Meritocracy, and why you should use caution when listening to Steven Curnow, Nigel Jarman, or anyone else who licks their asses. As a lot of you have probably noticed, these two have been floating around in this group insulting anyone who disagrees with them, contradicting the TZM train of thought, contradicting themselves and promoting Meritocracy. Even promoting it as a “backup plan for when TZM fails”. Its quite a bizarre agenda they are pushing, considering a lot of people already think we already live in a meritocracy, when its quite clear we dont by their definition. They make it impossible to have any reasonable debate with them, outright ignoring what people say, dismissing anything that contradicts their view and labeling people as sheep. They claim to be pro TZM, yet their Meritocratic stance contradicts TZM, and here I’m going to list why. Granted, if you only want to make small reforms to the current system, and keep most of the flawed framework, Meritocracy may well be for you. There are some agreeable points in there, like governments should be qualified to do their jobs ect, but again, this is not TZM at all. How Meritocracy goes against or contradicts TZM: 1)Accepts inequality as a given or an inevitability. Of course this is very reason TZM is against the monetary system, because inequality is inevitable within it. Theres nothing in Meritocracy to end unnecessary suffering, or provide for the needs of the most unfortunate among us. 2) Still relies on hierarchical structures Theres nothing in Meritocracy to address the psychopath caused by positions of power and the accumulation of wealth. 3) Still relies on the monetary system TZM is always pointing out the inherent flaws in the monetary system, and how this truncated framework will always end in inequality. Of course feel free to point out any flaws in what Im saying, or to add your own information. Not doubt I have missed something out, I dont have all day to study their version of meritocracy. Final word on meritocracy: “Evaluating people based on merit is reductive. Evaluating knowledge based on merit is science.” - anonymous contributor
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:10:45 +0000