I want to add that if rent didn’t exist (economic rent, Ricardian rent, monopoly rents, political rents etc.), then capitalism would not lead to inequality.

This is an impossibility. Capital owners and workers will always be unequal, if there were no measurable benefit for being an owner, then everyone would be a worker. Profit comes from the surplus value created by workers, so the workers are getting their value siphoned through employment.

I would argue that the rents have increased from 70s to now in the US and many other western countries, but they also decreased from 30s to 50s and remained low for two more decades - and this change happened not through a revolution or seizing all companies. It happened democratically through the creation of a welfare state, through seizing some natural monopolies, unions, insurances, worker’s rights, and through public investment in innovation. These reforms show that systems can curb rentier dynamics without dismantling markets entirely.

These happened for 2 major reasons. The first, is that the Soviet Union presented an alternative to Capitalism, and Capital was scared of worker revolution. The second, is that these are always temporary measures, as you noted, these waned over time. They were not granted democratically, but as a consequence of labor organization, these band-aids happened to prevent the system from collapsing under its own contradictions, that were particularly dire after World War I and II.

Looks like China’s share of wealth accruing to the top 10% has gone from around 42% in 1990s to around 68% in 2024 https://wid.world/country/china/.

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf It's true that China's wealth inequality in their post-Mao era is higher, but with it has come the largest poverty eradication in history.

Ultimately, I don’t think any system should be purely one or the other. Central planning has deep flaws, and so do unregulated markets. If we can maintain a democratic structure with a well-informed public, then we have a real chance to strike the right balance: limiting rents, promoting equity, and preserving freedom.

I don't really know what you mean, here. What "deep flaws" does Central Planning have? Why is Socialism not democratic enough in your eyes? Any system that leaves Capitalists in control of the State will always fail to deliver on what you say you want.

[–] lookupgeorgism@lemm.ee 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is an impossibility. Capital owners and workers will always be unequal, if there were no measurable benefit for being an owner, then everyone would be a worker.

What you're arguing here is Piketty's accumulation view. Rognlie and Stiglitz have pretty convincing arguments against this. First, there is no such thing as a pure "worker" and a pure "capitalist". Capitalists work and consume and workers save out of their wages (e.g. through pensions). Stiglitz argues "For the wealth–income ratio of capitalists to be ever increasing would require sr > g, but in standard Solow model of growth, where workers save at the same rate that capitalists do, that inequality does not hold in the long run." "Secondly, the return to capital should be treated as endogenous. If the increase in wealth represented an increase in “capital,” then the law of diminishing returns would imply that the return to capital should have decreased." - Stiglitz. Third, and most importantly, Stiglitz argues that when taking rents (what separates wealth from capital) out the equation, there is no measurable benefit for being an owner. He calls the capitalized value of rents, the "wealth residual". He mainly focuses on rents caused by land ownership, market power, patents and assymmetric information. After all these rents are taken away, there is maybe one type of rent left that would make being a capitalist worthwhile for those who have a good idea/good understanding of markets - basically who is good at the labor of running a business. It is quasi-rents. They are always temporary, because they are the reward for having an idea and executing it until competition copies it. They are what are often extended through patents, a debatable policy. The temporarity of quasi-rents implies a necessity for a continuity of keeping innovation going, which becomes the labor of the capitalist. If all other rents than quasi-rents disappeared, the only benefit accruing to a capitalist would be the reward for the labor and knowledge required to come up with new products, production methods, etc and succeeding with it. And it challenges your statement "if there were no measurable benefit for being an owner, then everyone would be a worker." because it would be similar to comparing two jobs.

The first, is that the Soviet Union presented an alternative to Capitalism, and Capital was scared of worker revolution.

Yes, a lot of these policies were inspired by socialist regimes. This does not prove that socialism is better, but if anything it implies that a mix of the two is better than pure capitalism.

The second, is that these are always temporary measures, as you noted, these waned over time. They were not granted democratically, but as a consequence of labor organization, these band-aids happened to prevent the system from collapsing under its own contradictions, that were particularly dire after World War I and II.

These measures were certainly not sufficient solutions to the problem of rents, and in countries like the US, the institutions preventing politicians buying elections were not strong enough, if not non-existent. But these "temporary" measures have sustained in Scandinavia, where democracy is stronger.

Profit comes from the surplus value created by workers, so the workers are getting their value siphoned through employment.

Yes, without competition. But with competition, firms cannot pay less than the market salary without having a shortage of workers.

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period.

While this is true, wasn't this also true for the US, when they had their main growth from 1945-78?

I don’t really know what you mean, here. What “deep flaws” does Central Planning have?

