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!

Anarcho Communism

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.

No. I'm staunchly anti-communist and also a staunch supporter of free software. It's also possible to have another combination of beliefs on these things, but these are mine.

I suggest reading the section "Why Don't You Move to Russia?" of this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on decentralization.

Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.

I agree with that. Free software is about building a society more strongly based on individual rights. At least Marxism-Leninism certainly isn't about that, though anarchism can be argued to be to some extent.

It can definitely be a form of praxis.

If we take the words of Saint Richard Stallman as true in the sense that in his day all software developmet was 'open' but at some point some decided for whatever reason to start "closing" stuff then one could say all software development did not have any anarchist or communist intention in the beginning, it just turned profit-driven in the way.

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.

Only if you use GPL, not MIT.

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

Further, GPL relies on enforcement from an authority on copyrights, which is exactly the opposite of what anarchists suggest

While I agree, that Marxism-Leninism or Russian-Style "communism" have nothing to do with free software, I would also not call them real communism. Marx litteraly defined communism as a classless, stateless society. There is no such thing as a communist state.
I also would argue, that free software is fundamentally anti-capitalist, because it rejects the basis of capitalism, which is private ownership of the means of production (which in this case would be software).
So, in my opinion you cannot simultaneously believe that capitalism is the best way to organize software development while believing that free software is the best way to organize software development.

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.

Sorry for being a bit of an idiot, but what is praxis?

because it rejects the basis of capitalism, which is private ownership of the means of production (which in this case would be software)

No, it doesn't. Companies developing software for internal use, including as part of a "means of production" (e.g. robot firmware at a factory), and keeping it secret from the public is completely compatible with free software. It's only when software is distributed to other people/entities that the free software movement insists that the recipient should also have freedom (including to run a business with it or any modified version of it).

The textbook definition would be the application of theory to action. It's basically leftist slang for putting the theories of socialism/communism/humanism into practice in a real way.

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

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.

Well who lives in that castle over there?

A lot of value in capitalism comes from uncompensated work. I don't consider it communism as much as protecting work from exploitation.

Yes although what tends to happen is the capitalists just take MIT licenced code and make bank off it.

This is all moot now that LLMs can launder the code anyway.

Are you shure about that? Because that would mean, that every piece of software, that hasn't been released to the public would automatically be free software, which would make the label pretty meaninglessness.

Alright, thanks ;)

I was introduced to communism/socialism through Linux.

Yes. There are several sections on gnu.org that talk about this, these are the ones I was able to quickly find.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish. (It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy. Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them; however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it privately—does not mistreat anyone.)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html

Free software is a matter of freedom, not access. In general we do not believe it is wrong to develop a program and not release it. There are occasions when a program is so important that one might argue that withholding it from the public is doing wrong to humanity. However, such cases are rare. Most programs are not that important, and declining to release them is not particularly wrong. Thus, there is no conflict between the development of private or custom software and the principles of the free software movement.

Nearly all employment for programmers is in development of custom software; therefore most programming jobs are, or could be, done in a way compatible with the free software movement.

Yes, as an anarchist I regularly point to FOSS as a plausible example of it working

No one lives there.

I mean, it's less about the intention and more about the reality of software development.
Just because the developers back then didn't chose to do software development in an anarchist way (although I think a lot of them had that kind of mindset), doesn't mean, that they didn't do it using anarchist principles.

You obviously want WTFPL instead of MIT for that.

Isn't protecting workers from exploration on of the core goals of communism?

Yeah that's even better

But I believe in a world where no license would be equal to that

Yeah we do live in a capitalist world

On second thought, lets not go to Camelot, 'tis a silly place

Open source is not literally communism, but I do think it's one of the best examples to demonstrate that anarcho-communism is plausible.

Only problem with communism is that humans are unable to practice it without turning to fascistic practices.
As an idea it is beautiful. “To each according to their needs.”

Free software works though??
Also if you want some real world examples of anarchist-like principles being applied in praxis, without fascism, look up Rojava or the Zapatista-Movement.

Are the developers needs met really though?

Most of the systems that enslave us run on linux.

I used to think so. It's ideologically sound except for allowing corporations the same free use as anyone else. There are plenty of forward thinking people who would never want to support the oppressive evil of massive technology corporations and would never intentionally help them. Then they publish free software and directly help them anyway. It's not a coincidence that most "free" software is funded by the US tech industry who is directly benefited from it. I'm not sure of a way to change it that would help regular people faster than it helps private industry crush regular people.

Are they programming on a Mac?

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.

Wow, I didn't think, I would get such an interesting book recommendation out of this. Thank you so much!

My pleasure! It kind of reminds me of Snow Crash in that it's really fun and adventurous but also made me think deep thoughts.

maybe but its not the sum totality of it. So I assume communists would like the gpl but view it as unnecessary. I mean judging from what I have heard and read for stallman. I think he would like the gpl to be unnecessary. That all knowledge be free. Its ip law that requires it because of monotenazation of it. So it uses ip law against itself.

No. It strongly depends on the project, they can be organized very differently. You can always fork, but you can also always try to topple dictatorship

I think it's more of a socialist mindset that is spreading with FOSS, because it focuses it's workings on the common good, Most FOSS projects can be named socialist by nature; they encourage working together to create something bigger, something that doesn't let the small guy fall through the created network. I believe a lot of anarchistic workings are socialist at their core, and FOSS is an embodiment of these workings.

I think FOSS enable those kind of communities but I don’t think FOSS as a concept is any of those things. those communities could equally work with a non FOSS license (eg one that prevents commercial use or a license that allow usage only by members of a specific community). They uses existing licenses because they go momentum and have legal precedents that allows people to defend their rights.

Most FOSS licenses were specifically designed to allow profiting from the wok of others, even the GPL. Just see how many billion dollar companies (think Azure, AWS, etc) profit from projects without giving anything back.

Free software is about building a society more strongly based on individual rights. At least Marxism-Leninism certainly isn’t about that

I suggest you read some Marxist literature. Marxism has become a bad word in the West because it undermines exploitation under capitalism. But everything Marx and Lenin espoused was based on improving the rights of individuals (you could make a convincing argument that the structure of the Soviet Union was incapable of accomplishing that goal, but that it got closer than anything American capitalism has been able to).

My personal rec is State and Revolution by Lenin. It's short and easy to read.

In Soviet Russia, code programs you!

It's a great book, and very relevant.

Yes. It is pretty much exactly how we would do software development.

Most systems that enslave us runs on electricity, and cruelty, and malice, and the will to dominate all life.

- galadriel or something

I had the same exact thought after Steve balmer called it communist cancer, but then I came to a conclusion. Open source, and fair source software is communist, but free software is not. Free is as freedom and not price. You can make money off of it, but why is it different than OSS. The difference is that Free software protects the user's rights as opposed to OSS. Protecting the user's rights and freedoms is important.