We share with you the open letter from the comrades of Nikis squat in Thessaloniki, that was evicted during the big police operation last week. For many years, Nikis was a well known Social Center directly at the inner-city promenade of Thessaloniki. For us and many of our friends, it has been a place of vivid solidarity in times of a general social crisis. Over the last months, the organizers there were hosting refugees. Here you can read our press release on the evictions.
OPEN LETTER TO AL. TSIPRAS AND HIS GOVERNMENT
At the dawn of the 27th of July, you and your government invaded three squats which hosted refugees and immigrants in Thessaloniki. At the same time you arrested 75 sympathizers from Greece and Europe while you sent the refugees to concentration camps, some of which did not accept them due to full occupancy. So you left them in the middle of nowhere.
Because the squats of “Orfanotrofeio” and “Hurriya” have their own political voice, and we don’t want to displace it, we will remind you as the squat of “Leoforos Nikis 39”, some facts that we are sure you already know.
The “Leoforos Nikis 39” squat was born trough the revolt of December 2008 and it was the first housing squat for people who took part at this political movement and had real housing problems. Integrated in these breadths it claimed, through an abandoned building, the decent living for those who participated, reappraising the meaning of public space. For this reason it accommodated all these years hundreds of activists and demonstrators, not only from Greece, but from the hole world. When the refugee crisis occurred, it opened in order to greet and cohabitate coequally with the most vulnerable of them, families with children. At the same time it acceded into a system of medical and alimentary care which had been created from the beginning of Eidomeni. Against these people at the dawn of Wednesday the 27th of July you reserved for one more time the nightmare they tried to avoid, crossing as thousands others, the Aegean.
Before you took the power, we welcomed you to its hell, from where unable to escape you accepted the responsibility to conduct it. Saturated by statism and governism, you duplicate the ruins of loyalist policy, because you did not manage to achieve anything new. This state of emergency conquered you because it can’t be reestablished. The moto “left for the first time” it’s true, but not in the way you were selling it bravading abroad and infield but in the way we experience it. Whatever the rightwing didn’t dare to do, you committed to do it bearing the cost of the apologies. Not only you are every word of the constitution but you grow rapidly in every word of law and order.
For these choices you have allies and many of clowns to accept this role. With your view about Evros fence, your acknowledgement of Turkey as a safe country, with the governmental administration of refugee crisis in the way of concentration camp, you liberated the disputatious and ultraconservative reason. Boutaris, Kaminis, the deanship of A.U.TH. and church, appeared in agreement in order to support you.
Besides, it’s not the first time, because we saw you when the war against the solidarians blew up in the middle of the refugee crisis. Then you realized that solidarity take forms far from you, from state and the nongovernmental organizations and you immediately attacked it. But the deaths and the infection take place at the governmental structures. What did you not understand by the death of the 27 year old girl at the “SOFTEX” concentration camp?
We are aware that the invasion against the squats was the states answer about the “No Border” Festival. We also know that you want to bring solidarity under the rules of concentration camps and that’s the reason you placed a implausible warhorse (Toskas) to give us hints and tips. But you probably ignore that we are neither romantics nor life style rebels.
Self-management and its structures, the participatory and coequal solidarity for a world which cannot exist without the “others”, direct democracy, social justice, and the struggle for social antiauthority, it’s alive and it’s here opposing you.
See you at the streets.
P.S.: What can we say about these who alter from political personalities to authority’s pragmatism sidekicks.
Poznato je da mnogo putujete, držite predavanja i organizirate tribine, pišete knjige, ali pišete i članke u najpoznatijim svjetskim novinama. Koje su vam glavne preokupacije posljednjih mjeseci i gdje živite?
– U posljednjih mjesec dana prošao sam, što zbog snimanja dokumentarca o krizi Europe za Al Jazeeru, što zbog DiEM-a, većinu Europe i kada čovjek posjeti izbjegličke kampove i metropole, od Pariza do Bruxellesa, od Londona do Frankfurta, ispunjene vojskom i strahom, kampovima i ksenofobijom, mora se zapitati kamo ide ovaj svijet. U samo nekoliko mjeseci dogodilo se ono što establishment nije očekivao, najprije Brexit, a sada Trump.
Što Americi, svijetu i Europi donosi prilično šokantna pobjeda Donalda Trumpa?
– Neki govore o “desnoj revoluciji”, ali valja biti precizniji: iza povratka populizma i mogućeg fašizma na globalnoj razini, kao i 30-ih godina prošlog stoljeća, stoji ekonomska kriza i nezadovoljstvo radničke klase. I Brexit i Trump samo su posljedice neoliberalne politike koja je čitav radni dio stanovništva dovela na rub siromaštva. S druge strane, upravo su Demokrati odškrinuli vrata za Trumpa. Kao što je pokazao WikiLeaks, Demokrati su na početku čak i navijali za Trumpa, a Hillary je učinila sve da makne Bernija Sandersa. I to im se obilo o glavu. Jedino je Bernie Sanders mogao biti prava alternativa Trumpu.
Možemo li očekivati velike društvene podjele i trajnu nestabilnost u SAD-u i Americi?
– Velike društvene promjene nisu nužno loše. Definitivno nisam jedan od onih koji su podržavali Brexit ili Trumpa, ali ovakav globalni potres nije nužno loš. Samo čitajte Johna Podestu kojeg je objavio WikiLeaks i vidjet ćete tko je sve stajao iza Hillary Clinton, od Wall Streeta do Googlea, od Facebooka do Saudijaca. No sada čak i unutar Silicon Valleyja dolazi do velike podjele, umjesto Erica Schmidta iz Googlea koji je bio ključan čovjek Hillaryne digitalne kampanje, sada dolazi Peter Thiel, čiji je Palantir već penetrirao u Pentagon. Pitanje je tko će preuzeti NSA i kojim će se ljudima okružiti Trump. Slijede jako zanimljiva vremena.
Jedno hrani drugo
Je li ugrožena globalna svjetska ravnoteža i neki globalni svjetski mir?
– Teško je reći ako pred sobom imate podatak da je samo za Obamine vladavine, koji je tobože trebao stati s Bushovom vanjskom politikom, SAD vodio čak sedam ratova po svijetu. Vidjet ćemo u kojem će smjeru krenuti Trump, ali i s Hillary smo mogli očekivati još veće zaoštravanje i nove ratove. Globalna svjetska ravnoteža bila je već ugrožena kad je Obama objavio digitalni rat Rusiji kako bi pomogao Hillary da dođe na vlast. Međutim, mislim da generalno čitav svijet ide u jako opasnom smjeru gdje svašta možemo očekivati. Da ne spominjemo ekološku katastrofu ili čak nuklearni rat. To su realne mogućnosti koje su sigurno veće s Trumpom.
Koliko će Trumpova pobjeda utjecati na porast društvene netrpeljivosti i desnog populizma posvuda i u svijetu i u Europi?
– Diljem Europe već imate desni populizam i poludiktature, od Orbana do Erdogana. Iduća godina, s francuskim i njemačkim izborima, je ključna za Europu. Sudeći po svemu, u Francuskoj ćemo imati situaciju da ćemo na kraju imati izbor kao i u Americi – Sarkozy, koji je nedavno podržao Trumpa, i Le Pen, drugu verziju Trumpa.
Je li opasniji politički establisment ili populizam u politici?
– Jedno hrani drugo. Ne treba ih gledati kao na suprotnosti, već kao na dvije strane iste kovanice. Trenutni populizam je rezultat propale ekonomske logike establishmenta. Ali isto tako, kao što kaže Walter Benjamin, “svaki fašizam je posljedice neke neuspješne revolucije”. I Brexit i Trump su, između ostalog, posljedica slabosti ljevice.
