Who is [Ayn Rand]?

1st in a series of “Who is … ?” posts in exploration of:

1) the “Who is John Galt?” question posed in Ayn’s 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged; and
2) the Paul Ryan/Rand mysteries.

So to the question: “Who is [Ayn Rand]?”

□ a real, historical figure (1905-1982) who named her subjectivist theories, Objectivism?
□ a passionate thinker/philosopher who spent too much time creating imaginary achievers and not enough time observing/studying REAL living and historical ones?^[1]
□ a Russian émigré whose Me-Mine philosophy^[2] nurtured a more rapid decline in America values than was ever dreamt possible by socialists, communists/Cold Warriors, and all other anti-s lumped together?
□ an atheist^[3] who scorned the concept of altruism^[4]—and pronounced Her many contraries as better than GOOD, yea even virtuous?
□ an explicator of many real problems—worsened by “more-of-the-(self)-same” solutions?
□ a visionary of class conflict^[5] between achievers/producers and most everyone else?
□ the god-mother (pardon the expression) of self-justification, self-deception, & rationalization?
□ a creator who did not believe in a Creator, but who claimed: “I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don’t exist. That this book [Atlas Shrugged] has been written—and published—is my proof that they do.”^[6] [WOW! or perhaps, Woe, Woe, Woe?]
□ an incurable idealist blinded to reality by the heroic imaginations of her heart?^[7]
□ another^[8] in a long line of gifted “Aristotles”— basing a “cosmic” theory on false beliefs/assumptions?
□ a matriarch-monarch (of a collective) who despised collectives?
□ a shape-shifter as between reality lived and philosophy preached; and an eye-shifter as in the Mike Wallace interview?^[9]
□ a presenter of ½ and ¾ truths alleged to be whole?
□ a clear and present danger to economic, moral, and social verities?
□ an obsessive user of similes and metaphors?^[10]
□ an inadvertent prophetess by marking her adored $ symbol on a (cancer-causing) cigarette butt?
□ a novelist, specializing in fiction and philosophical fantasy?

------------------/
[1] —in contravention of her philosophic hero’s (Aristotle’s) call to knowledge through empirical observation and experience?
[2] (recycled from more ancient times?) An (inadvertent?) inside job?!
[3] (déjà vu, as in “Religion is ... the opium of the people”?)
[4] (including almost every teaching/example of spiritual leaders)
[5] (déjà vu, Marx?)
[6] From the 35th Anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, a Plume Book, p. 1171
[7] (déjà vu, here too?)
[8] See her romantic (unhistorical) view of industrialists operating without restraints in the 1959 interview with Mike Wallace circa 15:00 minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y&feature=related ; then see footnote 1 above
[9] See the link at footnote 8
[10] Mark Twain is reported to have said that if the phrase “And it came to pass” had been cut from the Mormon’s Book of Mormon, it would have been a pamphlet. Likewise, if Ayn had excised but ½ of her similes and metaphors in Atlas Shrugged, the book would likely have shrunk to 1/3 and thus have doubled, if not quadrupled, its readers and its already prodigious sales. In this case, did Ayn’s self-expression exceed her profit/self-interest motive and thus her prized reason?

Inadvertent Symbolism?

During this year 2012 (which marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Ayn Rand), I have been re-reading Atlas Shrugged.^[1] Besides doing a little Ayn-alysing,^[2] I have been struck by the inadvertent symbolism of her $-sign on a cigarette butt. That symbol has proven profoundly apt for those devoted above all things to self-direction, achievement, and profit.

Yes, Ayn details huge problems that plague mankind. There is also much truth and progress in self-direction, achievement, and profit. But is it the whole truth? And are Ayn’s solutions really beneficial (as many seem to believe!) or are they more in the line of addictive, ephemeral gratifications leading to dreadful consequence?

In the words of Ravi Zacharias:

There are elements of truth in [great thinkers] thinking, but they often go into assumptions that are unsustainable and create a systemic failure.^[3]

Have we not seen that systemic failure where self-direction, achievement, and profit have been untempered by additional values?

So, considering the tortured history of man and his profit motif, it seems “divine” that Ayn should choose a mysterious $-sign imprinted on a cancer-causing, smoking stick to symbolize her single-minded worship of achievement and money.

