Republican Freeper Myths #2-The businessman as hero

[EstimatedProphet]

It's always amazed my how much credibility is given Ayn Rand by the RW. Sometimes I have to wonder if the Randroids even read her stuff. Case in point: one of Rand's principles was that businesses and corporations power the economy by hiring people, and therefore they are "heroic" in their efforts. Without them, the economy would falter, people would be unemployed, mass calamity, etc. Labor is therefore a kind of parasite on business, and absorbs its strength. Labor therefore owes a debt of gratitude to business, which (see the closing of Atlas Shrugged, where the hero comes down out of the mountains to rebuild) hires people for the good of society.

Sure.

Does anyone seriously believe this? Does anyone actually believe that businesses are hiring people out of an altruistic desire to benefit the community?

1) Labor recirculates money into the economy through purchase of consumer goods. If this money decreases, or goes away, the businesses that produce goods sell less, therefore impacting their profits, which in turn leads to layoffs, and lessening profits, and a growing downward spiral. Kind of like what we've been going through for the past 3 years...(this is of course an exaggeration for effect, but the principle is the same). Money going through the hands of labor on a nationwide scale recirculates back into corporate and business profits (and thus back into the hands of labor) through consumer purchases, new housing starts, stock investments, etc. The idea that labor is a parasite sucking at the corporate wellspring of life is blatantly false.

2) Any business in existence would happily cut their staff, if it meant that they could increase their profits. For example, if business A finds out that if cutting staff results in no significant loss of production, business A is certain to layoff staff. If a business could get away with cutting all their labor and keep bringing in profits, it would do it immediately. Labor does not have any moral debt to business stemming from employment. Businesses see labor as a means to an end, the end being production of goods and profits. Giving businesses corporate welfare money to produce nothing (such as the business tax cuts, which didn't help them increase production at all) does just what the freepers say social welfare does: it makes the corporations lazy. Why work to produce if they get money anyway?

This is all pretty obvious, really. Why do I bring it up?
Because even though it is obvious, there's still people that believe the nonsense about businesses being "owed" for their production driving the economy, and state it as proven fact.
Because this is the root of corporate welfare.
Because these policies are doing exactly what we would expect them to do: hold down employment
It will blow up in our faces. Our GDP is due to drop, and along with that will go construction, and stocks will fall eventually too. The drop in the dollar is just the beginning.
I know I am preaching to the choir on DU, but it drives me nuts that more people don't see this.

[BiggJawn]

1. Where would Business be without Labour?

Capital is like a disconected battery, lots of potential, but without Labour to complete the circuit, no energy flows, no work is done.

And where would all us wretched Labourers be without kindly Business to let us lick the sweat off their nuts?

Oh, who knows? we might be "hunter-gatherers" again. Yeah, Business would really survive with a warehouse full of widgets and nobody interested in buying them, wouldn't they?

Hope the widgets are tasty.

So, this is how the Captains of Industry comfort themselves and whistle in the graveyard? They read Ayn Rand?

[EstimatedProphet]

2. Maybe that's how

they get to be the captains of industry...by reading Ayn Rand.
Her philosophical essays are complete burbling garbage.

[KG]

3. heh

her novels sucked also.

[JohnKleeb]

7. KG you want Rand is good for

Toilet paper.

[mitchum]

13. Yes, terrible philosopher and terrible novelist...

who pulled off the seemingly impossible trick of writing leaden purple prose. A singular "talent"

[leftyandproud]

16. Rand was THE anti-Marx...

seriously...

Atlas Shrugged, though 100% fiction had a philosophy that was literally the super duper extreme 180 degree flip-flop polar opposite of what Marx outlined in his "manifesto". This is why she is loved by so many on the right...and vice versa on our side.

[minkyboodle]

89. Ayn Rand

ended a relationship I was in once. The girl I dated was crazy about her. Made me read The Fountainhead.... I hated it and pointed out how funny it was that most Ayn Rand fans are at the top of the class structure in this country.... relationship went downhill from there. oh well (I'm an evil collectivist).... Also Rand is on record defending Native American genocide saying that Native Americans had no rights to the land since they weren't using it properly... Her philosophy is full of holes and taken to its logical conclusion it is down right frightening...
Scott

[Demonaut]

10. Labour or Colour, TAmaatoe, TaMAtoe..crisps or potato chips

cookies or biscuits, sweets or candy, windshield or windscreen, carport or driveway, wanker or.....we'll leave that one alone

[Stupdworld]

4. no

businesses hire people out of a desire to expand production and sales and affect the bottom line. thats why.

[camero]

9. Actually

Businesses hire people to do what they themselves can't or won't do.
Wait until production is fully automated and then see what happens.

Unrealistic you say? Check this out.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1384

TOKYO, (AFP) - Japan's top carmaker Toyota will develop a humanoid robot designed to help factory workers and provide assistance in nursing care and rescue operations.

