You have not substantiated this absurd claim in any way.
>>But on the systematic level it's clearly that Capitalism depends on other people being a means to an end of other, wealthier, people.
There is absolutely no dependence on there being wealth inequality, let alone on the employer being wealthier than the employee, for a free market economy to operate. A wealthy doctor can be hired by a poor hotdog stand owner for example.
>>It's a concession due to worse alternatives because the system people find themselves in offer no other alternatives for millions upon millions of people. That's not freedom.
Like I said, people having bad options doesn't make the situation "authoritarian". This is an extremely loaded term, and when you use it you are accusing someone of repressing others, and that someone according to your crude socialist narrative is ANY ONE who has been successful.
You are not being careful in how you use the term, to ensure it actually applies. You're doing sloppy mental gymnastics, where you equate any negativity, or situation of disempowerment, with "authoritarian" circumstances, and then making a leap from this premise, to accusing employers of being the oppressors. It's just sloppy, careless leaps of logic.
Like I said, people needing to pick one of the several difficult options available to them, in order to earn enough to eat is, as Frédéric Bastiat wrote 170 years, the nature of reality, that exists with or without authoritarianism:
"Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd."
Moreover, someone wealthier offering a higher wage than the other options available to a person, and a person consequently choosing to work for them, is not authoritarianism.
>>No, it's not. People pick the less worse option all the time under authoritarian structures.
Yes, it is. It's not just that people pick less worse options in the free market structure. It's that the person providing the "less worse option" is not doing anything to worsen the other options available to the person they are making their offer to. In an authoritarian structure, the authoritarian actor is using violence, or the threats of it, to deprive the oppressed party of other options.
>>You're consistently shallow in your thinking and not bothering to dive a few steps deeper and ask simple questions like why people would accept a 19th century mining job or their modern equivalents? Were those mining jobs "happy trades"?
Your questions are irrelevant. You're being sloppy with definitions, and the inflammatory accusations you make based on those definitions. No, what the employer does, in offering a job, is not authoritarian, and it's irresponsible for you to not consider the harm to an innocent party that is done when you make a wrongful accusation, and critically analyze the validity of the accusation, before you make it.
You're not fact-checking and trying to be objective. You're not being responsible toward other people when you make these types of crude blanket accusations without due diligence.