If we wish to create understanding, we simplify. If we wish to create confusion, we overcomplicate. ~Ghost
(Opinion)
Author's Note: I am composing this piece because it has become evident to me that many individuals do not comprehend what a Meritocracy (based in equality) is and how it, along with its counterparts Marxism and Fascism, (equity-based ideologies) influences society on every level. In part one, we will concentrate on Meritocracy, and then examine its opposites, Marxism and Fascism, in part two.
Meritocracy is more than just a concept; it’s a driving force behind progress in all western societies, shaping the way individuals are evaluated and rewarded based on their capabilities rather than their social standing for instance. At its heart, meritocracy prioritizes people’s abilities, talents, and hard work over their social class or background, fostering an environment where potential can flourish regardless of one’s origins. This focus on merit has led to significant advancements in various fields, including education, science, technology, and the arts, by creating pathways for individuals to rise based on their contributions and achievements.
In educational systems that embrace meritocratic principles for example, students are encouraged to excel based on their academic performance and skills. This creates a competitive atmosphere where the brightest minds can thrive, leading to innovations and discoveries that benefit society as a whole. For instance, in universities that offer scholarships based solely on merit, students from diverse backgrounds can access higher education, paving the way for a more educated workforce that drives economic growth and cultural enrichment.
Furthermore, in the realm of science and technology, meritocracy has historically been the primary catalyst for groundbreaking research and development. When individuals are recognized and rewarded for their intellectual contributions rather than their affiliations or backgrounds, it encourages creativity and risk-taking. This has resulted in transformative inventions and advancements, such as the development of the internet, medical breakthroughs, and sustainable technologies, all of which have had profound impacts on global society.
In the arts, meritocracy allows for a diverse array of voices and perspectives to emerge, enriching cultural landscapes. Artists, writers, and musicians who are recognized for their talent rather than their social or political connections can challenge norms and inspire beneficial change, leading to a more vibrant and dynamic cultural scene. This not only enhances the quality of artistic expression but also promotes inclusivity and representation across different demographics.
However, while meritocracy has the potential to drive progress, it is essential to acknowledge the challenges and criticisms it faces. These criticisms of course come from those who believe in "Equity" not "Equality" which is a corner stone of not just the United States but all of western civilization to one degree or another. Marxism and Fascism are rooted in "equity" while meritocracy is rooted in "equality". Understanding this difference is critical so I will let the expert explain it.
Now, if you would like to explore the criticism of meritocracy the place to start is with this guy, Michael Sandel.
The argument is of course that in practice, the ideal of a pure meritocracy can be undermined by systemic inequalities that persist in society. Factors such as socioeconomic status, access to resources, and educational opportunities can create barriers that prevent true merit-based advancement. Therefore, it is crucial for societies to strive for a more equitable framework that ensures all individuals have the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and achieve success based on merit.
Did you get that? Here is the primary problem with this fallacious argument. You cannot bring people up beyond their individual capabilities, this is a fact, people on an individual basis have varying, expansive as well as limited levels of intelligence and that is where their barriers lie, within themselves. People are only so smart. So, by default the only way to overcome these "barriers" as they love to call them is to drag everyone else down to the lower levels. I believe my generation called it "The Dumbing Down of America" and someone even wrote books about it that are well worth reading for anyone researching the subject of modern education.
So, let's get to it; What is Meritocracy?
The term “meritocracy” gained traction thanks to British sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 book, "The Rise of the Meritocracy." (Note: This book is purely satire) In this work, Young envisioned a society in which people's success is determined by their merit rather than their social standing.
By ensuring that opportunities are available according to individual achievement, meritocracy supports progress in many diverse areas, including technology, science, and the arts. It also has roots in ancient civilizations.
In pre-"communist"* China, for instance, Confucian ideas promoted the value of education over aristocratic lineage. By the 7th century AD, the Chinese imperial examination system was established, allowing individuals from differing backgrounds to earn government positions based on their merits instead of class or lineage. By the year 1100, approximately 20% of candidates passed these rigorous tests, leading to a highly educated civil service that enhanced state governance. In post-"communist" China you get nowhere except through your party affiliation no matter your merit. Consider Mao's purges of intellectuals among others who did not conform and toe his party line. Merit meant nothing to him, all he cared about was absolute loyalty to the party.
Which system do you think is better, which would you want to live under, pre-"communist" or post-"communist" China?
During the Enlightenment in Europe, meritocracy also began to deeply influence Western thought, creating an environment that favored scientific inquiry and artistic expression. For example, during this time, the scientific method gained traction, empowering thinkers like Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle to make groundbreaking contributions to science that reshaped our understanding of the world.
In my opinion, meritocracy in the United States is undoubtedly the gold standard by any measure, as it is a fundamental pillar of what still defines the nation today. Despite having some issues to address and some collective ignorance to overcome, if we are wise, we will view these as learning experiences and ensure we do not repeat the same mistakes.
As the United States took shape in the late 18th century, revolutionary ideals focused on meritocratic principles. The Constitution proclaimed that “all men are created equal,” emphasizing that every citizen should have a fair chance at success based on abilities rather than social standing for example. By the mid-20th century, more than 75% of Americans believed that hard work leads to success, reinforcing the meritocratic ideal. And it worked very well, for a while. People just do not understand or are even aware that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only guarantee us "the PURSUIT of happiness," meaning whether or not we achieve it depends solely on our own talents, abilities, and self-motivation to achieve what we see as success. It does NOT, and I repeat, IT DOES NOT guarantee us the happiness or success itself. The cost of freedom is self-accountability, WE are responsible for our happiness and success
The 19th and early 20th centuries saw massive industrial growth and technological breakthroughs, from the steam engine to the assembly line evolution. In a meritocratic setting, innovators were inspired to develop new ideas that would transform lives. Take Thomas Edison, whose inventions, such as the electric light bulb, changed daily life and fueled industrial growth. His story illustrates how meritocracy enables individuals to leverage their talents for societal benefit, contributing to the nation's rapid growth into a global superpower in under 200 years. The government did not do that, We the People did that because we were free to compete and control our own destinies.
The facts speak for themselves in my opinion, meritocracy fosters innovation and strengthens society by promoting competition, motivating individuals to excel and innovate. Rewards for achievements create a cycle of creativity benefiting all. It also enhances true equality by offering equal opportunities, making individuals accountable for their actions. This responsibility discourages reliance on government support. A Brookings Institution study shows that meritocratic societies have higher workforce participation and economic mobility, boosting prosperity.
There is however an inevitable consequence of meritocracy because anything good for some is going to be bad for others, and it simply does not matter what it is either because we are humans ruled by our unchangeable human nature. A positive must have a negative in order to exist and neither can exist without the other. I will get more into this in part 2 so I hope you stay with me.
Before I go, I want to stress the importance of understanding that once we get rid of all of the noise there are only two systems and to put it bluntly, they are freedom or slavery. Meritocracy for me represents freedom while Marxism/Fascism represent slavery. That being the case though both Marxism and Fascism have spawned countless bastard children they are the parents, and they are the polar opposite of meritocracy.
See you in part 2. ~Ghost
* There are no truly communist countries in this world by definition because according to Marx's vision there would be no government, no monetary system, no private ownership, all of which Modern day China has making it a socialist country where the elites have everything, and then there is everyone else.
Connective Tissue
Abstract
Comments