Berliner Sozialgericht: Am meisten Hartz IV Klagen

Hartz IV macht den größten Teil aller Gerichtsstreitigkeiten aus 15.01.2014 An Deutschlands größtem Sozialgericht in Berlin mussten sich die Richter 2013 mit knapp 50.000 neuen Verfahren befassen. Die meisten Klagen bezogen sich auf Hartz IV. Auch andere Sozialgerichte sehen sich einer nicht mehr zeitnah zu bewältigenden Anzahl von Verfahren gegenüber. So sollen Angaben von Richtern zufolge vier von fünf Verfahren ohne Urteil beendet werden. Sozialgerichte können Klageflut fast nicht mehr bewältigen Statistisch gesehen wird alle zwölf Minuten eine neue Klage am Berliner Sozialgericht eingereicht. Im vergangenen Jahr entsprach das 41.975 neuen Verfahren. 26.594 Klagen betrafen davon Streitigkeiten bei Hartz IV wie die Gerichtspräsidentin Sabine Schudoma am Dienstag gegenüber der Nachrichtenagentur „dpa“ erklärte. Das Hauptproblem heiße demnach Hartz IV. In 62 Prozent der Verfahren würde über Behördenentscheidungen bezüglich der Grundsicherung für Erwerbslose verhandelt werden. Gegenüber 2012 habe es jedoch einen leichten Rückgang von knapp acht Prozent gegeben. Aber: „Noch immer befinden wir uns auf dem Hochplateau“, betonte Schudoma. Immer wieder berichten Richter davon, dass viele Verfahren ohne Urteil beendet werden. Das ist der Fall, wenn die Verfahrensgegner bereits auf Hinweis des Gerichtes eine Einigung - ohne Urteil - erzielen, weil eine Seite einlenkt. In der Praxis handelt es sich dabei in der Regel um die Leistungsbehörde, die letztendlich doch beispielsweise dem Antrag auf Mehrbedarf zustimmt. (ag)

Energiemonopole wollen europaweit Gasfracking durchsetzen

05.01.14 - Die Bauern von Żurawlów, einem kleinen Dorf im Osten Polens, verhindern seit Monaten durch erbitterten Widerstand Probebohrungen des internationalen Energiekonzern Chevron. Chevron will dort mittels Fracking Schiefergas gewinnen. Mit Strohballen blockieren die Bauern LKW und Stromgenerator einer privaten Sicherheitsfirma, die im Auftrag von Chevron das Feld bewacht und unentwegt ihre Kameras auf die widerständigen Dorfbewohner richtet. Außerdem haben diese den Zufahrtsweg mit Erntefahrzeugen versperrt und ein Transparent mit der Aufschrift: "Schiefergas – der Tod der Landwirtschaft" aufgespannt. Unter diesem und vielen anderen Feldern im Südosten Polens werden große Vorräte an Schiefergas vermutet. Chevron und weitere Energieunternehmen haben von der polnischen Regierung insgesamt über 100 Konzessionen für Probebohrungen erhalten. Premierminister Donald Tusk schwärmt von einer "neuen Epoche" in der Energiepolitik. In der Hoffnung auf Arbeitsplätze in der strukturschwachen Region waren die Bewohner zunächst aufgeschlossen. Als sie jedoch von den extrem destruktiven Auswirkungen des Fracking hörten und seismische Tests im Nachbarort mehrere Wasserquellen zerstörten, war es mit der Zustimmung vorbei. "Die Methode ist barbarisch", sagen die Frauen vom Dorf. Als Chevron mit den Arbeiten beginnen wollten, errichtete die Dorfbevölkerung ihre Blockaden. Auch in anderen polnischen Regionen wehren sich viele Menschen erbittert gegen Fracking. Die polnische Regierung hat den Geheimdienst auf sie angesetzt und lässt Fracking-Gegner bespitzeln und überwachen. Trotzdem reicht die Dienstbarkeit des polnischen Staates den internationalen Energiekonzernen nicht aus. John P. Claussen, Chevron-Manager für Polen, mahnt, die Regierung solle bei der Erarbeitung des Gesetzes über die Förderung von Schiefergas "die betroffenen Firmen stärker einbeziehen". Der neue Umweltminister Maciej Grabowski will das Verfahren beschleunigen. Auf Wunsch der internationalen Energie-Monopole hält die EU-Kommission willfährig an ihrem Plan fest, in Europa großflächig Fracking einzuführen. In Frankreich ist Fracking bisher verboten, was den Monopolen natürlich überhaupt nicht passt. Entsprechend wird Stimmung gemacht. So begründete der französische Total-Konzern geplante Werkschließungen damit, dass er 'Anpassungen' vornehmen müsse, um im Konkurrenzkampf nicht weiter zurückzufallen, und attackierte das Fracking-Verbot. "Gas und Öl aus der amerikanischen Fracking-Produktion entziehen den französischen Werken ihre Absatzmärkte" titelte "Le Monde" am 22. Dezember 2013. Die Total-Arbeiter jedoch hatten sich nicht davon abhalten lassen, Ende 2013 gegen die Schließungspläne und für höhere Löhne zu streiken. Nach dem Zugeständnis, zunächst "nur" ein Werk zu schließen, wurde der Streik beendet. Tatsächlich hat Total mit seinen Raffinerien keineswegs Verluste gemacht, wurde aber im gnadenlosen Konkurrenzkampf um die weltmarktbeherrschende Stellung von US-Konzernen, die Fracking betreiben, zurückgedrängt. In den ersten drei Quartalen 2013 ist deren Energieabsatz auf dem amerikanischen Kontinent (mit Lateinamerika) auf 105.000 b/j gegenüber 74.000 b/j 2011 gestiegen (b/j = Barrel pro Tag). Der Export nach Westafrika betrug im vergangenen Jahr 26.000 b/j gegenüber 6.000 b/j im Jahr 2012. Gerade in diese Region hatten bisher hauptsächlich französische und weitere europäische Monopole Energie geliefert. Der Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) fordert in seiner Richtlinie für die neue Bundesregierung unter dem Stichwort "den Zugang zu den – standortgebundenen – heimischen Rohstoffen zu gewährleisten" die Durchsetzung des Gasfracking.

