(Deutsch) 04 Panikengasse – 17. September 2011


Historisches

Gegen drei, halb vier Uhr am 17. September 1911 haben Aufständische die Wachstube in der Panikengasse angegriffen. Dazu haben sie erstmal von der Haltestelle der Straßenbahn Eisenstangen besorgt, und damit haben sie dann die Einrichtung der Wachstube zerstört. Den Telegraph, der im Wachzimmer war, haben sie auf die Straße geworfen.

Auch Straßenbahnwagen sind in der Panikengasse angegriffen worden. Die DemonstrantInnen haben die Wagen angehalten, die Fahrgäste aussteigen lassen, und dann haben sie den Wagen umgeworfen und als Barrikade benutzt. Einige Straßenbahnen sind auch angezündet worden.

Und dann ist noch die Schule in der Panikengasse, wie fast alle Schulen im Bezirk, angegriffen und verwüstet worden. Das Feuer, das die Jugendlichen dort gelegt haben, ist allerdings von der Polizei rasch wieder gelöscht worden.

Kurz nach vier Uhr ist in der Panikengasse dann auf DemonstrantInnen geschossen worden, dabei ist ein junges Mädchen im Unterleib getroffen worden.

Kaum eine Woche nach dem Aufstand ist dann ein 24jähriger Schlossergeselle zu 15 Monaten schweren Kerker verurteilt worden, weil er in der Panikengasse Steine auf Polizisten geworfen haben soll. Ein Hilfsarbeiter hat einen Monat Arrest bekommen, weil er der Wache zugerufen hat „Auslassen! Die haben ja gar nichts gemacht!“

Dass Polizisten und Militärs, die auf Menschen geschossen und mit ihren Bajonetten und Säbeln eingestochen und gedroschen haben, verurteilt worden sind, haben wir nirgendwo finden können.

(Deutsch) 03 Herbststraße (Heilig-Geist-Kirche – 17. September 2011)


Historisches

Hier, bei der Heilig-Geist-Kirche, haben Spezialeinheiten der Armee Aufständische angegriffen, die sogenannten „Bosniaken“. Diese Infanterie-Einheit, die nur ursprünglich aus bosnischen Armeeangehörigen bestanden hat, war eine Elitetruppe innerhalb der k.u.k.-Armee, in der u.a. der spätere österreichische Bundespräsident Adolf Schärf gedient hat.

Ein wenig weiter stadteinwärts liegt auf der rechten Seite die Radetzky-Kaserne, ein riesiger Komplex, errichtet in den 90er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sie lag am Rand des Truppenübungsplatzes, der sich über die gesamte, damals noch viel größere Schmelz gezogen hat. Im Februar 1934 sind von dieser Kaserne aus die Aufständischen gegen den Austro-Faschismus, die sich in Gemeindebauten verschanzt haben, beschossen worden. Und während der nationalsozialistischen Terrorherrschaft ist hier eine SS-Einheit stationiert gewesen.

Auf Teilen des Truppenübungsplatzes ist in den 90er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts der Ortsteils Neu-Ottakring entstanden, durch den wir heute gehen. Das ist ein auf dem Reißbrett entworfenes Grätzl mit schnurgeraden Straßen, ideal zur Aufstandsbekämpfung. Da, wo heute noch die Schmelz ist, war 1911 unter anderem die Dampfkraftgewinnungsanstalt, und die ist auch von den DemonstrantInnen angegriffen worden.

Und von der Schmelz her haben Gruppen von Jugendlichen am 17. September 1911 immer wieder Angriffe gegen die Polizei und die Soldaten durchgeführt. Sie sind aufgetaucht, haben Steine geworfen und sind wieder im Dunkel der G’stätt’n verschwunden.

