• centof@lemm.ee
    ·
    11 months ago

    Relevant Section under Gift economies:

    The expansion of the Internet has witnessed a resurgence of the gift economy, especially in the technology sector. Engineers, scientists, and software developers create open-source software projects. The Linux kernel and the GNU operating system are prototypical examples of the gift economy's prominence in the technology sector and its active role in using permissive free software and copyleft licenses, which allow free reuse of software and knowledge.

    Essentially the line of thought is that open source software is an example of mutual aid and the gift economy.

    • testman@lemmy.ml
      ·
      11 months ago

      Listen, strange penguins biting people is no basis for a system of government.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      ·
      11 months ago

      Linus' power doesn't come from Ownership, but respect. Anyone can fork it and do what they want, but because Linus is respected, everyone else follows suit.

      Anarchism would function in a similar manner, it wouldn't be a bunch of opinionated people doing whatever they want, but people generally listening to experts who don't actually hold systemic power.

      • Atemu@lemmy.ml
        ·
        11 months ago

        Problem is that the average person cannot discern between an actual expert and a charlatan.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          ·
          11 months ago

          And yet Linux works fine. Not everyone needs to be a dev, devs can tell the difference between an expert and a charlatan.

          • Atemu@lemmy.ml
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I meant that as a reply to the second paragraph which generalised anarchism; including the non-Linux world.
            I also disagree that this isn't an issue in the broader Linux community however. See for example the loud minority with an irrational hate against quite obviously good software projects like systemd who got those ideas from charlatans or "experts".

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              ·
              11 months ago

              I know, I used Linux as an example. Just like not everyone needs to be a weatherman to trust weatherman that can recognize experts among themselves, so too can engineers recognize experts among themselves, and so forth.

    • pbpza@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      hexagon
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can fork it, sure Linus is very respected and his decisions are considered very important but you can fork it and change however you want so it's still compatible with Anarchism.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      ·
      11 months ago

      Free software doesn't have owners. If someone else did a better job of being the "benevolent dictator" of a fork of Linux, everyone would start using that fork. Arguably this is a more free-market system than non-free software.

  • Corgana@startrek.website
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cory Doctorow has a book, "Walkaway" that is basically exploring the politics of FOSS on a societal scale. It's pretty nerdy obv but I enjoyed it and it doesn't overly glamourize any political system the way you'd typically see in political fiction.

  • feoh@lemmy.ml
    ·
    11 months ago

    Interesting assertion, but is it really?

    The Linux kernel is a single software product produced by a single entity and ultimately controlled by a small cadre of highly trusted people.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      ·
      11 months ago

      Anyone can fork it and do what they want, people respect Linus and follow suit because he's good at what he does and knows it best. He holds no power or authority beyond the willful respect and acknowledgement of the people.

  • Jknaraa@lemmy.ml
    ·
    11 months ago

    It's actually a really good analogy, because it can only run on fully-capitalist hardware.

      • huf [he/him]
        ·
        11 months ago

        it sanctions other CPUs and strong arms them into giving up their cycles

          • Jknaraa@lemmy.ml
            ·
            11 months ago

            Do you think Capitalists designed hardware, or Engineers?

            I'm just gonna leave this quote as is, so you can think about it.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              ·
              11 months ago

              I have. Engineers, ie workers, designed the hardware. It was not the Capitalists that owned the companies doing the design.

            • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
              ·
              11 months ago

              Are you saying capitalists and engineers are one in the same? Maybe sometimes, but it's not capital that makes things, it's labor.

          • drndramrndra@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well you solved that conundrum rightly. Now let's go linch those dirty Apple and John Deere engineers. Since they've designed those machines, they must be the only responsible parties for designing them with their extreme anti-consumer and anti-repair policies. They must get commissions on every licensed repair or something, it's definitely got nothing to do with capitalists putting restrictions on the design team in order to increase profits, nope...

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              ·
              11 months ago

              You're completely off on what I'm getting at. The idea of "Capitalist" hardware, as though the Capitalist did the labor, is wrong. Engineers are paid for their labor power, they don't typically get royalties or anything of the sort, just like any other laborer.

              Someone saying that FOSS software relies on Capitalist hardware is putting the Capitalist over the Engineer, as though the Capitalist created the hardware, and not the labor of the miners, assemblers, designers, engineers, and so forth, regardless of who owns the Capital the labor is done by the Workers. FOSS is agnostic to whoever owned the Means of Proruction of the hardware using or producing it.

    • milo128@lemm.ee
      ·
      11 months ago

      its sad that you're so closed-minded and brainwashed to think "communism bad" that you wouldnt even consider the possibility of this being true

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      ·
      11 months ago

      Neither, the title specifically states Anarcho-Communism, not Marxism-Leninism. Closest analog would be any other AnCom that created a large publicly available service.