91

This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

(page 2) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

In theory? Yes. But it not realistic. In reality being good at your job is less important than being good at networking and pleasant to be around when you're at work.

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Meritocracy is a dogwhistle white supremacists created to justify their position of power over people of color.

[-] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Don't organisations already follow this? Atleast for their workers.
People getting into a public or private job have to show that they are eligible.

Regarding meritocracy at level of society:
I think it's going to be difficult in reality.

  1. Who appraises the merit of people? Who defines, maintains and updates the standards/methods used for the appraisal?
  2. Is there a system for continuous quality check? It'd be needed to maintain the system as a meritocracy.
  3. How is the quality check system preserved in the system?
  4. Who appraises those who appraise?

In the case of an organisation, the leaders/owners of the org can choose workers with merit. But the owners themselves are not appraised, right? Unless they are in some co-operative org or so.

Perfect meritocracy seems very difficult to implement for the whole of society.

I think democracy(which gives due importance to scientific temper and obviously human life) is a decent enough system. We can iterate on it to bring up the merit in the society and its people as a whole

[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

Nobody is able to speak for other people. This just doesnt work.

Its just laziness if people prefer to have others speak for themselves.

Anarchy is the only system where nobody can hide because "it was not their decision" and where nobody has the right to "decide for other people".

I mean, are you good at gifts? If you dont know what a person wants to get as gifts, how do you want to know exactly what decisions they would make?

[-] 0xtero@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No.
“American Dream,” was built on belief where workplaces are meritocratic environments where workers, regardless of their background, can, on merit and abilities overcome any deprived situation they may find themselves in and rise above.

Just like communism when the Wall fell, I think it's safe to say this ideology, when tried and tested, has been proven a total and complete failure.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

The "American dream" was based on a much earlier (and just as false and terrible) idea of manifest destiny.

Also, communism has never been achieved for it to have failed:
https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51f

[-] AstroTechie@lemdro.id 1 points 8 months ago

For practical purposes it failed. If every attempt to achieve it failed then it's just a failure.

If you follow the subjective "it was never really achieved for it to fail" logic then anyone can claim nothing ever fails.

Meritocracy and the American dream didn't fail, we just never achieved it for it to fail then?

[-] amio@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

Do I believe it could work? Maybe.
Do I believe it's been seriously tried to a significant degree? Nah.

"Wherever you go, there you are" also applies to the human condition and any kind of whatever-cracy. At the end of the day, people are people and a lot of people suck, there's no fix for that.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
91 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43623 readers
985 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS