Saturday, November 28, 2015

DESTRUCTION OF THE SOCIALISM AT THE BALKANS, THE CASE OF THE ERASED





DESTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM AT THE BALKANS, THE CASE OF THE ERASED
Interview with Dimitri Anakiev for the Veteran Voice, Kikinda
Conducted by Vladimir Radojčić
VR: How has the Slovenian public, in all these years, reacted to the case of the erased, namely, its intellectuals, media, politicians?
DA: Let me, first of all, before answering to your question, describe the circumstances which are of relevance for our topic. The erased are, just like the wars in the nineties, part of the disintegration of our common homeland, the SFR of Yugoslavia. Therefore, our true subject matter is the state disintegration and its meaning. Why did Yugoslavia have to fall apart? Why did we have to war? These are important questions that I would like to offer some answers to and then fit your questions into them. Since the erased, like the wars of the nineties, are not an isolated theme. The most important thing in the disintegration of Yugoslavia is its autochthonous socialist character. Yugoslavia fell apart because it was assailed by a victorious wave of capitalism and its irrepressible imperialism that ran over us and proceeded to further ravage Africa, Asia and Ukraine. In that context, the present refugees from Africa and Asia are part of the same problem. Of course, the imperialists have found, just like in the Second World War, their collaborationists in all the republics of former Yugoslavia. These were the members of the former communist nomenclature that was in power. They, in order to meet the needs of their new masters, firstly promoted nationalism and then staged a bloody war that they drew us into. Surely the whole thing was long and well prepared since the state does not collapse so easily as a house of cards. Its vanguard was the culture in which, in the eighties, works spreading nationalist ideas began to appear. The domestic collaborationists were promised spoils of war and priorities in privatization, that is, in plundering of the social property and its transformation into the private ownership of the chosen individuals. And so it happened. The erasure of Yugoslavs from the official records, just like the wars of the nineties, had two basic goals; firstly, to destroy socialism and its values (such as, for instance, „brotherhood and unity“, social justice, etc.) and, secondly, to help create a much needed smoke screen behind which the plundering of the social property could take place. While we were warring, killing or being killed, they were stealing-privatizing companies and social property... That is why the answer to your above question is the same for Slovenia exactly as for all the other ex-Yu regions in the nineties or even later. Most of the nomenclatures and the intelligences related to them served the interests of foreign capital and heartily kept on creating the conditions for what was going to happen to happen. Whoever offered resistance to it was either liquidated or banished. In that sense, the erased Yugoslavs in Slovenia are kind of banished citizens.
VR: Slovenia has, under the pressure of the European Court, issued The Act Regulating Compensation for Damage to Persons Erased from the Permanent Population Register that entered into force in June, 2014. How does the state of Slovenia, in practice, give compensation to the erased?
DA: Justice is never abstract or universal; the courts exist in order to protect the system in power rather than to satisfy individuals or people. Since we, the erased ones, have organized an exceptionally adamant resistance and since we have found firm strongholds in Slovenian people, and because, first of all, we have managed to efficiently document what the government in Slovenia did with us as well as to show the documentation to the world – in this we were helped very much by the reformed Communist Party of Italy through its lawyers and its members of the European Parliament – the European Court had no other option but, as urgently as possible, to smother and smooth over the whole thing and thus maintain peace at home, that is, save its system. They decided that the Slovenian government had been guilty for violating the human rights while we were granted symbolic compensations. That is how the whole thing ended. The compensations are not only so symbolic that they are even unworthy of the time spent on talking about them; they are, as some pittance, of order of one month salary distributed in a five year period...
VR: Many of the erased are not longer among the living; how do you interpret that so much time was needed to acknowledge, in the first place, the injustice done to all of you?
DA: We could have never reached the European Court on our own, despite our fervent struggle if it had not been for a sudden appearance, as of an uninvited foreign factor, of the PRC (Partido de la Refundación Comunista) participating in the whole thing which was a sheer coincidence. Namely, one of the PRC members fell in love with a woman from Kopar; on his frequent visits to Koper and Ljuljana he happened to have seen a video documentary about the erased which were, in those days, emitted all over Slovenia for propaganda purposes, that is, for the sake of making youth and people familiar with the things happening to the erased. On seeing it, he was shocked; he collected all the available materials and took them to Rome, to the party headquarters of the PRC. The comrades from the PRC headquarters decided to act immediately; they allotted to us two of their lawyers of world class and repute (Lana and Sacuchi) while calling upon the Members of the European Parliament to organize parliamentary sessions about the erased. That is how the whole thing gained in momentum; otherwise, neither any of us nor others would have ever seen any formal victory at the European Court – if it would have ever got there at all without Italians. The Italian comrade who has obliged us so much deserves his name to be mentioned here: this is Roberto Pignoni, otherwise Professor of geometry at the University of Roma.
VR: The European Union obviously did not mind that Slovenia with over 25,000 erased citizens became its member. Did Europe close its eyes before these terrifying stories of the people?
DA: The state propaganda, that is, the media of collaboration with imperialism, give a wrong representation of the EU. That is why, in our minds, a much more favorable image is created which does not correspond to truth. The European Union represents itself as a union of peoples which is not true. The European Union and its institutions are only executive organs of the world imperialism. This is a union of corrupted governors ruling over enslaved peoples. The case of Greece has shown it most clearly and so have all other cases; numberless proofs exist. For instance, the Slovenian government, after having destroyed its economy by privatization, is incessantly making loans in order to be able to pay wages and function. Though formally, at elections, people choose who is going to rule, whoever is chosen will be on the payroll of foreign capital which means that the people-elected one is irrelevant since the one who is paid by foreign capital will work for its interests and against those of the people. Someone has proposed to abolish elections; instead of electing members of the government, they should be chosen by lot. This proposal absolutely fits the present state of affairs.
VR: What about those guilty for bureaucratic genocide? Who has patented it?
DA: In my answer to the first question I called the erased Yugoslavs „banished citizens“. I think this is more proper than „ethnic cleansing“ or „genocide“ since among the erased ones there are many different ethnic affiliations including even Slovenians. The principle of cleansing was not ethnic but political. According to the last Population Census from SFRY in Slovenia as many as about 25,000 people declared their nationality as „Yugoslav“; this seems to have been the „group targeted“ for erasure: the aim was to destroy Yugoslavs, those who loved Slovenia and who felt at home in it. On the other hand, nationalists of other nations in Slovenia were not a trouble at all since they served their purpose. For instance, the cultural center of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Ljubljana was built up by Janša's government. But the Yugoslavs were the ones to banish and erase and their property plundered. The political prosecution originated in ancient Greece where it was called ostracism (ostrakon being a pottery shard that the name of the person to-be-expelled was scratched on). Already in ancient Greece ostracism was a non-parliamentary measure, designed for dangerous individuals whose very presence was jeopardy to the government. However, this measure was restricted, exactly because of its non-parliamentary character; it could not be massive and the banishment was just for a given period of time while no one could lay hands on the property of the banished. We were, however, robbed. The erased could not buy off their flats; neither is it known how many flats were sold (somewhat between 1000 and 5000 flats is just a rough estimate), nor who got hold of them. All this happened despite the succession agreement of ex-Yugoslav countries which forbids the citizenship principle in solving ownership issues and so does the international law... Ostracism was later on taken up by Stalin who made it a totalitarian measure. He erased people and history in broad sweeps. So that ostracism in Slovenia was applied by people skillful at this job... The guilty ones were never punished since the issue was allegedly belated in legal terms; this is in itself debatable since it was never classified in that sense so that no such claims could be made. Slovenia refuses cooperation on the documentation of the post-Yugoslav crimes. Pahor, a converted communist, does not want to cooperate with Nataša Kandić's REKOM. Slovenia is the only former Yu state which has refused to cooperate with the REKOM. However, it is less strange when someone does not want his crimes and robbery to be talk of the day; far stranger is that the other ex-Yu countries do not put any pressure on Slovenia in that sense. Obviously, those people there do not want any Yugoslavs while they themselves have done similar things at some other place. It is a case of the joined vessels; all of them are the same pigeons, the same servants of the world imperialism.
VR. You have said that through your art is Marxism speaking. Why is your film „Slovenia, My Homeland“ removed from some festivals or unwillingly shown?
DA: I think that the present world is not possible to understand without Marxism. In my high school I had the subject „Basics of Marxism“ and I could hardly manage an average mark, I did not like it; I considered it boring and estranged from reality. Surely, what young man in socialism could be interested in calculations of profit, and the like?! Later on, in Slovenia, after living for seventeen years without documents, I had enough time to devote to Marxism in order to be able to understand the developments in the world surrounding me. I looked for answers to the very same questions we are discussing today. And I found them exclusively in Marxism. All other methodologies and systems of thought served to justify the reality and mask problems. That it is so can be clearly seen in systematic exclusion of Marxism from the society. Excluded is even sociology as the science about society; it is being replaced by cultural anthropology. Now there is only culture as society; society itself is not necessary to explore any longer. And what is Marxism, after all? Marxism is a method for studying society which is based on the analysis of facts observed through their dynamic change (dialectics). And that is all. An arid scientific method which helps us to easily penetrate and recognize social phenomena and understand the direction taken by the path we are trodding along. And this is exactly what is not desired today, namely, facts are rejected and replaced by arbitrary claims and beliefs. This is a way of enabling the government to endure. I have made three films about the erased; the first two were quite action ones; I simply followed what was going on; these films were well received everywhere since they did not give an insight into the reason why this was happening; everyone could interpret it in his own way. In the third film, „Slovenia, My Homeland“, I decided to change the method; I started to analyze the facts, of course, in film language, and to give, for the first time, true knowledge about the events I was filming. Suddenly the film became a bother and began to be prohibited; nobody wanted to have the truth put in front of his nose. This is Marxist method. The first two films I made by the method of spontaneity, I'd say, anarchistically, while in the third film I gave up spontaneity and devoted myself to the study of facts. In this third film about the erased I was actually born both as an authentic film maker and as a Marxist.
VR: Where is Slovenia today, two and a half decades after the disintegration of SFRY?
DA: In ruins, where else; in slavery. At first politicians were talking about independent Slovenia as a success story because the masters from Brussels were not exactly eager to take everything from them. They let up on Slovenia because they used it to coax other Balkan countries in the EU trap. Now this reason is defunct; the system works as it should be working; it robs and plunders legally, completely and systematically, and everyone clearly sees where we are. We are historically pushed back to where we were 100 years ago. We are a colony again; it has shown again that nationalism always serves other interests and that nationalists are, paradoxically, always servants to a foreigner. Where we have found ourselves, disunited as we are, is best shown by bare facts; they, for example, tell us that in none of the ex-Yu countries industrial production does not reach 50% of the former one. In Slovenia the giants are destroyed such as Litostroj; Gorenje and Lek are bought by foreigners; construction industry is destroyed; health care is facing destruction; thousands of nurses and doctors are lacking while the state has no money to pay for overtime... The number of unemployed is enormous while trade unions are decimated and driven into a corner. Every year 4 to 5,000 young educated cadre flees abroad (within the general population of 2 million people). You see what it comes to, this success story of independent Slovenia. This is, in fact, a picture of genocide. Surely, there will be those not so inclined to trust the facts and who will emotionally interpret Slovenian independence but this is another theme.
VR: You say that the working class was nationally divided by the united capital in order to rule over us. What is, then, our perspective?
DA: Disunited as we are, our only perspective is enslavement. By that I imply people; corrupted government and its circles will not be badly-off, of course. On the whole Balkans there is no single party to defend people's interests; all the parties defend the interests of capital, both left and right. The left and the right differ mainly with respect to their attitudes to history and in their political styles. In their relationship with capital, they both declare themselves as servants. For those having no place to run away to, for those who either do not want or cannot rob others and for those who are too easily disgusted to enter some of the government circles of influence which provide for their survival, the only perspective is to found a party which would protect working people and those exploited by insatiable capital. The party which will bring about changes and economic freedom. In order to find a way out of slavery, it is necessary to re-unite the Balkans. This is, however, possible in specific historical circumstances.
VR: After the Syriza has disturbed western oligarchy while people in Greece voted „no“ at the referendum, what has actually taken place – capitulation or pragmatism?
DA: The working class and people of Greece have been fighting, since 2010, by the methods of direct class struggle, by the street and non-parliamentary means. This is possible at the places where unions are free unlike with us – that's the catch. In the whole Eastern Europe the unions are government controlled („yellow unions“) but in Greece the unions are free, are red. That is why political organizing in Greece is dangerous for its government. In the streets of Athens even as many as half a million people took part in particular actions. This is, for the government, an exceptionally dangerous situation since such a mass of people can overthrow the government at any moment and then everything will be lost, not only in Greece but in the EU. That is why the centers of power have found a way out, „a new party“ (Syriza) which promised what the people in the streets asked for (exit from the EU, primarily). The objective was to bring back the Greeks from the streets to the Parliament since the Parliament is a place of manipulations ad infinitum and the government is always safe. This objective is reached; they have managed to cheat people. You have seen that people have clearly said „no“ but the government has shown that democracy in the hands of capital does not exist; democracy cannot exist unless people take it in their own hands... The situation is now as it is. People are demoralized but this state is temporary. The economic conditions have not changed and it is only a matter of time when people will again take up dung pitchforks and oust the corrupted gang of the EU mercenaries headed by Tsipras.
VR: The migrant crisis is shaking the whole Europe, the Schengen is suspended, the fences are set up; some people are appealing for solidarity while others are talking about Islamization... How do you reckon this great migration of people will continue?
DA: I think that all the people will have to be received by the former American President George Bush at his ranch since they are displaced for the greed for oil while Bush and other oil businessmen are war profiteers. These people can be accepted only by the state with a powerful industry and this is, in Europe, only Germany. Therefore, Bush has expelled them and sent to Merkel to be enslaved and exploited as new industrial workers. Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Slovenians, Austrians cannot do anything with them since they have no industry. You cannot, for instance, employ in Portorož or Bled 10,000 new waiters. Slovenia can employ new waiters since this is its real range. American oil tycoons would have to, on their ranches larger than many states, return their spoils of war to the people they stole it from and thus enable them to lead a new comfortable life in America. They would turn Texas into another kind of state and the desert there would turn into a garden of paradise.
VR: What are you working on now, what theme will your new film deal with?
DA: Well, what I have so far told you is actually a synopsis of my new feature and documentary film. It starts with an American oil tycoon's decision to return his spoils of war to the refugees of the war which was, in the first place, initiated by him and his likes. He starts a wide ranging campaign for this purpose... etc. I'd rather not reveal all finesse...  

Friday, October 9, 2015

UNIŠTAVANJE SOCIJALIZMA NA BALKANU, SLUČAJ IZBRISANIH


UNIŠTAVANJE SOCIJALIZMA NA BALKANU, SLUČAJ IZBRISANIH

Intervju Dimitra Anakieva za Glas veterana, Kikinda
Razgovarao: Vladimir Radojčić

VR: Kako je slovenačka javnost tokom svih ovih godina reagovala na slučaj izbrisanih-intelektualci, mediji, političari?
DA: Dozvolite mi da, pre nego što odgovorim na Vaše pitanje, orišem okolnosti bitne za našu temu. Izbrisani su, baš kao i ratovi devedesetih, deo raspada naše zajedničke domovine SFR Jugoslavije. Dakle, naša prava tema je raspad države i šta on znači. Zašto se Jugoslavija morala raspasti? Zašto smo morali ratovati? To su važna pitanja na koja bih voleo da ponudim odgovore i da potom u njih umestim Vaša pitanja. Jer izbrisani, baš kao i ratovi devedesetih, nisu izolovana tema. Najvažnija stvar pri raspadu Jugoslavije je njen autohtoni socijalistički karakter. Jugoslavija se raspala jer je na nju navalio pobedonosti talas kapitalizma i njegovog nezadrživog imperializma koji nas je pregazio i nastavio dalje da hara po Africi, Aziji i Ukrajini. U tom smislu su i današnje izbeglice iz Afrike i Azije deo tog istog problema. Naravno, imperialisti su našli, baš kao i u drugom svetskom ratu, svoje kolaboracioniste u svim republikama bivše Jugoslavije. To su bili članovi tadašnje komunističke nomenklature koja je bila na vlasti. Oni su za potrebe svojih novih gospodara prvo uzdigli nacionalizam a zatim uprizorili i krvavi rat u koji su nas uvukli. Naravno da je stvar bila dugo i dobro pripremana, jer država se ne ruši kao kula od karata. Prethodnica je bila kultura u kojoj su se osamdesetih počela pojavljivati dela koja su širila nacionalističke ideje. Domaćim kolaboracionistima je obećan ratni plen i prednost pri privatizaciji tj. pljački društvene imovine i njenom pretvaranju u privatno vlasništvo izabranih pojedinaca. Tako se je i desilo. Brisanje Jugoslovena iz zvaničnih knjiga, baš kao i ratovi devedesetih, imali su dva osnovna cilja: prvo, uništenje socijalizma i njegovih vrednosti (kao što je na primer “bratstvo i jedinstvo”, socijalna prava itd.) a drugo, trebalo je stvoriti dimnu zavesu iza koje bi se odvijala pljačka društvene imovine. Dok smo mi ratovali, ubijali ili bivali ubijeni, oni su krali-privatizovali firme i društvena vlasništva... Odgovor na Vaše gornje pitanje je zato isti za Sloveniju, baš kao i za sve ostale ex-YU sredine devedesetih, pa i kasnije. Većina nomenklature i sa njom povezane inteligencije služila je interesima stranog kapitala i zdušno stvarala uslove da bi se desilo to što se je desilo. Ko se je opirao bio je likvidiran ili proteran. U tom smislu su izbrisani Jugosloveni u Slovenije vrsta proteranih građana.
VR: .Slovenija je, pod pritiskom Evropskog suda, donela Zakon o isplati odštete izbrisanim građanima, koji je stupio na snagu u junu 2014. godine. Kako država Slovenija u praksi obeštećuje izbrisane?
DA: Pravda nikad nije apstraktna niti univerzalna, sudovi postoje zato da bi štitili vladajući poredak a ne da bi pojedincu ili narodu bilo zadošćeno. Pošto smo mi Izbrisani organizovali izuzetno žilav otpor i pošto smo u slovenačkom narodu našli jaka uporišta, a pre svega uspelo nam je efikasno dokumentovati šta je vlast u Sloveniji radila sa nama i tu dokumentaciju pokazati svetu – tu nam je vrlo pomogla reformisana komunistička partija Italije preko svojih advokata i poslanika u Evropskom parlamentu – Evropski sud nije imao drugog izbora već da stvar što hitnije zataška i umiri i tako očuva mir u kući tj. spasi poredak. Dosudili su da je slovenačka vlast kriva za kršenje ljudkih prava a nama su dosudili simbolične otštete. I tako je stvar završena. Otštete su ne samo toliko simbolične da na njih ne treba gubiti vreme pričajući, već će se u vidu nekakve crkavice, reda veličine jednomesečne plate, isplaćivati raspoređeno na 5 godina...
VR: Mnogi izbrisani nisu više među živima, kako tumačite to što je toliko vremena bilo potrebno da se uopšte prizna nepravda naneta svima vama?
DA: Mi sami nikad ne bi uspeli da dođemo do evropskog suda, uprkos grčevitoj borbi, da se nije iznenada, kao nepozvani inostrani faktor pojavila u ugri PRC (Partido de la Refundación Comunista) a to je bila čista slučajnost. Naime jedan od članova PRC bio se zaljubio u jednu Koparčanku i dolazaći često u Koper i Ljubljanu slučajno video dokumentarac o izbrisanima koji smo tada puštali svuda po Sloveniji u propagande svrhe tj. u cilju upoznavanja omladine i naroda šta se sa izbrisanima događa. Onda se on zaprepastio, sakupio sve dostupne materijale i odneo ih u Rim, u partijski centar PRC. Drugovi iz uprave PRC su odlučili da odmah deluju, dodeli su nam dva svoja advokata svetske klase i imena (Lana i Sacuchi) a poslanicima u evropskom parlamentu naložili da organizuju parlamentarne sednice na temu izbrisanih. Tako se je stvar veoma ubrzala, inače ni mi drugi nikad ne bi videli svoju formalnu pobedu na evropskom sudu – ako bi do nje uopšte došlo bez Italijana. Italijanski drug koji nas je tako zadužio zaslužuje da mu se pomene ime: to je Roberto Pignoni, inače profesor geometrije na univerzitetu u Rimu.
VR: Evropskoj uniji očigledno nije smetalo da Slovenija sa preko 25000 izbrisanih građana postane njen deo. Da li je Evropa zatvorila oči pred ovim zastrašujućim pričama ljudi?
DA: Državna propaganda, odnosno mediji kolaboracije sa imperijalizmom, krivo predstavljaju EU. Zato se u našim glavama stvorila ulepšana slika, koja ne odgovara istini. Evropska unija se pretstavlja kao savez naroda, a to nije tačno. Evropska unija i njene institucije su samo izvršni organi svetskog imperijalizma. To je unija korumpiranih gubernatora koji vladaju porobljenim narodima. Slučaj Grčke je to najočitije pokazao ali i svi drugi slučajevi su takvi, ima nebrojeno dokaza. Na primer, Slovenačka vlada, nakon što je privatizacijom uništila svoju privredu, se neprestano zadužuje da bi mogla da isplaćuje plate i funkcioniše. Iako formalno narod na izborima bira ko će vladati, taj koji bude izabran biće plaćenik stranog kapitala a to znači koga god narod izabrao nema veze, jer taj koga plaća strani kapital radiće za njegove interese a protiv interesa naroda. Zato oni lako smanjuju plate radnicima i donose “mere štednje” jer njih upravo zato plaćaju. Neko je predložio da se ukinu izbori i da se umesto izborima predstavnici vlasti žrebaju. Taj predlog potpuno odgovara stanju stvari.
VR: Šta je sa krivcima za ovaj birokratski genocid? Ko ga je patentirao?
DA: U odgovoru na prvo pitanje nazvao sam izbrisane Jugoslovene “proteranim građanima”. Misli da je to pravilnije od “etničkog čišćenja” ili “genocida” jer među Izbrisanima ima raznih etničkih pripadnosti pa čak i Slovenaca. Princip čišćenja nije bio etnički već politički. Po zadnjem popisu iz SFRJ u Sloveniji se je oko 25.000 ljudi izjasnilo nacionalno kao “Jugosloven” i izgleda da je to bila “ciljna grupa” brisanja. Uništiti Jugoslovene, one koji Sloveniju vole i koji su se u njoj osećali kao kod kuće. Naprotiv, nacionalisti drugih nacija u Sloveniji tada nisu smetali, jel su služili svojem cilju. Naprimer, kulturni centar SPC u Ljubljani dogradila je Janšina vlada. Ali Jugoslovene su proterivali, brisali i pljačkali njihovu imovinu. Politički progon je izmislila stara Grčka i oni su to nazivila “ostrakizam” (“ostrakon” je parče karemake na kome se ispisivalo ime prognanika). Ostrakizam je več u staroj Grčkoj bio izvanparlamentarna mera, namenjena opasnim pojedincima koji već svojim prisustvom ugožavaju vlast. Međutim, ta mera je bila ograničena, upravo zbog izvanparlamentarnog karaktera, nije mogla biti masovna i progon je bio samo na određeno vreme a imovina prognanog se nije smela dirati. Nas su međutim pokrali. Izbrisani nisu mogli da otkupe svoje stanove i ne zna se ni koliko tačno stanova je otuđenih (negde između 1000 i 5000 stanova je gruba procena) niti se zna u čije ruke su ti stanovi došli. I to uprkos tome što sporazum o sukcesiji bivših jugoslovenskih država zabranjuje princip državljanstva u rešavanju imovinskog pitanja, a zabranjuje ga i međunarodno pravo... Ostrakizam je kasnije prihvatio Staljin i učinio ga totalitarnom merom. On je brisao ljude i istoriju velikim potezima. Tako da su ostrakizam u Sloveniji primenili ljudi vični tom poslu... Krivci nikad nisu kažnjeni, jer je predmet navodno zakonski zastareo, što je diskutabilno jer nikad nije ni bio klasifikovan u tom smislu pa se to ne može ni tvrditi. Slovenija odbija saradnju na dokumentaciji postjugoslovenskih zločina, Pahor, predsednik, konvertirati komunista, ne želi da sarađuje sa REKOM-om Nataše Kandić. Slovenija je jedina bivša ex-YU država koja je odbila saradnju sa REKOM-om. Međutim, manje čudi to što neko ne želi da se o njegovim zločinima i krađama priča, više čudi to da ostale ex-YU države ne pritiskaju na Sloveniju u tom smislu. Očito ni tamo ne žele Jugoslovene a skrivili su i sami slične stvari na nekom drugom mestu. Reč je o sistemu spojenih sudova, sve su to isti golubovi, isti sluge svetskog imperijalizma.
