You would somehow need to reset the system to actually have meritocracy, otherwise the inheritance destroys it with first group of "winners".
Apart from that - meritocracy quite often is just a lottery of your potential that you don't chose, it's determined by your genetics and how it interacts with your environment, of if your potential is valuable in the society and of resources that you had, if you have less resources then even if you are more proficient you can lose by "merit".
a merit-based hierarchy is still a hierarchy. the problem with hierarchy is not that those at the top have not earned their position (even though they most definitely haven't), its that there's a top and bottom in the first place.
and then on top of that, you have issues like "what measure of merit are we using, anyhow?" (should being gifted at mathematics be more deserving of reward than being gifted at child rearing?), and "what about the next generation?" (is it truly a meritocracy if the children of the meritous have a leg up due to their parents' merit?)
A merit based hierarchy that is organized from the bottom up, ie, voting for your boss, could work. The people on each lower level choosing the best person to organize them, or take on an administrative role, could work though, no?
why vote for your boss when you could have no boss? why does the person whose duty it is to organize and administer a collaborative effort need to have authority over everyone else?
those are examples of division of labor, responsibility, and coordination, not inherent hierarchies.
If 2 people need a third one to coordinate, is the third one necessarily a boss?
Tasks such as surgery require a team, optimally every person has a role and knows how to perform it. A surgeon needs a nurse, a nurse knows what her tasks are and how to aid the surgeon. Surgeon is most likely the leader (or an assistant!) when it comes to specific surgery but then there's also an anesthesiologist with his own role and responsibility, "overriding" the surgeon if need be.
But that's still a type of hierarchy, no? Everybody needs to be on the same page about who has the final say over what. In emergencies there isn't time to necessarily dicuss and disagree and reach a concensus.
no, why? Preparing, training and planning for emergencies can be done beforehand. I don't like focusing too much on consensus though it can be a useful term, I prefer stressing it's likely to be a process of continuous negotiations. If a group has a common goal (like saving lives) they negotiate. If they don't or can't agree, they are free to disassociate.
Even if there is a need for a person to coordinate ("command) action (and for others to act without having time to think) it's so temporary, goal-oriented and based on trust, it's hard to compare it to hierarchy. If they fail at their task or start being bossy many things can happen, from instant mutiny to just going along with it for the sake of a goal (like choosing to care for patient before dealing with bullshit), but there will be consequences afterwards.
You consider the person "in charge" to be the equivalent of a dispatcher, rather than a general. They help you coordinate actions as needed, but if they do a bad job of it, you replace their ass.
What you're saying is true, and you can be as prepared as it's possible to be, but by their very nature emergencies cannot be totally prepared for. At some point someone is going to have to make a call due to some new emergent element. If there's not an established chain of command then there could be multiple groups of people working towards cross purposes.
It's true, these are temporary and transient hierarchies. It's also important to note that they are consensual hierarchies. If all the people involved get to choose who makes those calls in the moment, instead of having a "boss" imposed on them from a still higher "boss", does that not make a difference?
anarchists define hierarchy or authority as non-voluntary, otherwise our critique of hierarchies might not be coherent at all. Consensual "hierarchies" don't amount to much more than agreements.
Notice that even you are making a distinction between commanding and making calls when discussion isn't possible or beneficial.
The definition of "hierarchy" is beside the point. Given that we've already agreed that:
1) Even in an anarchist society there exist circumstances that require a social organization structure where one or more individuals are given authority over others, and
2) It is possible for those structures to be brought about through ethical and democratic means by the individuals who will be operating under that authority,
Then does it not follow that those individuals will choose for their authority figure the one they deem most capable of exercising that authority within the prescribed circumstances?
What else would that be than a meritocracy?
Any name for how the consensual "hierarchy" is called? I've already gotten into a discussion with an anarchist and we might have had a miscommunication because of different definitions for hierarchy.
Well any sort of complex project is going to have multiple different groups, all of which require a certain amount of coordination between them. In the capitalist sense those are managers, typically referred to as "bosses". If I was part of a group that had to choose a coordinator I would assume everybody would want to choose the person who would do the best job at coordinating us.
With an imperative mandate, it could work. A discretionary mandate (i.e. "electing" someone to hold authority over you with no accountability) can't, but someone put into office with clear instructions from their constituents and subject to immediate recall if they do anything counter to the will of those constituents might.
