Meritocracy is vulgar.

When anarchists criticize inequality , others –especially non left libertarians- are quick to dismiss these concerns. We are told individuals are free to rise as far as they desire. We live in a meritocracy after all. This is an incredibly disheartening tactic to hear from a libertarian- an alleged champion of freedom and prosperity. It’s disturbing in at least two ways.

The first error in this meritocratic worldview results from vulgar libertarianism. This tendency to view the current statist quo as if it is a free market   leads to the belief that there are no possible viable barriers in the way of individuals. In this view, if they have talent they should become wealthy and upper class .If not, then the reason is because they have an immoral lifestyle and parasitic habits. Without deeper thought, the poor are blamed for their condition. Is it any wonder why libertarianism is not appealing to the poor? This rhetoric results in the view that libertarianism (especially Anarcho-Capitalism), is ‘the rich man’s anarchism’. To the extent that this view is truly held and expressed by libertarians, the criticism is indeed valid. The reason meritocracy is vulgar, is almost never discussed by Anarcho-Capitalists. Barriers to entry such as licensing, all out monopoly and institution’s such as the welfare state propagate and maintain poverty. How disgusting it is to hear from statists that the state is the friend of the poor when it is their main barrier. The state breaks their legs, and then gives them crutches. How benevolent of the ruling class!

But wait. Let’s not fall into the second error of the defender of an existing meritocracy-‘Thin libertarianism’. Meritocracy is not only minimal to non-existent under statism but even were it not, there would be other factors at play. It’s not all about aggression as ‘the thin libertarians’ claim. There are deeply embedded cultural conditions which reduce or prevent social mobility. At this point, your average libertarian would tend to get uncomfortable. Admitting cultural forms of domination exist ,puts them in a panic- for what reason?, who knows !Maybe they conflate the raising of these issues with statism, so then when out comes one they think the other must inevitably follow. That is however a mistake.

The cultural conditions which hold people down are little discussed in libertarian circles. It’s almost never mentioned how a child growing up in a poor family has to struggle hard and be lucky (never mind dodge state barriers) to advance beyond the wealth and class they have inherited due to their upbringing. It’s never mentioned how society’s dehumanization of the non-white, immigrants, women and the disabled (among others )acts as a heavy weight on the shoulders of those seeking to improve their lot in life. It’s so easy and so safe to blame the victims for their status. It’s so self-protecting  to say that the only possible reason they are poor or homeless or jobless is because of an inherent disposition to be that way – because a flaw on their part .It’s so generous to the cultural ,political and economic status quo for you to think and say so. For all the elites talk of democracy for the ordinary person, the classist attitude is one they revel in. Pervert perceptions and hide the problems.

The typical reaction of course will be the thin fall-back position. Those might be valid issues but what’s that got to do with libertarianism or anarchy. These are just aesthetic preferences. However this reply is based on a great misunderstanding of what freedom is and the values it relates to. Absence of aggression against innocents(which could be called freedom) is of course valuable. But within freedom is autonomy. This link is rarely made.

 Freedom is but the specific application of autonomy to politics, to aggression and what to do about it. It is pretty meaningless to value freedom but when it is no longer an issue  ignore the autonomy of the individual to put their desires, choices and preferences in action without unnecessary and immoral barriers. Social mobility requires autonomy. If this connection is not made, then libertarianism just functions as above- as a “rich man’s anarchism” with little concern for social issues. It just appears as a desire to abolish the state  to be able to put in place restrictive social conditions. Anarchy is seen as the best way to do this  and the state being viewed as little more than an impediment to it. What kind of fulfilling life can anyone have if instead of being met with institutional organized aggression they are met with a more loose  but more pervasive more all embracing  cultural domination ? It is in this same way that many social and political concerns intersect. That’s why won’t find within traditional anarchism a limiting just to opposition to statism. Anarchism is broader than that. It is radical social change on many fronts.