They’re both authoritarian bullshit, though platformism very much more so.
Anyone who proposes that this or that thing be made a part of an anarchistic system merely demonstrates that they don’t even grasp the concept.
The necessary reality of a truly anarchistic system is that any statements regarding collective norms can only be made as ex post facto analyses of the norms most often supported and expected by the people exercising their full right to choose as they please.
Anyone who declares that some set of norms are or must be a fixed and required part of the system is still thinking in authoritarian terms, and trying to wedge their failure into a supposedly “anarchist” framework.
But how do you actually connect with other folks when you do not want to follow / expect any social norms at all? Maybe I am not getting your point, but why is sharing an agreement on how one wants to relate to each other as members of an organization authoritarian? Its not like you are forced to join that group.
What you’re describing is neither platformism nor synthesis.
Platformism and synthesis are both formalized ideas that some third party(ies) will be empowered to oversee and direct an anarchistic system, with the only difference being that platformism starts by decreeing the norms that will be required, while synthesis ar least vaguely nods toward anarchism by ceding the fact that no norms will ever be universally voluntarily held, but still then goes on to posit some body given oversight over the collective, and merely stipulates that they’ll “allow” multiple viewpoints.
What you’re describing is just individual interaction, which is in fact the only thing that anarchism can be based on. Yes - if the system is truly anarchistic, you’ll be free to ally yourself with whoever you might prefer on whatever basis you might prefer, as, of necessity, will everyone else.
Platformism and synthesis are not ways in which you might choose to pursue that, but ways in which the entire process might be “organized.” They’re explicitly top-down ideas, which is exactly how and why they both fail.
They’re both authoritarian bullshit, though platformism very much more so.
Anyone who proposes that this or that thing be made a part of an anarchistic system merely demonstrates that they don’t even grasp the concept.
The necessary reality of a truly anarchistic system is that any statements regarding collective norms can only be made as ex post facto analyses of the norms most often supported and expected by the people exercising their full right to choose as they please.
Anyone who declares that some set of norms are or must be a fixed and required part of the system is still thinking in authoritarian terms, and trying to wedge their failure into a supposedly “anarchist” framework.
But how do you actually connect with other folks when you do not want to follow / expect any social norms at all? Maybe I am not getting your point, but why is sharing an agreement on how one wants to relate to each other as members of an organization authoritarian? Its not like you are forced to join that group.
Sorry if I totally miss your point
What you’re describing is neither platformism nor synthesis.
Platformism and synthesis are both formalized ideas that some third party(ies) will be empowered to oversee and direct an anarchistic system, with the only difference being that platformism starts by decreeing the norms that will be required, while synthesis ar least vaguely nods toward anarchism by ceding the fact that no norms will ever be universally voluntarily held, but still then goes on to posit some body given oversight over the collective, and merely stipulates that they’ll “allow” multiple viewpoints.
What you’re describing is just individual interaction, which is in fact the only thing that anarchism can be based on. Yes - if the system is truly anarchistic, you’ll be free to ally yourself with whoever you might prefer on whatever basis you might prefer, as, of necessity, will everyone else.
Platformism and synthesis are not ways in which you might choose to pursue that, but ways in which the entire process might be “organized.” They’re explicitly top-down ideas, which is exactly how and why they both fail.