[Open-source software]
>
>It's neat, isn't it?
>
>Now in class I can point to *modern* examples of anarchic, non-market
>economic organizations--rather than having to talk about the Kula chains of
>the Pacific Islanders.
You could have talked about the Internet itself. But "non-market" is inappropriate to both contexts.
Nothing in the OSS concept prevents people from making money: in the words of the folks at the Free Software Foundation (e.g., see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html ), "'Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of `free speech', not `free beer.'" (and note that FSF is commonly seen as positioned on the "left side" of the OSS movement).
"Anarchic" it may well be, but far from being "non-market", OSS is the living proof that, today, free markets do not necessarily blackhole into monopolies, even without the intervention of the govenment's "visible hand". In fact, some people allege that the "halloween memo" may have been leaked deliberately by Microsoft, in an attempt to lessen the pressure in the current antitrust trial.
Enzo