.

In their free time

For most of the people we interviewed, free time is unnecessary, useless, even harmful. Many of them use their free time to find another job on the black market, where they can earn more in one sitting. Even if they have free time they usually spend it with their families, or go to church (if there is an orthodox church), where they can meet other people from their country. They usually don’t become friends with people from the host country, even if they are co-workers (which mostly refers to the people of the first wave of migration). There are various cultural barriers when going on house calls between the foreigners, which are impossible to overcome for the people we talked to. Those who want to save money cannot even afford to go out from time to time, because that would cost a lot, so they wouldn’t save enough money to spend when they come back to Serbia. They spend their vacations in their own houses, which always need to be repaired and require some additional building. Even when they come after retiring they continue with some kind of work: some start a private business, and some return to cultivate their deserted land.

When you fulfil your expectations, and your wishes don’t come true

By their statements, what motivated them to leave was difficult life. They weren’t motivated only by lack of work; they also wanted to provide better life conditions for their children than the ones they lived in. Some of them lived in the remotest small villages and went to school on foot. When they earned enough to build large houses in the urban area for their children (some of them opened private businesses for their children), what their children wished for didn’t match their desires. Their children wanted more and they chose an already crossed road seeking for their wishes to come true, just as their parents did once.

Between here and there

Many of those people admired the laws and the efficiency of the legal system in the countries they worked in. They also claimed the corruption wasn’t so developed and all the problems could be solved with a dialog. Still, living was the best and the most pleasant in Serbia. Despite all the remarks they had against the local and state authorities, despite everything dysfunctional they noticed in the home economy, despite all the problems they perceived in the society, they felt their own masters here.. And what is more important they can always feel empathy for each other which makes them want to come back even more.

The Return

Although the most common reason for returning is retirement that is not the only reason. People who were more willing to fight the difficulties of life at home than abroad returned as soon as they earned the first sum of many they were pleased with. Their wish to be ’’their own masters“was stronger than the desire to be rich. They were less willing to adjust to the new environment, and wanted to use this new environment as a pattern to change their own country. They started small private firms that specialized in services, similar to the ones they saw abroad. Beside the vision about how would their firm look like, they worked to bring new ways to run a firm and treat your employees. They have been complaining that those ways were still not successful enough and that they were having a lot of difficulties.

Some people did not return because they wanted so. One of them returned with his family because his parents were ill. After that he couldn’t go back abroad. Now he feel nostalgic about the days he spent there and cannot adapt to the life here; he said it was much worse. However, depending on the country they had worked in, many of them admit that they would live pretty difficult with their pensions in the West. That is why they returned to their home towns where they can enjoy the status of a landholder.

Exceptions (that confirm the rule)

Nobody’s life can fit into only one pattern. All the people we questioned were different comparing to each other, and some of them fit the pattern more, and the others fit less. However, some of them were notably different.

It can be concluded that the life of our people in Sweden is much more different than the life of people living in other countries. The state encourages and forces them to integrate into the society. On the other hand, their return is brought in question. Their return is limited by the Swedish law, and allows them to come to short visits, because if they fail to be in Sweden for six months a year they lose the right to their pension.

One man went to work abroad and despite doing well he soon quit. He said ’’he had no time to work“. He did various jobs, travelled the European countries, and the he came home and continued with his previous work.

Searching for the better

We didn’t just do a research on the gastarbeiters; we talked to the people like us. They left once, like any of us who ever went to get something, always ready to return. But every trip alters us a little, so that we cannot realize that there is no come back, so we keep thinking about it.

In the end of the road there stands a dilemma whether it was all worth it? Did it pay off to work so hard in another country? That is the question these people ask themselves daily. The right answer is nowhere to find. If you judge by the large and massive fences, enormous houses, swimming pools and expensive cars, than it did pay off. But if we judge by the emptiness and hollowness that lies behind the fences of stone, than it didn’t pay off! The satisfaction almost everybody we spoke to felt at taking a look at their “empire of stone” (in which they invested almost everything they earned), became replaced quickly by the sad but true fact – everything was slowly decaying while their children and grandchildren were living somewhere else, in a foreign country that they wanted to return from as soon as possible to provide their family with the conditions they never had. And when they succeeded in giving their children that the rather wanted “to go to the Azure coast than to bore themselves to death here”, as we heard from the conclusion of one of the gastarbeiters we spoke to.

Biljana Anđelković
Koviljka Babić
Ana Čugurović
Marija Stevuljević
Jelena Tirnanić
Jovana Todorović

Život i perspektive gastarbajtera povratnika u opštini Kučevo

Ne živim nikada ovde
Moja je kuća tamo gde nisam sada
Ali uvek sam u njoj
U mislima na povratak
Moj jedini dom su daljine
(Ana Čugurović)

Navedeni stihovi zvuče kao refren svake priče koju smo čuli od gastarbajtera sa kojima smo razgovarali sredinom jula 2007. godine tokom dvonedeljnog terenskog istraživanja u Kučevu u okviru projekta Intervencije umetnošću-povratak gastarbajtera.
Polazeći iz Beograda poneli smo i izvesnu dozu predrasuda i stereotipnih shvatanja o ljudima koje je trebalo da ispitujemo o njihovim snovima, životu, radu u inostranstvu, povratku.. Na jednom delu puta mnogi od stereotipa su počeli da se potvrđuju…

Vidljiva odsutnost
….jer što se autobus udaljavao istočnije od Beograda, to su kuće bivale veće, raskošnije, sa više prozora sa zatvorenim kapcima, a dvorišta praznija. Gde li su živeli svi ti bogati ljudi? Zašto nisu bili u svojim kućama? Da li je san svakog gastarbajtera da teško zarađeni novac u inostranstvu uloži u velelepna kamena zdanja ili u osnovi leži želja za nečim drugim?
Narednih dana pokušali smo da kroz razgovor saznamo više o ljudima koji su ih pravili i da potvrdimo ili opovrgnemo stereotipe koji su ih obično pratili.
Kada bi nas primali u svoje velike kuće imali smo osećaj da u njima nešto nedostaje, kao da je svetlost u sobama bila prekratko. Stvari nisu bile nameštene za život, one su bile spremne za povratak. Sve osim njih prekrivala je prašina. Ovi se ljudi uvek vraćaju, a nigde se ne zadržavaju.
Pričali su nam o tome da je u njihovim rodnim selima, koja su bila udaljenija od važnijih puteva i skoro potpuno opustela, ostalo još po nekoliko staraca, da su im njive zakorovljene, da njihova deca ne žele da ih dobiju u nasledstvo, da niko ne želi da ih obrađuje, da svi samo traže načina da odu odavde.

Potvrđeni stereotipi
Sredinom jula 2007.godine, u okviru projekta Intervencije umetnošću-povratak gastarbajtera, sproveli smo dvonedeljno terensko istraživanje među gastarbajterima u Kučevu, pod rukovodstvom doc.dr Saše Nedeljkovića.. Problem povratnika u Srbiju, iako poznat našim antropolozima, poslednjih godina nije zauzimao značajnije mesto u njihovim radovima. Stoga smo se potrudili da, na primeru kučevskih gastarbajtera, ako ništa drugo, makar uočimo neke osnovne probleme i otvorimo nova pitanja.
Razgovarali smo sa mnogim tamnošnjim gastarbajterima, koji su bili spremni da nam izađu u susret pričajući nam o svom životu, boravku i radu u inostranstvu, razmišljanju o povratku…. Uzimajući u obzir da su oni sastavni deo ekonomske i društvene strukture, u velikoj meri nerazvijene kučevske opštine, želeli smo da otkrijemo koliko i na koji način doprinose svojoj zajednici i da li aktivno stupaju u interakciju sa svojom okolinom. Odgovore na ova, ali i mnoga druga pitanja mogli smo dobiti samo iz priče o njihovom celokupnom životu: pre odlaska, tokom boravka i nakon povratka sa rada u inostranstvu. Iako su se ispitanici razlikovali po polu i godištu, u njihovim pričama se može uočiti jedan standardni obrazac. Zemlje odlaska su bile različite (Nemačka, Švajcarska, Austrija, Italija, Švedska, Francuska, Holandija), ali problemi sa kojima su se gastarbajteri susretali po odlasku su uglavnom slični.
Godine krize i porast nezaposlenosti početkom šezdesetih godina prošlog veka uticali su na masovni odlazak jugoslovenskih državljana na „privremeni“ rad u zapadno-evropske zemlje. Odlazili su, najčešće, u “potpuno nepoznato”, tražeći posao koji ovde nisu mogli da dobiju, usled nesrazmernog odnosa broja radnih mesta i broja ljudi koji za njih konkurišu.
Po odlasku, oni su se suočavali sa novom kulturom o kojoj najčešće nisu znali dovoljno. Takođe su bili loše informisani o uslovima rada i stanovanja, kao i pravima i dužnostima koje će imati. Problem nerazumevanja i neprihvatanja nove kulture najvećim delom je uzrokovan činjenicom da radnici nisu znali jezik zemlje u koju odlaze. Oni su polazili sa uverenjem da se “tamo bolje zarađuje” (ili, prosto, da se tamo može naći posao), odnosno da će se vratiti “kad zarade dovoljno”. Jedan od naših ispitanika koji je u Nemačkoj proveo četrdeset godina podelio je sa nama svoje prvobitne planove: “Ja sam mislio da idem malo da radim i da kupim autić, i da kućicu jednu napravim pa da dođem. Ja sam mislio 5-6 godina, 10 godina, kad ono, deca se rode tamo, oženio sam se tamo..“
Kroz razgovor sa ispitanicima zaključili smo da su oni spremno prihvatali činjenicu da će se tamo više raditi, ali često je njihova stvarnost bivala teža i mučnija od onoga čemu su se nadali. Oni su ipak, pristajali na sve to smatrajući svoj boravak tamo privremenim. To je često bio jedan od razloga njihove spore adaptacije.
Zabuna i nerazumevanje njihovih postupaka prouzrokovani su i činjenicom da gastarbajteri, u dve sredine, žive u skladu sa dva potpuno različita modela. Dok je njihov život tamo opterećen prekovremenim radom i štednjom i evidentnim neprihvatanjem zapadnog potrošačkog modela, po povratku u otadžbinu postaju i više nego tipični “zapadni potrošači”, trošeći teško stečeni novac na način koji je, često, teško razumeti. Navedeni problemi se tiču ličnog integriteta, kao i društvenog i kulturnog identiteta stranog radnika prve generacije.
Deo radnika, koji odu na privremeni rad u inostranstvo, a koji obično potraje duže nego što se očekuje, zasniva porodicu u zemlji u koju su otišli. Nijihova deca nisu bivala lako integrisana u društvo. Prisećajući se nimalo prijatne situacije, jedan od povratnika je opisao školske dane svoga sina: „Tamo je išao godinu dana u švapsku školu. Jednom sam otišao u školu i video ga kako stoji sam siroma u ćošku. Švapčići okolo trče i igraju se. On stoji siroma’ u ćošku. Bio je stranac u to vreme, to je bilo ’72 ili ’75-’76. Pošo u školu, ne zna jezik. On se jeste tamo rodio i men’ bilo žao i kažem ženi: Slušaj, ja ću odma’ da ga odvedem u Jugoslaviju da uči Titinu školu, bre!“.. Danas situacija više nije takva pošto postoje razvijeni programi za što bolje prilagođavanje dece stranih radnika. Mnoge zapadne zemlje svesne poteškoća sa kojima se suočavaju strani državljani razvili su adekvatne psihološke i socijalne programe u koje su uključeni i roditelji i deca. Jedan od ispitanika koji još uvek živi i radi u Švajcarskoj pohvalno je govorio o tome (polasku svoje ćerke u vrtić) kako su ga „savetovali da dete kod kuće dobro savlada srpski jezik pre nego što krene na program učenja stranih jezika…“ “Ona ide tamo u švajcarski vrtić, naši ne postoje. Postoje naše dopunske škole. Interesantna stvar da pre nego što je ona krenula u školu mi smo imali razgovor sa prosvetnim radnicima. Ja sam isključivo sa njom razgovarao srpski. Pre nego što je krenula u predškolsko, pre toga je išla u vrtić.. Tri puta nedeljno po tri sata i tamo je počela da uči nemački. Učila je i preko TVa. Tamo je način komunikacije jednostavan i deca lako uče taj nemački jezik, a uče ga samo na osnovi srpskog jezika. Kad sam otišao tamo na razgovor sa suprugom u tom pretškolskom gde ona sada ide su nam napomenuli da sa detetom govorimo isključivo srpski u kući jer je za jedan, dva i više jezika potrebna jedna osnova. Naš maternji jezik je srpski jezik i ona mora da govori srpski jezik dobro da bi mogla da sve ostale jezike lakše savlada. Ja sa njom govorim isključivo srpski.“
Život i način razmišljanja druge generacije se drastično razlikuje od života njihovih roditelja. Praksa ispitanika, pripadnika prve generacije je bila da sklapaju brak sa partnerima sa jugoslovenskog prostora, dok njihova deca nisu sledila to pravilo – za njih je stupanje u mešovite brakove bilo potpuno prirodno. Mnogi naši ispitanici, pripadnici prve generacije su s ponosom isticali činjenicu da nisu prihvatili državljanstvo zemlje u koju su otišli, smatrajući da time čuvaju svoj nacionalni identitet, što nije bio slučaj i sa njihovom decom.
S druge strane, deo radnika zasnivao je porodice u zemlji porekla, u kojoj su one najčešće ostajale. Bez obzira na to da li su sledili prvo ili drugo pravilo, pripadnici prve generacije iseljenika su sav stečeni novac ulagali u kuće (prostrane, ograđene visokim ogradama, sa masivnim kapijama, ukrašene betonskim figurama…), a sve svoje nade u povratak.
Oni su u Srbiju dolazili redovno, kad god su bili na odmoru. Njihova deca danas retko dolaze jer smatraju da bi ih takav odmor skupo koštao u odnosu na to šta bi njime dobili, pa se radije “odmaraju” u nekoj trećoj državi. Stoga kuće ostaju prazne, a sav napor da bi se one zaradile uzaludan.
Bez obzira na to koliko vremena provedu u zemlji privremenog rada, naši gastarbajteri, iseljenici prve generacije, retko nalaze prijatelje među strancima (uglavnom se druže sa radnicima iz bivših jugoslovenskih republika). Nivo komunikacije sa domaćim stanovništvom im je obično veoma nizak. Međutim, i potreba za boljim upoznavanjem svedena je na minimum. Radnici prve generacije još od početka računaju na povratak kući, najpre privremen (dolazak na odmore), a kasnije za stalno (odlazak u penziju). Njihov društveni status po povratku se menja i oni dobijaju mogućnost da aktivno utiču na svoju okolinu, ali to se najčešće ne dešava; njihov novac jeste uticao na razvoj specifičnog vida građevinarstva u Istočnoj Srbiji, ali mi bismo takav uticaj radije okarakterisali kao pasivan..
Iz razgovora sa predstavnicima opštine i povratnicima zaključili smo da postoji obostrana (ne)zainteresovanost za saradnju. Predstavnici opštine tvrde da gastarbajteri nisu spremni da svoj kapital ulože u neki od programa opštine, dok, s druge strane, većina gastarbajtera tvrdi da niko od njih nikada nije tražio da ulože u neki konkretan projekat. Mnogi od njih imaju sopstvenu privrednu delatnost, a, kako kažu, sa opštinom nisu spremni da sarađuju jer misle da uloženi novac ne bi završio na pravom mestu. Kroz njihove izjave se latentno provlači mišljenje da u opštini ima mita i korupcije i da strahuju da sa tim ne bi mogli da se izbore na legalan način u našoj zemlji.. U takvoj atmosferi nije moguć bilo kakav konstruktivan dijalog pa se njihovi životi nastavljaju u međusobnom nerazumevanju. Ono što bi eventualno trebalo dalje ispitati jeste da li je ovde reč o tipičnom problemu društva u tranziciji ili o odsustvu želje, znanja i sposobnosti da se stvori bolja i uspešnija životna sredina.
Izgleda da je posredi nespremnost za podelu moći između onih koji imaju vlast (predstavnici opštine) i onih koji imaju novac (povratnici iz inostranstva). Obe strane žele i jedno i drugo i smatraju da imaju potpuno pravo na to. „Kad bih živeo ovde ja bih se kandidovao za predsednika opštine. Istog momenta“, kaže jedan od ispitanika koji veruje da je živeći i radeći na Zapadu usvojio model organizovanog državnog sistema i birokratije koji je rad da primeni i ovde.
Čini se da gastarbajteri svojim privremenim boravcima ovde i tamo gube mogućnost da se identifikuju kao pripadnici bilo kog od dva društava u kojima povremeno žive, pa ih i tamo i ovde prihvataju samo kao Druge.. Oni sebe, naravno, ne vide tako, oni su ljudi koji svoja iskustva iz jednog društva žele da ponove i u drugom, ali pošto je to nemoguće (ili, u retkim slučajevima, veoma teško ili veoma sporo ostvarivo), oni ostaju da lutaju, ponašajući se ispravno na pogrešnim mestima ili, iz drugog ugla, pogrešno na pravim mestima.
Kao što se može primetiti, problem gastarbajtera je višeslojan i višeznačan. Njihova neprilagođenost i nespremnost za aktivno učešće u svakoj novoj sredini, kao i nespremnost, odnosno nemogućnost prilagođavanja u staroj, utiče na to da oni uvek budu klasifikovani kao “gastarbajteri” što svedoči o njihovom neprekidnom liminalnom statusu. Po odlasku na rad u inostranstvo, oni se odvajaju od stare sredine, dok u novoj sredini retko ili gotovo nikad ne bivaju prihvaćeni. Ta njihova liminalnost često može potrajati i veoma dugo (i po više od 40 godina). Za nas njihov liminalni status ne prestaje jer njegov kraj može biti jedino prelazak u drugi. Tokom tog perioda, oni su izloženi nerazumevanju ili “trpljenju” od strane stanovnika zemlje u koju su otišli i zemlje u koju žele da se vrate, dok i jedni i drugi prihvataju postojeće i konstruišu nove stereotipe.

