How much do socialists/Marxists think the surplus is?

Sure there's reasons. Vanity, impatience, comfort, etc. None of them are MEDICAL reasons, I guarantee that.

 

When contracting I usually paid at least a third to half of all net income.

 

Paid whom? Not sure what you are describing.

 

No intellectuals in a socialist society? Sounds about right.

 

Socialism exists nowhere on this planet (except perhaps China & North Korea). There are no private companies in North Korea.

Definition of "socialism": A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In China, a property may be owned individually, but the land on which it is built belongs to the Chinese government. That law likely exists for North Korea as well. China does not regulate the means of production - except in key military industries.

Again, the means of production and even family accommodation can be privately owned, but the land upon which the production/realty facilities are located belong to the Chinese/North Korean government. The two governments can, if they want to do so, recuperate the land. Which, for obvious reasons, it does not do unless it is building roads and other such public facilities ...

 

I can't argue with that. It's about proletarianism, after all.

 

The proletariat is packed with intellectuals.
If the word proletariat even means anything anyway.
...or intellectual!

 

China has not been socialist since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping more than 40 years ago. Cuba, Laos, and possibly Vietnam are socialist, as well as NK.

Source? That is a worthless "definition" because effectively every human community that has ever existed has regulated the means of production, distribution and exchange.

China definitely regulates the means of production, which has nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production -- natural resources and producer goods -- and capitalism is private ownership thereof. China is not capitalist because all natural resources are collectively owned, and it is not socialist because producer goods are mainly privately owned. That is the geoist model, which is private ownership of the products of private production and equal rights of all to benefit from natural resources (the earth, geo). China adopted its successful geoist model from Hong Kong, which has used it for over 160 years.

 

So I think I'll need to ask the question again, but posed differently.

Towards that end, what do you mean by "rents of privilege"

 

A privilege is a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. The most important ones are land titles, bank licenses, patent and copyright monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, and oil and mineral rights. The rent of a privilege is the return obtained by legally depriving others of access to an economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible.

 

...interesting phrasing. However it made me think of one example I might be able to run down some numbers on, land ownership. Specifically in regards to sharecropping.

So at first it seemed the percentage gain by the owner of the land was higher versus labor, as it seems their rents often match about a third of the gross income from crops.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c2-20.html

However the landowner is left with property taxes and other costs such as insurance and fencing, tiling, etc. It appears property taxes alone take up a good 20% of the gross crop value of land.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw2dzUvEbf13QIbZLCyoPwiL

So it seems we're back in the ballpark of a 10% profit for the owner of the means of production.

 

Sharecropping shares depend on the quality and location of the land. In the Mekong Delta before the Vietnam War, rice paddy land was so fertile that landowners charged sharecroppers up to 90% of the harvest.

Property taxes just reduce the acquisition cost of the land, and are deductible in any case.

Sharecroppers pay for crop insurance, fencing and tilling, not the landowner.

That's on the high side, and in the USA, property taxes are a deductible expense anyway.

No. 10% is in the ballpark for the provider of producer goods, but landowners take much more than that.

 

I think this article offers a pretty good answer to the question "how much do capitalists get?" ....

Wealth Hoarding by 'Silver Spoon Oligarchs' Is Endangering US Democracy

 

You cite 10% profit for the capitalist, and 40% as income for the worker. Apples and oranges. What about the capitalists "compensation" (paycheck/incentives/options)?

 

So your claim is that if there are elections, it's socialism; if there are no elections, it's a dictatorship. Holy Horsepucky.

 

Your point being………?

 

My point was as clear as my words. You have a bogus notion of what socialism and dictatorship are.

 

No, I cited 40% as wages. The fact that wages are different from the yield to producer goods is kinda the point.

It doesn't matter much what form the return takes. Often the form is chosen for tax reasons. But you appear to be talking about executive compensation, not the return to provision of producer goods.

 

Picky picky. The "take" by the rich is more like 20% per year.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...families-wealth-growth-2021-6-1030529787?op=1


And how do you see worker "income" being meaningfully different from worker "wages"?

 

Again, this article makes no distinction -- zero -- between returns obtained by investment that enhances production and the rents of privilege (i.e., legalized stealing). The returns obtained by productive investment tend to be competed away, while the rents of privilege accumulate: the more privilege you own, the more rent you pocket in return for nothing, and the more cash you thus have available to buy up more privilege, pocket more rent, etc., ad infinitum. The productive investor gets richer (but in fact often loses money) by making others richer; the rentier gets richer by making others poorer, and effectively cannot lose money unless he has gone into debt to buy up privileges that don't yield enough rent to pay the interest on the debt.

 

Do you care whether you are beaten by a leather whip or a stick?

I think you're just trying to show how brilliant you are.

 

I understand that you are against clarity and accuracy.

But being part of the income of the rich is not a meaningful economic distinction. A rich person can obtain wage income as well as returns on productive investment and rents of privilege, and rents of privilege can be obtained by people who are not rich. The meaningful economic criterion is how the income is obtained, not who gets what fraction of it.

You're the one who wanted to talk about executive compensation.

 

And I understand that you are rude and need to SHOVE IT.

It's pretty damned meaningful when it becomes pressure on lawmakers to create policies beneficial to those exerting the pressure!

 

Invalid analogy: privilege harms others, while productive investment benefits others. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could prompt such an "argument."

 

If I can thereby get you to think clearly and honestly -- always a long shot with Marxists, granted -- it will be worth it.

No, because that depends on whether those exerting the pressure seek to benefit from justice, like investors in producer goods, or injustice, like the privileged.