This is the definition I am using:
a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.
As a general rule, yes. People who are able to better perform a task should be preferentially allocated towards those tasks. That being said, I think this should be a guiding rule, not a law upon which a society is built.
For one, there should be some accounting for personal preference. No one should be forced to do something by society just because they’re adept at something. I think there is also space within the acceptable performance level of a society for initiatives to relax a meritocracy to some degree to help account for/make up for socioeconomic influences and historical/ongoing systemic discrimination. Meritocracy’s also have to make sure they avoid the application of standardized evaluations at a young age completely determining an individual’s future career prospects. Lastly, and I think this is one of common meritocracy retorhic’s biggest flaws, a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance, which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.
a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance
I don’t think anyone who views contributions in STEM fields as the most valuable to society has any respect for finance.
All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential, and I’ve never heard one of them bash Econ/finance/investment as a career path. But 🤷♂️
All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential
You were saying a group of people believe that value as a person is determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance.
Now you’re saying that this group of people believe that value as a person is determined by earnings potential. Those are not the same things.
which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.
Why do you think this is?
If I was guessing, in general, I think people who advocate for a pure meritocracy in the USA feel the world should be evaluated in more black and white, objective terms. The financial impact and analytic nature of STEM and finance make it much easier to stratify practitioners “objectively” in comparison to finding, for instance, the “best” photographer. I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy. But I’m no expert.
I don’t think the idea of meritocracy only lives in the U.S.
I didn’t say it did, but I am a citizen of the USA and the vast majority of my cultural experience and knowledge, and therefore what I can intelligently comment on, are centered on the US.
That’s fair.
I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy.
Yeah I agree with this quite a bit.
Just to make it clear the definition that I used does not talk about choosing people for tasks they are suited for, but rather putting them in positions of power, success, and influence.
Well you need to clarify further then. Are you saying we should make the best scientist the president, or the person with the most aptitude for politics and rule to be president? I don’t see how this is functionally different than what I said.
Well the way I interpret it is that people who demonstrate their ability are put into a position where they are rewarded more relative to their peers and/or have control over what their peers do.
So for example if I was a engineer and based on some metric was considered highly valuable then I would be paid more than other engineers and I would be put into a position where I can give other engineers directions on what needs to be done.
Then no, I don’t agree with this specific implementation of the system, at least the second half. I do think more productive/effective workers should be compensated more. But being a good engineer does not make you a good manager, and the issues associated with promoting an excelling worker into management (a job requiring a substantially different skill set) are so common there’s a name for their inevitable failure, The Peter Principle
I don’t.
The core issue: Who determines merit, ability, and position? The people who write the rules are the actual government, and governments secure their own power. Like every flawless paper-government system, it crumples as soon as the human element wets the paper.
However, assuming the rule book could be written flawlessly, with “perfect” selfless humans writing the initial rules and then removing themselves from power, there are unsolved issues:
- Popularity contests in determining merit. (I like Johnny Depp better than Amber. Who loses more status?)
- Comparing apples to oranges. (Are Athletes or Artists more worthy, what about the Plumbers and Mailmen?)
- Power corrupts.
- Do morals and ethics have a say in merit? (Save the entire planet, then start kicking cats. Still a hero?)
- How long does a merit last? (When a champion, or athlete, is no longer fit, are they de-positioned? Look at Rome.)
- Brilliant mathematicians get rewarded with what? (Better supercomputers, or political power? What qualifies them to make policy?)
The core issue: Who determines merit, ability, and position? The people who write the rules are the actual government, and governments secure their own power.
You touched on a really important point here: when humans are judging skill, it’s subjective and not really meritocratic.
One of my favorite psychology professors says that people really like the idea of meritocracy, when it’s actually present. He gives the example of sports, and how people aren’t bitter about a particular team winning, or that there’s big inequality between the players, and that the reason people are okay with that inequality is the presence of the playing field and the high speed cameras and whatnot means meritocracy is the actual basis for reward, not personality politics.
In business, government, etc it’s all people judging other people, and on an individual basis. A group of people evaluating is better, like star ratings for an uber driver are probably more trustable than performance evaluations from someone’s boss. The latter can be so heavily distorted by that one person’s judgment.
