Meritocracy is just another word for ableism.
You think power should be based on ability? No, *responsibility* should be based on ability. Power should be based on whether you are affected by the outcome. In other words, power should be based on need.
What is the purpose of power? What is its use? To ensure that what you want or need becomes a reality.
Some people, when in power, will use it to ensure that others get what they want or need, because that is what the person in power wants. Others will use it towards selfish ends. But whether selfish or altruistic, the person in power weilds it according to their own desires.
If your goal is truly to be altruistic, then you should give the power you hold to those in need. Use your power to empower others. Because only the person in need truly understands their need and what will assuage it.
The value of human beings does not come from their abilities. The value of their abilities comes from human beings.
An ability is worthless and meaningless if it is not used in service of the needs of a living, breathing human being. And having an ability that can be used this way does not make the holder more worthy to have their own needs met.
So even though I am not a communist by any stretch of the imagination, I can agree wholeheartedly with Marx in his assessment of what is right regarding abilities and needs. "From each according to [their] ability, to each according to [their] need," is a self-evident truth, derivable from first principles and the sole assumption that human beings have worth in the first place.
@hosford42 I ask in a friendly tone how is this, or how would you apply this regarding an economic system composed of millions of participants? Things such as opportunities of education, social safety nets, medical care, and basic subsistence? 🤔
@Huntn00 I'll say up front, I don't have all the answers. I'm still figuring things out, as we all are for our entire existence.
I believe strongly in equality for all, but I also recognize that we are constrained by practicality and live amongst a sizeable number of people who have no qualms about behaving selfishly. That's the reason I can agree with Marxist ideology without being a communist. Capitalism and the free market serve to motivate those selfish folks to better society in return for selfish gain. We treat them as if they are more deserving because of their abilities, because this serves to help our needs be met at a societal level. A necessary evil, you might say.
But capitalism also results in wealth concentration, as we currently implement it, which is an evil which is *far* from necessary. This is largely due to our economy being centered around for-profit corporations with disparate levels of ownership.
More to follow...
@hosford42 I’m no economic expert either. I think it is important to take that Marx statement and determine what it means when actually applied to a society. Equality, equal opportunity? It kind of sounds like “know your place” as a means of control, which would not give me warm and fuzzies living under Capitalism. I don’t think C will be able to best serve millions in the up and coming age of automation and AI. Socialism might be better if we can get our heads on straight. 🤔
@Huntn00 I definitely do not support the "know your place" version of so-called equality.
For me, equality is about the value and worth of human beings, first and foremost. I'm worth just as much as a person as the president, and a homeless bum is worth just as much as a person as me. We all deserve to be treated like human beings, because that's what we are. The steps to get there will vary depending on the circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the injustices we see in the world.
We have to be pragmatic at every step of the way as we strive for our ideals.