I-Work - a response

Simon Luke Breslaw responded as follows to my recent post - it’s quite long so I am posting his response and then adding my comments in the comment box. Overall Simon seems to add weight to my argument by showing how entrepreneurs and employees are differently related to the work they undertake, if employees were to become entrepreneurs there is no reason why they wouldn’t work in partnership to create productive associations, even still using the framework of the company

Very nicely argued, Arthur! I'm [not] totally convinced though. Are the activities of entrepreneurs not distinct from those of employees, regardless of whether the individual employee has undergone a change in perspective or not? To my mind, entrepreneurs work with capital in a realm of freedom, free from hierarchy and with the aim of realising new business ideas. Their progress towards realising these ideas is measured by the balance sheet.
In contrast, employees operate within in a realm of solidarity, where their work contributions are made possible (at least in a world where income security is not an issue) through their willingness to be associated with the aims of an existing business. Although employees are free to choose whether or not to be associated with the activities of an existing business, the terms of that association (or employment) must be such that the employee agrees to abide by certain organisational rules and organisational hierarchy in regard to decision-making and their work contributions. The organisational rules, although negotiable, are determined by the needs of the company and what the company feels that a particular employee is able to offer. I can't see an aeroplane factory operating in any other way.
Employees do not have the freedom to tell the company what they want to contribute because if their demands do not tally with the aims of the company, they simply won't be hired or they will be fired. In other words, it's the explicit objectives of the company that are capitalised, not necessarily the personal aims of the employee. This helps to take the egotism out of both the entrepreneur's and the employee's aims by socialising them.
Through their employment, employees endorse the aims of the company. Employees agree to help realise the company's aims by partially subjugating their own aims. In an ideal world this would happen out of a spirit of solidarity, as opposed to the need to secure an income. There may be many cases where an employee's personal aims fully match that of the company, I admit. However, the progress an employee makes towards realising his or her personal aims is not measured by a balance sheet but by a large set of other variables, including non-financial variables. An income is merely the prerequisite that enables individuals to realise their personal aims. My personal aim might be to go climbing in the mountains as much as possible. Unless I agree to the rules and objectives of the Alpine Club that has hired me as a mountain guide, I won't be able to realise my non-financial aim of climbing mountains as often as possible because I won't be employed and therefore won't secure an income.
Employment can be a positive thing in helping to curb the egotistical objectives of individuals by forcing them to subjugate their own aims to the social aims of an organisation. Depending on the perspective and situation of the employee, this subjugation may be forced or agreed to voluntarily out of an enlightened social understanding.