And that $-sign sketched by John Galt upon the sky?^[4] When all things are considered, it seems that Ayn’s inadvertent symbolism trumps the purported truth of her idealism.
------------------/
[1] References are from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, (35th Anniversary Edition), A Plume Book.
[2] http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2012/06/ayn-alyzing-1.html is the first in a short series of posts entitled, “Ayn-alysing.”
[3] RZIM Canada / Spring and Summer 2012 Newsletter, p. 5
[4] Atlas Shrugged, last sentence, p. 1168

Duel of Abuse ~ Round Xn2

(Déjà vu characters from 424 BC ~ courtesy of ARISTOPHANES^[1] with some minor name changes for the sake of clarity.)

[A Duel of Economic Ideologies (including personalities): continued from the previous two posts.]

SAUSAGE-SELLER. The story is worth hearing. Listen! From here I rushed straight to the Senate, right in the track of this man; he was already letting loose the storm, unchaining the lightning, crushing the Knights beneath huge mountains of calumnies heaped together and having all the air of truth; he called you conspirators and his lies caught root like weeds in every mind; dark were the looks on every side and brows were knitted. When I saw that the Senate listened to him favourably and was being tricked by his imposture, I said to myself, "Come, gods of rascals and braggarts, gods of all fools, toad-eaters and braggarts and thou, market-place, where I was bred from my earliest days, give me unbridled audacity, an untiring chatter and a shameless voice." … then I burst open the door by a vigorous push with my back, and, opening my mouth to the utmost, shouted, "Senators, I wanted you to be the first to hear the good news; since the War broke out, I have never seen anchovies at a lower price!" All faces brightened at once and I was voted a chaplet for my good tidings; and I added, "With a couple of words I will reveal to you, how you can have quantities of anchovies for an obol; 'tis to seize on all the dishes the merchants have." With mouths gaping with admiration, they applauded me. However, [Clecon] winded the matter and, well knowing the sort of language which pleases the Senate best, said, "Friends, I am resolved to offer one hundred oxen to the goddess in recognition of this happy event." The Senate at once veered to his side. So when I saw myself defeated by this ox filth, I outbade the fellow, crying, "Two hundred!" And beyond this I moved, that a vow be made to Diana of a thousand goats if the next day anchovies should only be worth an obol a hundred. And the Senate looked towards me again. The other, stunned with the blow, grew delirious in his speech, and at last the … guards dragged him out. The Senators then stood talking noisily about the anchovies. [Clecon], however, begged them to listen to the [foreign] envoy, who had come to make proposals of peace; but all with one accord, cried, "'Tis certainly not the moment to think of peace now! If anchovies are so cheap, what need have we of peace? Let the war take its course!" And with loud shouts they demanded that the [Judges] should close the sitting and then leapt over the rails in all directions. As for me, I slipped away to buy all the coriander seed and leeks there were on the market and gave it to them gratis as seasoning for their anchovies. 'Twas marvellous! They loaded me with praises and caresses; thus I conquered the Senate with an obol's worth of leeks, and here I am.
…
[CLECON]. I will haul you before Demos, who will mete out justice to you.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I too will drag you before him and belch forth more calumnies than you.
[CLECON]. Why, poor fool, he does not believe you, whereas I play with him at will.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. So that Demos is your property, your contemptible creature.
[CLECON]. 'Tis because I know the dishes that please him.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And these are little mouthfuls, which you serve to him like a clever nurse. You chew the pieces and place some in small quantities in his mouth, while you swallow three parts yourself.
…
[CLECON]. Hah! my friend, you tricked me at the Senate, but have a care! Let us go before Demos.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. That's easily done; come, let's along without delay.

[To be continued.]

[2012 Study Questions: Who/What is our “Clecon”? Who/What is our Sausage-Seller? Who is our Demos?]

--------/
[1] “Duel of Abuse” comes from p. 14 (CHORUS) of Aristophanes' (circa 444 –385 BC) play, “The Knights,” from The Eleven Comedies, Volume 1, Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition, 2005-08-01. The text of this post is from pp. 16-18 as condensed (with minor updates in [ ]) by SMS.

Duel of Abuse ~ Round Xn1

(Déjà vu characters from 424 BC ~ courtesy of ARISTOPHANES^[1] with some names slightly amended for clarity.)

 In the last post, Dimisthenes asks, “Who will get us out of this mess?” And who should promptly show up but a sausage-seller! He is swiftly recruited to the cause. What follows is an Aristophian distillation of mankind’s perennial conflict—one we have endured in recent Republican “debates” and will yet endure, more intensely, in anticipated Rep & Dem ones.

At core, we have a duel of economic ideologies, which, in analysis (and in Artistophanes), are more alike in practice than not. Dimisthenes and the CHORUS of Knights (or the Benighted, as the case may be!) root for the Sausage-Seller.

SAUSAGE-SELLER. The oracles of the gods summon me! Faith! I do not at all understand how I can be capable of governing the people.
[DIMISTHENES]. Nothing simpler. Continue your trade. Mix and knead together all the state business as you do for your sausages. To win the people, always cook them some savoury that pleases them. Besides, you possess all the attributes of a demagogue; a screeching, horrible voice, a perverse, cross-grained nature and the language of the market-place. In you all is united which is needful for governing. The oracles are in your favour, even including that of [Phila]Delphi[a]. Come, take a chaplet [garland or wreath for the head], offer a libation to the god of Stupidity and take care to fight vigorously.
 SAUSAGE-SELLER. Who will be my ally? for the rich fear [the present demagogue, Clecon] and the poor shudder at the sight of him.
 [DIMISTHENES]. You will have a thousand brave Knights who detest him, on your side; also the honest citizens amongst the spectators, those who are men of brave hearts, and finally myself and the god [of the market-place]. Fear not, … the public have wit enough to recognize him.

[Then the demagogue CLECON arrives.]
[NOTE: Our twenty-first century words may be gold-plated, but in essence, can we not hear clear echoes of Aristophanes?!]

[CLECON]. I denounce this fellow; he has had tasty stews exported from [America] for the [enemies’] fleet.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I denounce him, who runs into the [public trust] with empty belly and comes out with it full.
[CLECON]. You are travelling the right road to get killed.
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I will baffle your machinations.
[CLECON]. Dare to look me in the face!
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I too was brought up in the market-place.
[CLECON]. I will cut you to shreds if you whisper a word.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I will daub you with dung if you open your mouth.
[CLECON]. I own I am a thief; do you admit yourself another.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. By our Hermes of the market-place, if caught in the act, why, I perjure myself before those who saw me.
[CLECON]. These are my own special tricks. I will denounce you to the [Judges] as the owner of sacred tripe, that has not paid tithe [or taxes].
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. Just hear what sort of fellow that fine citizen is.
[CLECON]. Will you not let me speak?
SAUSAGE-SELLER. Assuredly not, for I also am a sad rascal. …
[CLECON]. Once more, will you not let me speak?
SAUSAGE-SELLER. No, by Zeus!
[CLECON]. Yes, by Zeus, but you shall!
SAUSAGE-SELLER. No, by Posidon! We will fight first to see who shall speak first.
…
[CLECON]. I will rush into the Senate and set them all by the ears.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I will lug out your gut to stuff like a sausage.
[CLECON]. As for me, I will seize you by the rump and hurl you head foremost through the door.
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I denounce you for cowardice.
[CLECON]. I will tan your hide.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I will flay you and make a thief's pouch with the skin.
[CLECON]. I will peg you out on the ground.
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. … he has only made himself a name by reaping another's harvest; and now he has tied up the ears he gathered over there, he lets them dry and seeks to sell them.
…
[CLECON]. I will bring four suits against you, each of one hundred talents.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I twenty against you for shirking duty and more than a thousand for robbery.
…
[CLECON]. You are an impostor.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And you are a rogue.

 [And so on and on!]

TO BE CONTINUED: Round Xⁿ².

[2012 Study Questions: Who/What is “Clecon”? Who/What is Dimisthenes? Who/What is the Sausage-Seller? Who are the CHORUS of Knights?]

------/
 [1] “Duel of Abuse” comes from p. 14 (CHORUS) of Aristophanes' (circa 444 –385 BC) play, “The Knights,” from The Eleven Comedies, Volume 1, Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition, 2005-08-01. The text of this post is from pp. 8-13 as condensed (with minor changes and updates in [ ]) by SMS.

Duel of Abuse 2012 ~ Prologue

(Déjà vu characters from 424 BC ~ courtesy of ARISTOPHANES^[1] with some names slightly amended for clarity.)

[DIMISTHENES:] I will begin then. We have a very brutal master, a perfect glutton for bean[counting], and most bad-tempered; 'tis Demos of [DC], an intolerable old man and half deaf. The beginning of last month he bought a [sidekick], a … tanner [called, “Clecon”], an arrant rogue, the incarnation of calumny. This man of leather knows his old master thoroughly; he plays the fawning cur, flatters, cajoles; wheedles, and dupes him at will with little scraps of leavings, which he allows him to get. "Dear Demos," he will say, "try a single case and you will have done enough; then take your bath, eat, swallow and devour; here are three [more profit points]." Then [this Clecon] filches from one of us what we have prepared and makes a present of it to our old man. T'other day I had just kneaded a Spartan cake …; the cunning rogue came behind my back, sneaked it and offered the cake, which was my invention, in his own name. He keeps us at a distance and suffers none but himself to wait upon the master; when Demos is dining, he keeps close to his side with a thong in his hand and puts the orators to flight. He keeps singing oracles to him, so that the old man now thinks of nothing but the [futures]. Then, when he sees him thoroughly obfuscated, he uses all his cunning and piles up lies and calumnies against the household; then we are scourged and [Clecon] runs about among the slaves to demand contributions with threats and gathers 'em in with both hands. He will say, "You see how I have had [upstarts] beaten! Either content me or die at once!" We are forced to give, for else the old man tramples on us and makes us spew forth all our body contains. There must be an end to it, friend. Let us see! what can be done? Who will get us out of this mess?

[2012 Study Questions: Who/What is Dimisthenes? Who/What is Demos? Who/What is Clecon? Hint: perhaps begin with the recent Republican primaries; and/or economic theories.]

 ----------------------/

[1] “Duel of Abuse” comes from p. 14 (CHORUS) of Aristophanes' (circa 444 –385 BC)  play, “The Knights,” from The Eleven Comedies, Volume 1, Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition, 2005-08-01. The text of this post is from p. 4 with a 2012 update by SMS.

A Series of Massive Delusions*

(or The Toxic Fallout from Ayn & Uncle Miltie)

Posted in observance of April [etc.] Fool’s Day

Here are a few quotes from Boomerang by Michael Lewis—a déjà vu of “what you sow is what you reap [eventually**]”:

“They created fake capital by trading assets amongst themselves at inflated values, … This was how the banks and investment companies grew and grew” (p. 17 ~ quote from a London hedge fund manager).

… bankers buying stuff from one another at inflated prices, borrowing tens of billions of dollars and relending it to members of their little … tribe, who then used it to buy up a messy pile of foreign assets (p. 19-20).

One of the hidden causes of the current global financial crisis is that the people who saw it coming had more to gain from it by taking short positions than they did by trying to publicize the problem (p. 20).

Inside Greece [or nation X—take your pick], there was no market for whistle-blowing, as basically everyone was in on the racket (p. 63).

Extremely smart traders inside Wall Street investment banks devise deeply unfair diabolically complicated bets, and then send their sales forces out to scour the world for some idiot who will take the other side of those bets (p. 153).

… Morgan Stanley designed extremely complicated credit default swaps so they were all but certain to fail, so that their own proprietary traders could bet against them … (p. 153).

The American bond traders may have sunk their firms by turning a blind eye to the risks in the subprime bond market, but they made a fortune for themselves in the bargain, and have for the most part never been called to account (p. 161-2).

They’d [Americans] been conditioned to grab as much as they could, without thinking about the long-term consequences. Afterward, the people of Wall Street would privately bemoan the low morals of the American people who walked away from their subprime loans, and the American people would express outrage at the Wall Street people who paid themselves a fortune to design the bad loans (p. 202).

“We have lost the ability to self-regulate, at all levels of society. The five million dollars you get paid at Goldman Sachs if you do whatever they ask you to do—that is the [reptilian scarcity/abundance trigger that short-circuits long-term benefit for short-term biology/gratification; in other words, diet versus] chocolate cake upgraded” (p. 205, quoting/ paraphrasing Dr. Peter Whybrow—UCLA neuroscientist).

The extent of the corruption, self-service, and criminality is so pervasive and incredible that too many view it as just that—not credible; or in the alternative, as a regrettable, collateral zit on the divine face of free markets. These nice-people-in-suits who furnish/entice us with consumables, loans, investments opps, and aspirations can’t be so bad!