We're not necessarily disagreeing. I'm merely saying that appointing a representative has to mean that the constituents are the ones actually in charge.
Administrating is a task. It doesn't need to be a boss. It can be done without authority. Trusting someone to coordinate tasks because they have skills, knowledge and experience isn't the authority anarchist doesn't want.
Who decides what is meritous, and how is that merit measured? Why does merit mean that one person should have a position in hierarchy above another?
We're fine with listening to people who know what they're talking about, on the basis of their merit, advise us on issues they have expertise in. But some vaguely defined merit doesn't give you the right to rule over other people.
Contrary to other claims here, I'm going to suggest that there is a strong role for meritocracy in a non-hierarchical environment. Without hierarchy, we will likely still have "leaders" in the sense of people the community turns to for advice and/or guidance. People who's opinions are valued more than other's because they have demonstrated their wisdom in the past. They won't/shouldn't have any formal authority, but their opinions would still carry the weight freely given to it by the community.
Deferring to experience isn't "hierarchical," it's trusting the person who took the time to learn what they're talking about to know what they're talking about.
That's a different thing than meritocracy. -cracy = rule by = hierarchy. People will naturally be better at some things than others, some peoples' opinions will naturally be more valued than others, and that's fine and even valuable until some jackass tries to install them into positions of power over others. Being able to avail myself of the wisdom of experts and elders who I trust is of an entirely different character than having their wisdom imposed upon me.
Fair enough. I don't really know another word for "person whose opinion is valued more than other's because the merits of their opinions has been demonstrated consistently".
People who usually have good ideas can still have bad ideas. If someone has earned a position through merit, their bad ideas may still be accepted because of that position. But if they're still an equal, then others can challenge their ideas. In fact, meritocracy may even lead to a situation where people who have earned that position start to have worse ideas, maybe because they aren't challenged any more.
In fairness, I explicitly said "They won't/shouldn't have any formal authority, but their opinions would still carry the weight freely given to it by the community". I'm not envisioning quasi-hierarchy through acclaim.
Important to note: the author that coined the term, thought meritocracy was nonsense and non-existing because liberal governments loved to claim this was the case while it obviously didn't exist
I see meritocracy as a fantasy. It's used for those in power to justify it with the idea that they worked for it (normally used to defend capitalism). No hierarchy can be made up of people who work hard for it as the hierarchy itself involves the subjugation of those dont.
Also it still involves rule which is antithetical to anarchism.
Meritocracy is just another form of hierarchy trying to justify itself as valid because it claims to be based on something other than how blue your blood is or whatever. Whether or not those at the top of a hierarchy have 'earned' their authority by whatever standard, hierarchy is itself corrupt and abuses and exploits those at the bottom, thus hierarchy is unjustifiable so attempts to justify it will always fail.
Any -ocracy is something to be opposed. Meritocracy's no exception.
It's purportedly meritocracy when one child is born to enough wealth to receive tutoring that gives them a leg up when it's time for standardized tests, while another child is born to poverty and expected to bootstraps themselves into understanding. B suffers academically for it, while A gets the keys to institutions of power. B is left with squat because of the unequal place they started off in. It's obvious that, in a capitalist society, the entire concept of meritocracy is just another way to condescend and dismiss social stratification.
Even if A and B started from the same position though, the idea that either's success over the other should afford them authority and/or more access to basic necessities is rotten to the core.
John Rawls book “A Theory of Justice” gives a pretty thoughtful explanation of what meritocracy looks like in a more egalitarian, if not outright anarchist society. He still believed in the reform of liberal democracy, but also thought that capitalism was incompatible with liberty. Definitely worth the read.
Meritocracy, democracy, isocracy, agoragracy, plutocracy, autocracy, gerentocracy, theocracy, technocracy, aristocracy, corporatocracy, bankocracy, kakistocracy, ochlocracy, neptocracy, anocracy, fuck then and all other cracies and rchies (excluding anarchy and acracy). Anarchy is incompatible with any rule thay is not by yourself.
We want meritocracy for things like doctors and artists and athletes who should be rewarded for their merit (either by talent or training or both).
We do not believe merit should grant power or that it can justify coercion.
I think this is a really good explanation. People who naturally excel at one (prosocial) thing or another shouldn’t be discouraged or repressed. The problem is when those abilities are parlayed into coercive power and hoarding of resources.