Kakva je budućnost Europske unije, što taj projekt danas najviše ugrožava?
– Samo u posljednjih godinu dana budućnost Europske unije je na ozbiljnoj kušnji. Izbjeglička kriza je skinula maske, suspendirala Schengen, vratila zidove i ksenofobiju. Brexit je ubrzao raspad Europske unije, a geopolitički EU nikada nije bila slabija – što se može vidjeti po utjecaju koji recimo ima Turska, a da ne govorimo o arapskom, ruskom i kineskom kapitalu na bivšem Balkanu, od Beograda do Sarajeva.
Nedavno ste na presici u zagrebačkom HNK-u rekli da u sveopćoj atmosferi raspada svih društvenih vrijednosti, od jačanja nacionalizma diljem Europe sve do Donalda Trumpa, upravo bi Filozofski teatar – kroz spoj radikalne ekonomije, filozofije, a ovaj put i rocka – trebao ponuditi nove alternative i pogled na svijet koji nam nerijetko nedostaje ovdje u Hrvatskoj. Koje su alternative tog spoja radikalne ekonomije i filozofije?
– Ideja je Filozofskog teatra da unese malo svjetla u ova mračna vremena. Zato već u studenom dolazi Zygmunt Bauman, a u prosincu Yanis Varoufakis koji je već rasprodao HNK. I Subversive Festival je spajao filozofiju i rock, te osim festivala ostavio neko nasljedstvo i pokrenuo bitne stvari koje i dalje imaju plodove ne samo u Hrvatskoj. S »Filozofskim teatrom« u HNK pokušavamo pomaknut još neke granice, a interes publike kao i ljudi koje smo doveli – od Pikettyja do Vanesse Redgrave – govore sami za sebe. Imali smo predstavu Tariqa Alija “Nove pustolovine Don Kihota”, a iduće godine očekujemo i Žižekovu “Antigonu”. Nije ni čudo da nam Hasanbegovićevo Ministarstvo kulture nije dalo ni lipu za program, valjda će ovo novo shvatiti što je uopće kultura i koju ulogu ima ili može imati da se i nama u Hrvatskoj ne dogodi Trump.
Varijanta europske socijaldemokracije, onog što se zvalo i treći put, igrala je važnu pa i dominantnu ulogu sve do početka ekonomske krize. Ali, koje su slabosti tog trećeg puta koji se danas gotovo potpuno gubi?
– Upravo je taj Treći put, reprezentiran Blairom, i doveo do raspada socijaldemokracije. A kao rezultat ono što imamo danas nije toliko “ekstremna desnica” koliko “ekstremni centar”, gdje sve veće i desne i tzv. “lijeve” partije zapravo igraju istu igru. Pa uzmite Hollandea u Francuskoj koji je počeo implementirati iste reforme tržišta rada koje je Trojka iskušala u Grčkoj. Istovremeno Le Pen raste, a Hollande je pao na bijednih 4 posto podrške po zadnjim anketama.
Koji su ciljevi i metode vašeg pokreta Democracy in Europe Movement?
– Cilj je potpuno utopistički – spasiti Europu od galopirajuće propasti. Više o tome objasnit ćemo već početkom prosinca u HNK kada ćemo s Varoufakisom prvi puta i javno predstaviti DiEM pred hrvatskom publikom.
Ima li radikalna ljevica šansu u Europi? Kako danas gledate na iskustvo grčke Syrize? Syriza je jedina radikalnija ljevičarska stranka na vlasti, ali su joj vezane ruke?
– Pitanje je po čemu je Syriza još uvijek radikalna? Možda po tome što provodi radikalnije mjere štednje i privatizacije nego što bi to radila bilo koja druga desna vlast. Uzmite luku Pirej u kojoj radnici u grčkom dijelu luke štrajkaju jer se boje da će završiti kao radnici u kineskom dijelu, s manjim plaćama, bez kolektivnih ugovora, itd. A upravo je Tsiprasova vlast Kinezima prodala luku od strateškog interesa. Isto važi za grčkih 14 aerodroma koji su sada u vlasništvu Fraporta.
Kapitalizam preživljava, istina iz krize u krizu, ali ipak bez prave realne alternative u Europi? Je li mu budućnost zajamčena, ili je pobjediv?
– Nedavno kad sam bio u Silicon Valleyju, dan prije je Elon Musk u Googleu držao predavanje o “okupaciji Marsa”, pa ako mislite da je kapitalizam ograničen samo na zemlju, varate se. Kao što se nekoć vodila borba za nove teritorije ili Atlantik, tako se danas vodi borba za svemir. Istovremeno, Silicon Valley razvija umjetnu inteligenciju, virtualnu realnost, a kroz tzv. “smart cities” penetrira u naše gradove u kojima Uber i Airnb komodificiraju međuljudske odnose do razine da nove generacije vjerojatno neće ni znati da je nekoć postojala riječ “solidarnost”. Međutim, upravo krize kapitalizma otvaraju pukotine za moguću promjenu. Poanta je u tome da ne valja ostati zarobljen u prošlosti, ono što je Marx tako lijepo rekao u “Osamnaestom Brumaireu” govoreći o tome da buduća socijalna revolucija mora “crpiti svoju poeziju iz budućnosti”.
U nedavno objavljenom tekstu o ograničenjima historijskih analogija fašizma Boris Buden iznosi tezu da pravo pitanje nije šta u našoj društvenoj stvarnosti podsjeća na fašizam iz prošlosti, već šta nas sprečava da prepoznamo Fašizam koji tek dolazi? Ovaj tekst analizira tri aspekta prava koja mogu ograničiti našu sposobnost da fašizam prepoznamo prije no što njegove posljedice postanu očigledne. Prvi aspekt je nemogućnost (ili nevoljnost) prava da preispita socio-ekonomske uzroke nepravde, drugi je predstavljanje nepravde kao posljedice odsustva prava, a ne njegovog sveprisustva, i treći je depolitizacija prava kroz iluziju njegove separacije od politike. U političkoj stvarnosti ova tri aspekta su nerazdvojna, ali i manje očita, manje esencijalizirana, ne tako lako prepoznatljiva, no cilj nije bio predstaviti detaljnu kritiku prava, već ponuditi skicu alternativnog načina njegove konceptualizacije, koja može služiti kao osnov za promišljanje alternativnih modela političke akcije.
Pravo pati od miopije.
Bavi se povodima i posljedicama, ali nema kapacitet da preispita socio-ekonomske uzroke kršenja ljudskih prava. Susan Marks u svome tekstu Ljudska prava i uzroci (Human Rights and Root Causes) iznosi tezu da diskurs ljudskih prava posljedice strukturalne socio-ekonomske opresije predstavlja kao uzroke nepravde, što za efekat ima depolitizaciju te iste nepravde. Marks tvrdi kako je fascinacija uzrocima proizvod relativno nove menadžerske strategije na polju ljudskih prava koja narativ uzroka koristi da bi nepravdu uokvirila tako da se pravo postavlja kao jedini mogući lijek za tu nepravdu. Naprimjer, ako nižu stopu pismenosti žena postavimo u okvir seksizma koji je vezan za tradicionalna shvatanja roda, razliku između urbanih i ruralnih sredina i siromaštvo, onda diskurs ljudskih prava može ponuditi rješenja kao što su: dizanje svijesti, popravljanje ruralne infrastrukture, plaćanje porodicama da djevojčice šalju u školu, te može ponuditi indikatore napretka koji će nam reći da ljudska prava donose konkretne društvene promjene. Međutim, ono što pravo ne radi je – ne gleda u uzroke seksizma, te u neraskidivu vezu između kapitalizma, seksizma i reproduktivnog rada. Pravo uzroke svoga kršenja definiše u odnosu na sebe samo, i tako stvara monopol nad mogućim rješenjima.
Drugi aspekt miopije su konstantna pozivanja na krize: izbjeglička kriza, ekonomska kriza, sigurnosna kriza. Jezik krize nam omogućava da fokus pomjerimo sa širih društvenih nepravdi na one nepravde koje su hipervidljive (Charlesworth, 2002). Istovremeno, narativ krize služi tome da krizu izmjesti van okvira prava i otvori prostor za novi režim regulacije, čuvajući ugled prava kao: a) generalno moralnog, b) neophodnog za društveni opstanak.
Da bi održao (i osigurao) svoju relevantnost, pravni sistem postavlja diskurzivna pravila koja relegiraju bilo kakvo preispitivanje socio-ekonomskih uzroka u polje društvenih nauka i historije, pod izgovorom da se tako štiti apolitičnost i neutralnost sistema. U svome tekstu Susan Marks predlaže lažnu slučajnost kao komplementarnu alternativu Ungerovom konceptu lažne nužnosti. Dok Ungerov koncept za cilj ima dekonstrukciju narativa nužnosti – da je svijet onakav kakav mora biti, Marks želi da dekonstruišemo narativ slučajnosti – momente u kojima prizivanjem slobodnog izbora maskiramo sistemska ograničenja koja usmjeravaju naše akcije. Pravo koristi oboje: lažnu nužnost da svoje izbore predstavi kao prirodne, a lažnu slučajnost da one izbore koje ne može prikriti depolitizira izmičući ih van socio-ekonomskog sistema u kojem su nastali pod izgovorom održavanja sopstvene apolitičnosti.
Susan Marks u svome tekstu predstavlja pet elemenata koji se mogu koristiti za preispitivanje sistema: 1) umjesto polemisanja o tome šta vlade treba da rade, fokus treba prebaciti na zašto to ne rade, 2) preispitivanje indirektnih društvenih odnosa poput diskriminacije, i korištenje tranzitivnih koncepata poput eksploatacije i marginalizacije, 3) prepoznavanje povezanosti opresije i privilegije, 4) stavljanje naglaska na materijalna objašnjenja koja prepoznaju ne samo ideje iza društvenih fenomena, već i socio-ekonomske uslove unutar kojih su se te ideje razvile, i 5) repolitizacija koja bi za cilj imala otkrivanje strukturalne nepravde i pretapanje toga u mobilizaciju za političku akciju.
Pravo pati od narcisoidnosti.
Istovremeno želi biti sveprisutno, nevidljivo i bezgrešno.
U većem dijelu literature koja se bavi problematikom ljudskih prava, kršenja ljudskih prava su predstavljena kao posljedica odsustva zakona. Tako je Guantanamo Bay u literaturi često opisan kao pravna “crna rupa” u kojoj je do zlostavljanja zatvorenika došlo jer je zatvor bio van (fizički, kao otok, i pravno, kao izuzetak generalnim pravilima) američkog pravnog sistema (iako je bio pod pravnom nadležnošću SAD-a). Izbjeglički kampovi se prikazuju kao teritorije koje su van pravnog sistema država u kojima se nalaze, a na simboličkoj i fizičkoj granici režima ljudskih prava, dok se naselja u kojima se nalaze imigranti i/ili manjine predstavljaju kao paralelni pravni sistemi i nepravda unutar njih kao posljedica nemogućnosti pravnog sistema da probije u njih. Zone ekstremnog (ili tačnije vidljivog) kršenja ljudskih prava se predstavljaju kao zone izuzetka.
Fleur Johns u svom tekstu Guantanamo Bay i uništenje izuzetka (Guantanamo Bay and the Annihilation of the Exception) iznosi tezu da ove nepravde nisu posljedica odsustva prava u zonama izuzetka, već upravo pokušaj prava da zone izuzetka regulira, simptom pravne teže za sopstvenim sveprisustvom. Dakle, zone izuzetka nisu zone nedostatka hegemonog pravnog poretka, već njegov pokušaj da te zone regulira do trenutka stvaranja nemogućnosti iskustva izbora, sumnje i odgovornosti. Kako Johns navodi, tokom suđenja u Guantanamu korišten je diskurs koji je odluke predstavljao kao zaključke “razumne osobe” unutar sistema humanitarnog prava. Cilj je zatvoriti sve moguće normativne prostore u kojima je moralno rezonovanje moguće, i u kojem pravnici imaju slobodu da donose odluke. Dakle, u praksi pravo potpuno ograničava mogućnost individualnog moralnog rezonovanja u zoni izuzetka (ili preciznije posljedice tog rezonovanja) kroz potpunu regulaciju, dok istovremeno tu zonu simbolički i fizički izmješta van svojih okvira. Dehumanizacija koja nastaje u tim zonama onda nije, kako Agamben tvrdi, proizvod direktne političke moći države, niti njena granica, već je proizvod oduzimanja moralnog agensa.
Naravno, ovo nije nova opservacija. Hannah Arendt je prije više od 60 godina u izvještajima sa Eichmanovog suđenja ponudila sličan zaključak. Međutim, u proteklih 60 godina se uloga koju je pravo igralo u stvaranju sistema banalnosti zla uspjela historijski ograničiti – nacizam je izmješten u zonu izuzetka, zakoni koji su donošeni se analiziraju kroz historijsku prizmu njihovih posljedica, što ograničava našu sposobnost da opasnost prepoznamo prije nego što se u potpunosti manifestuje. Dakle, moramo prepoznati da je sistematsko kršenje ljudskih prava ekstrem na spektru sistemskog nasilja, ali ne njegov izuzetak. Tek kada prepoznamo da sistem funkcioniše na ograničavanju prostora za političku akciju, možemo se početi boriti da taj prostor ponovo proširimo.
Pravo pati od disocijacije.
Pravo opstaje na temelju iluzije da je odvojeno od politike. U osnovi našeg razumijevanja se nalazi dihotomija da je politika prostor diskrecije, slobodnog odlučivanja i (ne)morala, a da je pravo prostor pravila, logike i razuma. David Kennedy koristi analogiju more politike, preko kojeg smo uspjeli prebaciti tanku mrežu prava, no kako zaključuje – stvarnost je drugačija – pravo je sveprisutno, a prostor za političku kontestaciju sve više i više ograničen. Ustaljeno je mišljenje da je pravo proizvod politike – da bi zadržala legitimitet, politika dopušta određeni nivo regulacije i ograničenja. No, šta ako je politika proizvod prava, ako pravo zadržava svoj legitimitet tako što održava iluziju prostora za političku kontestaciju? Pojasniću. Pravo definiše mogućnosti otpora: protesti su legalni, samo moraju biti prijavljeni policiji, štrajkovi moraju biti najavljeni, tužbe pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava su moguće tek nakon što se iscrpe svi lokalni mehanizmi zaštite – legalnost otpora zavisi od njegove najave, od toga da li je sistemu dato dovoljno vremena da otvori prostor za otpor, da jasno postavi granice unutar kojih otpor može biti realizovan. Pravo nam ostavlja prostora da izazovemo njegov legitimitet. Međutim, da bi izazov bio prepoznat, mora biti napravljen unutar diskursa prava, koristeći jezik, metodologiju, i logiku prava. Znači, svaki oblik izazova sistema u svojoj osnovi već prepoznaje legitimitet sistema koji izaziva. Postavljanjem društvene nepravde u okvir prava individualiziramo je i izolujemo od sistema opresije koji do nje dovode, te ograničavamo obim opresija koje pravno mogu biti prepoznate kao nepravda.