Well folks, the bad news is: it is BAD, BAD, BAD; BADDER (Yes! BADDER because worse doesn't sufficiently describe it) than you even imagine. And the toxic fraud and fallout will continue till we demand a new cultural paradigm of balance, where libertarianism is seen for what it is—an untenable extreme of individualism—as untenable and devastating as extreme collectivism. (What it really amounts to is a concentrated collectivism on the right as opposed to a supposedly broad one on the left. At both extremes, the status of the majority is impoverished, despite the hype.)

Perhaps it is time the “masses yearning to [be] free” of massive fraud and corruption demanded a massive right-wing correction in a déjà vu mirror image from 1987: “Tear down this Wall Street!” And “Let my people go find a more just and equitable way.”

------------/
* p. 198 from Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World by Michael Lewis (2011)—a book every adult should read; every libertarian should read twice (a day); and every bond trader (and accomplice) should have piped into their Leavenworth/FCI-Tallahassee (etc.) cell 24/7 on a rotating basis with other exposes, including The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine also by Michael Lewis.
** If not now, then hereafter, as in “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (New Testament 1 Timothy 6:10)

“Tear down this wall!” reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall !

Déjà vu: Back & So-Forth



Isocrates ~ 436-338 BC: “Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”

WikiCommons ~ Public Domain

I am almost finished Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World (2011) by Michael Lewis* ~ another witness to the insanity of our financial times. Thousands of witnesses now stacked in chronological order upon the prescience of Isaiah the prophet.

Why is it that seeing, so many still do not see and hearing, so many still do not hear, decade after decade, debacle after debacle, libertarian upon libertarian?

Has not corruption proven itself to be the encoded, invariable, inexorable constant of unregulated, deregulated, poorly regulated:**

▪ Money concentration
▪ Power concentration
▪ Speculation (read: financial markets, etc.)
▪ BIGGER is better obsessives
▪ Charities
▪ Corporations
▪ Governments
▪ Lobbyists
▪ NGOs
▪ PACs
▪ PR firms
▪ Profiteers (of every stripe)
▪ Work sites (of every kind)
▪ & so forth, & so forth?

Doesn’t balance mean a little right, a little left, and a whole lot of middle in controlling these “feet that be swift in [forever] running to mischief” (Prov. 6:17)?

------------------
* (where he quotes the above Isocrates at page 81)
** (read: appropriate, enforceable checks and balances)

The Great Con

(or A View from the Pit We Have Dug for Ourselves)

No so long ago:

▪ Owners managed their own small businesses (some of which grew very large);
▪ Then in pursuit of more capital (translating to more power, influence, prestige, capacity, market share, etc.) some owners came to share ownership with total strangers via corporate shareholdings;
▪ These new “invested” owners (disparate and essentially disinterested shareholders—except for the “promise” of dividends) abandoned business management entirely to hired managers;
▪ Then the hired managers began to brand themselves as essential, gifted elites—though at core, they were mostly aggressive, aspiring HyPEs (Highly Paid Employees);
▪ Soon, when challenged about questionable practices by advocates of balance¹ or of the common good , these HyPEs (and their shareholder/employers) protested that the corporate system was a “free-market, holy grail” (the foundation of democracy!) and that all they did was for the benefit of deserving, free-market owners/shareholders.

BUT in these latter days, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these “[ladies and laddies of HyPEdom] doth protest too much.” WHY? Because the corporate system has become the almost perfect “con” for management malfeasance—for HyPE-heisting par excellence.

How so? Because even critics of the corporate system still speak as if hired management were fulfilling its (moral? and legal?) duty to its owners/shareholders by an intense (market-holy) focus on bottom-line—on maximizing profits.

Thus, we have THE GREAT CON for two main reasons.

Reason 1: Because these very owners/shareholders have been lulled from eating cake, to eating cupcake, to eating cupcake crumbs, to being happy with bread crumbs vis-à-vis their HyPEs. (Or even worse, as in Enron, Worldcom, etc.) Consider:

a) Escalating HyPE salaries, bonuses, contracts, etc. UNRELATED to performance;
b) Other HyPE bonuses related to performance which often translate into short-term strategies to the detriment of long-term growth and benefits;
c) Lavish expense accounts and HyPE perks;
d) Hush-hush, slush funds;
e) Severance packages UNRELATED to performance;
f) PR & lobby contracts/payouts UNRELATED to performance;
g) Fee-junkies motivated to buy, merge, strip, dismantle, etc. both troubled and viable companies in order to trigger enormous fees via an ever expanding range of corporate/HyPE manipulations;
h) “[Faux-]Citizens United” authority to spend unlimited funds on HyPE agendas and favored-friends without regard to shareholder preferences or values;
i) Etc., etc.

