Apropos of the theme, when "meritocracy" was coined it was a warning; something damaging to society that was to be avoided. At some point, the term was hijacked and pushed as a force for good (I suspect, but cannot prove, mostly by those who were benefitting from it) and now we seem to be coming back around the circle.

Meritocracies are insidious. We can see it in some societies; "this is a meritocracy" therefore rich powerful people deserve their wealth and power and the poor and powerless have only themselves to blame and deserve no help. A positive feedback cycle through the generations that leads to a stratified society of nobility and peasantry.

The original context always struck me as regressive and it is no wonder it fell flat.

While meant to criticize the tri-tracked educational system as a potential given that the dystopia was a replacement for the class system even if bad it fails to make a case for it being worse than literal nobility and connections to posh schools and old money.

It falls utterly flat like calling Oliver Cromwell the first military dictator in England while ignoring the kings.

Self perpetuating in negative ways is certainly a problem (there is a vast difference between being ahead because your family taught you and being aheas because competing with you is illegal) but it needs to be taken in the context of the now. What is the alternative is the real question of importance.

I have noticed the reverse actually. In 1999 we had tens of thousands of people in the streets regularly against the WTO, against the IMF, against the World Bank.

Working class folks, environmentalists, labor leaders, anarchists and socialists, even fairly mainstream Dems were criticizing that a pure free trade model was letting capital gain too much power at the expense of people (especially as people are locked behind borders largely), locking developing countries into unsustainable and brutal debt and austerity programs, and resulting in inequality ramping up.

These days, it would be nearly unthinkable to have that many people in the streets at a WTO meeting (never-mind that they shifted the meetings to far away authoritarian countries).

Granted, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do sound more critical of unfettered capitalism and the idea that capitalism is a meritocracy than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did (and so does Trump, in his own way), but they haven't been elected yet.

I noticed a stream of it back in the 00s and probable 90s with the tech boom.

It seemed timed at least partially a result of the old order being upset at their heritage not being the gatekeeper it once was.

The Ivy Leagues have a long history of pssudomeritocracy in the form of moving goalposts to favor the legacies whenever an upstart group gains "too much" of a share. It is reminiscent of the Jewish quotas of old and they were indeed targetted

I think the speech agrees with you, more or less.

Meritocracy can't help but be hated by most people, because they will be the losers. It also forces you to confront the fact that you might not actually be part of the best fraction, and that can be horribly scarring to the psyche of those who feel entitled to unearned rewards.

I made same observation. Also, it became more easy to argue that world is not actually meritocracy.