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!

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    56·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • thethrilloftime69@feddit.onlineEnglish
      1·
      31 minutes ago

      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.

    • DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
      71·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        4·
        3 hours ago

        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).

        • DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
          1·
          3 hours ago

          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.

          • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
            4·
            3 hours ago

            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.