from the libertarian newspaper

[Jeremy Fowler]

> An interesting article, but the author doesn't seem to 
> understand some basic political concepts. There are different 
> types of socialism. The author is thinking about state 
> socialism/communism and misses the fact that there is a 
> significant anti-statist or libertarian socialist tendency 
> around the world. In fact, around most of the world, 
> "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist." Libertarian 
> socialism is another phrase that is equivalent to anarchism.

Um, I disagree with that statement. An anarchist believes in no
authority and no government at all. Everyone for themselves with no one
controlling anything or anyone. A true survival of the fittest,
dog-eat-dog, Mad Max kind of world. 

A Libertarian Socialist still believes there needs to be a government,
but a very limited one. They would need a government to enforce the
liberty of others and make sure everyone can do what they want when they
want to, so far as they don't impede on the rights of others. The
socialist part makes sure that the wealth and capital is evenly spread
out among the people so that no one group of people has more power than
the other. 

Those two beliefs are completely separate, and I wouldn't invite either
of them to a dinner party...  


> I'm working on a paper which will explain how the free 
> software and open source movements, as well as much of Web 
> 2.0, are examples of anarchism in action. This has been 
> pointed out by writers several years ago, but really hasn't 
> gained widespread recognition.

Well, it wouldn't be a very accurate paper. As the software you
mentioned couldn't possibly be anarchist movements as no one would be in
control of what contributor code gets accepted and included and what
doesn't. There has to be a governing party that enforces proper code
standards, vulnerability and bug checking, runaway feature creep, and
bloated code. Someone has to be in control, and control and authority is
what anarchism  despises. A truly anarchist open source software would
have no control and anyone end everyone could add anything into the
final product. It would always be broken and development would stall and
go nowhere or everywhere fast.  
 
> Free software like Linux are examples of anarchism in action 
> in that they are cooperative, decentralized, anti-capitalist 
> (to some extent), anti-property (anti-IP), non-government, 
> anti-hierarchical and much more. The free software movement 
> is "socialist" in so far as it reflects the anti-statist 
> socialism of anarchism.

Linux has Linus Torvalds as its sole governing party's executive, and he
makes all final decisions. So, Linux is hardly anarchism in action. Plus
there is a hierarchical structure of developers. Those in the higher
levels get more code accepted and included than those in the lower
levels. It is cooperative and decentralized, however those aren't
anarchism specific properties. If Linux was truly anti-property, it
wouldn't even have a license. You could use it however you want, with
zero restrictions. I fear your argument is pretty weak.