The main flaw is explained by complexity science. Society is a complex, self-organizing system composed of countless interacting agents, each with varying, dynamic, and unique preferences and constraints. As Hayek argues, such systems exhibit emergent order that cannot be planned or predicted in detail. Central planning assumes that outcomes can be engineered from above, but in reality, only general patterns—not specific results—can be anticipated. Just as evolutionary theory explains broad tendencies without predicting exact species, economic systems can only be understood through principles, not precise outcomes. Central planning fails because it attempts specific predictions in a domain where only qualitative ones are possible.

Why is Socialism not democratic enough in your eyes? Any system that leaves Capitalists in control of the State will always fail to deliver on what you say you want.

I never said socialism specifically is not democratic enough. I said that whatever system we have, we cannot trust those in power to act for the social good without proper institution-which there is no country in the history of the world that has perfected. The assumption that a democratically elected government will act in the public interest relies on both a perfect democracy and of altruistic public actors. In reality, there is both government and market failures. Buchanan showed that government actors are more interested in being reelected than improving outcomes for everyone, which are different incentives. A company buying a politician is a likely as a government agent providing benefits to groups they align with purely out of own self-interest. What matters most, whichever system we have, is designing the proper institutions to prevent these from happening. How would you decide who gets what in a socialist system? Under which ethical framework should this be decided? No matter which system you decide, there will be losers and winners. Will your choice depend on your own biases? If it is purely democratically chosen, what will happen to minorities?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 20 hours ago

What I am arguing is the Marxist POV, which is certified through historical trends. Even before land had been monopolized, the bourgeoisie quickly became dominant financially. You're confusing the class character of workers and owners as individual judgements and not as a subsection of society with definite relations, a worker can have some savings and an owner can do some labor, but that's not the point of class analysis. If you aren't going to actually engage with the Marxist critique, why are you acting as though you know what the Marxist critique is? It's condescending.

Same with the wild assumptions of workers being capable of saving at the same rate as Capitalists, and the idea that Capitalists turn profits from their own labor, and not through paying workers less than the value they create. You haven't once engaged with that fundamental critique from the Socialist camp, that Capitalists must pay workers less than the Value they create in order to turn a profit. They can't be similar jobs, because they have entirely different social relations.

The next part, where you repeat the idea that there can be such thing as "a mix of Socialism and Capitalism," fundamentally avoids the arguments at hand. Socialism and Capitalism are terms for the entire system, by analyzing which aspect of society is primary, public or private ownership. Private ownership is not capitalism, and public ownership is not Socialism. Further, these safety nets came about because of strong revolutionary pressure, not democratic institutions. These Safety Nets are whithering in Scandinavia, and Scandinavia still funds them with the spoils of Imperialism.

As for workers and surplus value, even at the market rate, they are paid less than the value they create. That's where profit comes from. Labor power's value is normalized around the cost of living and reproduction, not the value created nor the productivity of labor. That is why wealth is widening. Market salary is less than the value created by labor.

As for the US vs China, no, not even close. Further, the US is the world's largest Empire, the vast majority of its spoils come from plunder. China's do not.

As for Central Planning, this is an extremely poor argument against it. Such an argument ignores that we have irrefutable evidence of Central Planning being far more effective than Private Ownership in many conditions, and argues against a strawman, not actual central planning. The Road to Serfdom came out in 1944, and has been thoroughly disproven in reality through the existence of Socialist economies outperforming Capitalist ones.

The truth is, in developed Capitalist nations, the economy is already planned, just through private institutions. State planning is extremely effective, and allows surpassing the limitations enforced by the profit motive. Hayek's assertion is one of nihilism, asserting that we can't develop further economic knowledge, but works by Paul Cockshott and the existence of well-developed economic planning disproved Hayek long ago. Central planning is about broad tendencies as well as reviewing signals from consumption to re-allocate resources, it isn't about predicting absolutely every single thing. Such is the Strawman.

Not sure about what your China point is.

Your last round of questions is answered by studying Socialist countries. It would be one thing if none existed, but many do, and your concerns don't pan out in reality.

I was harsh this comment, admittedly so, but because you have displayed a frustrating insistence on arguing against strawmen and asserting your views as though you have a thorough understanding of mine, when your critiques have long been outdated and based upon strawmen. I recommend reading up on Zhenli's posts, as they are quite simplified and thorough. In particular:

The Comedy of Mises, about central planning critiques
Bad Philosophy: Responding to a Free Market Fundamentalist
Addressing Common Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value, addresses surplus value and rents
Free Market Absolutism
Prices in a Planned Economy addresses central planning, and how it works
How to Calculate Value
Falling Rate of Profit, why Capitalism is inherently unsustainable and monopolization a necessity
Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism
Why Public Property?
Fiat Money: Global Theft.

These should all help you develop an understanding of what the Marxist position is, so you don't need to argue against strawmen.