Proces odvajanja prava od politike stvara percepciju prava kao objekta, a ne subjekta moći. Izbori unutar prava se predstavljaju kao logični, pravno jedini mogući, umjesto kao proizvod socio-ekonomskog sistema unutar kojeg pravo postoji. Kroz svoju depolitizaciju pravo naš fokus prebacuje na sam diskurs, umjesto na diskurzivna pravila koja definišu spektar mogućnosti koje su nam dostupne unutar pravnog sistema. S druge strane, omogućava nam osjećaj političkog angažmana kroz iluziju da je borba protiv nepravde ujedno i borba protiv nepravednog sistema. Tu se otvara treći prostor za rast fašizma.
Oblačeći fašizmu ruho diskriminacije pravo: a) ograničava nepravde koje mogu pravno biti prepoznate kao legitimne, b) predodređuje modele borbe protiv tih nepravdi koji ignorišu njihove istinske uzroke i tako osiguravaju da će se nepravde nastaviti ponavljati, c) usmjerava građanski aktivizam na gašenje požara, umjesto na njihovo sprečavanje. Pravo borbu protiv nepravde svodi na politiku identiteta u kojoj se interesne grupe bore protiv diskriminacije. Međutim, upravo njihova raščlanjenost koja je posljedica solidarnosti vezane isključivo za pripadanje grupi depolitizira otpor i oduzima mu kolektivnu snagu. Dakle, a) pravo i politika su razdvojeni, b) da bi nepravda bila prepoznata mora biti lična, ili grupna (ukoliko je grupa pravno prepoznata), c) politika identiteta otpor depolitizira i svodi na lični/interesni nivo koji ga onda uvodi unutar pravnog sistema, gdje može biti kooptiran. Dakle, sistem je začarani krug, čiji tok je nemoguće prekinuti iznutra.
Vojska je opresivna institucija, ali žene treba da joj imaju pristup. Brak je opresivna institucija, ali LGBTIQ populacija treba da mu ima pristup. Vlada je opresivna institucija, ali svi građani treba da joj imaju pristup. Pravo nas, uspješno, ubjeđuje da je u našem najboljem interesu da se izborimo da učestvujemo u sopstvenoj opresiji. Onda se postavlja pitanje: zašto pretpostaviti da će tu stati? Možda se opasnost krije upravo u toj pretpostavci.
Sto lica fašizma
Buden svoj članak zaključuje opservacijom da naše intelektualne sposobnosti nailaze na sopstvena ograničenja kada su suočene sa fašizmom – razarajući potencijal fašizma je granica razuma. Cilj ovog teksta je bio da preispita ulogu prava u kooptaciji razuma od strane fašizma. Kroz pravni sistem fašizam može biti civilizovan, ogrnut u jezik tolerancije i razuma, predstavljen kao borba protiv agresije, radikalizma i ekstremizma. Pravo pomaže fašizmu da istovremeno bude iracionalan i racionalan, pravilo i izuzetak, iluzija i činjenica, diskurs i stvarnost. Fašizam opstaje, upravo, jer jeste i kapilaran i strukturalan, jer se u jednom trenutku čini prirodan, a u drugom ekstreman, u jednom političan, u drugom apolitičan. Pravo ima potencijal da fašizam sprečava, ali isto tako ima i tendenciju da ga normalizira. Definitivno je dio problema, ali možda može biti i dio rješenja.
From 7th of October, 2016, the protesting refugees at Sendliger Tor in Munich will start a new mode of protest against the inhuman living circumstances and the dreadful asylum law in Germany. Right now, there is a protest camp at Sendliger Tor – München. We’ll send you as an attachment the press declaration of the strikers announcing a protest march from München to Nürnberg in order to continue the protest together.
The purpose of this protest form is to mobilize refugees living in Lagers to join in. After an intensive debate, the protesting refugees and supporting groups decided to establish 5 working groups. Every group or individual who is willing to make this protest a success is invited to support us for the whole protest as well as for parts of this march. There are already some supporters, but we still need everyone for succeeding in our big plans. The focused quantity will increase the protest’s quality, thus the collective character of the aim is on the shoulders of the all of the participating and supporting groups, means all are responsible for this success. The workgroups will work on different areas of responsibility. To get a clearer picture we’ll introduce their tasks in the following part.
COMMUNICATION WORK GROUP:
1. Start contacting groups and individuals in the cities which we’ll pass along our rout to Nürnberg to activate local support. In the following we’ll give you a few examples. It is important to ensure the safety e.g. by having security guards furthermore solidarity is very welcome. The group has to write a list with of all active groups and individuals so that the logistic group can use this information and structures.
2. Connect to lawyers who are familiar with the asylum laws or/and the rights of assembly – to solve problems quickly.
LOGISTICS WORK GROUP
Refugees as well as activists form this group. This group is responsible to solve all logistical issues on both tracks.
1. For this protest march we need different permissions – it has to be registered. We need places to rest; we need to hold local demonstrations… to ensure safety to all refugees this part is really important. Parts of the protest march can/should be registered by local groups.
2. We need cars for all the material and baggage of the refugees as well as a caravan with a toilet… in case we can’t find a service area.
3. Important things in both routes are: 1. Places to sleep 2. Tents and sleeping bags 3. Food and drinks 4. Escort car 5. Toilettes and the possibility to take a shower 6. Electricity (especially on countryside) 7. First aid and medical support 8. Transpis, Flyer, megaphone… 9. …(list is open – if you see other support which is needed feel free to say so. Just contact the group)
1. Right now most of the journalists know the reasons for the refugees’ protest camps and spread the news in accordance to their press declarations. Since we need the truth to be published it is really important that we’ll take care of the presswork. We need a list of freelance journalists and press contacts to tell them new information. It is also important to initiate contact to Journalists which are interested in the refugee issues to join into the protest march to create a steady publicity. This website will be administered by refugees to publish their point of view. Therefore, it’ll become the mouthpiece of the protest and should be spread. Each involved group is welcome to write its own articles to spread the refugees protest. BE ACTIVE!!
2. Furthermore there will be press conferences in different cities which have to be organised to ensure local press activities. Organise places for the press conferences, inform the local press and use your contacts!
1. It is very important that this protest march is accompanied and documented by photographers, journalists, film-makers etc… everyone who is experienced or knows someone who is experienced is needed!
1. This protest still exists although we had many huge repressions and problems. Now it is moving, together with refugees and activists, to another level. Therefore we need financial support. We ask every organisation which condemns the inhuman laws and the isolation of refugees for support. Please contact our financial group and make a donation to the following banc account.
Donation-Akkount: Account Name: Refugee Struggle for Freedom BIC: GENODEM1GLS IBAN: DE 97 4306 0967 8229 1322 00
We invite every group, individual and activists to show their solidarity with the refugees and their demands. Write a solidarity letter, organise some solidarity actions or join us!!!
The trial of ten people accused for „illegal border crossing and participation in mass riot”
After the end of the trial on „first level court” most of the people were sent to Bicske, that is an open camp near Budapest in Hungary. At the moment seven people are in Western Europe. The other three people are still in Hungary.
Yamen A., whose verdict was three years imprisonment and 10 years expulsion from Hungary is currently in the prison of Szeged. We are trying to get in touch with him, but the procedure is quite complicated.
Farouk A. is in a detention center in Kiskunhalas. After the end of the trial he was sent also to Bicske, but a few days later he was moved to Kiskunhalas. The pretrial detention has to be renewed in every two months, the decision will be reviewed in September by the Immigration office (BÁH).
Kamel J. is in the detention center of Békéscsaba and his application for family reunification is in progress. Apart from Yamen, he is the only person who was not in Bicske after the trial, he was immediately moved into the detention center. After two months he requested his relocation into open camp, but the Immigration Office refused it justifying the decision with his lack of identity documents and prolonged his detention. His lawyer argued that until the decision of the family reunification most probably they will not be able to achieve his relocation. They are waiting to receive the decision in the middle of September.