The legacy of Nelson Mandela and the ANC's non-revolutionary road

"The road of racial rainbows and imaginary class harmony without mobilising the people to get rid of the existing state and uproot the underlying system and its relations appealed to many, especially the middle classes among the oppressed: it is an easier road than revolution. But the problem is, as the bitter experience of South Africa of the recent past 20 years has shown once again, it is entirely illusory – and imaginary." (from AWTWNS 15 March 2010, "Two decades after Mandela's release – 20 years of freedom in South Africa?") _________________ Since his death on 6 December at age 95, people the world over are paying tribute to Nelson Mandela, to the man who spent long years in the apartheid regime's prisons as part of the righteous struggle against settler colonialism and who went on to become the first black president of South Africa. Many people are celebrating Mandela's life because they believe he staunchly opposed injustice and is a symbol to the oppressed. Other people may not necessarily know, or agree with what the world's leaders are tirelessly praising him for: this boils down to Mandela's historic role in defusing the revolutionary situation and stopping the high tide of the struggle of the black majority that tore down the apartheid regime at the end of the 1980s and might have gone much further. The mainstream media salutes Mandela's consistent fight against the oppression of apartheid, often reducing this to racism, but their acclaims focus on the message of his extending the hand of tolerance and forgiveness to the oppressors, as he and Reverend Desmond Tutu put it so frequently. In 1994 when he took over as head of state, Mandela announced "Never, never and never again will this beautiful land experience the oppression of one by another." The media have tried to conflate the history of the struggle of the people and its various political organisations with Mandela's own personal trajectory and political vision of change that he led the ANC to implement. This was a vision of embracing capitalism while promising the people that the ANC could and would reform it in the interests of eliminating the poverty, inequalities, degradation and injustices in so many domains that they suffered under apartheid. So one of the serious questions about Mandela's legacy is, how is it possible to embrace capitalism and all that goes with it and never again experience oppression? The non-revolutionary road of partial, peaceful reforms and cooperation with the existing state apparatus that the ANC followed, under Mandela's leadership at the beginning of its mandate, was in large part based on preserving much of the old system as a whole and the relations between people rooted in centuries of land dispossession and the ideology of white supremacy, in the exploitation of the black majority and subservience to foreign capital and imperialism. This was a road that not only has not liberated people and has not unleashed their potential to transform society, but one that has actually increased the gap between rich and poor and sharpened forms of oppression while the new rulers continue to try to stifle the struggle of the people that has accelerated in all sectors of society as frustration has steadily grown over the past 20 years of ANC rule. "We are tired of waiting," one hears frequently in the streets and fields of South Africa, and "what good did the vote do us if we continue to live like this?" The South African people had huge expectations from the fall of apartheid. The ANC and forces supporting it knew this and much of their appeal to the black population before and after the first democratic elections was founded upon a mountain of promises not just for services and houses, but for freedom and radical social change under a black government. Mandela – along with many others – played a decisive role in convincing the people that their struggle was no longer necessary, that they should put down their weapons and anger and forgive the oppressor in the name of the greater public good, social peace and racial harmony. It is not that the ANC led by Mandela betrayed its own political outlook and programme – which never had the goal of making revolution, despite the occasional media accolades about Mandela the revolutionary. In fact the ANC delivered more or less what its 1955 Freedom Charter and its 1994 Reconstruction & Development Programme (RDP) always promoted – power sharing and social democratic reforms with lots of unrealisable anti-system garnish. (Nationalisation of key industries was always a point of internal differences and subject to compromise.) However, Mandela and the ANC cloaked the appeal of a black takeover of political power in talk of liberation: this was the betrayal of the people who fought in such large numbers over decades to overthrow the apartheid system and for a society that did away with all the misery, oppression and racial degradation. Many within this politically aroused generation saw this as a movement for truly revolutionary change. Other political forces fiercely condemned the ANC's reformist Freedom Charter. Yet as intense as the polemics were and as heroic as the sacrifices and struggle of the people to bring down apartheid, a solid revolutionary organisation and leadership did not develop in a way that could challenge the solution that the powers-that-be had decided: to "bank on" - the conciliation of Mandela as a well-known freedom fighter and political prisoner together with the reform objectives of the ANC. The ANC and Mandela also always conceived of the very limited armed struggle they organised and carried out in the early 1960s as primarily a bargaining lever in achieving these aims, not as part of building up a mass revolutionary base to bring down and uproot the system. Many political forces contributed to bringing theory to and mobilizing the people and some with far more radical theories recognized the need for revolution and fought for it. A range of political organizations the regime had banned emerged or re-emerged, seeking a way out, with different views on what national liberation and changing society required, and providing leadership to different sections and strata of the anti-apartheid struggle. Among these were Pan-Africanists who split from the ANC, Marxist-Leninists closer to Mao's revolutionary China, various workerist groupings and later those connected to black consciousness developed by Steve Biko. Although it aimed to do away with apartheid rule, this broader movement of forces, including ANC organisations, was also an intense political laboratory of contending lines and visions about how to do that, sometimes involving sharp clashes among the masses, and sometimes fomented by the regime and vigilante traditionalist groups it armed (see AWTW magazine 1995/20 for background). However, while the factors for a revolutionary situation were sharpening and converging in a very explosive and powerful way, the crucially needed leadership that could develop it towards a revolutionary goal was lacking. The loss of socialist China and its support of revolutionary national liberation movements as it turned into a bastion of state capitalism in the late 1970s was one of the unfavourable factors for a genuine revolutionary leadership emerging. The apartheid enemy played a major role in this and paid a great deal of attention to stopping the development of revolutionary forces by assassinating leaders, torturing and arresting many thousands of activists and general intimidation, within the general lockdown that apartheid meant for the people – restrictions on movements, on assembly; on access to "inflammatory" and revolutionary literature and protest culture. Suffering in these hellholes was a fate the brutal settler colonialist regime meted out to thousands of political prisoners of varying political tendencies who opposed it, many of whom either gave up a large part of their life there, or died in detention. In the face of all this the people resisted and this resistance – paradoxically – is often identified with the imprisoned Mandela and ANC leaders in exile, although the ANC historically represented only one part of it; nor did the ANC develop a strong presence and organisation in the vast rural areas of South Africa, by its own admission, all of which was more a reflection of their reformist perspective than their size or potential influence. Why Mandela was chosen in a revolutionary crisis People around the world were inspired by the rising resistance to the hated apartheid state, as a new generation of high school students refusing to be taught in Afrikaans, seen as the language of the oppressor, courageously took to the streets in the 1976 Soweto Rebellion. Their fearless confrontations with the state's violent machine spread to and increasingly drew in broader sections of the people, including workers and older generations, unleashing a storm of struggle that lasted over a decade, with ups and downs. By the early and mid-1980s apartheid society was out of the rulers' control. Despite minor reforms and heavy repression, massive arrests and killings, particularly in the burning townships where most black people in the urban areas lived and fought pitched battles with police, the mass struggle became unstoppable. People refused to live in the old way and the state could not rule in the old way. The apartheid regime alternated between a few further reforms and even harsher repression to try to crush the unprecedented social upsurge and attenuate the mammoth political and economic crisis that began to have international repercussions, greater economic consequences and to raise fears about further escalation into a civil war between whites and blacks. But it is important to remember as the world's leaders give unending tribute to a peaceful transition, that the period leading up to negotiations was extremely bloody and deadly for black South Africans: in addition to the thousands who lost their lives in the 1980s, at least 13,000 more blacks were killed in the early 1990s alone, after negotiations began. The apartheid rulers, together with Western states that in the main had continued to support and do business with them throughout the period of white supremacist rule, sought a compromise solution. Mandela began to negotiate in secret with the apartheid state from his house arrest at a Cape Town minimum security prison as early as 1986. For both the local rulers and their imperialist western partners he came to represent the best option to alleviate the crisis and especially to prevent the revolutionary situation from developing into an outright movement to tear apart the state and its reactionary authority. FW DeKlerk of the ruling National Party was brought in as the last apartheid president at the height of the state's political and social crisis in 1989. Not only did Mandela agree to share a Nobel peace prize in 1993 with DeKlerk, and retrospectively winning the peace prize can be seen as very likely a part of the negotiations process. But as part of being democratically elected as head of state, Mandela also agreed to share political rule in 1994 in a National Unity Government together with the National Party that had been the executors and executioners of apartheid, responsible for so much of the people's suffering and injustice. The masses of people are still bearing the brunt of the effects of this strategy of Mandela and the ANC. This negotiated transition was a carefully organised plan aimed at "laying to rest" Africa's explosive and 'last independence struggle' against settler colonial rule. The ANC, like the South African Communist Party, were supporters of the 1950s and 60s Soviet model of liberation in the colonies without thoroughgoing revolution. In turn the Soviet Union had promoted both Mandela and the ANC internationally through pro-Soviet governments like Cuba and Libya as well as extensive networks in the anti-apartheid movement in many countries. Changes in the international situation, notably the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s and the end of the 'Cold war' also became key factors in the organisation of ending apartheid rule. Since the ANC's previous alliance with the Soviet Union then assumed much less importance in an increasingly unipolar world centred around US imperialism, two things happened: the apartheid rulers' role in opposing the Soviet bloc in Africa suddenly became essentially irrelevant and secondly, western governments made overtures to woo the then politically orphaned ANC and its principal political figure, Mandela in particular, for a compromise solution to the political crisis. In life as well as in death Mandela was turned into an iconic figure. The international movement against the hated apartheid system and in support of the oppressed black masses was a broad and important public-opinion creating factor bringing additional pressure on the regime and their western government backers (that included the US, Britain, Germany, Japan, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Israel among others). Older generations remember not only product boycotts, the refusal of artists to perform in South Africa, demonstrations against Western universities and corporations that invested in the apartheid economy, as well as the broader movement for sanctions. This movement also encompassed different political understandings of the system that gave rise to and underlay apartheid. But on the whole it helped politically train a generation of people in the ugly and criminal nature of colonialism (and the role of imperialist states propping it up) and what the apartheid regime's fist continued to reserve for black South Africans for decades after formal independence had been won or granted in most of the rest of Africa. After a series of bitter struggles and wars of independence, some militarily successful, this was a period in which national liberation leaders were not able to resist the grip of imperialist aid and domination, so South Africa was a key test – for both sides. What about the argument that the ANC's troubles and continuing inequalities today are not Mandela's doing? Mandela's death does call for looking at the situation in South Africa that he left behind (analysed in some detail in the 15 March AWTWNS article) and his role in helping to shape it. The South African state did gradually change character beginning in 1994 under shared ANC-NP rule and it lifted formal apartheid laws that helped structure the previous state. Since then further reforms have taken place, a democratic Constitution was debated and written, if difficult to implement, and important incremental changes have occurred, particularly for the emerging black middle class. In some poor areas the small "RDP houses" have been built and electrified and water pipes installed where there were none. The nature of the democracy the ANC has been able to bring to South Africa, aside from formal open elections, continues to be a hot topic almost everywhere. As regards one of the main feats attributed to Mandela – building a "rainbow nation with racial harmony" – it should be stressed that this evokes different things to different social classes. Among the still poorer sections of people it is an idea that is widely made fun of or hated. People see well-off blacks in the government, but they feel their chances of getting out of their own situation are few or non-existent. Racial discrimination is still plain to see and feel in every sphere, even if it is legally abolished. White supremacy is also alive and well in South Africa, albeit in mutated forms, sometimes subtle, sometimes as openly crass and racist as under apartheid. Racial unity among the oppressed in South Africa and those who will struggle on their side must be built on the basis of opposing this system, not by reconciling with it and succumbing to the divisions it reinforces among the people. The racially-based division of the land was a central anchor of the apartheid social order and this remains true in the current social order too, with modifications. This is about both the apartheid social engineering between the "white areas" and the Bantustans "reserved" for the rural black population on the one hand, and about who owns and controls the land on the other. These two features still shape how especially rural society is organised and the choices that blacks have. ANC policies and neoliberal (more market, supposedly less state interference) capitalism have strengthened and concentrated private landholding primarily among whites, particularly on the commercial farms. These capitalist farms produce more and more for export rather than local food needs and are more and more tied into global financialisation. For most black people seeking land they previously had no right to own or occupy, except in the reserves, the ANC's very stingy land reform has merely rubbed salt in an open wound. White landowners also have strongly resisted it. So trying to seriously uproot the old land ownership system flies in the face of the ANC's capitalist route – already visible in the 1994 RDP of Mandela's time in power. And the old master and servant relations between boss and farm tenants – while somewhat modernised with wages and minimally applied labour laws on some white farms – still underpin much of the oppressive situation this very poor section of the South African people face, and the capitalist "modernisation" aspects have in many ways intensified exploitation in agriculture. One of the main aspects we might add to the situation since the article in 2010 that explains the ways in which the economic and social situation have been governed, is that dissatisfaction with the politics and the outcome of the ANC's , and Mandela's, programme has markedly increased. This has been reflected in social struggles in many different sectors from civil service, to farm workers to continued service delivery protests in many areas, struggles over school closings and the poor quality of education in black schools, and many others. When a mass movement of miners striking over wages in the Northwest platinum belt in August 2011 dared to go against the ANC-led trade union and carry out wildcat actions against the Lonmin Mining company, the ANC state shot down 35 of them in cold blood, unleashing a torrent of political fury and debate over the nature of this ANC state protecting capitalist interests, both foreign and local. Cyril Ramaphosa, the main emcee at the Mandela memorial on 10 December, is the very same man who sits on the board of this imperialist mining company. Serving also as the ANC's deputy president, he had great difficulty explaining why and how the democratic ANC-led state carried out this massacre. In 1999 Mandela backed Ramaphosa, a former ANC union leader who has since turned billionaire, in his unsuccessful bid to be the ANC's presidential candidate (see AWTWNS 5 November 2012). Conclusion In many other ways the ANC's image of an organisation standing for liberation has long worn off among those who hoped it would do something different running the state. In addition, numerous internal conflicts are wracking the ANC, while it struggles to preserve its hold over both the black masses who have lost faith in its promises and over the capitalist plantation it manages for big capital, much of it foreign. Even some of those who have remained loyal to the ANC did not sign up for this nightmare, much less the masses of people who fought and died for national liberation. But it is important not to shy away from the truth that whatever the intentions, this was the road that Mandela led the ANC to take – not by himself, but not separate from it either, as many commentators are trying to skilfully spare him from in their eulogies. There was no revolution in South Africa. This is most what the powers-that-be are celebrating about Mandela's contribution to the struggle against apartheid. The "historic compromise" and all that led up to it was intended to prevent a revolution from developing, to extinguish the fires of mass struggle and to substitute false promises of equality for the people's real hopes and expectations that radical change was within reach, as the apartheid rulers' crisis came to a head and their hold crumbled over the reactionary society they led. Is this what Mandela and the ANC intended when they organised protests in the 1950s against carrying passbooks and started an intermittent armed struggle that never really took hold inside the country? Yes and no. Much of the current mess in South Africa is undoubtedly not what Mandela wanted and like others he is often pardoned for holding illusions that a third path of "humanitarian" capitalism was possible. Is it Mandela's fault that things turned out this way? Not single-handedly but in the end he was thrust forward as the first 'post-independence' black president signalling the end of formal apartheid and thus became a leader: so he will inevitably be evaluated by past and present history in terms of what he did, thought and what he did not do or try to do. It is his political vision and programme as part of the ANC that are decisive. His personal leadership contributed significantly to suppressing the massive people's uprising in order to broker a political agreement acceptable to his enemies; this was part and parcel of the ANC's programme that in no way challenged imperialism's grip on the country and the world. Indeed instead it helped to strengthen it, in the process helping the country to assume a position of dominance within the African continent as a whole. The negative example of bowing down and giving up when the oppressors were weakened and "on the run" that Mandela and the ANC also set for the millions of oppressed people around the world – who deeply hoped that liberation rather than accommodation would be the result of this colonial conflict – was also not a minor political and ideological achievement for the imperialists. For Mandela to establish a false social peace and to put a new spin and face on the old state that sits atop a stifling, exploitative system did not offer any kind of solution for the oppressed. For the people of South Africa, this situation remains a prison that must be broken out of and it requires conscious revolutionary leadership with the aim and vision of a completely different society to do so. Many in South Africa are looking for just such a way out. Two decades after Mandela's release – 20 years of freedom in South Africa? 