I think I can manage to do that, though I don't really want to 'convert' people to any particular ideology, not even the one I subscribe to. I just wanted to comment with my perspective, which is a Marxian-inspired (though not necessarily Marxist) view.

>Markets in the capitalist sense, with people having to sell labour-time for wage in order to survive to a market of bourgeoisie is also a recent invention, a little over 200 years old. There's no reason to think it's the 'natural state' of humanity as some people have said.

Who are the bourgeoisie? The bourgeoisie are a class of people, the necessary prerequesites are roughly that they firstly own the means of production (i.e capital and land; machinery is of course also included in this), everything required to make commodities aside from the key component of human labour (unless embodied in 'dead labour', as machinery). The second requisite is that they pay for labour time in order to add value to the products that are made. The bourgeoisie are actually a minority, as the majority of people do not employ others nor own capital (they may do one of these two, but their conjunction, which is necessary to be considered bourgeois, is rare). Those who own stock however do not count as bourgeois, as this is 'fictitious capital'; they do not exploit others, though they do benefit from the exploitation.

What is labour-time? Labour-time is what a worker has available to sell. It is not labour itself, but rather the capacity to perform labour. For example, a capitalist (i.e a memeber of the bourgeoisie) would purchase a certain amount of sugar. Sugar is measured by the kilogram. In the same way, in order to produce a commodity, say candy for example, he will purchase some labour-time. Labour-time is measured by the hour. He will pay for a certain number of hours. Of course the amount he pays for is also related to the quality. Just as he may pay for poor or good quality sugar, he will pay for poor or good quality labour-time.

What are wages? Marx defines them in Wage Labour and Capital as follows: "The exchange value of a commodity estimated in money is called its price. Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of labour-time, and are usually called the price of labour; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood."

Workers, the majority of whom must sell their labour-time for a wage (by paying the wage, the capitalist has provided the labourer with a certain amount of meat, of water, of rent etc.) are referred to as the proletariat. They often have very little else to sell other than their productive capacity. Self-employed people may, depending on the situation, be counted as bourgeoisie or proletarians, though there is roughly a 'middle' class of those artisans or self-employed workers who are viewed as bourgeois-in-potential, petit-bourgeoisie. These are not very common, especially in the world where corporations employing economies of scale with many employees (proletarians) can quickly outpace the individual labourer or group of people in an equal partnership (e.g a co-operative).

I contend that this division of society is an example of class conflict, initially developed out of violence and coercion. It may be compared to a serf/peasant and a landlord in feudal times. Or even a slave and master in ancient times. It is within the interests of the proletariat to overthrow this system.

Why do I refer to a capitalist as 'exploiting' the worker in the exchange of labur-time for wage? For this, look no further than the profit after goods have been sold. If things are traded at equal [exchange] value, the capitalist will end up with some amount of profit. This is the amount left over after accounting for: parts to fix wear and tear of machinery, the object of labour (e.g land and material) and worker's wages. I contend that this profit originates by result of surplus labour. That is, extra labour which is performed on the job by the worker. The worker is not paid for the amount of value he creatos or imbues a product with, he is paid simply by the hour. The value of a product does not become apparent until the very act of exchange, it can only be predicted.

In short, I am trying to say that the wages which are given to the worker have no relation whatsoever to the value of the products being made (this value arising out of labour). The amount the worker is paid is only the bare minimum required for the worker to keep working. Too little and the worker stops. Too much and the worker will start to invest and buy his own capital, moving into the class of bourgeoisie. The value which the worker creates is therefore not returned to him in the form of wages. The worker, like a machine or amount of sugar, is used up, exploited. Exploitation isn't a bad term, it refers to using something up for what it is useful for.

At the risk of this being an insufficient explanation, I would like to recommend two resources: firstly, "Exploitation of Labour"[0], a chapter written by Itsurou Sakisaka as an introduction to Marx's masterpiece Capital. The second is An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Marx's Capital by Michael Heinrich.

For a more general idea, Marx has provided materials in pamphlet form. Wage Labour and Capital is one such document. It can be found at the marxists.org website.

I hope this helped clear my opinion up so that others can understand it.

[0] https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation...