4 ms·
The "meritocratic" system is as big a fraud and every bit as bad (if not worse) than the inheritance system.
by analognoise 7y ago
The "meritocratic" system is as big a fraud and every bit as bad (if not worse) than the inheritance system.
- Renaud 7y agoI think you have to qualify that blanket statement and give your definition of "merit".
- mikaelmello 7y agoMerit != Meritocracy
- jonnybgood 7y agoI think you wanting them to define merit may prove their point. Who defines what merit is? Merit, depending on time and place, has been as arbitrary as your level of attractiveness, wealth, religious conviction, political conviction, etc. Merit means something different to many different people.
- raxxorrax 7y agoIt can be seen as an appeal to fairness and it can be seen as a distinct set of KPI that can measure the value of your efforts. You picked the latter one.
- swagasaurus-rex 7y agoMost things in life require some sort of technique or procedure which can be done poorly or can be done more well (less wastefully?) These can be objective metrics. They can be measuring pretty much anything you want, and you usually find a way to get better at it. I think finding the right things to measure is the most challenging part, almost because of the fact that you can usually 'game the system'. But to deny merit completely or find it in contempt is in my unearned opinion, a fear response in denial of the massive amount of skill a small but influential number of people develop in all sorts of endeavors.
- kortilla 7y agoPlease explain how it’s worse than inheritance.
- ernst_klim 7y agoWhat's merit? Who defines, what the merit is? The majority definitely couldn't judge merits, since avg Joe knows nothing about surgery or economics. The institutions couldn't regulate themselves as well, since this leads to corruption, where the most politically active are getting to the top and starting to regulate on the loyalty basis. We need external checks and balances for institutions as well. We can't have a meritocracy without an external authoritative voice judging, what's the merit. Hence any meritocracy or even technocracy applied is ended up being a authoritarian, ineffective corrupted mess. We had this in soviet union, we had this in china. The idea that people should be judged by merits and the best scientists, academics, writers should be at the top ended in soviet union with the distortion of the very notion of merits and values: careerists got to the top and ruled out actual smart people, turning institutions into corrupted mess.
- tomp 7y agoThis is a giant strawman. In market economy, merit is judged by the people, according to whatever dimensions they value / care about (could be different for different people). The whole point is just that the barriers to entry are (relatively) low and people are (relatively) free to prove themselves. See a shitty sword and think you can do better? Pick a hammer and make a better sword. No requirement for you to inherit membership of the swordmaking guild. Of course there are still barriers, but they're lower than in non-merit-based systems, and serve (ostensibly) different purposes (e.g. protecting consumers, not protecting the elites).
- analognoise 7y agoAbsolutely a lie, because it's predicated on the false belief that we all start from the same point. Most of the accrual of wealth in the 'meritocratic' system also goes to the inheritance class - in your example, see a shitty sword and think you can do better? Get a world-renowned swordsmithing coach, have the finances to work at it all day for however long it takes, import the best materials, buy the best workshop, then reap the rewards - all while talking about "your hard work and dedication" and claim everyone else could do it too. It's total, and utter, bullshit.