Die Sozialdemokratie hat später verbreitet, dass es vor allem Jugendliche und Arbeitslose, „Lumpenproletariat“ genannt, waren, die diesen Aufstand durchgeführt haben. Aber in ihrer eigenen Zeitung, der Arbeiter-Zeitung, lesen wir von einer Ottakringer Arbeiterin, die zum Redakteur meint: „Die Weiber haben die Staner hergeschleppt in die Schürzen und die Buben haben’s geschmissen. Schauen’S nur, net a Fenster ist ganz da bei der Anstalt.“ Und sie meint damit die Impfstoffgewinnungsanstalt, die neben der Schule am Schuhmeierplatz lag.

Und an anderer Stelle gibt die Arbeiter-Zeitung die Stimmung der DemonstrantInnen so wieder: „Als auf der Ringstraße die ersten Steine flogen, drängte sich einer unserer Vertrauensmänner in die erste Reihe der Demonstranten und mit dem Aufgebot seiner ganzen Stimmittel suchte er die erbitterte Menge von dem ziellosen Zerstörungswerk abzuhalten. Da legte eine alte Frau ihre Hand auf seine Schulter und rief ihm zu: ‚Lassen Sie doch die Leute! Was soll man denn tun, wenn das Kilo Zucker mehr als eine Krone kostet?’ Das war die Stimmung der Tausenden.“ Es waren also wohl doch die ArbeiterInnen, die diesen Aufstand getragen haben.

Und danach

Vier Menschen sind am 17. September 1911 vom Militär und der Polizei durch Bajonettstiche, Säbelhiebe oder Schüsse umgebracht, ungefähr 130 Personen zum Teil schwer verletzt worden. Die meisten Opfer waren junge ArbeiterInnen, Otto Brötzenberger beispielsweise ein 21jähriger Eisenbieger, Franz Joachimsthaler ein 24jähriger Schlosser und Mitglied einer sozialdemokratischen Jugendgruppe. Nach beiden sind heute Orte in Ottakring benannt. Ein Mann hat sich in der Untersuchungshaft das Leben genommen.

Gleich nach dem 17. September hat eine Welle von Gerichtsprozessen gegen die rund 500 Verhafteten, von denen die meisten in Untersuchungshaft geblieben sind, eingesetzt. Dabei waren die allermeisten Delikte eher Bagatellen, nämlich Teilnahme an der Demonstration, Widersetzlichkeit gegen die Wache (das waren oftmals nur Rufe wie „Lasst die Gefangenen frei!“ und ähnliche) und Sachbeschädigung durch Steinwürfe.

Die Sozialdemokratische Partei hat den Angeklagten Anwälte zur Verfügung gestellt, aber die Verteidigungsstrategie war verheerend. Die Partei ist natürlich von der Presse und der Regierung scharf angegriffen und als Drahtzieherin des Aufstands denunziert worden. Deshalb haben die Anwälte versucht, ihre Angeklagten als Einzeltäter ohne politischen Hintergrund zu präsentieren. Und damit sind politische Prozesse, die diese Verfahren ja waren, als ganz normale Kriminalfälle geworden abgehandelt worden.

Kaum ein Angeklagter hat sich, zumindest aus dem, was uns an entsprechenden Zeitungsberichten vorliegt, gegen die Anschuldigungen gewehrt, kaum einer hat auf die Teuerungen und die Wohnungsnot als Ursache der Proteste hingewiesen, kaum einer auf die Provokationen der Polizei und der Armee, auf die Misshandlungen beim Verhör und die konstruierten Anklagen.

Den Angeklagten hat die Entpolitisierungsstrategie in keiner Weise genützt, die Strafen, die sie ausgefasst haben, waren drakonisch. Für einen Steinwurf, der einen Laternenmast demoliert hat, ist ein Jahr unbedingte Gefängnisstrafe verhängt worden. Selbst für den Ruf „Hoch die Anarchie!“ haben die Richter noch drei Monate Gefängnis verhängt. Als strafverschärfend ist die Mitgliedschaft in einer ArbeiterInnenorganisation hinzugekommen, strafmildern hingegen haben sich Beziehungen, etwa die von Verwandten zu höheren Kreisen der Veraltung, ausgewirkt.

