Not the OP, but I read most of Das Capital... 1. He is not. The companies that employs those workers are the ones that are exploiting. 2. I'm not sure that i

Not the OP, but I read most of Das Capital... 1. He is not. The companies that employs those workers are the ones that are exploiting. 2. I'm not sure that it is the case here, but a person can be paid more than her labor by several reasons, including luck in the market. Of course, in a large volume of exchanges, good luck and bad luck cancel each other out, therefore to explain a stable surplus value accumulation, you need another explanation. Marx explains this as a non-paid value taken from the workers. If he do not employ anyone, he is not exploiting anyone according with Marx. Anyway, even though he was exploiting, any Marxist would condemn your moralistic view of the situation. Marx's critique is not a moral one. Friedrich Engels, who helped Marx to develop his theories was a capitalist who owned factories. You have all right to do not like Marx or his theories. However, I think that any criticism should be valid (99% of what you find in the Internet is propaganda, not serious criticism), otherwise it is the critic who would be the pseudocientific/religious ideologue.