U slobodnom vremenu
Za većinu naših ispitainika slobodno vreme je nepotrebno, beskorisno ili čak štetno. Mnogi od njih u slobodno vreme rade neki drugi posao „na crno“, gde im je trenutna zarada veća. Ako slobodnog vremena i imaju, najčešće ga provode sa svojom porodicom ili odlaze na službu u crkvu (ukoliko postoji pravoslavna crkva), gde mogu da se vide sa svojim sunarodnicima. Sa stanovništvom država u kojima rade najčešće ne stvaraju prijateljstva, čak ni kad su u pitanju kolege sa posla (ovo uglavnom važi za one koji su otišli u prvom talasu). Za kućne posete između stranaca postoje razne kulturne barijere, koje su naši ispitanici doživeli kao nepremostive. Oni koji žele da uštede ne mogu sebi priuštiti čak ni povremene izlaske, jer bi ih oni tamo koštali mnogo, pa im ne bi ostalo ništa da uštede za povratak. Za odmore dolaze u svoje kuće, a njima uvek trebaju neke popravke i dorade. Čak i kada dođu u penziju nastavljaju sa nekim poslom: jedni imaju privatne firme, a drugi se vraćaju obrađivanju svojih napuštenih imanja.

Kada se očekivanja ispune, a želje ne ostvare
U pričama povratnika, glavna motivacija za njihov odlazak bio je težak život. Nije ih motivisao samo nedostatak posla već i želja da svojoj deci obezbede bolje uslove za život od onih koje su imali oni sami. Neki su bili đaci pešaci iz udaljenih sela. I kada su zaradili dovoljno da svojoj deci sagrade ogromne kuće u gradu (neki su im čak otvorili i privatne firme), želje njihove dece nisu se poklopile sa ostvarenjem njihovih želja. Njihova deca su tada želela više i krenula su, sada već utabanim putem, da bi ostvarila svoje želje, baš kao što su to nekada radili njihovi roditelji.

Između ovde i tamo
Mnogi naši ispitanici divili su se zakonima i efikasnosti njihovog sprovođenja u zemljama u kojima su radili. Takođe su isticali i to da je tamo manja korumpiranost i da se svi problemi mogu rešiti dijalogom. Ipak, nigde im nije bilo tako lepo i prijatno za život kao u Srbiji. Uprkos svim zamerkama koje su upućivali državnom i opštinskom rukovodstvu, uprkos svim disfunkcionalnostima koje su uočavali u ovdašnjoj privredi, uprkos svim problemima koje su primećivali u društvu, ovde su se više osećali kao svoji na svome.. I što je mnogo važnije ovde su uvek mogli da saosećaju kao svoji sa svojima i to je u njima najviše razbuktavalo tinjajuću želju za povratkom.

Povratak
Mada je najčešći razlog za povratak odlazak u penziju, to ipak nije jedini razlog. Oni koji su bili spremniji da se sa životnim nedaćama bore u svom rodnom kraju nego u inostranstvu vraćali su se kada bi zaradili prvu željenu sumu. Kod njih je želja da budu „svoji na svome“ bila veća od želje za bogatstvom. Oni su manje bili spremni da se prilagode novoj sredini, a više su nastojali da ugledajući se na nju menjaju svoj zavičaj. Otvorili su male privatne firme koje pripadaju domenu uslužnih delatnosti, po uzoru na slične koje su videli u inostranstvu. Osim vizije o tome kako će im firma sama izgledati, oni su doneli i nove načine u rukovođenju firmom i u ophođenju prema zaposlenima. Žale se da u tome još uvek nisu potpuno uspeli i da imaju mnogo teškoća.
Bilo je i onih koji se nisu vratili svojom voljom. Jedan ispitanik se sa porodicom vratio jer su mu roditelji bili bolesni. Nakon toga nije mogao ponovo u inostranstvo. Sada žali za danima kada je bio tamo i nikako ne može da se privikne na život ovde; kaže da je mnogo lošiji. Međutim, u zavisnosti od toga u kojoj zemlji su radili, mnogi naši ispitanici priznaju da bi na zapadu sa svojom penzijom jako teško živeli. Zato se ipak odlučuju za povratak u svoja mesta u kojima mogu da uživaju u statusu gazde.

Izuzeci (koji potvrđuju pravilo)
Ničiji život ne može se uklopiti u jedan obrazac. Svi naši ispitanici su bili međusobno različiti, a zamišljenom modelu neki su bili više, a neki manje slični. Ipak neki su više odudarali od ostalih.
Primećuje se da se život iseljenika u Švedskoj mnogo razlikuje od života ostalih ispitanika. Oni su ohrabreni i primorani da se bolje integrišu u društvo zemlje u koju su otišli. S druge strane, to je njihov povratak dovelo u pitanje. Njihov povratak je ograničen švedskim zakonom na kraće izdeljene posete svom zavičaju jer, ukoliko nisu u Švedskoj šest meseci u toku godine, gube pravo na penziju.
Jedan ispitanik je otišao na rad u inostranstvo, ali je, bez obzira na to što mu je dobro išlo, ubrzo odustao od toga. Kako kaže „nije imao vremena da radi“. Dovijao se na razne načine i putovao evropskim zemljama, a onda se vratio kući i nastavio da se bavi svojim ranijim poslom.

U potrazi za boljim
Mi nismo samo pročavali gastarbajtere, razgovarali smo sa ljudima poput nas. Oni su nekada otišli, kao što i svako od nas negde krene po nešto, već spreman na povratak. Ali svaki put nas malo izmeni da i ne shvatimo da povratka nema, pa sve vreme mislimo o njemu.
Na kraju puta ostane dilema i pitanje da li je išta od toga vredelo? Da li se taj dugi niz godina napornog rada u tuđini isplatio? To je pitanje koje gotovo svakodnevno sebi postavljaju naši ispitanici. Pravog odgovora nema. Ako je suditi po velikim i masivnim ogradama, ogromnim kućama sa skupim nameštajem, bazenima i skupim automobilima, onda jeste. Ali ako prosuđujemo na osnovu praznine i pustoši koja se nalazi s one strane kamenih ograda, onda nije! Zadovoljstvo koje gotovo svaki naš ispitanik oseti kad pogleda u svoje “kameno carstvo” (u šta uloži obično sve što je zaradio), vrlo brzo smeni gorka ali na žalost tačna činjenica da to propada dok im deca i unuci žive negde daleko, u tuđini iz koje je on želeo što pre da se vrati ne bi li svojima pružio sve ono što sam nije imao. A kad im je to pružio oni su želeli “radije Azurnu obalu nego da se ovde ubijaju od dosade”, kako je zaključio jedan naš ispitanik.

The (Im)Possibilities of the Return of the Gastarbeiters

July 30, 2007Analysis, Return of the Gastarbeiters, Textadmin

This text is the result of anthropological research conducted in the villages that surround Kučevo: Turija, Duboka, Rakova Bara, Popovac and Ševica. The aim of this activity is to recognize and map basic problems connected to the return of these people, understand socio-cultural background of this issue and give directions for further research through focusing on life stories of the gastarbeiters.

Eastern Serbia is a region where migrations are manifested in a specific way, and what we can clearly conclude from our field research, is that it is still an on-going process, especially in the minds of people who have helped us unselfishly in our scientific research.1

Gastarbeiter (gastarbeiter, a word which denotes singular and plural in German) is a concept with different connotations, positive and negative, within an ethnic, social, cultural and economic context. First of all, it refers to the guest workers, people who came to Germany in search for work during the 60s and 70s. The formal status of temporary workers was determined by bilateral agreements between the German government and Italy (1955), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Portugal (1964) and Yugoslavia (1968) which made possible for the gastarbeiters to get a qualified job in the industrial sector of the economy.2 The migrants, mostly men in the beginning, were allowed to stay in the host country for a year or two and then return home. However, most of them decided to remain in Germany with their families who joined them. The children of the gastarbeiters got the right to stay in Germany but they got no guaranties that they will be given citizenship. They became ethnic minority discriminated in an educational, religious and social way, which was the result of the state not being interested in their integration into the German society due to the German law.

By analyzing personal stories about life and working experience of the gastarbeiters,3 we have identified two main periods or waves of migration. The first wave took place in the 60’s and the 70’s, the people migrating being mostly uneducated with and without a degree in primary education, which happened because the state reduced the amount of the agricultural land and because the people wanted to enlarge their material possessions. Most of the workers of this first wave went to work individually, without their families, while the children remained at home to be taken care of by their grandparents, which was typical of this first wave. When the children grew up the parents took them abroad. Children born abroad became citizens of the country they were born in. The wave which happened in the 90’s, during the civil war in former Yugoslavia was the result of a ruined economy which caused poverty and made everyone feel insecure. People who went abroad during this second wave were the ones who finished elementary school, or secondary school, or some kind of trade. The third generation of gastarbeiters was born during this wave, i.e. the grandchildren of the first generation. These children were either born abroad or they went there soon after they were born in Serbia. They went to school abroad, some got their citizenships, learned to speak the language, so the possibility of returning to Serbia got smaller. The children born and remained in Serbia, whose parents work abroad, are the target audience that requires finding ways and possibilities to stay.

In addition to that, we have learned of various kinds of strategies to overcome the differences that occur due to the assimilation. Most people gave us the impression it was something that occurred consciously and in accord to the life circumstances, but it wasn’t a consequence that would go away painlessly. The strategies they used were concerned with developing consciousness, knowledge and notions of one’s origin. The aim is for the children to spend the holidays in home towns of their parents and grandparents, who then try to attract them to their roots.4

Migrants usually go to Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, and their choice depends on the dynamics of the global social movability, relatives or other kinds of relationships in the host country, laws that relate to this issue and the country’s social policies. Having that in mind, we cannot see the gastarbeiters as a homogeneous group, because different life conditions, differences in the ways they make profit, cause different perceptions on life and possible return to Serbia. The experiences of one living in Austria and one living in Serbia are very different. Unlike the gastarbeiters from Austria, the ones from Sweden have more free time which they spend in a creative way and they travel more. „In Austria, people socialize less and earn more. Here, people just live. They socialize“. (M. Š., village of Duboka, Sweden). When they come to Serbia from Sweden, they live modestly, because they don’t want to splash their money around. The Swedish law does not allow them to live in Serbia more than six months when they retire (although they would like that), so they plan to live half a year in one country and half in another. In short, they spend their money in Serbia but they don’t invest it anything that would show their material status. One of the difficulties of the gastarbeiter’s life is the status of not belonging to any country. „Yes, we are strangers here and strangers there, too“ (M. L., village of Brodica. Austria). According to M.Š., a woman from the village of Duboka, people in Sweden have an insulting expression for strangers – „the blackheads“ (although she had never heard anyone calling her like that). „When I go to Sweden I am a Serb, and when I come here people say – That Swedish woman is here.“ (M.Š. village of Duboka, Sweden).