[bilger]

5. Its complicated...

There are a lot of factors at work, who knows what will happen. A weak dollar will actually benefit our country in a lot of ways. It makes our exports a lot cheaper so corporate profits may rise.

[Redleg]

11. But higher corporate profits don't necessarily translate to higher wages

or higher employment.

[tarheel]

29. In my experience

higher corporate profits almost "NEVER" lead to higher wages or greater employment. They most certainly do lead to greater shareholder profit and greater CEO and executive compensation !

And I know some people will say that more and of the American public is invested in the stock market through 401Ks and so forth, but the amount of investment most of us have in these plans is miniscule compared to the corporate bigwigs. We also usually have far less control over our investments in 401Ks than the execs do in their portfolios.

One example would be that in my companies 401K plan, I cannot execute trades in real time. My trades or transactions only take effect at a predetermined time at the close of business, thus preventing me from taking advantage of higher stock prices that may be available during the days trading.

I could always develop a personal portfolio of my own outside the company 401K, and I would, if my wages would increase enough for me to have the disposable income to do it !

I owe my corporate master exactly as much loyalty as they give to me, and that is JACK SQUAT !!!

[Redleg]

90. Well said.

EOM

[EstimatedProphet]

74. And this is a perfect case where higher wages wouldn't result

Corporate profits made from a devalued dollar justifies the outsourcing of jobs overseas. Corporations can then say "See? We don't need to raise employment in the US, so let's keep outsourcing to cheaper labor." The bottom line is unaffected that way, and the American worker is out of luck; not needed for labor, not needed for consumerism. Nice.

[BiggJawn]

17. Ah, the false theology of "Trickle-Down" again....

Which has been proven to be "dribble-down", with Labour sitting under Capital's urinal.

[Comadreja]

88. Maybe it's an old joke

But the only way money will trickle down to the bottom is if you squeeze the sponges at the top.

[maggrwaggr]

6. gee, I thought it's cuz people wanted to buy stuff

and the businesses just took advantage of that need.

silly me!

So whoever's sending me all those e-mails about the Penis Patch is a hero?

[Demonaut]

8. Like the Picture, Can't stand Ayn Rand, no pun intended

Books suck, visuals are poor....but some consider her works classic

[alwynsw]

12. I'm a retired CEO - was I altruistic in my hiring? No.

Did I consider my fellow employees when setting, abd later, providing guidance on wages and benefits? You bet your ass I did. A few points:

Starting salary in my company was almost 8K per year above the local mean.

Full health insurance (vision, eye, dental) for employees and their families - including unmarried couples - gay or straight - no difference at no cost to the employees.

Can't have or choose not to have kids and want to adopt? Up to $10,000.00 reimbursement of expenses for each adoption - including travel.

Child care on site at no cost to the employees.

That's just a taste. I founded the company, took it public, hired a CEO with a better resume' than mine, and retired.

Please don't lump all corporations together. yes. I realize that my company is in the extreme minority.

Don't ask the name. I won't give it. I don't want to be accused of pushing a service for my own benefit, which is contrary to the rules of DU. I'm still a major shareholder and sit on the Board. (I gave up my board seat twice, but they keep asking me to come back.)

on edit: I'm no hero. Also, no layoffs to date, although we could automate a great deal of the work and have done so. no layoffs anticipated.

[Occulus]

82. So, you were one of the few "good guys."

That still does not change the fact that corporations have, on the whole, taken a rapist's advantage of their personhood "rights" under the law.

Corporations should not have any rights of any kind, and even though you did not abuse your position, there are far, far more bad apples in the basket than there are good, as you mentioned.

Revoking corporate personhood and putting outright and impentrable locks on their behavior is the only thing that can stop corporate abuses.

[sweetheart]

14. i take issue

not that a business founder is hero, but that the alternative is an appointed apparachik and at least i worked my bunz off to be managing director and hire a buncha staff.

I had a lucrative consulting business in manhattan, and instead of just raking in the profits and being cash-rich, i invested by hiring people "FAIRLY" as i've always had buddhist ethics... the result was a company employing less that 50 staff in manhattan in early 90's.

I held 100% of the shares until the second stage growth capital suppliers started coming on board to "throw out the founder" and make it grow further.

I worked for real, 20 hour days for years to make that business fly. I calculated my actual salary for the first 5 years of the business and it was 20K. Everyone earned more than i did, as i was the last to take cash out of the account. The venture capitalists who took it over crashed it within a year and left me with millions in worthless paper... so i employed folks from 30 to 85K for 5 years, still get letters from various state tax agencies who are groping for taxes from a business long gone.... and i din't get shit.

I shoulda stayed independent, and kept my 300K a year 1 person business. Employing people was the worst mistake i ever made. They all hate you and when it all goes down, they all blame you.

