A. Sounds very sensible when you first ask yourself this question, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you think about it. The word 'anarchism' has become debased in the English language as a consequence of the very real threat that anarchists posed to dominant ideology in the late 19th century. Compared to other social and political movements, anarchists have little or anything to be ashamed of. When you compare what anarchists have done with what communists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and a whole collection of national and social movements have done, anarchists have little to apologise for.
The demonisation of anarchism as a legitimate political philosophy has more to do with what anarchists stand for, than for what they have done. The struggle to create a society without rulers has a long history. This struggle existed before people took on the anarchist tag. When I was in Korea over a decade ago as a guest of the Korean anarchist movement, I was told that they took on the title 'without rulers' because the word 'anarchist' meant nothing to the people they were trying to influence. They were forced to use new terms to explain the essence of the anarchist struggle to the people they were trying to incorporate in the movement.
Christians haven't been asked to discard the term Christian and Muslims haven't been asked to discard the term Muslims, so why should anarchists who use the English language as their primary source of communication discard the rich historical legacy of the anarchist movement and call themselves something else because they want to carry favour with people who exercise authority. Irrespective of what we call ourselves, it won't take long for them to try to discredit us, our ideas and what we stand for. It's important we continue to acknowledge and use the lessons that we have learnt as part of an international movement that has the potential to pose a direct threat to the power and authority of religious, political, ideological and cultural rulers.
In periods when just telling the truth is a revolutionary act, to continue to call ourselves anarchist provides a rallying point for those people who are looking for real alternatives to the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum alternatives that most people are exposed to.
Q. SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL?
A. I'm afraid not many people believe that anarchist principles of association can only be used in small group settings. They may be fine for the pre-industrial age, but when it comes to 'real' organisation crossing regions, they just don't work. Anarchism isn't a philosophy, a way of life or a religion, it's essentially a decision making process that empowers the individual by promoting the collective. All for one, one for all is a slogan that has real meaning in an anarchist community.
How large an organisation can develop, isn't inversely proportional to the level of hierarchy that exists within that organisation. Both small and large organisations can be hierarchical and non hierarchical. Whether an organisation can grow or not, is not related to the chain of command that exists within that organisation. Large organisations can be decentralised and non hierarchical or centralised and hierarchical. Whether an organisation is efficient or not, is related to the means of communication that exist within that organisation. Irrespective of whether decisions are made by one person or they're made collectively, whether they're implemented or not, depends on the channels of communication that allow decisions that are made to be implemented.
Co-ordination within an anarchist organisation, that is not able to or has too many people to hold face to face meetings, is carried out by the use of recallable delegates. Regular delegates meetings provide the mechanisms by which a decentralised non hierarchical organisation can expand. Post modern communication utilises video conferencing and the internet, make it relatively easy for large organisation to function without the need for face to face meetings.
The culture created in an organisation that promotes discussion, participation and delegation, facilitates a growth. Everybody's contribution is both welcome and important. Instead of waiting for a Board or a leadership group to make the major decisions, a large anarchist organisation is able to call on the collective wisdom and experience of all the people within that organisation to help it prosper and provide the services that the community has asked that organisation to provide.
Q. WOULD TOURISM BE A FEATURE OF AN ANARCHIST ECONOMY?
A. Travelling is an integral component of being human. People are always interested in what is happening over the next hill. Religious tourism is a central feature of the world's religions. Pilgrims have traditionally complemented the economy of the places they visit. Mass tourism has allowed working people to travel in numbers that would not have been unimaginable 50 years ago. Things won't be much different in an anarchist society. People living in an anarchist society would want to travel outside their community and those living outside an anarchist community would want to travel to that community.
Tourism isn't small change, in Australia it's the number one foreign revenue earner. The problem faced by an anarchist community is twofold. How does such a community earn foreign currency so its citizens can travel outside that community and would incoming visitors be expected to pay for the use of facilities provided by an anarchist community? Both problems can be tackled simultaneously by charging an up front fee for travellers who wish to travel in an anarchist community. The size of the fee would be dependent on length of stay and the type of facilities that would be utilised. The foreign currency raised could be used to pay for the costs of those anarchists who need and want to travel overseas.
It is all very well living in a society where people don't use money while living in that society, it's another thing having to come up with foreign currency if people in that community need or want to travel. Tourists travel for different reasons. It would be possible to create a visa that would allow people to enter an anarchist society if they agree to work within that community, in exchange for the use of that community's resources. This type of traveller would develop a deeper understanding of the ideas behind an anarchist society and would in time become an unofficial ambassador for that society.
Travel between two anarchist communities is a relatively simple matter. Members of each community would enjoy reciprocal rights to travel within each others communities and use the facilities that are available. What at first seems like a relatively easy proposition is a lot more difficult than most people realise.
Anarchist societies that are trying to survive as islands of anarchism in a relatively hostile world, are those that would benefit most from tourism and are also those that have the most to lose, if they don't manage the flow of people into their community.
