I'm not saying capital shouldn't be rewarded, I'm saying the balance is off. I'm very leftwing but not a marxist, I don't believe in collectivisation and stuff. I believe that a better balance is needed, and the main point is, it wouldn't cost anyone anything in terms of living quality. At some point, earning more money stops earning you a better quality of life, so why should society aim for it ? If you earn 1 million a year instead of 5, you're not losing anything, really. The main reason for the failure of past marxist experiments is that they all forgot that the internationalist movements aren't internationalists just because they want a communist world. We want a world government because borders are the main issue today, most notably with tax evasion and varying legislations abuse, you know, building factories using toxic stuff in China because it's not allowed in occidental countries etc. You can't succeed when the first thing that happen if you start a socialist system is other countries central banks attacking your currency (which is what happened to France in 1982 by the way) because their companies push for the "sell shit to the poor" model. One of the fallacies is also, that price control stifles competition and research. That's entirely false. Price doesn't have to be the only area companies compete in. If the price for a good is fixed, then all sellers of the same good will have to compete on quality instead of price. It's easily understandable why companies selling junk food would disagree, but they are a problem. Keeping people poor so they have to buy the cheapest shit available isn't a way of moving the society forward.