(July 29, 2019 at 8:09 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 8:05 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: How is Marx's ideal meritocratic?

I suppose it depends on how you define merit. To me, labor is a meritorious activity. Taking this into mind, Marx is meritocratic because he wants to ensure laborers are rewarded completely for their meritorious activity.

He assumes what he wants is achieved, and then pretend that is enough to see it through to achievement.   He does not performed any detailed analysis of any pitfalls that might attend its achievement.

(July 29, 2019 at 8:12 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 8:09 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I suppose it depends on how you define merit. To me, labor is a meritorious activity. Taking this into mind, Marx is meritocratic because he wants to ensure laborers are rewarded completely for their meritorious activity.

He assumes what he wants is achieved, and then pretend that is enough to see it through to achievement.   He does not performed any detailed analysis of any pitfalls that might attend its achievement.

I'm not sure I follow. Who do you mean by "he"... Marx or the laborer?

Marx. He assumed an end state where all is fair and yet motivating, all good, no bad, and does not investigate why such fantastic obviousness had never occurred to another to propose.

(July 29, 2019 at 8:28 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Marx.  He assumed an end state where all is fair and yet motivating, all good, no bad, and does not investigate why such fantastic obviousness had never occurred to another to propose.

I have problems with Marx's ideal too. He thinks greed will disappear with capitalism... in fact, he thinks capitalism is the cause of greed. I think he is partially correct here... or (it might be more accurate to say) capitalism exacerbates greed.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with Marx that greed will disappear with capitalism. Greed and desire are inseparable from our natures. But that doesn't mean we need to live in a system centered around our greed and desire.

I agree with Marx that living in a system centered around greed and desire (capitalism) is stupid... it's abusive and parasitic to most of the people who live under it. It isn't moral. Period.

According to Marx (and I agree with him here) people innately want to produce and create. It is a part of human nature. This human propensity to create and produce, left untouched by the exploiters, could feed and clothe the world ten times over. But the extremely wealthy won't let that happen. They want their "cut." And since the system is centered around them getting their cut, the world isn't fed and clothed even ONCE. AS IT EASILY COULD BE!

Capitalism twists the creative and productive aspect of human nature into avarice. So (while I disagree with Marx that greed will disappear with capitalism) I also see where he's coming from when he says capitalism causes greed.

(July 29, 2019 at 9:33 pm)+vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 29, 2019 at 8:28 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Marx.  He assumed an end state where all is fair and yet motivating, all good, no bad, and does not investigate why such fantastic obviousness had never occurred to another to propose.

I have problems with Marx's ideal too. He thinks greed will disappear with capitalism... in fact, he thinks capitalism is the cause of greed. I think he is partially correct here... or (it might be more accurate to say) capitalism exacerbates greed.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with Marx that greed will disappear with capitalism. Greed and desire are inseparable from our natures. But that doesn't mean we need to live in a system centered around our greed and desire.

I agree with Marx that living in a system centered around greed and desire (capitalism) is stupid... it's abusive and parasitic to most of the people who live under it. It isn't moral. Period.

According to Marx (and I agree with him here) people innately want to produce and create. It is a part of human nature. This human propensity to create and produce, left untouched by the exploiters, could feed and clothe the world ten times over. But the extremely wealthy won't let that happen. They want their "cut." And since the system is centered around them getting their cut, the world isn't fed and clothed even ONCE. AS IT EASILY COULD BE!

Capitalism twists the creative and productive aspect of human nature into avarice. So (while I disagree with Marx that greed will disappear with capitalism) I also see where he's coming from when he says capitalism causes greed.

There is a reason why capitalism appears to exacerbate greed.  Greed has always existed and had always been a dominating motivational force since the development of money.   There is little doubt money is essential for the sort of economic and social development that pushed us into urban Iron Age culture and beyond.  But capitalism is the the first system which has been able to channel greed into greatly enriching the society.   So where as previously greed can be said to benefit some at the expense of other with relatively little gained by the society overall. Under capitalism greed definitively made it possible for the society overall to gain a lot.  Hence the society overall now has reasons beyond fulfilling the self-interests of the greedy to reward greed.

Under capitalism, greed of the most greedy may not promote fairness, but it does tend to enrich even those who were not in themselves that greedy, if only to a small degree compared to the greedy.


