My opinion?
The website is Geroge Soros' megaphone - "Think Progress".
Therefore, the piece will be a real life analog to Bertram Scudder's hit piece on Hank Rearden - "The Octopus".
Therefore, why the hell should I read it in the first place?
I have real things to spend my time on.

Oooo!
Prava AND Izvestia wrote a piece denouncing American Capitalism!!!

I have to chuckle at pieces like this. Like someone was holding a gun to the head of every employee making them work for Pullman. If you're not happy, go find another job. 'Twas true back then and 'tis true today. If you stay in a dead-end job and complain you have no one to blame but yourself.

Wow, what a load of Socialist garbage. This so-called article takes every opportunity to demonize Pullman's actions and sanctify those of the union and Debs. It admits Pullman charged less than the rate for an equivalent accommodation in Chicago but hits him for ensuring he didn't lose money in the process.

Heavens to Betsy! The evil Pullman didn't put things in his town that he thought distracted or degraded his workers. How diabolical!

A libertarian analysis of the Pullman strike places a portion of the blame on government favoritism toward the railroads "in the form of subsidies, land grants, and monopoly privileges."
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/hist...

Check out Footnote 27, which has an interesting comment on 19th century railroads by Ayn Rand.

This story is worthy of Howard Zinn, the communist author of "A Peoples History of the United States".
Man owns railroads, workers strike, man wins, workers strike, business shut down by strikers, troops called to protect business from worker violence....Bla Bla Bla.
Workers are always complaining and striking. Like those trying to strike McDonalds for double wages. Just because workers strike does not mean they are right. If workers don't like their situation, move on and find something else.
This story is anecdotal. There may have been more situations like this, but it is ancient history.
Today workers claim they are entitled to the profits made by a business just because they work there. Bolshevism at its finest.

The key word here is "fair". What is the definition? I notice that thousands of people were working for the railroads at the current rates.
Labor unions are just a clever way for community organizers to exploit the workers for money to give to politicians

+1 This is a great story! It deserves to be endorsed for all the right reasons! In _The Invention of Enterprise_ (PDF review here: http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/...) the editors point out that in every time and place, successful people will be those who make the best use of the resources available to them. In Rome, conquest was honored; business was not. But hardly any societies or cultures actually honored merchants. Perhaps (perhaps) finally, the Northern Renaissance opened the door to tolerance... which maybe (maybe) led to Adam Smith...

We too easily impose our modernist views on the past. We insist that no moral capitalist ever took a government subsidy. But it ain't necessarily so... Robert Fulton sought and got a monopoly to ply steamboats on the Hudson. Too bad that Ayn Rand was 100 years in his future... He might have been moral.

James J. Hill is touted by Rand for never _seeking_ a government subsidy. True enough. But he bought other railroads that had received them; and certainly never gave back the lands that had been granted. (See about Kennedy the financier for Hill here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Books/... and see here about Hill qua Hill; "Martin, Albro. _James J. Hill and the opening of the Northwest_ New York : Oxford University Press, 1976."

Remember that in _Atlas Shrugged_ Wesley Mouch betrayed Hank Rearden. He only could have done that because was in Rearden's employ in the first place. Indeed, Rearden wonders why lobbyists are such a crummy lot, i.e., why no person of his stature and commitment exists among them. It is a deeper question, never explored in _Atlas Shrugged_.

A thousand years ago, I interviewed for publication a local office manager for IBM in Lansing, Michigan. He told me that if the first he found out about an open bid was seeing it on the state website, he would have fired the sales person for the account. It is the responsibility of the sales person to help the buyer understand the parameters of the purchase. It is called consultative selling. Other people call it "crony capitalism." However, I assure you that the most strictly limited government you can imagine can be expanded beyond your fears:
See here "Unlimited Constitutional Government" here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...
and Part 2 here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...

It is too easy a fallacy to condemn capitalists and industrialists and entrepreneurs of the past for not having our knowledge, wisdom, and insight... courtesy of Ayn Rand.

In 1894 railroads were subsidized. Pullman was a government granted monopoly. If there were a competitor sleeper service with more reasoned business practices could not have pulled off that trick. As always, the solution to government failure is more laws to make the failure illegal.

The key issue here was the Managers' Association which created a defacto railroad cartel.

"The Managers’ Association included all 24 of the railroads centering in or terminating at Chicago. In the previous year, this Association had enabled the executives of each of these 24 companies to work together in implementing system-wide wage cuts to their workers — thus giving the lie to Wickes’ claim that 'it is a man’s privilege,' who does not like the wages paid by one employer 'to go to work somewhere else.'"

Without the Association, the strike would have been effective in bringing Pullman to the bargaining table. By preventing workers the ability to find work at one of the other railroads, the free market system was disrupted. As always, when the free market is disrupted people do not receive full value for their effort. If the government had enforced the free market system, instead of siding with the companies, the market would have had the chance to force an equitable solution.

Actually, I'd like to know your own thoughts on this.
it's interesting, but I tend to find aricles on historical socio-economics somewhat empty witout background. Extension, please.

Written in the best tradition of Howard Zinn.

Opinions on what? The article was fairly long, can you be more specific?

The lesson to be learned is that if you are rich, you need to hide that wealth from the workers you hire. Otherwise, the workers who want your riches, but dont want to work to actually earn them, will seek to take them from you. This is a good argument for automation and the realization that taking the easy way out, by hiring employees, will bite you in the hind end at some point. The purpose of Pullman's business was to please HIM and make money for HIM, and he needed to keep that as the most important thing on his agenda.

How is someone "deleted" posting threads in the first place?

Seems to me the "PEOPLE" who shutdown the country were the greedy employees who overvalued their specific contribution.

Why didn't these employees if they were so smart and valuable, pool their resources and start their own railroad. I will tell you, because they did not want to risk THEIR money.

When people strike, it is THEIR greed and envy that are the problem. Nobody stopped these people from quitting and going to work elsewhere. Nobody FORCED them to stay in the job they apparently did not like or feel they were not paid enough.

I see this guy as a HERO not to buckle under the pressure of the greedy.