Capitalism doesn't exploit anyone, the employee offers his services for an agreed remuneration. What could be more simple.The short answer to the question is: yes, capitalism exploits everyone who isn't a capitalist.
Well, that depends on your idea of work, what an economy is, and for whom it should function.
Not wishing to be provocative but is there any connection between the meaning in Latin of your soubriquet and your apparent preoccupation with matters concerning money?I can now expand upon my post #31 to this thread involving the honesty of money:
Money itself is not wealth. Money is merely a portable and transferable and highly freely/universally accepted "proxy" for wealth. Wealth must first be expended commensurate with the 'price' of the proxy whereby to acquire it for use as money, and then such money (as a representative proxy) may be used as the means to 'effective' wealth transfer.
Fiat money (money brought into existence merely by mystically proclaiming "Let it be so", and then via "force" of law and the government gun being compelled into use as if it were a viable proxy for wealth, while simultaneously declaring it the only means whereby to pay taxes) completely distorts the core essence of honest money. And worse, fiat continuously devalues with the passing of time literally by baked in 'design' (as nominally controlled via attempting to stabilize interest rates"), giving rise to the artificial appearance of inflation and price increases, and leading to stored proxy value erosion as another means by which it fails to be money.
Dishonest money (sourced from "let it be so" at the point of the governments gun and taxing power) promotes and rewards corruption in all areas of its reach, and it greatly oppresses and devalues savings, compelling instead rapid expenditure whereby to attempt to avoid it's baked in devaluation over time. It fails in many ways to be a proxy for wealth.
Honest capitalism requires honest and freely accepted money with a just means of valuation whereby to establish it as a wealth proxy (which is done by purchasing it with real wealth). Fiat money separated from force and more importantly the fear of force has right close to zero value, if not factually zero value. Capitalism can't function properly with fiat money.
The one on the left - why because I am right-handed and ornamental bird baths don't make good cheese graters (usually)A purely hypothetical thought experiment on fiat money as a legitimate proxy for wealth:
Lets assume that the Titanic was carrying two identical well sealed safes when it sank. One with multiple 400 Troy Ounce 99.999 fine gold central bank ingots, and one with what was back then considered to be the exact currency equivalent to the gold, but in fiat Pound Sterling and/or fiat US Dollar paper notes.
If you were on a "stealth" recovery ship, which safe would you most desire to recover? And why?