At first sight, the economy of Eastern Serbia cannot be justified from the point of view of classical economy. Building of unnecessary large houses,5 luxurious wedding receptions, and general spending of large amounts of money without investing it6 is a cultural characteristic in, on the one hand, the process of relocating goods, and on the other hand according to the people we spoke with, a strategy of providing homes in case of forceful return from abroad. The first generations of migrants cherished the ideal of joint life of an extended family, believing that their children would live with them.7 The gastarbeiter houses in Serbia are being used only for two to three months a year. They represent the status symbol and their purpose is to provide comfortable life during the vacations and after retiring. Houses abroad are not marked for the owner’s material status. The main frame for seeing the set parameters through is the notion of investing the capital. This area has potential for developing rural tourism, but it would take investing a lot of money and work. The surroundings are fit for it. There are natural resorts like Homolje Mountains, the cave of Duboka and so on. The possibility of establishing a suite accommodation is the most promising one, considering that all villages have modern large houses that could be used with this purpose. We made an inquiry about the possibility of developing such practice and came to the conclusion it was in nobody’s interest. Such way of making profit is not the most desirable one, because those houses were mainly built for families to live in them, although they are quite large. What can be concluded is that from the standpoint of the people who work abroad, this part of Serbia has no potential for developing rural tourism. However, we mustn’t forget some isolated cases which inform us of laws and regulations of some countries (Switzerland and Sweden). These regulations state that one must live in the country which provided him with the pension for a specific amount of time during one year. If not, one’s pension would be reduced. Thus, if not generally, this fact makes a lot of difference in isolated cases (Turija, Duboka). This is one of the reasons why people cannot run businesses at home. According to the gastarbeiters from Sweden, the business in that country was running well, because the state was fair, and the community was aiming to develop private businesses. They convinced us that here everything was running with difficulties, because ”the state requires taxes and other fees to be paid, and gives no guaranties in return”. For doing business.

The life of the gastarbeiters abroad is often very different from the image people living in the home country have of them. The image of a well-off landholder in luxurious exterior and interior, often conceals a hard life abroad in the background. Hard physical labour done overtime, and austere life conditions reflect the impossibility of assimilating into the new environment. These characteristics, as well as limited knowledge of the language, customs and culture of the host country are mostly typical of the first generation of the gastarbeiters. The second and the third generation show a larger scale of fitting in the society, occupy better job positions, have more liberal and modern views on life, accept new schemes in economy of manipulating one’s income. Beside the change in economic patterns of behaviour, one occurred in the relations between a family. The patriarchal family prototype, the concept of marriage and parenthood were replaced by pragmatic solutions dictated by their staying and survival in the host countries and the legal system. The examples of mothers leaving their small children to be taken care of by their grandparents (which the children later recognize as their guardians they are more devoted to than parents) or marriages established with the citizens of the host countries they work in because of money clearly depict the collision of the patriarchal and traditional system of the agricultural societies with the West system based on the market. Thus, the first generations of the gastarbeiters live their life between wanting to provide their children with material wealth and not having the opportunity to really be parents. „My daughter and I aren’t a mother and a daughter. We don’t know each other.“ (M.R., village of Turija. Sweden). People we spoke to emphasized that the children would prefer being next to their mothers than having money. „The children don’t them.“ (J. V., and old woman, village: Rakova Bara. Her Children are in Austria.)

Most of the gastarbeiters come home after they retire but without their children. „You die where you were born“ (V. I., village: Rakova Bara. Austria). Most of them don’t have the citizenship of the host country while their children do. The children stay there to start their own lives.

Family relations and mutual help are very important in a gastarbeiter’s life. Namely, the people we spoke to, emphasized that they had had someone abroad who welcomed them and helped them manage in the beginning (usually a cousin or a close friend). What is also known is the phenomenon of marrying “for documents”. Some people went abroad following this practice. They would formally divorce their spouses in Serbia, and then through some channels find a person abroad to establish a formal marriage and arrange a sum of money to be paid to this person, who was the citizen of the host country. M. G. From the village of Duboka first got a divorce in Serbia, and then married an old lady from Stockholm to get the documents of citizenship and paid her for that, and later he divorced again to marry his first wife. There is also the practice of „cross marriage“. A couple would divorce and then marry another couple from Serbia to help them obtain citizenship.

The possibility of the return of the gastarbeiters surely depends on current global economic conditions. The millennium wave of migration is slowly decreasing due to the employment crisis thus forcing the third and the fourth generation of the gastarbeiters to remain in their own country.

The socio-cultural transformations we isolated speak of the problem of collision of cultural patterns and the change of systems of values. A more detailed analysis of this problem would reveal the ways political, generation and cultural differences among the gastarbeiters, influence their decision to come back, invest money, and forming new residential culture. For the return of the gastarbeiters to be possible at all, there has to exist a strategy to keep the ones who stayed from going and return the ones who left.

The causes which make the return of the gastarbeiters less possible are:

-.the undeveloped municipalities
-.state administration’s lack of strategy and will to invest in developing infrastructure in the municipality

-.inadequate tax policy which enhances the risk for the possible investment
-.political transparency in the process of making decisions by local administration

– assimilation problem

– the possibility of social tensions, i.e., the problem of change in socio-economic climate in the villages, characteristics for its hierarchal and relations of symbolic power between the gastarbeiters and the locals.

Empty houses, the decrease in demographic level, unmotivated and small young population, is an image that can be easily changed with the help of a good developing strategy. The gastarbeiters themselves see their life as gloomy sometimes. „I am one sad story. We all are.“ (M.Š. village Duboka, Sweden). All these interviews from Kučevo are just bits and pieces of individual stories, which are not just family stories. They are a part of a large complex system of understanding of the life of working abroad. „Wasted life“. (M. P., village of Turija. Switzerland). However, these stories also reflect a lust for life.These and many other problems should be dealt with through state policy of positive affirmation of the gastarbeiters as a new market subject.

Further anthropological research would clarify this image and find structural similarities in changes of cultural patterns of life, and they would also find ways for their use in practice in the process of reintegration of the gastarbeiters into the Serbian society.

Sources:

The material for this paper was gathered in July 2007 on the territory of the municipality of Kučevo. The students of the department of ethnology and anthropology of the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade who collected it under the guidance of Prof Dragana Antonijević were: Tanja Višić, Nađa Živanović, Dušan Kocić, Marija Krstić, and Aleksandar Repedžić i Čedomir Savković.

1 We thank all the people who spoke with us as well as our guides, president of the local community Duboka, Ljubomir Rajić and president of the local community Turija, Danijel Milenković.

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter

3 The opinion about gastarbeiters is mostly negative in Serbia. „People who went were džabalebaroši, vucibatineand the uneducated ones“ (LJ. R. Village of Duboka).

4 ”When you spend at least one month during the year being your own master” (Popovac, Duboka).

5 They have houses so large that it takes half a day for one to tour them and nobody lives there. “ ( S. M. village of Popovac).

6 In this case we can talk about “the logic of potlača“ which is a part of the life cycle rituals of everyday life (wedding receptions, funerals, slavas i zavetinas) and about similarities with the cultural practice of the Native Americans which reflected in gaining prestigepower and humiliate the one who is receiving a gift from us, so they won’t be able to respond in the same way

7 This ideal collapsed when the second generation left. A fine example of this is a house in the village of Turija which occupies almost 300 m2. It became a solitary tombstone erected during the owners life, guarded by lions and eagles made aout of plaster placed at the entrance gates. Today, the owner of these mansions, consider this practice “a waste of money”, well aware of the fact that their decendants will never live there, and that the house itself cannot be sold by the real market price.

Tanja Višić
Čedomir Savković
Marija Krstić

Tekst je rezultat antropoloških istraživanja koja su izvedena u selima u okolini Kučeva: Turija, Duboka, Rakova bara, Popovac i Ševica. Cilj rada je da se kroz fokusiranje na životne priče gastarbajtera uoče i mapiraju osnovni problemi vezani za njihov povratak, razume socio-kulturna konfiguracija ovog problema i pruže smernice za buduća proučavanja.

Istočna Srbija je područje gde su migracije na poseban način izražene, a svodeći zaključke sa terena, postalo nam je jasno da je to još uvek dosta zastupljeno, prvenstveno u svesti ljudi, koji su nam nesebično pomagali u naučno-istraživačkom radu.1

Gastarbajter (gastarbeiter, reč koja u nemačkom jeziku označava i jedninu i množinu) je pojam koji se različito konotira, i pozitivno i negativno, u etničkom, socijalnom, kulturnom i ekonomskom kontekstu. Prvenstveno, on označava gostujuće radnike, ljude koji su 60-ih i 70-ih godina prošlog veka došli u Nemačku u potrazi za poslom. Formalni status privremenih radnika proističe iz bilateralnih ugovora između nemačke vlade i Italije (1955), Grčke (1960), Turske (1961), Portugala (1964) i Jugoslavije (1968) koje je omogućavao gastarbajterima da dobiju kvalifikovan posao u industrijskom sektoru.2 Migranti, koji su u početku bili uglavnom muškarci mogli su da ostanu godinu ili dve dana nakon čega bi se vraćali u domovinu. Međutim, većina njih se odlučila da ostane u Nemačkoj sa porodicama koje bi im se pridružile. Deca gastarbajtera, dobila su pravo ostanka u Nemačkoj, ali bez garancija za dobijanje državljanstva. Oni postaju etnička manjinska zajednica obrazovno, religijski i društveno diskriminisana, kao posledica nezainteresovanosti države za nijhovu integraciju u nemačko društvo što je posledica nemačkog zakonodavstva.

Analizom ličnih kazivanja o iskustvu života i rada gastarbajtera,3 identifikovana su dva glavna perioda ili talasa odseljavanja. Prvi talas se dogodio 60-ih i 70-ih godina, zbog smanjenja poljoprivrednog zemljišta od strane države i želje za sticanjem većeg imetka, koji je uglavnom pokrenuo najneobrazovanije stanovništvo, sa ili bez završene osnovne škole. Većina radnika prvog talasa na rad je odlazila individualno, bez porodice, dok su deca, što je uglavnom karakteristično za ove talase, ostajala kod kuće da se o njima staraju babe i dede. Kad bi deca odrasla roditelji bi ih odveli u inostranstvo. Deca koja su rođena u inostranstvu postajala su ”domaća” u zemlji rođenja. Talas devedestih, tj. perioda građanskog rata u bivšoj Jugoslaviji uzrokovan propadanjem industrije čija je posledica nemaština i nesigurnost. On je pokrenuo one koji su završili osnovnu, srednju školu ili neki zanat. U okviru ovog talasa stvara se treća generacija gastarbajtera, tj. unuci prve generacije, koji su tamo rođeni ili su otišli ubrzo nakon rođenja u Srbiji. Tamo završavaju školu, neki stiču državljanstvo, govore jezik i mala je verovatnoća da će se vratiti u Srbiju. Deca gastarbajtera koja su rođena i ostala u Srbiji, a čiji su roditelji u inostranstvu, jesu ciljna grupa zbog kojih treba pronaći način i mogućnosti ostanka.

S tim u vezi, došli smo do saznanja o različitim vrstama strategija za prevazilaženje razlika koje asimilacijom nastaju. Većina informanata nam je odala utisak da se radi o nečemu što je nastupilo svesno i shodno životnim situacijama očekivano, ali da nije reč o posledici koja će proći bezbolno. Strategije kojima pribegavaju odnose se na razvijanje svesti, znanja i predstava o svome poreklu. Nastoji se da deca školske raspuste provode u rodnom mestu svojih roditelja, baba i deda, koji se trude da ih privuku svojim korenima.4

Destinacije iseljenika su uglavnom Nemačka, Austrija, Švajcarska, Švedska, a izbor zavisi od dinamike globalne društvene pokretljivosti, srodničkih ili nekih drugih veza u zemlji iseljenja, odgovarajućih zakonskih propisa i socijalne politike zemlje. Zbog toga, gastarbajtere ne možemo sagledati kao homogenu grupu jer različiti uslovi života, razlike u načinu sticanja prihoda i emigracionih zakona uzrokuju različite percepcije života i pogleda na eventualni povratak u Srbiju. Iskustva osoba iz Austrije i Švedske su veoma različita. Za razliku od gastarbajtera iz Austrije, gastarbajteri iz Švedske kuće imaju više slobodnog vremena koje kreativno ispunjavaju i više putuju. „U Austriji se manje druže, a više zarađuju. Narod ovde živi. Druži se“. (M. Š., selo Duboka, Švedska). Kada dođu iz Švedske u Srbiju žive skromno, jer im nije stalo da se razbacuju. Zbog švedskog zakona, po odlasku u penziju ne mogu da žive u Srbiji (iako bi to voleli) duže od 6 meseci zbog poreza, ali planiraju da žive po pola godine na oba mesta. Ukratko, troše svoj novac a ne ulažu ga u Srbiji u materijalne pokazivače statusa. Jedna od nedaća gastarbajterskog života je i liminalni status, odnosno nepripadanje nijednoj državi. „Da smo i ovde stranci, a i tamo“ (M. L., selo Brodica. Austrija). Prema sagovornici M.Š. iz sela Duboka, u Švedskoj strance pogrdno i uvredljivo zovu „crnoglavci“ (ali kazivačica nikada nije čula da je nju neko tako zvao). „Kad odeš u Švedsku, ja sam Srbin, kad dođeš ovde-Došla Šveđanka.“ (M.Š. selo Duboka, Švedska).

Istočnu Srbiju odlikuje ekonomija, naizgled, logički neopravdiva sa stanovišta klasične ekonomije. Izgradnja nepotrebno velikih kuća,5 raskošne svadbe i uopšte trošenje velikih suma novca bez ulaganja6 jeste kulturna specifičnost u preraspodeli dobara s jedne strane, a sa druge prema kazivanju ispitanika, strategija obezbeđivanja kuća u slučaju prinudnog povratka iz inostranstva. Ideal o zadružnom životu proširene porodice gajile su prve generacije migranata verujući da će u njima živeti oni i njihova deca.7 U Srbiji gastarbajterske kuće se koriste tokom godine uglavnom dva do tri meseca. One predstavljaju statusni simbol i namenjene su udobnom životu tokom godišnjeg odmora i penzije. U inostranstvu one nemaju značaj simbola koji odražava materijalno stanje vlasnika. Glavni orijentir kroz koji se mogu posmatrati izneti parametri jeste pojam investicije kapitala. Ovo područje ima predispozicije za razvoj seoskog turizma, ali za njega je potrebno odvojiti dosta sredstava i rada. Okolina za to je pogodna. Tu su prirodne atrakcije kao što su Homoljske planine, Dubočka pećina i sl. Mogućnost razvoja apartmanskog smeštaja najviše obećava, jer su u gotovo svim selima izgrađene moderne velike kuće koje bi dobro došle za takvu priliku. Raspitivali smo se o takvim mogućnostima i došli do zaključka da to nikome nije u interesu. Takav način privređivanja nije najpoželjniji jer su kuće građene prvenstveno za porodični život iako su dosta velike. Može se zaključiti da ovaj deo Srbije nema perspektivu razvoja seoskog turizma, barem što se tiče stavova ljudi koji rade u inostranstvu. Međutim, ne treba zaboraviti i pojedine slučajeve koji nam govore o zakonskim propisima u nekim zemljama (Švajcarska i Švedska). Ti zakonski propisuju ističu da se određeni period godine mora živeti u državi koja je radniku dala penziju. U suprotnom, penzija bi bila dosta manja, tako da je ova činjenica, ako ne generalno, onda u pojedinačnim slučajevima značajna (Turija, Duboka). To je jedan od razloga nemogućnosti poslovanja ”kod kuće”. Prema kazivanjima gastarbajtera iz Švedske, tamo je posao išao dobro jer je država bila korektna, a i sama sredina je orijentisana ka razvoju privatnog biznisa. Ubedljivo su nam odgovorili da ovde to teško ide, budući da ”država traži poreze i ostale nadoknade, a da za uzvrat ne obezbeđuje nikakve garancije”. Većina ostaje u uverenju da je lepo doći kući na odmor i videti se sa rodbinom i priljateljima, a za mesto poslovanja će uvek biti najpogodnija zemlja u koju se otišlo u potragu za boljim životom i boljom zaradom.