Besonders hart sind junge, arme Menschen bestraft worden, auf die sich die Teuerungen doch besonders stark ausgewirkt haben. Die Urteile haben vor allem der Abschreckung gedient, und deshalb haben die Verfahren rasch erledigt werden müssen, damit niemand auf die Idee kommt, sich noch einmal gegen die Obrigkeit aufzulehnen.

Die juristische Abwicklung der riots in London 2011 ist genau demselben Muster gefolgt. Da haben plötzlich eine Menge Richter Überstunden eingeschoben, damit die Angeklagten in Schnellverfahren möglichst rasch zu abschreckend hohen Strafen verurteilt werden. Und so wie schon 1911 in Wien, und wie übrigens fast immer bei solchen Anlässen, sind die Belastungszeugen fast ausschließlich die Polizisten gewesen, die die Leute festgenommen haben. Bekannte der Angeklagten sind als Zeugen fast durchweg für unglaubwürdig erklärt oder gar selbst mit einem Gerichtsverfahren überzogen worden.

Leider haben es auch viele der Betroffenen den Gerichten leicht gemacht. Um rascher aus dem Gefängnis zu kommen, haben sie auf eine Voruntersuchung verzichtet. In der Hoffnung, dass ein Geständnis als mildernd gewertet wird, haben viele kleine Vergehen zugegeben. Dabei heißt es doch bekanntlich vor Gericht „sagst du ja, bleibst du da – sagst du nichts, gehst du heim“. Die Richter haben das alles gegen die Angeklagten verwendet und sie erst recht zu unbedingten Haftstrafen verurteilt.

(Deutsch) 02 Schuhmeierplatz


Historisches

Dieser Platz, auf dem wir uns hier befinden, ist nach dem Chef der Ottakringer Sozialdemokraten zur Zeit des Aufstands 1911, Franz Schuhmeier, benannt. Schuhmeier selbst ist 1913 von Paul Kunschak, einem Bruder des späteren christlich-sozialen Nationalratspräsidenten Leopold Kunschak, am Nordbahnhof erschossen worden, es war ein politisch motiviertes Attentat. Sein Begräbnis ist zur größten Demonstration geworden, die Wien gesehen hat, fast eine halbe Million Menschen haben daran teilgenommen. Der Mörder ist 1918 im Zuge der allgemeinen politischen Amnestie nach Kriegsende wieder freigekommen. 1911 hat der Platz hier noch Habsburgplatz geheißen, aber die Schule hat es bereits gegeben.

Am Schuhmeierplatz hat es die längsten und härtesten Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Aufständischen, vor allem Jugendlichen auf der einen und Polizei und Armee auf der anderen Seite gegeben.

Ausgelöst worden sind die Auseinandersetzungen hier durch einen Militäreinsatz beim Arbeiterheim gegen 16 Uhr, über den wir später noch berichten werden. Nach diesem Militäreinsatz ist ein Teil der Demonstranten hierher auf den Habsburgplatz gezogen, darunter viele Jugendliche, die zum Teil SchülerInnen der Schule hier gewesen sind.

Wie überall haben auch hier die DemonstrantInnen alle Laternen zerstört. Sie haben die Fensterscheiben der Schule eingeworfen, und mit einem Holzpfosten das Schultor eingedrückt. Einige Jugendliche sind in das Gebäude eingedrungen, haben Schulbänke aus den Fenstern geworfen, die draußen zu Barrikaden verarbeitet worden sind, und haben Zeugnisse, Hefte und Klassenbücher vernichtet.

Vor der Schule haben inzwischen andere aus dem Umfriedungsgitter der Schule Eisenstangen herausgebrochen und damit weitere Fenster eingeschlagen. Aus Schulbänken und Bauholz von einer nahen Baustelle sind dann zwei Scheiterhaufen errichtet und angezündet worden. Schließlich ist in der Schule die Wohnung des Schuldieners, der zu dieser Zeit unterwegs war, um die Polizei zu Hilfe zu rufen, in Brand gesteckt worden.