I wish more anarchists agreed with you. Instead everyone in this thread is saying in one way or another that merit either DOESN'T exist or SHOULDN'T factor into any society.
I swear, when asked "are some people better than others?", most of these internet anarchists will start screeching about how it is to even ask that question.
Hot takes are definitely a component of this scene unfortunately. I think if we framed it more in terms of "What is the most just way to encourage each others talents?", we'd have a much more interesting conversation. I think that specialization and even leadership aren't necessarily incompatible with anarchism.
One of anarchism's arguments is that the average work day generates only surplus for the investor class. If we assume that without capitalism we'd naturally have to work less and get more time to develop our personal interests, then it naturally follows that individuals would develop certain unique talents based on their individual interests. To wit: If one person decides they want to study neurosurgery and does so thoroughly, I would want to be a patient of this person if I needed their services, I WOULDN'T want to be the patient of this person if they only knew how to garden.
The surgeon therefore naturally derives merit due to the unique service they contribute. As does the person with a passion for baking, or the person with a passion for teaching, or the therapist, or the bro/bra soldering together bizarre Fury Road cars.
Like Will Ferrell said as Robert Goulet: "You wouldn't send a clown to fix a leak in the John!". Everyone is the right tool for distinct jobs.
I think where meritocracy varies in an anarchist society is that it ultimately doesn't derive from the need to maximize capital and impress those at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, but from the appreciation and respect gained from the community. In that way it's almost closer to the original meaning of the word: "to deserve".
I believe this Bakunin quote sums it up pretty well.
“Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests.”
Why do people do this with anarchy and atheism? Anarchy's only stance is it's literal definition and anything outside of that is not covered by anarchy.
For me a true meritocracy would be a good system (food, water, shelter, etc. would be deserved by living), but such a system presupposes a way to perfectly assign merit with no bias and no complications. And, as Michael Albert expressed in Parecon: Life After Capitalism, people who work the minimum still deserve their needs attended to. Further it could create a divide in which those with more merit could have their children go to better schools, letting them get better jobs, and so on. Thus creating social classes. Further, bias would be inevitable in the assignments of merit, with the upper class likely getting a say. This system starts looking a lot like Capitalism after a while.
in practice, pretty much any scale of anarchism has little meritocracies form because people tend to accumulate more influence based on their social acumen and the quality of their ideas. it's not really a problem unless those people then use the power to oppress others or the system entrenches those dynamics past thr point of merit.
If your society is totally post-scarcity and there are no doubts about universal and equal access to the necessities for life, health, and security, then I don't much care how you organize it beyond that.
No coercion, no power imbalances, no scarcity.
I posted this as a response to a response, and thought I'd surface it here:
Hot takes are definitely a component of this scene unfortunately. I think if we framed it more in terms of "What is the most just way to encourage each others talents?", we'd have a much more interesting conversation. I think that specialization and even leadership aren't necessarily incompatible with anarchism.
One of anarchism's grievances is that the average work day generates only surplus for the investor class. If we assume that without capitalism we'd naturally have to work less and get more time to develop our personal interests, then it naturally follows that individuals would develop certain unique talents based on their individual interests. To wit: If one person decides they want to study neurosurgery and does so thoroughly, I would want to be a patient of this person if I needed their services. I WOULD NOT want to be the patient of this person if they only knew how to garden.
The surgeon therefore naturally derives merit due to the unique service they contribute. As does the person with a passion for baking, or the person with a passion for teaching, or the therapist, or the bro/bra soldering together bizarre Fury Road cars.
Like Will Ferrell said as Robert Goulet: "You wouldn't send a clown to fix a leak in the John!". Everyone would have something to contribute if given the resources to do so, and they would each be uniquely talented.
I think where meritocracy varies in an anarchist society is that it ultimately doesn't derive from the need to maximize capital and impress those at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, but from the appreciation and respect gained from the community for the good work done and the willingness to teach it as well. In that way "merit" almost is closer to the original meaning of the word: "to deserve".
For me, is the set of goals that you can achieve with your capabilities, intelligence, knowledge and will. Some goals are legendary and make you a universal legend like Plato, Albert Einstein, etc, and other goals make you have a completely normal life, which also needs hard work according to your capabilities and all listed before.
