[Davea8]

With that said, the goal is working class control of the means of production.

Why is that the goal, any more than student control of universities, or private soldier control of the military?

My bad. I should have been clearer. I meant "according to socialist theory" the goal is working class control of the means of production. Student control of universities and private soldier control of the military are not goals of socialism.

[Truth To Power]

With that said, the goal is working class control of the means of production.

Why is that the goal, any more than student control of universities, or private soldier control of the military?

My bad. I should have been clearer. I meant "according to socialist theory" the goal is working class control of the means of production. Student control of universities and private soldier control of the military are not goals of socialism.

OK. But I'm no closer to understanding why working class control of the means of production (assuming we can even specify what that means) would be the goal of socialism.

[AuRomin]

It is a goal under the assumption that members of the working class won't abuse other members of the working class as the bourgeoisie do. The goal is better conditions, more equality, etc.

[Davea8]

It is a goal under the assumption that members of the working class won't abuse other members of the working class as the bourgeoisie do. The goal is better conditions, more equality, etc.

That, and the absence of the profit motive associated with private ownership, which invariably leads to greed and exploitation and all the evils that go with it.

[Truth To Power]

It is a goal under the assumption that members of the working class won't abuse other members of the working class as the bourgeoisie do.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man; under communism, it's just the opposite." -- JK Galbraith

The bourgeoisie per se only have the POWER to abuse the working class to the extent that they own privileges. I.e., the working class can only be abused because their rights to liberty have been removed by force and made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners. Because Marxism falsely pretends there is no important difference between owning land and owning capital, it incorrectly concludes that because landowning enables abuse of the working class, so does owning capital. The difference is very easy to explain and to understand, but socialists consciously and deliberately CHOOSE not to understand it. They CHOOSE to preserve their false and evil belief system by blankly refusing to know the fact that the owner of capital only has the power to offer the working class access to opportunity they would not otherwise have had, while the landowner has the power to DEPRIVE them of access to opportunity they WOULD otherwise have had. The capital owner can inherently only improve the condition of the working class. The landowner can inherently only degrade it.

The goal is better conditions, more equality, etc.

Then Marxists and other socialists will have to start by finding a willingness to know the fact that it is ownership of land that enables abuse of the working class, not ownership of capital.

That, and the absence of the profit motive associated with private ownership, which invariably leads to greed and exploitation and all the evils that go with it.

No, you are factually incorrect. Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is indeed the root of all manner of evil, but the profit motive does not imply greed or exploitation. Greed is defined as excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves. The profit motive means people can obtain more for themselves either by deserving more -- i.e., by making a greater contribution to production of goods and services -- or by appropriating more by dint of privilege or unscrupulous practices. You need to find a willingness to know the fact that the enemies of the working class are privilege and dishonesty, not the profit motive.

[Davea8]

The bourgeoisie per se only have the POWER to abuse the working class to the extent that they own privileges. I.e., the working class can only be abused because their rights to liberty have been removed by force and made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners. Because Marxism falsely pretends there is no important difference between owning land and owning capital, it incorrectly concludes that because landowning enables abuse of the working class, so does owning capital. The difference is very easy to explain and to understand, but socialists consciously and deliberately CHOOSE not to understand it. They CHOOSE to preserve their false and evil belief system by blankly refusing to know the fact that the owner of capital only has the power to offer the working class access to opportunity they would not otherwise have had, while the landowner has the power to DEPRIVE them of access to opportunity they WOULD otherwise have had. The capital owner can inherently only improve the condition of the working class. The landowner can inherently only degrade it.

I can quote well known writers, theoreticians, and political scholars to support my statements. What do you have for support for your statements?

No, you are factually incorrect. Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is indeed the root of all manner of evil, but the profit motive does not imply greed or exploitation. Greed is defined as excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves.

Good definition. That defines what we have when a person who has enough money that he can spend $1 million every day for the rest of his life, works to acquire more, more, more.

You need to find a willingness to know the fact that the enemies of the working class are privilege and dishonesty, not the profit motive.

I think Bill Gates and many others throughout history have proved that successful fulfillment of the profit motive leads to "an excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves."

[Truth To Power]

The bourgeoisie per se only have the POWER to abuse the working class to the extent that they own privileges. I.e., the working class can only be abused because their rights to liberty have been removed by force and made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners. Because Marxism falsely pretends there is no important difference between owning land and owning capital, it incorrectly concludes that because landowning enables abuse of the working class, so does owning capital. The difference is very easy to explain and to understand, but socialists consciously and deliberately CHOOSE not to understand it. They CHOOSE to preserve their false and evil belief system by blankly refusing to know the fact that the owner of capital only has the power to offer the working class access to opportunity they would not otherwise have had, while the landowner has the power to DEPRIVE them of access to opportunity they WOULD otherwise have had. The capital owner can inherently only improve the condition of the working class. The landowner can inherently only degrade it.

I can quote well known writers, theoreticians, and political scholars to support my statements.

I.e., their incorrect opinions. But you can quote no facts.

What do you have for support for your statements?

The facts of objective physical reality, which I have identified for you.

No, you are factually incorrect. Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is indeed the root of all manner of evil, but the profit motive does not imply greed or exploitation. Greed is defined as excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves.

Good definition.

It can be found in any good dictionary.

That defines what we have when a person who has enough money that he can spend $1 million every day for the rest of his life, works to acquire more, more, more.

No, it does not. The person who works to acquire more by contributing commensurately more is not greedy, because he does not seek more than he deserves. It is those who work to acquire more without contributing more -- or, typically, contributing anything at all -- who are greedy, whether they are rich or not.

You need to find a willingness to know the fact that the enemies of the working class are privilege and dishonesty, not the profit motive.

I think Bill Gates and many others throughout history have proved that successful fulfillment of the profit motive leads to "an excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves."

But you are incorrect. It is their excessive, rapacious desire for more than they deserve that has led to their successful fulfillment of the profit motive.

You see? Railing against "the profit motive" is just the socialists' way of distracting people's (including their own) attention from the crucial distinction: profit made by commensurate contribution, or profit made by dint of privilege, without making any commensurate contribution. Their purpose is to pretend that all profit is unearned. The capitalist, by contrast, lauds the profit motive using the exact same distinction-blurring "logic," but does so in order to pretend that all profit is earned.

[Davea8]

I'll give you this: there are always exceptions. But it's the trends that getchya.

IOW, your mention of exceptions mean little.

[Truth To Power]

I'll give you this: there are always exceptions. But it's the trends that getchya.

IOW, your mention of exceptions mean little.

I didn't mention any exceptions. I identified the fact that both socialists and capitalists are engaged in pretending that two very different things are the same thing; they just do so for opposite reasons. But the pretense is necessary to both ideologies.