4 ms·

> Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it? When the aristocracy watched as the new-born communist Russia bru

> Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it? When the aristocracy watched as the new-born communist Russia brutally executed its royal family, in their hearts they knew their narrative of birthright and nobility would no longer be accepted. They needed a new reasoning to justify their positions of power, to convince the peasantry that their lords were just and inevitable. Thus was the narrative of 'meritocracy' born in a world where there is obviously no possibility of such a thing.

foverzar 5y ago
> Thus was the narrative of 'meritocracy' born in a world where there is obviously no possibility of such a thing. How is it "obviously"? All the business relations between people are inherently meritocratic. Not only relations, the whole principle of "you reap what you sow" is inherently meritocratic: you have to put in some merit to generate value in return.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > All the business relations between people are inherently meritocratic. That is why there are precisely zero complaints about broken hiring processes and promotion schemes.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    That's in fact why we can have a discussion about hiring processes and promotion schemes in the private sector. In the public sector that simply doesn't exist as it's all a monopoly (obviously enough), there's no alternatives to point to to say which one is a better model. That's what meritocracy is, meritocracy isn't that meritless things don't exist.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Because people have children who benefit from their resources without having done anything to earn it, because those in power (having wealth of one kind or another) can leverage that power to suppress the ability of others to attain it, because no one is free of biases, etc. Honestly if you can't see how the ideal of a meritocracy is impossible you're just not trying. Surely, some elements of meritocratic ideas are useful, but it is folly to believe that people with wealth have 'earned' it purely on merit.

foverzar 5y ago

> Thus was the narrative of 'meritocracy' born in a world where there is obviously no possibility of such a thing. How is it "obviously"? All the business relations between people are inherently meritocratic. Not only relations, the whole principle of "you reap what you sow" is inherently meritocratic: you have to put in some merit to generate value in return.

UncleMeat 5y ago
> All the business relations between people are inherently meritocratic. That is why there are precisely zero complaints about broken hiring processes and promotion schemes.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  That's in fact why we can have a discussion about hiring processes and promotion schemes in the private sector. In the public sector that simply doesn't exist as it's all a monopoly (obviously enough), there's no alternatives to point to to say which one is a better model. That's what meritocracy is, meritocracy isn't that meritless things don't exist.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Because people have children who benefit from their resources without having done anything to earn it, because those in power (having wealth of one kind or another) can leverage that power to suppress the ability of others to attain it, because no one is free of biases, etc. Honestly if you can't see how the ideal of a meritocracy is impossible you're just not trying. Surely, some elements of meritocratic ideas are useful, but it is folly to believe that people with wealth have 'earned' it purely on merit.