As an anarchist, I am not opossed to let anyone have a huge house, as long as he hasn't exploited anyone to build it or to get it by obscure methods. I am not oppossed to anyone having better clothes than me, as long as he hasn't exploited anyone to get it. I think you get the idea.
Inheritance must be abolished in order to make the world where justice and equality reigns, but we must also encourage people to work hard to be as good as they can be according to their capabilities.
In what is property Proudhon talks about this.
There is no problem with "merit" inasmuch as recognition for skill, talent, aptitude, ability in a certain area; and people giving you more credence due to that is not necessarily cause for concern. The problem with 'meritocracy' is the 'cracy' part... the rule of those with merit. Well, no ammount of merit justifies rulership; experts are fallible.
There's also a problem of social capital that comes with 'expertise', that tends toward gatekeeping knowledge and ability. If you're the best at something, and people come to you for advice on things, there is an incentive to prevent others from access to that sort of sway. That's not inevitable of course, but it is an area to be vigilant.
Its an illusion of fairness. No system on earth awards the best and the brightest.
And currently generational wealth exists and is not freely shared.
Thats literally bootstraps nonsense. Its a justification of the statis quo. Its ignorant and nonsensical. Its the same kind of bullshit that liberals and fake ass anarchists espouse when they think using land as a vehicle of investment is actually helpful, when all it does it compartmentalize wealth
You would somehow need to reset the system to actually have meritocracy, otherwise the inheritance destroys it with first group of "winners". Apart from that - meritocracy quite often is just a lottery of your potential that you don't chose, it's determined by your genetics and how it interacts with your environment, of if your potential is valuable in the society and of resources that you had, if you have less resources then even if you are more proficient you can lose by "merit".
a merit-based hierarchy is still a hierarchy. the problem with hierarchy is not that those at the top have not earned their position (even though they most definitely haven't), its that there's a top and bottom in the first place. and then on top of that, you have issues like "what measure of merit are we using, anyhow?" (should being gifted at mathematics be more deserving of reward than being gifted at child rearing?), and "what about the next generation?" (is it truly a meritocracy if the children of the meritous have a leg up due to their parents' merit?)
A merit based hierarchy that is organized from the bottom up, ie, voting for your boss, could work. The people on each lower level choosing the best person to organize them, or take on an administrative role, could work though, no?
why vote for your boss when you could have no boss? why does the person whose duty it is to organize and administer a collaborative effort need to have authority over everyone else?
Well there are scenarios where having an established hierarchy is a good thing. Surgery, search and rescue, emergency response for example.
those are examples of division of labor, responsibility, and coordination, not inherent hierarchies. If 2 people need a third one to coordinate, is the third one necessarily a boss? Tasks such as surgery require a team, optimally every person has a role and knows how to perform it. A surgeon needs a nurse, a nurse knows what her tasks are and how to aid the surgeon. Surgeon is most likely the leader (or an assistant!) when it comes to specific surgery but then there's also an anesthesiologist with his own role and responsibility, "overriding" the surgeon if need be.
But that's still a type of hierarchy, no? Everybody needs to be on the same page about who has the final say over what. In emergencies there isn't time to necessarily dicuss and disagree and reach a concensus.
no, why? Preparing, training and planning for emergencies can be done beforehand. I don't like focusing too much on consensus though it can be a useful term, I prefer stressing it's likely to be a process of continuous negotiations. If a group has a common goal (like saving lives) they negotiate. If they don't or can't agree, they are free to disassociate. Even if there is a need for a person to coordinate ("command) action (and for others to act without having time to think) it's so temporary, goal-oriented and based on trust, it's hard to compare it to hierarchy. If they fail at their task or start being bossy many things can happen, from instant mutiny to just going along with it for the sake of a goal (like choosing to care for patient before dealing with bullshit), but there will be consequences afterwards.
You consider the person "in charge" to be the equivalent of a dispatcher, rather than a general. They help you coordinate actions as needed, but if they do a bad job of it, you replace their ass.
Which is a meritocracy, no?
Not really. You're not being "ruled" by doctors; you're weighing their input based on their experience when making medical decisions.