I agree, its not heroism... it can be stupidity. Creating jobs is a stupid idea.

[leftyandproud]

15. BOTTOM LINE

Businessmen are SELFISH and GREEDY...They want MONEY!!!

BUT!!!!....to get money, they need to give people WHAT THEY WANT! They need to sell something the public wants at an acceptable and competitive price.....To sell stuff, they gotta HIRE people...They do create jobs in the pursuit of endless profit.

They aren't altruistic...They don't do it for the benefit of the workers. They do it for the benefit of themselves. It just so happens that a SIDE EFFECT of them pursuing their own selfish interests is that many people get nice jobs (See General Electrric, 400,000 employees...$20+ an hour with benefits and pensions...ditto with many other mega billion dollar corps)...the CEO may make a shitload of money...but a lot of "little people" live very decent lives thanks to the greed of those on top.

Adam Smith had the "invisible hand" concept mostly right.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. We ALL want money

Businessmen and laborers simply go about it different ways.

[Broken]

19. businessman/woman

"Businessmen and laborers simply go about it different ways."


The businessman/woman makes their profit off of worker's labor. Labor makes their money from a wage that is a small portion of what their labor power created.

The worker does not need the businessman/woman to survive, yet the businessman needs the worker to make their profits, for without the worker the office building, the factory, the warehouse, etc. would be useless without the worker and would have no value whatsoever. It is labor that creates value.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Both need each other

I am unwilling to demonize either as a group.

The laborer makes money off of the businessman's risk of HIS money. And the laborer is paid what he or she agrees to.

OK, how many laborers do you think could survive tomorrow if their businesses ceased to exist? How many could grow or capture enough food on their own? How many could make their own clothes, feed their families, provide homes and shelter, etc.?

Both groups would be useless without the other.

[Solon]

21. I take issue with that...

Let me say that I do not demonize either group myself, I have an uncle, who has for the last 2 years, been carrying his own employees at his own cost, due to the dot com bubble burst. However, I do not think Labor and Capital are inseparable, for Labor was here first, Capital second. For most of human history, people cooperated for survival and to thrive, mostly in hunter-gatherer societies, where Capital did not exist. Capital is useless without Labor, but Labor is far from useless without Capital. What about one person businesses, living off your own labor, isn't that what that is?

[Broken]

23. hi

"What about one person businesses, living off your own labor, isn't that what that is?"


I'm not talking about the self employed person, without any employees. I'm not talking about this kind of property, this doesn't create what I consider less than desirable social relationships.



I'm not saying your uncle is the devil, I think he would benefit from a much more humane economy as well.

[Solon]

30. My Uncle was very independant minded.

He refused a small business loan, years back, and had family and friends work for him off and on for years. His business grew, he is the sole owner, and employs more that 30 people now. When the tech bubble burst, he lost half his clients and so lost most of his revenue, but instead of cutting staff, he froze new employment, and then paid them out of his own pocket, and diversified. It was shaky for a while, but now he in slightly better shape. I find myself amazed at the difference between many small-business owners, and the huge corporations, who would cut staff, without regret, to save a million or 10, that they could spare.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Your uncle

He sounds like a cool guy, but he also owned the company. He made the decisions as an owner. In bigger companies, the management has an obligation to the owners to keep the firm afloat and can't dip into their own personal savings to do so.

[Solon]

35. Ah, but theres the rub...

In many bigger companies, it is not neccessarily for survival, but for bigger profit margins. They answer to shareholders, and the problem is treating employees, and Labor itself, as a cost, and not a benefit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Labor is both a cost and a benefit

And that is why bosses must make cost/benefit analyses and decide whether to cut or not.

Not every employee is valuable to a company. Some, in fact, are a big detriment.

[Solon]

45. No disagreement there...

However think of this, Labor is the mostly a boon to business, and as such are the benefit, employees loan their services to companies, not the other way around. Companies would not accept people if the cost outweighs the benefit, however they would fail in their endeavors if there was no labor. Yet people can and have survived without business, if the system allows it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Both are a boon to one another

Employees don't LOAN their services, they sell them. I sell a day's labor to a business and agree to terms. They can fire me and I can quit. It's fair. If I don't wish to do it, I can do something else.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. We passed hunter/gatherer a while back

We all need other products and services. Many of those require skills that are beyond what one person can do. Can one person build a car? Eventually, but I sure wouldn't want to drive it or get it serviced. Can one person drill for oil? Can one person create new life-saving drugs? Can one person run a hospital?

Again, it's an interdependent system.

[Broken]

27. .....

HI Muddleoftheroad,


I wasn't saying that all workers should work individually, but that if a worker wants to he/she has every right to be self employed.

capitalism doesn't create organization, people create organization naturally because we a social animals. We can still work together at a car factory, lab, warehouse and anything else that people will choose because it is usefull to them or others even.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. There we agree

Self employment of course is your right. I don't see anyone claiming otherwise. But there are huge limits to it.

