really? That's called propaganda, ever heard of it? Unless the people directly control the government, then its not under the definition of socialism.
remember revolutionary Spain, anarchist Ukraine? Even the USSR ran majority on elected local councils, even the big council that ran the military and other national stuff was elected, unlike the """""democracy""""" in the united states.
"dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state."
propaganda or stupid. The goal is to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words majority rule. This can have a "government", although it is very different from one under capitalism. In fact in state socialism it starts fading away immediately. Then other branches understand a state isn't even needed.
Either way, the state is literally the people of the society and not an oppressive mass like you make it out to be, well that's what it is under socialism anyway. I am an anarchist, but unlike you I understand the nature of states.
Also the "turning it over to the state" part is very incorrect. The people labouring on it manage it, and the state arises out of that. Not the other way around.
I read the wikipedia article on Anarcho-syndicalism. It seems to me that the idea is rationalized theft, because the majority wants something that a minority has.
has? No, they only control it. Anarchist syndicalism is simply the workers taking control of what they have always used and keeping what they produce, instead of allowing it to be stolen by the rich who do no labor themselves but somehow "own" (control) the products the working class creates.
I read the link. I think you assume, what I know about the state, rather than asking me first on what I know. The Marx paper assumes nobody crosses over from being a worker to being a business owner. When I started a business, I discovered that all of my customers were capitalists in regard to how they wanted to use their currency and capital. Nobody wanted to pay more than they could get by with regardless of the benefit to those who worked with me.
Marx definitely brought up reasons to envy, but each person must make choices in how they will live, how they will provide for themselves and what they will value. I value not taking someone's stuff, just because I want it. Just as I value that someone else, doesn't take my stuff, just because they want it.
The Communist states that have formed have led to the deaths of millions. Would Anarchist syndicalism be different? I can not say, however, I am not keen to see the logical consequences of it being put into action, based on past Communist experiments.
I looked for the tenets of socialism: This seems to be a good source on it. http://money.howstuffworks.com/socialism1.htm
that's pure propaganda.
Why don't you read a book that was, I don't know, made by a socialist?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism
The "State" is simply a majority rule.
It looks to me that it is the government that controls the means of production in socialism.
really? That's called propaganda, ever heard of it? Unless the people directly control the government, then its not under the definition of socialism.
remember revolutionary Spain, anarchist Ukraine? Even the USSR ran majority on elected local councils, even the big council that ran the military and other national stuff was elected, unlike the """""democracy""""" in the united states.
So you are saying that the howstuffworks article is propaganda?
"dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state."
propaganda or stupid. The goal is to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words majority rule. This can have a "government", although it is very different from one under capitalism. In fact in state socialism it starts fading away immediately. Then other branches understand a state isn't even needed.
Either way, the state is literally the people of the society and not an oppressive mass like you make it out to be, well that's what it is under socialism anyway. I am an anarchist, but unlike you I understand the nature of states.
Also the "turning it over to the state" part is very incorrect. The people labouring on it manage it, and the state arises out of that. Not the other way around.
I read the wikipedia article on Anarcho-syndicalism. It seems to me that the idea is rationalized theft, because the majority wants something that a minority has.
has? No, they only control it. Anarchist syndicalism is simply the workers taking control of what they have always used and keeping what they produce, instead of allowing it to be stolen by the rich who do no labor themselves but somehow "own" (control) the products the working class creates.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
This explains the nature of the control.
I read the link. I think you assume, what I know about the state, rather than asking me first on what I know. The Marx paper assumes nobody crosses over from being a worker to being a business owner. When I started a business, I discovered that all of my customers were capitalists in regard to how they wanted to use their currency and capital. Nobody wanted to pay more than they could get by with regardless of the benefit to those who worked with me.
Marx definitely brought up reasons to envy, but each person must make choices in how they will live, how they will provide for themselves and what they will value. I value not taking someone's stuff, just because I want it. Just as I value that someone else, doesn't take my stuff, just because they want it.
The Communist states that have formed have led to the deaths of millions. Would Anarchist syndicalism be different? I can not say, however, I am not keen to see the logical consequences of it being put into action, based on past Communist experiments.