Um halb sieben Uhr hat dann der Polizeichef, der zu dieser Zeit am Hofferplatz war, Polizei und Militär zum Habsburgplatz geschickt. Die sind über die Thaliastraße vorgerückt, es waren einige Kompanien Infanterie und größere Kavallerieabteilungen dabei.

In der Thaliastraße haben zuvor schon Aufständische Eisendrähte quer über die Fahrbahn gespannt, um die Kavallerie am Vorkommen zu hindern. Zusätzlich sind mehrere Barrikaden quer über die Straße errichtet worden. Dazu haben die Aufständischen Bänke aus den Parks, Gasrohre und Material von Baustellen verwendet. Die Soldaten haben es also nicht leicht gehabt, vom Hofferplatz herauf zum Habsburgplatz zu kommen. Mehrere haben sich in den Drähten verheddert und sind vom Pferd gestürzt, dann haben sie erst die Menschen hinter den Barrikaden vertreiben müssen, ehe die Barrikaden abgebaut haben werden können. Und dazu sind die Soldaten immer wieder von den Häusern aus mit Gegenständen aller Art beworfen worden.

Die Feuerwehr ist vor den Soldaten am Habsburgplatz eingetroffen, und auch sie ist angegriffen worden. Zwischen die Beine der Pferde haben die Leute Sessel geworfen und sie so zu Sturz gebracht. Die Feuerwehrleute sind mit Stöcken und Steinen bedacht worden. Erst als das Militär und die Polizei am Habsburgplatz eingetroffen sind, haben die Feuer gelöscht werden können.

Trotzdem haben die Auseinandersetzungen am Habsburgplatz noch weiter angedauert, erst um halb zehn Uhr abends, als es im ganzen Bezirk schon stockfinster war, die Haustore auf Befehl der Polizei abgesperrt haben werden müssen, enden am Habsburgplatz die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Jugendlichen und den staatlichen Repressionskräften. Danach wird hier Kavallerie stationiert, der Platz gleicht einem Heerlager.

Hintergründe

Die sozialdemokratische Arbeiter-Zeitung war sich nach dem 17. September mit den bürgerlichen Zeitungen einig: Die Zerstörungen an diesem Tag waren das Werk von „gewissenlosen Skandalmachern“ und Provokateuren, von „Jugendbanden“ und „Lumpenproletariat“, Darüber waren sich übrigens auch die Zeitungen in ihrer Berichterstattung über die riots in London und anderen britischen Städten in diesem Sommer einig.

Verschwiegen worden ist sowohl im heurigen Sommer als auch 1911, dass die Aufstände jeweils mit Provokationen durch die Polizei begonnen haben. In Wien 1911 waren das die Einkesselungen der abziehenden oder noch vor dem Rathaus stehenden DemonstrantInnen und die folgenden Angriffe auf die Eingekesselten.

In London hat die Polizei am 4. August 2011 den 29jährigen Aktivisten Mark Duggan einfach erschossen. Als eine aufgebrachte Menge vor dem zuständigen Polizeikommissariat Aufklärung über diesen Mord gefordert hat, ist eine 16jährige Kundgebungsteilnehmerin vor den Augen ihrer FreundInnen von 15 Polizisten zusammengeschlagen worden. Das erst hat das Fass zum Überlaufen gebracht.

Die Angriffsziele der Aufständischen 1911 waren die öffentliche Beleuchtung und der Verkehr, öffentliche Gebäude und Fabriken, wobei letztere sehr rasch von der Polizei genauestens bewacht worden sind.

Die Zerstörung der Straßenbeleuchtung hat, zusammen mit dem Barrikadenbau und dem Lahmlegen der Straßenbahnen, dazu gedient, der Gegenseite ein Eindringen in den Bezirk zu erschweren und die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Beteiligten zu verunmöglichen. Heute kommt zur Beleuchtung die Videoüberwachung hinzu, und die ist gerade in London nahezu lückenlos. Die Polizei hat dann auch Aufnahmen von öffentlichen und privaten Videokameras dazu verwendet, sogenannte StraftäterInnen auszuforschen und die Bilder auf öffentlich aufgestellten Großbildschirmen gezeigt.

