Socialism isn't based on wage labour, so that isn't something that can really be answered with a yes:no response. The goal would be to abolish private industry and wage labour and replace it with workers' self-management of their industries.

Anarchism was used as a socialist/leftist term before being appropriated by anarcho-capitalists.

Sure, but anarchism is the absence of state. IMO in the absence of force people will naturally slide in to a hierarchical system based on decentralized authority and power where most of the wealth will be focused in the hands of a few. Without a state, you expect the opposite result?

In the absence of force? How do you coincide that with wealth being focused in the hands of the few? They would need force to maintain that power. And no, I don't expect the opposite to occur just from abolishing the state, the economic system has to be replaced too.

What makes you think that? In any case, workers' revolt will always exist as long as they're being chained, bound, and pushed down. Whether or not we will reach the point of socialist revolution before humans cease to exist, I don't know, but what is certain is that there will always be people fighting against poor conditions as long as poor conditions exist.

I mean centralized, state force. in the 1800's you have private militias that were larger than the entire US military for hire by large corporate entities. That's what I'd expect to happen without state force, private militias for hire that act as enforcers for the rich and powerful that rise to the top of the economic ladder. How you expect to replace an economic system without a state to enforce it? Do you mean like a "Zeitgeist movie" type system?

So, what would prevent them from just making another state? That'd legitimize their power through laws and institutions. Many socialists also don't expect to replace an economic system without a state to enforce it, that's what the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to. Essentially the state would suppress counter-revolutionary action and once accomplished the state would no longer be needed. As for anarchists, anarchy does not equal chaos, so even if there was no state, there'd still be some form of organization, as with the current population and industrial system it's impossible not to.

I've grown to understand that there are a lot of plain mean spirited people around here. No wonder people don't like Labo. It would warm your hearts too much.

Where? I havent seen any.

On this site? I tend to consider myself a fairly empathetic/sympathetic person, but I am also an emotional one and thus I spent much more time than I should debating morality, politics, economics, sociology, psychology, etc.