That should be the biggest argument against the rise of tech bro neo feudalism. Feudalism only has a hierarchy of lesser and greater lords that hold a right to ownership of any kind and have a licence to exploit the peasantry, and everyone else is a serf of no relevance or rights of autonomy or ownership.
The only way feudalism can possibly play out is empoverishment of the masses in the long term.
The motivations for planning under Capitalism are driven by profit, and the necessity for Capital to find new ways and areas to exploit in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. The incentive is profit within Capitalism, but the result is development of planning infrastructure that is that this can be harnessed to pursue the fulfillment of needs and not profit. This is done with regularity all over the world, and especially so in Socialist countries.
Profit does not suppress human corruption. “Corruption” is merely a label for tilting the scales, and when the profit motive is dominant, then this means corruption is incentivized. Capitalism, therefore, does not minimize corruption at all, it wields it freely.
Corruption is expensive to maintain, but it is better than the alternative under Capitalism, namely a rival firm regulating you out of existence. This is inefficiency, but is required under Capitalism. In Socialism, this inefficiency does not exist to the same capacity nor the same character.
Capitalism does not acknowledge anything. Capitalism is a mode of production, it does not “think” nor does it have a voice. The closest is Capital’s expansionary nature, from the aforementioned Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, but attributing an “acknowledgement of corruption” to a material process is idealism, and thus bad philosophy. Moreover, Socialists aconowledge that corruption is a process, but correctly attribute it to material causes and structures, and not some vague idealist construct.
Finally, it is only Socialism that promotes any genuine sense of meritocracy, as work is rewarded and not ownership of Capital. Capitalism’s “meritocracy” is false, what it rewards most of all is accumulation, which becomes self-compounding. It’s the sense of “failing upward.”
I highly suggest you look at Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer if you want a better understanding of Socialists via understanding Historical and Dialectical Materialism. I would say that you are making Idealist mistakes (placing ideas over material reality, as though ideas create reality) and making Metaphysical mistakes (looking at systems as “whole” rather than containing elements of what came prior and what comes next, looking at items as static objects and not as changing, looking at objects without analyzing their context). Politzer’s book goes through each of these quite clearly.
It seems that you believe corruption of the individual the is the primary weakness of socialism that requires micromanaged and unaddressed intervention as the largest compromise. Opposed to the similar issue in capitalism of the requirement for state intervention and regulation of bad actors in the open market. When either system shows its ineptitude, you suffer from an issue of rot from within, while I suffer a projection of rot onto all, or rather the most vulnerable.
Our primary juxtaposition is that I do not believe any one organization is capable of managing the true complexity of the world without oversimplification and that ultimately leads to stagnation and failures like famines and resource shortages. I also believe the authoritarian system that fails to effectively address cronyism always leads to monarchy-like strong men wearing a façade of community-ism. Stalin was wholly unable to adapt to the shift to venture capital in silicon valley and the digital age. China adapted well to a much more hybrid model with open market autonomy. The USA has adopted some socialist elements as well. Both are not perfect. Indeed the U.S. system is failing me drastically in the present.
Personally, I don’t believe in either and see them both as massive oversimplifications of complexity. There are many aspects of the market that should be entirely socialist in nature, such as utilities, education, academia, fundamental housing, base infrastructure, and the setting of standards. What should not be socialist are food, consumer goods, or industrial production. These must be adaptable to open market change. At the core of this is food. No one can dominate food and manage it better than the market itself. Every farmer knows their fields better than some bureaucratic individual or institution. Oversimplification and individual corruption in this supply chain is to murder millions. Those millions are a demand, and free entrepreneurial individuals can always meet that demand so long as no one is motivated to stop them. That is not idealist, it is empirical from results not excuses. This is the trust that I will not give. Trust in the ability of bureaucratic management of food production results in famines and death of many of the sake peripheral groups that are oppressed and exploited by bad actors within capitalism.
Where you point at trust and corruption at the larger scales of business, I point at the inherent corruption of every individual. Neither system is perfect or completely addresses all of the problems. Personally, I think we should all accept our complicated realities and stop all talk of oversimplified systems in order to move forward into a world where we try to do what is best for the global community and all the way down to our neighborhood and families living under the same roof.
Again, nothing you claim as an “issue with Socialism” actually makes any sense, and is fundamentally idealist. If I was being mean, I would consider it solipsist, but I don’t think you’re going that far. Ultimately, you have a very “vibes-based” view of what you consider “rot,” and that’s why it’s wholly useless for actual materialist analysis. Moreover, China is a Socialist country and as you said has succeeded, not due to Capitalism, but due to following Marxism, the philosophical aspect I already linked an excellent intro to.