Software and Anarchy (2021) [pdf]

I thought we call it software because it breaks when I touch it

Anarchism means the abolishment of coercion _and_ hierarchy, especially authority. This doesn't mean structureless, but structure and organization via free association to your point.

Linux in production as a people org is definitely NOT anarchistic by any definition I can muster because Linus _is_ the head honcho - it is not a freely associated group skeptical of authority because he holds all authority and the keys (even without coercion, which he could readily employ). People don't get to make collective or individual decisions that don't go through the authoritative hierarchy to some degree.

Another point you made somewhere else about being able to fork the codebase gives the software itself an opportunity to allow for more anarchistic setups, but in its current state is relatively far from it in my opinion.

Happy to discuss this more because it's a fascinating topic and I like finding folks who want to engage in dialogue around this.

Another way of looking at anarchism(or at least how I like to look at it) is to consider that even though humans form structures and hierarchies all the time(e.g.: we make a group and I take the first in line position and the rest follows), this structure/hierarchy/authority can and should be allowed to be questioned, changed, etc(e.g.: You know that I'm going the wrong way and intercede, pointing out, maybe taking the position, etc). This "impermanent" nature is very important because then when you consider the effects of hierarchization, 'solidification', etc, their consequences look a lot like a lot of the problems we see everywhere. I.e.: I decide I'll kill whomever tries to take my position as if it was always mine by birthright or some shit and not a `socially built and agreed upon` one, and if you think of it, looking back, any human structure needs a social agreement otherwise there's gonna be a fight or break-up because humans are social creatures, BY NATURE. Plus, coercion isn't just when I threaten everyone that disagrees with me, if I make up a story/ideology/religion that says everyone must obey me, that's just another form of coercion too.

In this sense, Linux is anarchic because people follow the cool guy doing work upfront for us but at the same time since he's "opened it up" there's a statement that it's not his, and there's also mechanisms through which he's unable to take it away or that others could take his position if he does a bad job, like, shouldn't whats socially created also be socially owned? In Linux case I think it works because the answer was 'yes' from the get go. In this sense, there's just no contradiction at all between anarchism and the situation described, one of the conclusions you could get to is that humans are and have always been anarchists. From this we can also derive "anti-state" because one could argue that most humans didn't even wanted to form or become subject to states, that a lot of what went on there was coercion. The principle wasn't applied and challenging it should be no big deal.

Anarchism is definitely not disorganised, quite the opposite.

As always, "anarchy" means "the parts of government I actually like".

Why do people think these things get respected? What ultimate authority is omniscient in this way? The fact is that if I can access the source then it is effectively FOSS, especially if I'm a military.

Please take a long hard look at how the implicit assumptions behind these discussions do not line up with reality and then move on to building the web of trust with me :P

> Soon enough the list of groups you don't like is gonna get long.

That follows, because there is a lot of evil in this world. If I want to make a token gesture (which I realistically have somewhere between a limited and no ability to enforce against a bunch of armed hooligans like the police or military) against that evil, that's my prerogative.

And why is a long list necessarily bad?

A "do not use this software for evil" license is morally identical to one that states "only use this software for evil".

The best licenses are those that just say "there you go, do whatever you want, but don't fucking sue me." (That means pretty much all mainstream open source licenses)

Just to be accurate in case this comment scares folks away - it's 61 pages including all the appendices and bibliography, but 46 pages and 3 chapters of the core content.

> For example we can make the workplace a democratically run institution

the history of yugoslav workers self-management might interest you

https://transversal.at/transversal/0805/kuljic/en

There are a number of cooperatives that are very successful. Not in a capitalist way but providing the workers a honest and good life with much more freedom them usual companies. There is a good example in Brazil https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344119511_Flasko_A_...

> Essentially the elimination of all unnecessary hierarchy and domination.

Not necessarily. Please see my other top-level comment in this thread.

Anarchy has a lot of definitions and sub types. Anarchy as complete lack of structure is always used to attack and denigrate it by its opponents, but it's not an inherent characteristic of anarchism itself. Anarchy does not have to mean everybody decides and we put everything to a vote.

Anarchy means you can leave whenever you want. Nobody forces you. No one has the monopoly on violence.

Free software is anarchic. It might have strict rules, and a tyrannical maintainer than only merges what he wants, but it's still anarchic because you can fork it.

Most people tend to be in anarchic relationship with each other, because no one can force something upon the other. That's something only the government does.

In fact, making money and profit does not have to be anti-anarchic. It's certainly against anarcho-communism, but that's just a subbranch of a wider social theory.