In the „first level court” verdict people got 2-10 years of expulsion from Hungary. The phrasing of the decision is really obscure, with some legal twist it could mean expulsion from the Schengen Zone. According to the lawyer of Kamel J. , probably if people leave Hungary before the verdict come into force, the decision can be applied just on Hungary, not on the whole Schengen Zone.
The „first level court” has sent the verdict to the „second level court” recently, most probably the trials on the „second level” will not start before 2017. People who are already abroad do not have to attend the trials personally, their lawyer can represent them.
The trial of Ahmed H., who is accused for „the crime of terrorism and other crimes”
Ahmed H. is in the prison of Venyige street in Budapest. He is remanded in custody until his next trial which will be on the 23d of September in Szeged.
In 2015 September, was the time when the Hungarian border fence to Serbia was closed violently and it became from one day to the other illegal – by criminal law – to cross. The fence, which until now grossly violates people’s right to move and seek asylum was put in place. So, while the government was transporting people themselves to Austria by busses the day before, on September 16th the police was using tear gas and water cannons against people who wanted to do so. Out of the place of the protest, they arrested the 11 accused completely randomly, among those people who could not leave that quickly when the counter-terrorist police force attacked the demonstration. Among them are very young and very old people, sick people, a person in a wheelchair.
After nearly 10 month of detention, in horrible conditions, after the falsification of translations and the biased refusal to take into consideration important video material and the brutal use of tear gas of the police, the accused were found guilty – while the international media didn’t pay attention and covered the trial 10 of the accused got prison sentences between 1 and 3 years and expulsion from Hungary for up to 10 years, while one, Ahmed H., accused for terrorism – for throwing stones – is facing up to 20 years of imprisonmen. the decision is not the final one, the prosecutor announced to go into revision and demanded harder punishment. The accused and their defense lawyers also appealed against the decision. So due to Hungarian laws the case is escalated to second level court in Szeged.
While most of the accused had already served the prison time they have been sentenced to and are now either in open camps, soon to be released from detention or have left Hungary already, for two this is not the case: Yamen A., who was sentenced to 3 years of prison in Szeged, and Ahmed H., still waiting for his verdict in prison in Budapest, are still kept in long-term physical detention. While the main focus of the campaign at the moment is on the immediate freedom of the Ahmad H. (20 years) and Yamen A. (3 years) it’s also important to consider how the criminalization and the stigmata, the massive psychological trauma, the threat of expulsion separating them from their families in the EU, is something that prolongs, even after the physical release. The lives of the 11 people are used to state an example, with which the Hungarian state wants to create an atmosphere of fear and criminalize movement as such.
The Röszke trial is revealing the reality of a system in which state and police violence is never put in question, and in which money and goods can move freely but not people. The trials are happening in an increasingly repressive context. They are happening in a context of militarized European borders, in which people get pushed back multiple times violently at the Serbian-Hungarian border, robbed and beaten up by paramilitary groups, while Hungarian majors proudly post pictures of people at the border tied up in dehumanizing poses before they get pushed back to Serbia. They are happening in a context in which the legal frameworks get shaped in a way that such violence is legitimized and in a context full of racist propaganda, in which theHungary holds a referendum (on October 2nd), symbolically letting Hungarian citizens chose between the forced relocation scheme of the EU and the ‘Hungarian solution’ of fencing off people completely.
This case is one of many horrible cases within the ongoing European migration policy. But it is crucial not only because it reveals the absurdity of European politics of migration, the repression of the EU border regime and the oppressive politics which lie behind the ‘innocent’ idea of state institutions particularly well, but also because those repressive politics are also this time pushed forward at the massive cost of individuals lives.
We invite everybody, individuals and collectives to join and support this campaign in all possible ways. Spread information, organize solidarity actions and join the two demonstration in September! Let’s unite and fight the repression of borders and states!
Dates and locations of the protests:
22.09.2016 Budapest, in front of the Venyige prison (1108 Budapest, Maglódi u. 24), where Ahmed H. is imprisoned
23.09.2016. Szeged, in front of the court (6720, Szeged, Szechenyi ter 4.)
Since the 15th of July, the day that prime minister Aleksandar Vučić held a speech  about the problems Serbia is facing at the moment, the situation in Serbia for people on the move has become more and more tense. The speech was an awaited response to the legal changes made in Hungary on July 5th (“8 kilometer” push-back law ) which set a legal frame for the Hungarian authorities to push back thousands of people to Serbian territory.
Among other points, Vučić mentioned in his speech that migrants are one of the biggest problems Serbia is facing at this time and that more repressive measures will be taken in order to gain control over the irregular movement of people. One of the measures put into practice has been a “joint venture” of police and military in order to guard the southern borders towards Macedonia and Bulgaria. As of August 30, 4,428 people have been kept from entering Serbia by military and police units, while within the same operation 673 who were encountered on Serbian territory have been brought to official reception centers . The military officials don’t use the word “push-back” or mention any direct contact with the groups, rather they state that people “gave up” when they saw the Serbian forces. Thereby, Serbia maintains its humanitarian vocabulary used to distinguish itself from other Balkan countries like Hungary and Macedonia who boast with numbers of people they successfully pushed back. Which methods were used to deter people and why these 4,428 people did not apply for asylum in Serbia but instead went back is not mentioned. Probably the mere sight of a police officer is not enough to stop people from moving on, yet their stories and voices remain silent and invisible.
On the one hand, this increasingly repressive policy changes can be seen as a national answer to the reality that was created by the northern neighbour Hungary and to the fact that from one day to the other people got stuck in Serbia with no option to move on. On the other hand, these changes can also be seen in the frame of a European Border Regime that consists of more than just the legal closure of European borders. This will be elaborated in the following.
MILITARIZATION OF THE BORDERS
Ever since Hungary launched the push-backs, the number of people stuck in Serbia has been increasing on a daily basis. According to the Hungarian police, from July 5th to August 31th there have been 4,937 official incidents of prevented entries at the border and another 3,486 people who made it across the fence and got pushed back to Serbian territory [4 / 5]. Many of them came back to Belgrade and reported horrible experiences of violent encounters with the border police and private border patrols. Reports included tear gas, hand-cuffs, feet-cuffs, dog bites, pepper spray, shootings, and personal indignations (such as having to strip naked before being beaten up).
Officially, there are now around 4,400 people stuck in Serbia . This number might seem confusing compared to the total number of 8,423 failed attempts mentioned above but it’s important to remember that one person can be pushed back many times. People arrive in Serbia, try to go to Hungary, are pushed back to Serbia, and then try again repeatedly. And while a small number of people always manage to cross, there are also new people who arrive in Serbia.
These days, even more people can not afford a smuggler to Hungary. If there is one fact about migration, it is that a closed border most of all means rising prices. Therefore, just a small “elite” of those who can still pay the dictated price are able to move on with smugglers. But prices are skyrocketing, standing around 1500€ for one person only as far as Hungary which used to be 150€ some months ago.
At the same time, with the establishment of joint police and army patrols on the southern borders, the amount of people who reach Serbian territory in the first place is decreasing significantly, from an average of 300 to 200 daily arrivals, according to UNHCR estimates . However, for those stuck in Serbia, the conditions have become very humiliating and devastating.
DESTRUCTION OF THE PARKS
The most visible measure against migrants in the city center is the ongoing destruction of the parks, which they use to meet, exchange information and obtain aid. For months, the Commisariat made tedious efforts to chase away anyone who set foot on the grass. This came to an end on July 25 when big machines entered the park and dug up the whole ground. Officially, the objective was to “renew the grass” – which is obviously nonsense in summer season with temperatures around 38°C and too dry of a climate for plants to grow. Some officials openly admitted that the goal of the action was “to keep away the migrants” – and more than one month later still no grass has been planted.