VR: Rekli ste da kroz vašu umetnost govori marksizam. Zbog čega je vaš film „Slovenija, moja dežela“ uklonjen sa nekih festivala i nerado prikazivan
DA: Mislim da današnji svet bez marksizma nije moguće razumeti. Ja sam u gimnaziji imao predmet “Osnove marksizma” i jedva dobijao trojke. Nisam ga voleo, smatrao sam ga dosadnim i otuđenim od realnosti. Naravno, koji mladi čovek u socijalizmu može biti zainteresovan za izračunavanje profita itd. Kasnije, u Sloveniji, pošto sam 17 godina živeo bez dokumenata, isključen iz društva, imao sam dosta vremena da se posvetim marksizmu ne bi li razumeo događanja oko sebe. Tražio sam odgovore na ista ova pitanja o kojima danas razgovaramo. I nalazio ih isključivo u marksizmu. Sve druge metodologije i misaoni sistemi služili su opravdavanju stvarnosti i maskiranju problema. Da je to tako vidi se po sistematičnom isključivanju marksizma iz društva. Isključuje se čak i sociologija, nauka o društvu a zamenjuje je kulturna antropologija. Kao društvo je samo kultura, samo društvo nije potrebno više izučavati. I šta je to marksizam? Marksizam je metod za izučavanje društva koji bazira na analizi činjenica posmatranih kroz njihovu dinamičku promenu (dijalektiku). I to je sve. Suvoparan naučni metod koji nam pomaže da sa lakoćom prozremo i prepoznamo društvene pojave i shvatimo gde vodi put kojim idemo. I baš to je danas nepoželjno, činjenice, fakti, se odbacuju a zamenjuju ih proizvoljne tvrdnje i verovanja. Tako se omogućava vlasti da opstane. Ja sam snimio tri filma o izbrisanima, prva dva su bila prilično akciona, jednostavno sam pratio šta se dogadja i ti filmovi su bili svuda dobro prihvaćeni jer nisu donosili spoznaju o tome zašto se to dogadja, svako je mogao da tumači na svoj način. U trećem filmu, “Slovenija moja dežela” odlučio sam da promenim metod, počeo sam da analiziram činjenice, naravno filmskim jezikom, i da donosim po prvi put prave spoznaje o događajima koje snimam. Najednom je film počeo da smeta i da biva zabranjen, niko ne želi da mu se istina gurne pod nos. To je marksistički metod. Prva dva filma sam snimao metodom spontanosti, anarhistički, rekao bih, dok sam u trećem filmu napustio spontanost i posvetio se analizi činjenica. U tom trećem filmu o izbrisanima sam se rodio i kao autentičan filmski autor i kao marksista.
VR: Gde je Slovenija danas, dve i po decenije posle raspada SFRJ?
DA: U propasti, gde bi bila drugde; u ropstvu. U prvo vreme su političari govorili da osamostaljena Slovenija “priča o uspehu” zato jer gospodari iz Brisela nisu želeli baš sve da im uzmu. Puštali su Sloveniju zato da bi navukli druge zamlje Balkana u klopku EU. Sada je taj razlog otpao, sistem radi tako kako treba da radi, pljačka i otima zakonito, potpuno i temeljito, i svi lepo vide gde smo. Vraćeni smo u istoriji za 100 godina unazad. Ponovo smo kolonija i pokazalo se je ponovo da nacionalizam uvek služi tuđim interesima i da su nacionalisti, kako paradoksalno, uvek sluge tuđinu. O tome gde smo se našli razjedinjeni najbolje govore goli fakti a oni na primer kažu da ni u jednoj ex-YU državi industrijska proizvodnja ne doseže 50% pređašnje. U Sloveniji su uništeni giganti, poput Litostroja, Gorenje i Lek su kupili stranci, građevinarstvo je uništeno, zdravstvo je pred uništenjem, nedostaje hiljade sestri i lakara a država nema novca da plaća nadure... Broj nezaposlenih je ogroman a sindikati su desetkovani i saterani u mišiju rupu. Svake godine 4-5.000 mladih školovanih kadrova pobegne u inostranstvo (pri populaciji od 2 miliona ljudi). Eto, to je “priča o uspehu” samostalne Slovenije. To je zapravo slika genocida.Naravno, naći će se oni koji neće verovati faktima i koji će emocionalno tumačiti slovenaču samostalnost, ali to je druga tema.
VR: Kažete da je radničku klasu nacionalno podelio ujedinjeni kapital zato da bi nad nama vladao. Šta nam je onda perspektiva?
DA: Ovako razjedinjenima naša perspektiva je ropstvo. Mislim na narod, korumpiranoj vlasti i njenim krugovima neće biti slabo, naravno. Na celom Balkanu ne postoji ni jedna partija koja brani interese naroda, sve partije brane interese kapitala, leve i desne. Levica i desnica razlikuju se uglavnom u odnosu prema istoriji i u političkom stilu. U odnosu prema kapitalu se obe deklarišu kao sluge. Za one koji nemaju gde da pobegnu, za one koji ne žele ili ne mogu da pljačkaju druge i za one koji su suviše gadljivi da bi ušli u neke od vladinih krugova uticaja koji omogućavaju preživljavanje, jedina perspektiva je izgradnja partije koja će štititi radni narod i potlačene od nezasitog kapitala. Parije koja će doneti promene i ekonomsku slobodu. Da bi se iz ropstva izašlo potrebno je ponovo ujediniti Balkan. A to je moguće u posebnim istorijskim okolnostima.
VR: Nakon što je Siriza uznemirila zapadnu oligarhiju, a narod u Grčkoj zaokružio narefendumu ne, šta se dogodilo-kapitulacija ili pragmatizam?
DA: Radnička klasa i narod Grčke se od 2010 bore metodama direktne klasne borbe, uličnim, izvanparlamentarnim sredstvima. To je moguće tamo gde su sindikati slobodni, a kod nas nisu, u tome je jadac. U celoj istočnoj Evropi sindikate kontroliše vlast (tzv. “žuti sindikati”) ali u Grčkoj sindikati jesu slobodni, jesu crveni. Zato je radničko organizovanje u Grčkoj opasno za vlast. Na ulicama Atine je u pojedinim akcijama bilo i po pola miliona ljudi. To je za vlast izuzetno opasna situacija jer takva masa ljudi može srušiti vlast u svakom trenutku i onda je sve izgubljeno, ne samo u Grčkoj već i EU. Zato su centri moći smislili izlaz, “novu partiju” (Sirizu) koja je obećavala ono što je narod na ulici tražio (izlazak iz EU pre svega). Cilj je bio da se Grci sa ulice vrate u parlament, jer parlament je mesto gde se manipuliše do beskraja i vlast je uvek sigurna. Taj cilj su ostvarili, uspeli su da prevare narod. Videli ste narod je jasno rekao “ne” a vlast je pokazala da demokratija u rukama kapitala ne postoji, demokratija ne može postojati dok je narod ne uzme u svoje ruke... Situacija je sad takva kakva je. Narod je domoralisan ali to stanje je privremeno. Ekonomske okolnosti se nisu promenile i samo je pitanje časa kada će ljudi ponovo da dohvate govnjive motke u ruke i najure korumpiranu bandu EU plaćenika na čelu sa Ciprasom.
VR: Migrantska kriza trese Evropu, suspenduje se Šengen, podižu ograde, jedni pozivaju na solidarnost, dok drugi govore o islamizaciji...Kako vi vidite nastavak ove velike seobe naroda?
DA: Ja mislim da bi sve te ljudi morao da primi na svoj ranč u Teksasu bivši američki predsednik Džordž Buš, jer oni su raseljeni zbog pohlepe za naftom, a Buš i ostali biznismeni sa naftom su ratni profiteri. Te ljude može da prihvati jedino država sa moćnom industrijom a to je u Evropi samo Nemačka. Dakle Buš ih je oterao i poslao Merklovoj da ih podjarmi i eksploatiše kao nove industrijske radnike. Srbi, Hrvati, Mađari, Slovenci, Austrijanci ne mogu ništa sa njima jer nemaju industriju. Ne možete, na primer, sad u Portorožu i na Bledu da zaposlite 10 000 novih konobara. Slovenija može da zapošljava nove konobare, to je njen relni domet. Američki naftni bogataši bi na svojim rančevima većim od mnogih država trebalo da svoj ratni plen vrate tim ljudima od kojih su taj novac oteli i da omoguće novi lagodni život u Americi. Oni bi od Teksasa napravili drugačiju državu i pustinja bi tamo postala rajski vrt.
VR: Na čemu sada radite, kojom temom će se baviti vaš naredni film?
DA: Evo, to što sam vam ispračao to je scenario mojeg novog igrano-dokumentarnog filma. On počinje tako što se jedan američki naftni bogataš odlučio da svoj ratni plen vrati izbeglicama od rata koga je on i njemu slični prouzročio. Počinje i široku kampanju u tom smislu... itd. da ne otkrivam sve finese...


