Meritocracy vs Equality

[John Galt]

How do you communists reconcile those ideas?

In a meritocracy, rewards come according to one's skill.

If you have equality, all recive the same rewards,


Do you reconcile this, or do you not want a meritoracy

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Surely all should receive gains based on their duty given to society.

Indeed, how hard one works should be rewarded if necessary. But we cannot deny that we each have inept intelligence. Those who are willing to use their intelligence and transform it to skills valuable to society should ultimately receive material and moral rewards.

Is that "Champagne Socialism"? I don't know. I can't say my political ideology is clear yet, but it is hard to explain.

It is a complicated one.

[John Galt]

" But we cannot deny that we each have inept intelligence."

Speak for yourself.

[Osman Ghazi]

Communism is meritocratic, just not materially meritocratic. What capitalists tend to forget is that not all rewards are material.

[John Galt]

What rewards does communism give? Dont forget that each reward must be to the PERSON with the merit, not the society

[DaCuBaN]

'From each according to his abilities: To each according to his needs'

That would suggest meritocracy would it not?

If you settle for equality (in this context) then you would still require some kind of penalties when people do not apply enough effort or similar - which in fact plops you straight back down into meritocracy

In my opinion the argument is null: equality and meritocracy amount to the same thing...

[John Galt]

They amount to opposite.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability is a meritocracy.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is equality.

[DaCuBaN]

If you settle for equality (in this context) then you would still require some kind of penalties when people do not apply enough effort or similar - which in fact plops you straight back down into meritocracy

The only thing I can see differently to be honest is that meritocracy would not support the infirm or disabled, whereas equality would. Otherwise they both work out the same as an able bodied worker who didn't wouldn't get. Surely?

In which case they amount to the same, simply by different means

[John Galt]

In equality, everyone would have the same living space per person, same kind of car, eat the same quality food and have the same quality medical care.

In a meritocracy, those with merit would have more living space, nicer cars, eat better food and have better medical care.

[Morpheus]

Aside from being unjust, meritocracy is horribly inefficient. In a meritocracy if you are good at your position you eventually get promoted and move up the hierarchy. If your'e good at the job you are promoted to eventually you are promoted again, and so on up the hierarchy. This means you will keep getting promoted until you are promoted to a position which you aren't very good at, then you will be stuck there for a long time. Thus meritocracy promotes everyone into positions which they aren't good at. We rise to our level of incompetence.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 02:41 AM
Aside from being unjust, meritocracy is horribly inefficient. In a meritocracy if you are good at your position you eventually get promoted and move up the hierarchy. If your'e good at the job you are promoted to eventually you are promoted again, and so on up the hierarchy. This means you will keep getting promoted until you are promoted to a position which you aren't very good at, then you will be stuck there for a long time. Thus meritocracy promotes everyone into positions which they aren't good at. We rise to our level of incompetence.
Lmao!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

A meritocracy is unjust! And ineffecient!

[Morpheus]

I take it you agree with the arguement, since you offer no refuation.

[John Galt]

How is it possibly unjust?

All you get is the fruits of your labor, according to your skill?


And how is it ineffecient? Do you have any other way to assign jobs? I can think of no better way than promoting people based on merit.

[synthesis]

You can't have a real meritocracy until you abolish inheritance and use that money to ensure that everyone has the same level of educational opportunity.

[John Galt]

We arent arguing that right now.

We are arguing a meritocracy vs communism. Not the feasbility of either or how to best attain either.

[DaCuBaN]

we need a mod to come and change the topic title then... Meritocracy vs Equality is different to Meritocracy vs Communism as one is part of the other, but not necessarily the other way round.

[John Galt]

I thought communism = equality?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12 2004, 05:58 PM
" But we cannot deny that we each have inept intelligence."

Speak for yourself.
I think he meant to say 'innate.'

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 13 2004, 02:59 AM
All you get is the fruits of your labor, according to your skill?
That's why it's seen as horribly unjust; they only get what they have earned (which doesn't really amount to a lot in most cases).