The ideal is using measurable performance as the measure of “merit”. Like when people run a marathon. As long as the course is visible to confirm nobody’s cheating, that marathon time is yours in a way your degree or your job or your salary isn’t.
It’s also why people are so in favor of free markets deciding resource allocation rather than people: the free market is at least a large crowdsourced combination of everyone’s needs, instead of just some mental image of those needs in the mind of a few committee memebers.
I truly appreciate your contribution to this long dead conversation. It is to my regret I didn’t respond sooner, but I cannot seem to withhold my desire to share. The following could be summed up as, “Everything wrong with sports. Merit is ambiguous. People abuse ambiguity for their own gain.”
the presence of the playing field and the high speed cameras and whatnot means meritocracy is the actual basis for reward,
to confirm nobody’s cheating
Cheating in this context might be summed up as: Violating rules, unsporting. Possibly underhanded, deception, fraud, or trickery. A disparity or unfairness through action.
Sports being a meritocracy is absolutely true on a small scale. However, with a macro view some disparities come to light.
Disparities:
- Genetics.
- Environmental development. (Such as being trained from a young age, being able to afford a better coach, better nutrition, more opportunity, etc, etc.)
- Trickery. {An American football case, where the quarterback confuses the opposing team by standing up with the ball and walking toward the goal, comes to mind.)
- Undetected cheating. (Performance enhancing drug usage. Not illegal doping, but doping that hasn’t been determined as such yet. Delaying select competitors before they get to the field. Etc.)
- Luck. (The wind blowing the ball. An opposing competitor stepping on an uneven spot of turf, or their gear malfunctioning,)
- Individual contribution and shared merit. (Do the players on the team who didn’t contribute still gain merit?)
Exempted due to applicability: (read low or protracted defensibly and a vague determination of where “the game” begins and ends; philosophical)
- Player selection process. (Sure, the wisest managers would ideally select the best players, but offense and emotions may occlude foresight.)
- Who gets selected to be pulled off the bench? {A big can of worms.}
-
- Depends on the coach, instead of the player.
-
- The player not played gains less or no merit.
-
- Argument to be had about the coach being the chess player of the game and merit based on strategies employed, sharing player’s merit with the coach.
- Player trading.
- Corrupt judges/referees.
- Rigged games.
- Politics influencing decisions.
- Uncooperative players inhibiting success.
- Cultural biases.
people really like the idea of meritocracy
Back to the first half of my original point. People do really like the idea of meritocracy… when it aligns with their own views. “Merit” is founded on virtue, worth, or value. And all three depend on the evaluator.
-
For instance, a football fan at a baseball match may not find the players very worthy, because it isn’t football.
-
Another instance, is cheating meritorious? A superior strategy requiring exceptional ability to successfully sabotage your opponent. (Devil’s advocate, and a very Chinese sentiment. I’ll not be defending this point, but it is wise to consider the biases inherent in personal culture determining what merit is.)
-
Alternatively honor and respect determine merit. Also highly subjective, just look at Jihad contrasted to The Crusades.
This leads to the other half: Anything subjective is subject to abuse, because generally humans are selfish and tribal. It’s how our ancestors survived. Any permanent governing system must account for, incorporate, protect, benefit from, and forcefully constrain or alter the governed’s nature as necessary for the benefit or balancing of the governed and the governing system’s continued future. Anything else eventually leads to revolution or collapse.
In truth, I believe a perpetual motion is impossible. Something must continually power and correct the machine running the humans but humans aren’t capable of doing so. We will likely continue to have revolutions and disparities caused by revolutions until our collapse. The best we can hope to do, is make living on this rock less miserable for our fellow inhabitants.
Please have a lovely day.
All of these arguments try to argue that implementing meritocracy perfectly is impossible.
But ask yourself, what is the alternative? A system in which the most capable person isn’t in charge? Should we go back to bloodlines, or popularity contests, or maybe use a lottery?
I agree it’s very difficult to determine merit, and even more difficult to stop power struggles from messing with the evaluation, or with the implementation. But I would still prefer a system that at least tries to be meritocratic and comes up short, to a system that has given up entirely on the concept.
I’ll try to answer some of your questions, as best as I understand it:
Who determines merit, ability, and position?
Ideally, a group of peers would vote for someone within the group, who is the most capable, with outside supervision to prevent abuses.
