[akramachamarei]

You call them "slaves"... where are the whips and chains? If you can't show me whips and chains, tell me why they choose to work in the clothing plants? If they aren't forced to work there, doesn't that suggest that the plants are a desirable alternative to other options in their situation? Now, maybe you believe something more sophisticated, like somehow the appearance of the plants also eliminated opportunities which were better than all presently available options to workers of the "global south." If you believe that, can you explain to me why?

[thrance]

I think you know perfectly well what I meant by "slaves". I trust you are able to recognize an hyperbole when you see one.

Most of humanity lives with little prospect of improving their lives through its work, and OP's comment about capitalism allowing everyone to do so is just patently wrong. Living in countries without social nets or worker protections, people are forced to take whatever "opportunities" are given to them and toil away for a wage that doesn't equate one one hundredth of what they output. Either that or they starve, hence the lack of freedom and therefore why "slave" feels appropriate, even with a lack of physical "whips and chains".

[akramachamarei]

Hyperbole, sure. When you used the word "slave", you didn't mean it. When you used the word "freedom" just now, that's not what you actually meant either, is it? You're probably talking about something like the capabilities model, not actually freedom.

You seem to think it's so unfair that people work, or they starve. I focus on your usage of words like "slavery" and "freedom" because I want to get at what you actually believe. You're implying there's a better way to run the world than to have "capitalism", which is to say, property is enforced, contracts are enforced, and people are allowed to trade consensually without (much) interference from men with badges and guns. But, like your loaded use of the term "slave", the lede has been left implicit; like "freedom" your alternative is left nebulous.

Or is your complaint hyperbole too? Should I not take it seriously? Sure, you might be correct in a limited sense, that an uncharitable reading of OP's comment is wrong. But based on history, I don't see how the average person is going to get a better Return for their Work with some other system which doesn't respect property, contracts, free exchange, and if so, at what cost.

Finally, you're dead wrong about most people in the world. Ever heard of the rise of the global middle class? Poverty is falling on a global scale. That's not because of charity.