4 ms·

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

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.

ewzimm 4y ago
You can define anarchism to mean the abolishment of hierarchy, but you would be distancing yourself from most anarchist movements. One prominent counter-example would be the Kurdish Workers' Party based on the philosophy of Abdullah Ocalan. It is an anarchist organization with a strict hierarchy. By anarchism, we usually mean the movement that started in early European socialism, developed through Marxism but split with state socialists and distanced themselves from Lenninism, along with all the related movements that developed from it. It has a particular culture and history that has always stood against enforced hierarchies because they get in the way of natural hierarchies that develop through social processes as people make collective decisions and assign temporary leadership roles through defined processes.
- elliotec 4y ago
  The PKK is not an anarchist organization. They have some similar political viewpoints but they are by definition not anarchist for many reasons, especially the points you make about having a strict hierarchy and leader. More to your point though, sure, it's a praxis vs theory thing. There often will be agreed-upon hierarchies and leadership situations in an anarchist system but the point is they don't get to have coercive power and their authority is consensus-based.
  - ewzimm 4y ago
    If you exclude organizations like the PKK, which ones would you consider to be the true anarchists? How about the Industrial Workers of the World, one of the most prominent international anarchist organizations? You can read the constitution at iww.org, and it mainly defines the organizational hierarchy. I'm curious about your perspective, because when I've seen this argument before, it seems to be based on a personal literal interpretation of the world anarchism as the negation of hierarchy, as if the etymology of the term is more important of the history of the movement. If you have a deeper insight beyond that, it's worth explaining! Another definition that might be helpful comes from Noam Chomsky's "What is Anarchism?" "...anarchism is a tendency in human development that seeks to identify structures of hierarchy, domination, authority, and others that constrain human development. And then it seeks to subject them to a very reasonable challenge: Justify yourself, demonstrate that you're legitimate, and maybe in some special circumstances or conceivably in principle. And if you can't meet that challenge, which is the usual case, the structures should be dismantled, not just dismantled but reconstructed from below." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-what-is-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-what-is...
    - lapinot 4y ago
      This thread seems to get derailed into the age old anarchistic debate "organization or not", also sometimes named "platform or not". My take on it is that this debate is usually theoretic in nature (in particular in this thread), and that anarchism is very much not a theory and actually a praxis. A core principle is also to refuse bottom-line-truth and dogma to keep being relevant in day-to-day struggles. Hence the unifying principles of the anarchistic nebula elude any objective definition (one behave "like an anarchist" only if a couple other ones says so, not that this would be sufficient tho).
      - ewzimm 4y ago
        Constantly renegotiating definitions comes with the territory, so I wouldn’t expect this to go away. The name is meant to be provocative, so it fits. Defining it outside theory is an interesting take. But doesn’t praxis eventually require considering theory when a decision has to be made?
initramfs 4y ago
I would agree that the linux kernel is not anarchist, because only one mainline production version is released- the most recent with Rust, for example. I actually think the wish to view linux as a binary "joined" or "not joined" to the mainline branch is actually a false dichotomy. A better way for software developers to research new software would be to re-examine the purpose of monolithic kernels, and re-evaluate why they are used in the first place. I would say monolithic kernels are more of a convenience, rather than a necessity. I wrote a blog post on this yesterday: https://iotmote.substack.com/p/exokernels-unikernels-and-single https://iotmote.substack.com/p/exokernels-unikernels-and-sin... Edit: There are other projects that the Linux foundation supports or affiliates with. One is https://xenproject.org/developers/teams/unikraft/ https://xenproject.org/developers/teams/unikraft/ So I wasn't suggesting that the main kernel is the only one, but I think software developers and the tech news websites that cover them could balance the coverage more on different tools that seem to be more "future-proof"
sph 4y ago
> 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 I disagree. This is not my definition of anarchy. But the problem with anarchy itself is that it's such a vast subject there is no real and singularly accepted definition. So it tends to create a lot of small subtheories anyone can freely subscribe to. That's very anarchic :-) In fact this underlines my point and my disagreement with you: anarchism is being free to choose. The kernel, being free software, is anarchistic. You're not free to direct and overrule Linus, but you're free to become your own Linus and fork the kernel. Commercial software does not allow to do that, because of the existence of copyright, patents and intellectual property laws. I agree that it is fascinating to explore those ideas, especially in a tech and "capitalist" context like this one. Far too much anarchist theory is based upon a rejection of technology and monetary incentives, which I think are not at all incompatible.
- elliotec 4y ago
  Ok, I'm going to mince words here because they're important for this topic. Anarchy does not equal and must not be confused with Anarchism. At the risk of sounding condescending, which truly isn't my intention, I'd strongly encourage you to read the respective Wikipedia pages to get a better sense of the definitions that actually are shared and understood. Nuances abound but the foundations are clear and widely accepted. By these definitions, Linux as a people organization can't be anarchistic. Since Anarchism/Anarchy are states of societal organizations, "software" as a concept also can't really be anarchistic, even if it can be governed as such. Anyway, I completely agree that commercial software does not have the same capability for the reasons you describe, and I also agree that much thought and time are wasted in anarchist thought on the rejection of technology and monetary incentives and more people should talk about the practical application here!