Regarding Marxism, Marxism postulate a meritocracy somehow exists without describing why it would develop, and when you look it closely you would find the alleged meritocracy is largely devoid of incentives for being meritorious. 

So it is a meritocracy where eventually the meritorious will likely have no merit.

(July 30, 2019 at 2:58 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: There is a reason why capitalism appears to exacerbate greed.  Greed has always existed and had always been a dominating motivational force since the development of money.   There is little doubt money is essential for the sort of economic and social development that pushed us into urban Iron Age culture and beyond.  But capitalism is the the first system which has been able to channel greed into greatly enriching the society.   So where as previously greed can be said to benefit some at the expense of other with relatively little gained by the society overall. Under capitalism greed definitively made it possible for the society overall to gain a lot.  Hence the society overall now has reasons beyond fulfilling the self-interests of the greedy to reward greed.

Under capitalism, greed of the most greedy may not promote fairness, but it does tend to enrich even those who were not in themselves that greedy, if only to a small degree compared to the greedy.

Contrary to popular belief, Marx was actually impressed by the industrial revolution. He thought "Wow. Look at how much is being produced. We can feed everybody in the world now." But the the problem with the industrial revolution (to Marx) was that human labor was turned into a commodity. Look at the influx of migrant workers. The problem that Trumpsters have is that there are people who compete in the job market and lower the price of labor. We could discuss how migrant workers are minimally impactful on the overall economy-- if your neighbor has a child, he will also be competing with your child in the job market, but Trumptsters aren't opposing new births. You can't "build a wall" around every vagina, even though one new birth has the same impact on the economy as one new migrant worker.

Marx's problem was that the more producers you have (and the more they produce) the LESS they are worth. Throughout history, famine and starvation happened because of food shortages. After the industrial revolution, "famine" happened when there was too much food, or too much production. To Marx, that seemed like stupidity.

He liked that capitalism created so much, but he hated that abundance led to poverty. He also wondered WHY overproduction led to poverty. In his mind such a thing was absurd. Capitalism made abundance into poverty.

Marx's solution was that the workers own the means of production. This has never happened: not in the USSR, Cuba, or many other states, though they claimed to be Marxist. It happened in Spain for a brief instant... (I'd love for any Spaniards on AF to enlighten us about this). But otherwise it hasn't happened.

We can feed, clothe, and educate the citizens of the world many times over. But capitalism exploits people rather than endowing them with power. Capitalism is such a stupid system. We all work eight hours a day and (most of us, myself included) produce the most useless and menial things. But the argument goes: at least people have the ability to buy the stupid trinkets you make.

Marx said (and Henry David Thoreau proved) that one or two hours of labor four days a week is sufficient to sustain yourself. But why don't we work two hour work days? We MUST produce useless trinkets in case somebody wants one. Otherwise the boss loses profits. The consumer (on his off time) can have more options concerning useless trinkets. So work, work, work, we do and we call ourselves free because when we aren't working there are so many useless trinkets we can buy.

That isn't freedom. That's slavery. And once capitalism is done enslaving the third world, our labor is going to be just as valueless. Americans will have to work in sweatshops. Did you know that there are sweatshops already in America? It's mostly foreigners who work in them. I knew a woman who lost three fingers working in one, but still, she was made to work 16 hour days. I hate this shit. It is total disregard for human life. But there is one reason systems like this exist. It is profitable for owners.

Capitalism promises class mobility. But class mobility is rare. And in my opinion, fuck class mobility. I don't want to be rich. I want my friend to have her fingers back. I want a system where workers have so many rights, they aren't worth hiring. I want a system where human creativity and industriousness provides for all and the exploiters are the ones who find the value of their work doesn't amount to shit.

I am unaware of any popular conception that Marx hated industrial revolution. Marx saw the evolution of human society as a deterministic one in which ever greater productivity leads the the sort of affluence which removes want and lead somehow to his meritocracy which incentivized nothing.   He welcomed industrial revolution as the final inevitable step that inevitably ends in bringing about his utopia.   He also welcomed capitalism as an inevitable step that facilitated industrial revolution and massive wealth creation which in the end will bring about his wantless utopia.

