I think that there is some element of truth to that, for some people. Remember that VC is first and foremost a financial profession: they have a fiduciary duty to their LPs to get the highest returns possible. They invest in a different asset class, but they are money managers responsible for allocating capital to the teams most likely to make good use of it.
I also think that there are some founders who are clearly in it for the money as well. Probably moreso of late, with the gold rush mentality these last couple years.
I'd disagree that this is everyone. I think that there are still a large number of founders around who genuinely want to change the world. Many of them are not seeking venture capital, or if they are, they are getting turned down. But I also think that among this population, VCs are seen as the commodity, a resource to be used when their startup has proven itself and needs to scale. Sam Altman used to say many things to this effect, back when he was on the entrepreneur side of the table.
One of the most illuminating quotes was something I read in Dale Carnegie, to the effect of "The guy you're holding a conversation with probably thinks himself superior to you. Let him. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain from maintaining this illusion." It made it clear that there's nothing wrong with different people having different perspectives on who's got the higher status in the relationship, or, more cynically, on who's using whom. In fact, the world runs on this status ambiguity - nobody would ever do a deal in which they think they are going to get screwed, so the only reason we have any commerce at all is for both parties to believe they are the ones getting the better end of the deal. We wouldn't be able to function without Lake Wobegone. (There's another interesting psychological finding where the only people with a realistic self-image are clinically depressed; apparently, if you lack this inflated sense of self-worth, it really does make you unable to function.)
I would agree if there was some equality between who is getting shafted. SV is replete with examples of founders or employees getting screwed over and burned up by contract clauses or other financial shell games.
(Perhaps it comes down to the old tale of the pig and chicken making breakfast. The chicken can always make more eggs.... The pig not so much)
I point this out because there is such a strong ethos around SV as being this kind of "Anti Wall-street" which I think is reinforced because founders/employees genuinely to want to make impactful stuff. The founders here and elsewhere in the startup world constantly talk about "making a difference," "changing the world" etc. So whereas the junior analysts and salesmen on Wall Street all know and acknowledge that making shitloads of money is the primary goal, I have a hunch that the VC's and LPs in SV (and elsewhere in the startup world) are using the naivety of high producing young, enthusiastic people to make a killing. This is why the archetype of the SV founder is someone who is personally low risk (single, young), is expected to work an insane amount to get growth going, tapping into growing markets and has already validated the market.
That is not to say that founders & finance are de-facto in conflict across the board, and it is also not to say there is some kind of conspiracy between Ron and Jim to juice labor, but I do think that founders are largely seen as a commodity to the finance class in the startup world. My guess is that they VCs are threading the needle really carefully with giving out information about how to get more "founder friendly" terms because founders are too smart to get screwed.
[1] http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-fo...