'Openly Classist' - are they still around?

[LLETSA]

So you prefer the world to be one where it depends on who you know rather than what you know? I would have thought that the fight against such privilege is a no-brainer.

No.

Meritocracy is one big con-trick that drains the poor of leadership and creates new elites who, by hogging the best schools and so on, pull up the drawbridge behind them. They are no more accountable than the old ruling elites, and lack their humility as they genuinely believe they've got there on merit instead of their parents and others like them skewing the system in their favour.

It's no accident that inequality is growing as it hasn't for a century in the age of meritocracy.

 

[LLETSA]

Because a 'meritocracy' retains the inequality that you warn of, just reserving the heights of the elite for those who've passed various skill and loyalty tests. You could say that the ruling Party of the USSR was a very good example of a functioning meritocracy.

I don't agree. You don't have to show loyalty to any system or even organisation to be part of a meritocracy. The meritocracy is stuffed with people who fancy themselves to be rebels of one kind or another. It's part and parcel of the fake equality that exists alongside a wealth gap growing as it hasn't for a century or more.

The USSR wasn't a meritocracy; it resembled in many respects a pre-democratic system whereby you advance in society by showing loyalty to the aristocracy (the nomenklatura.)

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Indeed. Appointed by way of elite patronage links. The industrialisation that occurred saw new openings for people, via widespread education, developing new skills etc, but for most, it never meant advancement up the administrative and social ladder.

 

[Random]

I don't agree. You don't have to show loyalty to any system or even organisation to be part of a meritocracy. The meritocracy is stuffed with people who fancy themselves to be rebels of one kind or another. It's part and parcel of the fake equality that exists alongside a wealth gap growing as it hasn't for a century or more.

They can fancy themselves rebels, but they've probably got where they are by regurgitating what teachers and lecturers told them, or bonding with their boss. Or showing that they maybe a crazee rebel but they can make money for the firm. I don't think the gap between USSR patronage and modern meritocracy is so wide. The USSR also had a formal education system and party machine that allowed people to work their way up from pretty much teh bottom, as long as they showed they could handle bureaucratic tasks and support the machine.

 

[Random]

Still I suspect that any future will have doctors being paid more than unskilled workers which suggests a limit on complete equality. But as you say it is important to try. What do you envisage in your written constitution? Or what checks and balances would you use to ensure that parliament doesn't step out of line? Surely all organisations and individuals should be held accountable for their actions?

Why should doctors be paid more than "unskilled workers"? A street sweeper is doing just as much to prevent disease as any epidemiologist; probably more. Work that's hard and boring should be rewarded more, and people should be supported while they to extensive training. But you don't need to dangle high pay in front of people to get them to be doctors or nurses, if there was free medical school on offer plenty of people would want to train.

As for a future system of checks and balances I think that who controls the means of production is more important than a written constitution. Equality plus social organisation based on local assemblies and recallable delegates is a check and a blalance on teh formation of a new elite, as long as the means of production are also controlled by the general population.

 

[LLETSA]

They can fancy themselves rebels, but they've probably got where they are by regurgitating what teachers and lecturers told them, or bonding with their boss. Or showing that they maybe a crazee rebel but they can make money for the firm. I don't think the gap between USSR patronage and modern meritocracy is so wide. The USSR also had a formal education system and party machine that allowed people to work their way up from pretty much teh bottom, as long as they showed they could handle bureaucratic tasks and support the machine.

Not necessarily. All society's innovators, and many rich self-styled rebels and iconoclasts can count themselves among the meritocracy. All that matters is whether somebody can make money out of you or that you can make it yourself. Today's capitalists couldn't give a fuck about ideas or 'loyalty' to the system/company etc. Ideas are ten-a-penny now that so many channels of information exist that it's reduced everything to one big confused cacophony where nobody knows what to believe (which is one reason for the lack of impact of 'the left'/ideologies and movements critical of the status quo.) Even the way their media puts across the ideology of the capitalist system is cynical, tired and jaded nowadays. Think of the self-mockery in advertising etc.

This situation is far removed from what existed in the USSR.

 

[Random]

Not necessarily. All society's innovators, and many rich self-styled rebels and iconoclasts can count themselves among the meritocracy. All that matters is whether somebody can make money out of you or that you can make it yourself. Today's capitalists couldn't give a fuck about ideas or 'loyalty' to the system/company etc.