[Solon]

34. I'm not claiming that individuals are Islands...

I am stating that the current Capitalistic system is recent in human history. Also the system itself is not idealistic or even realistic in its own aspirations. I point out the self employed as an example of Labor without Capital only. However, no one has ever completely survived on their own, except in few cases, and extraordinary ones at that. We are interdependant, however, why do we need it to be in the form of top-down systems, instead of bottom-up? What about cooperatives and other alternative business models? In those cases, Labor is directly rewarded with Capital, as both are truely interlinked, not handed down from on high by people who think they are your "Betters".

[Buffler]

37. Self employed without capital?

Please, show me one example of someone who is self employed who had no capital to start.

[Solon]

42. OK, I'll give it a shot...

In the past it was easier, but here is my take on it. Family farmers are an example. Many entrepernures started with literally nothing, in fact, my Uncle started his business in his basement, with no investors, and just a little money, and now he's successful. How many rags to riches stories do you need? The problem is that it is getting increasingly harder for small businesses to succeed, as the system itself lends itself to protect the large corporations over the small ones.

[Buffler]

44. Capital was used

Your uncle used capital to start his business. So I ask again, find me one single self employed individual who did it with no capital.

[Solon]

53. Defining the terms...

Alright, let me ask you a question, how do you define capital? I ask this, because, according the the dictionary it can be any form of wealth that is used to create more wealth in the form of businesses or partnerships, or corporations. So the case of my uncle is incorrect, however, what about the Family Farms. Are they proper Businesses?

[Buffler]

55. Capital

Capital is not only cash, but also assets. So farms use capital all the time in the form of equipment, and the capital needed to purchase them.

[Buffler]

39. Start your own business

We are interdependant, however, why do we need it to be in the form of top-down systems, instead of bottom-up? What about cooperatives and other alternative business models?

Put up your life savings, mortgage your house, and risk everything you have and start just such a business.

Instead of asking "why can't" go out there and DO!

[Broken]

46. /////

"Put up your life savings, mortgage your house, and risk everything you have and start just such a business.
Instead of asking "why can't" go out there and DO!"



I don't have the money to even own a house, and I don't have much of a savings besides an emergency
It's Hard for me to relate to you.

I don't want to work within this system, and I don't want to compete. My only choice is to rent myself to someone else for survival. You will probably find that staement ridiculous but it is just that. If my employer says go there, I must go there, if he says come here, I must come to him, if he says do this or that, I must do this or that. I can't escape from this by going to another employer for he will be asking the very same of me. And I will still not be able to reap the full rewards of my labor.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. This will sound cruel

But here goes. Too bad.

You, "don't want to work within this system," and you, "don't want to compete."

That means what? What are you willing to do to survive? You are not owed food and shelter and TV just to sit on your butt all day and contemplate your navel.

You clearly must have a job. But you don't seem to be willing to risk much to get what you want.

[Broken]

51. ...

I'm willing to WORK and reap those benefits from the work I do. Capitalism is what creates this extremely compettive culture/economy.,


You are using arguments that are contructed with the bias that capitalism is the default economy. But I'am saying that it is created to have power and rewards at the expense of the working class.


Now, I do have to go to work. It's been nice chatting.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Capitalism IS the economy

If you wish to find another, I wish you luck. There is nothing wrong with competition. It drives innovation, new creation, new concepts. If you wish to go out on your own and remove yourself from society, you might look up the Unibomber. I think that was his deal before he started blowing up people.

[rman]

66. how about regulated capitalism?

a liveable minimum wage, and a maximum wage and maximum capital so that unlimitted hoarding of wealth and power is not possible.

Then there would still be economy, competition, innovation etc. Or would you say that the prospect of 'wealth beyond your wildest dreams' is the motivator to innovate?
Make things better for yourself, sure. But unlimited? Why? There's only a limited amount of everything, you know.
Just look at what trickle down economics has done the past 30 years; the opposite of what it is supposed to do. This kind of capitalism Does Not make things better for everyone - the evidence is there for all to see. How is all this off-shoring and in-sourcing going to make things better for everyone? And how much do corporations profit from it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. A maximum wage?

You must be joking. And we have a minimum wage. If you increase it, firms will layoff people because their costs will go up.

[Buffler]

50. If you have the skills

to maintain successful employment you have the skills to be self employed. Many self employed persons started their business with very little money, and often as a "side project" to get it going in hopes of eventually being able to quit their W2 job and be completely self employed.

I am in a similar situation. I have a regular job but have a side business that brings in decent money on the side and that I enjoy a great deal.