(July 30, 2019 at 4:21 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I am unaware of any popular conception that Marx hated industrial revolution. Marx saw the evolution of human society as a deterministic one in which ever greater productivity leads the the sort of affluence which removes want and lead somehow to his meritocracy which incentivized nothing.   He welcomed industrial revolution as the final inevitable step that inevitably ends in bringing about his utopia.   He also welcomed capitalism as an inevitable step that facilitated industrial revolution and massive wealth creation which in the end will bring about his wantless utopia.

I disagree with Marx's "science." His dialectical materialism... I think his Hegelian influence only takes him so far. I more like the thinking of Mikhail Bakunin or Leo Tolstoy. Or Gandhi for that matter. I reject the ideas of Fanon and Sartre that violence is necessary. These thinkers correctly pointed out that capitalism depends itself on force and violence, but neither thought to starve capitalism of its necessities. The real thing that keeps capitalism going is obedience. Once we all disobey, capitalism will fall. And this can be done without violence.

Like Fanon and Sartre argued: capitalism depends itself on force and violence. A violent Marxist uprising also depends itself on force and violence. And in the end, all these uprisings produce is a bureaucratic elite who is just as exploitative as the capitalists were. Thus, in my view, the only way to truly achieve Marxism is through nonviolent disobedience.

(July 29, 2019 at 2:36 pm)tackattack Wrote: Is your/our/a society equal or egalitarian enough, fundamentally, to be an effective meritocracy? Meritocracy can mean treating people with fundamentally unequal backgrounds as superficially the same which ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society. What would it take to make your society more meritorious in it's reward system. At what threshold of egalitarianism could a move from elitism of person to meritorious structure be a better step? Would it be a better step? Just open for thoughts and discussions.

I'm told there are millennials are sharpening both ends of a stick because of this. You should probably hide.

(July 29, 2019 at 7:47 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think people are (ideally) entitled to 100% of the fruits of their labor. But no one seems to be able to be figure out how to do things without some exploitation. It's like exploitation is some kind of constant that makes production possible. I think Marx had a pretty good idea of a meritocracy, but all the attempts to realize his vision are worse (in the exploitation department) than capitalism.

To me, elimination of all exploitation is essential if you are aiming for a "meritocracy." I mean, you can't call it a meritocracy if your "merit" can be claimed by those to whom it does not belong.

One thing I think we could do is implement free education (all the way through grad school) to students who demonstrate mastery. Scholarships and such do this to some degree, but they are more like a lottery (much of the time) than a functionary system that rewards merit.

The part I bolded--yes, that is the debate between left and right in the US. Politically, I line up with US conservatives on economics and governance (liberals for those on the other side of the pond). As Reagan liked to say, liberals cannot help thinking when they see a fat man standing next to a thin man that the fat man got that way at the thin man's expense. 

In a meritocracy, we have to accept inequality in outcome so long as we ensure equality of opportunity. And that inequality itself can build in advantages and disadvantages to a child from a family with less economic success. 

The whole reason for free universal education is to level the playing field so that nomatter the background, everyone starts with a fair opportunity to get ahead. But in the US, inner city schools are complete and utter failures. If we actually fix our school system in the US, we'd go a long way towards improving equal opportunities. 

Another problem is that some minorities have experienced real (and perceived) discrimination which leads them to "check out" of the system because they believe there is no opportunity for them. High school dropout rates are obscenely high for African Americans who live in these districts with poor schools. It's not minority status alone that does this--most Asian American minority groups have a much higher than average scholarly success rate despite facing discrimination. 

Poor rural whites often do not much better for one reason that they share with poor urban African Americans--that is generational poverty and reliance on government assistance as a means of subsisting. Both groups are disconnected from the economy in ways those of us more fortunate do not even understand. They don't use or trust banks, so they have no credit. They live paycheck to paycheck if they work at all. Their only methods of payment are cash or barter. Their only means of finance are predatory payday loans and car title loans, which further saps their limited income. The example children learn to emulate from their parents is one of reliance on government assistance to live, which often means limiting one's income to be "poor enough" to qualify for maximal benefits.  These welfare benefits do not in any way confer a high quality of life--I could not imagine living that way--so I'm not making an argument that these people are just "too lazy" to work. 

Whether the impediment is cultural resistance, generational poverty, or poor available education, the basic recipe for how to function in our economy is not taught to many poor people. And that in short is the poverty trap. The US could be more meritocratic than it is today if we could address some of the problems I describe. But of course these aren't easy problems to fix. Until these problems are addressed, I'd say the US is only partially meritocratic.