[dhakker]

I can’t tell if you’re serious, but in the case you are:

It would be hard to find or read any serious writings of Marx that doesn’t espouse this idea. Das Kapital is essentially nothing but an elaboration of why workers should control the means of production.

Most of Marx’s influential work was academic, and Europeans generally understand that his legacy lives in the the laws described here. Dissenters usually highlight the early stuff like Capitalist Manifesto; the equivalent of a student protest flyer. But this is terribly short-sighted and misrepresents his impact on European economics and law. He is the one of the most studied men of the 19th century for a reason.

And the only ultimate recommendation Marx made with confidence in his academic work was exactly that workers own the means of production by way of democracy.

He was something of a democracy absolutist and basically called out liberal capitalist economies for encouraging democracy in every part of society except for the workplace.

There is really not anything more Marxist than giving more control to workers.

[genericid]

I meant that Marx did not advocate codetermination, as in, leaving most control to the capitalists.

[dhakker]

That’s definitely debatable. Marx was far from clueless about the benefits of capitalism. We need to recognize Marx was not against leadership. He was simply for democracy. He was intentionally vague in his prescriptions, and increasingly so in the academic work his legacy is built on. It’s more accurate to say he simply accepted the challenges of democratic means of production instead of denying them, because he thought the latter as immoral and ultimately harmful to society, due to the resulting deterioration of what he called modes of production.

He was a proponent of technology, celebrated innovation, and fully acknowledged that capitalism systemically enouraged their existence. He even wrote about the importance of capitalism to art.

Marx lived in a time and place of agregious social malpractice in the name of capitalism. His conceptions did not lack nuance, but they did evoke urgency. And rightfully so.