[Solon]

58. Why do all that when it is not neccessary?

First off I do not have a life savings, nor a house, so those are out, but why can't I join a cooperative, or start one with several people. That's my point, many people have the skills and desire to start businesses, but not enough capital. If the risk is spread out, then the costs and risks are lowered individually plus you directly benefit from the labor you put in. You are the Laborer and Investor simultaniously, so why do people use outmoded system is beyond me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. You can start such a business

They need money to operate.

Taken a bit further, you just described the stock market. That's what they do, spread risk among the many so that businesses can get funding.

Why is this system so outmoded? Just because you don't like it? Not especially compelling.

[Solon]

67. Apples and oranges

Do Investors stock the shelves of their stores? Or drive the delivery trucks of their company? Or program the software of the company? While some employees own about .00000000001% of the total value of the company, in a few stocks, it is not an equal share or one based on the amount of labor they are contributing into the corporation itself.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Employees are paid for their work

Such a contract is voluntary. If they think they can make more elsewhere, then they should do so.

[pnb]

72. If its not necessary...

...then don't do it. Start exactly the type of system you prefer. That is something we have the freedom to do. That way you can work within a system you prefer.

[rman]

63. Still gathering resources though,

you know, oil and such.

In this system some are in a position where they have much more power then most others. That power can be (and more often then not is being) used to in effect force others to play their part in the system. It's kindof a screwed interdependency, to say the least.

[Broken]

22. I dissagree

"OK, how many laborers do you think could survive tomorrow if their businesses ceased to exist?"


The factory's, trucks, warehouse's, farms, homes, apartments, office buildings, trains, and so on that were made by the hands of workers would all still exist, if capitalists ceased to exist.



"How many could grow or capture enough food on their own? How many could make their own clothes, feed their families, provide homes and shelter, etc.?"


It is workers who make clothes, it is workers who grow food, it is workers who make apartments and houses that they can't live in for free. It is the private ownership of shelter outside of personal use that creates homlessness. And it is the private ownership of all the above property that creates unemployment while workers are wanting to work.


Your argument is implying that working people are too dumb to figure out how to do the work they already do without the crack of a whip or the carrot hanging just in front of their noses, and the authority of the property owner.



"Both groups would be useless without the other."


Workers Don't need the threat of unemployment to work.

It is actually workers who create all the value and it is capitalists who reap the most rewards from their work.



"I am unwilling to demonize either as a group."

In a way you are, or at least not respecting that working people have minds that can think as well as being able to work with their hands.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Ah those nasty capitalists

How dare they risk everything to run businesses.

Today, the factories and such would continue to exist. They would fall into disrepair pretty fast.

Last time I checked, bosses work. That makes them workers as well.

Working people aren't dumb. Our society is complex. None of us can make it very well on our own.

And I don't share your disdain for property.

It is not the threat of unemployment that makes workers work, it is the desire for a better life.

Workers who wish to reap their own labor merely need to start their own companies. They will find it a little bit more difficult than you make it sound.

You are wrong with your last statement. I don't think ANY of us can survive on our own -- effectively at least.

[Broken]

33. .....

"How dare they risk everything to run businesses."


They are taking that risk for more profits that workers will create, they wouldn't take that risk otherwise.



"Today, the factories and such would continue to exist. They would fall into disrepair pretty fast."


It is workers who keep up the factories and repair damages, there would no reason for them to fall into disrepair if workers are using it, other then natural wear and tear.



"It is not the threat of unemployment that makes workers work, it is the desire for a better life"


If they didn't work they wouldn't have food to eat, pay their bills, or have a home. These are the driving forces which make workers desire to work for someone else.

What I'm saying, is that working people would be able to reap all the rewards of their labor without the capitalist. This would better fulfill their desire to have a better life.


"Workers who wish to reap their own labor merely need to start their own companies. They will find it a little bit more difficult than you make it sound."



You make it sound like money grows on trees. In your statment you did imply that workers aren't reaping the full rewards of their labor while working for someone else. This is what I'm against, under capitalism there will always be this social relationship for if this social relationship ceased to exist everyone would be able to reap the full rewards of their labor.



"You are wrong with your last statement. I don't think ANY of us can survive on our own -- effectively at least."


I didn't really say that we would all stop working together.

[Buffler]

36. How?

What I'm saying, is that working people would be able to reap all the rewards of their labor without the capitalist.

How? Without the capatilist who would they work for? Themselves? Then they would be the capatilist.

You make it sound like money grows on trees

Actually it is you who seems to think money grows on trees. Without the capital and the capitalists who provide it, where would the money for hundred million dollar production plants come from? Or for $20 million dollar office building that houses many different businesses?

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Risk

The greater the risk, the greater the reward. Life is like that.

It is the workers who keep up factories and repair damage, but doing so costs money to buy parts, replace equipment, etc. Where do you expect that money will come from?

If working people want to, "be able to reap all the rewards of their labor without the capitalist," then they need to start their own companies and put up their own capital to do so.

As to your last point, you are the one demonizing one group. I am not.

[Broken]

49. /

"The greater the risk, the greater the reward. Life is like that."

It is reall the worker who is greatest at risk, if he or she lose their job they will possibly go homeless, not have food to buy, health insurance and such. While the capitalist has capital for each he can survive from others working for him.

[Buffler]

52. You need to learn

It is reall the worker who is greatest at risk, if he or she lose their job they will possibly go homeless, not have food to buy, health insurance and such. While the capitalist has capital for each he can survive from others working for him.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. You really have no clue do you. Sure, the worker can lose his job. But the capatilist who puts his own personal assets as risk to start the business is also subject to "losing it all". And it happens over and over every day.

Not all businesses are successful and thousands of people lose everything in their desire to start and grow their business. Many business owners have just as much trouble making ends meet as do their employees.

[Solon]

64. Both put in a risk.

However, I do not think he is talking about the small businesses that have single or a few owners who risk everything in a business. How much did the CEO of Enron risk, as an egregeous example? Or of any or the other large multi-nationals? How much sway do these people have over the lives of thousands of workers?

[Comadreja]

81. Totalitarian institutions in a democracy

All of your arguments would apply beautifully to the time of the robber barons. Capital is ALL. The corporation is a dictatorship. The workers slaving away at the coal mines should be grateful they have a job. Don't think exploitation is fair? Move on down the road, chump, there's plenty of fresh starving immigrants to take your place. Our forefathers fought the self-congratulatory capitalist mindset you seem to admire, and the labor unions were formed. There were more deaths from labor violence here than in any other country of the time, and most of it inflicted by your noble capitalists.the Unions don't fit in well with the capitalist vision, so they (the Carnegie's and Rockefellers et al)have used their wealth to corrupt government and steadily weaken labor unions. Without the unions, we would be little better off than Mexico. Unregulated capitalism is the enemy of humanity and the planet.

[Buffler]

32. I disagree with you

The factory's, trucks, warehouse's, farms, homes, apartments, office buildings, trains, and so on that were made by the hands of workers would all still exist, if capitalists ceased to exist.

And without labor to maintain these physical assets, and further labor to produce needed "fuel" to operate them they would fall into disrepair and crumble.

It is workers who make clothes, it is workers who grow food, it is workers who make apartments and houses that they can't live in for free.

And it is the business owners and investors who put up their money to create the businesses that these people are employed by to create said items.

It is the private ownership of shelter outside of personal use that creates homlessness.

The private ownership of "shelter" outside of ones primary residence creates homelessness? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

And it is the private ownership of all the above property that creates unemployment while workers are wanting to work.

How is my owning of assets such as a 2nd home, multiple vehicles, clothes, food, etc... causing unemployment?

Your argument is implying that working people are too dumb to figure out how to do the work they already do without the crack of a whip or the carrot hanging just in front of their noses, and the authority of the property owner.

Not at all. A vast majority of people prefer the saftey and security of being employed by someone else verse taking the risk of being self employed.


Workers Don't need the threat of unemployment to work.

Really? Go to work, sit on your butt all day, don't do your job and see how long you are employed. The threat of being fired for failure to perform most certainly is a factor in how people perform their jobs.

It is actually workers who create all the value and it is capitalists who reap the most rewards from their work.

It is the capatilists who put up the money (often many millions of dollars) and risk losing it all. Without people willing to risk and sacrafice to create and grow their business the "workers" wouldn't have a job.

In a way you are, or at least not respecting that working people have minds that can think as well as being able to work with their hands.

Working with ones hands is a great asset, as is working with ones mind. But unless you are self employed you need some "capatilist" to invest in a company for you to trade your mind and physical skills for a paycheck.

[Broken]

38. ....

"And without labor to maintain these physical assets, and further labor to produce needed "fuel" to operate them they would fall into disrepair and crumble."

ok



"The private ownership of "shelter" outside of ones primary residence creates homelessness? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard."


Really you don't think homeless people would choose to move into a vacant apartment or a hotel or a motel or even how about just a shitty piece of land where they can plant a tent without being kicked of that property.




"Really? Go to work, sit on your butt all day, don't do your job and see how long you are employed. The threat of being fired for failure to perform most certainly is a factor in how people perform their jobs."


Exactly, you are controlled at work which further shows that working peoples liberty is given up the minute they step in said property. It's great way to make workers keep on working for you, no?



"Without people willing to risk and sacrafice to create and grow their business the "workers" wouldn't have a job."


Workers only rely on capitalists to have a job is because private property disposses workers from land, machinery, homes, apartments and such. Without this ownership they wouldn't be dependent.

[Buffler]

41. This is getting funny

Really you don't think homeless people would choose to move into a vacant apartment or a hotel or a motel or even how about just a shitty piece of land where they can plant a tent without being kicked of that property.

And without the capitalist investing his money in hopes of an acceptable return those buildings would not have been built so there would be no vacant home or motel for them to move into.


Exactly, you are controlled at work which further shows that working peoples liberty is given up the minute they step in said property. It's great way to make workers keep on working for you, no?

Of course people give up some liberty when they enter the work place. As it should be. You have no 1st amendment rights while at work, nor do you have an expectation of privacy. Nor should you. Don't like it? Take a risk and start your own company. Millions of people do it every year.

Workers only rely on capitalists to have a job is because private property disposses workers from land, machinery, homes, apartments and such. Without this ownership they wouldn't be dependent.


Who would build the machinery, the factories to produce it, the homes and apartments, the thousands of items needed to build said things without someone risking their capital to build the companies that make these things? They won't be produced out of thin air.

Go out there and try to build a single thing you have mentioned in this thread without engaging in capatilism or dealing with capatilists.

It can not be done.

[Broken]

59. ...

"And without the capitalist investing his money in hopes of an acceptable return those buildings would not have been built so there would be no vacant home or motel for them to move into."


Working people can make those things without investing. It is private property that makes land valuable and a commodity.


You should read "The conquest of Bread" by peter Kropotkin. DO you know that intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have these same beliefs as me, but they are much more articulate.



"Of course people give up some liberty when they enter the work place. As it should be. You have no 1st amendment rights while at work, nor do you have an expectation of privacy. Nor should you. Don't like it? Take a risk and start your own company. Millions of people do it every year."


Ok, don't EVER claim that capitalism is based on Liberty. For how could it be if millions of people have to give up their liberty to survive. Also you should know that your rights are supposed to be INALIENABLE.


"Go out there and try to build a single thing you have mentioned in this thread without engaging in capatilism or dealing with capatilists.
It can not be done."


No it can't be, because it's the ecoonmy that we currently are IN.

By the way is the state which creates private property.


Ok, now I really must go to work now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Working people

Well, they need money to buy the wood, nails, wiring and land needed to build a building.

People can't take your rights, but you can sacrifice them if you wish.

[Buffler]

65. Again

Working people can make those things without investing. It is private property that makes land valuable and a commodity.

Please, show me how "working people" without the aide of capital can build an apartment building.

Ok, don't EVER claim that capitalism is based on Liberty. For how could it be if millions of people have to give up their liberty to survive. Also you should know that your rights are supposed to be INALIENABLE.

Fine then, I guess you would suggest that I have every right to use racist ang bigoted language in the work place. After all, I have the 1st amendment to back me up. I guess people should also be allowed to hang up Penthouse Pets on the wall of their cube at work too. Why not? Thats liberty man!

By the way is the state which creates private property.

I thought that was inalienable!?!?!

One of the most essential things to freedom and to protect freedom is the recognition and protection of private property rights.

[Solon]

70. Your last statement is incorrect...

First off, private property is not a right, it is a contract, with the government. Otherwise why the need for deeds, the government puts so many restrictions on land use that to argue that it is a right is borderline ridiculous. Land is a commodity that can be traded and sold, also, lest you forget, most people in this country do not own land or a house. If it was so much of a right, why can the government take it away practically at will. Eminent domain anyone?

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. You are incorrect

Private property is a right. It's one of the big freedoms people came to this country for. As for home ownership, your stats are way off. I think the last numbers had about 67% home ownership.

The other issues like emminent domain are the results of a social contract we all agree to.

[camero]

76. Stop paying taxes on it

Then see how long you have the property. This also doesn't include land grants that were given to settlers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Property

The concept includes many things, not just land. I don't have to keep paying taxes on most of the rest.

We as a society decided we want to prevent land hoarding, so we tax land whether it is used or not.

[camero]

85. That's also why we tax incomes

To prevent hoarding. Thanks. You just made my point.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

87. Rebutting attempts at sanctifying ≠ Demonizing (nt)

[rman]

60. Some Want So Much More Then Others

And they'll do just about anything (whatever they think they can get away with) to get it. That's the problem.

[Buffler]

25. Impossible

If a business could get away with cutting all their labor and keep bringing in profits, it would do it immediately.

This is an impossible situation. I can not and could not ever happen. Period.

[Comadreja]

79. How about de facto slavery?

Happens all the time. Good jobs here are lost when the heroic, "risk-taking" capitalists "risk" moving their operations overseas where their labor "risks" are minimized by police states.

[Buffler]

80. Labor

is still in usage in your scenario. So again, they can not cut all their labor and still exist. It is impossible.

Even a 1 person business requires the labor of that person. Not to mention the labor of countless others who produce the products and services that 1 person business uses to operate that business.

[Cooley Hurd]

56. It's a rarity, but there are some businessmen that are "heroes"

I'm very fortunate that my employer is someone I would call "one of the good guys." I've been out of work since late November (injured in an auto accident) and, instead of forcing me go out on disability, he's kept me on the payroll and allowed me to work from home (in a capacity other than what my normal duties would entail) during my entire convalescence, and without a reduction in pay.

But this is just one instance of his progressive business ethic. He's allowed employees to be flexible in their schedules (to allow parents to be home for their children when they get home from school, for example). He's gone to great lengths to assure that our health coverage (100% paid for by the company) is comprehensive, and the company matches out 401K contributions dollar for dollar, to boot!

Mind you, this is a company with almost 200 employees! He's an anomaly, granted, but proof that you can run a highly successful company AND treat your employees with compassion and respect. And he gets it all back in employee dedication. That's the reason why we're #1 in our field!...

[Wapsie B]

86. That IS a rarity.

Even among the so called "non-profit" corporations that outlook is hard to find. I remember having a meeting with an HR person at our company. She said that we don't have to go out of our way to make accomodations for injured employees.

[rman]

57. well, they're not hiring people in order to make a profit, do they?

profit is just an accidental side-effect of doing business.
or some such.

[LeahMira]

73. At the time...

... there probably were some, and maybe even many businesses that operated fairly.

I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in the 1960s sometime, and at that time the DuPont Company, for instance, didn't have any unions and the workers felt that they didn't really need a union. They were paid a good salary, and once you had a job and passed a sort of tenure period, you basically had a job for life. It wasn't all rosy. For one thing, DuPont didn't hire Jews at all, and if you were offered a transfer to another state with higher pay and you chose not to take it you were pretty much stuck in whatever your current job was for the duration. You weren't offered any further promotions. Overall, though, the employees were happy and able to live comfortably, and DuPont made good money. Now, of course, that is all different. I understand that the Gore corporation is still a pretty decent company to work for, although I can't say that from any personal knowledge.

Ayn Rand, though, was writing on the premise that businessmen operated morally. She assumed that given the freedom to do the right thing, people would freely choose to do the right thing, not only because it was the right thing but also because it was in their own best interests to do the right thing. The characters in her novels are nothing like the businessmen of today who do whatever it takes to make a profit. In truth, today's workers aren't all like the workers in her novels either, but I think that the exploitation began at the top where the power is.

In fact, laws generally are not enacted when everything is going along well. Laws are made to rectify a problem that has come up. Also, at least it seems to me, laws that are made to protect the interests of the powerful are generally not such good laws in the long run, while laws that are made to protect the powerless are generally among the better ones.

Somehow, the right wingers seem to think that if you do all the right things you will be rewarded. They seem to imagine that those who are enjoying the good things of life, including wealth, must be those who are doing all the right things. They also seem to imagine that if everyone would just do the right thing, whether religiously or by whatever standard, and including themselves of course, they will be rewarded.

Unfortunately, they forget the story of Job. I'm certainly not one to believe in the Bible as literal fact, but I do think that the stories in the Bible encapsulate the truth of human experience over the ages. Sometimes bad things do happen to good people, and sometimes those who are wicked do prosper. There is a certain peace of mind that comes from doing what is right, even when it's hard. I wouldn't want to have to live in Ken Lay's conscience for any amount of money. But Ayn Rand had it all wrong. Businessmen... and women... are not always good just by virtue of the fact that they are successful. Life isn't always fair. It's left to us to try to create a better world and what a person does makes all the difference.

[EstimatedProphet]

75. Very well put Leah!

Although I would point out that Rand assumed that businessmen operated morally more out of a sense that what they did was moral because they did it. Rand had kind of a "money makes right" attitude. I do think that that carries over today, and I do think that Randian works have been used as a foundation for that attitude. Thus they forget the lessons of Job, as you said.

Sometimes if amazes me how many people there are that complain about welfare recipients as "leeches", and forget that they could easily be one, with a string of bad luck. A lot of people beg off thinking about that by saying they would never take welfare anyway, that they would work whatever it took. Easy to say when you don't have to put it to the test of getting by on $5.50/hour...

[Comadreja]

78. Corporations the biggest welfare redipients of all

And that's just part of the story. If you count all the white collar crime, we essentially have socialism for the rich.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

77. Good post - that's why I_am_not_john_galt!

[Comadreja]

84. Lest we forget

The Internationalle

Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty
And give to all a happier lot.
Each at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.

The Internationale was written to celebrate the Paris Commune of March-May 1871: the first time workers took state power into their own hands. They established in the Commune a form of government more democratic than ever seen before. Representatives were mandated on policy questions by their electors, they were recallable at any time and were paid wages that reflected those of their constituents. The Commune was a working body, not a talk shop. The distinction between legislative and executive arms of government was abolished. Marx's Civil War in France <http://www.marx.org/Archive/1864-IWMA/1871-CWF/> is a suberb account of the history and significance of the Commune. The Commune was drowned in blood by the conservative French government in Versailles, cheered on by the ruling classes of the world.