Popularity contests in determining merit
Popularity shouldn’t factor into it. Only ability. (and there’s no doubt Depp is the better actor :P )
Are Athletes or Artists more worthy
Each one is worthy within the scope of their domain of expertise, in which they have demonstrated merit.
Power corrupts
Always true in every system. That’s why we need checks and balances.
Save the entire planet, then start kicking cats. Still a hero?
If kicking cats is wrong, it should be against the law, and no one should be above the law. All other things being equal, whoever has the most capacity to save the planet should be the one to do it.
How long does a merit last?
For as long as you can demonstrate it. If someone better comes along, they should take your place.
Brilliant mathematicians get rewarded with what?
More mathematical problems. And ideally, also lots of money and babes.
At the end of the day, it’s a cultural problem. Meritocracy can only work if there’s a critical mass of people who believe in it, understand it, and enforce it socially. The same can be said of democracy, capitalism, and basically any other social order.
Thank you for your insight. Please forgive me for the tongue in cheek responses on a few select thoughts.
system in which the most capable person isn’t in charge?
Every system since time immemorial. And which will continue until “most capable” is better defined, objectively determinable, and implemented by the greatest power.
popularity contests
The foundation of every democratic, republic, and individual choice based system today.
it’s very difficult to determine merit
Very true. Considering all people under any one governing system would never agree on what is virtuous, worthy, valuable, honorable, or respectable. Just try to convince people who believe, “If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying,” to believe otherwise. Many Chinese believe if you didn’t cheat to succeed, it’s your fault for failing. Consider it a pitfall of cultural reconciliation.
a group of peers would vote for someone within the group
Each one is worthy within the scope of their domain of expertise, in which they have demonstrated merit.
How are resources distributed between groups? Equally? Every time a new group arrives a new slice of equal pie is collected piecemeal from the other groups and handed over? Do we compare apples and oranges to determine who gets more resources. Who sits in the “administration” group to judge merit between two disagreeing groups?
How long does a merit last?
For as long as you can demonstrate it. If someone better comes along, they should take your place.
What’s a retirement plan look like? Or is this still an ownership system where you can hold on to any property indefinitely and determine it’s ownership upon death?
Brilliant mathematicians get rewarded with what?
More mathematical problems. And ideally, also lots of money and babes.
A good workhorse is rewarded with more work. A never truer statement. Merit sounds exhausting today.
it’s a cultural problem. Meritocracy can only work if there’s a critical mass of people who believe in it, understand it, and enforce it socially. The same can be said of democracy, capitalism, and basically any other social order.
I’m 60% with you. Regardless of how detrimental a government is, culture controls most of how we think and feel, just look at government trust ratings by country. However, there’s still more to be accounted for. Implementation and population still count for something. Keeping culture unchanged is futile, everyone comes up with their own ideals and injects them into the next generation, thinking it’ll make things better. Not to mention corporate ideals, such as the diamond’s are forever from jewelers, personal responsibility from tobacco, apple is a status symbol from Apple, and on and so forth.
Back to topic: Most people don’t and won’t care about the government, they just want the government to solve their problems or get out of their way. Getting a population to “believe in [government], understand it, and enforce it socially” is a much taller order than it sounds. For verification: the Americans, with the two most rubbish candidates you could possibly find, all seem to think voting for anyone other than rubbish R or rubbish D is throwing their vote away. Let alone the significant remaining percentage who think their vote doesn’t count for anything at all.
Checks and balances entail compromises and disagreements, which individually prestigious people should be subject to. As you said, “no one should be above the law.” If the meritocracy is not the law, who is the law?
Thank you for taking the time to read and think.
Sorry for the delay, I don’t visit here very often. But thanks for engaging, and excuse my know-it-all tone.
I think there’s a basic misunderstanding regarding meritocracy. It is not something that only occurs in the top branches of the government. It’s something that should occur in every level of every organization, in every office and in every pay-grade. It’s not meant to solve the question of “who is the supreme leader”, because such a question is impossible. It’s meant to describe how should society function.
And which will continue until “most capable” is better defined
That is sophism imho. We don’t have to have the perfect definition, we just need to be closer to it than the alternatives.
The foundation of every democratic, republic, and individual choice based system today.
