This thought came to me in the shower today. Open source checks most of the boxes. It is a collaborative, worker owned (develloper-owned) project, that tries to flatten hierarchy. Especially if you look at something like Debian ), which really tries to have a bottom-up structure.
Of course, there are exceptions, considering there are a lot of corporate open-source projects, that are not democratically maintained and clearly only serve the interest of the company, who created it (like chromium for example).
So I am mainly talking about community-oriented FOSS projects here.
And if you were to agree with my statement, would you say that developing FOSS software is advancing the goals of the anarchist / communist project, because it is laying the groundwork infrastructure needed for a new kind of economy and society?
Thought this could be an interesting discussion!

  • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
    56·
    3 months ago

    Honestly, yes, I think it’s one of the best examples of anarchism in action the world has ever seen. And an especially pertinent example to point out to those who’d say things like, “Why would anyone do work or innovate without a profit motive?” Lots of good and innovative software, made without any profit incentive by a collective of people who are working on it just because they want to and they enjoy it.

    • flora_explora@beehaw.org
      15·
      3 months ago

      I spent hours every day either taking pictures of organisms or identifying them online, just for the sake of it and without financial reimbursement. People who say you need a profit motive to do work are just passionless and detached from the world…

      • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
        13·
        3 months ago

        People who say you need a profit motive to do work are just passionless and detached from the world…

        You might even say they’re feeling alienated, as a certain German economist might say.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      9·
      3 months ago

      Meanwhile we have many capitalist groups stifling innovation in the name of profit. It’s more profitable for them to prevent competition than to compete for the best product.

  • James R Kirk@startrek.websiteEnglish
    241·
    3 months ago

    Cory Doctorow has a novel “Walkaway” which is basically “what if society but FOSS”. It’s really good!

    To answer your question, while it has a lot in common with anarchism I don’t think anyone benefits from trying to fit it into a predefined political box. It’s something new.

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      121·
      3 months ago

      I think MIT is anarchistic license. You can do whatever the fuck you want with it, but for this shit to work for both of us, you really should collaborate

  • ati@piefed.socialEnglish
    14·
    3 months ago

    It’s an observation of Marx, I think correct, that society organises in a manner aligned around the means of production. Agrarian -> feudal, industrial -> capitalist etc. I think the essential distinguishing feature of software vs capital goods is that software can be copied without the loss of the original. Hence I think the concept of ownership fails and the mode of production becomes anarchist.

  • nfreak@lemmy.mlEnglish
    13·
    3 months ago

    While not explicitly so, FOSS as a concept aligns very closely with far left anti-capitalist principles. The existence of corporate and right-winger-owned FOSS projects is a bit of an oxymoron, but doesn’t discredit the fact that it’s inherently a far left concept.

  • for_some_delta@beehaw.org
    7·
    3 months ago

    I consider FOSS a step toward prefiguring an anarchy.

    Current source control management systems however perpetuate heirarchies with roles such as maintainer and developer with different permissions. I like to keep the permissions similar for roles. I might take away foot guns like force push from developers.

    Another problem limiting anarchy is consensus. Getting agreement from everyone effected is still not quite there in the merge request process.

    • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
      3·
      3 months ago

      But you can fork it and make your own thing. Standard hierarchy has much more power over resources. Git’s hierarchy is almost simbolic.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    6·
    3 months ago

    It’s a non-market way of doing things, so sure it fits the definition, but labels are dumb, and the people who really like labels are worse.

    You’ll also notice that you still have to pay for whatever device Linux goes on, which is a strong hint about the economics at play.

    • cecilkorik@piefed.caEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Yeah I agree about the labels. The worst part of communism is the people who like communism. I am a simple man, I just want to be technically a communist without liking it or even being remotely interested in it, thankyouverymuch. Open source is great for that.

  • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zipEnglish
    6·
    3 months ago

    I often think of community run open source free license software projects as an example of communalism, personally. Maybe when I learn about more forms of anarchism and socialism there will be other ideas that feel more apt to describe it

  • its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org
    6·
    3 months ago

    I’m going with communalism. And its even simpler. A group of like minded people wanting to be creative nd share creativity without monetization. Seems more akin to artist movements to me. And I’m all for it.

  • ResistingArrest@lemmy.zipEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    There are some people who are in it for what you’ve listed (flattened hierarchy, worker owned, etc) but there are others who are in it for personal ownership and control, which may align better w/ a libertarian set of values, but you’re not wrong about the ancom aspects