Thursday, September 17, 2015

WAS THE SOCIALIST FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SFRY) A WORKERS’ OR BUREAUCRATIC STATE?





Dimitar Anakiev

WAS THE SOCIALIST FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SFRY) A WORKERS’ OR BUREAUCRATIC STATE?

On the eve of the Second World War interesting debates about socialism were held. After Stalin had driven the October Revolution to the deadlock, extensivere-questionings of the Marxist practice were launched. Theories came in showers regarding the nature of the USSR. The three main theses were the following:
  1. STALINISM=SOCIALISM. This thesis otherwise equally pleaded for by both imperialists and Stalinists argues that Stalinism is a natural continuation of Leninism and that Stalin’s USSR stands exactly for the social order which is generated from the proletarian revolution.
  2. STALINISM = DEFORMATION OF SOCIALISM. This is Leon Trotsky's thesis which insists upon the fact that the USSR is still a workers' state though deformed by Stalin's usurpation of power. Trotsky claimed that Stalinist bureaucracy is not a class by itself since it does not possess means of production but it is only the caste that usurps the government.
  3. SOCIALISM = STATE CAPITALISM. This is the thesis propounded by an Italian shoe salesman, Bruno Rizzi, who used it to oppose Trotsky. In its essence, it claims that bureaucracy is a new class and that socialism is nothing else but state capitalism, that is, the form of capitalism in which profit does not belong to a capitalist individual but to a collective of bureaucrats who manage it alienatedly from the working class, i. e., the revolution had never happened at all. The main idea of this supposition is to deny revolution as such; accordingly, October is only a coup d’état in which one group of power holders replaced another while the worker was not liberated at all; profit is again alienated from labor.
The Revolution in Yugoslavia came out victorious with 28 years of delay in comparison to the Soviet one which explains why more extensive thinking in the above-mentioned ways about the SFRY did not take place. Among our students involved in 1968 protests the dominant ideas were those of Bruno Rizzi. The major banner of the mutinous students was “Red bourgeoisie” which means that the students experienced Tito’s bureaucracy as a class(red bourgeoisie). We just have to remember Stevo Žigon reciting Robespierre speech on the “Marquis of the Revolution.” In Berlin the awarded film “Early Works” by Želimir Žilnik explicitly stated that the revolution is impossible. Even today some of our young Marxists speak about self-management as a project of state capitalism. How is it possible that the Yugoslav intellectuals and artists, all and sundry, accepted the thesis of the above-mentionedshoe salesman without giving any serious thought to the views of the Russian revolutionary who, after all, carried out the Revolution, was victorious at the battlefield fighting against the counter-revolutionary White Guard and its helpers and then opposed, wholeheartedly, Stalin’s terror?

All of us who used to live in the SFRY can give firm first-hand testimony that Bruno Rizzi’s thesis is not correct. Namely, the profit of the socialist society was structurally accessible through the right to labor, the right to education andother rights including the policy of peace. Deformations were, naturally, present, but it is incorrect to claim that the working class was estranged from profit. Regarding the nature of ownership over the means of production Yugoslavia was, just like the USSR, a workers' and not a bureaucratic State.

In Jelšane, September, 9, 2015


Wednesday, September 9, 2015

DA LI JE SFRJ BILA RADNIČKA ILI BIROKRATSKA DRŽAVA?

Dimitar Anakiev

DA LI JE SFRJ BILA RADNIČKA ILI BIROKRATSKA DRŽAVA?

Pred Drugi svetski rat vodile su se zanimljive rasprave o socijalizmu. Nakon što je Staljin doveo Oktobarsku revoluciju u ćorsokak počela su široka preispitivanja marksističke prakse. Pljuštale su teorije o prirodi SSSR-a. Tri glavne teze bile su sledeće:

1. STALJINIZAM=SOCIJALIZAM, Ova teza koju su zastupali jednako imperijalisti i staljinisti tvrdi da je staljinizam prirodni nastavak lenjinizma i da je baš staljinov SSSR društveni red kakav nastaje iz proleterske revolucije.

2. STALJINIZAM=DEFORMACIJA SOCIJALIZMA, Ovo je teza Lava Trockog, koji insistira na toma da je SSSR i dalje radnička država iako deformisana Staljinovom uzurpacijom vlasti. Trocki je tvrdio da staljinistička birokratija nije klasa po sebi jer ne poseduje sredstva za proizvodnju već da je to samo kasta koja je uzurpirala vlast.

3. SOCIJALIZAM=DRŽAVNI KAPITALIZAM, Ovo je teza italijanskog prodavca cipela Bruna Rizzija, koji se njome suprotstavio Trockom. Suština ove tvrdnje je da je birokratija nova klasa i da socijalizam nije ništa drugo nego državni kapitalizam - oblik kapitalizma u kojem profit ne pripada individualnom kapitalisti već kolektivu birokrata koji upravljaju sa njim otuđeno od radničke klase tj. do revolucije nikad nije ni došlo. Glavna ideje ove tvrdnje je negirati revoluciju kao takvu, Oktobar je po njoj samo državni udar u kome je jedna grupa vlastodržaca zamenila drugu a radnik nije postao oslobođen, profit je opet otuđen od radnika.

Revolucija je u Jugoslaviji pobedila sa 28 godina zakašnjenja u odnosu na sovjetsku pa zato do širih razmišljanja o prirodi SFRJ na takav način nije došlo. Među našim studentima koji su protestovali 1968 dominirale su ideje Bruna Rizzija. Glavni transparent pobunjenih studenata bio je "crvena buržoazija" a to znači da su studenti 1968 doživljavali titovu birokratiju kao klasu (crvenu buržoaziju); sećamo se kako je Stevo Žigon recitovao Dantonov govor "markizi revolucije". U Berlinu nagrađeni film Želimira Žilnika "Rani radovi" eksplicitno tvrdi da je revolucija nemoguća. Čak i danas neki naši mladi marksisti govore o samoupravljanju kao projektu državnog kapitalizma. Kako je moguće da su jugoslovenski intelektualci i umetnici listom prihvatili tezu italijanskog prodavca cipala a nisu ozbiljno razmotrili misli ruskog revolucionara koji je tu revoluciju izveo, pobedio na bojnom polju kontrarevoluciju Belu garde i i njenih pomagača, i zatim se suprotstavio celim svojim životom Staljinovom teroru?

Svi mi koji smo živeli u SFRJ možemo iz prve ruke dati čvrste dokaze da teza Bruna Rizzija nije tačna. Naime profit socijalističkog društva bio je strukturalno dostupan kroz pravo na rad, pravo na školovanje i druga prava uključujući politiku mira. Deformacije su svakako bile prisutne ali netačno je tvrditi da je radnička klasa bila otuđena od profita. Jugoslavija, baš kao i SSSR, bila je po karakteru vlasništva nad sredstvima za proizvodnju radnička a ne birokratska država.

U Jelšanama, 9.9.2015

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

JESU LI NAŠI SINDIKATI ŽUTI ILI CRVENI?

Dimitar Anakiev

JESU LI NAŠI SINDIKATI ŽUTI ILI CRVENI?

Kada je krajem februara 1919 u Moskvi osnovana Komunistička internacionala odmah je, iste godine, u Amsterdamu održana osnivačka skupština internacionale žutih sindikata. Žuti sindikati su organizacije radnika koji štite svoje gazde jer im gazde daju posao. To su sindikati osnovani i finansirani od samih vlasnika kompanija. Žuta boja zato što odbacuju crvenu, boju socijalizma. Žuti sindikati odbacuju klasnu borbu i proklamuju klasnu saradnju. S obzirom da žuti sindikati krše radnička prava zabranjeni su 1935 godine američkim saveznim zakonom a 1949 ih zabranjuje i međunarodno radničko pravo (ILO konvencija 98, član 2).

Dva slovenačka lekarska sindikata Fides i Praktikum zakazala su za ovaj septembar lekarski štrajk do ispunjenja sindikalnih zahteva za povećanjem plata i poboljšanja uslova rada. Aprila je bio uspešno sproveden jednodnevni štrajk upozorenja. Više od 90% lekara podržalo je svoje sindikalne vođe a pridružio se i sindikat sestara. To znači odbaciti mere štednje EU. To znači pad slovenačke vlade. I šta se desilo? Ništa. Evo septembra obavijenog jesenjenjom tišinom. Opalo lišće ćuti. Predsednici odgovarajućih partija pozvali su, izgleda, sindikalne vođe i rekli im da se povuku...

Kada mi je ovog juna predsednik i osnivač sindikata Praktikum (Sindikat lekara opšte prakse) upao u reč zato što napadam vladu, i kada sam ga upozorio da sindikalisti normalno napadaju vladu, "po opisu radnog mesta", odgovorio mi je "moja vizija je drugačija...". Očito su njegove sindikalne vizije obojene žutom bojom. A tako je i sa drugim sindikatima, to je naša kolonijalna, poststaljinistička, stvarnost. Za nas na Balkanu ne važe međunarodno radničko pravo, mi smo jednostavno porobljeni i kao u nekadašnjoj reklami Lesnine "podvučeni žutim".

Saturday, July 4, 2015

DOKAPITALIZACIJA ZDRAVSTVA

Diskusija znotraj  sindikata Praktikum:


Spoštovane kolegice in kolegi,

V času, ko narod Grčije izreka zgodovinsko nezaupnico svetovnemu kapitalizmu, je nam, na srečo - kot pravijo - zgodovina obrnila hrbet (napredovali smo v nepomembno, "periferno državo", po ministru Mramorju) in nas nihče nič več ne bo vprašal, le delati moramo, to kar nam naročijo, jesti kar nam skuhajo minister Marmor in podobni, pa vendarle te dni beremo, da je NKBM, ki smo jo davkoplačevalci dokapitalizirali z 900 milijoni evri, prodana za 250 (oziroma 190). Nekdanji guverner NBS, g. Arhar, je povedal le, da je primanjkljaj v višini 710 milijonov rezultat "slabih praks". Seveda ne vemo, kje je ta denar končal in kdo je odgovoren za "slabe prakse". Ker je prodajo opravila vlada, ki načrtuje nadaljnje krčenje slovenskega zdravstva (t.i. "reformo"), menim, da vlada (ali vlade), ki se javno in brezskrbno legitimirajo s slabimi praksami ne morejo lotevati reform v zdravstvu.
Na osnovi tega predlagam, da se zdravstvene reforme lahko loti samo vlada, ki priskrbi denar za reformo, opravi široko javno razpravo o reformi in izdela transparenten program reforme, vključno z razvidnimi finančnimi predpostavkami, na osnovi katerih bo jasno, da se bo zdravstvo vrnilo na zeleno vejo. Kar pomeni tudi vračilo -20% zdravstvena proračuna in nadaljnjo proračunsko dokapitalizacijo zdravstva. Če se lahko dokapitalizirajo banke, ki se potem podarjajo tujcem, zakaj se ne bi dokapitaliziralo zdravstvo, ki služi dobrobiti tega naroda?

Dimitar Anakiev

Sunday, June 14, 2015

KDO JE BOLAN: ZDRAVSTVO ALI VLADA?





Dimitar Anakiev
KDO JE BOLAN: ZDRAVSTVO ALI VLADA?

V včerajšnjem nagovoru na Brdu pri Kranju je predsednik vlade Cerar postavil diagnozo slovenskega zdravstva. Povedal je, da zdravstvo bolno in predpisal terapijo (1).
V terapiji ne boste našli ničesar konkretnega. Le leporečil je, obračal floskule o humanosti in enakosti za katere vsi vemo, da jih ni ter, da jih tudi z njegovo "reformo" ne bo. Kvečemu se bo neenakost še povečala. "Reforma" je namreč kodirana šifra za novo krčenje zdravstvenega proračuna. Cerar ne upa povedati, da so v zadnjih petih letih zdravstveni proračun že zmanjšali za 20% (Vprašanje pa je, kdo jim je to dovolil? Ali so vprašali sindakate v zdravstvu? Ali so o tem bile vodene javne razprave?) Ta zelo bistven podatek, o zmanjšanem zdravstvenem proračunu za celih 20% v zadnjih petih letih, bi morali imeti ves čas na umu in ga stalno porivati v ospredje, ves čas. Morali bi vprašati kolikšno dodatno krčenje sredstev za zdravstvo se predvideva po "reformi"? Ali je z 30-40% manjšim proračunom še mogoče govoriti o javnem zdravstvu v Sloveniji? Če pa bo zdravstveni proračun po "reformi" manjši samo za dodatnih 5% (skupaj 25%) potem naj to Cerar javno pove. Seveda ne bo nič povedal. Hlinil bo dobrohotnika in se mistično smehljal in pokimaval. Realno stanje bomo ugotovili čez 5-10 let, podobno kot zdaj, ko se sprašujemo, kako se je v zadnjih petih letih neopazno zmanjšal zdravstveni proračun Slovenije za kar 20% ?
Cerar na koncu nagovora le odkrije razloge za "reformo": dobrohotno pove, da denarja za zdravstvo ni. To pove kar tako in pričakuje, da bo to kar tako sprejeto. Naivnež. Verjetno meni, da je predsednik vlade plačan za to, da pove javnosti da je blagajna prazna? Ali naj mu ploskamo? Njegovo delo je namreč zagotoviti denar. Od nas, davkoplačevalcev, brez milosti pobira denar  s pomočjo armade rubežnikov in izterjevalcev. Zdaj pa kar takole dobrohotno, "ni denarja"... Če denarja res ni, potem naj najprej ukine svojo vlado (itak o vsem odloča Bruselj) potem pa zdravstvo. Zdravniki in zdravstvo so potrebni, on, g. Cerar, in ga. Milojka, pa ne vem, če sta tako zelo potrebna.
Gospod predsednik vlade je torej na Brdu pri Kranju povedal, da je nesposoben zagotoviti denar za zdravstvo, čeprav ga davkoplačevalci za to plačujemo. Obvešča nas tudi, da nas mora zaradi svoje nesposobnosti še dodatno skrajšati in skleščiti ter, da bo to dejavnost imenoval "reforma" nas pa "bolniki".
Tukaj moram g. Cerarju jasno in javno povedati sledeče: najprej, sam se ne počutim bolanega. Drugič, v slovenskem zdravstvu vidim zdrave ampak preobremenjene ženske in moške, ki težko delajo za dobro pacientov in so za to zelo skromno plačani, medtem, ko se g. Cerar in g. Junkers zabavata po belem svetu na naš račun.  Od kod Cerarju pravica do tega, da slovensko zdravstvo imenuje za "bolnika"? Jaz bi rekel prej nasprotno: slovensko zdravstvo je eden najbolj zdravih segmentov družbe, bolniki pa so tisti, ki nam neomogočajo, da delamo v primernih pogojih in za primeren denar. Bolnik ste Vi, g. Cerar, ki klestite in prerasporejate denar, bolnik je ga. Milojka in celotna slovenska politika. Pričakujem, g. Cerar, da se boste drugič opravičili, ko nas klasificirate kot bolnike in nam pri tem še grozite da nas boste, verjetno za "dobrobit ljudstva", še malo bolj materialno skrčili - če Vam bomo to dovolili, seveda.

(1)(https://www.rtvslo.si/zdravje/novice/cerar-zdravstveni-sistem-je-bolan-potrebni-so-tudi-radikalni-ukrepi/367431)

Saturday, June 13, 2015

POLITIČNI PRITISK NA ZDRAVNIKE V BOLGARIJI





POLITIČNI PRITISK NA ZDRAVNIKE V BOLGARIJI

Bolgarska vlada, ki trenutno izvaja zloglasno "reformo" bolgarskega zdravstvenega sistema (beri: privatizacijo, centralizacijo in redukcijo, ki meji na genocid po mnjenju številnih Bolgarov) sooča se z nasprotovanjem nekaterih uglednih zdravnikov in tudi dela politike. Tako je župan Plovdiva, drugega mesta po velikosti, začel zbirati podpise občanov proti reformi zdravstva, pri kateri se predvideva prodaja 72 bolnišnic, kar bo bolgarsko podeželjelje oropalo dosedanje bolnišnične obskrbe. V intervju za časopis Standard predsednik Združenja občinskih bolnišnic, dr. Nedelko Totev, je zdravstveno reformo označil za absurdno. Bolgarski zdravstveni minister, v ZDA šolani anesteziolog dr. Peter Moskov, je te dni že ukrepal proti nakaterim oponentom, tako je zamenjal predstojnika bolnišnice Sv.Ivan Rilski, dr. Dečo Dečeva. Bolgarska vlada pa te dni začenja izvajati politični pritisk na zdravnike skozi različne medijske kampanje in tudi skozi parlamentarno proceduro. Namreč koalicijski partner desničarski vladi Bojka Borisova, obskurni Patriotski front, ravno zdaj podaja v parlamentarno proceduro Zakon o registru zdravniških napak. Ta zakon predvideva uvajenje nekakšnih kartotek strokovnih napak za vsakega zdravnika, na bazi katerih se bo odločalo o licenci za delo. O registru zdravniških napak poroča dnevnik Trud ("Delo") kot o koristni metodi izboljšanja kvaliteta zdravstva: http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4815658
Tako vlada, ki v imenu "progresa" vrača nazaj bolgarsko zdravstvo v predvojno obdobje, pritiska na zdravnike, verjetno zato da se slučajno ne bi ponovila ljudska nepokorščina iz leta 2013, ko je Borisov moral odstopiti zaradi oderuških cen električne energije v sicer že privatiziranem energetskem sistemu (Razen nuklearke Kozloduj, ki proizvaja 40% el. energije, Bolgarija je po hitrem postopku privatizirala proizvajanje in distribucijo električne energije. Velik del bolgarske energetike so odkupili tujci, ki se ne strinjajo z maksimiranjem cen... Zdaj, takorekoč isti akterji privatizirajo bolgarsko zdravstvo...)  V zadnjem desetletju se število v Bolgariji živečih Bolgarov zmanjšalo za 1 milion.

D.A.

Friday, June 5, 2015

POROČILO O "REFORMI" ZDRAVSTVA V REGIJI (Zdr. sindikat PRAKTIKUM)




Spoštovane kolegice in kolegi,

poročam o t.i. "reformah" zdravstva v regiji in EU, zato da bi imeli širšo sliko in razumeli kaj se dogaja z zdravstvom tudi pri nas.
V Bolgariji trenutno poteka privatizacija zdravstva. Nov zakon izenačuje privatne in državne bolnišnice. To se pravi, država ne bo več financirala državnih bolnišnic. Točno 72 državnih bolnišnic v Bolgariji se od danes prodaja. Število dispanzerjev je zmanjšano za polovico (podobno kot pri naši "reformi" NMP), eni dispanzerji so priključeni bolnišnicam, ki pa se seveda prodajajo.
Bralci teksta v dnevniku "Sega" ("Zdaj") takšne reforme imenujejo: "genocid": http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=754269

Povsod v trdnjavi kapitala, ki se imenuje EU, potekajo podobni procesi. Vedeti torej moramo, da naše plače in situacijo v zdravstvu ne narekuje Milojka, temveč kapital iz Bruslja. Tudi če bo Milojka padla, bo tisti, kateri bo prišel za njo delal isto. Zloglasna "fiskalna pravila" je takoj po padcu Janševe vlade uvedle vlada Bratuškove brez polemike. Naši politiki, žal, ne tekmujejo z različnimi programi; tekmujejo le kdo bo boljše služil nadrejenim. Zato je realistično pričekovati težke
čase in zelo trdo borbo za pravice delavcev v zdravstvu.
V tem trenutku v Parizu poteka stavka 8.000 zdravstvenih delavcev, kateri kot mi, zahtevajo boljše pogoje dela in večje plače:
http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20150521-paris-area-hospital-staff-strike-protest-reforms
Namreč, francoska vlada, tako kot slovenska, mora skrčiti financiranje javnega sektorja. To je t.i. "varčevanje" pri katerem gre za to da se javna sredstva preusmerijo v privatne žepe izbranih.
Slovenska vlada je od 2011 do danes zmanjšala zdravstveni proračun za 20%. V Parizu "morajo" zmanjšat stroške za 20 milionov evrov, kar bo prizadelo 75.000 zdravstvenih delavcev v 38 bolnišnicah. Lepo je prebrati, da zdravniki v Parizu, iz solidarnosti do sodelovcev podpirajo štrajk. Tudi mi moramo gojiti  solidarnost, medseboj in širše.