Die Schulen waren ganz offensichtlich bei den Ottakringer Jugendlichen besonders verhasst, und wir müssen uns dazu in Erinnerung rufen, dass die Prügelstrafe damals als sogenanntes Disziplinierungsinstrument im Unterricht gang und gäbe war.

Es ist also Unsinn zu meinen, der Ottakringer Aufstand sei völlig plan- und ziellos verlaufen. Was gefehlt hat, war eine Koordinierung unter den Aufständischen. Die Versuche, die Aktionen zu koordinieren, sind in London wiederum zum Teil über die Handys gelaufen, und auch das haben die Gerichte ausgenutzt, um Menschen zu drakonischen Haftstrafen zu verurteilen, bloß weil sie sich mit anderen telefonisch verabredet haben.

(Deutsch) 01 Historisches und Aktuelles – 17. September 2011


Historisches

Willkommen bei unserem Rundgang durch Ottakring anläßlich des 100. Jahrestages des Aufstands in diesem Bezirk. Das Grätzl zwischen Gürtel, Thaliastraße, Vorortelinie und Gablenzgasse ist in den 90er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts bebaut worden. Davor war es Teil des riesigen Truppenübungsplatzes Schmelz.

Um uns in der Zeit, über die wir heute sprechen wollen, zurecht zu finden, wollen wir erstmal ein wenig zurückblicken. Wie wir spätestens seit 2008 wieder wissen, funktioniert die kapitalistische Wirtschaft, die Warenwirtschaft … nicht. Sie schafft immer neue Höhenflüge, um immer wieder am Bauch zu landen, in der Sprache der Wirtschaftswissenschaften nennen wir das Konjunktur und Krise.

Um es kurz zu machen: Nach der Weltwirtschaftskrise 1873 haben die industrialisierten Länder fast 20 Jahre gebraucht, um aus der Stagnation herauszukommen.

Aber in den 90er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts ist dann die Industrialisierung in unerhörtem Maß vorangeschritten, und die Nachfrage nach Arbeitskräften entsprechend gestiegen. Deshalb ist es zu einer riesigen Migration von Menschen, vor allem aus ländlichen Gebieten, nach Wien gekommen. Die EinwohnerInnenanzahl hat sich innerhalb von wenigen Jahrzehnten auf 2 Millionen verdoppelt.

Im Jahr 1910 waren die Mehrheit der Wiener Bevölkerung MigrantInnen, von denen fast die Hälfte aus Böhmen und Mähren gekommen ist. Dieser Zuzug war durchaus geplant, die Lehrlinge und ArbeiterInnen sind oft über private Agenten angeworben worden, ähnlich wie dann wieder in den 1960er Jahren. Und beide Male waren vor allem unqualifizierte ArbeiterInnen gefragt, weil die billig gewesen sind und– zumindest haben die Unternehmer sich das so gedacht – leicht zu kontrollieren und im Zaum zu halten. Naja.

Diese MigrantInnen haben sich wiedergefunden in den ebenfalls geplanten, neu errichteten Vororten außerhalb des Gürtels. Das waren am Reißbrett entworfene Siedlungen mit schnurgeraden Straßen, mit standardisierten Wohnungen, d.h. Substandardwohnungen mit Clo und Wasser am Gang. Und weil die Nachfrage nach Wohnungen das Angebot übertroffen hat, mit horrenden Mietzinsen.

Um 1911 hat es in Wien also eine verheerende Wohnungsnot gegeben, und dazu sind die ständigen Preissteigerungen bei Lebensmitteln gekommen. Das hat nicht nur für Wien gegolten, das war in Frankreich oder England nicht viel anders. Und deshalb hat es auch in vielen Ländern und Städten Hungerrevolten gegeben, Streiks, Mietzinsboykotte und so weiter. In Wien hat sich durch die Teuerung die Kaufkraft des Geldes um wenigsens ein Drittel verringert. Ab Anfang September hat es in den ArbeiterInnenbezirken Versammlungen zu diesem Thema gegeben, bei denen bereits absehbar war, wie wütend die Menschen über diese Entwicklung waren.