Popularity contests are a bad way of making choices, and it’s a big reason for why modern democracies have so many problems. Also, they are very often rigged, which is how you end up with “shit sandwich” situations (or Putin).
all people under any one governing system would never agree on what is virtuous, worthy, valuable, honorable, or respectable
There will never be a 100% agreement on what is true, or what is beautiful, or what is virtuous. But if we aim there, we can get closer than if we don’t.
How are resources distributed between groups?
Free market. Bid on problems. There are many possible algorithms. Right we do the worst option, in which the governing body distribute funds based on political power.
Or is this still an ownership system where you can hold on to any property indefinitely
I definitely believe in private property, if that’s what you’re asking. I think anyone who doesn’t is either dumb or delusional. Indefinitely is a bit much, but it should last long enough to be worth the effort.
A good workhorse is rewarded with more work. A never truer statement. Merit sounds exhausting today.
The idea is that you get enough rewards (money, social capital, etc.) that you will find the work worthwhile. Also, a lot of people enjoy doing things that they are good at. Either way, there is a point when you contributed enough that you can just peace out for the rest of your life, aka retirement. This is already semi-possible even in today’s broken system.
they just want the government to solve their problems or get out of their way
That’s a problem by itself. Governments are very bad at solving complex problems.
all seem to think voting for anyone other than rubbish R or rubbish D is throwing their vote away
That’s kind of true, because Americans refuse to implement a secondary choice. Just one little change would solve so much. (not that there aren’t 1000s of other problems).
If the meritocracy is not the law, who is the law?
I don’t really understand the question. The law is a bunch of rules, chosen by people in power. Ideally, those people would be competent, and create good laws. In my view, any system of law that doesn’t periodically remove or refactors outdated laws is incompetent. Yes, that’s basically everywhere.
You could try to enforce meritocracy in law. It would definitely help, but I don’t think it would be sufficient without cultural adoption.
It’s like you keep trying to find “who’s on top”, but in a perfect world no one is. Power should always be checked, and balanced. Monopolies should always be curtailed, both in the private and public sector. Meritocracy is just one algorithm out of many, like the free market, in order to have a better and more efficient society.
Hope that clears things up.
[Meritocracy] is not something that only occurs in the top branches of the government. It’s something that should occur in every level of every organization, in every office and in every pay-grade.
Please look into Feudalism. Then please look into why it has faded into obscurity. The Japanese had a particularly poignant understanding of it.
The idea is that you get enough rewards (money, social capital, etc.) that you will find the work worthwhile.
This is capitalism or social credit.
“who’s on top”, but in a perfect world no one is.
Popularity contests are a bad way of making choices
This is anarchism. Which leads to mob rule, the definition of power in the majority, and then to fragmented autocracies. ie Individuals grouping up to gain advantages then forming gangs, tribes, and engaging power struggles.
Right we do the worst option, in which the governing body distribute funds based on political power.
Which country is “we”?
The law is a bunch of rules, chosen by people in power
Not laws, ‘the law’. As in the determiner of how the rules apply to the people. This is typically the police, legal interpreters, courts, on up until you hit judges and legislators, who hold the power to modify laws.
We don’t have to have the perfect definition
Because perfection is an illusion. The reason behind outdated-laws, governments struggling with complexity, and loopholes is precisely because any time there is ambiguity, there exists abuse. Meritocracy being founded on an ideal implementation where everyone in society supports the idea and nobody tries to abuse the system is folly, bound to fail at first brush with ambiguity.
There are many possible algorithms.
Forgive my bluntness, but your ideals are half baked, complexities waved away as if the pieces will fall into place after taking the leap, and tried but not studied. You would need a much better understanding of history and the governments that have already existed before you could convince me meritocracy can survive beyond dreams and ideals.
Apologies. I wish you luck on your journey through life.
That’s a very condescending comment. Maybe I came across as condescending too. Either way, if your criticism was supposed to be helpful, I’m sorry to say that it isn’t. You didn’t provide any evidence that I’m wrong. From my perspective, it sounds like you just don’t understand me, so you decided to give up.
Anyway, I’m not that enthusiastic about debating strangers over the internet, I only replied because you sounded curious. So I’m equally happy to bid you farewell.
I’m sorry I caused you to feel that way.
From my perspective I had expectations I was speaking with someone who had intensely considered a governing system they were fond of and were intimate with its faults. Instead, I’m rather put out to be speaking with flashes of inspiration, as rapidly as they can form, to justify or mitigate any shortcomings.
