4 ms·

So where's that from, and how well has it worked out?

wtdata 8y ago
It worked great in the West at least, the world was never as equitable and meritocratic as it is today and it is continuously progressing for better according to all factual data.
- ionised 8y ago
  I'm still confused as to why people are holding meritocracy up as something we should aspire to. Meritocracy was originally devised as a negative concept, simply because the idea of what constitutes 'merit' is subjective and complex.
Frondo 8y ago
What? Really? I can think of no better thing for humanity as a species to aspire to than this. "Do your best, help out the world, and your needs will be taken care of." As a goal for structuring society, if that isn't in your top 2 of "things to collectively strive for," I don't think it's a very good society. I grew up on the Star Trek vision of utopia, though, and hope that some day humanity still gets there.
- Frondo 8y ago
  In addition to downvoting, I would really appreciate hearing from folks about what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met?
  - tbrownaw 8y ago
    what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; That's not a structure. It's at best a goal or more realistically a slogan. and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met? Very funny. I'd say it's more that anyone familiar with the history of that slogan knows that the systems associated with it very consistently do not work.
    - Frondo 8y ago
      I don't think that's fair; it's certainly not specific, but it is a way to structure society. It's just a vague way to do it. It establishes a base minimum for what to expect from people, and what to give to people. As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Rather than play on red scare feels, I'd appreciate engaging with the idea, and again I ask: what's better than that, and what about that don't you like? I'll even posit an alternative: personal freedom is the most important thing, even if it means people's needs aren't met. I don't agree, because the world is resource-rich enough to ensure everyone's needs are met, so where do you draw the line? who do we say it's okay for their needs not to be met? rather than defer to an amorphous "market," I'd like to hear from you whose needs should not be met.
      - showmedeadargh 8y ago
        > As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Ever read Solzhenitsyn?
        Frondo 8y ago
        Has your life brought you in contact with any significant number of people who grew up in the Soviet system? Or are you insinuating something only by what you've read in books? Strangest distinct memory I have of hanging with people in a post-Soviet state: partying all night long, passing out some time around 3, waking up at 5 to hearing them all singing the Soviet anthem -- not the Russian anthem, though the melody's the same -- and then talking in hushed tones the next day with some of them about life being better before the fall. And that's just one of many conversations I've had with people about this stuff. shrug

It worked great in the West at least, the world was never as equitable and meritocratic as it is today and it is continuously progressing for better according to all factual data.

ionised 8y ago
I'm still confused as to why people are holding meritocracy up as something we should aspire to. Meritocracy was originally devised as a negative concept, simply because the idea of what constitutes 'merit' is subjective and complex.

Frondo 8y ago

What? Really? I can think of no better thing for humanity as a species to aspire to than this. "Do your best, help out the world, and your needs will be taken care of." As a goal for structuring society, if that isn't in your top 2 of "things to collectively strive for," I don't think it's a very good society. I grew up on the Star Trek vision of utopia, though, and hope that some day humanity still gets there.

Frondo 8y ago
In addition to downvoting, I would really appreciate hearing from folks about what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met?
- tbrownaw 8y ago
  what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; That's not a structure. It's at best a goal or more realistically a slogan. and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met? Very funny. I'd say it's more that anyone familiar with the history of that slogan knows that the systems associated with it very consistently do not work.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    I don't think that's fair; it's certainly not specific, but it is a way to structure society. It's just a vague way to do it. It establishes a base minimum for what to expect from people, and what to give to people. As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Rather than play on red scare feels, I'd appreciate engaging with the idea, and again I ask: what's better than that, and what about that don't you like? I'll even posit an alternative: personal freedom is the most important thing, even if it means people's needs aren't met. I don't agree, because the world is resource-rich enough to ensure everyone's needs are met, so where do you draw the line? who do we say it's okay for their needs not to be met? rather than defer to an amorphous "market," I'd like to hear from you whose needs should not be met.
    - showmedeadargh 8y ago
      > As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Ever read Solzhenitsyn?
      - Frondo 8y ago
        Has your life brought you in contact with any significant number of people who grew up in the Soviet system? Or are you insinuating something only by what you've read in books? Strangest distinct memory I have of hanging with people in a post-Soviet state: partying all night long, passing out some time around 3, waking up at 5 to hearing them all singing the Soviet anthem -- not the Russian anthem, though the melody's the same -- and then talking in hushed tones the next day with some of them about life being better before the fall. And that's just one of many conversations I've had with people about this stuff. shrug