I think you're overestimating the amount of rebelliousness among the elite. Who are these innovators you're talking about? Maybe you're inflating a tiny group of people, very visible in the media maybe, to be representative of the whole. Whether a modern executive feels loyalty is irrelevant, since s/he's got to the top by proving loyalty to the wider system through his7her efforts.

And yes, it's very different to the USSR. We've got a multiplicity of competing and overlapping elite groups, whereas the USSR only really had one; that's one major reason why the USSR is gone and western capitalism still remains.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

There will be no cooperation if there is a hint of inequality in the solution being offered. Any kind of privilege system which favours one group over another for no rational reason, is just replacing one authoritarian system for another...

...Which leads to the ideal of a meritocracy where education takes primacy, and the system is guided by 'best practice' and safety nets to ensure that people get a second chance. The usual set up.

An internal contradicition so obvious that it shouldn't need pointing out.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So you prefer the world to be one where it depends on who you know rather than what you know? I would have thought that the fight against such privilege is a no-brainer.

I'd choose neither. Indeed I'd reject the options as neither of them can deliver equity. Rather I'd put forward the goal of a world where 'it depends' on what we all share and that is what we all are; we are all human and that mutual recognition should be the basis and aspiration of our society if we want that society to be equitable.

Louis MacNeice

 

[LLETSA]

I think you're overestimating the amount of rebelliousness among the elite. Who are these innovators you're talking about? Maybe you're inflating a tiny group of people, very visible in the media maybe, to be representative of the whole. Whether a modern executive feels loyalty is irrelevant, since s/he's got to the top by proving loyalty to the wider system through his7her efforts.

And yes, it's very different to the USSR. We've got a multiplicity of competing and overlapping elite groups, whereas the USSR only really had one; that's one major reason why the USSR is gone and western capitalism still remains.

I'm not saying it's serious rebelliousness. Like nearly all 'rebel' stances, of which there are a multitude in today's society, it's mostly image. The innovators and 'iconoclasts' are indeed a small, 'media-savvy' group but the attitude they project is widespread. Go sit in a cafe close to any city's financial district and just listen to the jargon-laden bollocks that gets spouted.

The USSR didn't have only one elite group. The ruling bureaucracy was riven with many rival groupings. But it wasn't a meritocracy, or at least only in a very limited sense. The top echelons of the party/state were self-perpetuating. You did indeed have to show loyalty to the system, but it was a throwback to earlier, pre-democratic times.

 

[Random]

The USSR didn't have only one elite group. The ruling bureaucracy was riven with many rival groupings. But it wasn't a meritocracy, or at least only in a very limited sense. The top echelons of the party/state were self-perpetuating. You did indeed have to show loyalty to the system, but it was a throwback to earlier, pre-democratic times.

Compared to other similarly semi-modern states, like say Brazil, the USSR's Communist system allowed some people from the bottom of society to rise to the top. Krushchev was a factory worker from a peasant family, and plenty of other CP supremos came from outside the intelligentsia. The party established itself and prepetuated itself through hoovering up some bright loyal types from the lower part of society. Sure, after a while it became an incestuous sytem, but it was built as a meritocracy and is a good example of meritocracy as a form of state modernisation.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

The careful networking and cultivation within that system in its early years, through their Politburo/Orgburo work before Stalin became General Secretary, later catapulted grateful people cultivated from this earlier period, and who, like Stalin, came from more humble non-intelligentsia backgrounds, including Khrushchev. It wasn't just Khrushchev's out-shining talents necessarily (which he did have despite very little formal education and the popular image that mocks him), but also being linked to a powerful patron that saw the Kalinovka peasant boy heading for big-time positions in the bureaucracy. But this was when the bureaucracy was burgeoning and the Stalinist state still in the process of growing.

Could the same be said of people's chances in Soviet society when elite groups, including the partially-created new Soviet intelligentsia, had already firmly established themselves during Khrushchev's time as Secretary and beyond? The elite had its fair share of pleasure-seeking, idle, stiligi youth who went to the best schools and got the plumb jobs because of who they and importantly their parents were, not what they knew. But I think it's a case of talking at cross-purposes here. Meritocracy in our society is bullshit. The revolution allowed for a limited time the advancement of people previously locked outside of such things as has been mentioned. And then they locked others out.

 

[treelover]

if you go to any of those 'start up' gatherings you will find plenty of people who think they are mavericks, radicals, innovators, etc..

 

[Random]

But I think it's a case of talking at cross-purposes here. Meritocracy in our society is bullshit.The revolution allowed for a limited time the advancement of people previously locked outside of such things as has been mentioned. And then they locked others out.

Yes indeed, I think that's a characteristic of meritocracy in unequal societies.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Skewed by a pre-existing tradition of patronage from the beginning.

 

[Gmart]

An internal contradicition so obvious that it shouldn't need pointing out.

Louis MacNeice

Favouring education is not the same as favouring a specific group over another for no reason. The first is an ideal which all societies accept - the second is privilege. Any future has to be guided by rationale and empiricism without the discrimination inherent in the privilege system.

I'd choose neither. Indeed I'd reject the options as neither of them can deliver equity. Rather I'd put forward the goal of a world where 'it depends' on what we all share and that is what we all are; we are all human and that mutual recognition should be the basis and aspiration of our society if we want that society to be equitable.

Louis MacNeice

Did you mean equity or equality? Fine words but a bit general: the goal is a world where it depends on what we all share: We are all human? Sure but some people have more skills than others and the idea of a world where this is not recognised is just unlikely - if I go to hospital I want the best surgeon available. We certainly all share the same needs: food, shelter etc, but these resources are scarce and that means markets.

To those who are vocal in their dismissal of meritocratic principles, then I ask you what basis you would run education/health/society? These are run on meritocratic principles and fairness - the patient with the greatest need goes first, schools get funding based on the number of students they have. Without these principles we would have even more unfairness.

 

[DotCommunist]

Favouring education is not the same as favouring a specific group over another for no reason. The first is an ideal which all societies accept - the second is privilege. Any future has to be guided by rationale and empiricism without the discrimination inherent in the privilege system.

Did you mean equity or equality? Fine words but a bit general: the goal is a world where it depends on what we all share: We are all human? Sure but some people have more skills than others and the idea of a world where this is not recognised is just unlikely - if I go to hospital I want the best surgeon available. We certainly all share the same needs: food, shelter etc, but these resources are scarce and that means markets.

To those who are vocal in their dismissal of meritocratic principles, then I ask you what basis you would run education/health/society? These are run on meritocratic principles and fairness - the patient with the greatest need goes first, schools get funding based on the number of students they have. Without these principles we would have even more unfairness.

Why are you such a dismal failure as a human being? You have't even begun to address the points put to you. You've even started wanking on about the necessity of markets AGAIN when nobody has even mentioned them!

You've then also made massive sweeping statements about what people think and do with no supporting evidence.

Fucking hell, you'll cry 'name calling' and mention a social contract in a minute then I'll have to call house

 

[LLETSA]

Compared to other similarly semi-modern states, like say Brazil, the USSR's Communist system allowed some people from the bottom of society to rise to the top. Krushchev was a factory worker from a peasant family, and plenty of other CP supremos came from outside the intelligentsia. The party established itself and prepetuated itself through hoovering up some bright loyal types from the lower part of society. Sure, after a while it became an incestuous sytem, but it was built as a meritocracy and is a good example of meritocracy as a form of state modernisation.

The USSR differed from a meritocracy in that the state discriminated in favour of people from working class and peasant backgrounds, pushing them up the career ladder. It resembled a meritocracy in that these people then pulled up the drawbridge, entrenching privilege.

 

[LLETSA]

To those who are vocal in their dismissal of meritocratic principles, then I ask you what basis you would run education/health/society? These are run on meritocratic principles and fairness - the patient with the greatest need goes first, schools get funding based on the number of students they have. Without these principles we would have even more unfairness.

This has nothing to do with the concept of a meritocracy. Meritocracy and fairness are opposites in practice.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Favouring education is not the same as favouring a specific group over another for no reason. The first is an ideal which all societies accept - the second is privilege. Any future has to be guided by rationale and empiricism without the discrimination inherent in the privilege system.

Did you mean equity or equality? Fine words but a bit general: the goal is a world where it depends on what we all share: We are all human? Sure but some people have more skills than others and the idea of a world where this is not recognised is just unlikely - if I go to hospital I want the best surgeon available. We certainly all share the same needs: food, shelter etc, but these resources are scarce and that means markets.

