Just to clarify: my understanding was that, in very broad strokes, it's socialism in which the means of production are owned by the state. Then in communism the means of production are owned by the community, in syndicalism they're owned by the workers, and in capitalism they're owned by individuals (or legal individuals).
For example, take ACME Inc, located in Anytown, USA:
- in socialism, ACME is owned by the US government
- in communism, ACME is owned by Anytown
- in syndicalism, ACME is owned by ACME employees
- in capitalism, ACME is owned by an individual, or collection of individuals, that may have little-or-nothing to do with ACME itself.
Open to correction and I'll re-iterate that these are enormous generalizations.
I'm partial to a form of syndicalism where ACME is owned by everyone who has an interest in it, and the syndicate is simply a consensing subset of those people. Other syndicates may form and will have equal "ownership" of the ACME "assets". Usage rights are negotiated then through social norms around divisibility (we cut the cake until it'd be pointless to cut it further). Essentially, there is no property.
I'm not sure if there is a term for this. I always thought that was what anarcho-syndicalism was, but reading on Wikipedia says that term indicates this "worker-owned" setup that you're describing.
For example, take ACME Inc, located in Anytown, USA:
- in socialism, ACME is owned by the US government
- in communism, ACME is owned by Anytown
- in syndicalism, ACME is owned by ACME employees
- in capitalism, ACME is owned by an individual, or collection of individuals, that may have little-or-nothing to do with ACME itself.
Open to correction and I'll re-iterate that these are enormous generalizations.