Život gastarbajtera u inostranstvu se često ne poklapa sa slikom koju članovi zajednice imaju o njima u matici. Slika gazde-domaćina u raskošnim eksterijerima i enterijerima, često u pozadini krije težak život u inostranstvu. Naporan fizički prekovremeni rad i oskudni životni uslovi jesu odraz nemogućnosti za asimilaciju u novu sredinu. Navedene karakteristike, kao i slabo poznavanje jezika i običaja kulture u kojoj gostuju, pre svega, važe za prvu generaciju gastarbajtera. Druga i treća generacija, pokazuju veći stepen uklapanja, imaju bolja radna mesta, liberalnije i modernije poglede na život, prihvataju nove ekonomske modele raspolaganja zaradom. Osim promene u ekonomskim obrascima ponašanja, došlo je i do promene u porodičnim odnosima. Patrijarhalni porodični model, koncept braka i roditeljstva zamenjeni su pragmatičnim rešenjima koje diktira ostanak i opstanak gastarbajtera u zemljama odlaska, kao i njihov pravno-regulacioni sistem. Primeri majki koje ostavljaju malu decu na čuvanje babi i dedi (koje deca kasnije često prepoznaju kao staraoce kojima su više privrženi nego roditeljima) ili brakova iz interesa sa državljanima zemalja u kojima rade, jesu jasan pokazatelj sudara patrijarhalnog tradicionalnog sistema svojstvenog agrikulturnim sredinama i zapadnog, tržišnog. Tako da prva generacija gastarbajtera život provodi, u stvari, u procepu između želje da omoguće materijalno blagostanje deci i nemogućnosti da zaista budu roditelji. „Ja i moja ćerkica kao da nismo majka i ćerka. Ne poznajemo se“ (M.R., selo Turija. Švedska). Sagovornici ističu da bi deca više volela da su bila pored majke nego novac. „Njih deca ne poznaju.“ (J. V., baba, selo: Rakova Bara. Deca su joj u Austriji).

Većina gastarbajtera se vraća kući po penzionisanju ali bez dece. „Gde se rodi, tu umire“ (V. I., selo: Rakova Bara. Austrija). Većina njih nema državljanstvo, dok deca imaju. Deca ostaju tamo i tamo započinju sopstveni život.

Važnost u gastarbajterskom životu čine porodični odnosi i veze uzajamne pomoći. Naime, naši sagovornici su isticali da su već imali nekoga (obično je u pitanju rođak ili blizak prijatelj) ko ih je primio u inostranstvu i pomogao im da se u početku snađu. Poznat je i fenomen venčavanja „zbog papira“. Pojedini ljudi odlazili su tako što bi se razvodili od svojih supružnika samo formalno, preko neke veze u inostranstvu bi našli osobu sa kojom bi sklopili formalni brak uz ugovorenu sumu novca koja bi se isplaćivala onom ”supružniku” koji je domaći u zemlji u koju se odlazi, odnosno koji poseduje državljanstvo te zemlje. M. G. iz sela Duboka se prvo razveo u Srbiji, a zatim se venčao sa babom u Stokholmu zbog papira koje je platio da bi se kasnije ponovo razveo i oženio svojom prvom ženom. Takođe postoji i praksa „unakrsnog venčavanja“. Bračni par se razvede i venča sa drugim parom iz Srbije da bi im pomogli da dobiju papire.

Mogućnost povratka gastarbajtera svakako zavisi od ekonomskih uslova u sadašnjem trenutku na globalnom nivou. Milenijumski talas iseljavanja počinje polako da jenjava usled krize zapošljavanja i time primorava treću i četvrtu generaciju gastarbajtera na ostanak u svojoj zemlji.

Socio-kulturne transformacije koje smo izolovali upućuju na problem sudara kulturnih modela i promene sistema vrednosti. Detaljnija analiza ovog problema bi otkrila kako političke, generacijske i kulturološke razlike koje postoje unutar grupe gastarbajtera, utiču na njihovu odluku na povratak, ulaganje kapitala i formiranje nove rezidencijalne kulture. Da bi povratak gastarbajtera bio uopšte moguć, mora se pronaći strategija kako zadržati one koji su ostali i vratiti one koji su otišli.

Uzroci koji smanjuju verovatnoću povratka gastarbajtera većinom su:

-.nerazvijenost opštine
-.nedostatak strategije i volje za ulaganje u razvoj infrastrukture opštine od strane državne samouprave

-.neadekvatna poreska politika koja povećava rizik od eventualnog ulaganja
-.politička transparentnost u donošenju odluka lokalne samouprave

– problem asimilacije

– mogućnost pojave socijalnih tenzija, odnosno problem promene socio-ekonomske atmosfere u selima, koju karakterišu hijerarhijski i odnosi simboličke moći između gastarbajtera i pripadnika lokalne zajednice.

Prazne kuće, pad demografskog nivoa, nemotivisano malobrojno mlado stanovištvo, jeste slika koja vrlo lako može da se promeni uz dobru razvojnu strategiju. Gastarbajterski život se ponekad i od strane samih gastarbajtera percipira sumorno. „Ja sam žalosna priča. Svi mi“ (M.Š. selo duboka. Švedska). Svi ovi intervjui iz Kučeva su samo delići individualnih priča, koje nisu samo porodične. One su deo jedne šire mreže shvatanja i razumevanja radničkog života u inostranstvu. „Promašen život tamo“. (M. P., selo Turija. Švajcarska), ali istovremeno oslikavaju i žudnju za životom. Ovi i mnogi drugi problemi, jesu pre svega, domen intervencije države i državne politike pozitivne afirmacije gastarbajtera kao novog ekonomskog aktera.

Dalja antropološka istraživanja bi išla ka izoštravanju ove slike i pronalaženju strukturalnih sličnosti, u promenama kulturnih modela života, i njihove praktične primene u procesu reintegracije gastarbajtera u srpsko društvo.

Izvori:

Materijal za izradu ovog rada su tokom jula 2007. godine na teritoriji opštine Kučevo prikupljali pod rukovodstvom doc. dr Dragane Antonijević studenti Odeljenja za etnologiju i antropologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu: Tanja Višić, Nađa Živanović, Dušan Kocić, Marija Krstić, Aleksandar Repedžić i Čedomir Savković.

1 Zahvaljujemo se svim našim sagovornicima kao i našim vodičima, predsedniku mesne zajednice Duboka, Ljubomiru Rajiću i predsedniku mesne zajednice Turija, Danijelu Milenkoviću..

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter

3 Mišljenje o samim gastarbajterima u Srbiji je uglavnom negativno. „Odlazili su džabalebaroši, vucibatine i oni bez škole“ (LJ. R. selo Duboka).

4 ”Kad barem i mesec dana godišnje provedeš kao svoj na svome” (Popovac, Duboka).

5 Imaju kuće, pola dana da ih obiđeš a niko u njih ne živi.“ ( S. M. selo Popovac).

6 U ovom slučaju se može govoriti o “logici potlača“ utkanog u svakodnevni život rituala životnog ciklusa (svadbe, sahrane, slave i zavetine) odnosno o sličnosti sa kulturnom praksom severno-američkih Indijanaca koja se sastojala u sticanju slave i prestiža deobom i uništavnjem što većeg imetka sa ciljem da se stekne nadmoć i ponizi onaj kome dajemo poklon, tako da neće moći da ga uzvrati

7 Ovaj ideal se urušio sa bespovratnim odlaskom druge generacije. Primer je kuća u selu Turija od skoro 300 kvadrata. Kuća postaje usamljeni spomenik podignut za života koju na ulaznim kapijama čuvaju gipsani lavovi i orlovi. Danas vlasnici ovih zdanja smatraju to “uludo protraćenim kapitalom”, svesni činjenice da njihovi potomci tu nikada neće živeti, a da se više ne može ni prodati po realnoj tržišnoj ceni.

Tanja Višić
Čedomir Savković
Marija Krstić

One Story of One Workshop

July 22, 2007Representation, Return of the Gastarbeiters, Textadmin

In Požarevac, due to the election year the local government was formed shortly before the workshop began. Since the leading party in the government changed so did most of the local administration including the head of the cultural center and all agreements we reached with the former director (financial, concerning human resources and allocation of space) were cancelled.
Luckily, both the former director, Gordan Bojković and the program manager, Bojan Gačević
agreed to work as volunteers allowing the workshop to take place.
The space of the seminar, which was supposed to take place in the local cultural center, was replaced by contribution of one of the local televisions “Televizija Inn”.
The cultural center participated in giving us working space and a space for the opening event.
Another unfortunate event that happened shortly before the workshop was that the chief editor of Televizija Inn our media sponsor was killed in a car accident but the cooperation
with the television and with Danas newspaper continued.
The workshop started with a press conference for local and national journalists. In the conference participated the curator of the project, representatives of the Požarevac cultural center and selected artists from Serbia and abroad. (Slide 1)
The second day started the lectures, this was the day the International Roma Union (IRU) entered our lives. (Slide 2 bottom right, slide 3 bottom left), later they would take us to the places significant for the Roma population. We also heard lectures about history of Požarevac and the region, it cultures, the economical and political situation, stories from current and former gastarbajters, overviews on their contributions to the society and the changes they brought, lectures by the students of the Belgrade University Anthropology department and artists’ presentations (Slides 2-7). The week was dedicated to an intense discussion on the European view on immigration and how would it be possible to better the relations between home, gastarbajters and host communities (Slides 8-9). The seminar was covered by a few of the local television and some young and older people from the local population came and participated. As part of the seminar, we went on a tour of the town, which ended with a visit to the studio of one of Požarevac’s leading artists (slide 11-13).
After the seminar we the IRU took us on a few excursions the first was to the Roma IDP settlement in Stari Kostolac (slides 14- 24) many artists were very touched by the people living in these difficult condition and a few of the works dealt with the relation between these IDPs, Roma and other gastarbajters and the local population. These pictures were taken by Momir Bojović and Jelena Radić, which also made a documentary about it. Next, we went to participate in a wedding (slide 25) that took place in another, a little better settlement, it was clear that the fact that most IDPs are Muslims divided them from the local population. The day ended in a local party in one of the villages where we dance the traditional dance named – Kola (slide 26).
We also went to a recreation place on the Danube and to the local fair (slide 27), participated in the inauguration of a local church (slides 28-29), and visited many people in the villages surrounding Požarevac (slides 30-44). The distinctive and flashy architecture caught everybody’s eye and a few of the artists related to that for example the performance and photographs of Nannette Vinson (slides 45-48) and the Possible Museum of Erin Obradović and Marija Đorđević. The Museum (slides 51-54) refers more to the inside of
the houses, which is as ostentatious as the exterior (slides 49-50).
One of the main figures of the workshop was Novica Mitić (slide 55) the head of the IRU in Požarevac. A second-generation gastarbajter (his home on slide 56) who, by his organization is often a link between the IDPs and the local population. The work of Mark (slide 57) dealt with the generation affect and temporality that the gastarbajter phenomenon had on the family by creating Novica’s family tree in which many of the members were spending most of the time abroad.
In the office of the IRU a activist approach was taken by the artist Alexander Nikolić who had chosen in this context to create a website for the IRU and to teach its members how to use the internet to promote their cause (slide 58).
Novica, among others (slide 64) had been frequently interviewed by the artists and some have followed the project of the IRU employing Roma in gathering old furniture and redistributing it (slide 59-63). Public interviews were held and broadcasted on a portable radio station by Stefan Tenner and Danijela Pivašević-Tenner (slides 65-66). The interviews were mainly held in German and will be broadcasted on German radio in Berlin. From a different approach the artist Leone Contini (slide 67) engaged with the uneven distribution of resources and the need or demand for solidarity by asking the inhabitants of the IDP camp to make a list of the materials needed for them to better their condition, intending to go with the list to different gastarbajters (Roma and non-Roma) to ask for their contribution. The list was not provided and the gastarbajters refused to contribute. The trace of that idealistic mission was a marble plaque in the park designating the empty site of the donors.
Another aspect of the relations was revealed by the children’s workshop held by Nannette Vinson, and Rena Raedle (slides 68-71) and by Danijela Pivašević-Tenner (slides 72-73). The workshops were held in the IDP settlement in Stari Kostolac, in one of the gastarbajters’ villages and in Požarevac itself. At the opening pictures were taken of the children and the artists together (slide 74). There was a problem of bringing the children from the settlement and the village together since some of the Roma thought it was not appropriate for them to be seen together i.e. reveling some inner hierarchy but in the end all arrived.
During our stay there, a five-month-old baby had died due to the malnutrition and lack of hygienic conditions in the settlement. We all gathered money to help with the hospital bill (that was not necessary since the body was discharged without payment) and Rena, Leone and myself went with a member of the community to release the body. We met the parents and grand parents there. The parents were a young couple, around 15, from the settlement. Rena had signed her name and the name of her organization in order for the procedure to go smoothly.
The death affected the artists deeply. One of the artists Giacomo bazzani produced a death notice for the baby (slides 75-76), a standard procedure in all deaths in Serbia, which would not have taken place without his intervention. Since one of the companies that give funeral services, refused to produce the death notice and notified us that none of the other companies would produce it either. We produced it ourselves and hung it in the appropriate public spaces in order to introduce him back into the community.
The other artist Alexander Nikolić presented photocopies of the death documents in the
central square in Požarevac (slide 77) attracting the attention of the passers by, the Police and the media.
In a different sphere and location in town, the local computer games club, the artist Rebecca Miller was holding an animation workshop for the local young customers to give them an alternative option to the violent games offered there (slide78).
In the park was Marija Vidić installed her origami installation (slides 79-80), hand made and mechanical, her response to the collective thinking of different groups that appeared on the screen of the workshop. For lilja, an artist from Majdanpek the “missing person” was the core of the gastarbajter phenomena (slides 81-83).
Last but not list the artist Vladimir Miladinović reminded us Požarevac’s claim for fame, being Milosevic’s birthplace.