Für den 17. September 1911 hat die Wiener Sozialdemokratie dann zu einer Kundgebung gegen die Teuerungen aufgerufen. Und es sind viel mehr Menschen gekommen, als die SP gedacht hätte, nämlich um die 100.000. Deshalb hat die Kundgebung dann auch nicht im Rathaus, sondern davor stattgefunden.

Und gekommen sind auch fast alle Wiener Polizisten und große Teile des in Wien stationierten Heeres. Wie nun die Kundgebung aus war, das war gegen 11 Uhr vormittags, und als die meisten DemonstrantInnen den Rathausplatz bereits verlassen gehabt haben, hat das Militär den gesamten Platz eingekesselt, auf dem noch tausende Leute waren. Und die Polizei hat damit begonnen, die Leute vom Platz zu jagen. Also sind diese Leute zwangsläufig auf das Militär gestoßen, und es hat die ersten Verletzten gegeben, bis die Menge dann an einer Stelle durchbrechen hat können.

Und während diese DemonstrantInnen zuvor noch die Soldaten willkommen geheißen haben, waren sie jetzt so richtig aufgebracht. Ihr Zorn hat sich erst gegen das Rathaus gerichtet, weil es geheißen hat, dass dort jemand Kohlestücke runtergeschmissen hätte. So sind auf zwei Seiten vom Rathaus so ziemlich alle Fensterscheiben bis in den 1. Stock eingeworfen worden, und danach beim Bezirksamt in der Schmidgasse gleich hinter dem Rathaus.

Ein Teil der DemonstrantInnen, die vorher schon abzegogen sind, ist beim äußeren Burgtor aufgehalten worden und wieder in einen Kessel geraten. Dann hat es geheißen, es sei aus dem Verwaltungsgerichtshof auf sie geschossen worden. Der war damals im heutigen Palais Epstein am Ring bei der Bellaria untergebracht. Also hat sich die Wut an diesem Gebäude ausgelassen, und erst sind hier, danach beim Justizpalast, der dahinter liegt, die Fensterscheiben eingeworfen worden.

Dann haben Polizei und Militär bereits Jagd auf diese großen Gruppen von DemonstrantInnen gemacht und sie über die 2er Linie in Richtung Ottakring gedrängt. Vor allem in der Burggasse und der Lerchenfelderstraße sind so ziemlich alle Laternen von den DemonstrantInnen zerschlagen worden. Auch viele Geschäfte, vor allem Papiergeschäfte, sind demoliert worden.

Am Gürtel haben die DemonstrantInnen erste Barrikaden errichtet, dazu haben sie auch Straßenbahnwagen benutzt. Und so hat sich aus der Kundgebung ein Aufstand entwickelt, der schließlich hier, in Ottakring, seinen Höhepunkt gefunden hat.

Wir werden jetzt einen Rundgang durch das Gebiet machen, in dem dieser Aufstand stattgefunden hat. Wir werden ein bißchen erzählen, was an den besuchten Orten vorgefallen ist. Und wir werden versuchen, Parallelen zu heute zu ziehen. Beginnen wir gleich damit:

Aktuelles

Österreich

So wie 1911 gibt es auch heute überteuerte Mieten, und so wie damals steigen gerade in den letzten Jahren die Preise für Lebensmittel und Energie enorm an. Ein kleiner Preissteigerungs-Rap für Wien 2011 gefällig? 2

Kategoriemietzinse, Verwaltungskostenpauschale bei den Wohnungs-Betriebskosten 5% Erhöhung

Kostenbeitrag für mobile Pflege 5,5% Erhöhung

Eier, Milchprodukte 6% Preissteigerung

Abwasser, Müllgebühr 6,2% Erhöhung

Obst, Fernwärme 8% Preissteigerung

Gas 15,5% Preissteigerung

Benzin 17% Preissteigerung

Kaffeee 27% Preissteigerung

Wasser 33% Preissteigerung

Zucker 35% Preissteigerung

Die Arbeiterkammer rechnet für heuer mit einer realen Inflation, d.h. mit Preissteigerungen bei Produkten und Dienstleistungen, die arbeitende Menschen hauptsächlich kaufen müssen, um 6,9%, und damit ist die Inflation, die uns tatsächlich betrifft, ungefähr doppelt so hoch wie die offiziell angegebene.