[Subversive Pessimist]

Aside from being unjust, meritocracy is horribly inefficient. In a meritocracy if you are good at your position you eventually get promoted and move up the hierarchy. If your'e good at the job you are promoted to eventually you are promoted again, and so on up the hierarchy. This means you will keep getting promoted until you are promoted to a position which you aren't very good at, then you will be stuck there for a long time. Thus meritocracy promotes everyone into positions which they aren't good at. We rise to our level of incompetence.

That's the greatest thing I've heard all day. Brilliant. I'll save it in a word document, if it's ok. :D

[Osman Ghazi]

Galt, again you assume that because they don't have fancy cars, they aren't being rewarded for their efforts. They recieve the respect and admiration of their comrades, which is all anyone should hope for. Why should they have a big house because they are smarter?

The capitalist mind simply cannot comprehend the idea of a non-material reward.

"Wait! I did all that good work and all I get is some ing respect and admiration? that!"

[monkeydust]

First, I think an often used phrase needs clarification.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

This is often misinterpreted to imply a break from meritocracy towards strict egalitarianism.

THe phrase is meant in a different manner. It commonly refers to ones ability to pay. Hence healthcare will change "from each according to his ability (to pay), to each according to his need".

Anyway...

Equality vs Meritocracy

I believe a bit of both is necessary.

As OsmanGhazi correctly said, Communism may reward people for the endevours with a form of social prestige. Those who demonstratee competence, skill, innovation and reliabiliy will be held in high regard.

Of course, we're also great exponents of social and economic equality.



Let me ask the capitalists a question.

I assume you are great supporters of meritocracy. Assuming this is true do you really believe that Capitalism is meritocratic? If so, how?

Believe me its not.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 11:50 AM
Galt, again you assume that because they don't have fancy cars, they aren't being rewarded for their efforts. They recieve the respect and admiration of their comrades, which is all anyone should hope for. Why should they have a big house because they are smarter?

The capitalist mind simply cannot comprehend the idea of a non-material reward.
Are these the people who would rather have a job with an exciting-sounding name rather than a pay-rise ?

They're not interested in actually achieving anything, only in appearing to achieve to please others. Galt would probably call them second handers.

[Shredder]

Believe it or not, I'm all for a system truly based on merit. But in order to achieve this, the system must be equal. Capitalism cannot achieve a genuine merit-based system because it is a class society, i.e., there are two ways to accrue wealth: working or owning. Thus, with capitalism's market system, the result is From each according to his wealth, to each according to his wealth! The rich get richer. I envision Marx's "first phase" of communist society as being based on merit, not enforced equality. Meritocracy cannot be achieved when some people invest monetary wealth and others invest labor power. Only the latter is necessary.

" ...The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor..."

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 11:50 AM
Galt, again you assume that because they don't have fancy cars, they aren't being rewarded for their efforts. They recieve the respect and admiration of their comrades, which is all anyone should hope for. Why should they have a big house because they are smarter?

The capitalist mind simply cannot comprehend the idea of a non-material reward.

"Wait! I did all that good work and all I get is some ing respect and admiration? that!"
How is respect and admiration a reward?




What respect and admiration does the inventor of the computer get? Without googling, can you tell me his name?

What respect and admiration does the inventor of A/C get? Whats his name?

[John Galt]

What respect and admiration do you give to the man who made your shirt?

[thatCHEr]

hay guys whats up in this thread?

[Osman Ghazi]

The capitalist mind simply cannot comprehend the idea of a non-material reward.



How is respect and admiration a reward?


Can I call it or what? Something that doesn't have any monetary value isn't a reward to the capitalist.

[John Galt]

Again, if we are rewarding merit with respect;

What is the name of the person who invented this computer you are using to post? Surely he deserves respect.

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't know. So what? I'm sure he got a bag full of cash. Obviously, if he had wanted people to remember him, he would have named the computer after himself.