While I might enjoy acting as a sounding board when expected, I’m feeling rather disappointed this wasn’t a debate.
Debating may be the purest form of sharing and refining ideas. My comment was not out of malice, but I apologise for the rude response and letting my emotions get the better of me.
No.
Who gets to determine what counts as merit? If it’s the people with merit already, it’s trivial to corrupt such a system. Think billionares.
And then, is everyone even given the opportunity to display their merit and if they are, is their merit recognised? I’m concerned esp. about people perceived by society to have inherently less merit. Think disabled people, old people, young people, women, people of colour, queer folks, etc.
And then, how does the system ensure that merit wasn’t faked or even just exaggerated, how does it investigate and how does it respond? Does a sufficient amount of merit allow someone to cover up such things? If implemented, can and would this investigation power be used to punish people with low merit, those that are the most vulnereable?
And then, why do people that are not constantly being useful to the system deserve less and esp. if meritocracy is the only system in place, do some people not deserve to live at all? Here I’m talking about people that want to have a hobby or two or want to spend time with their friends and family, basically anything that doesn’t give merit. I’m also talking about people that can’t or don’t want to be useful to society.
Beyond all this, meritocracy aims to replace the people’s purpose in life with “being useful”. And that’s just a really miserable mindset to live with, where you feel guilt if you’re not being useful all the time, where you constantly have thoughts like “am I good enough” or “am I trying hard enough”.
I totally agree.
IMO the notion of merit is an illusion. It hides the assumption that people can be ranked and compared, but do we truly want to live in such a society?
Also, is that even feasible?
It’s impossible to objectively compare humans of similar “skill level”. For example, think of Plato and Aristotle, they have been dead for thousands of years and their work has been studied but millions of not billions of people, yet people still argue who was the best philosopher of the two. How can we have a meritocracy if we cannot evaluate merit? You may be able to distinguish experts from beginners for a certain skill, but, when considering roles of influence/power, there are multiple skills and attributes to be considered, and the same principle applies.
It’s easier to cheat a merit metric than to evaluate it. Any algorithm that makes a decision based on merit will need to either evaluate or compare it. Both are going to depend on the presence of absence of features that once known to a cheater they will be able to fake them. That makes evaluation and cheating a competing game, where the evaluator and the cheater contiously adapt to one another, with the cheater being much able to adapt much faster.
Any meritocracy will have to be open about it’s evaluation process. If it’s not participants with merit cannot know how to demonstrate it and the process is prune to corruption.
Personally, I believe making decisions based on trust is much better. It’s hard to build trust and it cannot be cheated. Of course, cheater may try to influence decision makers with bribes or blackmail. But, once this is found trust is destroyed and they get rejected.
This is one of the reasons a free market is important. The collective feedback of a lot of customers is a better signal for real merit than a boss’s evaluation. A free market is a place where a person who fails to kiss enough ass to get good ratings from their boss can instead prove directly to those being served that they can help.
The “free market” conditions for this particular avenue of choice is a situation where an individual can go into business for themselves without too much artificial hassle. Like yes, maybe you’ll need a car for your own pizza delivery business, so there’s some startup cost, but at least you don’t need a special pizza delivery tag from the government, which can only be gained by … you guessed it … kissing more ass.
As an autistic, weird person who can get things done well but who always has personality conflicts with bosses, I feel safer in a place with something resembling the freedom to engage directly with customers, to be judged by the market instead of by a boss.
I often fail at jobs. But I often succeed when out on my own. Whenever someone proposes adding more permission slips to the process of starting a business, it makes me feel afraid, because being in business for myself is how I’ve survived.
Absolutely not. Demographic data shows it’s shit, income distribution data is best explained by a random walk process (neat graphic explainer here), and all the data on startups and investing show that there’s no free lunch; capitalism actually does ensure everything gives the same steady return on average.
Every rich person won some sort of lottery. Even the bona-fide engineers are never the only ones that could have invented whatever thing - as technical person myself.
Yes, but it doesn’t last for long. It just takes a few bad apples on top for the system to quickly go corrupt, which is why the powers on top need to constantly fear being changed by the people
What do you mean by doesn’t last long? Also if the society was a complete meritocracy what accountability would the people have?
