- cross-posted to:
- solarpunk@slrpnk.net
- solarpunk@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- solarpunk@slrpnk.net
- solarpunk@lemmy.ml
What are your thoughts on Bolo’bolo? Is it well known in your circles?
To me, it’s one my literary and theoretical bases that I keep coming back to. Sometimes just to skim trough it and dream :D I see enourmous potential there.
While I know quite a few people that know the book - or at least of it -, it feels like it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.
I’ve never heard of it before, what’s it about?
Bolo‘bolo is a alternative - some might say utopian - social structure, that was layed out by P.M. in the 80s. In a nutshell the concept they offer/have developed aims for autonomy, diversity and resilience through a (voluntary) network of autonomous and (semi-)selfsustaining communities (‚bolos‘), each of the bolos being their own cultural entity. They do this however in a really interesting way, which - to me - makes it pretty unique: They coin new concepts (i.e. ‚bolo‘ and ‚ibu‘) instead of using established terms (‚community’ and ‚individual’) and thus break with the old assumptions these terms carry. This approach makes it way easier to approach than the topic might suggest. Readers will most likely note though, that it was written in the 80s, as much of the critique of the status quo is pointed towards disciplinary societies rather than societies of control.
Sounds pretty interesting, but honestly it just sounds like regular anarcho-communism to me. Maybe it’s a good introduction though?
I understand your view, I think. It might be caused by my brief summary though. Bolo‘bolo differs from ‚traditional‘ anarcho-communism - at least as I understand it - in a key aspect. Or maybe it specifies traditional an-com?
Besides the new terminology, which allows a fresh approach, I see the difference in the diversity/flexibility of social organizations within the bolos (internal organization may or may not align with traditional an-com notions like collective ownership etc.) as well as these organisations ‚fluidity‘ over time. Each ibu and every group of ibus is/are free to choose their own ideology and value systems. To me this is an interesting approach to solve the tensions individual/community. What fascinates me, is the pragmatism the concept shows by allowing for diverse communities with different internal arrangements to coexist and interact.
If you know any theorists you advocate this approach, please share :)
And also its just fun to read and discover whats behind all those new terms :D
That definitely sounds intriguing. Their concept of diversity and flexibility also sounds a lot like the idea of free association. In any case, the book definitely sounds worth a read!
Honestly, I’m not that well read in anarchist theory, other than a surface level understanding. I do plan on reading a lot more though! Kropotkin, Berkman, Rocker and Malatesta are already on my reading list.
You are correct. ‘Free association’ is indeed a central element of bolo’bolo. Bolo’bolo tries it assist the freely associated ibus and bolos by providing a framework for structuring and scaling their respective organizations. It also considers linguistic and other cultural elements, which the concept of ‘free association’ - as I know it - doesn’t necessarily do.
EDIT If this topic interests you, you might want to add Murray Bookchin to your reading list. His philosophy is pretty close to Bolo’bolo and highly relevant in the present climate crisis.
Yup, Bookchin is also on there. The entire Working Classics Series by AK Press is on my list, which also includes Post-Scarcity Anarchism. We’ll see when I get there, as for some reason I decided to make an impossibly long list for myself. I’ll probably be reading Rudolf Rocker’s Anarcho-Syndicalism next though.