Have you never heard someone calling their boss "authoritarian"? I used it as a description of an unfree, undemocratic, top-down system that's used in our economic sphere under capitalism, if you don't like that one, pick something else that describes that. The specific word used is not what's important here.
> Capitalism is synonymous with a free market economy in most contexts that these terms are used. > No, capitalism is synomous with free markets, and concentration of wealth is totally orthogonal to a free market economy.
No, it's not. That's just historical revisionism. It's a system based on exclusive ownership of property etc. Societies have traded stuff throughout history without Capitalism and its institution of private-property rights etc.
> People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense
Well, it is already illegal for children and legality is still not a guide for morality. It's definitely in a social sense, which I have already explained.
Also, I've already explained - you even quoted it - that it's not "forced by nature" like some natural law. It's man made. Proven by the fact that societies through history didn't have capitalist wage labour and did just fine wrt food.
> This propaganda is intended to depict human liberty as unnatural, and socialist repression as the natural order of things.
> It's extreme deception motivated by a delusional utopianist fantasy.
> to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology.
> Objective reality deems socialism a crude ideological narrative.
> like socialism, that rationalize tyranny,
> As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society
More of your non-emotional objectiveness I see.
> You have provided no evidence that someone offering a job
Well, of course it's not the the act itself of offering a job, it's supporting and perpetuating the system - Capitalism - that sets up those conditions in the first place. Why do you have such a hard time of keeping this on a systemic level?
> You're accusing employers of being oppressors based on the flimsiest of logic
I'm discussing this as a systemic issue, not an individual. That should be obvious by now. And some employers certainly are oppressors, but the edge is towards the capitalist-class, not the local shopkeeper or whatever.