Communism v. Meritocracy

[Aloysius]

On another forum, me and some other guy are having a discussion concerning meritocracy and Marxist Communism
I'd like to know you opinions on both, along with some arguments for/against both.
EDIT: This forum is not on RevLeft.

[Adi Shankara]

On another forum, me and some other guy are having a discussion concerning meritocracy and Marxist Communism
I'd like to know you opinions on both, along with some arguments for/against both.
EDIT: This forum is not on RevLeft.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." --Karl Marx

That's what communism is, in a single sentence. Not meritocratic at all.

/thread

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well if the other person is arguing that capitalism is a meritocracy, then that's the first problem since it isn't unless the making profit is the only merit worth measuring... and even then, not really.

I think without the profit motive, things and individuals can be much more clearly judged on the basis of their own merit. Think about famous artists of our time - some are "important" only because they have the backing of important institutions or investors or star-makers. Many of the famous artists from 100 years ago are not even well-known today because rather than really having merit, they were more or less fads that attracted the attention of the wealthy.

But, to me, the whole idea of "merit" in the abstract is dodgy and usually elitist. What basis is someone's intelligence and skill level based - their competency and ability to adapt and not rock the boat, their ability to make money, etc.? Ultimately merit has to be based on what the people at the top of some hierarchy deem worthy. In that sense, as a socialist I am against meritocracy and for democracy.

[Aloysius]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." --Karl Marx
/thread
I have said that at least twice. That bastard isn't getting the point.
I think I might need to talk stupid to him.

[RedSonRising]

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations." - Karl Marx, from the pages of the Communist Manifesto.

It seems that Communist distribution is more concerned with needs than with wants, perhaps assuming that a global communist society will have achieved the highest production capacity possible with efficient community production planning.

In socialism, however,the possibility of worker-controlled cooperatives operating independently of the state or a communal governing institution and a market existing for more commercial goods allow a meritocratic practice to rise within various workplaces. Marx felt a meritocratic profit incentive was a "bourgeois right" left over that would be utilized during the socialist transition period to maximize production. Lenin supported the idea of "To each according to his contribution" when considering the economics of a post-capitalist society.

"What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." -Karl Marx


Classlessness and an individual's ability to participate in the democratic decision of how to distribute the fruits of a workplace's labor are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Limits on what would today be considered commodity goods for entertainment purposes aren't desirable, and there are different ways to employ a worker-run economy, and therefore different ways to design the distribution of wealth (the core principle is to ensure it is democratic and free from hierarchical exploitation).

A post I made in this thread on the question of growth and "Ferraris for all?" is related, and I'd appreciate opinions on the systemic proposal outlined concerning luxuries and models of distributing individual purchasing power: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ferraris-alli-do-t139350/index.html?p=1818102#post1818102

[NGNM85]

I don't think it should necessarily be the foundation for society, but within certain institutions, it might be a good idea.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't think it should necessarily be the foundation for society, but within certain institutions, it might be a good idea.

Now you're supporting Meritocracy? Jesus, you take every conservative opinion you can find; meritocracy is dangerously close to capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now you're supporting Meritocracy? Jesus, you take every conservative opinion you can find; meritocracy is dangerously close to capitalism.

Bullshit. They couldn't be further apart.

You don't need brains, good looks or anything really to be born into money, which is one of the biggest indicators of one's future success. The ruling classes like to project the idea that they gained their positions through merit, but that's just propaganda; in actual fact they got where they are by a combination of ass-kissing and back-stabbing as well as sheer dumb luck.

Not to mention that what counts as "meritorious" under the self-servingly psychopathic rules of the market is the generation of profit; anything achieved in the pursuit of that super-goal that has merit outside of financial concerns is resolutely secondary to profit maximisation. You can't do anything if your company goes bust.

A true meritocracy would not have money, because otherwise people would beg, borrow, steal and sometimes get lucky.


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." --Karl Marx

That's what communism is, in a single sentence. Not meritocratic at all.

/thread

Actually, it the essence of a meritocracy - using the full extent of one's abilities is meritorious, as is meeting people's needs.

[Serge's Fist]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." --Karl Marx

That's what communism is, in a single sentence. Not meritocratic at all.


I disagree. Communism is more meritocratic, that is anyone if they have the ability can advance to be a rocket scientist or a great musician on their own merit. Not on their upbringing, heriditary privilege or access to capital. Once you remove money and property from society aspiration will be transformed into a force for positive social and individual development. Communists are not for absolute equality, as all people are diferent, have different talents, capacities and needs. The key point with communism in this regard is that everyones needs are provided for, allowing imagination and innovation to flourish on a scale never seen before.

[Adi Shankara]

Bullshit. They couldn't be further apart.

You don't need brains, good looks or anything really to be born into money, which is one of the biggest indicators of one's future success. The ruling classes like to project the idea that they gained their positions through merit, but that's just propaganda; in actual fact they got where they are by a combination of ass-kissing and back-stabbing as well as sheer dumb luck.

Not to mention that what counts as "meritorious" under the self-servingly psychopathic rules of the market is the generation of profit; anything achieved in the pursuit of that super-goal that has merit outside of financial concerns is resolutely secondary to profit maximisation. You can't do anything if your company goes bust.

A true meritocracy would not have money, because otherwise people would beg, borrow, steal and sometimes get lucky.



