Anarchists recognise that it will only be with a total revolution - economic, social, political, sexual that patterns of dominance and submission will slowly disappear. Rather, however, than organisation being opposed to that revolution, it is the means by which that total transformation will become possible. Organisation is also the means by which we can achieve the maximum amount of freedom in our lives now.
This all sounds very well but what is this organisation that is so different.
All anarchist collectives, cooperatives, communes are free groupings of individuals.
While individuals within these free groupings will divide activity amongst themselves - each informs the group of what she is doing. The group may choose delegates to undertake particular tasks but delegates' powers can be revoked at any time by the collective. The role of delegate (or even administrator)is never left with one person, but is rotated amongst all members of the collective so that all are acquainted with the processes involved.
Anarchists are opposed to centralisation when it is imposed from above. Anarchists are federalists - i.e. the cooperation and communication between autonomous groupings but always from the bottom upwards. e.g. Monthly Cycle, a newsletter circulating between health centres has begun. Each health centre, in four states, will take it in turns to produce the newsletter. Recently also the NSW Women's Refuges formed a federation.
No person in the collective gets more money because of holding a special job. There is a concept in Anarchism of each according to her needs which could mean where dependants are involved or a person has extra expenses, some people get more money. But all of this is worked out and agreed to by the collective.
Anarchists are opposed to the division between intellectual and manual labour - intellectuals are separated from the producers and become ideologues for the ruling class. Meanwhile, the worker is deprived of the knowledge of the production which she needs if she is to join with other workers in taking control of production.
Open access to all information is part of getting rid of the division between intellectual and manual labour. The notion of intellectuals and non-intellectuals implies and certainly makes us feel that some people have knowledge and others do not. This raises the question of how theory relates to practice in the women's movement, e.g. how restricted or accessible has Juliet Mitchell's Psychoanalysis and Feminism been to most feminists. Who had the few available copies... meanwhile many feminists are still bewildered to find that Freud is not such a dirty word in the women's movement any more. How can these ideas / this knowledge be shared with other women who do not have the time or the training? Do the universities separate theorists from the practice?
In the health centres, we all learn to do pap smears, administration, talk at schools (unless we really don't want to) meanwhile in hospitals where the majority of workers are women, nurses still have to accept their orders from a God male doctor.
The ABC Women's Broadcasting Unit is open to all women workers in the ABC - not just "creative" workers - producers etc.
Anarchism is experimental and flexible.
Exactly what form organisation shall take depends on those involved, the actual situation. All this can be worked out in practice.
For example, the extent to which powers will be delegated to individuals (always temporary and always revokable so there are no career politicians) will depend on the situation. Compare consciousness raising where each woman is trying to understand where her own life fits in, with working in a health centre where delegates might have to go to meetings, or with sections of a guerilla underground. In some situations, one might be prepared to delegate more decision-making always providing that one is free to go and free to dissent.
These guidelines to anarchist organisation are very broad but unless these sort of issues are discussed within collectives, we won't even know if we have a basis for cooperation, let alone in what directions that cooperation can lead us.
As is only too obvious from my examples, most feminist collectives are concerned with changing the social relationships which determine our health and sexuality (women's health centres, rape crisis centres, women's refuges) and our communications (newspaper collectives, women's radio, etc.). Anarchism, as do all communist theories, emphasises the seizing of the means of production and of consumption and exchange - without which there is no revolution.
In theory it can be shown how the family and sexuality relate to capitalism; how feminism could relate to socialism....how does feminism relate to production, and to those women who produce as both house workers and workers outside the home, in practice at the moment, and in the future?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes:
When I talk about anarchists here, I am referring to that brand of anarchist who is also a communist and social revolutionary - anarcho-communism, it is sometimes called.
http://www.anarres.org.au/essays/qorg.htm