ewzimm 4y ago

You can define anarchism to mean the abolishment of hierarchy, but you would be distancing yourself from most anarchist movements. One prominent counter-example would be the Kurdish Workers' Party based on the philosophy of Abdullah Ocalan. It is an anarchist organization with a strict hierarchy. By anarchism, we usually mean the movement that started in early European socialism, developed through Marxism but split with state socialists and distanced themselves from Lenninism, along with all the related movements that developed from it. It has a particular culture and history that has always stood against enforced hierarchies because they get in the way of natural hierarchies that develop through social processes as people make collective decisions and assign temporary leadership roles through defined processes.

elliotec 4y ago
The PKK is not an anarchist organization. They have some similar political viewpoints but they are by definition not anarchist for many reasons, especially the points you make about having a strict hierarchy and leader. More to your point though, sure, it's a praxis vs theory thing. There often will be agreed-upon hierarchies and leadership situations in an anarchist system but the point is they don't get to have coercive power and their authority is consensus-based.
- ewzimm 4y ago
  If you exclude organizations like the PKK, which ones would you consider to be the true anarchists? How about the Industrial Workers of the World, one of the most prominent international anarchist organizations? You can read the constitution at iww.org, and it mainly defines the organizational hierarchy. I'm curious about your perspective, because when I've seen this argument before, it seems to be based on a personal literal interpretation of the world anarchism as the negation of hierarchy, as if the etymology of the term is more important of the history of the movement. If you have a deeper insight beyond that, it's worth explaining! Another definition that might be helpful comes from Noam Chomsky's "What is Anarchism?" "...anarchism is a tendency in human development that seeks to identify structures of hierarchy, domination, authority, and others that constrain human development. And then it seeks to subject them to a very reasonable challenge: Justify yourself, demonstrate that you're legitimate, and maybe in some special circumstances or conceivably in principle. And if you can't meet that challenge, which is the usual case, the structures should be dismantled, not just dismantled but reconstructed from below." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-what-is-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-what-is...
  - lapinot 4y ago
    This thread seems to get derailed into the age old anarchistic debate "organization or not", also sometimes named "platform or not". My take on it is that this debate is usually theoretic in nature (in particular in this thread), and that anarchism is very much not a theory and actually a praxis. A core principle is also to refuse bottom-line-truth and dogma to keep being relevant in day-to-day struggles. Hence the unifying principles of the anarchistic nebula elude any objective definition (one behave "like an anarchist" only if a couple other ones says so, not that this would be sufficient tho).
    - ewzimm 4y ago
      Constantly renegotiating definitions comes with the territory, so I wouldn’t expect this to go away. The name is meant to be provocative, so it fits. Defining it outside theory is an interesting take. But doesn’t praxis eventually require considering theory when a decision has to be made?

initramfs 4y ago

I would agree that the linux kernel is not anarchist, because only one mainline production version is released- the most recent with Rust, for example. I actually think the wish to view linux as a binary "joined" or "not joined" to the mainline branch is actually a false dichotomy. A better way for software developers to research new software would be to re-examine the purpose of monolithic kernels, and re-evaluate why they are used in the first place. I would say monolithic kernels are more of a convenience, rather than a necessity. I wrote a blog post on this yesterday: https://iotmote.substack.com/p/exokernels-unikernels-and-single https://iotmote.substack.com/p/exokernels-unikernels-and-sin... Edit: There are other projects that the Linux foundation supports or affiliates with. One is https://xenproject.org/developers/teams/unikraft/ https://xenproject.org/developers/teams/unikraft/ So I wasn't suggesting that the main kernel is the only one, but I think software developers and the tech news websites that cover them could balance the coverage more on different tools that seem to be more "future-proof"

sph 4y ago

> 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 I disagree. This is not my definition of anarchy. But the problem with anarchy itself is that it's such a vast subject there is no real and singularly accepted definition. So it tends to create a lot of small subtheories anyone can freely subscribe to. That's very anarchic :-) In fact this underlines my point and my disagreement with you: anarchism is being free to choose. The kernel, being free software, is anarchistic. You're not free to direct and overrule Linus, but you're free to become your own Linus and fork the kernel. Commercial software does not allow to do that, because of the existence of copyright, patents and intellectual property laws. I agree that it is fascinating to explore those ideas, especially in a tech and "capitalist" context like this one. Far too much anarchist theory is based upon a rejection of technology and monetary incentives, which I think are not at all incompatible.

elliotec 4y ago
Ok, I'm going to mince words here because they're important for this topic. Anarchy does not equal and must not be confused with Anarchism. At the risk of sounding condescending, which truly isn't my intention, I'd strongly encourage you to read the respective Wikipedia pages to get a better sense of the definitions that actually are shared and understood. Nuances abound but the foundations are clear and widely accepted. By these definitions, Linux as a people organization can't be anarchistic. Since Anarchism/Anarchy are states of societal organizations, "software" as a concept also can't really be anarchistic, even if it can be governed as such. Anyway, I completely agree that commercial software does not have the same capability for the reasons you describe, and I also agree that much thought and time are wasted in anarchist thought on the rejection of technology and monetary incentives and more people should talk about the practical application here!