[Aekos]

How is this system different than Anarcho-Socialism? What are its advantages and disadvantages?

[ninurta]

How on earth would you fuse socialism and anarchy? Government run and nongovernment run?

Or maybe its just my warped american definition of socialism.

[Okonkwo]

Or maybe its just my warped american definition of socialism.

It is precisely that.
Americans seem to be unable to grasp that the movements from which both Marxism and anarchism are derived from were largely anti-government, arguing for the eventual abolition of the state as an oppressive tool for a particular class dictatorship.

What are its advantages and disadvantages?

Present-day anarchists would most likely criticise anarcho-syndicalism for its rigid adherence to class consciousness of a proletariat that is not longer in an economically bad position not to mention in a minority in some states - the trade union is no longer the basic organisation of the working class and thus of the people as a whole.

"Broader movements and issues are now on the horizon of modern society that, while they must necessarily involve workers, require a perspective that is larger than the factory, trade union, and a proletarian orientation."
(Murray Bookchin)

[DubiousDan]

Okonkwo:

Present-day anarchists would most likely criticise anarcho-syndicalism for its rigid adherence to class consciousness of a proletariat that is not longer in an economically bad position not to mention in a minority in some states - the trade union is no longer the basic organisation of the working class and thus of the people as a whole.

Me:
I assume that is America specific. In America the working class has been conned into believing that they are middle class. That was not a hard sell. In my youth, there were four classes in America. The rich, the middle, the working and the poor. Today, there are three. The rich, the middle, and the poor. The poor seems to be growing.
The destruction of organized labor was well organized and has pretty much achieved its goal. The unions were an effective way for the worker to apply political pressure. Today, the worker is nearly voiceless and the economy reflects that.

[Okonkwo]

I assume that is America specific.

The extent of that assertion is disputable, Murray Bookchin was however certainly an American.

In my youth, there were four classes in America. The rich, the middle, the working and the poor.

You seem to adhere to a meaningless definition of class, set apart from the historical materialist conception of social class as caused by the fundamental economic structure and property relations.

The destruction of organized labor was well organized and has pretty much achieved its goal.

Its aim was to prevent trade unions from holding society to ransom by taking strike actions that result in the disruption of public services, by destroying unionisation that produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs, by stopping the raise of the price of labour above the market rate.

Today, the worker is nearly voiceless and the economy reflects that.

The more relevant question would be: what is the justification for giving the worker a voice in the first place, a question that is especially interesting in the context of the 21st-century and a traditional working class that is dwindling in numbers in the West.

[DubiousDan]

Okonkwo:

The more relevant question would be: what is the justification for giving the worker a voice in the first place, a question that is especially interesting in the context of the 21st-century and a traditional working class that is dwindling in numbers in the West.

Me:
The name is not the named. The harvester remains. His task is to serve the elites. However, there are competent elites and there are incompetent elites. In the final stage of the technological acceleration, the price of incompetence is extinction.

[Okonkwo]

However, there are competent elites and there are incompetent elites. In the final stage of the technological acceleration, the price of incompetence is extinction.

Ideally, that would be the case today.
A meritocracy is what everybody should strive for at this point - a society where your place in the hierarchy is determined by your talent and competence as demonstrated by competition. The utter incompetence of some businessmen brought us into this crisis, however they are not immediately done away with, quite the opposite. It shows that something is fundamentally wrong with the way things are currently being done.

[DubiousDan]

Okonkwo:

Ideally, that would be the case today.
A meritocracy is what everybody should strive for at this point - a society where your place in the hierarchy is determined by your talent and competence as demonstrated by competition. The utter incompetence of some businessmen brought us into this crisis, however they are not immediately done away with, quite the opposite. It shows that something is fundamentally wrong with the way things are currently being done.

Me:
Were the businessman all that incompetent? Some made a lot of money. A few served as scapegoats, yes, and quite a few lost money. Competence does not necessarily serve the public. It doesn’t necessarily even serve the corporation which hires it.

Competence in another is only an advantage if it serves my interests. Competence in an enemy is not a virtue.

True competence is task dependent. So unless one is clear on the task, it is a bit difficult to judge the competence, even at the time of application.

A task that would be unpleasant to one man might be pleasant to another. It would seem that matching the task to the man requires competence. So in a true meritocracy, would this not be an essential skill?

The problem with most meritocracies is that competence is determined independent of the task. In the Chinese Imperial Examinations, the tests stressed Confucian doctrine and traditional concepts. Hardly a standard for attracting innovative thinkers.

There is another fundamental flaw in most meritocracies. People cheat.

In your meritocracy, you stress competence in commerce. As Miyamoto Musashi wrote in a Book of Five Rings, “The way of the merchant is always to live by taking profit.”
This is a rather limited area of competence. In Japan of the Tokogawa area, the merchant was chained. However, in our time the merchant rules. A meritocracy of profit may serve those who profit. By definition, that is a subset of the state.

In a true meritocracy, there would be no need to reward the meritorious. The exercise of their merit should be its own reward. If farther rewards are necessary, then are they truly meritorious? And if they are truly able, then why do they need the whip of the state? The superior man of the Tao Teh Ching rules by ability alone, and asks no reward, not even the prestige of rule.

The ultimate true meritocracy is an anarchy.