ravi: >> IMHO, I think there is a small but significant difference between >> capitalism and meritocracy
Carrol: > This isn't really intelligible. It is like saying there is a small but > significant difference between epidermal cells and a rabbit. > > Nominally, one could have a meritocracy within _any_ social system or > mode of production: I generally agree with Carrol's point and in fact, he clarifies my relatively obscure point: it's the current socioeconomic system which defines what "merit" is. But it's possible to advocate "meritocracy" as a partial critique of a system. For example, my late father advocated an IQ-based meritocracy (yukk!) partly because the folks above him in the bureaucracy were stupid (in his eyes) and he did really well on those damned IQ tests. (I don't know for sure what his motivations were, but it's a good guess.) Others have advocated meritocracy as a way of getting around the rule of those with inherited wealth and power (e.g., spoiled preppies like Dubya). Broadly-defined Fabian types (Keynes, H.G. Wells, G.B. Shaw, etc.) wanted a _true_ meritocracy, with those from Oxford, Cambridge, etc. in charge.[*] That, I believe, is what ravi meant when he introduced "meritocracy" into the thread: Obama was bringing in the "best and the brightest" that US capitalism currently has, as opposed to the "most venial and ignorant" of the Bush administration. (Maureen Dowd has a funny point about this phenomenon: she hopes that no big crisis occurs when Obama's flock is occupied watching the Yale-Harvard game.) BTW, it's useful to look as what the Wikipedia says about "meritocracy": >The term 'meritocracy' was first used in Michael Young's 1958 book Rise of the >Meritocracy. The term was intended to be pejorative, and his book was set in a >dystopian future in which one's social place is determined by IQ plus effort. >In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in >which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and >disconnected from the feelings of the public. > Despite the negative origin of the word, there are many who believe that a > meritocratic system is a good thing for society. Proponents of meritocracy > argue that a meritocratic system is more just and more productive than other > systems, and that it allows for an end to distinctions based on such > arbitrary things as sex, race or social connections. ... Detractors of > meritocracy, on the other hand, argue that the central dystopian aspect of > Young's conception — the existence of a meritocratic class that monopolises > access to merit and the symbols and markers of merit, and thereby perpetuates > its own power, social status, and privilege.< Kurt Vonnegut's PLAYER PIANO is also about a meritocracy (though he doesn't use that term). He's quite critical. [*] On the other hand, some _laissez-faire_ economists see free-market capitalism as a meritocracy, i.e., as rewarding most those who serve consumers the most. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