Plus, it is hard to say who invented the computer per se. I mean, computers existed before Bill Gates invented DOS, but it was nothing like the computer I know, so I could easily say that Bill Gates invented the modern computer. You could say that the first person to invent the computer was really the first person to invent the switch, because that is all computers really are.

[Morpheus]

What is the name of the person who invented this computer you are using to post?

Uncle Sam.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 13 2004, 02:59 AM
And how is it ineffecient?
I already explained this:
meritocracy is horribly inefficient. In a meritocracy if you are good at your position you eventually get promoted and move up the hierarchy. If your'e good at the job you are promoted to eventually you are promoted again, and so on up the hierarchy. This means you will keep getting promoted until you are promoted to a position which you aren't very good at, then you will be stuck there for a long time. Thus meritocracy promotes everyone into positions which they aren't good at. We rise to our level of incompetence.

Why don't you respond to the arguement instead of being evasive.


Do you have any other way to assign jobs? I can think of no better way than promoting people based on merit.

"We arent arguing that right now.

We are arguing a meritocracy vs communism. Not the feasbility of either or how to best attain either."

[John Galt]

You said its inefficient. Fine, its ineffecient. Now propose a better system.

Just as democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, a mertitocracy is the most ineffecient way of assigning jobs, except everything else.

[monkeydust]

Meritocracy is not inefficient.

However, Capitalism is not very meritocratic at all, despite what you may wish to think John Galt.

Apparently, the worlds' 386 billionares have wealth proportionate to the worlds' poorest 2.8 billion people.

Are you suggesting that these people really deserve that money. Does the cumulative skill and effort put in by the 286, outweigh that of the 2.8 billion.

Of course not.

Contrary to popular belief Capitalism is not an "equal opportunity" system. People, don't start out with the same chances of success. Thus capitalism is not really a meritocracy.

[John Galt]

I never said that it was. But its closer than communism.

[Nyder]

Contrary to popular belief Capitalism is not an "equal opportunity" system. People, don't start out with the same chances of success. Thus capitalism is not really a meritocracy.

Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. In countries where equality of outcome or wealth distribution is forced to a great extent you suppress capitalism by punishing wealth creation and therefore everyone gets robbed of the opportunity.

In a free market environment there would be plenty of opportunity to use trade to gain wealth.

[mEds]

Capitalism is based on greed my friend. MAximizing earnings, profits at any cost. Don't be such a tool.

[Shredder]

Capitalism is not based on equal opportunity because it is based on the wealth you invest, instead of the labor you invest.

[Don't Change Your Name]

A meritocracy is unjust! And ineffecient!

Exactly. Like in Formula 1: there have been about 30 new drivers that were called "the new Ayrton" and they all failed. And of course F1 is boring nowadays with the "meritocracy" where Schumi wins everything. The teams with more money always win. And of course BAR should be winning races nowadays but Ferrari, thanks to the "meritocracy" wins more. Is it because they improved so much? Not really. BAR has worked harder lately, and the distance between them and the Ferraris shorter than last season, and it's not just because the other top teams are having a bad time. Those who do big part of the work are only remembered when they make mistakes in the pits. Honestly, I would forget "meritocracy".


What is the name of the person who invented this computer you are using to post? Surely he deserves respect.

Let's see... I know the local company that made it (it's one of those computers that are made by different local computer shops with different parts, that are cheaper and better than those crappy huge corporations like HP). I know it has an Intel processor. But I don't know who invented it, or who took part in the creating, designing, testing, programming, bulding and transportation processes!
I only know the name of the company that sold it to me, the company of the processor, monitor and speakers! And of course I know about Bill Gates but not about all those who designed, helped to design and helped in producing the software and hardware of this PC! And they probably got a smaller wage than Bill Gates!
You have a great meritocracy there :rolleyes:


Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. In countries where equality of outcome or wealth distribution is forced to a great extent you suppress capitalism by punishing wealth creation and therefore everyone gets robbed of the opportunity.

