Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
QuoteReplyTopic: Meritocracy+fluid capital=disaster? Posted: 26-Jul-2010 at 17:24
Originally posted by Carol
We have gone from being assimilated into organizations threw personal contacts and on the job training, to having a college degree, and proven merit, before we can even get through the door.
The old way had some inefficiencies (everyone started at the bottom, seniority system slowed the advance of other talented people etc.) But... the old way also had a social safety valve. It gave meaningful employment to millions who would not normally been able to compete.
Originally posted by Carol
In away this hurts our democracy, which is much more personal than we are today.
The economic meritocracy may do more than hurt our democracy, it may clash violently with it. Consider the following:
-The IQ based meritocracy is now global and ruthlessly competitive.
-IQ, however, is a bell curve. In the end millions of people simply cannot compete.
-The old, well paid "safety valve" jobs have disappeared
-We have a wide open deomcracy, people are used to being heard, they are not used to being quiet or accepting things.
One can see the potential for instability. Then factor in....
Capital is very fluid now. Leaders of the meritocracy can move entire industries to find employees with more merit. In the old system, Ford, Krupp, Fiat etc were tied to their home regions. They had a long term interest in the well being of the masses. Today, leaders of the meritocracy can have little long term interest in the area. If things get tough, they just move to India, China etc.
I think you are right, its not necessarily compatible with democracy. Too much Capitalism is not a good thing. Capitalism is in direct conflict with the democratic system, and too much capital power eventually leads to less democracy.
Democracy's survival depends on a large middle class. Capitalism, in a society with little or no regulation, hampers the growth and stability of the middle class.
Edited by TheGreatSimba - 26-Jul-2010 at 18:10
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Interesting, I assume you are both male. You both express concern with capitalism. I have a few books written around the time of the second world war, concerned with the impact of the war on our economy. It is super great to be a government contractor during times of war. This connection between government, industry and the military, is what Eisenhower was referring to when we he spoke of the Military/Industrial Complex. We demobilized following the second world war, but soon went into the Koran war, reestablishing the military/industry/government relationship. Eisenhower proceeded to make this military/industry/government relationship permanent. We now have the Military Industrial Complex, effectively militarizing our whole nation. Demobilizing at this time would mean shutting down entire towns dependent on the military industry. That is, some of these towns wouldn't even exist if it were not for the military industry. Now to prevent major unemployment and the collapse of entire towns, it is necessary for government to keep the war machine going. Is there some concern about socialism?
Around the world and throughout history, the most important thing a pharaoh, king and president must do is, keep people employed and assure their needs will be met. The military provides jobs not only for the soldiers, but those who supply the military. Now when the military is farmers, the shoe, candle stick and soap maker, they want to get back to their families and their family business. Indeed when Roman has a citizen army, its citizens lost their farms while off to war. This would make war a terrible thing, that no one support unless it really was a defensive war that could not be avoided. But when we turn to a mercenary army, what the government needs is revenue to pay for the soldiers, and now we need an army defending our economic interest. Now a fully employed, tax paying adult population is needed to support the military, that is defending the citizens economic interest. Is there come concern about socialism? Humans acting like a horde of bees, mindlessly fighting to survive, because it is not them in control, but circumstances outside of their control, and even outside of their consciousness. They know about their personal lives and motivates, not the forces that dictate what happens.
This thread focuses on merit. At what point does merit become necessary? I don't think the Spartans, Huns or Mongols were particularly concerned with merit. All these would have grown up from birth, in cultures that prepared all males to be warriors. Spartans like Athenians, had public education, but Spartan education was all about physical fitness, and enduring discomfort, and being a warrior. To be really brief, Athenians had something like a liberal education. Another thread asks the difference between Alexander the Great the Genghis Khan. I hope that difference is made clear here. But I have not answered the question, when did merit become important. Hint it has something to do with technology. Something to do with needing more than just an armed body in the middle of battle prepared to be a killing machine.
As a girl, I get really excited about the social implications of all this. I get excited by the moral implications. I really hope this thread does well.
Yes ofcourse. Whether its unchecked socialism or unchecked capitalism, both are bad. I'm a proponent of social democracy.
