This is a very interesting issue, in my opinion. The USSR, for example, exploited workers in order to industrialize quickly. So did many other states with a "state capitalist" organization. Technically the capital improvements that the workers created was collectively owned by them. And later on they (or their descendants) did benefit collectively from state-provided services enabled by that capital build-up. But I have no doubt that from the point of view of many workers involved in the process the promise of some distant better tomorrow wasn't' enough to make the present effort demanded a justified one. In any case the "communism that existed" could and did compete with capitalism in doing that, at least for some decades. It was in the 70s, when the political systems gradually abandoned the ruthless enforcement of their directives and also started providing move social services, when it stated to deliver on some of those promises, that the economy slowed down there. And the idea I get is that the the vast majority of the people who lived there were happier with that change. So, yes, I guess you may have a point... If you want to accumulate and reinvest large amounts of capital then workers must consume less. Thant simply could not be avoided. And so it was that the process of industrialization everywhere has seen workers being exploited, used against or beyond their desires had they been free to choose, on many an occasion. But perhaps we have already reached the point where productivity is high enough that the accumulation of capital through forced reduction of consumption of physical goods is no longer necessary. Capitalism, however, doesn't make it easy to verify if that is true. But high unemployment and the big shifts of labor towards essentially entertainment services will be a giveaway.