15 March 2010. A World to Win News Service. The world watched elatedly 20 years ago as Nelson Mandela was finally freed from 27 years in South African jails in February 1990, so hated was the apartheid regime and all the injustice it stood for. Mandela, as one of the world's longest-held political prisoners had become a sort of living legend. Apartheid's jails regorged with thousands of political prisoners from the decades of struggle against apartheid representing different organisations and different perspectives. Many fighters, leaders and soldiers died in detainment or were hanged in police stations, thrown out of upper-story windows and never saw a wigged white apartheid judge go through the motions of a trial. Treason was a common charge. And the masses of South African people had made enormous and heroic sacrifices during the struggle and periods of upsurge over the previous decades. Although Mandela's enemies secretly began negotiations with him in 1988,[1] it was never a secret that their releasing political leaders and unbanning opposition groups in 1990 was a calculated step in the dismantling of apartheid and reorganisation of political rule in South Africa. At the end of the 1980s the apartheid system of enforced racial segregation and oppression in which the black majority (including people of Indian and mixed race origin) was legally forbidden the most elementary rights was rotting at the seams under the combined weight of major social, political and economic crisis. It was a revolutionary situation, which the white settler regime fully realised as it could no longer contain the political upsurge that had been shaking the country in waves since 1976 and reached a peak in the mid-1980s. Despite police invasion of the townships where most blacks lived, these became bases to stage different forms of struggle. Youth, students and workers, including foreign migrant workers, organised mass boycotts, stay-aways (from school, businesses and work), strikes, fighting with police and then funeral marches after people were gunned down. In the rural areas too, where most Africans were forced to live in phony ethnic-based reserves, people rioted against the despised bantustan authorities and their vigilante squads, fought for better land and resisted force removals as part of apartheid's territorial consolidation. While vast sections of blacks were mobilised in one form or another to fight white rule, many thousands were also actively involved in organisations fighting for national liberation and revolution, and passionately debating the future. President P.W. Botha's counter-revolutionary strategy, combining some reforms and modest social welfare with divide and conquer tactics among the anti-apartheid forces; utterly failed to stabilise the situation. The situation was so out of control by 1986 that the apartheid government declared emergency rule with curfews and a doubled police force that occupied the exploding townships. In the late 1980s four to five thousand people were killed. Every funeral was turned into another round of struggle. The intensity of the upsurge led the regime to ban 31 black political organizations in 1988, provoking the creation of numerous new local committees to carry on. The struggle remained at a high level into 1990. The apartheid rulers, advised by the West, sought Nelson Mandela's help to end the crisis and smother the escalating revolutionary movement by lending credibility to a negotiated settlement with anti-apartheid organisations. They were able to buy precious time while they reorganised South Africa's political rule in ways that did not fundamentally change the socio-economic system it served and the country's role as powerhouse of Africa and guardian of imperialist interests in the region. As it was designed to, the negotiated compromise in South Africa had a terrible effect, helping to snuff out the revolutionary aspirations of the millions of people who, at the cost of great sacrifice including their lives, threatened to pull down the regime in order to end white rule and all the vicious oppression and suffering it represented. This immense opportunity and revolutionary potential was channelled into voting for one of 19 candidates with Mandela representing the ANC (African National Congress) that had been groomed to share state power with the slightly reformed National Party – the same reactionary party that had presided over formal apartheid for nearly 50 years. It was called a Government of National Unity. Having the right to vote for the first time in history, naturally the majority of Black people turned out in record numbers to elect the popular former political prisoner Nelson Mandela with hopes that the ANC would be able to deliver on its promises of liberation, returning the land to blacks, and doing away with the inequalities and bitter subjugation they had endured for so long. How did a so-called national liberation organization led by Mandela succeed in drowning this revolutionary process? How did it become such a willing tool of the ruling classes? ANC's politics – a history of talking liberation while betraying the people's interests Mandela had been widely promoted worldwide, partly through the movements and networks linked to the Soviet Union of the 1960s through the mid-1980s, as a particularly prominent symbol of freedom, in fact far beyond his direct political role or influence and those of the ANC inside the country. The ANC didn’t become "turncoats" once in power, as some people argue with nostalgia for the days of struggle against apartheid: its precious service to the ruling classes flowed logically, if sometimes indirectly from its politics. The ANC was not a revolutionary national liberation organisation. Its politics and programmes have never been based on thoroughgoing liberation for the people of South Africa: not on the proletariat and oppressed seizing power and leading a genuine national (or new) democratic revolution, not on breaking with the stranglehold of the imperialist system, and not on a vision of a communist future. The revisionists of the South African Communist Party (SACP), active in the politics, leadership and organisation of the ANC, were closely connected to the Soviet-led bloc of social-imperialists for decades. For them, socialism and the notion of "people's power" meant taking over and reforming the old existing state. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the new unipolar world order, the ANC was quickly wooed from the wing of the Soviet revisionist umbrella to the western neoliberal imperialist agenda and bourgeois democracy: an ensemble of formal political rights while reinforcing the capitalist ownership and production system. In other words in 1994, the ANC carried out more or less the agenda they had always promoted, wrapped in a light national liberation cover. And that is why the bourgeoisie in South Africa and western citadels sought their complicity. The ANC's limited vision in its 1955 Freedom Charter, still a reference point today, was inspired by notions of classic bourgeois equality from the US Constitution. It also called for partial nationalisation of some industries and banks and sharing the country's land and wealth. The ANC promoted occasional non-violent mass campaigns, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi (such as those against the pass books restricting black people's movements) and later limited armed actions organised outside the country as a means of pressuring the apartheid rulers rather than mobilising the people to overthrow them. In a country where black workers were oppressed in all spheres of society and paid a fraction of the wages whites earned, the SACP/ANC argued for "unity of the working class" between the black proletarians and more privileged whites who were a key part of the apartheid regime's reactionary social base. They were unable to seriously address, much less solve the central national question – rooted in the white settlers’ subjugation of African people – and its ongoing repercussions, which together with the pivotal problem of the colonial land theft and freedom from foreign (imperialist) domination were at the heart of demands for national liberation. This was one reason the revolutionary nationalists of the Pan African Congress broke away from the ANC in 1959 with a more radical programme. In the 1970s under the guidance of Steve Biko the Black consciousness movement emerged and played the crucial role in the famous Soweto rebellion in 1976 that unleashed a wave of popular upsurges over the next 15 years, involving a range of political forces, from trade unions to township initiatives, and rural areas. Disgusted with what they considered to be the sell-out politics of the ANC in particular, small more revolutionary offshoots of these (black and Pan-Africanist nationalist) currents were influenced by revolutionary China and Mao Tsetung's teachings and sought to challenge the whole system while seeking revolutionary theory and analysis to guide them. In the political landscape of the 1980s, national liberation and overthrowing apartheid rule were on the minds of hundreds of thousands of people. Within and among the anti-apartheid movements, the labour unions and the schools and universities, different radical views and programmes contended over how to bring about revolutionary change. But a genuine revolutionary party based on a scientific ideology with a communist line and leadership unfortunately never materialised in the course of this high tide of struggle, for a number of reasons. In addition to the impact of continued repression, the state's assassination of leaders who did emerge, as well as the revolutionary forces not anchoring themselves firmly enough in the contradictions of the imperialist system as a whole as well as the highest ideological understanding of that time, the powerful effect of the ruling class ending formal apartheid and derailing the struggle towards electoral compromise cannot be underestimated. 1994: Negotiating to share political power within the old state Mandela's release from prison in 1990, along with other political prisoners, and the unbanning of numerous political organisations was a key step in launching the negotiations process for multi-party elections and the gargantuan effort to draw a large section of the black liberation movement, including many of its radically-minded intellectuals, into that process. Mandela called on the people to stop their struggle, lay down their arms, to "bury the past, extend a hand". (Some examples of Mandela's class collaboration are more or less accurately portrayed in the beginning of the 2009 movie Invictus, as he sought to override mistrust among ANC employees faced with sharing the state with their previous enemies. One scene in particular depicts Mandela welcoming the same special branch security officers into his personal bodyguard who had actively hunted down and killed anti-apartheid activists.) Heavily financed and counselled from the West, the ANC and its sister organisations, trade unions, and the SACP set about communicating the message that antagonistic struggle was no longer necessary: a peaceful electoral path would solve South Africa's tremendous problems, if blacks – the ANC -- joined the government and worked from within to change the nature of the state. Aiming to gain some seats at the tables of political power as they existed with a big boost from the more liberal sections of the white capitalist class directly tied to imperialism and the imperialists themselves, who were actively working for a transition on terms favourable to their continued domination of South Africa, the ANC willingly became a political instrument of these classes and interests they had ostensibly opposed for decades. Worse, much of the ANC's own complete surrender to this plan took the form of being soldiers in the battle to politically disarm and actively demobilise broad sections of the movement against the regime at a very crucial point in history while helping convince leaders with whom it had long-standing disagreements -- whose rank and file had shed blood over -- to join in the negotiations project. Mandela and prominent clergy like Desmond Tutu lead the way to these "talks about talks", as they were dubbed. Given the sharp tensions over different programmes and struggle against the non-revolutionary politics of the ANC, naturally disputes and misgivings arose among the various participating liberation groups, including the PAC, Azapo, left ANC splinter groups, Trotskyist circles inside and outside of the ANC and others, some temporarily pulling out or arguing for interim "guarantees" such as a Constituent Assembly. But the "miracle" the bourgeoisie and its international partners achieved was to bring most of these black political leaders into the same tent of compromise. If successful, the US imperialists were eager to apply this model to other conflict-ridden states and former colonies that needed to be politically stabilised as post WW2 arrangements increasingly were becoming outmoded. An important component of the model was to build up the black middle and better-off classes that had a material stake in the system and to appeal to those who aspired to be part of the elite. In turn they would help continue to persuade the country's majority poor population they didn’t need to overthrow capitalism, but must instead "take part" in developing it, which required making peace with those at the top – both black and white. One of the other great myths about the South African transition was that it was peaceful. The negotiated agreement was cemented in a combination of talks AND violence. When the international bourgeois press crows that "civil war was avoided" it means that there was no open "race war" between white extremist groups – which were more or less neutralised and pulled into the political compromise as well – and the black masses. In reality, the world witnessed a very bloody process of apartheid moulting to shared political rule in the early 1990s in which over 13 thousand black lives were lost. Open fighting repeatedly broke out or was orchestrated between the ANC or other political organisations and the right-wing Zulu nationalists of Gatsha Buthelezi's Inkatha Freedom Party and its paramilitary forces, supported by police and security forces or by conservative white groups threatening to destabilise elections. In addition, sharp contradictions over the political differences between the moderate United Democratic Front, the ANC and its more rebellious youth base on the one hand, and Azapo and other political groupings in and around the black consciousness movements and PAC on the other hand, often took a violent form. Thirdly, state violence to repress the rising struggle of the people (portrayed from the perspective of the future in the "science fiction" film District 9 as an armed onslaught against the masses of alien "prawns") was in fact a daily reality in the townships and resulted in several massacres after 1990 from Bisho in the Ciskei to Sebokeng in Gauteng. The road of racial rainbows and imaginary class harmony without mobilising the people to get rid of the existing state and uproot the underlying system and relations appealed to many, especially the middle classes among the oppressed: it is an easier road than revolution. But the problem is, as the bitter experience of South Africa of the recent past 20 years has shown once again, it is entirely illusory – and imaginary. In reality, the society is nearly as segregated as ever – minus the legal apartheid scaffolding supporting it. Despite a rising and very visible black middle class, inequalities between rich and poor have actually increased. New political freedoms, while greater than under white rule, are mainly channelled into pressuring the ANC in government for more service delivery and exercising a vote to keep them in power. Twenty years ago, a whole generation was ready to tear up the place for something new, different and truly liberating. At the same time, many people's experience had taught them to distrust the negotiated outcome and they were (and still are) bitterly angry at being dragged into this deception -- trading the masses’ revolutionary struggle in for the chance to vote for a black government that, despite its populist promises, is in fact governed by the needs and requirements of the global capitalist-imperialist system that such posturing serves. Struggles continued to erupt against the ANC's betrayal of the people but the giant tide to become citizens in a liberal democracy had a powerfully debilitating effect, as it was intended to, polarizing things in a very unfavourable way for revolution. ANC's 1994 programme: neo-liberalism and bourgeois equality promoted with populism The post-election state was composed of a Government of National Unity between the National Party headed by the pre-1994 president Frederick DeKlerk and Nelson Mandela for the ANC from 1994 to1996. ANC leader Thabo Mbeki was elected in 1999 and again in 2004. However, a major split in the party occurred after the national ANC congress replaced Mbeki with Jacob Zuma as head of the organisation in late 2007. In an unprecedented move, Mbeki resigned early from the South African presidency in September 2008 because of this factional friction within the ANC and charges (later overturned) that he had interfered with Zuma′s prosecution,[2] leaving a hiatus until Zuma won the top job in April 2009. Mbeki's supporters formed a new party called the Congress of People (COPE) in December 2008, which other South African liberal opposition parties welcomed as it was seen as weakening the ANC's near electoral monopoly of black voters. Despite secondary political differences among these three ANC presidents, corresponding to divergent views within the party over how best to carry out its goals, the ANC's common basic programme and approach help explain how in an intense period of revolutionary turmoil the party was able to sound credible to a politically conscious and aroused black population wanting to turn the system upside down that was responsible for the unrelenting oppression and harsh injustices of apartheid. Four essential features stand out in the ANC's political strategy and propaganda:[3] First, the appeal of immediate democratic rights (dispensed by a black government) in a very undemocratic society colonised by white settlers. This included "equality before the law and equal protection" under the law for everyone, freedom from discrimination and servitude and full dignity and respect as citizens. The new Bill of Rights removes the countless restrictions from apartheid and accords the right to vote, to assemble, to move about freely, as well as the right to religion and political expression and so forth. The Bill of Rights itself is very democratic in content and an important basis for any transitional society. However, cast through the ANC's politics, in truth this appeal reflects the narrowing down of people's dreams of liberation to western-style formal democracy and illusions that the new citizens, as individuals, were acquiring political power through the ballot box. The government did open up public debate over key issues in many areas, but dissent and protest tended to be either handled in a paternalistic way or oriented towards official (ANC-related) channels and organisations. The ANC constantly stressed the importance of people's participation through assembles, conferences and public discussion in reform processes that were essentially decided by the recomposed state and such participation certainly did not affect important structural changes or fundamental transformations. And, like in other formal liberal democracies, this freedom of expression does not permit any serious challenge to how society is organised and to which class holds political power. As if to underscore this latter point, while a side aspect involved loosening the grip of police repression against political opponents, the main security apparatuses of the murderous apartheid system have only been slightly reorganised and former members of the various liberation armies had to renounce their past to receive demobilisation money or to be integrated into the reactionary South African army. Secondly, the ANC promised to deliver miraculous social development to address the needs of the deprived and expectant black population, using its liberation struggle credentials and critique of colonialism and apartheid crimes. These promises included full employment, radical redistribution of the land within a few years, education, healthcare, electricity, food security and housing for all, a major programme of social assistance and much more. This was a social democratic vision, and only moderately redistributive, not a socialist one. The ANC promised to fight from within its position in the joint state for a programme of social reforms that corresponded to illusions the ANC itself fostered – that the system it inherited and presided over, if properly guided in a "humanitarian" or "pro-people" manner, could produce and deliver the things the people desperately needed and desired. This essential lie that the system could (and would) be reformed in the interests of the "poorest of the poor", as the ANC liked to put it in 1994, with a liberatory quality of life and changed social relations between people, was recycled in 2009 as the [myth of the] "developmental state". [4] This illusion relied on a third and crucial feature: that the existing economic set-up need only be "adjusted" and future national growth that would eventually finance social development necessarily depended on further integration into the world imperialist system, international markets and attracting foreign investment. Part of the demagogic appeal, especially to the aspiring middle classes, included passing anti-trust laws, which would break up the giant white conglomerates dominating the economy and open up vast opportunities for black entrepreneurs. The true freedom to compete in a truly free market, open to all races. The neoliberal macro-economic plan put into effect (called Growth, Employment and Redistribution-- GEAR) moved away from the uncompetitive apartheid-era centralisation of state enterprises to more classic liberalisation and producing for export. This involved freeing up capital for financial speculation and deregulating investment, privatising public services with the idea of stimulating the creation of black-owned businesses, jobs and a bigger tax base. How this capital accumulation (and profit) could be achieved without intensifying the conditions of superexploitation of black South African masses, national oppression, low-paid labour and remaining pre-capitalist forms of oppression was not explained by ANC and neoliberal theoreticians. Many people nonetheless understood that its parasitic capitalist and market essence was not likely to bring the social changes promised[5] and GEAR became a key focus of protest over the following years, even within the ANC's own political alliance, particularly by the trade union confederation, COSATU. While critical of this policy, the SACP never broke ranks over this decisive question of the economy, instead defending their right to democratically debate it under ANC leadership. A large handful of huge conglomerates continue to control the national stock exchange while sub-companies and black director and management positions were created. The fourth aspect was an appeal to civil peace, stabilisation and national reconciliation. Translated practically, this meant forging reactionary unity with the bourgeois classes and the imperialists the people had been courageously fighting against for so long. And at the heart, it was closely connected to smothering and denying the central importance of the national question that is objectively a major faultline in South African society. The very rotten structures and social relations of apartheid that were bursting to be overthrown were literally built and enshrined on the basis of brutal national oppression, deeply embedded in all aspects of the social fabric. Rather than uprooting the causes and basis of this oppression, the ANC has called for "improving race relations", eliminating formal racial discrimination and especially empowering blacks without taking away anything from whites, who still live in a privileged and relatively separate European-like world. Government leaders routinely denounce outward expressions of continued white supremacy or turn extreme cases over to languish in the courts. To blacks the ANC sent the message that now the problem is economic inequality, so they should "be patient, you’ll get yours", "after all, changes take a long time given our past", and, "now that we’re in power the colonial problem is history." After over 20,000 people and groups provided testimony of the violence they suffered under apartheid before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up in 1995, the few perpetrators of these crimes from the police and the state who came forward to confess were pardoned. Neither this attempt to impose reconciliation nor the attempt to equate violence by the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor went down well with the people – another very bitter pill the ANC-led state shamefully and willingly shoved down the throats of the black population in the name of civil peace and "moving on". "Empowerment" and enrichment of a few… 20 years of freedom? This depends on who you ask. If you circulate in the cities and countryside of South Africa, you are likely to hear, "well, we are free to vote, but little has changed for us under a black government; we are tired of waiting"; surprisingly in 2009, many added, "I’ve voted twice and I don’t even know if I’m going to bother this time – what good does it do? " Mandela and DeKlerk were rewarded with a joint Nobel peace prize in 1993 and their several-year political union, while far from harmonious, accomplished its goal of joint rule to stabilise the country politically – at least temporarily. The neoliberal macro-economic policies put into effect under their watch were able to at first improve sluggish growth, which has since slowed considerably. Financialisation of the economy has given the wealthy few trading on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange a new lease on life and strengthened the rand, South Africa's currency. The Black Economic Empowerment scheme set up to promote black entrepreneurship has successfully made a small class of people obscenely rich, who have become shareholders in the largest companies, as well as CEOs in some cases, or who secured tenders through political connections to the ANC top brass. And many of the ANC leaders themselves have not bothered to conceal their "nouveau riche" status, showing up at rallies in Mercedez-Benz and the latest bling. In addition, previously suppressed under apartheid, a much larger urban black middle class has emerged in South Africa, filling a demand for professionals, managers, computer engineers and technicians as well as numerous retailers. However, the main picture shows a much bigger gap between rich and poor in the past 20 years, giving South Africa one of the highest inequality indexes in the world today. The poorest sections of the black majority, whose position initially improved some percentage points, have become poorer. The number of South Africans living on $1 a day more than doubled between 1996 and 2005 and over one third of the population now live on less than $2 per day. In the rural areas (40-45% of the population) closer to 70% of black households live in real poverty, over half of whom are headed by women. Although some people with access to land can grow some of their own food, especially the staple maize crop, rural land-based livelihoods have been battered down by a century of white monopoly of farmland, which post-1994 land reform has done very little to change. In addition, while a new minimum wage was introduced several years ago, it is not enforced in much of the white commercial farm areas, where oppressive often pre-capitalist social relations mixed with South Africa's lowest wages still prevail. To offset growing poverty, the government has greatly expanded its system of social assistance in the past few years and nearly a quarter of South Africans receive some kind of grant, particularly in the form of child protection. Housing, electricity and services have all been improved in the past 20 years, but the privatisation of many public services has made them unaffordable to many. Hosting the World Cup has required enormous outlays to build the necessary sports facilities and infrastructure. Another big issue is jobs. Over one million jobs have been lost in the past decade under ANC rule, particularly in mining and manufacturing. Unemployment officially stands at 22%, some figures report 40% and studies have put it at nearly 70% in the rural areas. Part of the dispute comes from the fact that sections of the huge informal economy in South Africa are not counted, such as the large numbers of petty traders selling a tiny pile of onions or overripe bananas on the street, so common throughout the third world. Each year the ANC government sets new targets for creating jobs. South Africa's social situation is little better. Deeply entrenched segregation means that schools, transportation and housing, like all spheres of society, remain for the most part physically and racially separate by neighbourhood, town, even while a few mixed middle and upper middle class areas have developed in and around large cities like Johannesburg. Less than 1/5 of the population can afford medical plans and private sector health services, so the demand for free healthcare for all that has been on the agenda since 1994 is a central one. Some 5.7 million people are infected with HIV/AIDs and in 2007 nearly 1000 people died each day from it, Mbeki’s policy banning anti-retrovirals in public health institutions undoubtedly fuelling these numbers. With a few exceptions, whites drive their own cars and don′t mix with the millions of black township residents who travel long distances between home and jobs in the city with the parallel "black" collective taxi-vans. Schools have officially been reclassified and some fees eliminated, but the old divisions persist between good white (now mixed) schools and those in the black townships and poor rural areas. The former white elite universities are more integrated but often black students can’t afford to stay past the first year or two. Crime is a constant preoccupation as South Africa has one of the highest rates of murder and rape in the world. White and affluent mixed neighbourhoods are increasingly separated off from the real world behind closed gates. In front of each house in middle class areas with lawns and flowering trees, a private security guard sits on a chair, and – at first glance striking to the foreign visitor – almost all individual private homes in such areas are surrounded by high walls. The symbolic barbed wire of apartheid – to keep black people out – is still visible everywhere. In reality, most crime targets poor people and the dense labyrinths of dimly-lit township alleyways are a nightmare for women after dark. The ANC's response has not been to mobilise people to change the underlying conditions for all this, but to focus on common criminals. The US magazine Time, recently featuring Zuma on its cover, approvingly refers to what is commonly seen as his "shoot-to-kill" policy. Since the "democratic rainbow miracle" has intensified poverty and class differences and since white supremacy has hardly disappeared, struggles have regularly broken out over a broad range of social issues. While these protests are mostly tolerated, the ANC has renewed its populism in order to narrow down political frustration directed at the system – and to deflect criticism away from themselves, who are presiding over that system – towards service delivery problems that take "more time and money". Although reluctant to criticise the ANC "comrades" for some time, over the past decade some of South Africa's active social movements have been challenging ANC policies and political will to bring about the changes they call for. By way of example, protests have included food riots, struggle over prepaid electricity power meters in the townships, and over housing by shack dwellers in Durban as well as protests over unemployment, the slowness of land reform along with a spate of strikes over pay, including by public sector workers and even pro-ANC labour unions. Campuses blew up in 2008 over the outrageous racist incident at the Free State University when white students urinated in food they served to black housekeepers at their dorm.[6] Even if over 50% live in poverty in South Africa, it is still the continent's "richest" country and continues to attract large numbers of immigrants. The urban housing crisis and massive joblessness have also fed into uglier expressions of the contradictions among the people such as the xenophobic attacks in May 2008 that resulted in 62 deaths, renewed on a smaller scale in several areas of the country since that time, in which poor slum dwellers (along with some gang-organized activity) targeted Zimbabweans, Nigerians, Malawians and other foreigners living in South Africa. This polarized the masses in a very bad way, rather than focusing anger at the system and the ANC government, which did not hesitate to send in humvees and troops to keep order, reminiscent scenes of brutal police repression under apartheid. White farmers have also participated in the anti-immigrant hunt, alternately "hiring" Zimbabweans who have crossed the border looking for work and literally chasing them back to Zimbabwe with armed private patrols and dogs. Patriarchy rules… The press has focused on Zuma's headline-grabbing "unpresidential" polygamy and his seeming inability to keep his trousers on. The ANC recently told him to "zip it up" and to publicly apologise for fathering a 19th child, this time with the daughter of the World Cup local organising committee chair (who he since agreed to take as a fourth wife through customary marriage). In the wake of his falling out with the Mbeki forces in the party over corruption charges and political rivalry, Zuma has tried to boost ANC popularity through reviving Zulu nationalism and stressing his modest origins, while denouncing the new COPE split-off party as a ‘rich man's club’. His supporters wear in-your-face T-shirts saying "I’m 100% Zulu" to underscore the fact that Mandela's and Mbeki’s ethnic Xhosa-speaking social base is no longer in charge. Zuma's open defence of reactionary patriarchal traditions and rape as "Zulu cultural obligations", however, is really only a different form of the patriarchy and tribalism characteristic of Mandela and his "royal" line, or Mbeki's paternalistic "defence" of African knowledge and culture while denying pregnant women infected with HIV/AIDs access to anti-retroviral drugs.[7] (And, as might be expected from its cultural level, still vocal white supremacists retaliate by attacking Zuma's behaviour towards women with the worst of racial slurs.) Zuma portrays himself as a "man of the people" who knows poverty and doesn’t need Mbeki's refined English accent nor foreign law degrees to deliver what the people need. He constantly invokes the "comrades" and the ANC's credentials in the struggle against apartheid, but has no reservations in appealing to foreign investors in the next sentence or calling for the return of the death penalty. The British bourgeois press has expressed faith that his left populism is merely "talk", while he can be counted on to pursue Mbeki's "conservative financial" policies and govern "from the right". Relations with the imperialists are not without contradiction, but overall South Africa has won their approval, even earning a seat at the G20. The ANC's role of political fireman goes hand in hand with its leading position as the organiser of imperialist-dominated development in the continent, with a particular strength in the southern African subcontinent. Building a revolutionary movement South Africa's ruling class has been able to make noticeable changes from apartheid society within the narrow confines of a stunted bourgeois democracy built upon an economic system in which the majority is frozen at the bottom even while small social strata within the black population are enriched. While the underpinnings of this stiflingly oppressive system are essentially the same, a different political configuration rules over it today, with the pretentious claim to have "built the foundation of a new society by enshrining the basic human and democratic rights of all in the country's constitution". (ANC 2009 Election Manifesto) Reportedly the party's 2009 election slogan, "Working together we can do more" was frequently "doctored" on city walls with additions like "evictions", "exploitation" and "corruption". South Africa is bursting with social contradictions that capitalism can and will never solve. Revolution is needed as much as ever, along with a communist line and organisation to lead it, mobilising the favourable factors for the development of a thoroughgoing revolutionary movement. Despite some of the negative deadening effects of the ANC's populism and the seduction of hoping to buy into capitalism's very selective fruits, as well as sharpening divisions among the vast numbers of people for whom those fruits are more or less permanently forbidden, there are also many positive factors. The society is highly polarized racially and socially and extremely politicised with constantly contending views and different forms of struggle erupting. This is linked to a powerful and bitter history of struggle against apartheid, which included a large section of the older generations fighting for national liberation, many of whom are completely disillusioned with the ANC. Along with the unresolved land question that has clearly illustrated the continued weight of white minority control over agricultural land 15 years after land reform was introduced, and the still pervasive and explosive national question, the continued workings of the capitalist system itself continue to grind down the black majority and offer little future for younger generations. Spontaneously these factors will continue to force people to struggle but in the current reformist headlock of the ANC, will lead to little more than pressuring the government for more welfare and service delivery as it already promises. Yet many people yearn for something entirely different – liberation and the new society they didn’t get. And new generations are coming up against similar obstacles as before, as nationalist views are resurrected with varying degrees of militancy to try to answer the dilemmas posed by the ANCs 20-year demonstration that its politics and ideology have nothing to do with genuine liberation. For those who are looking, the mask has long slipped off the ANC's social democracy. In a world whose emperors declare this deceptive goal to be the highest we can reach for, those who wish to accelerate revolutionary change must ask the hard questions: what kind of revolutionary process is needed to thoroughly uproot and transform the old as well as the more "modern" oppressive social relations? How is national liberation linked to a vision of going further to create a whole different society, not based on either colonial or capitalist relations dependent on and still heavily shaped by imperialism? A starting point for rebuilding a revolutionary movement. -end item- [1] According to the British Guardian newspaper (9/2/2008), his successor Thabo Mbeki also met secretly in exile with the NP government as early as 1986. [2] Mbeki dismissed Zuma as Deputy President in mid-2005, who was closely associated with fraud and corruption charges stemming from a $5 billion arms deal with the French. He allegedly received thousands of dollars in kickbacks, for which his financial adviser was jailed in 2005. Prosecutors finally dropped the case in April 2009, two weeks before the vote. [3] See the ANC’s 1994 Reconstruction & Development Programme and its 2009 Election Manifesto. [4] An example from the 2009 Election Manifesto doublespeak: "We must ensure that the mandates of development finance institutions are clear and truly developmental and that their programmes contribute to decent work outcomes, achievement of our developmental needs and sustainable livelihoods." [5] Other aspects of the ANC’s programme, like the remarkably paltry market-based land reform, also failed to pacify the black population and continue to fuel social tensions, the subject of a future article. [6] In the interests of "reconciliation on a divided campus", the university allowed them to resume their studies a year later. [7] Although portrayed internationally as simplistically opposing science, Mbeki’s refusal to respond seriously to the rapidly escalating AIDs crisis in South Africa (with disastrous consequences and 600,000 deaths in 2006) was grounded in his moral stance against what he called “global apartheid”; he opposed portraying Africans as ignorant victims of a western disease, forced to buy expensive western drugs and argued that AIDs was linked to poverty rather than its viral origins.