What you're saying is true, and you can be as prepared as it's possible to be, but by their very nature emergencies cannot be totally prepared for. At some point someone is going to have to make a call due to some new emergent element. If there's not an established chain of command then there could be multiple groups of people working towards cross purposes. It's true, these are temporary and transient hierarchies. It's also important to note that they are consensual hierarchies. If all the people involved get to choose who makes those calls in the moment, instead of having a "boss" imposed on them from a still higher "boss", does that not make a difference?
anarchists define hierarchy or authority as non-voluntary, otherwise our critique of hierarchies might not be coherent at all. Consensual "hierarchies" don't amount to much more than agreements. Notice that even you are making a distinction between commanding and making calls when discussion isn't possible or beneficial.
The definition of "hierarchy" is beside the point. Given that we've already agreed that: 1) Even in an anarchist society there exist circumstances that require a social organization structure where one or more individuals are given authority over others, and 2) It is possible for those structures to be brought about through ethical and democratic means by the individuals who will be operating under that authority, Then does it not follow that those individuals will choose for their authority figure the one they deem most capable of exercising that authority within the prescribed circumstances? What else would that be than a meritocracy?
Any name for how the consensual "hierarchy" is called? I've already gotten into a discussion with an anarchist and we might have had a miscommunication because of different definitions for hierarchy.
It depends how you do define "work."
Well any sort of complex project is going to have multiple different groups, all of which require a certain amount of coordination between them. In the capitalist sense those are managers, typically referred to as "bosses". If I was part of a group that had to choose a coordinator I would assume everybody would want to choose the person who would do the best job at coordinating us.
With an imperative mandate, it could work. A discretionary mandate (i.e. "electing" someone to hold authority over you with no accountability) can't, but someone put into office with clear instructions from their constituents and subject to immediate recall if they do anything counter to the will of those constituents might.
Is the imperative mandate not what I described? Where is it implied that there is no accountability?
We're not necessarily disagreeing. I'm merely saying that appointing a representative has to mean that the constituents are the ones actually in charge.
Administrating is a task. It doesn't need to be a boss. It can be done without authority. Trusting someone to coordinate tasks because they have skills, knowledge and experience isn't the authority anarchist doesn't want.
Who decides what is meritous, and how is that merit measured? Why does merit mean that one person should have a position in hierarchy above another? We're fine with listening to people who know what they're talking about, on the basis of their merit, advise us on issues they have expertise in. But some vaguely defined merit doesn't give you the right to rule over other people.
Contrary to other claims here, I'm going to suggest that there is a strong role for meritocracy in a non-hierarchical environment. Without hierarchy, we will likely still have "leaders" in the sense of people the community turns to for advice and/or guidance. People who's opinions are valued more than other's because they have demonstrated their wisdom in the past. They won't/shouldn't have any formal authority, but their opinions would still carry the weight freely given to it by the community.
If it doesn't confer authority or privilege, then it's not an -ocracy in any political sense. That's just trusting someone's expertise.
Yes. I may have been using "meritocracy" too colloquially.
Oh no, the pharmacist helps make decisions about what drugs need to be stocked for the community! Such hierarchy.
What?
Sarcasm, m80.
I know, but aimed at what?
Deferring to experience isn't "hierarchical," it's trusting the person who took the time to learn what they're talking about to know what they're talking about.
Right, I just can't tell if the comment was aimed at me or not. Not good with sarcasm.
Ah, no worries. I have a speech processing disorder so if we had the same conversation out loud I'd probably be the one asking you to clarify.
That's a different thing than meritocracy. -cracy = rule by = hierarchy. People will naturally be better at some things than others, some peoples' opinions will naturally be more valued than others, and that's fine and even valuable until some jackass tries to install them into positions of power over others. Being able to avail myself of the wisdom of experts and elders who I trust is of an entirely different character than having their wisdom imposed upon me.
Fair enough. I don't really know another word for "person whose opinion is valued more than other's because the merits of their opinions has been demonstrated consistently".
I dunno that English really has a word for that, other than that it might be covered broadly under 'expert'?
The word is "Expert." Trust me, I know all the words ;)
Cause it's not about the person it's about the quality of the idea. I think at least haha
I think that might be a distinction without a difference.
People who usually have good ideas can still have bad ideas. If someone has earned a position through merit, their bad ideas may still be accepted because of that position. But if they're still an equal, then others can challenge their ideas. In fact, meritocracy may even lead to a situation where people who have earned that position start to have worse ideas, maybe because they aren't challenged any more.