Artists’ statements:

Vladimir Miladinović, Serbia: Billboard installation.

On he way to Požarevac I thought, what drive people out of here… and then, suddenly, right at the entrance to Požarevac I felt an unbearable smell. I said to myself, this is it, such an unbearable stench would drive even the devil out of here.
Work location – cultural center
Exhibition location – main street

Erin Obradović, USA and Marija Đorđević, Serbia/Germany:

Two Floor, Tree Floors – A Possible Museum
In Požarevac and Braničevo County, it is estimated that 30% of the residents are living and working abroad as guest workers.
In considering the gastarbajter home as a space between museum, monument and exhibition – we have gathered six items from the local home of a family who have lived and worked abroad in France for the last 40 years.
They are working as professional musicians in Paris—performing at ex-Yugoslav clubs and weddings. They have raised their children and grandchildren in France, but often spend their summers in Požarevac.
In the 19th century, prominent citizens from Požarevac, like the Trifunovic family (whose
home now houses the Museum of Cultural History) worked as international merchants and shipped most of the items in their home and even workers from abroad. Most were shipped from Vienna and Budapest by boat via the Danube—sailing Neo-Classicism and Biedermeier into Serbia and Požarevac.
What is transported now between European and Požarevac homes?
In case of our current donor everything from marble tiles, household appliances, a fireplace and mantle to the Louis XV furniture were also purchased in France and shipped to Požarevac—although this time via truck. The family agreed to donate a few personal items for our temporary exhibition.
By displacing objects from the 20th century gastarbajter home into the 19th century home/museum we hope to open a dialogue about the presence, influence, relevance in the history of local gastarbajter communities.
Blog: http://palata.wordpress.com/
Work location – gastarbajters houses
Exhibition location – Museum of cultural history

Alexander Nikolić, Austria:

We have gotten familiar with Požarevac and the people who live in it. the big contribution of the local cultural activity and a lot of gastarbajters. People that in the public opinion are not there, nor here. In seeking them, I have seen, heard and came to know a lot of this. I have seen here areas, where I felt like I am in “Alice in Wonderland”, I have seen here area where IDPs live in harsh conditions. I stand between palaces and barracks. My search began in Vienna and it will be hard to conclude it with this workshop. Too many questions have been opened, and the society in which I try to create is closed. My work needs to stimulate communication on many levels. I hope I will succeed.
Work location – office of IRU
Exhibition location – office of IRU – website: http://iru-srbija.org, main square

Marija Vidić, Serbia: Every Bird Flies in its own Flock

The installation “Every Bird Flies in its own Flock” is made of paper in origami technique. Each of us wishes to be “in our own” but if 4000 Km separate between home and domicile, where is our “our own”?
Work location – cultural center
Exhibition location – park of front of the municipality

Momir Bojović and Jelena Radić, Serbia: The “Unknown Stories”

A documentary film about the parallels and paradoxes formed between different groups in the Roma population. On the one hand, the film shows the conditions in the cardboard settlements and on the other Roma as gastarbajters. In the middle is the International Roma Union that is trying to close the gap between them.
Work location – town and villages
Exhibition location – local coffee shop

Nannette Vinson, USA/Hungary Rena Raedle, Germany/Serbia and Danijela Pivašević- Tenner, Serbia/Germany with children from Stari Kostolac, Veliko Crniće and Požarevac: „Writing on the Sky" and "Your Dream-house" – Workshop

On 10th of August 2008, the drawings were presented at the Cultural Centre Požarevac in the frame of the exhibition opening „Art Interventions – The Return of the Gastarbajters". The first workshop took place in Stari Kostolac at a settlement of Roma refugees from Kosovo. The second groups were children from Roma families who are working in Austria, spending their holydays in their home village Veliko Crniće. The third workshop was done in the city park of Požarevac with Serbian children living in the center of the city. Each workshop consisted of two units. One part was individual work with pencil on paper. The children were asked to draw the house of their dreams and to present it to the others. The other was an interactive group work, drawing together on a transparent plastic foil from both sides. The foil would later be held up against the sky and be photographed from below. To bring all children together for an exhibition of their works turned out to be more challenging than expected, as the representative of the Roma organization was first reluctant towards the idea of the refugees' children attending the public event at the cultural centre. In the end, everybody came and it was a great opening. One of the adults from the refugees' settlement wants to go on working with the children and to encourage them to draw on different materials. The workshop was directed by Danijela Pivašević-Tenner, Nannette Vinson and Rena Raedle and was realized in collaboration with the International Romani Union Serbia (http://iru-srbija.org) and the library of Požarevac in the frame of „Art Interventions – The Return of the Gastarbajters".
Work location – Stari Kostolac, Veliko Crniće, city park of Požarevac
Exhibition location – Cultural center

Danijela Pivašević-Tenner: Your Dream-house

The works are inspired by the child’s individual understanding of the concept “home”. Home as their reality, their wishes for the future or a fantasy?
Various social structures, religious preference, way of life, does not allow them interaction and integration in their wider social surrounding.
does there surrounding with its different economic, social and cultural values influence them, their upbringing and how does it manifest? Isolation or integration? Mobile or static position?
Work location – Stari Kostolac, Veliko Crniće, city park of Požarevac
Exhibition location – Cultural center

Stefan Tenner, Germany i Danijela Pivašević-Tenner: Gastarbijters’ Radio

Many questions need to be answered if you want to understand the phenomen of the Gastarbajters from Ex-Yugoslavia and the current situation in the place of their origin. In the region of Eastern Serbia, there is obviously a lack of communication in the society. So, let's stop this by a simple thing: a Radio.
Join the transmission & let's meet each other On Air at the weekend 9/10 August 2008 in the centre of Pozarevac.
Or listen here online all the voices, collected in the surrounding of Pozarevac in August 2008:
www.gastarbajter.tk
Work location – the streets of Požarevac
Exhibition location – Cultural center, Main Square

Rebecca Miller, USA: Making versus Destroying

While in Požarevac, Serbia I discovered that the young male population was spending hours inside the internet house playing incredibly violent video games simulating war. This made me uneasy considering the fact that Milosevic was born and raised his children in Požarevac. I saw a need for them to be offered an alternative to these games. I downloaded Flash
animation program on the computers and offered to teach them how to animate their own drawings and designs for a few hours each day. The kids became interested and learned
quickly how to animate their drawings. Soon the young people were involved in a process of creation rather than destruction. A few of them expressed interest in going to art school and were curious about an artistic future. My goal was to have them view the computer as a creative tool rather than a war simulator.
Work location – gaming house
Exhibition location – Cultural center

Ljiljana Stevanović, Srbija: She has Returned

A sculpture in three parts – Europe, female gastarbajter and a road sign for Požarevac. Work location – Cultural center
Exhibition location – Cultural center

Leone Contini, Italy:

The work is the attempt to transform the potential energy of societal inequality into a concrete act of solidarity. In the settlement of Rom refugees from Kosovo he tried to set up a list of
needed materials for infrastructure. This list would be visible in town to reveal the situations
of these people. The mentioning of the donor would follow the local system of values and the need of the gastarbajters to be accepted and visible. The project fails! The failure will be presented in form of an empty commemoration stone, which can be used in case of an act of solidarity, appears in future.
Work location – the streets of Požarevac
Exhibition location – Cultural center, Main Square

Alice Troise, Italy in collaboration with Leone Contini: "Italians eat frogs and…"

This video is the first part of a work in progress based on prejudices concerning culinary habit of other nationalities. In the video Alice discovered that in Serbia many people, coming from different social and national backgrounds, think (or joke with the common opinion) that Italians eat frogs, snakes and cats.
At the moment she is working on a second video, regarding the Italian fear of Chinese gastarbajters, unjustly accused of stealing domestic cats and serve them in their restaurants.

Mark Brogan, England/Serbia: Family Tree for Novica Stević

I was inspired to produce a family tree for Novica Stević by the idea that quite possibly it can be associated with way that gastarbajters build their homes in their home countries. Gastarbajter homes are often built over successive rather than a single generation, each generation maintaining the connection to its roots by adding a floor or a feature, even a new building! Each generation picks up and continues where the last generation left off. Their homes emanate the baroque splendor of palaces created for a dynasty rather than a pragmatic summer retreat for a worker ‘overseas’. These buildings seem to be conceived without an end so that layer upon layer and detail upon detail can be added reflecting family history in a celebration. Is a family tree not constructed in a similar way?
I also pondered the question if the thought would ever occur to gastarbajters to manifest their family history as a family tree. As a second generation Irish man, born in London to Irish parents who moved there in the late sixties, I suspect the answer might be ‘no’. The concept of the family tree relies on, no pun intended, a rootedness, stability and sense of history, which is rendered absent in the unsettling and alienating struggle to integrate and survive in
a foreign land.
Work location – Office of IRU
Exhibition location – Museum of 19th century ethnography

Rofaida Makki, Sudan: „What does Life Mean to You?“.

The question occurs to us many times but we do not focus on answering, life has different meanings for each and every one of us in society is tied to happiness of every individual depends on his conviction and his or her life and the way they live it. I decided to do painting workshops on glass bottles, because the bottle Bear link to the lives of many people of the city (Požarevac), this can be connected to the meaning of life.
Work location – streets of Požarevac
Exhibition location – cultural center

Giacomo bazzani:

International:
The song "International" is played in 90 versions in 49 different languages without pauses or breaks between the different songs.
Sound project, 4h 37’
Naturalization market
It is a long-term project that aims to identify and document some break points and contradiction between the promises of universal emancipation of European modernity and the contemporary form of economic neo-liberalism.
Gastarbeiters
The project includes a series of video interviews with Serb gastarbeiters in order to ask them
to describe the specific situation spatial and temporal, social condition and order of
reflections that marked the moment when, during their migratory path, have decided to return homeland.
The interviews should play preferably in the home or in familiar places of the respondents.
Interactive questionnaire
I would like if you could try to remember and to describe us the precise moment when, during your migratory path you decided to return permanently to your homeland.
1. In what place was you when you took that decision (house, road, work, etc.).? Can you describe it briefly?
2. Could you briefly describe the stages of its migration path that led you to be there at that time?
3. What were your living conditions at that time?
4. What were your expectations at that time?
5. What has the urge to take the decision to return home? What were the thoughts and motivations you did in this particular moment that produced the decision to return home? There were special features of the place or the social context in this moment, which had a special role in taking the decision to return?
Death Notice:
A death notice done for a Rom baby who dies at 5 month in the refugee settlement of Roma from Kosovo
Work location – gastarbajters houses in the town and villages
Exhibition location – cultural center

jugoremedija on strike – inside story

October 1, 2004Representation, Text, worker's strugglesnikita

October 2004

JUGOREMEDIJA ON STRIKE

INSIDE STORY

“BOUGHT BY THE MAFIA!”

Few days after The Share Fund of the Republic of Serbia sold 41,93 % of shares of a pharmaceutical factory from Zrenjanin “Jugoremedija” to a company “Jaka 80” from Radovis (Macedonia) at the auction on 10 September 2002, according to the testimony of the President of the Association of Jugoremedija’s small shareholders Mr. Zdravko Deuric, Director at that point, Mr. Srdjan Kamenkovic, who followed the auction and took an active part in the preparations for the sale of the factory shares, advised the workers to collect the majority package as soon as possible in order to protect themselves from the future events. The workers – shareholders of “Jugoremedija”, whose worker’s and owner’s rights are now, two years later, annulled by the state and a new co-owner, remember the fear of the former Director, who, in September 2002, said loud and clear – We were bought by the mafia! –

It is then that the workers – shareholders found out that the owner of “Jaka 80”, Mr. Jovica Stefavnovic – Nini, from Nis, a man to whom the state sold 41,93% of the factory shares, was on a wanted list, and not allowed to enter Serbia.

23 August 2004 (Blic)
Destroying evidence
The arrest of President of Jugoremedija’s small share holders, Mr. Zdravko Deuric, together with two other members of this Assocciation, suggests that Serbian authorithies are now covering up violations of law and privatization contracts, otherwise sanctioned at the politically suitable moment.
We remind that Share Fund allowed the buyer of the 41,93 % of Jugoremedija’s shares, Jaka 80 from Radovis to take over the factory prior to the fulfilment of terms, and illegal increase of the capital fund by debt conversion, making Jaka the owner of 60 % of the shares. In view of such cirucumstances, which shareholders of Jugoremedija have been trying to prove for months, no one was taken into custody, not did the Government took time to check the allegations of money laundry and corruption in the process of buying and selling of the Jugoremedija’s shares.
At one moment, the Government accepted the findings of the Anti-Corruption Council, Assembly’s Board for Privatization, and Securites and Exchange Commission that the procedure was illegal. Ministry for Economy performed a supervision and on 13 May instructed the Share Fund to cancel the contarct with company Jaka. Although the law stupulates that this Fund should act pursuant to the Ministry’s instructions withing the period of 30 days, it did not happen. When the shareholders saw that there were no reaction from the State they organized themselves, and now the State is arresting them in order to cover up the fact that the law was abandoned in favor of the idea of quick privatization. During months-long blocade of Jugoremedija, on several occasions, Jaka tried to enter the factory on force. Each time a fight between shareholders and private security broke up. Director brought 50 men from the same security who attacked the shareholders previously. When the incident occurred, the shareholders, deceived once again, blocked the factory. On Friday three members of the Association of the shareholders were taken into custody due to the breach of law. At the moment they are sentenced to solitary confinment. On the same day 26 workers who participated in the strike were fired. After the arrest of Jugoremedija’s shareholders, maybe the Anti- Corruption Council should invite citizens of Serbia to stop fighting against the corruption, unless they want to end up in a prison.

