This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it's worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it's not without downsides.

Example: open source is the communist model, and it works very well. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. No one owns anything, and you're free to fork or vote with your feet.

Ditto for illegal drug markets. If you're unhappy as a merchant, you have a number of options. No one owns you. You can switch to a different market, or start your own (if you're suicidally ambitious).

The interesting part is that the drug markets end up combining the best of both capitalism and communism in that sense.

But only in that sense. Obviously, unregulated drugs are risky. Yet even without regulations, it's remarkable how rare it is to hear about unhappy customers.

I don't see how open source is a communist model, nobody is coerced to publish their code, they do because they want to, even several companies are making some of their source code public for improving the trust that their client has in their product and increase their sales.

It's not capitalism either, because open source developers don't sell code, or write code under pressure of earning a living. They just write it and give it away.

Not sure what the right word is, but textbook-definition communism fits - open-source code isn't really owned in practical sense.

My understanding is you have an automatic copyright on the code you create. When you share you can optionally grant a license BSD etc. to let people use that code subject to X. So the code subject is owned.

That's an implementation detail, not the way people in Open Source think of it day-to-day.

This is wavering off topic, but since it's an intersting topic and you asked, let's do it.

Open source is inherently communistic because nobody owns anything. You have control over your own project, but that's where it stops. You cannot force open source maintainers to do something. This is unlike capitalism; at a standard company, your NDA forces you not to disclose secrets. In open source, there are no secrets to disclose, short of drama and private infighting. A non-compete prevents you from forking the business you work for. These are unenforceable in Cali, but the rest of the US is not so lucky.

You are bound to a paycheck that determines your fate. This is the essence of capitalism.

Contrast that with open source: people don't merely contribute because they want to. It increases their reputation. Ditto for a review system on darknet markets.

Both of these things are very unlike capitalism. So if not communism, then what? Not libertarianism. There's no ownership, and ownership is central to libertarian ideals.

I don't think you'll find many libertarians who say people couldn't share property in a community - only that it must be the choice of each individual¹. Which is how open source works - each person decides what to open source, and many even take from open source to create their own proprietary products.

I think the question as a whole doesn't really make sense, since "open source" can't be separated from the whole economies in which it is created.

(¹ communists would object that the choice is often illusory or even non-existent, but that's another issue)

"Communism" — the leading capital due to its being the first word in the sentence — is an economic model. "Communism", the Soviet-style phenomenon is not "communism", either in principle, or in practice.

Yet we insist on conflating them, and argue against the one whenever the other is mentioned, as if it's synonymous with both.

At the very least, they're related in that every attempt to implement the economic model ends up the totalitarian government. The Russian Revolution was the first of several experiments.

The problem with both is the same. The benefits are only derived if everyone follows the system, but human nature dictates that will not be the case. The problem is with the nature of what is voluntary. Most homeowners in a non communist country, presumably don't want to leave their home, or join a commune. When you determine everyone MUST participate, the distinction you make evaporates.

It's really hard to make comparisons here because 'homeowners' in Russia and China, which did not have strong middle classes at the time of their revolutions, tended to also be landlords/rentiers. Arguably both of those countries were closer to feudalism than capitalism, and the collectivist policies which ensued were to a large extent responsive to those circumstances.

The problems with the 'voluntary' nature of capitalism are best summed up by Anatole France: How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!

...because it's so voluntary to participate in western capitalism?

EDIT: Point being, the economic milieu one finds one's self in, is that in which one tends to be obligated to participate — especially at the lower levels of power within that model.

That is: regular folk are trapped in the system they're born into. It is not meaningful to call their participation voluntary on their part. They may have nominally more freedom within the model in capitalism, but they're, on the whole, just as obligated to participate; they are just as much grist for the mill, under either model.

You're confusing communism with transition socialism.

And "no coercion" is contradicts the claim of it being communist how?

Unhappy = Dead might be an explanation for that.

In places with an established drug scene I'd expect that unhappy customer == dead dealer, because other parties will work to protect their commons (reputation of the market) against random defectors looking for quick buck.

Really? It's remarkable that we don't hear regularly how dissatisfied people are with their drug dealer? Think about that for just a second...