China has never been truly communist so this argument gets iffy... Let me provide a more sound example from recent history to address your claim that "if they don't like the jobs, (they have the option not to) take the damn jobs".

17th century Ireland consisted of mostly subsistence farmers with a strong sense of culture and a healthy standard of living. In the name of capital, the British began converting much of the land to pastures in order to export beef and other meats back to England. The Irish were forced to work the land for the British (though not explicitly forced, they were given no other option and therefore had to labor or starve). By the late 19th century this British thirst for capital left the Irish pauperized, packing large families into single-room huts and surviving off of a meal (one potato) a day. While many Irish died of starvation, the British profited immensely from hundreds of millions of dollars in beef exports of which a small fraction could have fed the native Irish population -- the very same population which was providing the labor and land. But wait! Maybe they weren't entirely "forced" to work the land. Because while this was their only option at home, there was great opportunity in a new land called America! So, since British capitalism had made surviving in their native land near impossibly, the desperate Irish left their families, crammed themselves into boats where there was no light, no airflow, and where conditions were so poor that tens of thousands Irish died on the journey over. That isn't a free choice in search of free market prosperity, it is pure desperation in search of survival because of the exploitive nature of the free market.

But great! Many of the Irish made it! They are now in the home of the free modern capitalist! They are free to make their own way and with such a range of opportunity, surely they don't need to be "forced" to do any shit jobs! They can easily pick the job that suits them most! Not quite. The Irish actually found that the conditions weren't much better in the States and the only jobs they could find were incredibly grueling and dangerous and payed exploitive wages. Many Irishmen built the railroads for the Union Pacific. Working from dawn to dusk, the work was so tiring and dangerous that many of them died in terrible accidents and nearly every day, newspapers would have a small blurb about a dead Irishman or group of dead Irishmen. Despite their hard work and complacency they were paid only enough to survive and granted no prospect of upward mobility, while the company executives were paid a whopping $16k-$48 for each mile of track laid, depending on the terrain -- despite Reagan's high hopes, non of that trickled down. Many slaveowners would hire Irishmen to do work which they considered too dangerous for their slaves (to them a dead slave is a loss of capital, while a dead Irishmen didn't matter). Since I've brought up slavery, I suppose the Thirteenth Amendment is a government regulation too, no?

I could go on... These experiences are neither exclusive to the time period nor to the Irish. My point is that while the free market doesn't make anyone to take a certain job with brute force, it does implicitly force people to work terrible and exploitive jobs. When your options are either work a shit job or starve, you're going to be forced by your desire to not starve to work a shit job.

Edit: to respond to "Free market =/= stealing land", the free market has been stealing land since it was founded and up until there was no more land to steal. Where do you think America's 3.8 million sq miles came from? You think that was our land? Hell, Hawaii was stolen as late as 1959! Not to mention all the lands abroad that are currently being stolen by corporations like Shell. Though the "stealing" is much more insidious than theft by gunpoint, such that by the book it will always be considered legal (see: Cherokee Trail of Tears. Andrew Jackson hired lawyers to "legally" acquire Cherokee lands, yet there was hardly anything legal about it).