In a free market environment there would be plenty of opportunity to use trade to gain wealth.

You don't have equality of opportunity. You think (or should I say: you are told to think) you have. You inherit the general situation of your family. Your bosses will still win a lot more than you if you are born in a poor family and have to work for them. You won't have a good education if you live in such a crappy environment, so you won't have many chances of beating the one with the rich daddy when trying to get a job, thanks to "laissez-faire" capitalism. You can get rich however, but you ca have disadvantages. That's just a very bad argument.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 16 2004, 06:05 PM

Let's see... I know the local company that made it (it's one of those computers that are made by different local computer shops with different parts, that are cheaper and better than those crappy huge corporations like HP). I know it has an Intel processor. But I don't know who invented it, or who took part in the creating, designing, testing, programming, bulding and transportation processes!
I only know the name of the company that sold it to me, the company of the processor, monitor and speakers! And of course I know about Bill Gates but not about all those who designed, helped to design and helped in producing the software and hardware of this PC! And they probably got a smaller wage than Bill Gates!
You have a great meritocracy there :rolleyes:
Please, get it straight.

YOUR side said that in communism, you have a meritocracy because the people who succeed are given respect.


Obviosly, they are not. Instead they get their buckets of money and are happy. If they wanted respect, they could make it free (such as linux)

[monkeydust]

I never said that it was. But its closer than communism.

Really?

Let's put it this way:

Two people are born with exactly the same inherent ability and drive, and they are both born at exactly the same time.

One is born in the U.S.A. The child of rich parents, millionaires in fact.

The other is born to an impoverished family, let's say they live in Indonesia.

The former is granted an excellent education, his parents can afford the best private schools and tuition, they can afford healthcare sufficient to keep him heath through his childhood and adolecence. He's quite intellignent, going on to do well at school, and university. He achieves qualification necessary to gain high paid employment.

What's more, when his parents eventually die, he gains masses of inheritance.

So what about the second child?

Well...his parents are unable to afford him any education. He works for meager pay from a young age, in order to support himself and his family. He never got the opportunity to get anywhere in life. This wasn't at all a result of his ability.

It's clear to me, that this situation is not meritocratic in the least. Moreover, this kind of situation actually happens, on a large scale, today.

Furthermore, capitalism doesn't not equally reward several skills that might be considered 'equally valuable'. Teachers, for instance, can never reap the monetary gains that top businessmen do.


In contrast to Capitalism, a communist world offers fairly equal material rewards. Of course this isn't completely meritocratic, though the issue is somewhat off-set by immaterial rewards such as prestige and respect. Furthermore, it relfects the fact that peoples' abilities and skills are not hugely different. Bill Gates is not a billion times more skilled than a factory labourer, whichever way you try to portray things.


Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. In countries where equality of outcome or wealth distribution is forced to a great extent you suppress capitalism by punishing wealth creation and therefore everyone gets robbed of the opportunity.


Who said that capitalism was based on equality of outcome? I certainly didn't.

You clearly neglect the fact that Capitalism does not function (in the real world) on a basis of equality of opportunity, and capitalism is the force that often robs people of opportunity.


In a free market environment there would be plenty of opportunity to use trade to gain wealth

I was waiting for someone to play the free market card........

If you're trying to imply that the free market realistically brings about equality of opportunity then you are griveously mistaken.

History has shown us what the 'real' free market brings about.

It's certainly not equality of opportunity.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:16 PM

I never said that it was. But its closer than communism.

Really?

Let's put it this way:

Two people are born with exactly the same inherent ability and drive, and they are both born at exactly the same time.

One is born in the U.S.A. The child of rich parents, millionaires in fact.

The other is born to an impoverished family, let's say they live in Indonesia.

The former is granted an excellent education, his parents can afford the best private schools and tuition, they can afford healthcare sufficient to keep him heath through his childhood and adolecence. He's quite intellignent, going on to do well at school, and university. He achieves qualification necessary to gain high paid employment.

