Political Memes

I think you're having some issues separating your specific ideas and ideology from definitions and history here. I'll, much like you, start with your last statement. But not before thanking you for a well thought out response.

There are multiple forms of syndicalism that have existed throughout the years and though you may see them as building towards a noble goal of anarchism, that's objectively not every instances goal nor is it needed for the definition. Sure, syndicalism is incredibly helpful to build an anarchist future, but it can also end up simply building a better future inside another system. It's not about convincing you it's about describing historic acts. Once more syndicalism is descriptive of a collection of similar movements. It is not something designed by a person or group. It's descriptive, not proscriptive. Many, yes, are anarchist, but not all. Look at Canadian and American efforts who at the time were not called syndicalist but now are correctly classified as such. Look at the original french movements. This is not a calling out. Syndicalism is a fantastic method which brings out quite a lot of good. As for platformism, I'd agree, it's a form of syndicalism.

This is like stating that a builder makes homes. Sure, they can make homes, and we can agree they should, but they can also create a company HQ. They're still builders. One can say since they're not working towards a goal we agree with they are not builders, but they wouldn't be correct in a literal sense.

Now, onto socialism. As a socialist I resent the idea that socialism is synonomous with communism and disagree with it being historically thought of as such. Socialism has been distinctwidely known as distinct from communism since the 1840s, less than 10 years after it's first usage.

I believe you to be confused too by what I mean. I do not believe Stalinist russia to be socialist. That fascist authoritarian, much like another, just used that word as a bludgeon and a rallying cry. Socialism is worker control, and ownership, over industry. That is all. Though there was quite alot of worker control under the USSR I would argue under command economics the true owner was the government. The workers still had alot more power over their workplace, thus my description of it being socialistic.

no, however, stalin did not make these terms different. they've been so since the 1840s and both marx and lenin described them as such.

Socialism has been, will be, and currently is a system where the workers have control and ownership over industry. I see no reason to conflate it with communism, a money-less, classless, stateless system where resources are distributed equitably. That would make the term meaningless.

Lastly, on anarchism, that is a word with a fairly well defined definition too. Anarchism is simply any anti-hirachical system that is fundamentally against any system of authority. We can agree that an anarcho-capitalist sociaty would quickly devolve into a system with well defined authorities but at that point it would nolonger be anarcho-capitalist. The system as defined is an anarchist solution. It's just an increadibly stupid one that'll instantly implode unlike more well thought out forms. I'll be clear here, though I am not an anarchist I do see reason in the communist form of anarchist movements.

As for communism differing from anarchism, your example is a-historic. Since you speak on a vanguard party, I assume you mean leninism as marx did not write on this. Leninists, maoists, etc, did not believe it had to pass though capitalism. Quite the opposite they thought a vanguard party could skip this part. What you describe as anarchism, direct action by the prolatariate, is also part of leninism as he thought the same. He simply believed that the prolatariate needed to be spurred to action by increasing their quality of life and education before they overtake the vanguard party in a second, violant revolt. It seems that you do conflate the two ideas of anarchism and communism when it comes to the end goal though differentiate only on methodology. This is not the case however as one can have a system with no authority, no hyrarchy, which still has money as long as that money is evenly distributed and wealth isn't allowed to accrue. Or, where a state still exists, but only exists through direct democracy on each action. Both would be poor solutions but still anarchist solutions.

Even if you aim to not have one, one will naturally form. Then you gotta enforce it, which ironically creates it, and an authority becomes elite through power or wealth, etc. Pick any social ism you like and that's the natural outcome. Millions of years of nature can't be suddenly undone by an idea or school of thought. The issue has always been us and ideas of a better society never factor in that it's for humans that be all humany.

I mean, it’s kind of like the concept of the benevolent dictator.

…benevolent to whom?