@peteranarchy: you write as if english is maybe not your first language. is that the case? (if not i would have to second dot's comment about taking more care in your writing...)
a few of the disagreements i have with your list of "principles":
Anarchist challenge all unfairness. who defines "fair"?Anarchists never forget the neglected. what does that even mean? Anarchists believe that no one knows more than anyone else. of course some people know more about some things than others (i couldn't possibly rebuild an airplane engine, but some folks can). why would anarchists deny this?Anarchist support, stand in solidarity and organise with those who are ignored. ignored by whom? why are they ignored?Anarchists are never satisfied because they are motivated by full and complete equality. equality is not an objective (or principle) of any anarchist i respect. even if there was a single agreed upon definition - which there is not.Anarchist believe that transparency, honesty and equal communication will undo any unnecessary suffering. Anarchist believe that transparency, honesty and equal communication is the only system which is needed. no offense, but this is idealistic and delusional. [@dot: this is an example of what you were talking about in that other thread re communication, yes?] Anarchists believe in an order which its validity must be experienced not maintained. huh?
i guess for me (fuck "connections to the entire tradition" and being "acceptable to all anarchists", sorry lawrence), the short list would be something like:
- against all forms of institutional authority and hierarchy (this would include, at a minimum: nation/states, economic systems, religions; i would add to that science(tm), academia, and moralism).
- for autonomy and freedom of association (which of course includes freedom of disassociation).
- for direct action
- for mutual aid/reciprocity (but not value-based or "equal")
there might be others, but that's where i'd start.
it interests me that you decided to add to the conversation at the point it didn't interest you. ;)
yes, i must clearly point people back to the things that interest me!
ba@, af and dot all make points that i agree with.
whatever, you are admittedly pro-science, so this discussion does not have much potential for interest to me. i have had all the discussion i care to have around science, over many years and with many folks (mostly pro-science folks, many that i care about).
all i can say is: curiosity does not equal science. as long as one's curiosity - and the ways they choose to satisfy it - does not impose on my life, i don't really care. but science as it has existed for at least many hundreds of years, does indeed impose on a huge number of living beings that had no say whatsoever. your curiosity about the sun/earth relationship is understandable; but if satisfying that curiosity requires scientific/technological implements and activities that require imposing on others for their creation and use, then doing so positions you clearly as an opponent to individual autonomy. at least my autonomy.
Whatever: I just want to interject my two-cents into this argument.
I absolutely agree that science and the processes don't have to be bad things banned in anarchy land, however, Science as it's conducted requires a heavily controlled space with lots of expensive equipment that in turn requires the type of social production that anarchists have every reason to hate. Not to mention, as the article posted above points out, historically has been incredibly beneficial to the state/capitalism.
I actually gain a huge amount of pleasure from the thinking processes involved in science, such as investigation, figuring out how to be objective, which i interpret in my personal case, not being controlled by the way my mind tends to paint the world, but to turn this into a "Science" requires lots and lots of money and support from institutions...I think there's enough scientific data out there we can scrutinize and use [with care] that we don't need to generate anymore of it.