Marxism is not the answer

I've heard it said by the likes of those including Richard Wolf that the middle man needs to be taken out of the equation and the workers should own the company themselves.

Isn't that already a foundation stone of the American experience?

What is to prevent a group of individuals in getting together to create a company? Why is it more important for Marxists to take away that which others have labored for in exchange for their doing the same?

An excuse for this way of thinking is that the worker has a gap in pay from what they receive and what the company as a whole profits. Myself being a layman in the world of finance still assumes that at least operating costs are going to remain a factor no matter whose or how many names are on the articles of incorporation/Communist Manifesto. There will also have to be a board of sorts with people appointed to positions of authority in order to make the company run efficiently. Before you know it, you've achieved quite the bureaucracy. I've been witness to how "boards of ministry" in foreign countries operate, and most Americans wouldn't like it. This ultimately causes the "company" and the "government" to become synonymous.

In my opinion, when the "equality of outcome" of the individual is established at the end of the day by the government, competitiveness is eliminated and "status quo" rules.

But, that's just my opinion.

BRIAN PHILLIPS, Cape Girardeau