Well, human judgement is not perfect, and eventually a snake would be able to climb the ranks and corrupt the whole system.
This is why democracy is the only system that can allow for “constant revolution” and if the current system is broken or corrupt, it’s the only way that allows for a consistent peaceful transfer of power. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as Churchill once said “ Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
And for when the people in charge decide they’re not going to hand over their power despite being elected out, we have rules about it not being allowed to clear out people’s weapons.
Basically we do our best to ensure there are no circumstances where those in charge get to ignore those they’re ruling over. It’s a way of solving the agency problem given humans’ tendency to ignore the rules when they want to.
Another way to put it is that a politician might decide “oh this system of democracy isn’t going to keep me in power, so I’ll just step outside of it to the world of anything goes” and then an armed populace can say “nope, we’ve got moves there too, and they’re way worse for you than getting voted out”.
It makes the attractiveness of that step outside the system go way down.
Meritocracy just means you’re rewarded proportionally to your contribution. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re rewarded with authority over anyone.
Actually the “cracy” suffix does refer specifically to the distribution of authority. Democracy is a system in which people decide; not just one in which people do well. Aristocracy is where those people are the deciders, not just where they’re the most wealthy.
A fair point. I guess I’m used to it being used incorrectly then.
No.
Currently: “meritocracy” has nothing to do with “merit” and more to do with eugenics, it’s just a word to make white-supremacist-patriarchal-cis-heteronormative-abled-supremacist bigotry sound less terrible than it is.
In general: because hierarchy is bad for society, since someone always ends up at the artificial “bottom” and treated badly or at the very least as less worthy or deserving (of life, dignity, freedom, access, and so on). The only reason anyone would want/believe in a “meritocracy” is because it makes them feel superior to others.
The issue will always be reality. In theory, meritocracy and even geniocracy sounds promosing but so does our current system.
The reality is that incompetent or malicious people will always find ways to corrupt the idea.
At this point, I‘m pretty sure the only way to go forward is to think in new ways. Maybe general AI will work, or anarchy (more like anarcho communist probably).
We tried and broke everything:
- representative democracy - politicians lie to get into office and do their thing after
- autocracy - the person in charge freaks out and becomes a lifetime ruler
- communism - people starve while the politicians become rich
- monarchy - the bloodline will produce some idiot who breaks stuff - also no reason to be this rich
- multiparty system - will get little done and devolves into populism as well
- two party system - devolves into hating the other party
The real problem imo is that a few people just cant make decisions for the masses over an extended time. Its too much power and responsibility.
I‘m pretty sure a more direct democracy represents this day and age more since the majority sees how our world goes to shit.
A direct democracy can be corrupted via social engineering, see brexit.
I‘m not saying direct democracy cant be broken but britain isnt a direct democracy. Its like giving someone a bike who drove a car all their lives. They crash and hurt themselves and someone says „look! Bikes are dangerous!“
There are no direct (or mostly direct) democracies in the world afaik. Feel free to prove otherwise.
I believe Switzerland has direct democracy, no?
In part, but not fully. They still have full time reprenstative offices. Direct democracy would get along without those afaik.
Brexit happened because the bri’ish are all a bunch of subhuman fascists. They all deep down wanted brexit because they hated foreigners more than they cared for themselves. All trolls had to do was bring that to the surface and give them the chance to actually act upon it.
And they are rather smelly
communism - people starve while the politicians become rich
making it, by definition, not communism.
https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51fWell, again theory vs reality.
Every iteration of communism so far was an absolute nightmare, made by the people for the people.
I agree that most theories are great if taken seriously but I dont see how we keep incompetence and malice from corrupting it.
My logic says weed out malice and educate the incompetent but no idea how to do this.
The SU was pretty great until it came apart due to outside interference and ultimately illegally dissolved. People like to shit-talk the censorship (and to be fair under most circumstances I would be against it as well) but things didn’t get bad until they started loosening up on it; once the citizens had no protection from the lies specifically created to destabilize their society it all came crumbling down.
Also China for all of its flaws is fucking killing it right now. They’re genuinely on the path to full blown communism, with their strategy being to build up as much power as they can while they wait for the US empire to collapse. Once they’re out of the picture, expect huge moves.
or anarchy (more like anarcho communist probably).
I’ve come to a similar conclusion, however I still have some hold ups on how anarchism currently being implemented across the world.