The nature of the nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Iran

16 December 2013. A World to Win News Service. Following are edited excerpts from a statement by the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) dated 26 November 2013 Finally, after a year of secret negotiations between representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S., a nuclear agreement between Iran and the world's six most powerful countries has been signed. The agreement recognises Iran's rights to enrich uranium in the future within "a framework to be agreed by all sides." The IRI committed itself to never seeking to make or achieve a nuclear bomb under any circumstances. The most important details of this agreement are those that force Iran to reverse the process of developing nuclear technology that brought it close to being able to produce a nuclear bomb. This agreement is of course a "new start" in relations between the Islamic Republic and the U.S., but it is not a "new start" for the masses of people of Iran. As we said earlier, "with the recent trip of Hassan Rouhani to New York and his telephone contact with Barak Obama, a new process between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US has started that both sides are hoping will lead to the normalization of relations between their two governments. No one, not even the two actors in this project, can predict the final results, because the normalisation of relations between them is closely linked with larger strategic issues that will affect both the regional position of the Islamic Republic and other reactionary states in the Middle East, and also the balance of power among the imperialists powers and the power alignment between the rival factions in the Islamic Republic of Iran." (Haghighat no. 65, October 2013) The reason for the strong opposition to this agreement by Israel and Saudi Arabia is not because the agreement does not adequately pressurise the Islamic Republic to destroy its nuclear technology. As some bourgeois observers and analysts have stated, for example William Cohen in The New York Times on 26 November, their concern is the speed with which Iran-U.S. relations are changing and the possible re-drawing of the strategic map of the Middle East. Or as Vali Nasr, the head of international studies at John Hopkins University said, "This is a historic deal... a major seismic shift in the region. It rearranges the entire chess board." (NYT 24 November 2013) False advertising Some supporters of the Iranian regime (along with some of leftist and right-wing forces outside the regime) have made a big noise about the agreement similar to their reaction to the presidential election. They describe the Geneva agreement as a "new start" representing "hope" for the people. But this kind of "start" will only benefit the Islamic Republic and help its leaders in their efforts to confuse the people once again and channel the people's demands for change in ways that consolidate its own position. These illusions and false beliefs are being spread by the Islamic Republic media, with the help, as has been the case for the last 34 years, of religious nationalists and the Tudeh Party and the Fadeyen-Majority [two parties that formerly supported Soviet social-imperialism before the collapse of the USSR and are now doing their best to spread the seeds of compromise with the regime] and the regime's own "reformists". Despite the false propaganda by the heads of the Islamic regime and the inflated posturing of people like [Foreign Minister] Javad Zarif, who said, "We are not puppets and we don't accept orders from anyone", "We negotiated from a position of equality" and "Our wise leader was the initiator of the whole plan," the Geneva agreement and the whole ripening process shows that all of the world's reactionary regimes must subordinate themselves to the global capitalist-imperialist system, including the IRI that claims to represent a rebellion against that system. Zarif's inflated posturing, such as declaring "We made them understand that they had to talk to us as equals" was only the false advertising of a reactionary technocrat in a dominated country. Anyone who has access to the world media knows that the principles of the agreement had already been worked out in secret negotiations between Iran and the U.S. The real point of contention was the language of the agreement. Because IRI trampled upon and openly compromised one of its core values and ideological principles, its so-called opposition to "the Great Satan", the U.S., Zarif and his team wanted the text to be written in a way that would minimize its impact and that of the regime's U-turn inside Iran (on the social bases of the IRI and different factions of the regime) and save face for the IRI inside and outside Iran. In the world imperialist hierarchy, "positions of equality" are reserved for the six main powers who took part in the Geneva talks [the "5+1", the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council – the U.S., UK, France, Russia and China – plus Germany], in addition to Japan, which was not among them. There is the very obvious fact that Iran's economy is regulated by the economic institutions of capitalist-imperialist system such as the World Bank and IMF, which decide its position and functioning in the world economic system. But the IRI is also politically managed and controlled by political institutions such as the UN and its resolutions and specifically the 5+1, including China and Russia, the powers that claim to be "protectors" of dominated countries such as Iran. In fact, the dependence of the dominated countries on one or another big power is also part of the imperialist global management structure. For example, at the Geneva meeting some big powers (China and Russia) took the position of supporting or "guarding" the IRI, and others took the opposite position. There is a rivalry among these powers over who will control the dominated countries. This contradiction between the political and economic interests of the big powers allows the countries such as Iran under the IRI to play an "independent" role and use that against the Iranian people. What is and what should be Some people incorrectly think that "U.S.-style democracy and economic growth would come to Iran if relations with the U.S. are normalised." This is as incorrect as the idea that the Islamic Republic can be reformed. Such illusions within some sections of the masses are a big obstacle to organising a movement for revolution. To confront such ideas and make the masses conscious is one of the important tasks of revolutionary communists. As we have previously mentioned, "to eliminate these kinds of false hopes it should be enough to look at countries similar to Iran that have not been subject to the international system's sanctions. Egypt and Tunisia experienced far greater economic growth than some similar countries, but the poverty and the misery of the working class and peasants in these countries and other toilers increased in parallel to this 'growth'. Egypt's annual rate of economic growth from 1980 until 2011 was 5 percent. This is a growth rate that would meet the wishes of the IRI and many regimes in dominated countries, but Egypt had an unemployment rate of about 50 percent and a rate of inflation of about 20 percent. Its poverty provided a situation in which Islamic fundamentalists forces such as the Moslem Brotherhood, the Salafists and Islamic tribal forces in the Sinai Peninsula flourished. There is no doubt that with the lifting of sanctions some sectors of Iran's economy such as the auto assembly and spare parts industries will recover, but these industries employ only a small percentage of workers. Future economic development will not reduce the massive number of youth seeking jobs, poverty and misery in the slums... The country's millions of working people, old and young, constitute the biggest force for the development of the economy, but the functioning of IRI's economic system, with or without sanctions, is destroying that potential. "The lifting of the sanctions will not change the logic of the IRI's economic system, and further, that system will function with increasing brutality. There is only one way to confront this vicious, man-eating machine: by launching a movement for revolution among the country's massive force of workers and jobless, including the Afghanistanis, Kurds, Turks, Persians, Balochi, Arabs and Turkemen, to fight united under the flag of the international proletariat, not only for the liberation of the people of Iran but also for the liberation of the proletariat and peoples of the Middle East and the emancipation of the whole humanity from the grips of the oppression and exploitation of the capitalist system." (Haghighat no. 65, October 2013) Anyone who thinks that the "normalisation" of relations between the IRI and the U.S. will remove the danger of another war in the Middle East should open their eyes. Rouhani, in his UN speech on 24 September 2013, stated that the U.S. and IRI have a common interest in confronting "terrorists" such as Al-Qaeda. In this way the IRI is committing itself to join the U.S. wars on "terrorism" in the Middle East. The entrance of the IRI in these dirty wars will not lift the shadows of war darkening Iran's sky but rather worsen the situation of the peoples in the Middle East in various ways. There is only one way to change the reactionary and horrific balance of forces in Iran and the region: to launch a movement for the revolutionary overthrow of the IRI under the leadership of a communist program. The only way to respond to the present dangerous situation is to expand the revolutionary alternative in all parts of the country and within all different sections of the people... In the present situation we should make all efforts to form a solid core of professional revolutionaries, women and men equipped with the scientific theory of communism and committed to a conscious struggle for that goal. Without meeting these necessities we will not be able to prepare millions of oppressed and exploited masses for that kind of revolution and lead them in carrying it out.

Mandela: The Movie/ Uri Avnery's Column

28/12/13 I HAVE just seen the new movie “Mandela”, and I am so full of impressions that I cannot abstain from writing them down. It is a very good film, with very good actors. But that’s not the main point. It is a very accurate film, depicting what actually happened in South Africa, and one cannot help thinking about it again and again. What do I think? IF ONE had asked any South African, black or white, some 35 years ago how the conflict would end, the answer would most probably have been: “It will not end. There is no solution.” That is exactly the answer one receives today In Israel and Palestine. There could be no solution. The vast majority of black South Africans wanted freedom and black rule. The great majority of the Whites, both Boer and British, knew that once the Africans assumed power, the Whites would be slaughtered or driven out. No side could possibly back down. Yet the incredible, the unimaginable, happened. The blacks won. A black president assumed power. The Whites were neither slaughtered nor evicted. Some say that they are today in many ways more powerful than the Blacks. We have got used to this so thoroughly that we are not conscious anymore what a miracle it is. When Algeria was freed, after a long and brutal war of liberation, more than a million “colons” fled for their lives. The huge exodus was not imposed. President Charles de Gaulle just let it be known that the French army would leave at a certain date, and all the colons fled helter skelter. An immense number of local collaborateurs were butchered. That is the normal course of events when colonial rule comes to an end after a long period of brutal oppression. As Friedrich Schiller wrote at the beginning of the colonial era: “Fear the slave who breaks his chains!” ARE THE South African Blacks a different kind of people? More humane? More gentle? Less vengeful? Not at all. As the film clearly shows, they were thirsting for revenge. They had suffered unspeakable indignities for many decades. Not abstract ones. They had suffered daily humiliations in the street, in the parks, at the railway stations, everywhere. They had not been allowed to forget for a moment that they were black and inferior, indeed subhuman. Many had spent time in inhuman prisons. So it was natural that on the day of liberation they would fall upon their torturers, burn, kill, destroy. Mandela’s own wife, Winnie, led the demand for revenge. She incited the masses. And only one human being stood between an orgy of blood and the orderly transfer of power. The movie shows how Nelson Mandela, completely alone, threw himself against the rising wave. At the decisive moment, when everything hung in the balance, when history held its breath, he addressed the masses on TV, telling them bluntly: “If I am your leader, you will follow my course! Otherwise, look for another leader!” His approach was rational. Violence would tear the country apart, perhaps beyond redemption, as had happened in some other African countries. The Blacks would live in fear, as the Whites had lived all through the apartheid era. And, incredibly, the people followed him. YET MANDELA was not a superhuman being, He was a normal person, with normal instincts. He had been an honest-to-goodness terrorist, who had sent people to kill and be killed. He had suffered years of brutal treatment, both physical and mental, years of imprisonment in isolation, which could have driven him to insanity. Still in prison, and against the will of his closest comrades, he started negotiation with the leaders of the apartheid regime. Could there have been a Mandela without a Frederik Willem de Klerk? A good question. The film does not dwell on de Klerk’s personality. But here was a man who understood the situation, who agreed to what amounted to almost complete surrender to the despised “kaffirs”, and who did so without shedding a drop of blood. Like Mikhail Gorbachev, in different circumstances, he supervised a bloodless historic revolution. (Curiously enough, “kaffir”’ the White racist term for blacks, is derived from the Arabic and Hebrew term for infidels.) Mandela and de Klerk were perfectly matched, though one could hardly imagine two more different individuals. WHAT CAUSED the abomination of apartheid to collapse? Throughout the world, including Israel, the received wisdom is that it was the global boycott imposed on the apartheid state which broke its bones. In dozens of countries, decent people refused to touch South African goods or to take part in sports events with South African teams, thus turning South Africa into a pariah state. All true and admirable. Everybody who took part in this world-wide upsurge of conscience deserves respect. But to believe that this was the decisive element of the struggle is itself a symptom of Western condescension, a kind of moral colonialism. The film devotes to these world-wide protests and boycott just a few seconds. Not more. It was the heroic struggle of the South African masses, mostly black, but also Indian (descendents of immigrants) and colored (mixed race), that achieved victory. The means were armed struggle (always called “terrorism” by the oppressor), non-violent mass action and mass strikes. Foreign support served mainly to raise morale. Mandela was not only one of the main leaders of this struggle, but also an active participant, until he was sent to prison for life. From the film one could gain the impression that there were two Mandelas – the leader of the armed struggle, who shed blood, and the maker of peace, who became a world symbol of tolerance and forgiveness. Yet these two Mandelas are one and the same - the personality of a man who was ready to sacrifice his life for the freedom of his country, but who was also magnanimous and forgiving in victory. He completely conformed to the ancient Jewish saying: “Who is a hero? He who turns his hater into his lover.” AN Israeli is compelled to ask himself the inevitable question: What does the film tell us about the similarities and dissimilarities between the South African and the Israel-Palestinian situations? The first impression is that situations are almost totally different. The political and demographic backgrounds are poles apart. The similarities are mostly superficial. But in particular, the most obvious differences are: There is no Palestinian Mandela in sight, and even less an Israeli de Klerk. Mandela himself was a passionate supporter of the Palestinian cause. He saw in Yasser Arafat his soul mate. There is indeed a similarity: like Mandela, Arafat started a violent revolutionary struggle of liberation (terrorism), and like Mandela he decided to make peace with his enemy (Oslo). If Arafat had been tall and handsome like Mandela, perhaps the world would have treated him differently. In his anti-Zionist attitude, Mandela resembled Mahatma Gandhi, whose ideas were formed in the 21 years he spent in South Africa and suffered its racism (before apartheid was officially enacted). Gandhi had a Muslim first name (Mohandas, “engineer” in both Arabic and Hebrew). However, while Mandela’s creed of forgiveness did win, Gandhi’s non-violent creed failed. The liberation of India was accompanied by untold violence, with at least half a million Muslims and Hindus dead – including Gandhi himself. The movie ends with Mandela’s election as president, hailed by both Blacks and Whites.