The chief goal of modern social democracy is to reform capitalism to
align it with the ethical ideals of social democracy while maintaining
the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.
The above is a pretty concise summary of what social democracy means.
I dont believe that human civilization is quite ready for socialism at
this point, but down the line, I believe that a socialist system will
eventually take root naturally.
Social democracy supports gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,and rejects forcible imposition of socialism through revolutionary means.Social democracy promotes the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
One of my WWII books, speaks of a people's capitalism. That is having anti monopoly laws and other protections for small businesses, so that capitalism benefits the most people willing to be industrial leaders. As opposed to masses being employed by a few mega industrialist. However, for the people's capitalism to work, the young must be educated to be industrial and civic leaders and that is not what education for technology does. Education for technology considers the young as products to prepare for industry. It is preparing our young for the Military/Industrial Complex, not the small town of families with family businesses.
What is social democracy? I know Germany had that, and I know Germany experienced hyper-inflation and then evolved into Hitler's Germany. I think this happened to Germany because of Prussian control. I think the same is happening to the US because we have adopted the German model for bureaucracy and education (meritocracy). Now we are really on topic. Does meritocracy+fluid capital+disaster? I don't know enough to answer your question. I hope more information comes out here.
Someone said something about it being good to have a female point of view, in the typically male discussions. I hope everyone might appreciate my off the wall thoughts, that could unfortunately take every discussion off topic.
We were families living together, and then we became industrialized, and God said, that is a good thing. Well, it is good in some ways, because there is no way an agricultural society, such as Jefferson's agragarian democracy could support the masses we have today. We need the jobs industry creates, to meet the mass of human needs. However, the industrial revolution took the father out of the home. Then we evolve into a high tech society and have removed the mother from the home as well. A family that only shares a house, is not the family of the past. We are not turning to each other to meet our human needs, as families once did, and we are not bonded by social organizations as we once bonded. We are not the democracy Tocqueville wrote of when he visited the US in 1800. We can't do anything without government permission today, and have become excessively dependent on government, while the family is almost meaningless. My point is, the socialist issue is a matter of one of authority and power isn't it? That has shifted from the individual to the state hasn't it? That is our young can get so much government help, what is their motivate for cooperating family? The loyalties are to industry or at least the money system, not to family. Is this socialism?
The chief goal of modern social democracy is to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social democracy while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.
An interesting concept. This maybe where religous conservatives and social liberals can come together. Some religous conservatives tend to idealize a capitalist based economic system of small scale industries and agriculture. This allows for traditional cultural / religous norms to remain intact.
Originally posted by Carol
We are not the democracy Tocqueville wrote of when he visited the US in 1800.
I think we were a more closed democracy then (senators not directly elected, electoral college heavily emphasized presidential election). Now, we are an open and far more chaotic democracy. Policies can very wildly election to election. If the IQ meritocracy, fluid capital and "free trade" cause unrest, we may well wish we had a closed democracy.
Originally posted by Carol
That is our young can get so much government help, what is their motivate for cooperating family? The loyalties are to industry or at least the money system, not to family. Is this socialism?
Maybe, may be not. The phenomena is politically neuteral. Both left wing and right wing extremists de-emphasize the family and emphasize the state as the main provider of needs and comfort.
Originally posted by Carol
We are not turning to each other to meet our human needs, as families once did, and we are not bonded by social organizations as we once bonded.
A good point and a source of potential unrest. If the state or the IQ meritocracy failes to supply needs or expectations, there is little to fall back on.
Originally posted by Carol
But I have not answered the question, when did merit become important. Hint it has something to do with technology.
Merit of some sort has always existed. Military merit may be different than economic merit. Intelligence based economic merit seems to have had three evolutions:
-Agriculture: Economies expand, individuals with IQ based merit are able to direct and profit from the efforts of others
-Guild System: Industrial revolution: expanded IQ based merit system. There are still viable opportunities in manufacturing for those unable to compete IQ wise.
-Computer / information age economies: Manufacturing is eliminated. IQ based merit positions are increasingly the only paying employment opition (microsoft or Walmart).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum