[javert]

> Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.

Because of Ayn Rand. You think I'm joking, but she's the only intellectually serious defender of capitalism in the 20th century, and her influence is snowballing. When Rand was alive, members of her circle would rejoice at the extremely occasional mention of her name in print. Now, you can't turn on the TV or go anywhere online without hearing about her.

As a side note, human labor is not a commodity. However, "capital" (as you call it---you use a lot of Marxist terms in your post that do not reflect the reality of society) does not have an obligation to hire you on your terms, either. Labor is about a voluntarily trade.

[nyolfen]

the neoliberal project as organized by the various branches that sprouted from the mont pelerin society have had much more concrete impact on policy for the last 30 years than rand's acolytes alone. they're from the same tradition as many of rand's beliefs but they're the apparatus that engineered the neoliberal order.

[javert]

Yeah, I was probably over-broad in what I said, in the following sense. Ayn Rand has been the only moral defender of capitalism.

On Mount Pelerin:

> Its founders included Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler, and Milton Friedman.

How many of those guys come up on TV and in politics today? None of them.

[maceo]

The only reason Ayn Rand ever comes up is because she has vague name recognition and the Democrats use her to take easy cheap-shots. They do the same thing with Koch Industries. In reality, Koch Industries' alleged influence is greatly exaggerated. The economists listed above are all academic giants compared to Rand.

In most parts of Latin America, the names Friedman and Hayek are far more likely to be recognized than Rand. And rightfully so. Unlike Rand, they advised governments. Brutal dictatorships mostly.

[javert]

No, the reason Democrats take shots at Ayn Rand is because Democrats have the moral high ground in the public's view, and have for decades, and there has only been a single person to challenge that: Ayn Rand. She really is a threat. If the Democrats lose the moral high ground, it's over for them.

Contrast this with Republicans: They are generally quibbling compromisers who say they are opposed to government expansion, but actually agree with it on a moral level, so all they accomplish is barely slowing down the rate of government expansion. The Bush presidency is a case in point, but you can see this "quibbling compromise" in practically all major Republican politicians.

[nyolfen]

lol dude i think you might want to take a step back and look at election results (on all levels) 'for decades' if you think democrats have any perceptible 'high ground' among the american public

[javert]

I didn't say they have the high ground. I said they have the moral high ground. That is why they keep getting elected despite not actually being appealing to the middle class.