Bahar Kimyongür - Casa Circondariale di Bergamo, 10e jour de détention

Le CLEA souhaite porter à votre connaissance deux lettres que Bahar Kimyongür a rédigées en prison. Il s'agit des premières déclarations publiques du citoyen belge depuis le 21 novembre. La «Lettre à l’opinion» de Bahar Kimyongür mérite toute votre attention. Nous reproduisons également ici l'extrait d'un autre courrier dans lequel notre compatriote décrit ses conditions de détention à Bergame. Lettre à l'opinion Nous voilà repartis pour un tour ... Après les Pays-Bas, la Belgique et l'Espagne, c'est à l'Italie de m'ouvrir ses portes de fer et de les refermer aussitôt, cette même Italie où j'ai séjourné une quarantaine de fois sans le moindre souci malgré le mandat d'arrêt international lancé il y a 10 ans par un tribunal d'Ankara. Aux Pays-Bas, mon arrestation survint alors que je circulais en voiture sur l'autoroute dans la périphérie de La Haye. En Belgique, où j'ai subi un procès pénal inutile et coûteux qui a empoisonné quatre années de ma vie, le parcours fut plus classique : du tribunal de Gand à la prison de Gand. En Espagne par contre, la police manifestement plus inspirée, m'a arrêté à l'intérieur de la Cathédrale de Cordoue avec ma femme et mes deux enfants. En Italie, les unités de la DIGOS m'ont cueilli à l'aéroport Orio al Serio quelques minutes après l'atterrissage de mon avion en provenance de Charleroi. Les agents italiens m'ont ensuite emmené à la prison de Bergame où je croupis depuis une dizaine de jours dans des conditions indignes. En provoquant ces arrestations en chaîne, les autorités turques espèrent m'intimider, me décourager, me fragiliser financièrement et faire douter les nombreux amis et camarades qui me soutiennent. Pour banale qu'elle soit, la privation de liberté n'en est pas moins un châtiment d'une violence extrême dont les premières victimes sont les familles, en particulier les enfants. Âgés de 3 et 5 ans, mes enfants comprennent des tas de choses. Mais ils ne peuvent comprendre ni accepter que leur papa qui leur enseigne les règles de la vie en société, les valeurs humaines telles que l'honnêteté, la justice, l'amour et la solidarité, soit sans cesse puni à cause de ses écrits. Même les adultes ne peuvent comprendre un pareil acharnement. Le sentiment d'injustice qui germe dans le cœur de mes enfants à cause du malheur insensé et irrationnel qui leur arrive ne peut que leur causer des blessures psychiques graves. Il serait trop facile de jeter la pierre sur le seul régime turc et de dédouaner les États européens «victimes» de simples dysfonctionnements administratifs. Le monde a vu la férocité assumée et revendiquée de la police d'Erdogan lors de la révolte de la place Taksim durant l'été dernier. L'Europe toute entière s'en est indignée. Cela n'a pas empêché les polices européennes de jouer les janissaires du sultan Erdogan. A quoi bon être innocenté par la justice européenne si des forces de police européennes se mettent aux ordres du régime néo-ottoman et piétinent les décisions de cette même justice? Pourquoi un juge italien m'empêche de voyager, alors qu'un juge espagnol m'y autorise? Comment est-il possible qu'un organisme comme Interpol puisse se placer au-dessus des lois et échapper à tout contrôle? De quel droit Interpol se permet de convertir un signalement arbitraire et abusif en peine à perpétuité? Comment se fait-il qu'un régime comme celui d'Ankara qui chaque jour accueille des bataillons entiers de terroristes massacrant le peuple syrien, soit considéré comme un partenaire de l'Europe dans la lutte contre le terrorisme ? Mes mésaventures auront eu au moins le mérite de faire la lumière sur certains côtés sombres de nos démocraties super-maxi-ultra-plus qui lavent toujours plus blanc que blanc. En attendant ma libération, je remercie de tout cœur les milliers d'amis sur qui je peux toujours compter dans les moments heureux comme dans les moments difficiles et qui une fois encore, se sont mobilisés pour soutenir ma famille et porter haut l'étendard de nos idéaux communs. Bahar Kimyongür À propos des conditions de détention de Bahar Kimyongür à la prison de Bergame Bahar Kimyongür - Casa Circondariale di Bergamo, 6e jour de détention « (...) Pour être honnête, ma cellule est une horreur. On dirait que tous les vents polaires s'y sont donnés rendez-vous. La "vitre" est un plexi irrégulier, incurvé qui ne tient avec du silicone que d'un seul côté. Un tiers de la "vitre" manque à l'appel. La partie manquante est couverte de pages de journal collées avec du dentifrice. Pareil pour la petite salle de douche. Là, il manque carrément une vitre. Une lourde porte métallique sépare les deux pièces. Pour l'ouvrir, il faut la porter car elle a subi des dégradations. Comme elle ne se referme pas complètement, il y a un courant d'air permanent dans la cellule. Notre lit superposé est composé de trois étages. La cellule où je me trouve est une cellule dite "d'accueil". Elle n'a pourtant rien d'hospitalier. En rentrant en prison, on m'a fait croire que l'on pouvait choisir une cellule "non fumeurs". Cette option se trouvait dans le formulaire d'accueil et naturellement, je l'ai cochée. Mais en raison de la surpopulation, les non fumeurs son obligés de partager leur cellule avec des fumeurs. Les conditions sanitaires son exécrables. Je n'ai pu balayer ma cellule crasseuse qu'au sixième jour de ma détention, c'est-à-dire aujourd'hui. Ma cellule est un vrai moulin. Quatre détenus y ont déjà transité en 6 jours : Silvio, un colérique de 50 ans arrêté pour avoir battu son frère et ses parents. Monsieur Carbonara de Bari, un sexagénaire accusé de vol et libéré hier après moins de 48h de détention. Aujourd'hui, un jeune ressortissant marocain condamné pour trafic de drogue a débarqué. Depuis hier, je partage ma cellule avec Stefano, un Roumain de 25 ans père d'un petit garçon de 3 mois. Il est très aimable, abattu par ce qui lui arrive et un peu timoré. Il a peur par exemple d'aller prendre l'air. A propos, "aria", la cour en principe destinée à prendre l'air, est un véritable fumoir. Quand une quarantaine de détenus fument en même temps, on n'a pas vraiment l'occasion de profiter de l'air pur qui nous vient des Alpes... Ah oui, je dois aussi te parler du "café". On s'imagine qu'en Italie, même en prison, on a droit à du café italien... eh bien non. Au pays de l'esspresso et du capuccino, le café de la prison est un liquide trouble servi à la louche! Tellement répugnant que je n'en ai plus repris depuis le premier matin. Dans notre cellule, il n'y a qu'une petite table basse et un tabouret cassé, pour trois. Les murs sont sales, les sanitaires sont sales, le sol est sale. Alors, on se réfugie sous le drap de son lit comme on se cramponne à un radeau au milieu d'un naufrage. Quand tu t'embarques dans une galère italienne, tu reçois un kit de survie incomplet. Pas de serviette. Pas de lingerie. Pas de chaussette. C'est l'église catholique qui complète le kit. Encore faut-il pouvoir décrocher un rendez-vous avec le "prete", l'aumônier. En cellule la seule "friandise", c'est le téléviseur. Il faut tordre le câble de mille et une manières pour pouvoir décrypter l'une des huit chaînes italiennes que nous sommes censés capter (...).» _______________________________________________ Clea mailing list Pour nous écrire : info@leclea.be https://listes.domainepublic.net/listinfo/clea

Jobcenter Dresden veruntreut Hartz IV Gelder

Hartz IV Gelder werden umgeschichtet 03.01.2014 Offenbar ist das Jobcenter (Budapester Str.) in Dresden selbst seit einigen Monaten auf Hartz IV angewiesen. Nach Berichten der „BILD“ würde der Behördenapparat mit seinen Finanzen nicht auskommen. Insider hätten berichtet, so die Zeitung, dass die rund 680 Jobcentermitarbeiter von Hartz IV Gelder bezahlt werden. Geld, das an anderer Stelle fehlt. Endlich aus der Erwerbslosigkeit raus kommen und einen sozialversicherungspflichtigen Arbeitsplatz annehmen. Doch dazu fehlt ein Weiterbildungskurs. „Ich habe drei mal einen Antrag gestellt und jedes Mal wurde dieser abgelehnt“, berichtet Jürgen G. aus Dresden. Nun aber scheint ihm klar zu sein, warum das so ist. Etwa 45 Millionen Euro jährlich sind für den Verwaltungshaushalt der Behörde vorgesehen. Rund 256 Millionen sind für Hartz IV Leistungen der Leistungsberechtigten gedacht. Weil aber die Gelder für Personal, Miete und Strom nicht ausreichen, bedient man sich offenbar immer mehr bei den Hartz IV Geldern. Um es rechtlich abzusichern wird der Posten einfach als „Globalbudget“ deklariert. Gegenüber der Zeitung bestätigt stellvertretende Jobcenter Geschäftsführer Pierre Ullmann das Treiben: „Die Politik gibt den Kommunen die Möglichkeit, für Leistungen, Gerichtskosten und Personalkosten ein Globalbudget zu bilden!“ Wie viel bereits auf diese Weise den eigentlichen Empfängern vorenthalten wurde, will der Vize-Geschäftsführer nicht sagen. Nach Angaben der Bundesagentur für Arbeit haben die Jobcenter in den ersten 10 Monaten des Jahres 2013 deutschlandweit 204 Millionen Euro aus den Hartz IV Töpfen abgezweigt. Das ist ein echter Skandal, weil so weniger Geld für Fortbildungen oder echte Weiterbildungskurse vorhanden sind. Stattdessen setzt man vielerorts auf Billigkurse oder Ablehnungen von Anträgen. (sb)

