Is it possible in this world to create a meritocracy?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter avant-garde
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of meritocracy in society, particularly in the context of capitalism and the influence of wealth distribution, nepotism, and social mobility. Participants explore whether a true meritocracy can exist and the implications of current societal structures on merit-based success.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that capitalism is the closest system to a meritocracy, but question how "merit" is defined and whether it truly reflects societal needs.
  • Others highlight the role of nepotism and wealth distribution, suggesting that these factors undermine the idea of a meritocracy by favoring those with resources.
  • A few participants propose that while upward mobility is possible, it is often limited and not equally accessible to all, indicating that true meritocracy may be unattainable.
  • There is a discussion about the varying rewards of different professions, questioning whether monetary compensation is the only measure of merit.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the existence of a meritocracy, suggesting that human nature and societal structures inherently favor certain groups over others.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of defining meritocracy strictly in terms of upward and downward mobility, with some arguing that this could hinder overall progress.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the existence and viability of a true meritocracy, with multiple competing views on the influence of capitalism, nepotism, and social mobility. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the definitions or implications of meritocracy.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying definitions of "merit," the impact of cultural factors on success, and the complexity of measuring social mobility. Participants acknowledge that the current system may not provide equal opportunities for all individuals.

  • #31
j93 said:
This is where the focus of the thread went wrong. The chinese example is an awful one
Perhaps you have a larger point; I've not followed the entire thread. But the Chinese example clearly refutes:
j93 said:
...
Downward Mobility is necessary because it shows that nepotism is not affecting the system and it allows for upward mobility.
It is simply not true that some people must lose for others to prosper. It may work out that way, it often has, but under free societies it overwhelmingly does not.

because it has more to do with the loosening of communism to allow some capitalism in that country ie this country was hurting itself and used its resources awfully like North Korea currently is.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
31
Views
10K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
15K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K