There are occasions in the history of capitalism when robbery by capitalists becomes conspicuous to even the casual observer. Enron came to the deregulated electricity market in California and manipulated the electricity market with clever schemes having names like Death Star, Ricochet and Fat Boy. Enron and other energy companies stole billions of dollars from consumers, and then when the state of California stepped in, they stole billions more from the taxpayers and forced the state to sign long term contracts with energy producers at very high prices. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Bush administration acted as coconspirators in this episode by stalling on mandating price caps, refunding only a pittance of the amount stolen, and refusing to let the state out of its long term contracts.

Withholding power at critical moments to drive electricity prices sky high, these energy companies caused rolling blackouts, which resulted in numerous accidents and some deaths. In a just world they could be indicted for murder, as well as grand theft, because they must have known what the consequences would be of these blackouts.

In addition, Enron stole the life savings of many of its employees by fraudulent accounting practices and encouraging its employees to buy more stock, when the top executives had already sold out near the peak price and knew a precipitous decline in stock price was coming because of serious financial difficulties.

Slightly more than a decade earlier, there was another massive theft by corporate America called the savings and loan scandal. The amounts stolen here were staggering-on the order of 500 billion dollars. Instead of trying hard to retrieve the money from the thieves, the average American taxpayer was saddled with the bill, roughly five thousand dollars per family.

The corporate media like to pretend that these occurrences are aberrations which happen infrequently and that those responsible are punished adequately. Actually, they occur quite often, and the people responsible usually get only a slap on the wrist because they are respected businessmen, rather than common street criminals.

The history of American capitalism is one continuous series of these scandals and thefts. Capitalists like Rockefeller, Morgan, Mellon, DuPont and others got the name "robber barons" because of their many nefarious schemes to enrich themselves. The Populist movement arose in the late 19th century because farmers were being robbed by the banks and railroads. As an interesting aside, the Wizard of Oz was a symbolic fable written by a populist named Frank Baum. The wicked witches represented the banks and railroads.

However, there is a much more subtle and less noticeable form of theft by the capitalist system. One can comprehend this theft by examining Marx's Labor Theory of Value. The theory is that all wealth comes from labor and that the more labor that goes into a product, the more valuable it is. Profit is that part of the price of a product which rightly belongs to the worker, but is siphoned off by the capitalist due to his ownership of the means of production, also a result of theft.

I think the validity of this theory can best be visualized by thinking back to a primitive time when little of value existed. In order to provide food, clothing, shelter and other basic human needs, energy had to be expended as work to extract things of value from the natural world. The more energy that was expended, the more things of value came into existence. At a certain point in time with increased efficiency a surplus came into existence allowing a leisure class to develop, which lived off the labor of others. This leisure class then created an ideology which justified and legitimized their existence, sometimes using religion as in the divine right of European kings to rule their subjects. Of course, capitalism has also created a whole mythology to justify the existence of its ruling class.

When skilled craftsmen of various kinds developed, one can easily see how something they expended a lot of work to produce would be worth more than one requiring less effort. Then, mass production lines arose with capitalism and one can comprehend that cheaper products would result because with machinery the amount of labor required per item produced is much less. The leisure class that arose previous to capitalism had the land and the capital to build factories and purchase mass production machinery and exploit the labor of others, paying them only a fraction of the value their labor created.

Some people try to poke holes in the labor theory of value by pointing out all the other factors involved in the price of a product like the price of raw materials, utilities like electricity and water, transportation, etc. However, these things are all the result of past labor, so there is no contradiction here.

A good indicator of the validity of a scientific theory is if it can predict a future result. The labor theory of value predicts depressions. Since workers are paid only a fraction of the value they create and profit is taken by the capitalist, then workers should be able to buy back only a fraction of the goods and services they produce. This is indeed true. Capitalism always results in overproduction, inventories increase, workers need to be laid off and a depression occurs.

So capitalism results in glaring examples of robbery like Enron and the savings and loan disaster, but also is a continuous every day robbery of the working person. This is not discussed by the corporate media because the last thing they would want you to know is that capitalist society is based on theft. That might cause a revolution.

For instance: Take sombody (like say Donald Trump) who builds an office/hotel or mall complex.All the people who do the actually building, from bricklayers to plumbers to laborers get paid a fee (hourly rate)

Mr.Trump, on the other hand,owing to his Capitalism "License" gets to own and lease out the office/shop/room spaces and make huge profits as long as that building(s) is popular. He can also sell the property at any time if the price becomes lucrative enough.
But theres no "profit sharing" for any of the laborers who "created" the actaual brick/steel and glass buildings. In effect Donald Trump is making 10 times or maybe 1000 times more from his new office building than he paid the Laborers to build it!

As a result Mr.Trump is in a better financial positon to "Finance" even more profitable office buildings in the future - whereas the Laborers are still in the same old "hourly rate" rut.

