Permitting large-scale "exploitation" requires large-scale irrationality, wouldn't you think? It's not rational to be exploited, and it's really not rational to be in an exploited minority.
One of the reasons the Marxists see this is that they see a trade in which one side benefits "more" than the other according to one scale, and scream "exploitation!" But... it's still a trade that benefited both sides. It may indeed still be a bit exploitative (and our laws have cases to cover this) if for instance one side is a monopoly or something; capitalism does not begin and end with microecon 101, after all [1]. But it's a different character of exploitation than one in which one side fails to benefit, and Marxist theory has a major hole in it where it has a really hard time explaining why an agent would enter into a trade in which it comes out behind by its own value system, when one can visibly see that no force is being applied. (Let me also forstall the fact that there are cases where force has been applied, but I'd say those are nowhere near sufficient to explain the modern economy.)
[1]: And let me underline that. Microecon is not the beginning and the end of capitalism, and it's not as if it has no problems. I'm interested in informed discussions of capitalism's problems, but one must start from a proper understanding of what it really is. In a more neutral context, one can argue about whether "real" numbers actually exist and whether they should be used mathematically, but this argument is not helped by getting wrong what "real" numbers are from the getgo.
> Permitting large-scale "exploitation" requires large-scale irrationality, wouldn't you think? It's not rational to be exploited...
That assumes that you have a better alternative. My alternative to being exploited by the greedy capitalists is revolution, but for that to work, a bunch of my fellow oppressed have to agree. My decision is (normally) whether to hopelessly revolt and get crushed, or to make the best of it and go along. In that context, going along is probably a rational choice.
> ... and it's really not rational to be in an exploited minority.
Marxism says that the exploited are the majority, not the minority.
Look, I'm not an apologist for Marxism. I don't want a Marxist revolution, and I don't want to live in the aftermath of one. But I think you're a bit mis-characterizing their position. (Once you characterize it accurately, then disagree as much and as eloquently as you please.)
One of the reasons the Marxists see this is that they see a trade in which one side benefits "more" than the other according to one scale, and scream "exploitation!" But... it's still a trade that benefited both sides. It may indeed still be a bit exploitative (and our laws have cases to cover this) if for instance one side is a monopoly or something; capitalism does not begin and end with microecon 101, after all [1]. But it's a different character of exploitation than one in which one side fails to benefit, and Marxist theory has a major hole in it where it has a really hard time explaining why an agent would enter into a trade in which it comes out behind by its own value system, when one can visibly see that no force is being applied. (Let me also forstall the fact that there are cases where force has been applied, but I'd say those are nowhere near sufficient to explain the modern economy.)
[1]: And let me underline that. Microecon is not the beginning and the end of capitalism, and it's not as if it has no problems. I'm interested in informed discussions of capitalism's problems, but one must start from a proper understanding of what it really is. In a more neutral context, one can argue about whether "real" numbers actually exist and whether they should be used mathematically, but this argument is not helped by getting wrong what "real" numbers are from the getgo.