Fuck yea! I'm not those dumb tear down the government people, I'm the make it redundant pragmatic people. I will go as close to my ideal state as possible.
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
180 points (95.9% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
22050 readers
487 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
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.
But you can fork it and make your own thing. Standard hierarchy has much more power over resources. Git's hierarchy is almost simbolic.
Not Communism in a political sense. More like community based, friendly software.
Open Source as in transparent or non proprietary.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Not really.
I compare it more to fan fiction and amateur writing. Some is a great read, much better than the garbage you might find on NYT's best seller list. Very talented people doing what they love and trying to be of service to others along the way. FOSS often seems more of a passion project for the creator(s) than an anarchist/communist project, IMHO - although there are obvious parallels.
Yes, as an anarchist I regularly point to FOSS as a plausible example of it working
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!
Cory Doctorow is prolific and has written a ton of other great and highly interesting stuff as well. He's a very intelligent fellow.
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.
It's a great book, and very relevant.
Open source is not literally communism, but I do think it's one of the best examples to demonstrate that anarcho-communism is plausible.
It can definitely be a form of praxis.
Sorry for being a bit of an idiot, but what is praxis?
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.
Alright, thanks ;)
I'm definitively printing this and putting it on my wall
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.
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
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
I do not.
FOSS is the natural conclusion of public code having a negligible cost to supply once it has been produced. Ideally it takes IP out of the equation and allocates compensation towards development rather than rent extraction.
FOSS is a question of centralization & authority vs decentralization & freedom.
It's what happens when copyright gets extended to infinity with no useful public domain to speak of. And then they will force you to rent the shit out of the copyright with a monthly subscription.
Linux runs on billions of devices. Every device with a microprocessor, except for the tiny portion of desktops, would be useless hunks of garbage without Linux. And Linux would not have those numbers if it wasn't FOSS. The internet would be a shell of its current self without FOSS and Linux.
The world needs FOSS, and quite frankly, it's a direct counterbalance to the invasive force of capitalism. Anybody who think the GPL isn't political clearly hasn't read anything its creators wrote.
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.
Yes. It is pretty much exactly how we would do software development.
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 was introduced to communism/socialism through Linux.
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.
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.
I think that communism-capitalism are very inadequate dimensions for discribing the world.
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
view more: next ›