The Myth of Meritocracy
“The distributive system was guaranteed by the existence of cooperative bodies, binding men of the same craft or of the same village together; guaranteeing the small proprietor against loss of his economic independence, while at the same time it guaranteed against the growth of the proletariat. If liberty of purchase and sale, of mortgage and inheritance was restricted, it was restricted with the social object of preventing the growth of an economic oligarchy which could exploit the rest of the community. The restraints upon liberty were restraints designed for the preservation of liberty.”
Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State.
The room was cold and all eyes were on me. Our teacher had us read an article from The Economist magazine dealing with the radical decline of social mobility and the ever-increasing chasm between those who “have” and those who “have not.” The students, all much younger than I, had said their peace. Some affirmed the all too famous line of “anyone can be anything as long as they put their mind to it.” Others resorted to race-baiting or mere guilt manipulation. I was the only one left to opine.
My answer then would be quite similar to my answer now, only qualified and with more exceptions. I took the side of those who lean in favor of hard work, but who recognize inequalities in nature. Call it a natural aristocracy if you will. What I failed to see what that there may be, as happens to be the case today, various unnatural factors making even the hardest of work fall short of the “you can do it” utopia promised by the apostles of meritocracy.
My position was only as unbelievable as it was unrealistic. Free enterprise, left unchecked, always has and always will result in the ownership of more and more by fewer and fewer. The accumulation of land, capital, and the means of production in the hands of the few makes the hard work of the many of little to no effect. Their lacking capital, land, and the means of production leaves their hard work producing little more than sweat, an hourly wage, and a constant fear of unemployment. Working hard enough may get them, if they are lucky, a 10 cent hourly raise. But it will take a lot more than an extra 10 cents an hour to compete with the big boys.
Conditions get all the worse when considering the arguments made by advocates for meritocracy concerning how Johnny Q can climb his way up the social ladder. He admittedly needs more than a good idea. He may need money, land, and means of production. Unless he was lucky enough to have fallen into a substantial inheritance, he will likely have to resort to the bankers. Need land or tools? Mortgage your home. Mortgaged already? Consider a second mortgage. Stuck with the vast majority of Americans in a rental situation? No problem, just apply for a loan. Yes, it comes with backbreaking usury fees, but after 30 years (if you’re lucky) you should have it paid off. Round and round we go, when merit will pay off, only the Userers would know.
The problem is real, and the answers are as difficult as they are simple. It would be foolish for us to believe that an Ownership Society will be attained by the traditional arguments of meritocracy or the sly tactics of the guilt manipulators. We need practical and relevant answers. We must be honest enough to admit of its difficulty, but optimistic enough to promise its simple splendor. Furthermore, it is without doubt that we must know where we wish to go as well as how we plan to get there. In achieving this, or even in getting started, I think it would do us well to spend as much time putting our pen to the parchment in hope of addressing modern concerns as we do reading men of another era having done the same.
