Not being well-versed in Marxism/Marxist thought, I have often wondered why, if they believed they were being exploited, did they not just start their own enterprises to overcome this alleged exploitation?
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
Thats too narrow of a solution for Marxists, as the enterprise would still exist within a "capitalist" structure. Sounds fine for worker's co-operative advocates though.
By "they", you mean the workers?
Of course workers start their own enterprises, and become the new bosses. Samuel Walton, once a department store clerk, started Wal-Mart.
None of this would (probably) relate to the issues Marxists discuss, since the former worker would hire other workers after becoming the boss. That's still a problem for them.
The core issue is having other people work at all in your enterprise but be paid only wages and not a share of "what they helped produce". They oppose using other people's labour, because they consider it inefficient. I say inefficient, because morality has no room in the anti-ideological Marxist thought.
Not going to say any more, but that's a vague summation with some minor incorrections, I guess.
By "they", you mean the workers? By "they" I mean any adherent of Marxism be they worker or non (if this means anything in Marxist thought. From what you have explained Prateek (and I will assume you are correct, or at least reasonably close to it), Marxism presents itself with some strange (for lack of a better word) dilemmas.
By "they" I mean any adherent of Marxism be they worker or non (if this means anything in Marxist thought.
From what you have explained Prateek (and I will assume you are correct, or at least reasonably close to it), Marxism presents itself with some strange (for lack of a better word) dilemmas.
Some of them do.
In the documentary Anarchism in America, they briefly show a "worker owned" enterprise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-TeGrv32Ig&feature=related
You'll have to search the documentary for the part where they show the factory, it's been a while since I've seen the film.
Sure, there are many dillemmas to Marxism.
Marxism deals with interests and needs of the working class, but none of the prominent Marxists, including Marx, was from the working class. Some Marxists condemn "bourgeoisie economics", although many of them cite the same economics to show how price/wage controls and bureaucracy are imperfect alternatives to socialism, and will say that such economics was creating by the upper class to oppress the working class. But if we had to reject every idea that comes from rich upper class people, we will have to reject Marxism for the exact same reason.
Obviously, these dillemmas can be explained by expert Marxists, but those wouldn't be working class people, especially since division of labour means you can use most of your time working or most of your time studying Marxism, but not both together.
ImagesandWords:Not being well-versed in Marxism/Marxist thought, I have often wondered why, if they believed they were being exploited, did they not just start their own enterprises to overcome this alleged exploitation?
Because it's not spectacular enough. Marxists were revolutionaries, most of all they wanted to make a fuzz.
Marxist theory also had enough sense to realize that companies that 'exploited' would out-compete the ones the Marxists founded. Companies that didn't exploit couldn't make a profit, because according to Marxist theory profit is surplus value derived from paying workers less than they are really worth. The companies the Marxists founded would eventually run out of money. The only way to 'end exploitation' was to impose it through the state.
Didn't they argue it would fall apart all by itself, once return on capital fell to zero and wages kept getting higher due to increasingly scarce workers?
Prateek Sanjay:Didn't they argue it would fall apart all by itself, once return on capital fell to zero and wages kept getting higher due to increasingly scarce workers?
Yes. That was Marx' theory, that capitalism would collapse on itself because surplus value would be squeezed out of production. At the same time the communists wanted the government to take over the economy, look at their ten short-term demands in the communist manifesto. I don't know how those two square. But it's not like Marxism is particularly consistent.
Prateek Sanjay: Obviously, these dillemmas can be explained by expert Marxists, but those wouldn't be working class people, especially since division of labour means you can use most of your time working or most of your time studying Marxism, but not both together.
ImagesandWords: Not being well-versed in Marxism/Marxist thought, I have often wondered why, if they believed they were being exploited, did they not just start their own enterprises to overcome this alleged exploitation?
1. They wanted to set up co-ops,communes and the like.
2. BUT the existence of the capitalist order would prevent it or make it difficult to do.
3. Their opposition was to wage labour i.e. working for others not wages itself.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.