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

Why do you mention science as a form of authority / hierarchy? Science is anarchy; you can question anything and anyone, there is no ""truth" to submit to, except perhaps physical laws and even these can be revised. I've seen this kind of idea atributed to classical anarchist like Bakunin but his texts, on the contrary, defend science. What he criticizes is giving scientist authority over other people, but thiat in fact would be unscientific. However, I agree about academia.

---

whatever, not to answer for funky, but i like this critique of Science by wolfi landstreicher 

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-a-balanced-account-of-the-world-a-critical-look-at-the-scientific-world-vie

---

@whatever:

Science is anarchy; you can question anything and anyone, there is no ""truth" to submit to, except perhaps physical laws and even these can be revised.

well, i disagree with pretty much that entire sentence. 

first, let me clarify that i used the (tm) symbol to indicate that i am referring to the hallowed institution of Science, not the natural curiosity and exploration that most living creatures exhibit (to varying degrees). there is a world of difference between the two, and i could elaborate on that if you like.

second, equating science(tm) with anarchy is some pretty shallow rhetoric. can you explain exactly how that works in your mind? saying you can question anything has absolutely nothing to do with science(tm); it has to do with curiosity and (giving the benefit of the doubt) critical thinking. 

the question of truth is absolutely central to science(tm), so saying there is no truth to submit to seems either dishonest or ignorant; the search for "objective" truth is one of its core drivers. and what is objective truth, other than the truth which all must bow before? i can see that as nothing but a religious concept. and as for physical "laws" and the fact that they are frequently revised - that should speak for itself. 

objectivity is an elusive goal, and it is almost always influenced by the assumptions and desired outcomes of those doing it. how many "scientific" studies contradict each other?

no, i see science(tm) as a completely authoritarian institution. for starters, it absolutely requires specialists, making it inherently hierarchical. then, one need only look at the devastation that has been imposed on this planet (and shortly, beyond) and all of life on it, in the name of "science". a relatively small number of very powerful individual humans have made (and continue to make) decisions - and had their minions carry them out - that has devastated so much of life on earth; and yet, none of us had any say in all that. we could argue forever about the relative benefits and drawbacks of science(tm); but what cannot be legitimately argued is that any of us had any choice or say in what science has done, and how it has impacted our lives, throughout history. so calling it anarchic denies any reasonably anarchic principles.

much of what i find problematic about science(tm) is related to how intimately the institution is co-dependent with other hugely authoritarian institutions: the state, the military, capitalism, academia, progress; to name the first ones that pop into mind. that co-dependency is, imo, unbreakable. just as capitalism could not exist without the state, science(tm) could not exist without these other institutions. and vice versa. it's a tangled web of authority, and without getting rid of the entire kit and kaboodle, i don't see the possibility for anything other than fleeting moments of anarchic joy outside of the web. or trying one's best to actually live outside it. 

http://anarchy101.org/3493/what-are-anarchist-criticisms-of-science-and-technology
http://anarchy101.org/10677/what-some-anarchist-perspectives-modern-scientific-medicine
http://anarchy101.org/2936/where-do-anarchists-place-scientists-in-society

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?page=4&query=science

edit: plus the link bornagainanarchist posted above!

---

Funkyanachy, The (tm) is a good idea but to my view it does not prevent confusion between the object and its uses. Science is a tool  which can be used (and misused) in many different ways.  Speciallization derives from obsessing over some problem or type of problem for a long time, but I don't see how that can be an issue. Plumbers are also speciallized. And scientists are just as ignorant as you and me about stuff outside their field.

Finding some objective, absolut truth is not the core objective of science. Science is a tool to finding answers but it's "truths" are transitory, not dogmatic. Challenging them is part of the process and, in fact, what makes the whole thing anarchic and interesting. I don't believe in absolute truths and see no problem in that concepts are revised as better ideas are discussed and Incorporated.

The problems you point are problems of academia, industry, institutions and    of people practicing science. Similar things could be said about anarchy because some anarchists eat at Mcdonalds or work for a boss (btw shallow is not a serious argument).

The powerful arrested, burned and hunged a lot of scientists before they understood how effective science can be. It would be a good idea to not do the same (in this case only conceptually, of course).