Ms Verica Barac,
President of the Council

Fortnight after the auction, at the invitation of Mr. Jovica Stefanovic, Mr. Kamenkovic travels to Skoplje. While he was away, the workers quickly collect authorizations in order to form the majority share package, and appoint Mr. Zdravko Deuric as their representative. Mr. Deuric makes an appointment with Director upon his return from Skoplje, to arrange further steps. Without an explanation, Mr. Kamenkovic informs him of his retirement. On 3 October, Director receives a fax from Skoplje suggesting new Management Board composed of seven members, should consist of four representatives from “Jaka”, and three representatives from other shareholders. Mr. Kamenkovic accepts and on 4 October, without consulting the workers, suggests three members of the MB on behalf of the small shareholders. A part of the story has been cut off obviously, both from Jugoremedija shareholders and public, which only testifies of lack of confidence in the work of the state institutions in Serbia, distrust in the protection of legality, and possibility to turn to the state in need for the protection against the violence.

The workers – shareholders are puzzled that “Jaka 80” has not yet registered its ownership in the Register of the Court of Commerce. To end the anticipation, Mr. Deuric tried to contact a new co-owner, and received the number of Mr. Stefanovic from the accounting department where Mr. Stefanovic already began with instructions issuing. In the midst of October, Mr. Stefanovic and Mr. Deuric arrange a meeting in Skoplje, because “Jaka 80’s” owner was not allowed to enter Serbia. Mr. Deuric, together with the President of the Jugoremedija’s Union, Mr. Vladimir Pecikoza, leaves on a trip with a business car from Jugoremedija. At the meeting in “Jaka 80’s” office in Skoplje, Mr. Stefanovic gives his assurance to respect the rights of other shareholders, and talks of factory future. Mr. Deuric, and Mr. Pecikoza return to Zrenjanin more or less pleased, except from a minor car accident, and the fact that Mr. Stefanovic refused to give them a tour of a pharmaceutical factory in Radovis, under excuse that it was too far away.
Till Jugoremedija Shareholder’s Meeting on 22 October 2002, small shareholders form a package of 41,83 % of Jugoremedija shares, little less than the share of “Jaka 80”. The workers- shareholders vote Mr. Zdravko Deuric, Ms Emilija Mihajlovic, Ms Olivera Zakic, Mr. Radovan Popov, Mr. Duda Radakovic as representatives at the Meeting. At the Meeting, “Jaka 80”, the major individual part-owner appoints four members of the Management Board and a new Director, Mr. Aleksandar Radovanovic from Nis. Instead of three members suggested by the former Director small shareholders choose their MB members, namely Mr. Srdjan Djujic (immediately appointed Director of Jugoremedija’s daughter company “Remevita”, at present Deputy of Jugoremedija’s Director), Ms Slavka Medjo (although a pharmacist, soon becomes a chief of “Jugoremedija’s” sale department, where she worked till supplies worth 11,5 million euros were sold, at present Director of the tablet department, which she tries to animate with new workers after 103 “Jugoremedija’s” workers – shareholders were dismissed), and Ms Olivera Grozdanovic (later suspended from work).

After promoting or suspending all three of them, there were no one to protect the interest of small shareholders in the Management Board.

Even after the Shareholder’s Meeting, “Jaka 80” still does not register “Jugoremedija’s” bought shares in the Register of the Court of Commerce, although it was obligatory according to the contract on share sale. It will turn out that it was one of the numerous reasons to break the contract, disregarded by The Share Fund.

HOW DID “JAKA 80” BECAME A MAJORITY OWNER?

After the first Shareholder’s Meeting the workers continue to collect authorization and collected 51 % of shares. Nevertheless, members of the Meeting Mr. Zakic, Mr. Popov, and Mr. Radakovic abandon the workers- shareholders soon, and Director Radanovic begins to threaten the workers collecting the authorizations with dismissals if they do not stop. Small shareholders are still not aware that “Jaka 80” failed to present a bank guarantee for the increase of capital fund, bound to by the contract on share sale, without which The Share Fund was not supposed to sign the contract. Even so, it will soon become clear that Mr. Stefanovic never intended to invest in “Jugoremedija”.

At the Shareholder’s Meeting that was not held ( it was allegedly held on 17 June 2003), “Jaka 80” reached a decision to increase the capital fund of “Jugoremedija”, trough conversion of “Jugoremedija’s” claims towards “Jaka 80” (made, according Ms Emilija Mihajlovic, after Mr. Radanovic came to “Jugoremedija”, by unnecessary debts, among other things in raw materials for the medicine “Viziren, which has a very poor sale on the market). Pursuant to this decision “Jaka 80” registered its equity of 61,02% of “Jugoremedija’s” shares in the Register of The Court of Commerce. Performed conversion, that is increase of capital stock, was formally legalized by “Jaka 80” trough Securities and Exchange Commission and Stock Exchange, and represented as an increase of capital fund (360 million dinars) from the sale contract.

The Court of Commerce, Share Fund, Securities and Exchange Commission, all the authorities able to prevent such violation of the law and contract allowed, however, such “increase of capital fund”.

Silent treatment of the media
(an abstract from the article “Evil strikes rear their head again” by Mr. Nebojsa Popov, “Republic”340-341, 1 till 30 September)
Reading today’s media, namely issues about strikes and strikers, may lead to the impression that, nowadays, they represent a sort of a bogey man of the socialism and self-management, hushing up the laziness and idleness, and other similar mischief, whereas they, “nip in the bud” the wheels of history, moving towards the unstoppable victory of the capitalism. Sometimes, even the journalists and the media with reputation of being serious , regard them as – Stalinist. We do not, however, deny the presence of us Stalinists, as well as members of other wicked ideologies, but if we do not talk about it analytically, factually and with arguments, we only repeat the ideological disqualifications and harm the clarification of the events and their possible outcomes.
Ideological and promotional production of evil strikes and strikers is most obvious in hiding of the actual participants and subject of the dispute. It is best seen in the approach to strikes where participants, like in “Jugoremedija case” from Zrenjanin, are, on both sides, shareholders. Although the strikers represent a private owner, the name applies mostly to the majority share owner, or a pretendant to such position. Than, in the name of ‘’her holiness’’ the private ownership, one opens fire on strikers as the enemies of the private ownership, adversaries of the inevitable privatization and even more irrevocable capitalism, and by the hand of the lazy and idle persons, self- managers, defenders of the social ownership and other more or less scary ghosts and phantoms.

Conflict of the owners

Till April – May 2003 Mr. Radovanovic sells “Jugoremedija’s” stock supplies in the value of 11,5 million euros, found upon the entrance in the factory, and continues to bully the workers – shareholders. In December 2003, Mr. Deuric, Mr. Pecikoza and another member of the Union got sacked due to the car accident upon the return from the meeting with Mr. Stefanovic in Octorber 2002 in Skoplje, on account of damaging “Jugoremedija” for 30 thousands dinars, the cost of the car repair. As a sign of a protest, on 11 December 2003, 260 “Jugoremedija” workers went on strike. The Board of the strikers stipulates 12 demands of syndicate nature (increase of salary, then the same as before 10 September 2002, termination of the harassing of the workers- shareholders and so forth). In attempt to intimidate the workers, Mr. Radovanovic hands 120 warnings prior to the dismissal. Three dismissed workers chain themselves to the factory, and tomorrow another six colleagues join them. The Inspection from Zrenjanin returns the dismissed workers to work, and in early morning on 1 January, Mr. Jovica Stefanovic shows up for the second and the last time in “Jugoremedija” – with more than dozens members of the private security in jeeps, to negotiate with the strikers. “The negotiations” fail, and Mr. Stefanovic retreats with his army. Also, warnings are withdrawn, and on 6 January, with mediation of the President of Municipal Assembly, the strikers made an Agreement with the management, whose Director promised to fulfill all 12 strikers’ demands, thus ending the strike.

Due to the disrespect of the Agreement from January 2004, on 11 May “Jugoremedija’s” workers-shareholders initiated another strike. Director Mr. Radovanovic fails to forward the minimum of the working process, list and decisions applying for the workers to the Board of strikers, which he was obligated to do in the beginning of the strike on behalf of the employers, which is why even after 11 May the workers continued to work in full. Instead of determining the minimum of the working process, on 22 May, “Jugoremedija’s” Management Board stopped the production, informing the employees that, if they feel threatened, they should stop coming to work, for they would continue to receive salaries on a regular basis. During the strike, small shareholders initiate a legal suit with The Court of Commerce to erase the illegal registration of the increase of capital stock in the Register of the Court. The Court of Commerce in Zrenjanin and The Higher Court of Commerce in Belgrade reject the demand on account of pro forma reasons, hence, small shareholders ask for the revision by The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled.

At the political rally in Zrenjanin held on 17 May, former Minister of Economy and candidate of the leading coalition for the President of Serbia Mr. Dragan Marsicanin, announced that Ministry of Economy would instruct the cancellation of the contract with “Jaka 80”.

Ministry of Economy, which in the meantime, from 8 April till 13 May conducted a supervision over the legality of the privatization procedure of “Jugoremedija”, reached a decision on 20 May, instructing The Share Fund to cancel the contract with “Jaka 80” regarding purchase and sale of 41, 93 % of “Jugoremedija’s” shares.

On 17 May, The Court of Commerce in Zrenjanin brings a temporary measure aiming to protect the shareholders capital within 60 days.

Till today, The Share Fund did not act by order of Ministry of Economy initiating cancellation of the contract with “Jaka 80”.

On 29 June, Director Radanovic makes a new attempt, together with fifty members of the private GPS security, to “invade” the factory. In early morning, the GPS security jumps over the fence into the factory walls and kicks out dozen strikers who were inside at the time. Mr. Radovanovic makes a public statement saying possible illegality in the increase of capital stock of “Jugoremedija” are insignificant, whereas the relevant issue is to restart the production in the factory. The radio B92 broadcast Mr. Radanovic’s statement that “ there is more to it on both sides. The fact is that the factory was not working for 40 days, that it was blocked for 30 days, the fact is, moreover, that there was a great danger of bankruptcy, because, according to the law, after 60 days of blockade The Court of Commerce initiates a bankruptcy procedure”.
Mr. Radovanovic, nevertheless, continues to avoid setting the minimum of working process, thus prolonging to blockade the company. On 29 June, in the afternoon, the security and Mr. Radanovic were again thrown out by the strikers.

The Share Fund does not initiate a legal suit for the cancellation of the contract, explaining that Foreign Trade Arbitration, a very expensive one, is in charge for the suit, and the Ministry does not explain who is to bear the expenses of the suit. On 16 July, the workers- shareholders came to Belgrade and block The Share Fund, demanding the fulfilling of the demand of the Ministry of Economy and initiation of the suit for the cancellation of the contract. In the meantime, however, “Jaka 80” pressed charges against The Share Fund with the Court of Commerce in Belgrade to cancel the Contract on investment, and, on Monday, 19 June The Share Fund responded with counterclaim for cancellation of the basic contract, thus avoiding the expanses of the foreign trade arbitration, but also, a proceeding by order of Ministry of Economy.

6 August 2004 (Blic)
Private army as a substitute for the institutions
The agreed working minimum in the company “Jugoremedija”, was used by the co-owner of the factory “Jaka 80” merely to get even with other co-owners, demanding the cancellation of the sales contract with “Jaka”, because it violated the investigation obligation. Immediately after entering the factory, “Jaka” brought private security provoking conflicts with the small shareholders during the period of two weeks, and using one incident to beat up the workers on 19 August.
In the conflict where one co-owner leads a private army, the State took side of the stronger one. On 19 August, police faced the unarmed shareholders, while behind the back of the cordon “Jaka’s “ security were breaking into the warehouses of “Jugoremedija”. The police backup, emergency units from Belgrade, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, arrived and arrested three members of the Strike Board. Tomorrow, 26 workers and shareholders of “Jugoremedija” were dissmised by Director, and police detained the arrested stikers in the custody under the suspicion that they might influence the witneses.
Eighteen shareholders went on hunger strike, still going on, demanding that 26 workers should be returned to work. The others continuned the stirke in the factory canteen, tailed by armed security. At the same time, “Jaka” is violating the working minimum agreed with the small shareholders, and under suspension threat, summons the workers among the strikers whose engagement was not agreed, to substitute the colleagues who were in the agreed minimum. The shareholders are suspecting that “Jugoremedija” is producing more drugs than agreed by the minimum, because the workers summoned to the factory work on jobs unnecessary for the minimum. The media in Serbia mostly reported lies regarding the true nature of the conflict. It was impossible to learn that the conflict in “Jugoremedija” was between co-owners, and small shareholders were regarded as former self-managers, followers of Staljin’s regime, inert, worshippers, while “Jaka” was reputed as the sole owner of the entire “Jugoremedija”, prohibited to enter property by the danagerous “elements”
Since the beginning of the institutionalization promissed by the present Government in the election campaign, merely the authority protecting private property of only one owner remained, namely the one surrounded by the private army.
If Mr. Jovica Stefanovic Nini, the owner of “Jaka”, wins “Jugoremedia” by fraud and force, and supported by authority, will he realize that the authority is obsolete and replacive by the private army?

Ms Verica Barac,
President of Council

“Mediation” of the State

During June 2004, Coordinator of the Ministry of Economy, Mr. Predrag Bubalo makes strong pressures on the strikers to return the management into the factory. Mr. Zdravko Deuric states that in those talks Minister had an almost identical point of view as “Jugoremedija’s” Director, Mr. Radanovic – that the fact that the increase of capital stock meant direct negation of the law was irrelevant, like the fact that the Shareholder’s Meeting did not decide on the increase of capital stock, instead it was a decision of one owner only, the relevant issue, however, is to initiate the minimum of working process. With the help of Minister Bubalo, on 5 August, the management forwards the Board of Strikers a suggestion for the minimum working process, which should employ 77 workers. The Board of Strikers accepts the suggestion, and the management returns to “Jugoremedija”. It will soon become obvious what Mr. Radanovic had in mind with initiation of the working process. Minister Bubalo protects one of the owners, namely the one already protected by the fact that he is the major individual owner, whereas management of the equity and protection of interest is much easier that in the case of the small shareholders, whose number surpasses three thousand. Instead of enabling the protection of small shareholder, Minister of the Government of Serbia, Mr. Predrag Bubalo fails to protect the principle of the protection of private ownership of each owner, interfering in the conflict between the two owners protecting only one of them – the one known for violation of the contract, determined by the Ministry of Economy in the supervision procedure.

On 6 August, Director Mr. Aleksandar Radanovic wrote a written reply to the demand of the Board of Strikers, giving, among other things, consent to their request that security measures should be performed by “Jugoremedija’s” workers, along with the employment of a new labor force trough Employment Bureau.

On 16 August, nevertheless, around hundered and twenty armed members of the private GPS security enter the factory and kick the members of the Board of Strikers, together with the strikers performing the doorman’s duty.