Kolega Kuštrin, ki dobro vodi našo stavko, rad pove da "nismo več v socializmu". Bi moral za tim stavkom postaviti vejco in dodati "žal".

Lep pozdrav
Dimitar Anakiev

PS. "Reforme" in "modernizacija" so seveda polepšani sinonimi za eufemizem "varčevanje".

Sunday, May 17, 2015

ZAKAJ PODPIRAM STAVKO ZDRAVNIKOV?





Dimitar Anakiev

ZAKAJ PODPIRAM STAVKO ZDRAVNIKOV?

"Kaj bo rekel narod", pravijo nekateri kolegi zdravniki, ki ne podpirajo zdravniške stavke. Takšna retorika pokaže jasno na dve stvari: najprej, nekateri so mnenja, da narod ne more razumeti razlogov za stavko zdravnikov. Na tem mestu je treba jasno povedati: ne glede na medijske manipulacije vlade Mira Cerarja (in tudi drugih slovenskih vladarjev), narod ni neumen, čeprav je mogoče, da del tega naroda res začasno nasede vladnim manipulacijam. In drugo, takšna retorika poskuša skriti vlado za narodom. Mi že dolgo, vsaj 20 let, nimamo več narodnih vlad, temveč slovenske vlade delajo v korist kapitala. V tem smislu so zdravniki del naroda, smo med tistimi, ki jih vlada eksploatira, sili v težko življenje in v težka delovna razmerja. Slovenske vlade so do sedaj uničile slovensko industrijo (ne doseže niti 50% prejšnje), gradbeništvo itn., zdaj je na vrsti javni sektor, kamor sodimo tudi zdravniki in vsi drugi zdravstveni delavci. Na primer, tako imenovana "reforma" NMP v Sloveniji, ki ravnokar poteka, po oceni Odbora osnovne zdravstvene dejavnosti  Združenja zdravstvenih zavodov (1) - slabša kakovost NMP v Sloveniji... Zato je nujno, da zdravniki in vsi drugi zdravstveni delavci branimo svoje pravice do dostojnega življenja in dela. S tem branimo tudi narod in to je treba narodu pojasniti.

(1) Omenjena ocena Odbora osnovne zdravstvene dejavnosti  Združenja zdravstvenih zavodov z dne 07.05.2015 je bila dostavljena tudi parlamentu RS.

17.05.2015

Sunday, March 8, 2015

IZBRISANI I DUH INTERNACIONALIZMA


Radno predsedništvo "Velike skupštine u osnivanju"  društava Izbrisanih pred velikim zadacima


Dimitar Anakiev
IZBRISANI I DUH INTERNACIONALIZMA

Obeležavanje godišnjice brisanja 25.671 Jugoslovena iz knjiga stanovnika Slovenije je ove (2015) godine imalo poseban značaj. Bila je to prva godišnjica nakon što je država, pod pritiskom Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, morala doneti zakon o otšteti Izbrisanima. Taj zakon je loš i po kvalitetu i po kvantiteu ali ipak Izbrisanima značajan jer ozakonjuje otštetu i tako im zvanično priznaje status žrtve državne politike šovinizma, koja je u celoj bivšoj Jugoslaviji zamenila dotadašnju politiku "bratstva i jedinstva". Država je morala zvanično priznati svoje kriminalno delovanje i to priznanje je posledica dugogodišnje borbe Izbrisanih protiv politike nacionalizma i šovinizma a pre svega je rezultat medjunarodne pomoći koju je izbrisanim Jugoslovenima pružila Italijanska komunistička partija (1), preko svojih advokata i evropskih poslanika. Duh internacionalizma, koji je jedna od glavnih osobina levice, bio je presudan sa ovu malu ali značajnu pobedu Izbrisanih protiv nacionalizma u Sloveniji i na Balkanu.
S druge strane bila je to prva godišnjica koju smo obeležili bez svojih istaknutih aktivista: Aleksandra Todorovića i Stojana Bubanje.
Na predlog autora ovih redova počelo  je stvaranje Velike skuštine izbrisanih, koja bi trebala neformalno da ujedini Izbrisane podeljene u različite grupe i društva. Ta podela Izbrisanih je rezultat državne politike "zavadi vladaj" (divide et impera) koja je prethodnu deceniju uspevala preko svojih eksponenata da značajno ohromi pokret Izbrisanih. Ova prva "Velika skpuština u osnivanju" koja je okupila članove dva društva (CIIA i ZID) izabrala je za svog radnog predsednika bivšeg narodnog poslanika Milana Aksentijevića. Diskutovane su razne teme a svakako je ključno pitanje multikulturnog karaktera pokreta Izbrisanih. Napuštanje politike multikulturalizma i prihvatanje politike nacionalizma, od strane žrtava nacionalizma, bilo bi negacija samog pokreta Izbrisanih i unišenje ne samo levičarskog duha internacionalizma koji je doneo rezultate borbi Izbrisanih, već bi to uništilo i sam pokret izbrisanih.
Na žalost, negativan uticaj društvenih prilika na poraženom i podredjenom Balkanu, odražava se i na pokret izbrisanih koji ne ostaje imun na medijima rasejane političke viruse. Aktuelna politika asimilira pojedince i ostavlja negativne posledice koje se ogledaju u sledećim glavnim crtama:

1-Preuzimanje nacionalističkih stereotipa
2-Političko i kulturno pojednostavljivanje i ograničavanje pokreta
3-Samovolja i nedostatak demokratičnih mehanizama
4-Umesto demokratije i kritičkog mišljenja ispostavljanje kulta ličnosti, folklora i rituala
5-Nedostatak bilo kakvog programa i programske načelnosti
6-Nastavak negativne selekcija pojedinih predstavnika Izbrisanih koje za račun države izabiraju organizacije tzv. "civilnih društava"

Naravno da pokret izbrisanih mora biti nacionalno emancipatoran ali nacija mora biti shvaćena kao politička, promenjiva (uslovna) kategorija a ne kao metafizička i religiozna, večna i bogom data, apsolutna dimenzija. Zato retrogradno nacionalno "prebrojavanje" Izbrisanih može biti samo politička manipulacija, baš takva kakvu praktikuju balkanski poltronski nacionalizmi i čiji su negativni rezultat, kao žrtve, i sami Izbrisani. Posle partije Zorana Jankovića, Alenke Bratušek i Mira Cerara pojavila se tendencija "Društva izbrisanih Aleksandra Todorovića". Sledimo li dosledno zvanične uticaje, po kojima su pobrojani lideri i njihove partije bili marionete vladajućeg kapitala, morali bi se pitati čija marioneta bi bilo društvo Izbrisanih koje bi umesto programa i programske načelnosti nudilo kult ličnosti? Čulo se je i o nekakvom savetovanju nekakvih stručnjaka koji su pokojnog Todorovića razglasili za "slovenačkog Malkoma-X". Takve i slične gluposti ukazuju na današnje mesto i politički nivo pokreta Izbrisanih.
Ukoliko govorimo o novom "pravnom" ili "zvaničnom" periodu pokreta izbrisanih, koje nastupa nakon zakona o odškodninama, čija manifestacija može biti i formiranje "Velike skupštine" tj. politika jedinstva pokreta Izbrisanih - ako je dozvoli država - onda moramo primetiti da ni o kakvom pokretu Izbrisanih i aktivizmu ne može biti reči ako ne nastaje na osnovu programskih načela, ako izbor rukovodilaca i način rada nije demokratski i iako ne izvire iz principa multikulturalizma, solidarnosti i internacionalizma. To su bazični postulati neophodni za osmišljavanje budućnosti pokreta.To su verovatno i novi zadaci izabranog radnog predsedništva u pripremi osnivanja Velike skupštine Izbrisanih. Želim ovim tekstom da otvorim diskusiju po svim pitanjima važnim za politiku aktivizma i političkog ujedinjenja pokreta Izbrisanih a pre svega za izgradjivanje platforme i programa pokreta Izbrisanih u pripremi za predstojeću osnivačku sednicu Velike skupštine Izbrisanih koja bi se po dogovoru dogodila 26.2.2016.


