A. Selection criteria may be different, training programs may be different, the way trainees are examined may be different, but what isn't different is the level of competence an individual needs to be able to practise their craft safely. Not everyone would be able to commence any training program they wanted to. They would have to demonstrate their ability to undertake such a program before they would be able to commence their apprenticeship in a particular area.
Entry requirements and proficiency levels would be set by colleagues, whose primary function would be to ensure that those who successfully completed their training programs would not be a danger to themselves or the community. The key elements as far as the need for qualifications are concerned are competency and safety. There will be fields of human endeavour when competency and safety are not an issue, in those situations there is nothing stopping anyone from having a go. How far they progress in their chosen field will be determined by the community's response to their endeavours. Some will continue singing in the sfUMJT others will develop the necessary talent to entertain and assist those around them.
Qualifications in an anarchist society continue to be an issue where competency and safety are concerned. In all other areas of human endeavour, the need for formal qualifications would not be a major issue. An anarchist society attempts to develop the individual talents of its members without compromising the safety of the person being trained and the community they will eventually service, that is why qualifications still play an important role in an anarchist society.
WHAT IS ECLECTIC ANARCHISM?
Eclectic � from various sources
A. Most readers will be familiar with collectivist, communist and individualist anarchism. Some may have some knowledge about mutualist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism and pacifist anarchism. Few will be familiar with eclectic anarchism. Anarchism has a very long history of bitter and violent debate between different tendencies. The main activity of many small isolated groups seems to be the denigration of the position taken by other tendencies.
Eclectic anarchists refuse to attack a prefix individualist, mutualist, pacifist, communist, collectivist, green, syndicalist class struggle to their names. They draw on all schools of economic thought within the different anarchist tendencies. They reject dogma within the anarchist movement. The influential anarchist writer and thinker Rudolf Rocker claimed the different anarchist tendencies "only represented different methods of economy, the practical possibilities of which have yet to be tested and that the first objective is to secure the personal and social freedom of man, no matter upon which economic basis this is to be accomplished'.
Rudolf Rocker and Gustav Lauduer, both German anarchists, adhered to this position. Eclectic anarchism is often described as anarchism without adjectives. The Spanish Revolution was a classic example of what can be achieved when different tendencies have to grapple with the reality of everyday life. Collectivists, mutualists, communists, syndicalists, communists, anarchist and individualists all found a place in the new society that was being created.
Individuals who decided not to join the emerging coliectivists were, as long as they didnt use other people's labour to personally enrich themselves, accommodated within the new economic system that was evolving. In a world where adjectives are playing an increasing role in a vague and nebulous anarchist movement, anarchism without adjectives seems a worthwhile goal.
"STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY" - the slogan that was used to mark the 100th anniversary celebrations of the Australian Anarchist movement
Q. CAN YOU BLOW UP A SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP?
A. Looking at popular anarchist stereotypes, you'd be forgiven for thinking anarchists believe you can create a new society by destroying the old one. If you take a few minutes to look at the history of the anarchist movement, you'll find violence has played an insignificant role in anarchist history - that is violence used by anarchists to promote their ideas, not the violence used by those who wield power and the State to suppress the activities of people who want to live in a free community. The history books are littered with examples of anarchists who have been arrested, tortured, imprisoned and executed for daring to dream about building an egalitarian community. Anarchists understood you cant blow up a social relationship. Change comes when people are no longer willing to be threatened and cajoled into accepting that a minority should determine their future. Social relationships break down when people no longer have any faith in those relationships. The collapse of the Soviet Union didn't happen overnight. It collapsed despite the extensive repressive apparatus that were put in place because a significant segment of the population had, had enough. The fact that another repressive apparatus took its place is not inevitable. It occurred because not enough groups existed that wanted to replace the hierarchical authoritarian structures that existed with non hierarchical, non authoritarian structures. Iraq is another example of the failure of the use of missive force to change social relationships. You can frighten people by the use of force, but you cant break their will. Change comes when people become fed up with the lies, the half truths and the distortions that they have to cope with. The current situation in East Timor highlights how difficult it is to control people when a significant proportion of the population refuses to accept the authority of the State. Change comes from breaking down the social relationship that exists in a community. Isolated acts of violence reinforce those social relationships. Driving the very people you want and need to create a new society into the arms of those who currently rule them, is both stupid and counterproductive.
Anarchists understand you can't blow up a social relationship, it is a pity those who currently enjoy a monopoly on the use of force in the communities we live and work in, dont seem to understand you can't continue to rule people through fear and you can't continue to deny them their social and economic rights indefinitely.
Q. I'M AN ANARCHIST BECAUSE I WANT TO HELP PEOPLE?
A. Garbage, what a load of garbage; let us be honest with ourselves, people normally act in their own self interest. The difference between anarchists and most other people is that we realise that our self interest is better served by working with other people than by forcing them to work for our interests. The idea that the best way a society is able to flourish is by supporting the idea that 'yours is mine and mine is yours' is highlighted during disasters when people realise that their best chance of survival lies with them working together to overcome the crisis they face, than fighting each other. This doesn't mean that some groups in such situations don't fight each other. What it does mean is that those who cooperate tend to have a greater chance of survival than those who don't. Considering the State and political and religious leaders dangle personal security as the raison d'etre for their existence, it is ironic anarchists dangle the same reasons for their existence. The difference between the two groups is that one group says you need to respect my authority and deliver on to Caesar what is Caesar's if you want to be safe and secure, while anarchists say you don't need to beg and beseech to a higher authority to survive. You don't need to be infected by parasites sapping your energy to be able to sleep safely in your bed.
You can achieve personal security; you can live to a ripe old age; you can develop to your fullest potential by working together with other people to achieve your goals. By creating a community where wealth is shared and everybody is involved in the decision making processes, you have the greatest chance of achieving your dream. Why allow some external authority to determine what you can and cannot do? Why put your faith in the hands of one institution not the community as a whole? Anarchism is first and foremost about self interest - a self interest that grows from the idea that your fate is interlinked with the fate of those around. Personal security comes from knowing that you live in a community where your needs will be taken care of, because you are willing to take care of the needs of others. Anarchism is neither Utopian nor impractical. It is a personal and political philosophy that is grounded in the reality of everyday life. Anarchism is able to create the space that allows people to grow up and live in a safe and secure environment based on mutual respect Anarchists view people as allies in their tasks to create a safe and secure environment for themselves; they don't see them as stepping stones to climb over to achieve their personal goals.