Neue Artikel auf der IMI-Homepage

Neue Artikel auf der IMI-Homepage Neben dem Schwung an neuen Artikel im neuen AUSDRUCK (s.u.) sind auch noch folgende Texte kürzlich veröffentlicht worden: IMI-Standpunkt 2013/070 - in: Neues Deutschland 12.12.2013 Für Stabilität im Sinne der EU http://www.imi-online.de/2013/12/13/fuer-stabilitaet-im-sinne-der-eu/ Tobias Pflüger (13. Dezember 2013) IMI-Analyse 2013/034 - in: AUSDRUCK (Dezember 2013) Vorauseilender Gehorsam Keine Strafverfolgung von Drohnenangriff durch Bundesanwaltschaft http://www.imi-online.de/2013/12/12/vorauseilender-gehorsam/ Andreas Schüller, ECCHR (12. Dezember 2013) IMI-Analyse 2013/033 Was passiert mit der verlassenen NATO-Militärbase in Neapel? Zur anstehenden Konversion eines Ortes der Kriegskoordination http://www.imi-online.de/2013/12/10/was-passiert-mit-der-verlassenen-nato-militaerbase-in-neapel/ Jacqueline Andres (10. Dezember 2013) IMI-Standpunkt 2013/069 - in: Rote Fahne 50/2013 „Der Koalitionsvertrag bedeutet eine neue Stufe der Militarisierung bundesdeutscher Außenpolitik“ http://www.imi-online.de/2013/12/13/der-koalitionsvertrag-bedeutet-eine-neue-stufe-der-militarisierung-bundesdeutscher-aussenpolitik/ Tobias Pflüger / Rote Fahne (13. Dezember 2013) IMI-Studie 2013/12 Global Power Europe The hidden imperial Agenda behind the European Council, 19./20. December 2013 http://www.imi-online.de/2013/12/10/global-power-europe/ Sabine Lösing / Jürgen Wagner (10. Dezember 2013) 2) AUSDRUCK (Dezember 2013) Komplette Ausgabe: http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013klein.pdf SCHULTERSCHLUSS DGB UND BUNDESWEHR -- Sicherheitspolitischer Workshop des DGB: Ein Schlag ins Gesicht der Friedens- und Antikriegsbewegung (Christoph Marischka / Jürgen Wagner) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013Wagner_Marischka.pdf -- … die Diskussion so führen, dass sie zielführend ist (Bernhard Klaus) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013klaus.pdf DEUTSCHLAND UND DIE BUNDESWEHR -- Verantwortung zum Krieg: Schwarz-Rote Weltmachtambitionen (Jürgen Wagner) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013wagner.pdf -- Die Bevölkerung auf Kriegskurs bringen (Michael Schulze von Glaßer) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013glasser.pdf -- Schuleinsatz der Bundeswehr: Ideologiekritische Lektionen (Christian Stache) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013stache.pdf -- Krieg um die Köpfe: Das Feld der Ehre (Frank Brendle) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013brendle.pdf -- Die SWP im Krieg: Die „Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik“ und der Syrien-Konflikt (Michael Schulze von Gasser) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013Glasser2.pdf ZIVILKLAUSEL -- Forschung in „überwiegend militärischem Interesse“ trotz Zivilklausel? (Christoph Marischka) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013marischka.pdf DROHNEN -- Der US-Drohnenkrieg und die Rolle Deutschlands (Thomas Mickan) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013mickan.pdf -- Vorauseilender Gehorsam. Keine Strafverfolgung von Drohnenangriff durch Bundesanwaltschaft (Andreas Schüller) http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013schueller.pdf IMI-KONGRESSBERICHT 2013 Krieg um die Köpfe – Über die Mobilisierung von Zustimmung und die Demobilisierung von Protest http://www.imi-online.de/download/dezember2013Kongressbericht.pdf 3) Artikel: Ehrenmäler und Heldenkult bei der Bundeswehr IMI-Analyse 2013/034 - in: AUSDRUCK (Dezember 2013) Krieg um die Köpfe: Das Feld der Ehre http://www.imi-online.de/2013/12/13/krieg-um-die-koepfe-das-feld-der-ehre/ Frank Brendle (13. Dezember 2013) Besonders „anfällig“ ist Kriegspolitik dort, wo sie sich ihrem Kern nähert: Wo sie Tote und Verletzte produziert. Hier muss sie begründen, warum der Krieg „trotzdem“ oder „erst recht“ sinnvoll sei. Dies geschieht in beträchtlichem Ausmaß mit symbolischen Mitteln: Bundesregierung und Militärs suchen nach geeigneten Zeichen, die dem Töten und Sterben einen (scheinbaren) Sinn verleihen sollen. Prozesse einer solchen Remilitarisierung von Militär und Gesellschaft lassen sich dementsprechend bei Ordensverleihungen, Ehrenmälern und Totenritualen feststellen. Dabei handelt es sich (in der heute vorherrschenden Praxis) kaum um Phänomene, die mit dem Begriff des „banalen Militarismus“ zu fassen sind. Anders als im Kaiserreich sind Orden und Ehrenmäler heute fast ausschließlich „von oben“ angestiftete Symbole, die „von unten“ kaum rezipiert werden. Es fehlt ihnen die für den „banalen Militarismus“ wichtige Veralltäglichung.[1] Es handelt sich daher in erster Linie um eine durchaus klassische – damit nicht weniger harmlose – Form des Militarismus. Postheroisch Drei Aspekte sind für die Bundeswehr bei der Schlacht auf dem Feld der Ehre von Bedeutung: 1. SoldatInnen haben das Gefühl – Umfragen hin oder her – nicht genügend anerkannt zu werden. Soldatenzeitschriften sind voller Klagen, als Soldat werde man überall „diffamiert und ausgegrenzt“; in den letzten Monaten wird z.B. immer wieder der Aachener Friedenspreis angeführt, der den Soldaten ein echter Schlag in die Magengrube, wenn nicht ein Dolchstoß war. 2. Niemand, weder Zivilbevölkerung noch die eigenen SoldatInnen, haben eine Antwort auf die Frage, wofür Soldaten töten oder getötet werden sollen. Auch das steht offen in Soldatenzeitschriften: „Die Bundeswehr“ (10/2013) befragte den Bruder eines „Gefallenen“: „Würden Sie, als Soldat, sagen: Ich weiß, wofür mein Bruder gestorben ist?“ Antwort: „…ich finde keine Antwort … er kannte die Risiken, … aber wofür setzte er sein Leben ein?“ 3. Es mangelt an Opferbereitschaft: Die Bereitschaft, den Tod von SoldatInnen als begrüßenswertes Opfer für andere zu begreifen, ist heutzutage nur gering ausgeprägt. Das ist Ausdruck dessen, was nach Herfried Münkler[2] eine „postheroische Gesellschaft“ ausmacht. Das Konzept kann hier nicht umfassend vorgestellt werden. Was Postheroismus in unserem Zusammenhang bedeutet, kann aber nachfolgendes Zitat illustrieren: Der Bruder eines Gefallenen schreibt an seine Mutter: „Ist unser geliebter Walter nicht den schönsten, herrlichsten Tod gestorben, den man sich denken kann? Herrgott, wie ich ihn beneide … wie ich mich danach sehne … auch fürs heißgeliebte Vaterland … bluten zu dürfen.“ Das ist natürlich kein aktuelles Zitat. Es stammt aus einer Sammlung von Feldpostbriefen aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg, die vom Generalstab vertrieben worden war. Damals konnte man solche – heroischen – Sprüche noch als Propagandamaterial einsetzen. Ähnliches galt auch für die Befreiungskriege 1813/1814, als Theodor Körner dichten konnte: „Drauf, wackres Volk! Was kümmern dich die Hügel deiner Leichen?“[3] Heute könnte eine solche Propaganda nicht funktionieren, derartige Sprüche würden als menschenverachtend abgelehnt. Fürs Vaterland/für Freiheit/für Menschenrechte mag niemand sein Leben geben, und nur die wenigsten wollen, dass für diese Werte Menschen sterben. Das Sozialwissenschaftliche Institut der Bundeswehr hat diese mangelnde Opferbereitschaft schon vor Jahren als „casualty shyness“ bezeichnet, als zu niedrige „Toleranzschwelle für die Opfer von militärischen Einsätzen“. An diesen Problemen laboriert die Bundeswehr seit Beginn ihrer Auslandseinsätze herum. Je blutiger die Kriege, desto bunter die Orden Das Bedürfnis bzw. die politische Notwendigkeit, allen „tapferen Helden“, die in einem Krieg zu Tode kommen, Anerkennung zu zollen, entstand zu Beginn des „heroischen“ Zeitalters, in Deutschland also mit den Befreiungskriegen und dem Entstehen erster Formen der Wehrpflicht. 1813 wurde mit dem Eisernen Kreuz der erste Orden gestiftet, der nicht nur an Generale, sondern auch an einfache Soldaten verliehen werden konnte. In abgewandelter Form ist dieses Zeichen heute noch in Gebrauch. In der Weimarer Republik war die Verleihung von Orden und Ehrenzeichen ausdrücklich verboten (Artikel 109,4 der Reichsverfassung). Mit dieser republikanischen Neuerung haben die Nazis gebrochen, und die BRD hat sich an letzteren orientiert. Bis 1996 gab es in der Bundeswehr als zentralen Orden nur das Ehrenzeichen (in der Form des Eisernen Kreuzes) in Bronze, Silber, Gold, je nach Dienstzeit, es genügte die bloße Zugehörigkeit zur Truppe. Veränderte militärische Lagen erfordern veränderte Symbole: Nachdem die Bundeswehr mit den Auslandseinsätzen begann, wurde 1996 zunächst die Einsatzmedaille gestiftet. Die wurde wiederum je nach Einsatzdauer in Gold, Silber oder Bronze verliehen, wobei die konkrete Verwendung im Einsatz keine Rolle spielte. In den letzten 12 Jahren sind rund 200.000 dieser Medaillen verliehen worden, was ihren Wert natürlich schmälert. Als sich die Einsätze, insbesondere in Afghanistan, zunehmend als gefährlich erwiesen, wurde diese Einheitsmedaille als nicht mehr adäquat angesehen. Es wurde mit zwei Orden nachgerüstet: Zum einen mit dem „Ehrenkreuz für Tapferkeit“, das im Juli 2009 erstmals von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel im Bundeskanzleramt mit Presseanwesenheit verliehen wurde. „Helden geehrt“, hieß es damals auf 3sat. Kriterium für die Verleihung ist „ein moralisch gutes, außergewöhnlich tapferes oder besonders engagiertes Verhalten“. 2010 wurde erstmals die ebenfalls neue „Einsatzmedaille Gefecht“ für die „aktive Teilnahme an Gefechtshandlungen oder Erleiden von terroristischer oder militärischer Gewalt unter hoher persönlicher Gefährdung“ verliehen. Mit diesen beiden Medaillen hatten also Soldaten, die ihren Auslandseinsatz nicht nur innerhalb geschützter Feldlager verbrachten, ihre eigenen Zeichen („Drinnies“ vs. „Draußies“). Dabei zeigt sich allerdings ein eklatantes Missverhältnis: Die Gefechtsmedaille wurde schon im ersten Jahr über 4.000 Mal verliehen – da reicht bereits ein „bewährtes“ Verhalten bei gewalttätigen Demos im Kosovo. Das Tapferkeitskreuz gab es hingegen im gesamten Zeitraum seit 2009 bis Oktober 2013 nur ganze 26 Mal, es ist also relativ exklusiv. Man könnte, legte man auf solche soldatischen „Tugenden“ überhaupt Wert, feststellen, dass offenbar sehr viele Bundeswehrsoldaten in Gefechte verwickelt werden, sich dabei aber fast keiner „tapfer“ schlägt. Detlev Bald hat zur Einführung des Tapferkeitskreuzes ausgeführt, es werde mit ihm „das kriegerische Element und der alte Kriegerkult im Militär hofiert“. Relativ gering ist allerdings ihr Beitrag zur Militarisierung der Gesellschaft. Abgesehen von der erstmaligen Verleihung des Tapferkeitskreuzes nimmt von den Ordensverleihungen fast niemand Notiz, sie vollziehen sich unbeachtet in einer Kantine des Bundesverteidigungsministeriums. Soldaten als Opfer – wovon oder wofür? Anders sieht es mit der Ritualisierung des „Gefallenentodes“ aus. An dieser Stelle sei ein kurzer Exkurs zum Opferbegriff erlaubt. Dieser ist in der deutschen Sprache bekanntlich doppelt besetzt: Opfer meint zum einen das victima, also das Zum-Opfer-Fallen, das Erleiden von Gewalt, zum anderen das sacrificium im Sinne des aktiven (Selbst-)Aufopferns für Andere bzw. für bestimmte Werte. In Bezug auf den Soldatentod war in Deutschland (Stichwort: heroische Gesellschaft) bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg das Opfer eindeutig als sacrificium besetzt. Deutsche Soldaten haben sich für das Vaterland usw. aufgeopfert. Der heroische Extremismus der Nazis hat allerdings für einen Bruch gesorgt. Das zeigt sich in der offiziösen Gedenkformel der BRD „Für die Opfer von Krieg und Gewaltherrschaft“ ebenso wie in jener der DDR für „Opfer von Faschismus und Militarismus“. Beide Formeln wurden auf ganz unterschiedliche Weise ideologisch aufgeladen, aber beide waren sich darin gleich: Deutsche Soldaten haben keine Opfer für irgendetwas Positives gebracht, sondern sie wurden, sofern sie nicht gar Täter waren, Opfer von Gewalt.[4] Das ist kein Ansporn, es ihnen nachzutun und in neue Kriege zu ziehen. Entsprechend sensibel reagiert die deutsche Öffentlichkeit noch heute auf das Sterben von Soldaten. Über Jahre hinweg waren die unterschiedlichen Bundesregierungen sehr daran interessiert, die Auslandseinsätze als im Wesentlichen ungefährliche Humanitätsmissionen zu beschreiben, bei denen das größte Risiko darin bestand, dass ein Soldat in einen selbstgebohrten Brunnen fallen könnte. Seitdem das durch die Eskalation im Afghanistan-Krieg nicht mehr möglich ist, wurden die Überführungen der toten Soldaten vom Hindukusch Schritt für Schritt politisch aufgeladen, so dass sie heute gleichsam Manifestationen der Kriegsbefürwortung sind. Bis 2008 fanden die Trauerfeiern für jene Soldaten noch eher improvisiert in Flugzeughangars statt, seither werden Kirchen bevorzugt, also Orte, die prinzipiell öffentlich zugänglich sind. Stets werden Reden von hochrangigen PolitikerInnen gehalten (meist Bundeskanzlerin oder Verteidigungsminister), die – ebenfalls seit 2008 – die Soldaten nicht mehr als „aus dem Leben gerissen“ bezeichnen, sondern als „Gefallene“. Dieser Euphemismus aus heroischen Zeiten, der für den Opfer/sacrificium-Begriff steht, feiert seither auch in den Medien ein Wiederauferstehen. Was die Instrumentalisierung des Soldatentodes für eine kriegsbefürwortende Politik angeht, hat der damalige Verteidigungsminister zu Guttenberg im April 2010 den Vogel abgeschossen, als er kurz hintereinander gleich zwei Trauerfeiern abzuhalten hatte: „Sie sind für unser Land gefallen“, behauptete er, und weiter: Die Toten „starben nicht allein für eine zerstörte Hoffnung, sondern für die Gewissheit, ihre und unsere Freiheit, das Leben unserer geborenen wie ungeborenen Kinder, unserer Familien zu schützen..“ „Es mögen im 21. Jahrhundert immer noch Viele nicht hören, aber es stimmt: Dass in Afghanistan für unser Land, für dessen Menschen, also für jeden von uns, gekämpft und gestorben wird.“[5] Auf diese Art und Weise werden Soldaten in die Nähe von Märtyrern gerückt. Mit dem Anspruch der Angehörigen auf Trauer um ihren Bruder/Vater/Sohn hat das nichts zu tun. Der Tod des Soldaten wird von der Politik als Bestätigung des Krieges, ja als Aufruf zu dessen Fortsetzung instrumentalisiert.[6] Ehrenmäler: Stein gewordene Kriegspropaganda Zeitgleich mit dem Eisernen Kreuz 1813 entstanden auf königliches Geheiß in den Kirchengemeinden Tafeln mit den Namen aller Gefallenen und dem Zusatz, sie „starben für König und Vaterland“. Diese zwei Funktionen, individuelle Namensnennung und Sinngebung bzw. Legitimation für den Soldatentod, haben Kriegerdenkmäler seither beibehalten. Ihre Gestaltung ist dabei unterschiedlich, im Kaiserreich dominierten Siegesdenkmäler, nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg wurde mangels Siegen eher „stolze Trauer“ ausgedrückt, der Heldenmut der Toten gepriesen und offen zu Rache und Revanche aufgerufen. Besonders deutlich bringt dies das Denkmal für die „Gefallenen“ des Königin Augusta Garde-Grenadier-Regiments von 1926 auf dem Berliner Garnisonsfriedhof zum Ausdruck: Die Gestalt des toten Soldaten reckt unter dem Leichentuch hervor die geballte Faust nach oben, auf dem Grabstein wird beschworen: „Ein Rächer mag erstehen einst aus meinen Gebeinen“.