What's more, when his parents eventually die, he gains masses of inheritance.

So what about the second child?

Well...his parents are unable to afford him any education. He works for meager pay from a young age, in order to support himself and his family. He never got the opportunity to get anywhere in life. This wasn't at all a result of his ability.

It's clear to me, that this situation is not meritocratic in the least. Moreover, this kind of situation actually happens, on a large scale, today.

Furthermore, capitalism doesn't not equally reward several skills that might be considered 'equally valuable'. Teachers, for instance, can never reap the monetary gains that top businessmen do.


In contrast to Capitalism, a communist world offers fairly equal material rewards. Of course this isn't completely meritocratic, though the issue is somewhat off-set by immaterial rewards such as prestige and respect. Furthermore, it relfects the fact that peoples' abilities and skills are not hugely different. Bill Gates is not a billion times more skilled than a factory labourer, whichever way you try to portray things.


Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. In countries where equality of outcome or wealth distribution is forced to a great extent you suppress capitalism by punishing wealth creation and therefore everyone gets robbed of the opportunity.


Who said that capitalism was based on equality of outcome? I certainly didn't.

You clearly neglect the fact that Capitalism does not function (in the real world) on a basis of equality of opportunity, and capitalism is the force that often robs people of opportunity.


In a free market environment there would be plenty of opportunity to use trade to gain wealth

I was waiting for someone to play the free market card........

If you're trying to imply that the free market realistically brings about equality of opportunity then you are griveously mistaken.

History has shown us what the 'real' free market brings about.

It's certainly not equality of opportunity.
I can put faces to your examples.


Example one is my great great grandfather. His family was one of the foremost beer distributers in poland. Hes also my great grandparents from germany. They were wealthy. The nazis forced them to flee with nothing.


Fast forward a few years, and my Great grandmother and grand parents are born.

Father's side:
My great grandmother works up from nothing as a typist. She worked in the Israeli diplomatic corps and is still alive. She married my great grandfather. He also had nothing, so he worked himself through college, and joined the royal air force in Israel as an engineer. Now my great grandmother is approaching her 100th birthday, and live comfortable in new jersey. My great grandfather died from the chemicals he was exposed to on a daily basis. My grandfather and grandmother lived succesful lives and gave birth to my father and his two siblings. My uncle is a lawyer and is fairly wealthy. My father runs his own buisness, and we are moderatly wealthy. My aunt is a geneticist and are also moderatly wealthy.

Mother's side:
My grandparents came off the boat from Germany with nothing. My great grandfather hated america and never reallly adjusted. Here was a man in a fine tuxedo, that was forced to scrub floors for a living. My grandfather (after missing almost all of high school because they were forced to remain in britian where he wasnt allowed to be schooled) and because for his last year in germany he wasnt allowed to go to school) held down two jobs, and went to night school. He slept in the kitchen. He ran several business, and is now retired in Florida/New York and is a millionaire.


My family went from the owner's of the leipzig telephone company, the owners of a large portion of poland's beer business, and the owner of a large berlin newspaper, to a country in which they didnt speak the languege, and they had no money. They changed that.


That child in Indonesia need not remain poor. He can choose to remain poor, or he can better himself.

[John Galt]

To sumarize for all those who dont feel like reading my family history:

My grandfather was poorly educated, but worked 2 jobs and went to night school and is now a millionaire.

The other side of my family also was poorly educated, but live quite well today, after working for it.

[mEds]

Who cares? ^

[John Galt]

Obviously it is quite possible to go from rags to riches.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 16 2004, 06:09 PM
Please, get it straight.

YOUR side said that in communism, you have a meritocracy because the people who succeed are given respect.


Obviosly, they are not. Instead they get their buckets of money and are happy. If they wanted respect, they could make it free (such as linux)
And then why should people like Bill Gates get MOST of the money?? :rolleyes:

Obviously in capitalism all the "great things" are attributed to the the corporation that made them. But most of the money and fame goes to the rich owners!

