Take the gold mining in South Africa for example, or the oil refineries in Nigeria for example. The (corrupt)states have truly minimal interference there.
The difference between that and this is that your examples are examples of truly corrupt systems that don't consider equity or fairness between employee and management (owners?) in the least. The existing employment market may seem Stygian to you but even it produces an abhor of companies that don't treat their workers fairly or shortchanges them in some way. And not always in the same way as another company in that same "abhor" group. The worker still has the right to look for work he wants or likes to do and refuse work he does not want or like to do.
As for anarchists, I believe they have studied human oppression more than any other group.
That in the same vein may also be a potentially mistaken conclusion. All the veins you mentioned in following would have to follow a system of society betterment where corruption and subjugation has been removed, something that many niches in this generation and generations before mine have tried to bring about without realizing that truly adopting such a system creates the system's own vacuum, one that is easily dwarfed even by a corrupt system that current exists, even a waning one.
Capitalism, I believe, has always had a leg up because it recognizes that human oppression exists, bitterly or not, but, barring sociopolitical ills that can be moved beyond or exchanged for lessened ills, strives to create a system where the oppression continues to decrease, striving to reach a point of balance, rather than assuming one exists. Instead of trying to do away with oppression or transform the concept of human interaction, it tries to foster an environment where these inevitabilities can exist in benign, hobbled forms. Anarchy and socialism as it is today is often sold as a balance if not a form of purity.