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!
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.