To those who are vocal in their dismissal of meritocratic principles, then I ask you what basis you would run education/health/society? These are run on meritocratic principles and fairness - the patient with the greatest need goes first, schools get funding based on the number of students they have. Without these principles we would have even more unfairness.

1. If you favour education as the basis for access to goods and services, you are favouring a specific group (i.e. those who do well whatever particular form of academic assessment you choose); adding another of your gross, pseudo-factual, universalisms doesn't make this any less true.

2. I meant equity as in fairness. As for being 'a bit general', well it is no more so than your 'that means markets' mantra; which is unsuprising snce we are both dealing with general moral choices. You might also want to reconsider your 'I want the best surgeon available' assertion; what would be wrong with wanting a competent surgeon? Such an unselfish, human centred approach, might even free up the best surgeon for someone in greater need.

3. I've already answered this but here it is once again; the organising principle (and don’t forget also the social aspiration) is universalist, humanist, mutual recognition. Interestingly health care in the UK is significantly informed by this view point, the popularity of which is evidenced by levels of support for and satisfaction with the NHS.

Louis MacNeice

 

[JimW]

There's a really good book on class formation in China during the collective years: http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=16889
Although the Party started out dominated by the scholar-gentry class, ten and more long years of revolutionary war thinned them out and vastly expanded the actual peasant membership, who go on to provide the bulk of the cadre. They come into the cities and first clash with then compromise with the intellectual elites.
Definitely concerted attempts to promote people of all backgrounds, including things later sneered at by the restored elite like letting semi-literate people into the art colleges and so on. Also famously promoted a night-soil collector (two shit buckets on a shoulder pole job) to Beijing Party Committee or was it deputy mayor. It wasn't all tokenism and it's definitely one of the things that provokes a bit of nostalgia now (or contempt from the bourgeois)

 

[Gmart]

1. If you favour education as the basis for access to goods and services, you are favouring a specific group (i.e. those who do well whatever particular form of academic assessment you choose); adding another of your gross, pseudo-factual, universalisms doesn't make this any less true.

Are you seriously arguing against education as a constructive element of a modern state here?

2. I meant equity as in fairness. As for being 'a bit general', well it is no more so than your 'that means markets' mantra; which is unsuprising snce we are both dealing with general moral choices. You might also want to reconsider your 'I want the best surgeon available' assertion; what would be wrong with wanting a competent surgeon? Such an unselfish, human centred approach, might even free up the best surgeon for someone in greater need.

If that 'competent surgeon' is the best surgeon available then that's fine. The UK is lucky it has an NHS at all, and I have seen at first hand the great job they do.

As far as markets go I am looking for a recognition that they have always been and will remain being a part of the world we live in. I think that position is a reasonable one, I have frequently stated that there must be a limit to the control of markets which must be addressed by government regulation and tax policy. In other countries the trade unions are stronger too.

[...]universalist, humanist, mutual recognition. Interestingly health care in the UK is significantly informed by this view point

Sounds like an ideal we can agree on.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Are you seriously arguing against education as a constructive element of a modern state here?

If that 'competent surgeon' is the best surgeon available then that's fine. The UK is lucky it has an NHS at all, and I have seen at first hand the great job they do.

As far as markets go I am looking for a recognition that they have always been and will remain being a part of the world we live in. I think that position is a reasonable one, I have frequently stated that there must be a limit to the control of markets which must be addressed by government regulation and tax policy. In other countries the trade unions are stronger too.

Sounds like an ideal we can agree on.

1. No and I can't see why you would think so? It would be a very weird position for someone who's whole houshold income is derived from emplyment in education. I was simply pointing out that your proposed academic meritocracy was favouring one group at the expense of others (equally entitled under a shared humanity qualification); a position that you apparently wanted to deny.

2. You haven't addressed the point I made at all; if the surgeon is competent to undertake the procedure why be greedy and demand the best if that best could be more usefully deployed elsewhere. What makes you entitled to more than you need?

3. Yet another gross, pseudo-factual, universalism; ask yourself how you might differentiate between all the systems of exchange called markets (e.g. do capitalist markets have characteristics which set them apart form other market arrangements)?

4. Not just an ideal but an actual organising principle (one which trumps the capitalist market), as in the example of UK health care provision.


Louis MacNeice

 

[october_lost]

Finally finished 'The Enemy is Middle Class'. Made a number of good points, but like others have said - its a pretty flawed analysis. Thought this was a good overview of the piece.