Apartment renters are some of the biggest "Victims" of this Capitalism system that allows their Landlords to charge exhorbitant rents for buildings and apartments that have been "paid for" (with tenants rents) many times over! You pay rent in a building for 20 or 30 years and you don't own anything in it - not a floor tile - not a doorknob - nothing!
The Landlord through this Capitalist (Pyramid Scheme!) system is allowed to protect and increase his financial security on the backs of his renters who,if after 10 or 20 years in an aptartment, suddenly can't pay their rent ,find they have nothing to show,(no ownership rights and no financial security what-so-ever!) for all that rent they paid year in and year out, and now adding insult ot injury,they can be summarily (legally) evicted! How is this fair or humane? But Its REALLY only fair and humane and profitable to the Landlords!

Then again thats the American Way! Thats Capitalism in all its so-called GLORY!

...ignorance of capitalism.

The building trades are hired by developers to build a building. Once the building is complete, they are done.
No more money from the project goes to the builders, because they were hired to build the building. The
developer has taken all the risk. If no one rents the building, he's oughta luck...and a lot of money.
However, the builders have still been paid. The developer is taking all the risk. He has put up money to
build the building, and will make money...or not...when it's complete. Why should the builders continue to
receive money when the job for which they were hired is complete? They shouoldn't...unless they also
financed part of the construction, in which case they would get a percentage of the building's profits. He
who assumes the risk shares in the profits. This is basic capitalism, and not at all difficult to understand.

Don't like paying rent for 20 years? That rent money would make a fine house payment. Think about it.

Now, k.hawley has proven that he/she really doesn't understand capitalism, and has fallen for the Leftist
fascination of redistributing other peoples' money.

nonanarchist

Here is an example of how the Union "re-distributes" the wealth of their members (suckers) union dues. Note that these figures don't include the "envelopes" filled with cash and free lap dances at the titty bars

Rick Icaza Local 770 President: $278,783 + $20,843 bonus
George Hartwell Local 1036 President: $206,257
Pete Zimmer Union Rep Local 1428: $61,866
Greg Conger Local 324 President: $206,660
Bill Lathrop Local 1167 President: $140,040
Richard Chan Local 770 Union Rep: $99,388
Martel Fraser Local 1036 Union Rep: $112,054
Jesse Martel Local 770 Union Rep: $95,863

I think the point he's making is that the builders added value to the land, with capital improvements, but were paid a wage and got no share of the resulting property. That's "normal" under capitalism that the people who produce the goods have no right to rent on the goods.

Perhaps he's harking back to a romanticized past, when people owned what they created. The things you'd make would have been more like your "children" than objects.

It's a skewed, inaccurate view, because prior to capitalism, we had feudalism, where you really didn't own what you made. Prior to that, there were forms of slavery. Today, property ownership is available pretty widely compared to the past, when the monarchs owned everything.

(To get to a more romanticized era, you really have to get back to societies not dominated by property.)

So, we have capitalism, but, as Hawley points out, in capitalism, the rich tend to get richer, and the workers tend to stay at the same level. This goes back to the idea expressed in the original article about depressions. Capitalists refer to the boom-bust cycle or normal business cycles, but it's the same thing.

As the rich get richer, they accumulate and put the squeeze on the economy. All this wealth was created, but, it's all tied up in big bank accounts. This accumulation provides a kind of insurance for the wealthy. For example, if you have $500 million, you can spread your risk and invest in many smaller properties in different places. Also, they can share your risk with other capitalists, by purchasing things like construction insurance.

I get the feeling that this relative reduction in risk to the rich is accompanied by an increasing instability among the poor and working class. Our stability, likewise, comes at the expense of the poor in other countries. Living in America, we really don't feel the effects of poverty the way they feel it in the global South.

From the East Bay business news:

Safeway CEO sees compensation reduced

Safeway Inc. CEO Steven Burd saw his compensation reduced by more than 40 percent last year as the Pleasanton-based grocery giant lost more than half its market value.

In its annual proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, the company said Burd's bonus - payable in cash and stock - dropped from $1.15 million in 2001 to $258,000 in 2002. Burd's base salary of $1 million was unchanged from the prior year.

In addition, the company said Burd did not receive personal use of the corporate jet in 2002, which accounted for $59,000 worth of additional compensation in the prior year.

Under pressure from the slowing economy and competition from mass-market retailers such as Wal-Mart, Safeway's stock has plunged from $45 per share a year ago to its current trading range of around $20. The stock closed Friday at $19.77, up 21 cents from the previous day.

Burd cashed out around 10 million dollars in stock options and holds another, currently valued, 80 million in options.

It makes sense to compensate him with stock instead of cash, but the amount of stock is pretty huge, it seems. Where's the incentive to perform when you have so much money that it's more than what a person would need in forty lifetimes?