That logic is the problem -- particularly on the part of the people who actually want to implement it. Legislating morality is a disease that encourages people to believe they only need to act morally when the law forces them to.
The thing about markets is that they don't want anything in particular. It isn't "markets" that want poor people to remain poor, it's a collection of specific instances of non-poor people who choose to value something else over improving the lot of the poor. A market is just a collection of people doing whatever it is they think is best. It doesn't have a conscience outside of the individuals that make it up, but its results do reflect the collective choices of the participants.
Can't upvote this enough.
Other than that, the middle-upper class is becoming more aware, informed and caring, and that more than makes up for the lack of involvement of the lower classes.
I don't like the tone of that article at all. When you start demanding that morality, for all its subjectivity and relativity, be involved with economics, you invite troubles. The next step is for morality to be mandated through regulations. Such regulations rarely do more than benefit specific players, those who know how to bend the rules or those with higher up connections.
While I was expecting the author to call for such regulation, he surprisingly didn't.
In my view, the correct way of fighting monopolies would be using the great social tools at our disposal to make consumers more informed about the distant implications of their buying decisions. This will create an informed Capitalism, one where in the consumers are the ultimate regulators.