The man who coined the term "meritocracy" was an anti-meritocrat. Right-socialists BTFO

Social elitists, right socialists, and capitalists of the social realm BTFO
Meritocracy was a satirical warning, not a goal.

""I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair.
The book was a satire meant to be a warning.
With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority
Meritocrats can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side.
So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.
So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.
Salaries and fees have shot up. Generous share option schemes have proliferated. Top bonuses and golden handshakes have multiplied."
-Michael Young
theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

Fuck you, I want to have more sex than other men for working harder than other men.

That's the REAL hidden secret of socialism, that you can't handle

Which makes you a right-socialist, an anti-egalitarian, a social elitist

...

I'm fully convinced 50% of socialists are trying to exercise some high school bully fantasy

Same with 50% of alt-righters

populist scummy thread

A lot of Trumpians at least pretend to be anti-meritocratic, is there any organized thing like that on the left anymore, or is it all just college graduates?

Does right-socialist mean non-leftcom in this context?

Means someone who denies or likes social hierarchy in everything except income/material goods, and those sorts of things

That satire would hardly apply to a socialist meritocracy now, would it?

Anti-meritocracy just sounds stupid, why would we let a worse architect, for example, plan our cities new houses
Or why wouldn't we reward scientists who produce better results by letting them take charge

What are these "better" science results sounds like coming up with a conclusion first and gathering data to fit your assumptions.

Capitalism is anti-meritocracy

His 1958 book where he coined the term was categorically against socially rewarding people based on merit. Appointing people to positions based on merit, sure, but not being "more than" others or deserving of more enjoyable things.

Meritocratic, or libertarian socialism is based on the idea of a social hierarchy based on merit. That's exactly what "rise of the meritocracy" was warning about. Transforming the former problematic order of class nepotism into a new social elite of say… harvard graduates

The social meritocracy is an American value, but is mostly seen in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, with the Democratic obsession with equal opportunities of merit instead of *just* the business relationships of the Republicans

Yea, and so would a radically egalitarian state-socialism.

I don't know, we should let the academia be pretty autonomous 'cause scientists are probably the best at judging other scientists' work.
Kinda how its supposed to work already, even if it doesn't always.

m8 I got bad news

Letting a scientist have a position in science because of scientific merit, isn't the same as socially rewarding a scientist for his scientific merit

that only makes sense in a meritocratic system where higher status automatically equal social rewards

no, you're failed states and failed states have extremely high social equality /sarcasm

Wait hold up. I'm a failed state? I didn't know random individuals can be states. If not which failed states are you trying to mention?

You can't have a non-state on a mass scale. You just have non-functioning states, and that's as close as you'll get to the "utopia" of a stateless society, like the former soviet unions states or african countries.

Too often left-anarchists call for the destruction of egalitarian social insitutions that can only be best served by the state like: the enforcement of lifelong marriage, stable family units, universal and efficient trans-national medical care, and enforcing an egalitarian law through the law and courts.

*enforcing an eglitarian social contract I should say

then go after someone with a high sex drive
socialism is a pure institution
one man, one wife
swingers, cuckolds, bulls, and temptresses get the wall

Not at this point in history I agree. People are too reliant on state apparatuses like welfare and health care. Also there has been decades of history between different ethnic groups to the point where uniting people all under one state or non-state is just plain unrealistic

Monogamy can exist without the enforcement of laws. Plus laws can used by the state to enforce private property contracts and use violence to silence dissidents

you aren't going to have a fair system to adjudicate adherence to the social contract on a mass scale without the state, it doesn't work, and whatever little governing units you come up with that you think replaces the state, well guess what, those are more often than not mini-states, and especially once they have to start trading with each other

Ain't nothing wrong with confederalism and libertarian municipalities my dude.
Read Bookchin

confederalism is just a way of organizing states

Based Anarchist

Claire Berlinski was trying to pin them down

"Let us put this in the crudest of Freudian terms. Women have castrated men en masse. Perhaps this panic is happening now because our emotions about this achievement are ambivalent. Perhaps our ambivalence is so taboo that we cannot admit it to ourselves, no less discuss it rationally. Is it possible that we are acting out a desire that has surfaced from the hadopelagic zone of our collective unconscious—a longing to have the old brutes back? That is what Freud would suggest: We are imagining brutes all around us as a form of wish-fulfillment, a tidy achievement that simultaneously allows us to express our ambivalence by shrieking at them in horror.
The problem with Freudian interpretations, as Popper observed, is that they’re unfalsifiable. They’re not science. But they’re tempting. Certainly, something weird is going on here. It is taking place in the aftermath of the most extraordinary period of liberation and achievement women have ever enjoyed. No, of course we don’t want the old brutes back. But perhaps we miss something about that world. Wouldn’t it be comforting, for example, at a time like this, to believe what women used to believe—that responsible men were in charge?"

"No woman in her right mind would say, “I want the old world back.” We know what that meant for women. Nor would we even consciously think it. But perhaps, instead, we are fantasizing that the old world has come back, rather than confronting something a great deal more frightening: It’s never coming back. We are the grown-ups now. We are in charge."

m8 it's at least 75%

You realize meritocracy boils down to reals>feels. Good luck functioning in a high reward competitive environment with the delusional belief “everybody is equal, they’re just like me, so I deserve what they get!”

WHYY CANT HAVD ELON MUSK POSITION, EVERYBODY IS SAME

Yeah, go fuck yourself.

I think you misread that

You can see the split btw meritocratic and non-meritocratic socialists in the way pre-Marx socialists wrote about the reasons workers should have control of production.

The meritocatic position was basically that the workers deserve the means of production to create a better meritocracy, with the best workers being rewarded with luxury

Others, more egalitarian minded, likes Charles Hall for argued an elimination of special luxury rewards altogether, while others emphasized communal living beyond the workplace where inidividual luxuries would be hard to maintain

Others like