The police in Zrenjanin interfered immediately and the members of the Board of Strikers return to the factory on the same day. The police stands between the strikers and private GPS security, with purpose of disabling the physical contact and possible conflict. The Board of Strikers asks the police to check the members of the private GPS security, as well as the purpose of their presence, the police, nevertheless, disregards the request of the partial “Jugoremedija’s” owners to investigate the purpose of the private army in their factory.

The police maintained “ the border line” till 19 August, when a new incident occured. Someone of the members of the private GPS security activated a fire extinguisher against the police and strikers. The strikers break trough the police line and fight with the security. One of the strikers was badly injured, hit by the fire extinguisher on the head.

Late in the evening, on 19 August, after breaking trough the cordon, after private army and local police, the third army arrived – the units of the national police from Belgrade under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov. At first, General summons Mr. Zdravko Deuric and Mr. Vladimir Pecikoza and President of the Board of Stikers, Mr. Stevan Budisin for midnight “ talks”. Around two o’clock in the morning, on 20 August Mr. Mirkov informs the strikers that Home Affairs reached the Decision on ban of the public gathering, that in the future they are allowed to strike in the factory canteen only, within working hours, from six to two o’clock, and that he has a warrant to, peacefully or by force, throw out the strikers from the factory ground. The Government, again, more openly, took the side of one owner. Instead of maintaining peace, General Mirkov decides on the strike, rules in the conflict between two owners, threatening one of them, and protecting the other, shoulder to shoulder with his private army.

Although aware that the gathering of the strikers within the factory walls does not qualify as public gathering, and that the Decision of Home Affairs violates the Law on Strike heavily, the Board of Strikers makes a decision to leave the factory walls, preventing more brutal consequences.

Pure violence

On 20 august 23 dismissals were handed out to the workers gathered in the canteen.
The dismissals were given to all the members of the Board of Strikers, as well as the leaders of the Union and Association of the small shareholders. Three strikers, Mr. Zdravko Deuric, Mr.Stevan Budisin, and Mr.Stevan Djurisic, were arrested for violation of law and order, and detained in custody, in solitaries till 23 August (Mr. Djurisic till 26 August), to prevent their influence on the whiteness. They were given the notice of dismissal because they were prosecuted.

Director of “Jugoremedija”, Mr. Aleksandar Radovanovic was also prosecuted by Home Affairs, criminal proceeding number 756/2004 from 31 May 2004, due to a reasonable doubt that he committed a criminal act of abuse of authority.

Mr. Aleksandar Radovanovic was not sacked.

With the counterclaim, The Share Fund also asked for the issuing of the temporary measures identical to the temporary measure issued by the Court of Commerce in Zrenjanin. The Court of Commerce in Belgrade, nevertheless, did not rule in favor.

“Jaka 80” clears “Jugoeremedija’s” warehouses without any control by the other owner.

On 20 August, three arrested men started a hunger strike in the solitary. On 25 August, fifteen workers-shareholders joined the hunger strike, demanding the return of all 26 dismissed workers. While “Jugoeremedija’s” workers-shareholders were on hunger strike in the Union premises in Zrenjanin, no one, not even local politicians, doctors, priests, or human rights fighters came to visit them. Besides the inconspicuous individuals, like a local official from Mr. Karic’s party, who was persuading them to forget the ownership dispute, whereas Mr. Karic would persuade his friend Mr. Stefanovic to return the workers to work. On the other hand, the media broadcasted Mr. Radanovic’s statement that the other owner of “Jugoremedija”, as far as he is concerned, does not exist, and that the workers-shareholders may turn to the Local Community, like any other civilian in need, but they no longer represent the problem of “Jugoremedija”. A cynical point of view that the co-owner matters are solved by sacking the co-owner, is only the continuation of the state’s point of view that it makes no difference whether the increase of capital was performed pursuant to the law and contract, but that it is essential to start the minimum of the production process.

The Labor Inspection in Zrenjanin, did not have the time to write the decisions returning 26 dismissed strikers to work, when “Jugoeremedija’s” management sacked another 77 workers-shareholders. Hunger strike was ended on 6 September, after two weeks, because, according to the strikers’ statement, “during those two weeks not only that the state disregarded this scandal, but we heard statements from the two Ministers of the Republican Government, Mr. Bubalo and Mr. Lalovic, trying to minimize and hush the criminal operations following the privatization and fake increase of capital of ‘Jugoremedija”.

Less and less number of strikers, still employed, continues to strike in the canteen, controlled by Mr. Jovica Stefanovic’s private army. Armed guardians even followed the strikers to the bathroom, prohibited any contact with their colleagues at work. The dismissed strikers, 103 of them for now, continue to gather in the hall of the Municipal Assembly in Zrenjanin, holding meetings, and asking for the honoring of the Decisions of the Labor Inspection regarding their return to work, also, that the State should stop bankruptcy of “Jugoremedija” till the settlement of the legal suit, and that the President of the Government of Serbia, Mr. Vojislav Kostunica should visit and talk to the strikers regarding these issues.

Since the beginning of September, Mr. Radovanovic, contracted 86 workers in “Remevita”, daughter- company, which until then employed only 4 persons, who were then directed to work in “Jugoremedija, violating the agreed minimum of work process, and Law on strike.

On 17 September, the Anti-Corruption Council forwarded the “Jugoremedija” Report to the President of the Government of Serbia, Mr. Vojislav Kostunica and Coordinator of the Ministry of Economy, Mr. Predrag Bubalo suggesting enlisting on the time table of the next session of the Government.

We feel that the struggle of the “Jugoremedija’s “ shareholders to honor the law and privatization contract, up to now disclosed three major problems in Serbian society.

In the first place, the protection of small shareholders in Serbia is non existing, the state does not protect the institution of the private property, but only the property of certain owners.

Secondly, Serbian authorities do not support the anti-corruption initiative, instead they take side of the corrupted ones, busting and prosecuting the ones who protect right to their own private property, right to work and live as humans.

In the third place, solidarity and endurance of the people protecting their rights, that noble characteristic rarely found these days in Serbia, after all those years of poverty and fear, are not the value that our public recognizes as a foundation of democracy and development.

Ivan Zlatić

“If it does not matter how the shares of “Jugoremedija” were sold, but how to start the production, according to Minister Bubalo, then tell your Minister to get these people back to work, for WE ARE THE PRODUCTION!”

Mr. Zdravko Deuric, to the Serbian MP Sredoje Mihajlov,
who addressed the strikers in the

Municipal Assembly of Zrenjanin on September 12 2004

Report on “Jugoremedija” by Verica Barac

September 16, 2004Representation, Text, worker's strugglesnikita

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

On 10 September 2002, the Privatization Agency sold by auction the state-owned shares of “Jugoremedija” Pharmaceutical Factory from Zrenjanin, 41.93 % of the total company shares (Record from the auction).

The sale of 41.93% of “Jugoremedija” shares is the only case we are aware of in which the Agency used its legal authority to sell the shares by auction, dodging the stock exchange. The Agency prepared an auction dossier, conducted the bidding procedure, and chose the most favorable bidder, the Company ‘Jaka 80’ from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whose majority owner was Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini. Nevertheless, since we are talking about the sale of the shares, a contract for the sale of shares and a contract for investments were concluded between the Shares Fund (not the Agency, which conducted the complete sales procedure), and the Buyer.

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

In spite of the fact that the Buyer, “Jaka 80”, did not provide the bank guarantee, either after the purchase of the largest individual shares package of “Jugoremedija”, or on the occasion of the signing of both contracts (neither the first one, nor the second one) and though the terms and conditions had not been fulfilled, the Shares Fund handed over the Company to the Buyer “Jaka” to manage, and he appointed his own management team and security guards.
In the beginning, the cooperation between the shareholders was good; the workers-shareholders accepted the sale of the shares to the Company “Jaka” as a sound business action, trusting the Government authorities and the new co-owner.

Problems emerged when “Jaka”, as the owner of the largest individual shares package, began to violate the rights of the small shareholders. Meetings were called without ensuring proper conditions for the other party, the small shareholders to be represented at them, and the management threatened to dismiss those shareholders who collected shareholder’s authorizations for the formation of their own common shares package. Nevertheless, the Company “Jaka” violated most drastically the rights of the small shareholders when, instead of the increase of the capital, i.e. the recapitalization, bound by the Contract, it converted the debt into shares.

Records of the Meetings held in this period, threats to the shareholders, replacement of management executives, where obedience to the management appointed by Mr. Jovica Stefanovic was given preference over the experience in the production of medicines, show, otherwise known syndrome in the privatized companies, that the one who buys the largest individual shares package becomes, practically, the exclusive owner. The other owners-shareholders, and at the same time the workers of the Company, were deprived of their rights by threatening with dismissals and by deceits, so that they had to fear for their shares and their jobs. After deceits, harassment, and drastic violation of the rights of the small shareholders, from their being thrown out of the factory to their detention in the factory building by the private army of the other co-owner, these co-owners (experienced pharmacists) have been recently assigned to work as gardeners and cleaners of the factory yard.

A statement made by the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting, a pharmacist herself, reveals that, while managing “Jugoremedija” through its newly-appointed management, on the eve of the controversial recapitalization, “Jaka”, indebted, unnecessarily, the Company “Jugoremedija” in favor of the Company “Jaka”, by buying large quantities of the medicine “Viziren”, which sells poorly on the market. The decision for the increase of the capital through the conversion of debts was not brought by the Shareholders’ Meeting, which can be seen from the minutes of the Meetings held on 4 February and 20 May 2002, and which was verified by the statement of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting, Ms Emilija Mihajlovic, given in the investigation procedure at the Crime Investigation Police Office in Zrenjanin (Records from the hearing).

The fact that the decision on the increase of capital by the conversion of debts was not brought at a Shareholders’ Meeting, and that it was not allowed by the Contracts signed with the Shares Fund, did not prevent the “Jugoremedija” management to sign the Contract with “Jaka” for conversion of debts into shares – a conditional increase of the original capital. According to this documentation, the Commercial Court of Zrenjanin registered “Jaka 80” as the owner of 61.02% of the total “Jugoremedija” capital. On 2 June, the representative of the small shareholders, Mr. Zdravko Deuric, submitted an initiative to the Commercial Court of Zrenjanin for the opening of an ex officio procedure for the annulment of the groundless registration in the Register of the Commercial Court in Zrenjanin.

Mr. Deuric submitted evidence that the stated Meeting of 17 June 2003, at which the decision on the increase of the capital was allegedly reached, had never been held. The Commercial Court of Zrenjanin and the Higher Commercial Court in Belgrade turned down Mr. Deuric’s Initiative because of some formal shortcomings, although the Initiative suggested that the Court should ex officio delete from the Court Register the registration of the increase of the capital. Instead of allowing some extra time to the small shareholders to rectify the formal shortcomings, the Court rejected their motion. On 28 June 2004, the small shareholders submitted an application for the revision of the procedure with the Supreme Court. A decision of the Supreme Court is still pending.

Confusing are also the data disclosed after the completed recapitalization in a memorandum submitted to the Shares Fund and to all relevant Government bodies by the Company “Smart Invest” from Belgrade, an authorized representative of the Company “Jaka 80”. They state that the Shares Fund cannot be blamed for the increase of the capital, because “Jaka”, as a minority shareholder could not make a decision on the recapitalization, which has to be a two-thirds decision, and they state this circumstance as a ground which renders the signed Contract null and void (Memorandum of the authorized representative)

Indeed, the Company “Jaka 80” filed a suit with the Commercial Court in Belgrade against the Shares Fund for the termination of the Contract for Investments and the cancellation of the clause on the issue of a bank guarantee.

The Shares Fund

Since the very beginning the signatory of the contracts for sale and investments, the Shares Fund, has never had any objections regarding the execution of the Contract, accepting the signing of the Contract without bank guarantees, thus altering the terms of the sale by auction, and the provisions of the Basic Contract. In the contract-honouring control procedure, the Shares Fund established that the Contract was fully executed.

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

At this moment, 24 months have passed since the signing of the Contract on the Sale of Shares, which is the deadline by which the Buyer was obliged to invest YUD 180,000,000 and deposit a bank guarantee for another YUD 180,000,000. The Buyer has not yet deposited a bank guarantee for the first investment, nor has he made any investments in accordance with the Contract.

Following very pressing demands by the small shareholders for the introduction of supervision and protection measures because of the violation of the Contract, the Ministry of Economy responded after one year, and, in the supervision procedure, instructed the Shares Fund to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of both Contracts concluded with “Jaka 80” and to take other measures for the protection of the Company assets (Decision of the Ministry of Economy)

The Privatization Committee of the Serbian National Assembly also carried out a supervision of the privatization of “Jugoremedija” and accepted the information and explanation of the representative of the Ministry of Economy that the supervision over the work of the Shares Fund had been carried out and that the Shares Fund had been instructed to initiate the procedure for the cancellation of the Contract.

So far the Shares Fund has not initiated any procedure for the cancellation of the Contract, with an explanation that neither the Ministry of Economy nor the Ministry of Finance has provided necessary funds for the initiation of proceedings with the Foreign Trade Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce.

The jurisdiction of the Foreign Trade Arbitration was contracted by the Contract for the Sale of Shares, but now the contractual obligations are not honoured by the Government authorities, and the Ministries. This is a clear message to other participants in the privatization process that the Government does not honour contracts it signs, and that such contracts can be breached without any consequences. This is a moment which influences possible corruption in the privatization process. The Government is responsible to ensure that contracts are based on the law and that they are the expression of mutually agreed will, and to prevent an approach of pro forma accepting of lots of obligations which one can get around, so that one, expected and not expressly contracted, could be realized and, first of all, it is responsible to ensure that contracts are honoured.

Recommendations to the Government

The Anti-Corruption Council believes that the actions of the participants in the privatization of “Jugoremedija”, both of the Government and the Buyer point to possible corruption. We recommend the Government to review this privatization procedure completely and establish the facts which seem to be disputable, and particularly the following ones:

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

The privatization procedure of “Jugoremedija” is a most drastic example of the absence of the protection of minority shareholders in Serbia. Having no clear attitude regarding the principles underlying the privatization procedure that would make it lawful and successful, and in a procedure highly jeopardized by irresponsibility and corruption, the minority shareholders are sacrificed by the Government and treated as if they were not shareholders at all. The development of a market economy failing to provide clear and equal protection guarantees for each private property owner leads to conflicts and radicalization.