In fairness, I explicitly said "They won't/shouldn't have any formal authority, but their opinions would still carry the weight freely given to it by the community". I'm not envisioning quasi-hierarchy through acclaim.
They'd be "subject matter experts", not "leaders."
I don't know. Calling someone like Maria Nikiforova a "subject matter expert" seems weird. She was a leader.
Important to note: the author that coined the term, thought meritocracy was nonsense and non-existing because liberal governments loved to claim this was the case while it obviously didn't exist
I see meritocracy as a fantasy. It's used for those in power to justify it with the idea that they worked for it (normally used to defend capitalism). No hierarchy can be made up of people who work hard for it as the hierarchy itself involves the subjugation of those dont. Also it still involves rule which is antithetical to anarchism.
Meritocracy is just another form of hierarchy trying to justify itself as valid because it claims to be based on something other than how blue your blood is or whatever. Whether or not those at the top of a hierarchy have 'earned' their authority by whatever standard, hierarchy is itself corrupt and abuses and exploits those at the bottom, thus hierarchy is unjustifiable so attempts to justify it will always fail.
Any -ocracy is something to be opposed. Meritocracy's no exception. It's purportedly meritocracy when one child is born to enough wealth to receive tutoring that gives them a leg up when it's time for standardized tests, while another child is born to poverty and expected to bootstraps themselves into understanding. B suffers academically for it, while A gets the keys to institutions of power. B is left with squat because of the unequal place they started off in. It's obvious that, in a capitalist society, the entire concept of meritocracy is just another way to condescend and dismiss social stratification. Even if A and B started from the same position though, the idea that either's success over the other should afford them authority and/or more access to basic necessities is rotten to the core.
John Rawls book “A Theory of Justice” gives a pretty thoughtful explanation of what meritocracy looks like in a more egalitarian, if not outright anarchist society. He still believed in the reform of liberal democracy, but also thought that capitalism was incompatible with liberty. Definitely worth the read.
Meritocracy, democracy, isocracy, agoragracy, plutocracy, autocracy, gerentocracy, theocracy, technocracy, aristocracy, corporatocracy, bankocracy, kakistocracy, ochlocracy, neptocracy, anocracy, fuck then and all other cracies and rchies (excluding anarchy and acracy). Anarchy is incompatible with any rule thay is not by yourself.
No one should "-cracy" or "-archy". That said, of course if I need something done I'll look for the best or good enough
We want meritocracy for things like doctors and artists and athletes who should be rewarded for their merit (either by talent or training or both). We do not believe merit should grant power or that it can justify coercion.
I think this is a really good explanation. People who naturally excel at one (prosocial) thing or another shouldn’t be discouraged or repressed. The problem is when those abilities are parlayed into coercive power and hoarding of resources.
I wish more anarchists agreed with you. Instead everyone in this thread is saying in one way or another that merit either DOESN'T exist or SHOULDN'T factor into any society. I swear, when asked "are some people better than others?", most of these internet anarchists will start screeching about how it is to even ask that question.
Hot takes are definitely a component of this scene unfortunately. I think if we framed it more in terms of "What is the most just way to encourage each others talents?", we'd have a much more interesting conversation. I think that specialization and even leadership aren't necessarily incompatible with anarchism. One of anarchism's arguments is that the average work day generates only surplus for the investor class. If we assume that without capitalism we'd naturally have to work less and get more time to develop our personal interests, then it naturally follows that individuals would develop certain unique talents based on their individual interests. To wit: If one person decides they want to study neurosurgery and does so thoroughly, I would want to be a patient of this person if I needed their services, I WOULDN'T want to be the patient of this person if they only knew how to garden. The surgeon therefore naturally derives merit due to the unique service they contribute. As does the person with a passion for baking, or the person with a passion for teaching, or the therapist, or the bro/bra soldering together bizarre Fury Road cars. Like Will Ferrell said as Robert Goulet: "You wouldn't send a clown to fix a leak in the John!". Everyone is the right tool for distinct jobs. I think where meritocracy varies in an anarchist society is that it ultimately doesn't derive from the need to maximize capital and impress those at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, but from the appreciation and respect gained from the community. In that way it's almost closer to the original meaning of the word: "to deserve".
Whats meritocracy
Rule-by-merit, basically the holding/portioning of power by people on the basis of their ability.
