Skip to main content

View Diary: Socialism is like total equality y'know. (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To determine merit there must be a purpose (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    toward which activity is directed. The relative merit then would be in the contribution toward enactment of progress in the direction of the purpose. Many purposes can be imagined. If simply focused on the machine of production with a goal of more then those who contributed the most to creating more would be perceived as being most meritorious. If focused on the health of the whole system, as best we can understand it, processes that produce enough with less work might be seen as meritorious. making or teaching others to make music or write poetry might be seen as valuable if it related to a purpose. It gets more complicated with more complicated purposes.

    Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.

    by Bob Guyer on Tue May 14, 2013 at 06:51:26 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This could open the door (4+ / 0-)

      to elites deciding to give themselves more merit and thus more rewards, creating a hierarchy of merit. So, I'm wondering how this would be decided, and by whom?

      It could make people feel manipulated, as if a grand orchestrator were moving them about like pawns in a chess game. Too much like capitalism, and the overarching state.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:15:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is a practical problem. (0+ / 0-)

        I"m sure there's a solution.

        "It takes great courage to see the world in all its tainted glory, and still to love it." Oscar Wilde

        by Cassiodorus on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:35:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Imagine... (5+ / 0-)

          A group of workers self-managing an industry. They are discussing and forming consensus on which work and which persons will be afforded more merit, and yet each person (presumably) has an equal voice in deciding this scale by direct democracy.

          Will they willingly and democratically decide that some members are more valuable than others? And if this is true, will this lead to some members having a greater influence in decision making, if their decisions/work/contributions produce more in the workplace?

          See where this leads? If we reward merit, do we reward better decision makers? Give them more authority? Once we go down this path, the whole thing unravels into hierarchy. And hierarchy is not compatible with consensus, unless it is a body of elites forming the consensus.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site