International

Noch schlimmer steht es um die Lebensmittelteuerungen, wenn wir uns die Welt insgesamt ansehen. Seit 1990 sind die Lebensmittelpreise um 230% angestiegen. Allein zwischen Oktober 2010 und Jänner 2011 waren es weitere 15%, wodurch weitere 44 Millionen Menschen auf dieser Welt in extreme Armut gedrängt worden sind. Insgesamt hungern heute 1Milliarde Menschen weltweit, das heißt jeder siebte Mensch ist unterernährt.

Dieser Hunger ist gemacht. Mais, Soja und andere Lebensmittel werden verstärkt zur Biosprit-Produktion herangezogen, deshalb haben schon Anfang 2007 in Mexiko erste Aufstände stattgefunden. Im Jahr 2008 haben sich diese Brotunruhen auf d08:46 12.09.2011en ganzen Erdball ausgedehnt:

In Haiti ist 2008 der Premierminister ausgetauscht worden, nachdem bei Hungerrevolten fünf Menschen ums Leben gekommen sind.

In Mahalla al-Kubra in Ägypten haben sich tausende ArbeiterInnen Straßenschlachten mit der Polizei geliefert, in Thailand, auf den Philippinen, in Marokko hat es Demonstrationen und Aufstände gegeben. Und wie haben diese Aufstände ausgesehen?

Erst kommt es zu mehr oder weniger spontanen Aufläufen von protestierenden Menschen auf der Straße, die sich über die Preiserhöhungen beschweren. Dann kommt die Polizei und versucht, diese Zusammenkünfte aufzulösen, was die Wut der Menschen nur noch steigert. Und schließlich beginnen meist junge Menschen, Barrikaden zu errichten, Steine gegen die Sicherheitskräfte und gegen Schaufenster zu werfen und wo möglich Geschäfte zu plündern. Jetzt geht die Polizei mit verstärkter Gewalt gegen die DemonstrantInnen vor, allzu oft gibt es dabei Todesopfer zu beklagen. Und in den darauffolgenden Wochen gibt es Serien von Prozessen gegen die DemonstrantInnen oder auch Unbeteiligte.

Vielleicht versucht auch die Regierung zu beschwichtigen, indem kurzfristig einige Lebensmittelpreise per Subventionierung gesenkt werden, was im Endeffekt auch nur heißt, dass die SteuerzahlerInnen den vollen Preis bezahlen und die Unternehmer weiterhin den vollen Gewinn einstreifen können.

Es hat sich also seit 1911 zwar einiges geändert, das grundlegende Problem für die Veschlechterung der Lebenssituation der meisten Menschen ist aber immer noch das gleiche. Wir können es schlicht Diebstahl in unglaublichem Ausmaß durch die Unternehmer nennen, oder, wem das besser gefällt, Profitmaximierung innerhalb der kapitalistischen Verwertung.

Kein Wunder also, dass die Geschichte des Kapitalismus auch eine Geschichte von Aufständen gegen die Lebensmittelteuerung ist. Victor Adler hat dazu nach dem Aufstand vom 17. September 1911 im Parlament, an die Adresse der bürgerlichen Abgeordneten gerichtet, gesagt: „Wundern Sie sich nicht darüber, meine Herren, wenn einmal ein Ausbruch passiert, sondern das Wunder, das täglich sich wiederholende Wunder ist, dass die Massen im ganzen Reich die herrschenden Zustände ertragen und nicht losbrechen.“

(Deutsch) Aufruf – 17. September 2011


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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

In-Between Castles and Barracks…

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

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

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