I read
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-synthesis-anarchist (again). Some quotes:
"In the beginning, when the anarchist idea was still little developed, confuse, it was natural and useful to analyze it from all sides, to break it down and examine each of its elements in depth, to compare them, to contrast them with one another, etc. That is what has been done. Anarchism was broken down into several elements (or currents.) Thus the whole, too general and vague, was dissected, which helped to deal in depth, to study thoroughly that whole as well as those elements."
"After a fundamental analysis, it was necessary to return (deliberately) to the beneficial synthesis."
"The first period—when anarchism sought itself, defined itself and inevitably divided itself at the task—has ended. It belongs to the past. It is high time to move on."
I mostly support Voline's idea of synthesis anarchism. However, I would say that there is no first phase that ends. For educational purposes (new generations of anarchists enter the movement all the time), it still makes sense to clearly state and discuss the differences and pros and cons of different anarchist currents. On the other hand, for practical purposes and organizing, I agree that we should go the synthesist way of working together and not insist on pure doctrine.
[#]Anarchism
[#]SynthesisAnarchism
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread | More toots from transform@climatejustice.social
=> View anarchism tag | View synthesisanarchism tag This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini