Post-proletarian Tourism 217to pitch their tents and in exchange gave the “aboriginals” the latest newspa-
pers, asked where the nearest spring was, how to catch fi sh, and whether the
mushrooms were plentiful. In the evenings, tourists wandered from camp to
camp, inquiring about the route ahead or demonstrating their equipment.^21
Here was a self-regulating society of equals, based on knowledge and mutual
respect: the communist dream.
Independent tourists continued to be encouraged to form their groups
based on prior friendship so that they would already begin their travels in
an atmosphere of trust and mutuality. Tourist clubs at universities, enter-
prises, and institutes played an important role in proselytizing for indepen-
dent tourism, and their notice boards helped to bring compatible individuals
together.^22 However they were formed, it was important even for indepen-
dent groups to register their journeys with local tourist clubs and with tourist
bases on the road. Safety was a major concern. In registering, groups would
have to demonstrate their qualifi cations and readiness for any given itiner-
ary. In the hazardous practice of mountaineering, they were expected to keep
to a schedule and report their movements so that appropriate rescue mea-
sures could be taken if necessary. Local tourist agencies also needed accurate
counts of the numbers of independent tourist groups in order to plan their
services and agitate for additional funding. One offi cial estimated that only
10 percent of independent tourist groups formally registered their plans: au-
thorities worried that as the tourist movement grew, it would spread beyond
their supervisory and protective gaze.^23 The paradox of independent tourism
remained: tourism would teach mutuality and self-reliance, but who would
ensure and enforce the requirement that groups possessed enough skill to be
self-reliant? A spate of climbing accidents in the 1960s prompted eight vet-
eran tourists to remind the new generation of the importance of rules: “Forty
and fi fty years ago, we were the youngsters.” They had made mistakes and
learned from them to create a code of rules. Beware of overconfi dence, they
warned. “He who violates the rules that have been worked out by the tourist
public [ obshchestvennost'iu ] itself is not a tourist but an antitourist.”^24
Physical tourism provided better health and gave tourists unmediated en-
counters with nature in all its power. Independent tourism by small groups
with minimal equipment was also accessible to the widest number of people
- Trud , 20 September 1966; Lena and Sergei L'vov, “Piatero v mashine, ne schitaia
‘Spidoly,’ ” LG, 12 September 1964, 2. - Sputnik turista (Moscow, 1959), 15–17; Trud , 6 June 1957; 22 November 1958; 18
June 1960; 22 January 1974. - TsAGM, f. 28, op. 3, d. 6, ll. 5, 110; see Maurer, “ Al'pinizm as Mass Sport,” 149;
GARF, f. 7576, op. 14, d. 123 (report on qualifying marshrut, October 1955), l. 37. - “Zakony, sviashchennye dlia vsekh nas,” open letter from O. Arkhangel'skaia, A.
Vlasov, B. Delone, A. Gusev, A. Maleinov, E. Simonov, M. Shmelev, and A. Iarov, Turist , no.
1 (1972): 11. The rules were laid out in the handbook Sputnik turista , successor to similar
volumes published in the 1930s and 1940s. Accidents were discussed in private in GARF, f.
9520, op. 1, d. 750, l. 25; d. 921, l. 20, and in the press: Turist , no. 4 (1972): 22.