"so you understand that you used 'consented' wrong." Not exactly, because explain to me how someone agreeing to work in exchange for a wage is different from choosing between letting children eat or starve? Statements like this presuppose that nature in and of itself is oppressive. This is just how reality itself functions. We don't live in a world where immortality exists and there is an abundance of resources. Let me put it another way regarding "exploitation": When you get accepted for a job, you typically sign a contract, and this contract is a transfer of the title for the fruits of your labor to the capitalist, while the capitalist in return promises to transfer their title to some of their money to you in exchange as your wages. Therefore, laborers never had any title to their work, and thus have no ownership over it. You are basing value off of the faulty labor theory of value. If you want to talk about true exploitation, we can talk about taxation. "The capitalist is not needed in any scenario, it's just forced upon us." I do agree with you to some extent that the capitalist may not be needed on their own, because the workers could just start a co-op or sole proprietorship to keep 100% of their profits (in fact, I prefer this structures over traditional businesses anyway). However, not everyone has the same preferences to be able to perform both the functions of labor and capital. In this case, there is nothing wrong with wanting to work with people who possess different skills.