I'll read your links tomorrow as here is past 3am :)

---

whatever, we have strong disagreements about science and how it is and has been utilized in the real world. i think your perspective is quite naive, and you probably think mine is quite cynical. i'm fine with that. i have no desire to change your mind, and you are not likely to change mine. so i agree to disagree.

edit: as one who has strong affinity with anti-civilization critique, my critique of science is somewhat informed by that realm. unless you are somewhat familiar with that critique, you are unlikely to understand why i oppose science, and (for example) specialization. i am no zersanite primitivist, but i do find civilization to be at the root of many of the insurmountable problems i see in the world around me. 

even without the institution of science(tm), i still consider the "scientific method" - which seems to be what you are referring to, at least partly - to be merely one approach to understanding my world, and not even necessarily the best one (depending on context, of course). 

folks who buy into the scientific method as the way, who have a scientific mindset, come across to me as hardcore ideologues. looking critically at that mindset doesn't seem to happen very much, as it justifies itself.

you say: "Finding some objective, absolut truth is not the core objective of science."

and yet, finding a single, unified theory of everything seems to be the primary goal of the "smartest" scientific minds in recent history, from einstein on down. can you honestly say that is not a search for objective truth?

 

---

i also like charles eisenstein's take on Science...

http://charleseisenstein.net/ascent-of-humanity/the-scientific-method/

http://charleseisenstein.net/ascent-of-humanity/masters-of-the-universe/

http://charleseisenstein.net/ascent-of-humanity/the-quest-for-certainty/

---

Funkyanarchy, Scientists are "naive", no problem with that. The difficult thing is to remain "naive" enough as years go by to keep looking at things with curiosity. And I don't see you as cynical, just that you look at science a bit superficially. There is no "scientific method", that is something science philosophers invented from the outside (tell me one single scientist that worries about that, there is none); science is a mess and more about fun than method (which is where naivety comes in). For example, wecan have this conversation because some people chose to spend a lot of time playing with wires and bits. Every scientist is a rebel and those that are not become one of the many bureocrats/politicians that obstruct science trying to tell everyone what to do.

I totally agree that science is just one of several possible ways to approach things, but I like it a lot. For example, I like to know that the earth revolves around the sun, despite from our limited point of view it seems that the opposite happens.

The theory of everything is just trying to find a model that can describe the very large (planets) and the very small (atoms). But there is much more than that in science; many difficult challenges happen at our scale. For ex, Einstein could not understand a common phenomenon like capillarity (how liquids "climb" for example through a piece of fabric. He made some crappy papers about that.

Answering your question, of course there is a search, not for THE truth but for some way to describe phenomena; but it's a never ending search because there is constant discussion, changes, new ideas about how to look at it, etc.

---

whatever: "Every scientist is a rebel"

seriously?

i've known quite a few scientists - biologists, chemists, psychologists, astronomers, geologists, sociologists, pharmacologists - and i don't recall any of them desiring anarchy or considering themselves rebellious or anarchist. i imagine some scientists do, but the notion that "every scientist is a rebel" doesn't reflect my experience at all.

---

i think that once this argument becomes about people, it's already not as interesting to me.

one side has a caricature of a wide-eyed innocent, eagerly taking in the world and excited just to know how things work; the other has the caricature of holocaust scientists torturing people for knowledge, or assembly line workers+petrie dishes.
the issue becomes clearer for me when i compare it to police or the education system. the issue is not individual people, but the system that has been created, and that people work within. indidividual cops and teachers can honestly be trying to make the world a better, safer place, but they are part of an institution that is about controlling people, and is only helpful in small instances in order to maintain and increase that control.

---

it interests me that you decided to add to the conversation at the point it didn't interest you. ;)

i didn't want to create caricatures of people. i wanted to convey that most people (in my experience) don't challenge the idea of the system of authority that employs them - in this case, the science industry.

i agree about the relevance of comparing various institutions of authority, but i also think about how people desire to perpetuate those institutions.

---

at the end of the day, the bread-n-butter of these 'rebels' is the same as that of cops and teachers, the corporate-state; maintaining and 'progressing' the institutions falling under that rubric.

parenthetically, it doesn't matter if the cop or the teacher is 'public' or 'private' as the same institutions are protected and promoted at the end of the day. same goes for scientists as near as i can tell...and this will only become more onerous and odious as 'democratically elected leaders' push shit like TPP down our throats toward the bipartisan wet-dream of a world state...er...is that corporation? or will the distinction even matter when the whole globe becomes Economy?

edit for typos

---

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.