In a second step, the devastated areas were fenced off with head-high (ca. 1.80m) orange plastic fences. For those still sleeping in the parks, only the concrete walking paths were left available. Even worse, the municipality sometimes waters the parks at night (the concrete, not the soil) making it impossible to sleep there. By these measures the accessible space is very limited and the fences not only became a barrier but also dividers in a very literal sense. If the government intended to make the parks look as if migrants were a problem, then they succeeded. Now, neighbouring people gather every evening in the park, exchanging and complaining about the migrant community, a visible sign to make people feel unwelcome. The once open and public space used and inhabited by an ever changing community of people transiting and by local people going to university or walking their dogs has been made unlivable and unenjoyable for everyone.
It is important to bear in mind that all of this is happening right in the district of Savamala, the area of the planned “Belgrade Waterfront” investment project. According to their plans the whole area will be changed completely in a high-speed gentrification process, involving evictions of the local population and destruction of a whole part of the city to make space for hotels, shopping malls and office buildings.
INCREASED REPRESSION ON MIGRANTS
The repressive presence of police and Commissariat is increasing in both numbers and in behaviour almost on a daily basis. Their actions turned into a constant harassment against migrants. People have been prevented from laying down on the grass (before it was destroyed), have been asked for papers every morning and been pushed to go to the camps continuously, have been poked with flashlights in order to leave the grass, bench or wherever, and even have been threatened with deportation to Macedonia or Bulgaria for not following the orders .
The behaviour changes significantly with presence of international and local volunteers in the parks who monitor the situation and interfere in case of violence, false promises or lies. When they are not around the behaviour becomes even more rude and disrespectful. People have repeatedly reported that Commissariat workers kick and push people who lay down, shout at them in a dehumanizing manner and express racist comments.
UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO GAIN CONTROL
With the increasing number of people stuck in Belgrade and Serbia, the authorities started to pressure people to apply for asylum and go to the camps. On a daily basis, buses leave from the parks to Krnjača (in a suburb of Belgrade) and to other camps all over Serbia. Until mid-July, it was fairly easy to either stay in one of the camps with the option of leaving it at any point or to stay somewhere in town. This policy changed after a meeting of the group for coordination of security agencies and the police and Commisariat are now showing more intention to actually bring the laws into practice. The pattern of behaviour is very obscure, and it is almost impossible to give advice to people these days.
For instance: Some people have been kept in Krnjača for days until they would register (fining those without registration with worse food and living conditions) and then sent to other camps. There is no chance to get “Krnjača,” “Šid,” or “Subotica” written on the registration paper, but people can go there and register themselves. As most of the camps are further away, the fear of being sent there makes new arrivals even more reluctant to register. In the beginning of August this led to the absurd situation of empty beds in Krnjača while at the same time people had a hard time finding a place to sleep in Belgrade.
STRATEGY OF CONFUSION
The official policies of the registration papers for the camps are also very intransparent and incoherent. Two different papers have been issued in the last weeks, one of them designating the exact camp where people have to stay, the other one not mentioning any specific place. As the directors of the camps are in charge of deciding whether or not people can leave during the day, there is no universal information regarding whether they are open or closed. Rather, in camps like Krnjača or Preševo the policy of leaving was changed several times, causing people who believed they were going to an open camp to be locked up inside for days. Those working with migrants have to call the authorities each morning to learn what the situation in the camps is – including official institutions like Asylum Info Center and Commisariat workers in the parks. Even the decision whether people are allowed in the public parks can change from day to day.
This strategy of intransparency leaves everyone in a state of confusion and insecurity since what you know today might not be valid tomorrow. The authorities manifest their hierarchical position of “being in charge” to the extent that the current legal grounds have to be requested on a daily basis. In this situation it is almost impossible for migrants to plan their actions and their personal capability to act is limited to a minimum. This leaves people with the option of complying with anything that is decided from above or staying outside of all official support.
Technically speaking, applying for asylum has only minor influences on parallel asylum processes in other countries as Serbia is not part of the Dublin agreement. Nevertheless, most people have had bad experiences with police and other officials and simply do not want to go to the camps in the outskirts of Belgrade or in the middle of nowhere where they are invisible and without the facilities they need.
Having been displaced several times, the attempt to keep every migrant in camps is a measure of dehumanization and indignity, turning them into objects of control and “removing” them. Locking them up in invisibility, Serbia is restricting the Freedom of Movement of all migrants in a very literal way.
EVICTION OF THE PARKS
On August 11, the police and Commissariat made use of the free capacities in Krnjača and evicted both parks in Belgrade in a joint action. That day, the parks were surrounded by four buses and 20-30 police officers accompanied by a bunch of Commissariat workers. Everyone was told to enter the buses and go “to the camp” (not knowing which one). People also reported that they were threatened to be deported to Bulgaria or Macedonia if they refused to get on the bus. Furthermore, the parks were declared as off-limits, “locked” for everyone without paper and it was said that anyone who steps over this rule would be brought to jail. This day, around 400 people were moved to Krnjača which was subsequently completely overcrowded. A video published on facebook provides testimony of the situation .
The police also visited other more invisible places and formerly tolerated venues where people stayed and showed extremely disrespectful and threatening behaviour towards both migrants and citizens. In the same vein large number of hostels in vicinity of the parks have been raided and some of them shut down.
Preposterously, on August 13, 150 people were then kicked out of Krnjača in the middle of the night. The busdrivers that conduct the line to Krnjača were told not to take any migrants back to the city, thus leaving those kicked out with no other option than to walk three hours back to the city.
This contradictory behaviour only depicts meticulously the arbitrary strategy of the Serbian authorities. There is a clear attempt to push people out of sight, into the invisibility of the camps, but there is no real capacity of doing so. This leaves migrants and supporters in a limbo situation that is hard to cope with. The insecurity of what will happen the next day is having a significant influence on the general atmosphere in the parks, causing stress, trauma, auto-aggression and (psychological and physical) violence.
REPRESSION AGAINST SUPPORT STRUCTURES
Alongside the evictions of people from the parks, the structures supporting them have also come under strong pressure. Miksalište is facing complaints from the neighbourhood and sanitary inspection was postponed daily for three weeks. Info Park, which has already been under strong pressure from Commisariat to move out of the park in April and May, when old Miksalište and No Border Hostel were evicted and destroyed, got a new and final notice to leave the park on August 22 . Providing around one thousand meals a day, Info Park is a big support for people on the move and the eviction decreases support in the parks tremendously.
Miksalište shortly before it was destroyed
No Border Hostel after the destruction
Having been one of the countries where the situation for people on the move was considered less tense and more easy to rest in and travel through, Serbia is now making up big steps to get in line with the other countries on the “Balkan route“ – implementing strong control and repression on people on the move.
Transforming from a short-time transit country into a place where people are stuck for longer time, the Serbian government is having a hard time controling the bigger number of people and implements policies that appear blind and incoherent. Since people are not transferred throughout the country by busses but redirected into the camps that stood empty since 2015, Serbia is (re-)constructing a category of “residing asylum seekers” that are to be processed in a governmental asylum process, thereby ignoring the reality that people intend to move on as soon as possible and that there actually is no bureaucratic apparatus to handle thousands of asylum processes. This goes along with growing racist tendencies in the population, officials and media, that used to be more neutral or at least indifferent. Removing people out of sight into remote camps is presented as an intermediate “solution“.
