There is a whimsical notion that has been propagated for the better part of the last two centuries; The notion that capitalism is inherently exploitative is false. Years of propaganda and the natural hate we all have for our corporate overlords makes it easy to play the victim card. However, debunking this myth doesn’t take an advance degree.

Capitalism is an economic system that consist of the private ownership of the means of production. This essentially means private citizens make things to sell to each other with the stuff they already own. This is by no means exploitation. Participation is optional (yes, it really is, you can go disappear into a forest if you want)

Work can be exploitative, indentured servitude and slavery are a few examples of such, neither of them being core aspects of capitalism or free market ideology. Slavery existed in just about every form of socioeconomic organization well before the onset of capitalism. Slavery is outright rejected by free market ideologues who emphasize the individual over the collective. Note that slavery has largely dissipated as an institution since the onset of capitalism, as if there was an alternative way to make money without owning people…what magical system could that be?

Consumerism is a good thing. It isn’t uncommon to hear people talk about how bad it is that capitalism promotes materialistic and superficial behaviors within society. However; this is the wrong way to view it. Capitalism doesn’t force people to buy things, it just makes the stuff people want and need readily available (something socialism has had issues with).

Environment Exploitation: A reoccurring argument against capitalism centers on its environmental harms. To conclude capitalism is bad for the environment requires one to ignore the environmental impact of every other from of social organization in history. The USSR had a terrible environmental record despite its failed collectivist approach to social organization. Likewise, some of the largest Oil companies in the world are owned and ran by socialist governments. In the case of American oil, it is not state owned but often taxed for social benefit as well. A market takes two to tango, nobody sales oil that no one wants to buy. It’s odd how one could condemn one half of the equation but not the other. The oil companies are just as guilty as the consumers who buy it (a.k.a supply and demand). Human activity causes environmental damage, not the -ism you were brainwashed to hate.

Profits are not exploitative no matter how disproportionate they are. The relationship between you and your employer is voluntary. You agree to sell your labor and they agree to buy it at a certain rate. As long as the terms both parties agreed to are met and those conditions are strictly adhered to, then any claim of unfair treatment is asinine. You agreed to the work and pay, so unless you weren’t paid what you agreed to, you can’t claim unfair treatment. The fans of Marx tend to miss a critical flaw in his view of profits as the unfair extraction of labor value. The worker is only on the job because they believe they will gain more than they would in leisure/unemployment, this means the worker receives surplus/extra value that didn’t exist before in the form of a pay check. If the worker didn’t believe the pay to be worth more than their labor then they wouldn’t work. Essentially meaning that the surplus value created only exists due to the coordination of capital and leadership (the entrepreneur) and of that surplus value the worker is compensated their fair share.

The coercion of poverty is a core argument for the opponents of capitalism trying to propagate the idea that capitalism is exploitative. The argument is that, some people have no choice in where they work and are therefore forced to accept lower wages. This is true in the short run, but it is by no means evidence of exploitation; if anything it’s the opposite. No one takes a job to be worse off. This means that even with the coercion of poverty, capitalism improves the lives of the poor low skilled workers by offering them opportunities that simply didn’t exist before.

Minimum wage isn’t a death trap of oppression, in our society very few workers make min wage. The lions share rise into higher incomes with experience. Those who don’t are the rare exception, not the rule.

Unfair Work Conditions: Sweatshops made America an economic powerhouse and has done the same for China and India. Contrary to the narrative in the developed world, sweatshops are a welcomed development in the countries they are actually in. Think about it, $2.30 an hour is a marked improvement form $0.00 an hour. When considering what these people did to survive before sweatshops, it should come as no surprise that most of the people who take issue with sweatshops live very far from them.

I want to note:

Child labor is unacceptable because a child can not consent to a work contract nor fully understand the terms of said contract.

Workers have to be free to quit. Locking employees in unsafe buildings for hours at a time isn’t capitalism or any kind of -ism for that matter, it’s just plain wrong.

The charges against capitalism are largely due to economic ignorance. The poor are better off in capitalistic society than in non-capitalistic society (give me an example to the contrary). The argument today is simple, to what extent should wealth be redistributed, if at all? As I read naive notions of abolishing capitalism to the benefit of the masses, I have become concerned with the alarming levels of general ignorance. Don’t be fooled by beautiful rhetoric and romanticism, when it comes to feeding your family capitalism is by all means still your best bet.