[7] Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg waren die Bedingungen für solche „heroischen“ Denkmale denkbar ungeeignet. Die Bundeswehr sucht seit nunmehr zehn Jahren nach Symbolisierungen, die einen „opferreichen“ Krieg wie in Afghanistan als „sinnvoll“ legitimieren könnten. Ehrenmal der Bundeswehr Das Ehrenmal der Bundeswehr wurde im September 2009 auf dem Gelände des Berliner Bendlerblocks eingeweiht, also im gleichen zeitlichen wie politischen Kontext wie das öffentliche Zelebrieren des „Gefallenentodes“ und der neuen Orden. Das Ehrenmal soll, so hat es der damalige Verteidigungsminister Franz-Josef Jung erläutert, die Anerkennung des soldatischen Opfers durch die Gesellschaft ausdrücken. Es ist der erste bauliche Versuch seit 1945, das Sterben deutscher Soldaten als sinnvolles Opfer/sacrificium darzustellen. Auf eine Darstellung der Entstehungsgeschichte und der verwendeten Symbolik wird hier verzichtet.[8] Es sei nur kurz ausgeführt, dass sich die Gestaltung weitgehend an traditionellen Formen anlehnt, insbesondere an der Neuen Wache, wie sie 1931 beschaffen war (Oberlicht, abgedunkelte „cella“, Opferstein bzw. -platte). Das Ehrenmal soll, wie jedes Kriegerdenkmal, die Frage beantworten, wofür Soldaten sterben und wofür sie töten sollen. Diese Frage muss beantwortet werden können, weil aus ihr sonst möglicherweise eine Anklage wird. Damit wird auch im Ehrenmal der Soldatentod instrumentalisiert – hier wird ihm als höherer Sinn „Frieden, Recht und Freiheit“ zugeschrieben. Auch das Ehrenmal ist damit – entgegen der offiziellen Behauptung – kein Ort für private Trauer, sondern ein vom Staat gesetztes Zeichen, das die Kriegspolitik des Staates begründen soll. Festzustellen ist: Das Ehrenmal wird kaum angenommen. Es kommen fast nur Delegationen etwa des Deutschen Bundeswehrverbandes oder Staatsgäste mit Protokollterminen. Für Angehörige ist es nicht nur wegen seiner offenkundigen politischen Instrumentalisierung unattraktiv: Es wurde zwar, nach einigen Diskussionen, beschlossen, die Namen aller im Dienst ums Leben gekommenen Bundeswehrangehörigen sichtbar zu machen, sie werden jeweils einzeln mittels LED-Technik durch lichtdurchlässigen Beton gleichsam an die Wand „projiziert“. Aber: Die Namen erscheinen einzeln, nacheinander, jeweils für nur acht Sekunden, ehe der Name ausgedimmt wird und der nächste erscheint. Bei derzeit über 3.200 Namen dauert ein Durchlauf gegenwärtig fast neun Stunden, so dass Angehörige keine Chance haben, den Namen „ihres“ betrauerten Menschen zu sehen zu kriegen – und selbst wenn, würde er sich als so offenkundig flüchtig erweisen, dass die mit seiner Nennung ja eigentlich suggerierte Unsterblichkeit ad absurdum geführt wird. Soldatenverbände kritisierten zudem von Anfang an, der Standort sei zu abgelegen. Sie fordern ein Denkmal möglichst im Stadtzentrum, bevorzugt am Reichstagsgebäude. Neues Ehrenmal am Reichstagsgebäude? Das Ehrenmal ist das erste seiner Art, das speziell den Tod von Bundeswehrsoldaten glorifizieren soll, aber es wird mit Sicherheit nicht das letzte sein. Aktuell entsteht auf dem Areal des Einsatzführungskommandos bei Potsdam ein sogenannter „Wald der Erinnerung“. Dort werden die Ehrenhaine, Ehrenmale, Gedenktafeln usw., die in den letzten Jahren in den Feldlagern in Afghanistan entstanden sind und die Stein für Stein abgebaut wurden bzw. noch werden, wieder aufgestellt. Schon diese Überführung der Erinnerungsorte an sich symbolisiert das Scheitern des Kriegseinsatzes: Die Bundeswehr traut dem von ihr angeblich am Hindukusch stabilisierten Frieden nicht und fürchtet, die Gedenkorte würden nach ihrem Abzug sofort „geschändet“. Diese Orte scheinen in Afghanistan selbst von den Soldaten – im Unterschied zum Berliner Ehrenmal – einigermaßen angenommen worden zu sein. Überhaupt deutet einiges darauf hin, dass SoldatInnen, wenn sie um ihresgleichen trauern, dies weit weniger politisch aufladen als PolitikerInnen: Die Mahnmale in Afghanistan appellieren eher an sogenannte soldatische „Werte“, also: Tapferkeit, Disziplin, Kameradschaft, wohingegen die Berufung auf „Frieden, Recht und Freiheit“ eine weit geringere Rolle spielt. Der „Wald der Erinnerung“ soll zum Volkstrauertag 2014 eingeweiht werden. Angehörige sollen dort die Möglichkeit haben, persönliche Erinnerungsstücke an die Bäume zu nageln, und auch sonstigen ZivilistInnen soll ein kontrollierter Zutritt gestattet werden. Dennoch ist klar, dass dieser Erinnerungsort ein militärisches Binnen-Denkmal sein wird, das wenig Rückwirkung auf die zivile Gesellschaft entfalten kann. Standort Reichstag? Anders dagegen wäre es mit einem neuen „Gefallenen-Denkmal“ vor dem Reichstag, über das seit Jahren, allerdings nur auf Sparflamme, diskutiert wird. Das bisherige Ehrenmal ist ja allen Bundeswehrangehörigen inklusive Zivilbeschäftigten gewidmet, die „in Ausübung ihres Dienstes“ zu Tode kamen. Wie bereits erwähnt, stößt dies bis heute auf Kritik von Soldatenverbänden, die einen Standort nahe am Reichstagsgebäude fordern, der auch von zivilem Publikum häufig frequentiert wird und nicht, wie das jetzige Ehrenmal, unbeachtet in einer stillen Nebenstraße liegt. Der Verteidigungsausschuss des Bundestages hat im März 2013 vorgeschlagen, neben einer Gedenkminute im Bundestagsplenum eine Erinnerungsstätte in der Nähe des Sitzungssaals einzurichten. „Weiterhin soll ein Ideenwettbewerb für eine öffentliche Erinnerungsstätte im Außenbereich des Deutschen Bundestages ins Leben gerufen werden.“ Der Charakter einer solchen Stätte, heißt es in einem von Vertretern aller Fraktionen unterschriebenen Brief vom 14. März 2013 an Bundestagspräsident Norbert Lammert, sei allerdings noch „zu diskutieren“. Dieser Vorbehalt geht auf die Linksfraktion zurück. Deren Arbeitsgruppe Sicherheitspolitik hat angekündigt, „sich weiterhin an der Diskussion über eine Gedenkstätte für die bei den Auslandseinsätzen Umgekommenen im Rahmen des Bundestages zu beteiligen.“ Dabei solle neben den Soldaten auch der „Opfer des Krieges in den Einsatzländern“ gedacht werden. Andere Abgeordnete der Linksfraktion wiesen dagegen diese Haltung zurück: Die „Institutionalisierung des herausgehobenen Gedenkens an gefallene deutsche Soldaten“ sei „ein weiterer Schritt zur Normalisierung von Auslandseinsätzen“, erklärten sie ein einer Stellungnahme.[9] In gewisser Weise lässt sich ein gemeinsames Ehrenmal für SoldatInnen und ZivilistInnen als durchaus passender Ausdruck für eine Gesellschaft interpretieren, in der zivil-militärische Zusammenarbeit immer wichtiger wird. Die Frage für AntimilitaristInnen ist nur: Wollen wir das? Egal wie die Antwort ausfällt: Besondere Eile legen die PolitikerInnen nicht an den Tag. Die damalige Ausschussvorsitzende Susanne Kastner (SPD) betonte im März 2013 selbst, dass die Umsetzung ihrer Pläne, zumindest einer Gedenkstätte außerhalb des Parlaments, eine ganze Weile dauern werde. Der Haken daran ist ja auch: Man will eben nicht gern in aller Öffentlichkeit ausposaunen, dass schon Dutzende von SoldatInnen im Ausland „gefallen“ sind, weil man ja noch nicht einmal weiß, wie man diese Tode eigentlich legitimieren soll. Militarisierung von unten? Die Gelbe Schleife Soviel erst einmal zu Orden, Ehrenmälern und Totenritualen. Das sind Militarisierungsformen, die derzeit nicht nur vom Staat gesetzt, sondern mehr oder weniger ausschließlich von ihm rezipiert werden. Wie schon eingangs erwähnt, spielen diese Dinge im Alltag der BürgerInnen, im Sinne des „banalen Militarismus“, kaum eine Rolle. Was das angeht, wäre die spannendere Frage, inwiefern es solche Militarisierungsinitiativen auf dem Feld der Ehre „von unten“ gibt. Es gibt da zunächst gescheiterte Versuche, durch Appelle die Gesellschaf auf Trab zu bringen. Dafür steht etwa der „Runde Tisch Solidarität mit Soldaten“, den der frühere Wehrbeauftragte Reinhold Robbe 2010 gegründet hat; von dort kamen Ansinnen wie jenes, der DGB möge am 1. Mai und der DFB bei jedem Fußballspiel Gedenkminuten für die Gefallenen abhalten; ein Vorschlag, der natürlich völlig verpuffte. Dem „Runden Tisch“ gehören eine Menge Initiativen an, aber sie sind nahezu allesamt Initiativen aus dem engeren militärischen Kreis, angefangen vom Bundeswehrverband bis zum Verband Deutscher Veteranen usw., aber keine Vertreter ziviler Organisationen. Die letzte größere Aktion des Runden Tisches war ein Aufruf an die Bundestagsabgeordneten, den SoldatInnen in den Einsatzgebieten Weihnachtsgrüße zukommen zu lassen – es ist wohl fraglich, ob die gerade darauf tatsächlich scharf sind. Dagegen ist die Gelbe Schleife eines der bekannteren Symbole, mit denen die Verbundenheit der Gesellschaft mit SoldatInnen zum Ausdruck gebracht werden soll. Sie wird von mehreren Verbänden und NGOs vertrieben. Grundidee dieses Symbols ist es, „die Solidarität der Gesellschaft für unsere Soldatinnen, Soldaten und Reservisten“ zu stärken. Das Besondere daran ist, dass mit diesem Solidaritätsbekenntnis in der Regel keine Forderung danach verbunden ist, auch dem jeweiligen konkreten Bundeswehreinsatz zuzustimmen. Unter dem Logo der Gelben Schleife solle „sich jede Bürgerin und jeder Bürger unabhängig von politischen, religiösen und anderen Strömungen“ einbringen können.[10] Die Gelbe Schleife ist derzeit weit davon entfernt, eine Ikone zu werden wie etwa die Rote Schleife. Sie ist noch sehr auf den eher engen Kreis der direkt Betroffenen (SoldatInnen und ihre Angehörigen) begrenzt. Mitunter findet sie sich auf der Homepage von Gemeindeverwaltungen (bevorzugt von Garnisonsstädten). Das liegt zum Teil daran, dass die Schleife eben nicht „für sich“ spricht, sondern in Teilen bedeutungsoffen ist. Einige Initiativen, die sie vertreiben, verbinden dies mit ausdrücklich politischen Bekenntnissen zum jeweiligen Auftrag der Bundeswehr. Die Initiatoren von Gelbe-Schleife.de beklagen sich darüber, dass ihr „Original“ durch „einzelne Gruppierungen verändert und umgedeutet“ werde. Weil viele Organisationen die Schleife durch eigene Sinnsprüche ergänzt haben, habe dies zu einem „ungewollten Außenseitertum dieser Gruppen und zu einer Erosion der grundsätzlichen Idee geführt.“ Aus antimilitaristischer Sicht ist das natürlich hoch erfreulich – denn an sich hätte die Gelbe Schleife womöglich einiges Potential. Zwar wird sie kaum eine Revision der postheroischen Gesellschaft hin zu einer Gesellschaft bewirken, die den Tod für Vaterland/Recht und Freiheit wieder freudig als sacrificium deutet. Aber das ist ja nur ein (aus heutiger Sicht) Extrem. Postheroisch bedeutet schließlich nicht antimilitaristisch. Gerade weil die Gelbe Schleife nicht martialisch oder in Olivgrün daherkommt, gerade weil sie sich scheinbar unpolitisch gibt und nur „das Menschliche“ betont, macht sie es auch KritikerInnen der Bundeswehreinsätze potentiell möglich, sich „solidarisch“ mit Dienst tuenden SoldatInnen zu zeigen. Damit wären wir dann wieder beim Thema des banalen Militarismus. Schlussfolgerung Die Bundesregierung sucht nach überzeugenden Antworten auf die Frage, warum deutsche SoldatInnen töten und getötet werden sollen. Sie hat bislang keine solche Antwort gefunden. Nach Lage der Dinge wird ihr dies auch in Zukunft sehr schwer fallen: Kein Mensch glaubt daran, dass in den Kriegen der Gegenwart tatsächlich ureigene Interessen der hier lebenden Bevölkerung verteidigt würden. Dennoch treibt die Bundesregierung einen, wenn auch langsamen, Prozess voran, der auf eine Remilitarisierung von Armee und Gesellschaft hinarbeitet. Wenn schon nicht auf begeisterte Zustimmung, so sollen die Kriegseinsätze doch zumindest auf ein hohes Maß an Verständnis und Duldung stoßen. Das Zelebrieren des Heroischen bei Totenritualen und in Ehrenmälern hat, wie immer beim Militär, auch die Funktion, kritische Fragen nach dem „Warum“ zu verhindern: In Tempeln diskutiert man nicht. Münkler nennt diese Funktion des Gedenkens, der Regierung einen politischen „Dispens“ zu verleihen. Aus antimilitaristischer Sicht sei deswegen zum einen eine Strategie der De-Heroisierung geraten. Die kann zum Beispiel darin bestehen, die Symbole des neu-alten Heroismus aufzugreifen und sie in satirischer Weise umzudrehen. Uniformen, Ehrenmäler, Orden – all das ist Symbolik, die auch anders, und zwar kritisch, aufgeladen werden kann. Die Schändung der heiligen Stätten des Gegners war schon immer ein bevorzugtes Mittel im Kampf der Kulturen. Als Beispiel sei das „Blutbad“ genannt, das die Berliner DFG-VK anlässlich des Rekrutengelöbnisses am 20. Juli 2013 inszeniert hat.[11] Nicht zuletzt gilt es, die Bundeswehr an ihrer Schwachstelle zu packen: Bei der Sinnfrage. Beim Tod. Den Tod provozieren sie, aber sie können nicht plausibel darlegen, warum und für was. Sie flüchten sich in Floskeln und Rituale, und genau an dem Punkt müssen wir nachhaken, immer wieder. Der Autor ist Landesgeschäftsführer der Deutschen Friedensgesellschaft-Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen (DFG-VK) Berlin-Brandenburg. Anmerkungen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Vgl. hierzu Tanja Thomas/Fabian Virchow: Banal Militarism. Zur Veralltäglichung des Militärischen im Zivilen. Bielefeld 2006. [2] Herfried Münkler ist Politikwissenschaftler an der Humboldt-Universität Berlin und einer der Apologeten des „asymmetrischen Krieges“. Er ist Mitglied im Beirat der Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik und fungiert gewissermaßen als Berater der Bundeswehr in Angelegenheiten von Ehrenmalen. [3] Diese und weitere Zitate aus: Klaus Latzel, Vom Sterben im Krieg. Wandlungen in der Einstellung zum Soldatentod vom Siebenjährigen Krieg zum II. Weltkrieg, Warendorf 1988. [4] Ausnahmen bestätigen diese Regel: In der BRD das Opfer/sacrificium der „Männer des 20. Juli“, in der DDR jenes der Angehörigen des Nationalkomitees Freies Deutschland. [5] Vgl. hierzu: Stefanie Hammer/Maik Herold: Zivilreligion in Deutschland? Transzendenz und Gemeinsinnsstiftung in den Trauerritualen der Bundeswehr, in: G. Pickel, O. Hidalgo (Hg.): Religion und Politik im vereinigten Deutschland, Politik und Religion, Wiesbaden 2013, S. 103-136. [6] Dies setzt freilich die Zustimmung der Angehörigen voraus, die seit 2008 offenbar nur einmal, bei der Trauerfeier für einen im Frühjahr 2013 zu Tode gekommenen KSK-Soldaten, explizit auf einer nicht-öffentlichen Feier bestanden. [7] Zu diesem sehenswerten Friedhof seien die Darlegungen und Fotos von Arndt Beck in dem von ihm und Markus Euskirchen herausgegebenen Buch empfohlen: Die beerdigte Nation. „Gefallenen“-Gedenken seit 1813, Berlin 2009. [8] Vgl. hierzu Frank Brendle: „süß ist´s und ehrenvoll…“, in: junge Welt, 14. 11. 2007; Eugen Januschke: Symbolisches Desaster – das Ehrenmal der Bundeswehr soll dem Soldatentod mehr Achtung verleihen, in: junge Welt, 28. 12. 2009; Manfred Hettling, Jörg Echternkamp (Hg.): Bedingt erinnerungsbereit. Soldatengedenken in der Bundesrepublik, Göttingen 2008. [9] Junge Welt vom 15. 5. 2013. [10] gelbe-schleife.de [11] Einige Beispiele auf www.bamm.de -- Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e. V. Hechingerstrasse 203 72072 Tübingen Telefon: +49 7071 49154 Telefax: +49 7071 49159 E-Mail: imi@imi-online.de Internet: www.imi-online.de IMI-List - Der Infoverteiler der Informationsstelle Militarisierung Hechingerstr. 203 72072 Tübingen imi@imi-online.de