It still relies on organizers and extra attention being diverted to certain individuals who give an agenda for what needs to be done next. This allows co-opting these movements to be a lot easier than if we could work past that.
I still have some hold ups on how anarchism currently being implemented across the world.
If you think there is someone implementing anarchism around the world, you have completely misunderstood anarchism.
It’s like when the alt right tried framing antifa as an organisation.
The whole point of anarchism is that you do what your community needs you to do, and let other communities do the same.
Yeah I agree that should be the ideal however, like you have said, it hasn’t ever really been implemented yet.
There are a bunch of groups around the world that follow similar anarchist principles, like Rojava, Zapatistas, or even Temporary autonomous zones, but all of them have some unofficial/hidden/weak form of organizer that can be targeted by people with the right resources.
My point being that since systems tend to sustain themselves if we don’t start building systems that can function without the need of an organizer or something of a similar sort then there will still be that place where the power can be misused.
No one single “-ocracy” applied exclusively can result in a well functioning society.
IMHO, you need bits from multiple different approaches blended together to get closer to a society that works well for the majority of people.
I believe in a theoretical meritocracy but I think there are some pitfalls. We have a market that’s very efficient at rewarding incredibly unproductive people. The correlation between money and skill in the modern world just… isn’t. So we’d really need a better evaluation system… if we had that I think it’d be achievable.
Love the idea, though.
I agree, there would have to be measures in place to prevent the “promote to the level of incompetence” style of meritocracy that is prevalent already. There needs to be a system of recognizing that the person in any given position has the skills and abilities that make them awesome at that specific job, and rewarding them appropriately without requiring them to justify it by taking on tasks that they’re not suited for.
The idea that workers should always be gunning for a promotion is one of the worst parts of what people think a meritocracy is. But how else do you determine how much they should be paid?
Hell, I only consented to management because the company stopped listening to frontline developers. We’ve got a serious problem in the west with title fixation.
I’m very wary of the term because it could only be measured correctly if everyone started from the same conditions. People with more resources have it easier to go up.
I think that when we do things we should generally listen to the person who best understands how to do it.
I don’t think that your position in life should be determined by it
It’s easily manipulated. We already have barrier to entry in several professions via required degrees and certifications. Those degrees and certifications require significant time and resources to attain. They can also be skewed to certain demographic a la old school SAT exams.
My own personal experience is the CPA exam. Passing it shows me nothing of one’s accounting abilities. I’ve seen people who pass it and I wonder how they tie their shoelaces in the morning without injuring themselves. I’ve seen others who haven’t passed it but are brilliant accountants.
All that exam tells me is that a person had resources to not work for six to nine months so they could study and pass the exam. That’s it.
But without it, you’re just not gonna go very far in the industry at all.
Then the AICPA keeps making the exam more difficult and whines that there’s a shortage of young talent.
So what “merit” are we going to measure in this hypothetical system?
Peeps proposing lots of good reasons against, but I’ll just say: is a system where a reality show host can threaten our democracy really better?
Don’t organisations already follow this? Atleast for their workers.
People getting into a public or private job have to show that they are eligible.Regarding meritocracy at level of society:
I think it’s going to be difficult in reality.- Who appraises the merit of people? Who defines, maintains and updates the standards/methods used for the appraisal?
- Is there a system for continuous quality check? It’d be needed to maintain the system as a meritocracy.
- How is the quality check system preserved in the system?
- Who appraises those who appraise?
In the case of an organisation, the leaders/owners of the org can choose workers with merit. But the owners themselves are not appraised, right? Unless they are in some co-operative org or so.
Perfect meritocracy seems very difficult to implement for the whole of society.
I think democracy(which gives due importance to scientific temper and obviously human life) is a decent enough system. We can iterate on it to bring up the merit in the society and its people as a whole
It’s a good idea in theory, but there’s a few problems:
- Wealth and power above a certain level tends to become generational no matter how meritorious the origin
- People who are less capable through disability, ilness, generational poverty or anything else not their fault would still be left behind
- A lot of jobs and other functions can benefit from several different skillsets, some of which aren’t mutually inclusive
- Who decides who’s best? Who decides who decides? Etc ad infinitum.
Regarding wealth, it doesn’t have to with a heavy enough estate tax, AKA anti-aristocracy tax.
