The people it helped the most are not elites, but workers from third world countries.
Probably less bad than being condemned in medieval living conditions but not an excuse for not thinking about genuinely better ways. The shape of humam economy (eg whether unequal, stratified, slave labor based or more or less egalitarian) is an entirely cultural choice.
Honestly, your stance is not only irrational, but even immoral.
Widespread abuse and exploitation of people by people would not possible if the beneficiaries were not extremely skillful to rationalize their self-serving ideologies.
On the other hand, said workers in the third world country that has seen their conditions and prosperity get better will only want their conditions to get even better. This is what happened in the first world. A company preventing that is immoral.
1: own in the sense the place that contributed (schools, taxes, stable political system) to their growth to a point that they have wealth and expertise to invest in other countries.