Following the example of other countries of the European Border Regime, Serbia also finally introduced stronger border controls in an attempt to decrease the number of illegal arrivals. Since the number of people in Bulgaria might increase therefore, there is a stronger pressure for Bulgaria to control its borders as well. This lines up in a number of steps of the Border Regime to locate its physical outer land border on the Bulgarian-Turkish border such as increased Frontex operations in Bulgaria .
The current attempts of the Serbian government to regain control on the situation can be read in context of the visit of an EU mission in the beginning of September to evaluate the progress in the EU integration process . The current chapters 23 and 24 deal amongst other with basic and humanitarian rights where the recent efforts on migration management can be used as an example of Serbia displaying European values and practices.
Refugeesupportserbia and Bordermonitoring Serbia, 1st of September 2016
In his welcome address at the opening plenary of the 5th International Degrowth Conference, Federico Demaria from Research and Degrowth made explicitly clear that immigrants, refugees and their struggles must be integral part of the degrowth community: “Refugees and the other oppressed shall always be kept in mind while imagining degrowth and the socio-ecological transformation we are walking. They, we, are very much part of the degrowth community. Welcome and enjoy!”
While generally introducing the term “degrowth” and its history, Demaria stressed that in a post-policial space and within neoliberal conditions, the aim of degrowth must be to re-politicize the debate on sustainability by identifying and naming different socio-environmental futures. In this context, the question “How can degrowth gain legitimacy in the public debate” must play an important role. He suggested a multi-dimensional definition of degrowth and even talking about different degrowths. Such definition comprises of critique by “challenging the hegemony of growth” and proposal by “calling for a democratically led redistributive downscaling of production and consumption in industrialized countries as a means to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice and well being.” In this sense, Demaria described degrowth as a politicized framing process for a social movement set up by diagnosis (What are the social problems? Who is responsible?) and prognosis (What can we do about them? How shall it be done? Who is going to do it? For whom?).
Allies for degrowth
By naming a very broad range of possible allies of degrowth, Demaria stressed the emancipatory, inclusive and diverse nature of degrowth as concept and movement:
– LGBT+, feminists and the ecofeminists
– La Via Campesina
– Zapatistas and Kurdish in Rojava
– Those who struggle for Environmental Justice including Climate Justice
– Anti-racists and those who are for open borders
– Those who believe in the sacredness of nature
– Those who in their own religion find a place for Degrowth and for environmental justice
– … and all the oppressed and subalterns fighting for justice
On another note, Filka Sekulova gave a quick overview of the broad but dispersed and scattered degrowth-movement itself, stating that the overall movement is growing and that there are various degrowth-hotspots in almost all European countries and some places outside Europe such as India, Canada, Mexico and Brazil. Particularly Germany, after the large Degrowth Conference in Leipzig two years ago, has seen an explosion of degrowth-related projects captured in the Stream towards Degrowth.
Academic challenges and, again, a claim for open borders
In the academic arena, Giorgos Kallis, identified three main intellectual battles over the last two years. These were:
Debunking the illusion about decoupling and green growth
Defending the name of degrowth
Denaturalizing the concept of economic growth
Regarding the first point Kallis particularly mentioned the very comprehensive study “The material footprint of nations“, proving that absolute decoupling is still far from happening – despite contrary claims in the context of last year’s climate summit in Paris.
Also Kallis, like Demaria, defended the moral obligation to open borders from a degrowth perspective, thereby disagreeing with ecological economist Herman Daly who claims that rising immigration rates to industrialized countries lead to the “tragedy of open access commons” and thereby to an increased overall environmental footprint. Kallis stressed that, when using the picture of life-boats, the whole Earth is one life boat where we cannot differentiate between people. He also added that including immigrants in the societies of the global north can be a means to repay our ecological debt to the south.
Degrowth in semi-periphery context
For the first time a degrowth conference is taking place in an Eastern European country which is a very interesting setting: on one hand Eastern Europe is home of degrowth pioneers such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Karl Polanyi and Ivan Illich, and on the other hand it is a post-socialist region where degrowth ideas have a difficult stance. So the task of the opening panel on degrowth in semi-periphery context was to highlight the obstacles and chances for degrowth in this specific situation.
Hungarian Political economist Zoltán Pogátsa explained why it is so difficult to talk about degrowth in former socialist countries: The overarching narrative in Hungary for example was that of a linear development towards western capitalist lifestyles and consumption patterns that were highly desired After the transition from communism to democracy all available narratives were about catching up with western countries. In such setting it was very difficult to come up with alternatives. However, over the last years this has changed because the linear narratives of capitalism being the superior system have crumbled. Young Eastern Europeans travel more, read the internet in English language and read about ideas of sustainability, social equality and big businesses controlling states. They realize that their countries might be closer to the so-called developing world than Austria for example, and that Austria has its own problems and is not as attractive as everybody was imagining.
Danijela Dolenec, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Political Science of the University of Zagreb, explored the question whether the European semi-periphery has any agency in building up alternative structures or whether it simply follows along. She emphasized that these countries combine features of both the industrialized West and the global South as well as modern liberal ideas and traditional ones, and added that by definition semi peripheries are geopolitical spaces that are open and can very quickly move. From her perspective, it is time to acknowledge that semi-peripheries have interesting experiences and knowledge to offer to the degrowth movement: for example the tradition of growing one’s own vegetables, sharing practice outside the market and convivial ways of spending time together. In addition, the areas of former Yugoslavia for example have good practices and experiences in self-management. There’s as well a widespread egalitarian orientation in the region which is also important for a degrowth context. This could help debunk the thesis that only the materially prosperous show environmental concern because social equality is the missing link here..
“The moment where democracy really challenged the status quo it was crushed.”
Giorgos Kallis spoke about the Greek experience which, for many people in Europe, was a breath-taking moment where a country in the periphery was going to take a different path by claiming an alternative. This alternative, of course, was not degrowth, but it was at least an opening. On important lesson learnt from this is, however, that the material neoliberal structures in place must not be underestimated and that people might have to pay a very high price to escape from them. Another one is the difficulty to start a fundamental change from the periphery, as the EU for example treated Greece differently from how it treats the UK now. Therefore, such changes need to start in the centre, Germany or France for example.
Kallis also stressed that it is obvious that degrowth was only a very small part of these alternatives and that its main objectives were to bring growth back to Greece. This is why the degrowth community might have to make strange compromises amidst confusing political dynamics and why a distinction between degrowth and recession is needed. He sees no way that degrowth just comes along as an alternative vision and considers it much more likely that the transition will happen through stagnation. Therefore the important question is how stagnation can become degrowth?
Danijela Bosanic added from her side that the failure of the Syriza project in Greece was a crucial moment of defining how we see things: “The moment where democracy really challenged the status quo it was crushed.”
Author Christiane Kliemann is freelance journalist and degrowth activist. She is part of the editorial team of this degrowth web-portal
Izjava Avtonomnega kulturnega centra Metelkova Mesto po napadu neonacistov
V noči s sobote na nedeljo (27.-28. avgusta) je bila AKC Metelkova Mesto tarča zahrbtnega napada organizirane skupine neonacistov, ki je na navzoče med vzklikanjem fašističnih parol začela metati kamenje, steklenice in petarde, nato pa strahopetno pobegnila. Neonacisti so pri tem zadeli in poškodovali več ljudi – eden je moral zaradi poškodb glave v bolnišnico. Ko je na Metelkovo prispela policija, je nasilno nastopila tako do tistih, ki so naključne mimoidoče branili pred nasiljem neonacistov, kot do samih poškodovancev.
Napad neonacistov razumemo kot nadaljevanje politike izrednih razmer in strahu, s katero oblast med ljudi vnaša razdor in sovraštvo, medtem ko v ozadju pod pretvezo varčevanja in kriznega menedžmenta nemoteno pustoši družbo. Politika aktualne vlade, ki je kot odgovor na stiske migrantov na Balkanski poti gradila bodečo žico, je v Sloveniji ustvarila ozračje, v katerem so neonacisti zgolj ulični odraz tovrstne politike. Sovraštvo je postalo legitimno, tarča pa vsi, ki se nočejo pokoriti enoumju izključevalne in klavstrofobične politike, s kakršno se na rob družbe potiskajo revni, zatirani, »drugačni«.
Napad na Metelkovo je že tretji napad na avtonomne prostore v zadnjem letu: najprej so neonacisti s svastikami in molotovkami udarili po Sokolskem domu v Novem mestu (povod: zbiranje hrane in oblek za begunce), nato pa v začetku poletja še po Avtonomni tovarni Rog v Ljubljani (povod: obramba avtonomije pred rušenjem). Ne pozabimo, da so se tovrstni napadi dogajali že prej, tudi na Metelkovo, najbrutalneje pa v primeru LGBTQI skupnosti in lokala Open leta 2009. Jasno je, da avtonomni in drugi odprti prostori, ki so v poplavi vedno bolj gentrificiranega mesta in represivne policije še zadnji otoki svobode in kreativnega izražanja, predstavljajo simbol boja za svet radikalne enakosti onkraj kapitalizma in drugih oblik zatiranja. Ni naključje, da je bila Metelkova napadena isti dan, ko je bil v Ljubljani shod proti beguncem.
Čas je, da se vprašamo, v kakšnem mestu in družbi hočemo živeti. Bomo svojim sošolcem in sošolkam ali učencem in učenkam povedali, da njihove ideje sovraštva v razredih niso sprejemljive? Bomo s strahom pogledali v tla, ko neonacisti stopijo na avtobus, ali jim bomo jasno pokazali, da v javnem prostoru niso zaželeni? Bomo dopustili, da po stenah pišejo sovražne grafite? Bomo zgolj zgroženo opazovali, ko s svojo nestrpnostjo paradirajo po ulicah našega mesta, ali bomo pokazali, da je mogoč tudi drugačen svet, drugačna politika, ki nosi sporočila antifašizma, solidarnosti, svobode, odprtosti? Bomo po napadu na avtonomne prostore ostajali doma v iluziji varnosti, ali bomo pokazali, da nas ne morejo prestrašiti in bomo s svojo navzočnostjo podpirali vse tiste, ki se jim zoperstavljajo z vsakodnevnim delom in ustvarjanjem v avtonomnih prostorih? Jim bomo prepustili naše ulice, ali bomo jasno pokazali, da je naše mesto antifašistično mesto, kjer za sovraštvo in nasilje ni prostora?
Pred nasiljem, ki se napaja v najbolj uničojočih ideologijah, nas ne bodo zaščitili nobena policija, varnostniki, politične stranke, župani ali zakoni proti ekstremizmu. Te procese lahko ustavimo le mi sami, z odločnim NE nacionalizmu, sovraštvu, rasizmu, izključevanju in strahu. In to povsod, kjer se družimo, ustvarjamo, živimo, delamo, študiramo.
Pokažimo solidarnost z avtonomnimi prostori in ustavimo sovraštvo!
On 3 – 4 August, within the frame of the 2016 FACK MSUV NEW mUSEeum event, we call for a FACK BORDERS MEETING against closed borders policy and in support to migrants.
OPENING of FACK BORDERS MEETING on Wensday 3.08 at 6pm in the hall of MSUV – with interventions by No Border Serbia, report from No Border Camp Thessaloniki and Defencing festival, projections and documentation.
All interested individuals, activists and volunteers, independent groups, artists and other realities active in and around no border movement, working in direct solidarity and in support to migrants’ struggle or interested in doing it are invited to take part in FACK BORDERS meeting. FACK BORDERS proposes to use the museum in any way that might be useful for their struggle and activities, for networking, work meetings, discussions, workshops, performances, projections, presentations, assemblies. This is the occasion for an experiment in NEW USE of a cultural institution, by opening it to the migrants’and revolted EU citizens’ struggle for the freedom of movement and against closed borders policy and for sharing reflections and practices among activists, artists and cultural workers to implement the struggle.
Individuals and collectives that are willing to collaborate in the preparation and/or to propose interventions & activities in the FACK BORDER meeting are invited to join the general FACK assembly on Saturday 30 July in Kino sala in MSUV – Dunavska 37. For any questions contact 063 7434197.
“You know, its a global issue, the issue of refugees, there are now 3800 refugees here in Serbia, most of them are in the parks and in the streets, most of them covering somewhere, and many of them they live in camps, they have applied for asylum and they are waiting. In a legal process that is initiated by the Hungarian government on daily bases they receive 15 people from Horgoš camp and 15 people from Kelebija. To the issue of entering is very much slow when looking at the huge number of refugees although there is tough security system in Bulgaria and over here at the Hungarian border as well.
Personally I think that there are certain powerful nations that have turned a blind eye towards them (the refugees), I think they are fleeing their responsibility because whenever there is a crisis there is the responsibility to come forward and address the challenge. The world is sliding towards intolerance, insecurity is on the rise, people are being divided even if the the issue is the same: there is the few ones who want to create chaos, and they are winning the war. They are just few ones, and we are billions. Humans. And if they succeed in creating ruptures, intolerance , hatred, it means that this planet will no more remain a beautiful place and a secure place and in that case we will not be in the position to give a beautiful and peaceful tomorrow for our children.
When I came to Belgrade and saw that the refugees are stuck here, waiting under the sun to pick up some , I asked myself , for how long it will remain like this? There have been many people there, sitting and discussing the situation. It was my first day and I got interested and gave my ideas for what we should do. I thought doing something together is the only way from which we could successfully deliver the message: by creating fences we will not achieve anything in Europe. Its a kind of escape. Why not to stop wars?why not to stop violence? By stopping wars and violence , you can successfully address this issue instead of creating new fences or buying someones loyalty in the sense of “Ok, dont let them enter to your territory” and taking money for that. Turkey and Bulgaria are also having a business with this.The refugee crisis has become an operative sector these days.
So our second objective was: to show to the world, what the real troubles of the refugees are, when they leave their countries of origin and come through the “jungles” walking for days and nights, what we actually go through. They are beaten, jailed, dogs are unleashed on them, their money is snatched, and they are ordered to go back by foot. So this is something , we feel, its totally out of the sight of the world. Because journalists can not go to the jungles , or they have no access, or they are not allowed, I don’t know what is the reason. So because of inaccessibility something was hidden from the eyes of the world.Personally I did not eat anything for 2 days and 2 nights when I was in Bulgaria, only a bottle of water was offered to me. I was not even allowed to go out for urination, I had to urinate inside the prison. Inside my home country I was considered by the security forces a criminal because I had spoken out against the policies of the state. But why a person should be treated like a criminal when he was fleeing violence and war? The third object is: they have to rewrite, rethink, refugee policies. Because by creating just fences you are dividing the beautiful world and this is not a solution.”
Did someone come from the official side to talk to you for negotiations?
“We were told that somebody would come tomorrow, but nobody knows who that man is and what kind of capacities he or she has. Until now we were only in contact with the serbian commissariat and they kept asking us , what is your plan, what is your next step? They just appeared for a few minutes and then left. Millions of dollars are creating fences and tightening security. So we can not just come and say “open the door”. This is not my uncles house. You know, I can not force anybody. I dont want any anger from a third country. When I am in a secure position, lets say I am settled somewhere, working as a journalist, then I am in the position that I can again take the hammer and start to criticize the policies . But given our position, we can just ask to have a second look at your policies. If the people could chose, they would not come this route. They would come by planes. What we need today is unity, solidarity , love and peace.”