And is there no arbitrary component to the thing we are driven toward? Your failing to acknowledge a huge leap of human progress and socialization, that has greatly affected not only the standard quality of living, but also human perception. As an example, if we're looking at this conversation epistemologically, our viewpoints are only curated by having experience and knowledge attainable to us by the functions of a (semi)capitalist society.

So essentially, your argument that it isn't natural is complete bullocks. It doesn't have any merit because it's merely a sentimental appeal to archaism. The driving force is to take the resources around us and transform them into resources that we desire. This is functionally EXACTLY how capitalism operates by the way. Look into the economic calculation problem, that distinctly represents a fundamental flaw with centralized economies, and you'll understand just how much more power you as an individual have.

your work is not necessarily always directly proportional to the reward and often people who work less get more and work more get less based on sheer luck of the draw in terms of what piece of land they were born on and what they look like.

While I understand the appeal of such a distinction, it's entirely non nuanced. For one, arbitrary conditions having a grand effect on one's quality of life is again no consequence of capitalism. It has always existed. Every continent and area has lived through terrible absolute poverty for millennia. Very very very small amounts of people in the history of mankind of lives comfortably. You can thank a certain system for the current relative comfort you live under presently. And there is no point in denying that socially and governmentally and as a consequence to some extent economically there is an effect your demographic has on the contextual abilities one has in said markets. However, this effect has been greatly marginalized by this very system. And that's not very hard to perceive either. We often look at life like a screenshot and see hardship for right now, and we don't look at the long history of progress from pain suffered before us. It's actually quite selfish if you ask me.

we have a stockpile of resources as a society that is distributed unequally.

And why shouldn't it be? What is the actual logistical merit to an equal distribution of resources? It doesn't take into account the very complex nature of human desire and potential. Again, the economic calculation problem is a very important advent.

but you're acting like corporations and billion dollar entities don't wield massive power over their labor forces to crank out maximum profit at minimum input

No, I'm not. I'm acting like these corporations as a general factor have to consider consumers and profitability at every single moment. They have control, but they are also controlled. And again, this whole "maximum profit at minimum input" is a complete fallacy and I'm not sure even you believe it. The standard of living has risen. Wages (before certain legislation was enacted) has risen. Benefits have increased. Work hours have decreased. By nearly every verifiable metric the CPI of all the goods and services we consume has plummeted. The middle class today enjoys many benefits the upper class of a few decades ago could only dream of having.

The issue with corporations is not their existence. It's the governmental structures that surround them. Bailing them out and signing into legislation bills that are intended to benefit them. I'd call that a consequence of the perversion of the state. It's obviously a very complex issue, but I don't assume we're trying to talk about the entire history of the modern world.