The first point would be more of an issue in terms of that particular state's particular economic policies: in a democratic state, economic policies that would not result in such an outcome would win out.

No, my point is that by and large states don't need and shouldn't have "economic policies".

The second point... do you mean to say that, were there to be many job-assigning institutions competing to get the same job performed at the least possible cost, the equilibrium would fall into job-performers being given more resources than what they would receive were they to be considered disposable cattle? That only works if the work-performers are scarce, in which case it doesn't matter whether there is one or many institutions competing. And if the work-performers are abundant, the equilibrium will fall into them being given exactly as many resources as they physically need to perform their job.

Are you trying to argue that monopsony power doesn't exist? Without monopsony power an employer who pays low wages will have a hard time attracting employees. Whereas a monopsony employer can set wages arbitrarily low, his only limit is his own conscience and that at some point potential employees will prefer not to work. It's possible to state the above more mathematically, for example here (Note: that article talks about monopoly rather than monopsony but the principal is the same).

In a perfect market, centralizing or decentralizing doesn't achieve anything: what matters is simply offer and demand.

Except that centralizing destroys the perfect market.