What could anarchist principles be?

Question

What could phenomenological anarchist principles?

or

how can one set up some basic principles to describe anarchy?

Very interested in the importance, strength and importance of calling oneself an anarchist.

Comments

playing with a few words. I find it hard to know how to get straight to the point and yet no leave things too much up for interpretation i guess thats the difficulty of trying to describe a set of principles.

Anarchist principles

Anarchists agree that no authority is needed.

Anarchists won't stand for any form of repression.

Anarchist challenge all unfairness.

Anarchists never forget the neglected.

Anarchists believe that no one knows more than anyone else.

Anarchist define violence within the felt situation.

Anarchist support, stand in solidarity and organise with those who are ignored.

Anarchists are never satisfied because they are motivated by full and complete equality.

Anarchist trust that by activity taking responsibility for your own life is the only radical action which is needed.

Anarchists trust in person to person exchange not a abstract monetary systems for fairness and equal.

Anarchists trust that if people are allowed responsibilities in society they would take responsibility.

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.

Anarchists know improvement comes from questioning everything and still believing improvement can happen.

Anarchist trust that the actions persons change society, not large systems.

Anarchists believe in an order which its validity must be experienced not maintained.

Anarchists greatest weapon is to never let authoritarianism get in the way of being an anarchist.

Anarchists use direct action because it is more important to alter the situation than to talk about it.

---

a. please don't tag with anarchist, anarchism, or anarchy. those are useless search terms on this site.

b. i would find this a much more workable post if you asked what other people think are anarchist principles, and then commented with your extensive list, as a starting place for folks to consider. at a minimum, number or letter your points so that people can refer to them more easily when answering you.

c. you use terms without defining them (and allude to definitions i disagree with), specifically direct action, authority, order, fairness and "equal" which i assume means equality (why would you not take more care in your writing here?)...

d. your question list and your comment list seem extremely repetitive. why not just edit your question, rather than post two long lists that have so much overlap...

signed,
cranky mccrankypants

---

Is that better mrcrankypants?

---

thanks! would still be helpful to label each of your principles in your comment, for ease of reference.

---

@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?

---

despite the oddness of the original question, i'm bumping it because i'm interested in hearing what current folks would say are the principles they hold as anarchic/anarchist. especially, of course, our differences.

Answer 1

just to add that my initial response is one of esthetics, for what that's worth. long lists of "principles", which is frequently another word for rules-to-follow, make me itchy, even if i agree under certain circumstances with any or all of them.
i believe the classics are
a. for mutual aid
b. for direct action (meaning, taking action to get needs met, not taking action to get other people to meet needs)
c. for freedom of association
d. against hierarchy and against capitalism

 

someone added to those, transparency, which seems like a friendly addition.

interested in how others here would add/amend/update these.

Comments

I say anti-industrialism would be a good principle. Anti-capitalism may include it, but it still leaves an open door for any other type of industrial society imo.

---

A principle needs to have some historical connection with the entire tradition, an idea recognizable and acceptable to all anarchists. Anti-industrialism falls outside that realm.

---

in d, i might replace "hierarchy" with "all forms of institutionalized power, authority and hierarchy". thoughts?

Answer 2

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.

Comments

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.

---

Funkyanarchy, I do respect your points of view, and in fact the discussion was interesting to me because I don't understand them totally and was trying to. But I don't want to push it too much. And, yes, I'm pro science but also against many of the institutions practicing it.

---

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.

---

whatever: i appreciate your desire to engage and understand.

 unfortunately, i have long since shot my wad when it comes to having the patience to navigate the discussion terrain with folks who already hold (what appear to be) rigid perspectives. your comments so far makes it clear that you hold this "science" thing as something separate from yourself, and you place it and your "scientists" (rebels?!?!) on some kind of pedestal. that is a way of thinking that i cannot relate to; it is the thinking of an ideologue. nothing you have said so far makes you seem any different from that, at least regarding this issue.

i mean no offense.