We recommend the Government to show, by insisting on the observance of the law and lawfully concluded contracts, clear respect for the principles of the protection of private property of all owners and to ensure a transformation of the ownership structure in a legal way and with the observance of the contractual obligations. The observance of the rights of minority shareholders proves the existence of respect for the principles of private property protection and the principles of legality in the transformation of the ownership structure. Legitimate contracts and their honouring are vital parts of the public interest, which is also cherished by a government seeking to create a law-abiding state.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

The Shares Fund

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

Recommendations to the Government

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

The Shares Fund

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

Recommendations to the Government

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

The Shares Fund

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

Recommendations to the Government

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

The Shares Fund

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

Recommendations to the Government

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

The Shares Fund

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

Recommendations to the Government

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

The Anti-Corruption Council of the Government of Serbia

Report on “Jugoremedija”

Privatization procedure

After the auction, the Shares Fund and the Macedonian Company “Jaka 80” concluded two contracts: for the sale of shares, and for investments.

The Contract for the sale of the 41.93 % shares was concluded on the same day when the auction was held. By signing this Contract the Buyer committed himself:

to pay the sales price within five days from the day of the auction,
to invest YUD 360,000,000 in “Jugoremedija” within thirty days from the day of the fulfillment of the terms, the Contract stipulates that the investments must be “made in cash or in other material assets in the form of a fully-paid capital increase amount, that the increase of the share capital be registered, and that all other members of the society be allowed to participate in accordance with the law”,
to provide an unconditional bank guarantee, on account of the investment obligation.

The Contract for Investments was concluded on 2 October 2002. The Contract specifies in more details the manner and times of investments and stipulates that the Buyer commits himself to provide, on the occasion of the signing of this Contract, a bank guarantee as a security for the fulfillment of the his obligation (the Contract for Investments of 2 October 2002).

Who is the Buyer?

The Buyer is the Company “Jaka 80” from Radovis, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Data from the Register of the Commercial Court:

Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Dietetic Industries, Joint Stock Company “Jaka 80”.

Owners in 2002:

minority shareholders and Mr. Jovica Stefanovic – Nini, 51.97% of the total shares,
Pension and Disability Insurance Fund paid by “Demeno Trade”

“Demeno Trade” from Nicosia is registered for management services.

The Company has three employees,
The address is unknown,
Original capital is USD 1000.

The 2001 Balance Sheet of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that the Company’s profit was EUR 1.86 million (transcript from the Register of Companies of the Commercial Court in Stip).

How was the Contract honoured?

The Shares Fund

When the Buyer violated the Contract on the obligatory increase of the capital, violating simultaneously both the Contract and the Enterprise Act, the Shares Fund took no action.

Recommendations to the Government

According to the statement of the shareholders and the records from the hearing of the Deputy President of the Shareholders’ Meeting in the investigation procedure, referring to the statement of the then Director, the Company had before the privatization approximately EUR 11,5 million in stocks which were not shown in the Balance Sheet of the Company.

The fact that the Buyer, as well as the other participants in the auction, offered a price several times higher than the starting price indicates that the auction dossier was not well prepared, i.e. points to the possibility that the participants in the auction had acquired some information which was not in the auction dossier.
The correspondence of the Company “Jaka 80” shows that they had an agreement with the Shares Fund not to provide a bank guarantee. The records of the Shares Fund contain a letter from “Jaka” requesting that they do not provide a bank guarantee, for it would be expensive, but they would certainly commit themselves to invest by a statement resembling a mere verbal assurance. There is no reply of the other party, but the Contract was signed without any bank guarantee. In this way all the provisions of the Contract referring to the authorization of the Shares Fund to take adequate measures if the Buyer does not honour the Contract are inapplicable because the Shares Fund has deprived itself of the possibility to act in case of default of the Contract.
Neither the Shares Fund, nor the Ministry of Economy acted pursuant to the decision reached in the supervision procedure, and according to the recommendation of the Privatization Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that the Government is obliged to initiate procedures for establishing the responsibility of some Government ministers for the violation of the law and the Contract.
As last year, following a complaint by the shareholders, the Council forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering some documentation pointing to money laundering, and has not received any reply so far. We were warned of certain facts related to money laundering by the Government Anti-Corruption Commission of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same information was also forwarded to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. The owner of the Company is a man who, at the time of the purchase, was on a police wanted list for smuggling medical drugs among other allegations.
Who authorized Belgrade intervention police units, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, to interfere in the conflict between the two owners, and to take the leaders of the Strikers Committee and the Association of the Small Shareholders of “Jugoremedija” for questioning on August 19, after midnight? Instead of securing law and order, leaving the dispute between the owners to the court, the police and gendarmerie, with the private security guards, took the side of one of the factory owners, “Jaka 80”. They declared the strike of the workers-shareholders within the factory yard a public gathering, which they subsequently prohibited, thus violating the Law on Strike, and the property rights of the small shareholders of “Jugoremedija”. We recommend the Government to obtain the report on the conduct of the police forces and the private security guards on 19 and 20 August 2004 at “Jugoremedija” from the Ministry of Interior and present it to the public.

In Belgrade,

September, 16^th 2004

PRESIDENT,
Verica Barac

(Deutsch) Teuerungsrevolten — in Wien und in Frankreich.

October 25, 191117 September 1911, Event, TextWohlstand für Alleadmin

Aus. Wohlstand für Alle, Wien 25.10.1911

Die Ereignisse, die sich am 17. September in Wien abspielten, zeigen uns wieder einmal aufs klarste das Unheil, welches entsteht, wenn die Arbeiterklasse kein revolutionäres Empfinden und kein revolutionäres Ideal hat. Die Volksmassen, denen man, fortwährend blos das Eine vorgepredigt hat, daß sie auf ihre „Vertreter” und „Führer” vertrauen und diesen gehorchen müssen, und die von diesen Vertretern und Führern, von Obrigkeit und Gesetzen die Verbesserung ihrer Lage erwarten, haben, als diese Führer sie für einmal (sie wissen’s, warum!) sich selbst überließen, nichts anderes zu tun vermocht, als ihre Verzweiflung und ihren Haß durch blindwütendes Zertrümmern von Fenstern und Verwüsten von Parkanlagen und Schulen Luft zu machen. Sie haben nicht einmal versucht, ihren Zorn speziell gegen jene zu kehren, die am unmittelbarsten Schuld an der Verteuerung des Lebens sind — gegen die Spekulanten der Börse, und die Nahrungsmittel- und Hauszinswucherer. Die Idee, durch selbstständige Massenaktionen einen direkten Einfluß auf die Herabsetzung der Lebensmittelpreise und der Wohnungsmiete zu nehmen, ist ihnen nicht einmal in den Sinn gekommen.
Wie anders gingen in derselben Lage die französischen Arbeiter — oder besser gesagt, die französischen A r b e i t e r f r a u e n — vor!
Auch in den Arbeiterdistrikten Frankreichs gingen — wie so ziemlich überall — in der letzten Zeit die Preise der notwendigsten Nahrungsmittel — Milch, Butter, Eier, Fleisch, Brot, Gemüse etc. — bedeutend in die Höhe. Doch ein großer Teil des französischen Proletariats hat aus seinen Erfahrungen die Lehre gezogen, daß die Obrigkeit, das Parlament und die Regierung
dieser Teuerung nicht abhelfen kann — wie dieselben ja überhaupt teils weder die Macht noch den Willen haben können, irgendwelche Verbesserung in der Lage des arbeitenden Volkes durchzuführen, da die Herrschenden aus den Teuerungszuständen selbst profitieren. Die Arbeiterfrauen, die es natürlich aufs unmittelbarste zu fühlen bekommen, daß der heimgebrachte Lohn ihrer Männer für immer weniger und weniger im Haushalt reichte, sparten sich auch die Mühe, Bittgesuche an die Regierung und Protestresolutionen ans Parlament einzureichen — sie taten sich lieber zusammen, u m s i c h s e l b s t zu helfen.
Die aufgeweckteren und energischeren unter ihnen riefen die übrigen Genossinnen ihrer Stadt oder ihres Distriktes zu einer Besprechung zusammen. Da wurde dann der Preis für die verschiedenen Lebensmittel festgesetzt: von dem und dem T a g an d a r f der Liter Milch nicht mehr als 19 Centimes (19 h), das Kilo Butter nicht mehr als soundsoviel kosten usw. Von den Händlern, die höhere Preise rechnen, wird n i c h t s gekauft; die Hausfrauen, die höhere Preise z a h l e n , werden gesellschaftlich und im Umgang boykottiert, d. h. als Verräterinnen an der gemeinsamen guten Sache behandelt.
Diese Beschlüsse wurden den Händlern zur Kenntnis gebracht, mit der Aufforderung, ihre Preise entsprechend herabzusetzen. Den nächsten T a g erschienen die Arbeiterfrauen in Gruppen am Markt: wenn die Verkäufer die Lebensmittel zu den von den Konsumenten festgesetzten niedrigeren Preisen abgaben, ging alles in Ordnung vor s i c h ; jene aber, die nicht gleich nachgeben wollten, wurden umringt, man sagte ihnen gehörig die Meinung, und wenn sie hartnäckig auf ihre höheren Preise beharrten oder auf die Forderungen der Käufer mit Grobheiten oder Tätlichkeiten antworteten, wurden ihre Wagen und Stände im Nu leer, indem man einfach darnach griff und blos die nach eigener Preisbestimmung bemessene Geldsumme diesen Händlern hinwarf.
Diese direkte Aktion verfehlte selten ihren Zweck. Nach einigen solchen Vorkommnissen genügte sogar oft schon die bloße Drohung mit derselben, um die Preise herabzusetzen. Alle Preise wurden beträchtlich vermindert.
Freilich lief die Sache nicht immer so glatt ab. An manchen Orten versuchten die Händler unter dem Schutze der Obrigkeit (welche die Märkte durch die Polizei bewachen ließ, um die „ O r d n u n g ” aufrecht zu erhalten) ihre ausbeuterischen Preise auch weiterhin den Käufern aufzuzwingen. Aber
die Käufer kamen nicht; der Markt w u r d e b o y k o t t i e r t. Teils freiwillig, teils gezwungen, verzichteten sie auf einige T a g e auf die in Frage stehenden Lebensmittel und die Händler mußten ihre Waren verderben lassen oder nach Hause zurücktransportieren, wenn sie nicht die Preise herabsetzten.
Gruppen von Demonstranten bewachten die Zugänge der Städte, streiften auf der Landstraße und um die Gehöfte herum und ließen keinen Milchwagen, keinen Butter- und Eiertransport durch, dessen Verkäufer Sich nicht verpflichtete, den P r e i s t a r i f d e r K o n s u m e n t e n anzunehmen. Hatte sich ein Händler dennoch in die Stadt eingeschlichen und versuchte er, seine Ware im Geheimen an Boykottbrecher abzusetzen, wurde sein Laden ausgekundschaftet und dann desto mehr bedrängt. Oft wurde von den verbündeten Arbeiterfrauen eine noch bessere Taktik angewandt. Diese bestand darin, daß die Käufer die Ware der renitenten Verkäufer mit Beschlag belegten: Sie wählten einige unter sich aus, die auf der Stelle den Verkauf dieser Lebensmittel, zum Preis, den die Konsumenten festgesetzt hatten, bewerkstelligten ; das Erträgnis wurde dann dem Verkäufer eingehändigt. In manchen Städten erzwangen die Demonstranten — oft durch einen kurzen Generalstreik sämtlicher Arbeiter — überdies auch die A b s c h a f f u n g der städischen Verzehrungssteuer.
Welch ein Gegensatz zwischen diesen zielbewußten und zweckentsprechenden selbständigen wirtschaftlichen Vorgehen der französischen Arbeiterfrauen und dem wüsten Krawall, in den sich das immer am Gängelband der Politiker geführte, arme Wiener Proletariat hat hineinhetzen lassen und der nichts als ein brutales Nieder- trampeln des Volkes durch bewaffnete und richterliche Gewalt nach sich ziehen konnte!
W a s dem Proletariat nottut, das ist die klare Erkenntnis dessen, w a s e s will, und die Erfahrung, daß es das, was es braucht, nur s e l b s t , durch e i g e n e Kraft erringen kann. Kürzere Arbeitszeit und höhere L ö h n e , erschwingbare Lebensmittel- und Wohnungspreise — all dies kann nur durch
das unmittelbare Eingreifen (die direkte Aktion) jener, die dessen bedürfen, erreicht, werden — dadurch, daß die Arbeiter und Arbeiterinnen mit einem, alle umfassenden, gemeinsamen Entschluß s i c h w e i g e r n , längere Zeit und für weniger Lohn zu arbeiten und höhere Preise für ihre Woh-
nungen und Lebensbedürfnisse zu bezahlen. Auf diese Weise werden sie nicht nur eine sofortige zeitweilige Erleichterung ihrer Lebenslage erreichen, sondern sie werden durch fortwährende Übung ihre Macht erkennen und festigen, die in ihrer Arbeit, ihrem selbständigen Handeln und ihrem Zusammenhalten liegt — und mit dieser Macht werden sie alsbald im Stande sein, den Gesellschaftszustand, aus welchem ihre Armut entspringt, von Grund aus und auf immer umzugestalten. Sie werden eine Gesellschaft begründen, wo die Erde und die Arbeitsmittel und deren Erträgnis jenen gehören, die dieselben brauchen und gebrauchen, und wo das arbeitende Volk, in Gruppen und Föderationen vereinigt, ohne Herrschaft uud fremde Einmischung seine Angelegenheiten regelt: Eine Gesellschaft des Wohlstandes und der Freiheit für Alle, die k o m m u n i s t i s c h e A n a r c h i e .
Wo aber dieses Ideal und die Energie zum selbständigen Handeln dafür fehlen, da wird da? arbeitende Volk immer ausgebeutet und geknechtet bleiben. Sogar seine Empörungen gegen unerträgliche Zustände — wenn es sich noch zu solchen aufraffen kann — werden dazu mißbraucht werden, um e i n e herrschende Politikantenkaste zu G u n s t e n e i n e r a n d e r e n z u stürzen.
Folgen die Arbeiter immer nur blindlings den Anordnungen ihrer Führer, ohne selbst nachzudenken, wie die Befolgung dieser Befehle ihre eigenen Interessen berührt, wie es leider in Österreich durch die Bank der Fall ist — dann werden sie immer nur ein W e r k z e u g für das politische Diäten-
Interesse dieser Führer sein, wie der 17. September es u n s lehrt. Sie w e r d e n sich die Köpfe einschlagen lassen, d a m i t einige Gemeinderäte und A b g e o r d n e t e , G e w e r k s c h a f t s – und Parteibeamte ihre Herrschaft — u n t e r welcher die M a s s e d e s P r o l e t a r i a t s s c h o n letzt genugsam zu leiden h a t — n o c h m e h r befestigen und ausdehnen.