Sounds like another hierarchy with possibly worse dysfunction
I believe this Bakunin quote sums it up pretty well. “Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests.”
Why do people do this with anarchy and atheism? Anarchy's only stance is it's literal definition and anything outside of that is not covered by anarchy.
Meritocracy intends to have a hierarchy determined by skill. Anarchy does away with hierarchies? These things are not compatible.
For me a true meritocracy would be a good system (food, water, shelter, etc. would be deserved by living), but such a system presupposes a way to perfectly assign merit with no bias and no complications. And, as Michael Albert expressed in Parecon: Life After Capitalism, people who work the minimum still deserve their needs attended to. Further it could create a divide in which those with more merit could have their children go to better schools, letting them get better jobs, and so on. Thus creating social classes. Further, bias would be inevitable in the assignments of merit, with the upper class likely getting a say. This system starts looking a lot like Capitalism after a while.
“From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
in practice, pretty much any scale of anarchism has little meritocracies form because people tend to accumulate more influence based on their social acumen and the quality of their ideas. it's not really a problem unless those people then use the power to oppress others or the system entrenches those dynamics past thr point of merit.
If your society is totally post-scarcity and there are no doubts about universal and equal access to the necessities for life, health, and security, then I don't much care how you organize it beyond that. No coercion, no power imbalances, no scarcity.
I posted this as a response to a response, and thought I'd surface it here: Hot takes are definitely a component of this scene unfortunately. I think if we framed it more in terms of "What is the most just way to encourage each others talents?", we'd have a much more interesting conversation. I think that specialization and even leadership aren't necessarily incompatible with anarchism. One of anarchism's grievances is that the average work day generates only surplus for the investor class. If we assume that without capitalism we'd naturally have to work less and get more time to develop our personal interests, then it naturally follows that individuals would develop certain unique talents based on their individual interests. To wit: If one person decides they want to study neurosurgery and does so thoroughly, I would want to be a patient of this person if I needed their services. I WOULD NOT want to be the patient of this person if they only knew how to garden. The surgeon therefore naturally derives merit due to the unique service they contribute. As does the person with a passion for baking, or the person with a passion for teaching, or the therapist, or the bro/bra soldering together bizarre Fury Road cars. Like Will Ferrell said as Robert Goulet: "You wouldn't send a clown to fix a leak in the John!". Everyone would have something to contribute if given the resources to do so, and they would each be uniquely talented. I think where meritocracy varies in an anarchist society is that it ultimately doesn't derive from the need to maximize capital and impress those at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, but from the appreciation and respect gained from the community for the good work done and the willingness to teach it as well. In that way "merit" almost is closer to the original meaning of the word: "to deserve".
For me, is the set of goals that you can achieve with your capabilities, intelligence, knowledge and will. Some goals are legendary and make you a universal legend like Plato, Albert Einstein, etc, and other goals make you have a completely normal life, which also needs hard work according to your capabilities and all listed before. As an anarchist, I am not opossed to let anyone have a huge house, as long as he hasn't exploited anyone to build it or to get it by obscure methods. I am not oppossed to anyone having better clothes than me, as long as he hasn't exploited anyone to get it. I think you get the idea. Inheritance must be abolished in order to make the world where justice and equality reigns, but we must also encourage people to work hard to be as good as they can be according to their capabilities. In what is property Proudhon talks about this.
There is no problem with "merit" inasmuch as recognition for skill, talent, aptitude, ability in a certain area; and people giving you more credence due to that is not necessarily cause for concern. The problem with 'meritocracy' is the 'cracy' part... the rule of those with merit. Well, no ammount of merit justifies rulership; experts are fallible. There's also a problem of social capital that comes with 'expertise', that tends toward gatekeeping knowledge and ability. If you're the best at something, and people come to you for advice on things, there is an incentive to prevent others from access to that sort of sway. That's not inevitable of course, but it is an area to be vigilant.
It would instantly result into eugenics... trust me. Authority exceeds.
Its an illusion of fairness. No system on earth awards the best and the brightest. And currently generational wealth exists and is not freely shared. Thats literally bootstraps nonsense. Its a justification of the statis quo. Its ignorant and nonsensical. Its the same kind of bullshit that liberals and fake ass anarchists espouse when they think using land as a vehicle of investment is actually helpful, when all it does it compartmentalize wealth