Reason 2: The moral deficit of the present, disengaged shareholding system. Consider:

Most shareholders contribute ZIP, NADA, NIENTE, NOTHING to the business in which they purport to own a share. Except for IPO shareholders (or purchasers of subsequently issued stock in the primary market), all others purchase their shares from other shareholders WITHOUT a dime going to the company they now “own.” The new, noncontributing shareholder then claims a right to dividends and a duty of corporate management (their HyPEs) to maximize profits for their benefit, often to the detriment of the “grassroots” labor that creates such profits. The previous shareholder takes his profits (if lucky) and often runs to the next (NADA) investment in another big business. (Interesting how so many shareholders completely miss: 1) the moral hazard of “nada” shareholdings! and 2) the state of HyPE deception relating to profit maximization as detailed in Reason 1 above.)

As to the argument that “nada” investments benefit the general business climate (i.e., more money to cycle amongst shareholders and thus shareholdings; more money to incentivize/finance/buy products and services; etc.), one might argue, in the alternative, that investment in: 1) fair labor practices, wages, and broader ownership opportunities; and 2) the wellbeing of and better opportunities for the poor and needy would also benefit the general business climate (plus humanity) on an even broader, more long-term and profitable scale. And for those who cannot abide the moral hazard that so-called “socialistic schemes” heap upon the poor and needy, perhaps we should be more cognizant of where the moral hazard now resides. (And mindful, too, of how much CorporateWorld owes its existence to labor and tax-payer subsidization!)

In short, the present corporate system has devolved to one great fraud perpetuated by HyPEs, HyPE beneficiaries, HyPE wannabes, shareholders (however innocently), dupers, dupees,² inside-traders, and all who manipulate markets via rumor, innuendo, and contrivance.

How long till we see: It’s just our latter-day version of the (déjà vu) mania of money and power swirling into ever greater concentrations and exclusions? But this time, it’s a bottom-line shift from “owners” to HyPEs!

BUT, there are possible solutions,³ even if the tornado forces of the present system are enormous. Change is in the air (and the streets)! SEE ALSO:  http://www.productiveflourishing.com/the-rebirth-of-entrepreneurialism/ ; http://www.ted.com/themes/the_rise_of_collaboration.html

---------/
1. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/05/econ-011-right-stuff-or-not.html
2. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/11/confession-of-dupe-dealer.html
3.Consider: The Ownership Solution … by Jeff Gates; or Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism … by William J. Baumol, et al.; or The Post-Corporate World … by David C. Korten; or One World, Ready or Not … by William Greider; or America Beyond Capitalism … by Gar Alperovitz; etc. There are plenty of concerned, warning, and intelligent voices.

A Word from Adam*

(*Adam Smith, that is)

“LABOUR, it must always be remembered, and NOT any particular commodity or set of commodities, IS the real measure of the value both of silver and of all other commodities” [The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. XI, Part III, p. 214; capital and bold emphasis added].

So why do we:

▪ attempt to minimize wages—the real measure of value?
▪ enhance quarterly profits by firing/laying off workers?
▪ list employees as liabilities on balance-sheets?
▪ marginalize/destroy unions—the advocates of labor?
▪ idealize investment wealth that too often accrues, not from labor, but from insider trading, manipulation of supply and demand, rumor-mongering, ethics violations, a host of “bottom-line” violations, doing nothing but waiting for money to make money (the practice of many shareholders), etc.?
▪ etc.?

How many of our current practices are just déjà vu versions of the Greeks, the Romans, the British, earlier Americans, (et al.), who built much of their elite wealth on the backs of slave-labor—the sweat of others, filling privileged coffers of silver and gold?

Isn’t it past time to reinstate the real value of labor? Without labor, there would be no corporations. There would be no CEOs. There would be no excess for unequal accumulation.

----------/
The Word to that other Adam was “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Old Testament Genesis 3:19) See also: “AND it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.” (Pearl of Great Price Moses 5:1; bold emphasis added.)