(1) http://www.rifondazione.it/primapagina/

Saturday, February 7, 2015

POSLEDNJI DANI ACE TODOROVIĆA - premijera filma





POSLEDNJI DANI ACE TODOROVIĆA

Film Dimitra Anakieva, 53 min, HDV
Nastopajo: Aleksandar Todorović, Stojan Bubanja, Toma Todorović, Vesna Todorović i drugi...
Podnapisi: srbohrvaščina

Premiera ob Dnevu Izbrisanih, 26.02.2015, Socialni center Rog, ob 19:00 uri

Friday, January 2, 2015

REVOLUTIONARY FILM-MAKING FROM EISENSTEIN TO ANAKIEV

 REVOLUTIONARY FILM-MAKING FROM EISENSTEIN TO ANAKIEV




Montage as a Radical Ethical Act: Revolutionary Film-making from Eisenstein to Anakiev


(Journal of Creative Geography)

Stuart C. Aitken

Department of Geography
San Diego State University


Over twenty years ago I wrote an essay that focused on montage as it is contextualized in what I called the image-event of film. Within this context, I defined these events as “images in motion over time through space with sequence” and produced an elaborate diagram to illustrate the process (Aitken 1991, 109). As a prosaic film technique, one of the primary intents of sequencing image events through montage is to condense space and time in particular ways – usually in short bursts – that leave an audience with an abridged but understandable narrative. Alternatively, as an extraordinary film technique, I wrote about image-events as creative processes where certain images when juxtaposed with others heighten awareness as a precursor to transformation and change; I was concerned about how montage shocked audiences into new realities. This was the original intent of Russian filmmaker, Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein, who pioneered montage as a "collision" of shots used to manipulate emotions (Eisenstein 1949). 


He believed that an idea should be derived from the juxtaposition of two independent shots, bringing an element of collage into film that told a new and different story. Eisenstein first used montage effectively in the Odessa steps sequence of Battleship Potemkin (1925) where a massacre by Tsarist troops is portrayed through a juxtaposition of images of neatly ordered soldiers firing repeated volleys of shots at the top of the stairs, Cossacks charging the crowd at the bottom of the stairs and, on the stairs themselves the montage jumps from an old woman wearing glasses, a young student, a schoolgirl and, famously, a mother who loses control of the pram containing her baby. The scene comes together to leave the audience with feelings about the undeniable brutality of the imperial Tsarist regime. This, I think, is the power of montage: it can take us beyond the mundane to an intense emotional and political engagement.

Run-of-the-mill filmmakers use the technique to abridge and condense narrative. Good filmmakers use it to engage audiences and shake them out of their sensibilities. Gilles Deleuze (1986, ix) suggests that movies grab us because they present preverbal intelligible content, which is not about any kind of existential or psychoanalytic lack or repressed desire but, rather, is about desire that is always positive. This takes Eisenstein in a different direction, because not only does it remove us from the bind of desire as a hole or lack we try to fill, but it positions us as active and positive in the creation of our own identities. Well, almost. Thankfully, Deleuze does not fall into the neo-liberal trap of burdening us with complete responsibility for our desires. He acknowledges that there is also something distinguishable from us (perhaps external but integrally tied to who we are) that affects our desires (It is Lacan’s big Other, Guy Debord’s society of the spectacle, Fred Jameson’s political unconscious, or whatever you want to call it). Here’s how Deleuze characterizes the internal/external processes interwoven through image-events: movementimages are comprised simultaneously of a perception-image that moves us from indistinguished knowledge at the periphery of our universe to a central subject position, and an action-image that is about our perception of things at the center of our universe and grasping the ‘virtual action’ of those things. Concurrently, there is the affection-image that “surges in the center of indetermination” between our perceptions and our actions (Deleuze 1986, 65). This is very much what Eisenstein had in mind when he talked about montage as a dialectical process. It is also precisely about the spatiality of montage; it is an affect that alludes to the “motion part of emotion that sloshes back and forth between perception and action” (Aitken 2006, 494). The effect of montage, then, points to an intensity that exceeds representation, but is also about shocking us into action. Montage, when done well, is more than just about condensing a series of images to proffer information efficiently.

As I sit in the movie theatre I want to be moved; I want to understand bodily and viscerally in ways that do more that suspend my disbelief, I want them to take me to new revolutionary places. I want the images speak to my poetic soul, and to the activist part of me that desires change in the form of radical ethical acts.

Eisenstein was working his magic with montage in the post-revolutionary communist Soviet Union. Dimitar Anakiev is a Serbian-born film-maker working in post-independence democratic Slovenia.

Both filmmakers are revolutionary in their politics and film practices. Amongst Anakiev’s films are three documentaries that portray the plight of the 25,671 people (including 5,600 children) who were officially erased from Slovenia’s permanent residents’ register and, as a consequence, lost basic human rights to health-care, education, housing and so forth. As a Slovenian of Serbian descent Anakiev was erased as part of the 1990s purge. Rubbed Out (2004) and Citizen A.T. (2010) tell the story of activist Aleksandar Todorović and other activist members of the Association of Erased Residents. Slovenia, My Homeland (2012) focuses on Irfan and Nisveta, who suffered horrendous abuses and privations during their erasure. Slovenia, My Homeland (2012) begins with a scene from Bled, an iconic picture-postcard lake in the Julien Alps used for touting Slovenia’s beauty, and a choir singing “Gloria in Excellus Dio.” The scene then switches to a ramshackled room where an American filmmaker is interviewing Irfan and Nisveta as they describe some of the abuses they suffered with erasure. Later, in a particularly poignant scene, Anakiev’s camera bounces between Irfan and Nisveta who are now in their respective apartments talking about the joy of their youth in Tito’s Yugoslavia and how their families were torn apart by the erasure. With each corresponding shot the camera pans in until we are focused on Irfan and Nisveta’s eyes. The whole movie is a powerful montage between state violence, erased people’s plight, official ambivalence, the destruction of youthful dreams and families torn apart. We are opened to Irfan’s joy in memories of youth when he was part of Yugoslavia’s Youth Work Brigade; Nisveta’s strength is seen as emanating from her Islamic faith and anger at being unable to return to Bosnia for her mother’s funeral. There is juxtaposition with the resilience of erased people and their willingness to organize politically and fight back. The final, powerful juxtaposition comes at the end of the film when we realize that Nisveta is one of the Catholic choir-members singing “Gloria in Excellus Dio.” Her ability to transcend religious differences between her Muslim culture and the Catholic choir are in sharp contrasted to the state violence against difference in the “ethnic cleaning” (to quote Todorović) of erasure.

As part of my embeddedness in Slovenia these last six months I’ve been talking to erased children and their families, as well as to filmmakers like Anakiev. I’ve also read everything by Slavoj Žižek that I can get my hands on; a tough task given that he writes faster than I read. Žižek (2014) latest tome is about events and transition, which speaks in some ways to the power of montage. He writes that “an event is [about] the effect that seems to exceed its causes – and the space of an event is that which opens up by the gap that separates an effect from its causes” (2014, location 63 of 2411). In this book, as elsewhere, Žižek is indebted to Deleuze. He also points out that there is something miraculous about events in terms of the ways they disturb the sensible (“the pure flow of (non)sense” (2014, location 96 of 2411)) and this is where he gets to political ruptures and radical ethical acts. Radical ethics are elaborated best by Žižek’s (2010, 326) Marxist focus on the “base” of freedom that disrupts “a traditional ethic of common sense and common decency among ordinary people,” As a neo-Lacanianist, Žižek wants to find ways to topple the big Other. He argues that this is only possible when there is simultaneously change from within that also changes “ensuing and pursuant external forces through un passage à l’acte” (Žižek 2010, 326) that radical transforms the subject and all her contexts.

By moving from despair to hope through activism, Nisveta, Irfan and other erased people radically transform themselves and those around them; last week (March 15, 2014) the European Court found in favor of the Slovenian government paying reparations to erased people who had filed suite, opening the door for more reparations and reconciliations. As an erased person, Anakiev’s radical ethical act was to give up practicing medicine to become a film-maker. He helped educate a generation of Slovenians through powerful films that juxtaposed the actions of politicians and rightwing nationals with the day-to-day privations of erased people. His use of montage reflects Eisenstein’s revolutionary dialectics and, ironically, Anakiev’s film practices raise awareness of the brutal imperialism that is sometimes embedded in what we have come to think of as democracy.



Aitken, Stuart C. (1991). A Transactional Geography of the Image-Event: The Films of Scottish Director, Bill Forsyth. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers. New Series. Vol. 16 (1), 105-118.
Aitken, Stuart C. (2006). Leading Men to Violence and Creating Spaces for their Emotions. Gender, Place and Culture. 13 (5), 491-507.
Deleuze, Gilles (1986). Cinema 1: The movement-image. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. London: Athlone Press.
Eisenstein, Sergei (1949) A Dialectical Approach to Film From. Essay in Film Form. New York. Accessed March 16, 2014. http://interactive2.usc.edu/blog-old/wpcontent/ uploads/2010/08/Film_Form.pdf
Žižek, Slavoj (2010). Living in the End Times London and New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (2014). Event: Philosophy in Transit. New York: Penguin Books (Kindle
version).