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 16 2004, 07:58 PM
Obviously it is quite possible to go from rags to riches.
Of course it's possible, but really you're clutching at straws.

A meritocracy is not a system whereby "a few people can go from nothing to something, through hard effort".

It's a system in which people are proportionately rewarded for their skill and effort.

Sure, there's a few examples of people who deserve what they have right now.

But there's far more examples of people who either have more than they deserve, of far less than they should be getting. This isn't meritocratic by any standard.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:30 PM
Capitalism is not based on equal opportunity because it is based on the wealth you invest, instead of the labor you invest.
And how do you get that wealth? Through labour, in most cases. If you are smart you then invest the money to make profits and compound that for future gains.

[Shredder]

Hardly. You inherit it. The ways you inherit it are manifold. You can inherit it simply by being born into a wealthy society. You can inherit it directly, by your benefactors straight up handing you cash money. You can inherit it indirectly by your parents sending you to prestigious schools and universities.

Capitalism maintains the same distribution of wealth across its market, regardless of who is trying or not. Through pure luck, some poor sap in some poor country might stumble upon some wealth. On the other hand, in fairness, monkeys could fly out of my ass.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:18 AM
Capitalism maintains the same distribution of wealth across its market, regardless of who is trying or not. Through pure luck, some poor sap in some poor country might stumble upon some wealth. On the other hand, in fairness, monkeys could fly out of my ass.
This is fallacious, as it suggests that wealth is conserved and not made.


Hardly. You inherit it.

And who did John Galt's grandparents inherit it from ? The "inheritence" argument is a cheap reationalisation to make stealing other people's money less "unpalatable".

[Morpheus]

You said its inefficient. Fine, its ineffecient. Now propose a better system.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...nquest/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)


Obviously it is quite possible to go from rags to riches.

You could do that in the USSR, too. Nikita Kruschev was originally a pipe-fitter but he worked his way up the lader and became the leader of the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev was an agricultural worker in his youth. And there are other examples of people in the USSR going from low in the hierarchy to high in it. Do you therefore believe the USSR was justified?

[pandora]

People with buckets of money are always trying to buy respect, and then get angry when it doesn't.
Then they blame the group for not respecting them.
The root of bougeious anger against the proleterians who don't respect there pitiful donations (I pay my taxes don't I :P ) towards the betterment of society.
Or even worse, give a SMALL portion of their worth to some religious organization like that changes the face of oppression instead of structural change, or really helping somebody.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:55 AM

You said its inefficient. Fine, its ineffecient. Now propose a better system.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...nquest/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)


Obviously it is quite possible to go from rags to riches.

You could do that in the USSR, too. Nikita Kruschev was originally a pipe-fitter but he worked his way up the lader and became the leader of the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev was an agricultural worker in his youth. And there are other examples of people in the USSR going from low in the hierarchy to high in it. Do you therefore believe the USSR was justified?
I think he meant by work, not by political pull. Confusing economic and political power again.

[Shredder]

In what way does a capitalist do 'work' more than a politician?

Retarded bourgeois definition of 'work' again.

[monkeydust]

And how do you get that wealth? Through labour, in most cases. If you are smart you then invest the money to make profits and compound that for future gains.

Or if you get lucky.........

If you believe that businesmen are as intelligent and work as hard as their economic status suggests then you are grossly mistaken.


And who did John Galt's grandparents inherit it from ? The "inheritence" argument is a cheap reationalisation to make stealing other people's money less "unpalatable".

Sure, John Galt's grandparents might have gone from rags to riches. I accept that.

I'm not saying that nobody can 'become something' in capitalism.

Rather capitalism does not reward propotionately (or anywhere close) hard work, skill and intelligence. At least not accurately.

[mEds]

For every one person that becomes "successful" In the capitalist sense many more will not be as fortunate.

[mEds]

For every one person that becomes "successful" In the capitalist sense many more will not be as fortunate.