Actually, it the essence of a meritocracy - using the full extent of one's abilities is meritorious, as is meeting people's needs.

I'm guessing you're a technocrat/transhumanist?

[Aloysius]

My conversation with the other guy ended. We decided that we should stop before it comes to physical violence, which it no doubt would have.
However, the exchange here seems intelligent and interesting, so carry on, please.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm guessing you're a technocrat/transhumanist?

Is that a problem?

[Victory]

Wherever class division exists, there can be no authentic meritocracy because it will not be one equally fair. One class or another will rule and uphold it's rule which serves it's interests.

For example, How can there be meritocracy when there exists the ability to buy a better education with money?

[RedSonRising]

Wherever class division exists, there can be no authentic meritocracy because it will not be one equally fair. One class or another will rule and uphold it's rule which serves it's interests.

For example, How can there be meritocracy when there exists the ability to buy a better education with money?

The receiving of more money for a greater amount of labor does not necessarily mean a better access to institutions which provide necessary social facets. If a group of workers in a workplace of an industry decide that pay per production unit over hour is more desired, then it's a completely democratic decision to distribute based on individual merit, and there is no class emerging from such practices due to the end of private ownership of capital. If there are meritocratic distributions of wealth within a single classless community, the only goods available for purchase with such acquired funds would exist outside of nearly all necessary goods and services run by community control.

Unless one can acquire capital and exploit the labor of others, differences in wealth distribution don't endanger the social harmony of post-revolutionary society since the choice and opportunities for individuals to gain more on merit are open to all.

[Adi Shankara]

Is that a problem?

No, I'm indifferent to such positions, as in I have no real opinion on them, but I always assumed that every worker got what he/she needed irregardless of what they could contribute, as that is the communist way; in a meritocracy, wouldn't it be...different?

[RedSonRising]

No, I'm indifferent to such positions, as in I have no real opinion on them, but I always assumed that every worker got what he/she needed irregardless of what they could contribute, as that is the communist way; in a meritocracy, wouldn't it be...different?

What about mere wants?

[NGNM85]

Now you're supporting Meritocracy? Jesus, you take every conservative opinion you can find; meritocracy is dangerously close to capitalism.

I'm going to let the 'conservative' thing slide for the moment. First, what we have isn't really capitalism, but we can just call it that for conversations' sake, and it certainly isn't meritocratic.

What I was saying was within specific institutions meritocracy is a good idea. Certainly, professional athletics, military or police forces, etc. I was thinking along different lines, but it absolutely makes sense in certain applications.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm guessing you're a technocrat/transhumanist?

I am indeed a technocrat and a transhumanist. Maybe the text in my signature isn't obvious enough... :)

Why do you ask?


No, I'm indifferent to such positions, as in I have no real opinion on them, but I always assumed that every worker got what he/she needed irregardless of what they could contribute, as that is the communist way; in a meritocracy, wouldn't it be...different?

I don't see how. A cancer patient merits chemotherapy while a healthy person does not. A person who is good at athletics will advance far in a sports-oriented environment, all other things being equal.

[deLarge]

So long as what one receives is proportional to the labour they commit, and not merely the luck of finding a niche or exploiting other workers or "ass kissing", I think it [this type of meritocracy] could have a place in transitionary socialism.

[Aloysius]

So long as what one receives is proportional to the labour they commit, and not merely the luck of finding a niche or exploiting other workers or "ass kissing", I think it [this type of meritocracy] could have a place in transitionary socialism.
This could be workable. I might bring it up if the topic ever comes up again.

[La Comédie Noire]

You shouldn't be deprived of your material well being cause your bad at something, but you shouldn't get a pat on the back for fucking something up.

Right Wingers always make things more complicated then they need to be in order to justify capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You shouldn't be deprived of your material well being cause your bad at something,

I don't think this is necessarily implied by the term Meritocracy. People are good at different things. If somebody sucks at something, it seems more appropriate for them to change career than to be cast down into penury.

[RED DAVE]

I don't think this is necessarily implied by the term Meritocracy. People are good at different things. If somebody sucks at something, it seems more appropriate for them to change career than to be cast down into penury.Suppose a person (a) loves the thing they "suck" at or (b) they love something that capitalism does not support economically, like an art form (in which case they "suck" at making money)?

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Suppose a person (a) loves the thing they "suck" at or (b)

If they really like it that much then I don't see how they cannot possibly become at least competent through sheer dint of repetition.

Besides, in my experience people become frustrated and put off by activities they are rubbish at, and move on to something else of their own accord.

In other words, people are not the mindless lemmings you seem to think they are.


they love something that capitalism does not support economically, like an art form (in which case they "suck" at making money)?

Well that's why capitalism isn't a meritocracy! We have the resources to create a whole new generation of talent across the arts, but because capitalism operates in narrow financial terms this just isn't happening, and hence we get "starving artists".

Of course, were we to replace capitalism with something that, as well as being more humane, gives people more time to be human... Well, we'd be better off as a species, for a start.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm admittedly jumping into the middle of the conversation here -- I'd like to post a model I created that addresses some of the topics discussed in this thread:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg




Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property




Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




Determination of material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]




Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process




Propagation

communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may create templates of political priority lists for the sake of convenience, modifiable at any time until the date of activation -- regular, repeating orders can be submitted into an automated workflow for no interruption of service or orders


A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev


'Hours as a measure of labor’

tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x